2014-2015 Grand Jury Final Report 7/1/15, 22,711kb

Conclusions 3

• CL1
  2 Priority. REPORT Creating this database does not seem to be a priority. Given the failure to deliver 3 the real estate report requested by the BOS in 2012, and the recent change in the members of the BOS; the Grand Jury is concerned that this database project may also be placed on the “back burner” and never completed. REPORT 4 Development of Database. The Grand Jury finds that a sense of urgency needs to be conveyed by the BOS REPORT regarding the implementation of systems that provide improved real estate information 5 for the County. A relatively small investment in the suggested real estate data system would likely have an immediate payback by reducing any waste of County dollars on ill- REPORT informed real estate decisions. In addition, a comprehensive data system would save 6 time searching for information. REPORT Management and Control. 7 A database is only as good as the information it contains. An accurate database is essential to informed decision making. The Grand Jury concluded that accountability REPORT for database accuracy must be assigned to a position with the responsibility and 8 authority for accuracy. An annual inventory and data review through each department is a good practice. Many managers that the Grand Jury interviewed concurred with the REPORT need for establishing and maintaining the accuracy of databases. 9 The Grand Jury concluded that developing a timeline that includes target completion dates for each database-development stage to acquire and to populate a REPORT real estate database is necessary to establish control measures, including an estimated 10 completion date. REPORT
• CL2
  REPORT Historically, probation departments have two major roles: social work or the 10 rehabilitation role, and the law enforcement role, assuring compliance with the conditions of probation, and holding the probationer accountable—all aimed at the REPORT ultimate goal of community protection. While most agencies tend to gravitate toward 11 one end of the social work-law enforcement continuum (rehabilitation v. enforcement), ideally, departments will possess a proper balance, providing both treatment services, while assuring compliance with the conditions of probation. REPORT 12 The Grand Jury observed that the OCPD provides considerable drug treatment opportunities to its AB109 offenders. Treatment services can always be improved, and REPORT we observed a shortage of residential resources. Specifically, the Health Care Agency 13 in October 2014, implemented a change in policy to reduce availability of residential treatment beds, thereby creating a waiting list. The number of beds for AB109 offenders REPORT was limited to 25 per month. Several of the OCPD staff indicated that this restriction 14 prevented the reform of AB109 offenders who would greatly benefit by residential drug treatment. There were also indications of a need for more sober-living beds, and more housing for identified sex offenders. REPORT 15 The Grand Jury observed that the intensity of supervision for AB109 offenders fell short of recognized standards. The number of supervision contacts was inconsistent REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 15 REPORT AB109 Offenders: Are Current Probation Strategies Effective? AB109 Offenders: Are Current Probation Strategies Effective? 1 REPORT Table 3: APPA Caseload Standards with high-risk classifications, which further extends to a number of home visit and 2 Classification Type Cases to Staff Ratio collateral visit (e.g., family, friends, and workplace) shortfalls. Intensive 20:1 The OCPD has been recognized as one of the few probation departments in the REPORT Moderate to High Risk 50:1 state that has made significant efforts to implement the letter as well as the spirit of 3 Low Risk 200:1 AB109. The sponsoring of an AB109 Summit at Concordia University is an indicator of Administrative No limit the positive efforts made by OCPD to continue improving the overall supervision of this REPORT (Caseload, 2006) challenging population. The Grand Jury concluded that changes by the OCPD could 4 While the frequency of contacts was generally considered inadequate for the result in more optimal conditions for the reduction of recidivism and long term gains in high-risk classification level, AB109 cases generate a significant level of activity, and the community protection. REPORT high caseload size for these high-risk, intensive offenders impedes the greater 5 frequency of contacts. AB109 officers devote a great deal of time to providing services, FINDINGS addressing technical violations, and conducting assessments and reassessments that In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- REPORT are required. Despite these pressing responsibilities, the Grand Jury concluded that 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected 6 many of the AB109 caseloads were sufficiently manageable to have contacts more in by the findings presented in this section. The responses are submitted to the Presiding line with the high-risk classification level. Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled "AB109 Offenders: Are REPORT Current Probation Strategies Effective?” the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury has There is a wide variation in caseload size. While some officers’ caseloads were 7 arrived at eight principal findings, as follows: in the 20s, 30s, and 40s—desirable caseload sizes for these high-risk AB109 offenders—12 officers were in the 50s, 10 had caseloads in the 60s and 70s, and one F.1. Orange County Probation Department’s Policies and Procedures Manual is REPORT officer supervised 83 cases. Considering the caseload standards of the APPA, the consistent with professional standards for use of risk assessment tools and 8 current caseload size for 23 of the officers may be considered manageable. However, determination of classification levels for each AB109 offender. the 10 remaining officers are supervising more than the APPA recommended for optimal service and community safety. F.2. Orange County Probation Department’s Policies and Procedures Manual is not REPORT consistent with professional standards for development of supervision plans for 9 Conclusion AB109 offenders, including frequency and types of contacts. REPORT Historically, probation departments have two major roles: social work or the F.3. Orange County Probation Department’s Policies and Procedures Manual does 10 rehabilitation role, and the law enforcement role, assuring compliance with the not identify the maximum caseload size for Probation Officers supervision of conditions of probation, and holding the probationer accountable—all aimed at the AB109 offenders. ultimate goal of community protection. While most agencies tend to gravitate toward REPORT one end of the social work-law enforcement continuum (rehabilitation v. enforcement), F.4. Orange County Probation Department's Policies and Procedures Manual does 11 ideally, departments will possess a proper balance, providing both treatment services, not provide adequate requirements for drug-testing classifications or frequency while assuring compliance with the conditions of probation. guidelines. REPORT 12 The Grand Jury observed that the OCPD provides considerable drug treatment F.5. Orange County Probation Department's Policies and Procedures Manual does opportunities to its AB109 offenders. Treatment services can always be improved, and not provide adequate requirements to address the issue of drug-testing we observed a shortage of residential resources. Specifically, the Health Care Agency avoidance or recommend responses for AB109 probationers who attempt to REPORT in October 2014, implemented a change in policy to reduce availability of residential avoid positive drug tests by failing to appear or by diluting their urine samples. 13 treatment beds, thereby creating a waiting list. The number of beds for AB109 offenders was limited to 25 per month. Several of the OCPD staff indicated that this restriction F.6. Orange County Probation Department does not incorporate current technology REPORT prevented the reform of AB109 offenders who would greatly benefit by residential drug (refractometer) in its drug testing system. Including such technology may assist 14 treatment. There were also indications of a need for more sober-living beds, and more in the ability to quickly detect diluted urine samples provided by probationers. housing for identified sex offenders. REPORT F.7. The Orange County Probation Department and Health Care Agency have lost an 15 The Grand Jury observed that the intensity of supervision for AB109 offenders opportunity to reduce recidivism by not increasing residential drug treatment fell short of recognized standards. The number of supervision contacts was inconsistent options for AB109 probationers over outpatient treatment or incarceration. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 15 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 16 REPORT 1 AB109 Offenders: Are Current Probation Strategies Effective? REPORT F.8. There exists a need for increased housing availability for AB109 probationers 2 who are homeless. REPORT
• CL3
   Whether the County has adequately followed through on monitoring and REPORT enforcing the implementation and operation of the Trust to ensure compliance 14 with the MOU  Whether the negotiations process between the County and the AOCDS was adequately transparent to the public, allowed sufficient time for review and REPORT comment before the MOU was adopted, and was affected by political 15 considerations. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 8 REPORT 1 Orange County Sheriff Medical Insurance: County Failures in Negotiation, Documentation, Oversight, and Transparency REPORT Although the Grand Jury has met with representatives of AOCDS to gather 2 information for the preparation of this report, the Grand Jury does not have jurisdiction over AOCDS because it is a private, non-profit organization. The Grand Jury, therefore, REPORT focused its investigation on the actions and responsibilities of the County with respect to 3 negotiating, interpreting, and monitoring the AOCDS MOU. REPORT METHODOLOGY 4 Information for this report was developed through the following efforts by the Grand Jury: REPORT 5  Reviewed the sections of the 2012-2016 MOU between the County and the AOCDS with special attention to Article XII, addressing medical insurance REPORT  Reviewed the SOW of the Agreement for Professional Services between 6 the County and the AOCDS and Lindquist LLP (their jointly retained audit firm) regarding the AOCDS Medical Benefits Trust REPORT  Reviewed the Audited Financial Statements, Independent Accountants’ 7 Reports on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures, and Auditor Management letters identifying Significant Deficiencies and offering Comments and REPORT

Commendations 50

• CM1
  Interviews of managers from:  LA County Department of Children & Family Services REPORT  Ventura County Child Protective Services 3  Riverside County Children Services Division  San Bernardino County Children and Family Services REPORT  San Diego County Child Protective Services 4  Santa Barbara County Child Protective Services
• CM2
  Documents: CA Department of Social Services; Child Welfare Services/Case REPORT Management System (CWS/CMS) pp. 1-3. 5 3. Child and Family Services Operations Manual: Child Abuse Registry, Number M0109. REPORT 4. Review of random sample of 100 cases of the 2203 that were initially not referred 6 for investigation but at a subsequent hotline call, were referred, mostly as a 10- day referral (a referral where the social worker must visit home within 10 days).
• CM3
  CAR graph presenting total number of calls, number of reports, number of REPORT dropped calls, and number of reports for the period from January 2013 to July, 7 2014.
• CM4
  Child Abuse Registry Interval Report from October 6, 2014 to October 9, 2014 REPORT indicating calls answered, longest waiting times, number of dropped calls, and 8 total calls answered.
• CM5
  Summary of California Child Welfare Services: Report 2013-110 Summary-April REPORT 2014. (Audit of Butte, Orange, and San Francisco County.) 9 8. California State Auditor's Report: Child Welfare Services. Report #2013-110 (Full Report.). April, 2014. REPORT 9. Interviews with staff members at all levels of the Child Abuse Registry and the 10 Social Services Agency.
• CM6
  Interviews with child and adult abuse hotline social workers.
• CM7
  Review of Structured Decision Making (SDM) assessment tools (documents). REPORT
• CM8
  Interview of supervisors/managers of Child Protective Services Divisions of Los 11 Angeles, San Diego, Riverside, Santa Barbara, Ventura, and San Bernardino.
• CM9
  Review of OC CAR website discussion on "Abuse Report." Retrieved from REPORT http://ssa.ocgov.com/abuse/. 12
• CM10
  Review of CFS Operations Manual Sections on:  Sexual Abuse Allegations-Child Abuse Registry (CAR) Number: A-0205 REPORT  Structured Decision-Making, Number:D-0311 (SDM). 13  Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), Number: B-0216  SOP: Required forms REPORT  Team Decision-Making, Number: 0308 14  Abuse Investigations-Practice Guidelines, Number, A-0412
• CM11
  Human Services Committee members sat in with Senior Social Workers to REPORT observe as calls came into the hotline. 15 16. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau (2003). Decision-making in Unsubstantiated Child Protective Services Cases. Washington, DC. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 17 REPORT Child Abuse Hotline: Unanswered Cries for Help 1
• CM12
  Virginia Board of Social Sciences (June, 2009). Adult Protective Services REPORT Minimum Training Standards. 2
• CM13
  Review of past Grand Jury Reports  1993-1994, Child Abuse Registry REPORT  2003-2004, A Child At Risk: Missed Opportunities To Save a Life 3  2005-2006, Improving Child Abuse Response  2006-2007, Death By Abuse: One Death is Too Many REPORT 4 REPORT 5 REPORT 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 18 REPORT 1 Child Abuse Hotline: Unanswered Cries for Help REPORT 2 REFERENCES CA Codes (Penal Code sections: 116-1174.3). Retrieved 12/31/2014 from: REPORT http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&grouop=11001- 3 12000&file= California Child Abuse & Neglect Reporting Law, Condensed Version, 2006. P1 REPORT 4 CFS Operations Manual, 2014 M-0109, Child Abuse Registry (CAR). REPORT Orange County Grand Jury Report, 1993-1994. Child Abuse Registry. 5 Schweble, S. (2014, July 2). Parents accused of caging autistic son. The Orange County Register. Retrieved from https:www.ocregister.com/articles/boy-627707- REPORT police-dunn.html 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 19 ORANGE COUNTY REAL ESTATE: DO THEY KNOW WHAT THEY HAVE? GRAND JURY 2014-2015
• CM14
  Condition of the facility 3
• CM15
  Intake-Release Center 13
• CM16
  Staff presence REPORT 4. Overall safety and security 4 5. Orderliness of operation The OCGJ applied the above criteria on the Adult Evaluation Checklist in the REPORT following areas: 5
• CM17
  Laundry REPORT 8. Schools/Classrooms/Programs 15 9. Exercise Area / Recreation Area
• CM18
  Exercise Area / Recreation 8
• CM19
  Visiting Area REPORT 11. Medical Area 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 25 REPORT Annual Inquiry on Jails and Juvenile Detention Facilities 1 REPORT
• CM20
  Medical Area REPORT 12. Court Holding Area 9 13. Administrative Segregation (Anti-social / Poor behavior)
• CM21
  Court Holding Area 2
• CM22
  Administrative Segregation (Anti-social / Poor behavior)
• CM23
  Segregation of AB 109 Inmates REPORT 15. Segregation of ICE Detainees 10 16. Housing for the Mentally ill / Medication / Suicide Watch
• CM24
  Housing for the Mentally ill / Medication / Suicide Watch REPORT
• CM25
  Protective Custody (Child Molesters / Law Enforcement Family) 3
• CM26
  Protective Custody (Child Molesters / Law Enforcement Family)
• CM27
  Segregation of Gang Members REPORT
• CM28
  Disciplinary Isolation (Up to 10 days) 11
• CM29
  Operational Condition of Surveillance Cameras REPORT Similarly, the OCGJ thoroughly applied the same criteria to each area on the 12 Juvenile Evaluation Checklist. These areas included:
• CM30
  Overall Condition of Buildings REPORT 5 REPORT 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 26
• CM31
  Short-term "flash" incarceration in jail for a period not to exceed 10 days. REPORT
• CM32
  Intensive community supervision. 8
• CM33
  Home detention, electronic monitoring, or GPS supervision.
• CM34
  Community service. REPORT 5. Restorative justice programs. 9 6. Work, training, or education.
• CM35
  Aftercare Treatment REPORT Residential drug treatment must be followed by continued outpatient treatment 5 and/or 12-step participation. The continuity of treatment is critical if the offender is to sustain a drug-free lifestyle. Funding problems currently limit the number of drug REPORT abusing offenders who enter the most intensive form of treatment, the treatment 6 modality that is most suitable for the substance-abusing offender. REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 28 “IRVINE” GREAT PARK: A LEGACY OF HUBRIS? GRAND JURY 2014-2015
• CM36
  Work, in lieu of confinement REPORT 8. Day reporting 10 9. Mandatory residential or non-residential substance abuse programs.
• CM37
  Random drug testing.
• CM38
  Community-based residential programs that provide a variety of services. REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 23 REPORT AB109 Offenders: Are Current Probation Strategies Effective? 1 REPORT APPENDIX 2: OCPD MISSION STATEMENT 2 We are dedicated to a safer Orange County through positive change. REPORT We believe: 3  Community protection can best be achieved via a role that balances enforcement REPORT activities and supportive casework. 4  Our employees constitute our most valuable resource for accomplishing our Mission. REPORT We are committed to: 5  Delivering quality services in an effective and fiscally responsible manner. REPORT  Providing a positive, challenging and supportive work culture. 6  Improving our services through teamwork and program innovation, consistent with current knowledge influencing the field of corrections. REPORT  Advancing professionalism through participation in joint efforts to improve the 7 effectiveness of community corrections.  Delivering services with integrity and in a manner which respects the rights and dignity of individuals. REPORT 8 Mission Statement REPORT As a public safety agency, the Orange County Probation Department serves the 9 community using efficient and research supported corrections practices to: REPORT  Reduce Crime 10  Assist the Courts in Managing Offenders  Promote Lawful and Productive Lifestyles  Assist Victims REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 24 REPORT 1 AB109 Offenders: Are Current Probation Strategies Effective? REPORT APPENDIX 3: REVIEW OF PROBATION FILES 2 The four cases presented here were randomly selected. A supervising probation officer accompanied the reviewer to several probation office cubicles. The cabinets REPORT were opened, and files were selected at random. 3 Case Example #1 REPORT 4 A female AB109 offender was homeless, residing at the Orange County Civic Center, and admitted using methamphetamine since being released from jail. Although REPORT she was referred to a detox program to be followed by residential drug treatment, there 5 was no evidence in the file that she entered either one. As in other cases, flash incarceration was used on one occasion. As of her last contact with the PO, the progress report indicates that she “continues to use drugs” and needs detox before she REPORT enters a program. The reviewer was unable to determine if a date had been established 6 for either detox or residential drug treatment. Thus, at the time of the review, the AB109 offender, on active supervision, was homeless, addicted to methamphetamine, REPORT unemployed, with no identifiable admission date for detoxification. If unemployed and 7 addicted to methamphetamine, one can reasonably conclude that this AB109 offender is continuing to be involved in criminal activity to support a drug habit, all while on Post- REPORT release community release supervision. 8 Case Example #2 REPORT The offender, an AB109 case with a substance abuse history, had made a 9 sufficiently favorable adjustment to supervision and was transferred to a Field Management (FM) caseload, or what is commonly referred to as an “administrative” or REPORT “bank” caseload. These cases are considered such low risk that they have no need for 10 active supervision by a PO. That is, there is no personal face-to-face contact with their PO. These caseloads can be in excess of 200 cases per officer. They usually do not REPORT report to a PO and merely report to a kiosk where they complete and submit their 11 monthly supervision report. In this FM case, the offender was on supervision for drug sales and drug use. REPORT The file reflected an extensive drug history, and a risk score of 29 and needs score of 12 27 were noted. It appears he was downgraded to FM during the most recent assessment period between January 10, 2014, and July 28, 2014. The case file REPORT indicates the offender was arrested for multiple health and safety code violations in 13 early January 2014. He had also been arrested in late January 2014, for drug paraphernalia and possession of drug syringes. Previously, in May of 2013, he had REPORT been arrested by the PO and booked into county jail for a 10-day flash incarceration for 14 submitting two positive urine tests. In December of 2013, the PO again utilized flash incarceration for drug use and submitting positive drug tests. The offender is subject to Penal Code section 290, narcotic registration. On or around November 2013, the REPORT offender was sentenced to 180 days in county jail following a drug conviction. 15 During a seven- month period between June 30, 2013 and January 9, 2014, the REPORT PO documented the following contacts: office, 9; home, 0; searches, 1; drug tests, 3; 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 25 REPORT AB109 Offenders: Are Current Probation Strategies Effective? 1 REPORT PO arrests, 1. Despite this problematic supervision history, this offender was 2 inexplicably placed on a FM, decreased-supervision caseload with no direct contact with the PO, and no drug testing. As expected, he was transferred back to a higher level of REPORT supervision when he was arrested for new law violations. 3 Case Example #3 REPORT The third case example provided a reassessment plan/evaluation prepared in 4 early May 2014, appearing to cover the period from November 1, 2013, to April 30,
• CM39
  REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 21 REPORT AB109 Offenders: Are Current Probation Strategies Effective? 1 REPORT Orange County Probation Department (2011). Risk Assessment Validation Final Report, 2 October 2011. Paige, St. John, and Marisa Gerber). Prop. 47 Jolts Landscape of California Justice REPORT System. (November 6, 2014). In Los Angeles Times: Retrieved from 3 http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-ff-pol-proposition47-20141106- storu.html REPORT 4 Performance-Based Standards for Adult Probation and Parole Field Services (4th Edition). American Correctional Association (2010). REPORT Price, R.H., & D’Aunno, T. (1992). A national study of the outpatient drug-free and 5 methadone treatment system, 1988-1990 results. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research. REPORT 6 Speckart, G. & Anglin, D.M. (1986). Narcotics and Crime: A casual modeling approach. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2. 3-28. REPORT Urinalysis, Sample Collection, Storage, Processing Skin Checks: Potentially Infectious 7 Body Fluids. (2011). Procedures Manual Item 2-1-007. REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 22 REPORT 1 AB109 Offenders: Are Current Probation Strategies Effective? REPORT APPENDIX 1: PENAL CODE SECTION 3450 2 (Selected provisions, emphasis added.) REPORT  National data show that about 40% of released offenders are re-incarcerated 3 within three years.  Policies that rely on re-incarceration of parolees for technical violations do not REPORT result in improved public safety. 4  California must support community corrections programs and evidence-based practices that will achieve improved public safety. REPORT  Realigning post-release supervision of certain felons to local community 5 corrections programs through community-based punishment, evidence-based practices, and improved supervision strategies will improve public safety REPORT outcomes and facilitate successful reintegration. Evidence-based rehabilitation 6 programs that increase public safety by holding offenders accountable will generate savings. (Evidence-based practices refer to supervision strategies that have been demonstrated by scientific research to reduce recidivism.) REPORT  Community-based punishments means evidence-based sanctions and programs 7 that include, but are not limited to the following:
• CM40
  Measure W: County Parks Initiative: REPORT Shall the initiative measure: 1) eliminating planned airport uses at the closed 3 El Toro Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS El Toro) by repealing Measure A, and 2) amending the Orange County General Plan to authorize an urban regional park and REPORT a variety of agricultural, material recovery/recycling, recreational, cultural, 4 educational, employment, public and housing land uses at MCAS El Toro, be adopted.” REPORT The intention of the initiative was to cease all activities to transform the 5 former air base into a commercial airport and to “provide Orange County’s three million residents with an opportunity to enjoy a park on par with Golden Gate Park REPORT and The Presidio in San Francisco, Griffith Park in Los Angeles, and Balboa Park in 6 San Diego.” Further rationale included: “The park will generate regional and state- wide economic benefits from tourism, education, and the attraction of businesses to the area.” (Orange County, California Measure W. Retrieved August 13, 2014 from REPORT http://airportnoiselaw.org/orangew.html para H) 7
• CM41
  Bosque: The term bosque is from the Spanish meaning “woodlands.” It refers to REPORT clumps of trees found along flood plains of stream and river banks in the 8 southwestern United States. REPORT
• CM42
  The Irvine City Manager stated in 2003: 9 “The financial plan for the OC GP will fulfill the promise our City made to the people of Orange County when we drafted Measure W nearly two years ago. REPORT 10 “Working in cooperation with the Navy, we have created a sound financial plan for building and maintaining the Great Park without any federal, state, or local REPORT taxpayer subsidies. 11 “Master-planned communities throughout Southern California, including Irvine, maintain high standards and amenities by requiring developers and property REPORT buyers to contribute to the construction and maintenance of public facilities. 12 “Real estate experts who have reviewed the Orange County GP Plan all REPORT agree that the sale of the developable property will more than support the $200 13 million in development fees. The assessments and special maintenance levies, plus the basic 1% property tax, will not exceed the overall 2% property tax levied on property owners in most master-planned communities. REPORT 14 “The most exciting feature of this plan is the speed in which it allows the GP to be developed. REPORT “We will begin tearing up the runways within days of the completion of the 15 sale of the property. Our children will be playing in the county’s largest Sports Park, and people will be able to enjoy the first phase of the Meadows Park within three REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 30 REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT years. Within only five years of the sale of the property, the OCGP will be fully 2 landscaped and will serve all of our county for many generations to come.” (p. 1) REPORT 4. According to Orange County Great Park Planning Report (2003): “Other great 3 metropolitan parks have required fifty years or more to develop. By contrast, the Orange County Great Park development strategy—harnessing the power of private REPORT capital and the benefit of enlightened public planning—will enable all key elements 4 of the Great Park to be developed within five to seven years of the sale of the property.” REPORT 5
• CM43
  The 2005-2006 Grand Jury stated in their report “Orange County Great Park: Whose Park Is It?”: “By merging the operations of the City of Irvine and the GPC, employees REPORT of the GPC are now employees of the City of Irvine and everything from job 6 assignments to raises and other factors are at the behest of the City of Irvine. It raises the question, what exactly is the purpose or function of the OCGPC if the City of Irvine collects all park related revenue, hires employees whose duties are related REPORT to the park, and pays the other expenses related to the park.” (p. 9) 7 REPORT 8 6. This is not in violation of public law. According to the Health & Safety Code (§33200, sub d). [a]) a city council, in activating the redevelopment agency in its community, is authorized under State law to name itself to members of the redevelopment agency REPORT board, as the Irvine City Council did when it adopted Ordinance 99-04 in 1999 9 activating the Irvine Redevelopment Agency. REPORT 10
• CM44
  City of Irvine Contract Award Process: A contract can primarily be awarded in the following three methods. REPORT  Use of Consultant Team Member 11  Request for Proposal (RFP)/Formal Bidding Process  Sole Sourced REPORT 12 The city creates a list of business needs and establishes a list of Consultant Team Members who have been properly vetted. When a need is REPORT discovered the responsible manager is to go to the Consultant Team first, next 13 option is to request a RFP from any and all vendors, and last option is sole sourcing. REPORT The following is a summary of the key levels of contract authority and 14 signature levels contained in the Great Park Procurement policies. Authority to sign a contract must be preceded by approval of the contractor, program or expenditure, either through the budget process or through separate action of the REPORT Corporation’s Board of Directors. The levels and amounts are consistent with 15 comparable functions in the City of Irvine. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 31 REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT Contract Amount Contract Authority 2 $100,000 or less Orange County Great Park Managers >$100,000 up to $1,000,000 Chief Executive Officer and REPORT Deputy Chief Executive Officer 3 >$1,000,000 Chief Executive Officer and Chairman* *Any contract requiring the Chairman’s signature must first be approved by the Board of Directors. REPORT Additional highlights of the revised Orange County Great Park 4 Procurement Policies include: REPORT Purchases or contracts in excess of $5,000 for supplies, equipment, or 5 construction require three qualified bids or quotes. Professional services or consultants require a formal proposal process for REPORT contracts expected to be greater than $5,000. In this case, three qualified 6 proposals are also required. Pricing, however, is of secondary consideration to qualifications (as required by applicable State law). REPORT The use of a Consultant Team Program whereby certain professional 7 consultants are pre-qualified through a competitive selection process and have master agreements which extend for a period of up to three years. (Consultant REPORT Teams pre-approved by the City are available for use by the Orange County 8 Great Park.) REPORT Sole source—the policies allow for sole source purchase or contract 9 where a competitive bidding or selection process cannot be accomplished. Such situations could occur due to time constraints, proximity, highly specialized knowledge, or unique product. Sole source request, in all cases, must be REPORT accompanied by a justification memo to the Chief Executive Officer. 10 REPORT
• CM45
  The following is an excerpt from the Mission Viejo Municipal Code: 11 “The city council and its members shall deal with the administrative services of the city only through the city manager, except for the purpose REPORT of inquiry, and neither the city council nor any member thereof shall give 12 orders to any subordinate of the city manager. For purposes hereof, “inquiry” means any and all communications short of giving orders, directions, or instruction to any member of the administrative staff. Such REPORT members shall provide all information reasonably requested by any 13 councilmember. The city manager shall take his orders and instructions from the city council only when sitting in a duly convened meeting of the REPORT city council and no individual councilmember shall give any orders or 14 instructions to the city manager. The city council shall instruct the city manager in matters of policy. Any action, determination or omission of the REPORT city manager shall be subject to review by the city council. The city council 15 may not overrule, change or modify any such action, determination or omission except by the affirmative vote of at least three members of the REPORT city council.” (Code 1988, § 2.08.070) 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 32 REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT REFERENCES 2 Aleshire & Wynder Memorandum. (2014a, October). Great Park Audit: Status update. REPORT Irvine, CA. 3 Aleshire & Wynder Memorandum. (2014b, October 14). Great Park Audit: Status update. Irvine, CA. REPORT 4 Aleshire & Wynder (2015, March 24). Report of Special Counsel. Irvine, CA. Author. American Institute of Architects (AIA). (2007, August 27). Standard for of agreement REPORT between owner and architect: Document B141-1997 Part I. Irvine, CA. 5 BLL/PBS&J Program Management Team. (2006, November 17). Review of the Great REPORT Park Design Studio invoices (#2-#7, #9). Irvine, CA. 6 BLL/PBS&J Program Management Team. (2006, October). Review and Comments: Great Park Design Studio contract no. 2 monthly report: October 2007. Irvine, REPORT CA. 7 Bovis Lend Lease. (2008, July 16). Orange County Great Park: Program Management REPORT Team: Schematic Design 70% milestone submitted review and comments. Irvine, 8 CA. Burgess, M.A. (2014, June 24). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. REPORT Newport Beach, CA. 9 City Manager. (2013). 2014 Reorganization plan. City of Irvine, CA. REPORT Clark, C. (2014, April 23). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Newport 10 Beach, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT 11 County Executive Officer, County of Orange. (2006). Response to Orange County Grand Jury Report, “The Orange County Great Park: Whose park is it.” Santa Ana, CA. REPORT 12 Cowan, J. (2014, October 19). Yet another flare-up over Great Park. Los Angeles Times, p. A33. REPORT 13 Design Studio. (2006). Orange County Great Park Preliminary Master Plan. Irvine, CA. Ellzey, M.D. (2014, June 18). Deposition: Orange County Great Park. Newport Beach, REPORT CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp 14 Elmahrek, A. (2014a, September 7). Video derides findings of Great Park audit. Voice of Orange County, http://ww.voiceofoc.org. REPORT 15 Elmahrek, A. (2014b, November 6). Is it the end of an era in Irvine politics? Voice of Orange County, http://ww.voiceofoc.org. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 33 REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT Elmahrek, A. (2015, February 19). Auditor sees bias in Irvine’s Great Park investigation. 2 http://voiceofoc.org. Ford, A. (2014, August 5). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Irvine, REPORT CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp 3 Fuscoe, P. (2014, July 14). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Irvine, REPORT CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp 4 Gaffen, Y. (2014, August 8). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. San Diego, CA. Retrieved from: REPORT http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp 5 Gibbs Giden (2014). Orange County Great Park audit. Los Angeles, CA. Author. REPORT Great Park Corporation. (2007, August 9). Transcript from OCGP Board Meeting on 6 August 9, 2007. Irvine, CA. REPORT Great Park Corporation. (2010, June 17). Notice of termination without cause of 7 agreement for contract services for the Orange County Great Park for marketing and communication services (No. 7469) dated September 7, 2012. Irvine, CA. REPORT Great Park Corporation. (2013, January 10). Schematic design contract close-out. 8 Irvine, CA. REPORT Great Park Conservancy. (n.d.). Foundation for the Great Park. 9 http://www.orangecountygreatpark.org Hagan, Streiff, Newton, & Ohiro (HSNO). (2014). Orange County Great Park forensic REPORT contract performance review. Newport Beach, CA. 10 Hagan, Streiff, Newton, & Ohiro (HSNO). (2015, March 23). Orange County Great Park REPORT forensic contract performance review. Newport Beach, CA. 11 Irvine, City of. (2006a). Response of City of Irvine to Orange County Grand Jury 2005- 2006 Report (“The Orange County Great Park: Whose park is it”). Irvine, CA. REPORT 12 Irvine, City of. (2006b). City Council Resolution No. 06-42: A resolution of the City Council of the City of Irvine restating and clarifying the governing structures and REPORT responsibilities relating to the Orange County Great Park. Irvine, CA. 13 Irvine, City of. (2010a). Response of City of Irvine to Orange County Grand Jury 2009- 2010 Grand Jury Report dated June 3, 2010. Irvine, CA. REPORT 14 Irvine, City of. (2010b, September 13). Agreement concerning close-out of schematic design contract. Irvine, CA. REPORT Irvine, City of. (2012a, August 14). Dismissal agreement in connection with State of 15 California Department of Finance settlement negotiations by and between City of Irvine Successor Agency to the dissolved Redevelopment Agency and Irvine REPORT Community Land Trust. Irvine, CA. 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 34 REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT Irvine, City of. (2012b). Heritage Fields Project 2012 GPA/ZC: Draft Second 2 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSSEIR). Irvine, CA. REPORT Irvine, City of. (2013a, March 26). Formation of community facilities district no. 2013-3. 3 Irvine, CA. Irvine, City of. (2013b, November 11). Second agreement with City of Irvine as adjacent REPORT landowner (ALAII). Irvine, CA. 4 Irvine, City of. (2013c, November 26). Irvine City Council meeting minutes. Irvine, CA. REPORT Irvine, City of. (2014, January 28). Resolution of the City Council of City of Irvine 5 authorizing an investigation into the financial management of the Orange County Great Park, approving a scope of work for a forensic investigation, and REPORT authorizing the City Council subcommittee and retained special counsel to 6 facilitate the investigation and issue subpoenas. Irvine, CA. REPORT Irvine, City of. (2014b, July 9). Settlement agreement and release of claims. Irvine, CA. 7 Irvine, City of. (2014c). Accounts paid listing: 2012-2013. Irvine, CA. REPORT Irvine, City of. (2014d, March 18). Irvine City Council meeting minutes. Irvine, CA. 8 Jow, L. (2014a, October 28). Irvine ballot measures: Great Park transparency, term limits. Orange County Register, p. L-4. REPORT 9 Jow, L. (2014b, November 4). Irvine voters approve Great Park fiscal reform, term limits. Orange County Register. Retrieved from: http://www.ocregister.com REPORT Jow, L. (2014, November 6). Agran is out after 16 years; Republicans look set for Irvine 10 supermajority. Orange County Register, pp. L1, L5. REPORT Joyce, S. (2014a, February 2). Memo: Reorganization plan. Irvine, CA 11 Joyce, S. (2014b, July 18). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Irvine, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT 12 King, T., & Butow, R. (2011, November 27). So far all the Orange County got was a big ugly balloon. Salem-News. Retrieved from http;//www.salem-news.com REPORT 13 Kogerman, W.G. (2014, June 26). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Newport Beach, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT 14 Kohn, P.D. (2014, August 11). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Irvine, CA. REPORT 15 Kreutzen, W. (2014, April 29). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Newport Beach, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 35 REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT Krom, B. (2006, September 13). Response of City of Irvine to Orange County Grand 2 Jury 2005-2006 Report (“The Orange County Great Park: Whose Park Is It?”). City of Irvine, CA. REPORT Krom, B. (2015, April 19). Great park now about profits, not people. Orange County 3 Register, Opinion 6. REPORT Landers, S. (2014, July 9). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. 4 Newport Beach, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT Lough, M. (2011). Design development quality management checklist. American 5 Institute of Architects. New York. REPORT McDevitt, B. (2014, July 8). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. 6 Newport Beach, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT McDonnell, K. (2014, October 22). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. 7 Irvine, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT 8 Maxwell-Miller, T. (2014, October 2). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Newport Beach, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT 9 Mollrich, S. (2014, July 30). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Irvine, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT 10 Mission Viejo, City of. (1988). Municipal Code Sec 2.08.070. Mission Viejo, CA. Orange County Great Park Corp. Board of Directors (2008, June 19). Agenda. Irvine, REPORT CA. 11 Orange County Grand Jury Report. (2006). The Orange County Great Park: Whose REPORT park Is it? Santa Ana, CA. 12 Orange County Great Park. (n.d.a.). History of land. Irvine, CA. REPORT Orange County Great Park Corp. (n.d.b.). FY 2009-2020: Strategic business plan. 13 Irvine, CA. Orange County Grand Jury Report. (2010). Financing the Great Park: Now you see it, REPORT now you don’t. Santa Ana, CA. 14 Orange County (2002). Measure W: County Parks Initiative. Retrieved from: REPORT http://www.smartvoter.org/2002/03/05/ca/or/meas/W/.html 15 Orange County Great Park Design Studio. (2007). Major milestone review: 30% schematic estimate construction elements. Irvine, CA. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 36 REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT Schulman, M. (n.d.). California without redevelopment monies: The ethical issues. 2 Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, Santa Clara University, CA. Retrieved from http://www.scu.edu. REPORT 3 Sim, R. (2005, March 14). Great Park Audit: Statement of Richard Sim to Conservancy. Irvine, CA. REPORT Sim, R. (2014, July 29). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Irvine, CA. 4 Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT Smith, K. (2014, September 5). Deposition: Orange County Great Park. San Clemente, 5 CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp Smith, G. (n.d.). Declaration of Greg Smith regarding City of Irvine Great Park. Irvine, REPORT CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp 6 Starnes, J.L. (2014, June 30). Deposition: Orange County Great Park. Newport Beach, REPORT CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp 7 Urch, G.T. (2014, August 26). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Newport Beach, CA. Retrieved from: REPORT http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp 8 Wood, T. (2014, July 28). Arnold Forde: Half century of big time politics. Voice of REPORT Orange County, Retrieved from: http://ww.voiceofoc.org. 9 Worthington, G. (n.d.). Declaration of Glen Worthington regarding City of Irvine Great Park. Irvine, CA REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 37 REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT APPENDIX A: 2 ORANGE COUNTY GREAT PARK CHRONOLOGY REPORT 1993 July Department of Defense places MCAS El Toro on the BRAC closure list. 3 2002, March 5 Orange County voters approve Measure W that creates the Orange County Central Park and Nature Preserve to replace MCAS El Toro. REPORT 2002, March 6 The Department of the Navy announces its intention to sell MCAS El Toro on a 4 bid basis. 2003, January 28 Irvine City Council announces in a press release that the Great Park would cost a projected $353 million to construct. REPORT 5 2003, July 7 The Orange County Great Park is incorporated. 2003, November 12 The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) approves the City of Irvine’s REPORT annexation of the former MCAS El Toro, putting the City of Irvine in control of land use decisions for the entire property. 6 2003, December 5 The Orange County Great Park Corporation (OCGPC) holds its first public meeting and adopts a resolution that expands the Board of Directors to nine (9) REPORT members. 7 2004, January 14 City of Irvine officially annexes former MCAS El Toro. 2004, September The Department of the Navy invites bids for MCAS El Toro. REPORT 8 2004, December 16 The OCGPC approves the 2004-2005 business plan with an anticipated budget to build the park at $401 million. REPORT 2005, March 8 Redevelopment funding for the Great Park is authorized by ordinance. 9 2005, April The OCGPC inaugurates design contest for the Great Park. 2005, June 23 Based on design submittals and recommendation by a “Design Jury,” seven REPORT finalists are selected and each is given $50,000 to develop and Conceptual 10 Master Design Plan. 2005, July 12 Lennar had the winning bid for MCAS El Toro of $649.5 million. Lennar REPORT contributes 1,347 acres to the City of Irvine, pays $200 million in developer fees, and pledges an additional $201 million for joint infrastructure and facilities 11 intended to be funded by a Community Facilities District (CFD) bond sale. 2005, September Finalists present their design plans during the OCGPC public meetings. REPORT 12 2006, January 23 OCGPC board selects the project designer and architect of the Orange County Great Park. 2006, March 9 OCGPC enters into Agreement for Master Designer Services to develop a Great REPORT Park Master Plan for $372 million. The main purpose of the contract is to develop 13 a conceptual design of the Great Park that would be approved by the OCGPC Board and the Irvine City Council. REPORT 2006, March 23 A contractor is selected from among five bidding firms to be the program 14 manager for the Great Park. 2006, October 26 OCGPC Board approves the Preliminary Master Plan in concept. REPORT 2007, January 9 Irvine City Council authorizes approximately $4.1 million in expenditures for 15 design, construction, operations, and insurance for the Great Park balloon. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 38 REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT 2007, January 25 Original plan designer makes proposal to OCGPC Board to continue services for 2 the design development of the entire park, including park schematics, mass grading, and construction documents for the initial park construction. REPORT 2007, July 14 The Great Park Balloon opens to the public. Features include parking, lighting, 3 temporary visitor center, construction of the observation balloon, and associated infrastructure and utilities. REPORT 2007, July 24 OCGPC Board and Irvine City Council approve a schematic design contract 4 (Contract #5759) for $27.3 million. The purpose of the contract is to develop construction documents in accordance with the Master Design Plan and to establish reasonable cost estimates for the Great Park features included in the REPORT Schematic Design. 5 2007, September 27 The OCGPC Board adopts the Comprehensive Master Plan. Contractor estimates total cost to build park at $979.8 million. REPORT 2007, December 11 Irvine City Council authorizes $11.4 million for design and construction of the 6 Balloon Enhancement Project and $2.5 million for first year operating costs, totaling $13.9 million. Features include new signage and lighting, parking and site access, night flights, a revised multipurpose 5-acre landscaping, and REPORT cleaning and painting an existing hangar that will be used for future events. 7 2008, January 8 Decision to proceed with the Schematic Design to ultimately develop construction documents for the improvements. REPORT 2008, March 25 Balloon Enhancement Project is expanded by Irvine City Council to become the 8 27.5-acre “Preview Park.” Irvine budgets approximately $6.97 million for construction of the entire Preview Park. Balloon project is considered Phase One. REPORT 9 2008, July Second phase of Preview Park is completed. This phase consists of a lawn, trees, park furnishings, additional lighting, timeline prototype, shade structures, and a relocated and improved visitor center. REPORT 10 2008, July 11 Program Manager estimates the cost of horizontal construction (not including buildings) to be over $1.6 billion. 2008, August The City of Irvine hires an independent public accounting firm to audit contract REPORT compliance under the Agreement for Master Designer Services (Contract 1). 11 2009, January OCGP Board commissions consulting firm to evaluate the merits and feasibility of a major fundraising effort to generate private funds for selected facilities and REPORT programs within the Great Park Master Plan. 12 2009, February Schematic design is halted by CEO and states no further work necessary on the design. Staff concludes that the project budget to be approximately $1.4 billion. REPORT 2009, March 19 Contractor presents a 36-month construction plan to develop 500 acres for $61 13 million. 2009, April 23 OCGP Board votes to recommend that the Irvine City Council appropriate $61.2 REPORT million for the 500-acre park from development proposal. 14 2009, May 21 Contractor presents Phase 1 plan of the 500-acre plan and attains an additional $4.7 million to implement Phase 1. REPORT 2009, July Phase 3 of the Preview Park is completed. Third phase included transplanting 15 mature trees into the lawn area and the Farm and Food Lab. REPORT 16 2009, October Accounting firm auditing contract compliance under the Agreement for Master 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 39 REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT Designer Services delivered their report. 2 2009, October 22 GP CEO submitted a proposal for $65.5 million to develop 200 acres (Western Sector) and to replace the 500-acre plan The proposal was approved by the REPORT OCGPC Board . This area is adjacent to Park Preview. 3 2009, November 10 The City of Irvine approves a sole source contract with WRNS Studio, an architectural firm, for $10.1 million for design and pre-construction services for the Western Sector. Construction design of Western Sector began shortly REPORT thereafter. 4 2009, November 12 Consulting firm delivered its report to the OCGP Board, concluding that it is infeasible to raise enough private funds to construct facilities for the Great Park REPORT due to many obstacles. 5 2010, June 17 A Close Out Agreement between the original designer and the City of Irvine is presented at a joint meeting with OCGPC and Irvine City Council. REPORT 2010, August 13 Final Close Out Agreement with the original designer and City of Irvine is 6 executed. 2011, January Governor Brown proposes statewide elimination of Redevelopment Agencies REPORT (RDA) beginning with 2011-2012 budgets. 7 2011, June 15 California Legislature passes ABX1 26 which eliminates RDAs and sets up Successor Agencies and Oversight Boards to wind down dissolved RDAs. REPORT 2011, November An independent public accounting firm, is engaged by the City of Irvine to review 8 contract compliance of the Schematic Design contract (Contract 2). 2012, June 7 Irvine enters into a contract with USS Cal Builders, Inc. for $22 million to REPORT complete construction of 30 acres of the Western Sector. 9 2012, June 21 Independent accounting firm delivered Schematic Design Contract Compliance Review to Board and city. The report did not reveal any significant or material findings. REPORT 10 2012, November City Council election was held resulting in the composition of the council being significantly changed. Four of the at-large members were dismissed. REPORT 2013, January City Council cancelled the park public relations contract. 11 2013, June 17 The City of Irvine retained Hagen, Streiff, Newton, & Oshiro Accountants, PC (HSNO) for $240,000 to perform a forensic audit of the planning, development, and construction of the Great Park. REPORT 12 2013, November The Prime Contractor proposed 688-acre park project to the Irvine City Council. 2014, August City of Irvine readjusts its Master Plan and Design Review to be in concert with the Prime Contractor proposal. REPORT 13 2014, November The 5-year Master Plan for 688 acres is approved by the City Council. REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 40 REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT APPENDIX B: 2 PROBLEMS WITH FORMER CONTRACTS REPORT The Grand Jury found many inconsistencies and problems in managing contracts 3 involving the Great Park. An examination of the previous largest contracts revealed that many of them REPORT contained no deliverables or milestones. Several were open-ended, had minor 4 oversights, and provided for no true safeguards. It seems that there was never an outside audit of finances or contracts. REPORT 5 No-Bid Contracts. Very early in the life of the project, the 2005-2006 Grand Jury had recommended that “The Irvine City Council should review current practices involving no-bid contracts to ensure that appropriate business controls are in place to REPORT protect the citizens of the City of Irvine” (p. 11). In the response from the City of Irvine, 6 they “wholly” disagreed with this finding. In the City’s response they referenced the current policy on purchasing8 which they claimed they were following. REPORT 7 However the practice of no-bid contracts continued over the years. In projects costing over $100,000, 29 of 83 (35%) were sole source contracts according to records from the Office of the Irvine City Clerk. This seems extraordinarily high; however, the REPORT law does not prohibit these contracts if they are for highly specialized services. As an 8 example, the Western Sector was built with sole source contracts, but to management’s credit, the project was completed within 10% of its budget ($69.9 million actual versus REPORT budgeted $65.5 million). 9 Change Orders. A review of several contracts revealed an extensive use of REPORT change orders. These change orders allowed for additional expenditures. A cursory 10 review determined that over $15 million was spent on change orders alone. The forensic auditor found strong evidence of a lack of definition of scope in REPORT contracts until after the work had begun (HSNO, 2014). Also found was significant 11 confusion concerning scope of work. There were various testimonies in sworn dispositions that one contractor was performing work outside of its scope. Other REPORT testimony stated that the same contractor would begin work prior to the contract being 12 approved. The magnitude of change orders indicated a lack of definition of scope of work or poor project management by the City. REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 41 REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT APPENDIX C: 2 CITY OF IRVINE ORGANIZATION CHART REPORT Residents of 3 Irvine REPORT Orange County 4 Great Park Board City Council of Directors REPORT 5 City Manager REPORT 6 Assistant City Assistant City Manager Manager OCGP REPORT 7 Administrative REPORT Services Public Safety 8 Department Department REPORT Community Public 9 Development Communication Department REPORT 10 City Clerk Community Services REPORT Department 11 City Treasurer REPORT Public Works 12 Department City Attorney REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 42 REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT APPENDIX D: 2 OCGP ORGANIZATION STRUCTURES REPORT 3 Single Organization Staffing Structure (Approved by Irvine City Council) REPORT 4 REPORT 5 OCGP Board City Council RDA REPORT 6 Executive City Manager REPORT Director (RDA) 7 REPORT 8 Assistant City Assistant City Manager/CEO Manager REPORT 9 Deputy CEO/GM (CFO) REPORT City Departments 10 REPORT 11 Manager of Manager of Manager of Manager of Communications Engineering Planning Operations REPORT and Public Affairs 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 43 REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT Traditional Structure (Rejected by Irvine City Council) 2 REPORT 3 REPORT 4 REPORT 5 REPORT 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 44 REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT APPENDIX E: 2 CITY OF IRVINE COUNCIL RESOLUTION OF APRIL, 2006 REPORT Organization 3  The Orange County Great Park Corporation Board of Directors consists of five members of the Irvine City Council and four appointed directors. REPORT  Employees serving the Corporation are employees of the City of Irvine, working 4 within the City’s organizational structure, (i.e., as a distinct operating department of the City) and functioning under the general direction and supervision of the REPORT City Manager. 5 Funding REPORT  Funds for the development of the Park are managed by the City of Irvine in a 6 separate city fund. Operations and Maintenance REPORT 7  Operation and maintenance of the Park shall be based on a self-sustaining budget. REPORT 8 The Great Park Board of Directors REPORT  May develop policies for presentation for City Council adoption. 9  Is responsible for direction and oversight with respect to planning, designing, and constructing the Park. REPORT  Is responsible for ensuring that applicable policy guidelines and design principles 10 are implemented.  Will oversee construction of the Park and will provide recommendations to the City Council for approval of all contracts and change orders. REPORT 11 The Irvine City Council REPORT  Must initiate and approve all land use modifications. 12  Has final authority over all financial matters, including contracts for construction, operation, and maintenance of the Park. REPORT  Is responsible for the management, dispensation, and investment of funds 13 available for the park. REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 45 REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT APPENDIX F: MEASURE V 2 Measure V: Orange County Great Park Fiscal Transparency and Reforms Act: REPORT  Prohibit any money from being spent on the Great Park until approved by the 3 Orange County Great Park board of directors or the City Council at a public meeting. REPORT  Require an annual audit of the Great Park funds by an outside auditing firm 4 and require that it be posted on the city website.  Establish whistleblower protections for anyone who reports waste, fraud, or abuse of the Great Park funds. REPORT  5 REPORT 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 46
• CM46
  The Memphis Model REPORT The first CIT was established in Memphis in 1988 after the tragic shooting by a 3 police officer of a man with a serious mental illness. This tragedy stimulated a collaboration between the police, the Memphis chapter of the National Alliance on REPORT Mental Illness, the University of Tennessee Medical School, and the University of 4 Memphis to improve police training and procedures in response to mental illness. The so-called Memphis model has achieved remarkable success, having been adopted by REPORT more than 2000 communities in more than 40 states and having been implemented 5 statewide in several states. The Memphis Model of CIT has several key components: REPORT 6  A community collaboration between mental health providers, law enforcement, and family/consumer advocates, which determines the best REPORT way to transfer the mentally ill into the mental health system 7  A community coalition to ensure that there are adequate facilities for mental health triage REPORT  A curriculum of specialized training to teach police officers how to interact 8 with persons experiencing a psychiatric crisis  Special training to respond safely and quickly to people with serious mental illness in crisis REPORT  Focused training on how to recognize the signs of psychiatric distress and 9 how to de-escalate a crisis  Materials on how to link people with appropriate treatment, which has a REPORT positive impact on fostering recovery and reducing recidivism 10 The benefits of the Memphis Model of CIT are as follows: REPORT 11  Helps keep the severely mentally ill out of jail and gets them into treatment  Reduces stigma and prejudice toward the severely mentally ill  Reduces officer injuries and SWAT team emergencies REPORT  Reduces the amount of time officers spend on the disposition of mental 12 disturbance calls REPORT
• CM47
  Defense of Laura’s Law 13 On January 3, 1999, Kendra Webdale was pushed to her death before an oncoming subway train beneath the streets of Manhattan by a man diagnosed with REPORT paranoid schizophrenia and with a history of mental illness and hospitalizations who had 14 neglected to take his prescribed medication. Responding to this tragedy, the Legislature enacted Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60 (Kendra’s Law) (L. 1999, ch. 408), thereby joining REPORT nearly 40 other states in adopting a system of assisted outpatient treatment (AOT) 15 pursuant to which psychiatric patients unlikely to survive safely in the community without supervision may avoid hospitalization by complying with court-ordered mental health REPORT treatment. In enacting the law, the Legislature found that there are mentally ill persons 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 51 REPORT 1 The Mental Illness Revolving Door: A Problem for Police, Hospitals, and the Health Care Agency REPORT who are capable of living in the community with the help of family, friends, and mental 2 health professionals, but who, without routine care and treatment, may relapse and become violent or suicidal, or require hospitalization. (L 1999, ch. 408, § 2.) In addition, REPORT in mandating that certain patients comply with essential treatment pursuant to a court- 3 ordered written treatment plan, the Legislature further found that some mentally ill persons, because of their illness, have great difficulty taking responsibility for their own care and often reject the outpatient treatment offered to them on a voluntary basis. (Id.) REPORT 4 It did not take long for the law’s constitutionality to be challenged. The question was whether the law achieved its goal of creating a mechanism to ensure that REPORT individuals who met the criteria remained treatment-compliant while in the community, in 5 a way that was consistent with the Constitutional rights of those individuals. In the Matter of K.L., 500748/00 (Sp. Ct., Queens County, 2000), the Mental Hygiene Legal REPORT Service (MHLS) moved for dismissal of a petition, arguing that the statute was 6 unconstitutional on two grounds: that it unconstitutionally deprived patients of the fundamental right to determine their own course of treatment, and that the statutory provisions concerning removal for observation following non-compliance with the AOT REPORT order are facially unconstitutional. The Attorney General of the State of New York 7 intervened to support the constitutionality of the statute. REPORT The Supreme Court rejected each of the arguments advanced by the MHLS, 8 upheld the constitutionality of Kendra’s Law, and found that it comported with due process, noting that Kendra’s Law does not permit forced medication or treatment . The REPORT Court reasoned that the restriction on a patient’s freedom affected by a court order 9 authorizing AOT is minimal, inasmuch as the coercive force of the order lies solely in the compulsion generally felt by law-abiding citizens to comply with court directives. The Court observed that although the existence of such an order and its attendant REPORT supervision increases the likelihood of voluntary compliance with necessary treatment, 10 a violation of the order, standing alone, ultimately carries no sanction. REPORT
• CM48
  The Sequential Intercept Model 11 The Sequential Intercept Model provides a conceptual framework for communities to use when considering the interface between the criminal justice and REPORT mental health systems as they address concerns about criminalization of people with 12 mental illness. The model envisions a series of points of interception at which an intervention can be made to prevent individuals from entering or penetrating deeper into REPORT the criminal justice system. The concept is that most people will be intercepted at early 13 points, with decreasing numbers at each subsequent point. The interception points are law enforcement and emergency services; initial detention and initial hearings; jail, REPORT courts, forensic evaluations, and forensic commitments; reentry from jails, state prisons, 14 and forensic hospitalization; and community corrections and community support. The model provides an organizing tool for a discussion of diversion and linkage alternatives and for systematically addressing criminalization. Using the model, a community can REPORT develop targeted strategies that evolve over time to increase diversion of people with 15 mental illness from the criminal justice system and to link them with community mental health treatment. (Munetz & Griffin, 2006) REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 52 REPORT 1 The Mental Illness Revolving Door: A Problem for Police, Hospitals, and the Health Care Agency REPORT Although many communities are interested in addressing the overrepresentation of 2 people with mental illness in local courts and jails, the task can seem daunting and the various program options confusing. The Sequential Intercept Model provides a workable REPORT framework for collaboration between criminal justice and treatment systems to 3 systematically address and reduce the criminalization of people with mental illness in their community REPORT 4 REPORT 5 REPORT 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 53 REPORT 1 The Mental Illness Revolving Door: A Problem for Police, Hospitals, and the Health Care Agency REPORT REFERENCES 2 About Laura’s Law. (n.d.). In Ten years after murders: law meant to prevent tragedies remains overlooked and unused. Retrieved from REPORT http://www.lauraslawoc.org./about.html 3 Assisted Outpatient Treatment (2014, June 13). The Nevada County Experience. REPORT Retrieved from: http://www.mynevadacounty.com/nc/hhsa/bh/Pages/Assisted- 4 Outpatient-Treatment.aspx Bekiempis, V. (2014, February 28). New study on mental illness. Newsweek. REPORT 5 Carpinello, S. (2005, March) Kendra’s Law: Report on the Status of Assisted Outpatient Treatment. New York State, Office of Mental Health. Albany, New REPORT York. 6 Cost Savings for AOT (2012, June 12). Mental Illness Policy Organization, found at http://lauras-law.org. REPORT 7 Dupont, R. Cochran, S, & Pillsbury, S. (2007, September). Crisis Intervention Team Core Elements. University of Memphis. Memphis TN. REPORT Emmanuel, A. & McBride, S. (2015, April 30). Police face choice of handcuffs or 8 helping hand for mentally ill. Chicago Reporter. Chicago, Ill. REPORT Exodus Recovery, Inc. (2015). Mental Health Urgent Care Center at MLK Medical 9 Center by Exodus, found at www.exodusrecoveryinc.com/MLK_UCC.html. Gerda, N. (2014, May 14). Orange County adopts Laura’s Law. Voice of OC. Retrieved REPORT from http:// voiceofoc.org. 10 Holt, W., & Adams, A. (2013). Mental health in California: Painting a picture. California REPORT Healthcare Foundation. Oakland, CA. Retrieved from 11 http://www.chcf.org/publicaations/2013/07/mental-health-california. King, S. (2015, April 5) American tragedy: A staggering percentage of police shooting REPORT victims struggled with mental illness Daily KOS. Retrieved from: 12 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/05/1375335 Miller, J. (2013, March 5) Patients as prisoners, jails new mental health institutions, REPORT CBS News.. Retrieved from: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/patients-as- 13 prisoners-jails-new-mental-health-institutions/. REPORT Munetz, M. & Griffin, P. (2006, April). Use of the sequential intercept model as an 14 approach to decriminalization of people with serious mental illness. Psychiatric Services. Retrieved from http://www.dbhds.virginia.gov/library/document- REPORT library/ofo%20%20sim%20article%20munetz%20%20griffin%202006.pdf. 15 National Alliance on Mental Illness (n.d.). CIT toolkit; CIT facts. Retrieved from http://www2.nami.org/Content/ContentGroups/Policy/CIT/CIT_Facts_4.11.12.pdf REPORT . 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 54 REPORT 1 The Mental Illness Revolving Door: A Problem for Police, Hospitals, and the Health Care Agency REPORT Orange County Board of Supervisors. (2015, May 19). Adoption of stepping up 2 initiative resolution (Agenda Staff Report). Santa Ana, CA. REPORT Orange County Health Care Agency and Hospital Association of Southern California. . 3 (2013, December 17). Triage grant application, Vol XII (27).Santa Ana, Ca. Orange County Health Info. (n.d.). Full Service Partnership Homepage. Retrieved from REPORT http//www.ocgov.com/gov/health/bhs. Santa Ana, CA. 4 Pelley, S. (2014, September 14). The shortcomings of mental health care. CBS 60 REPORT Minutes (Television news program). New York, NY. 5 Quanbeck, T, Tsai, G, & Szabo K. (n.d.) Cost-effectiveness analysis of assisted outpatient treatment implementation in California’s civil sector. Retrieved from: REPORT http://dhmh.maryland.gov/bhd/Documents/ 6 Sewell, A. (2014, July 15,). D.A. Jackie Lacey calls jailing of mentally ill a moral REPORT question. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, CA. 7 Sewell, A. (2014, November 12). In push to keep mentally ill out of jail, county to expand crisis centers, Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, CA. REPORT 8 Shabo, H. (2014, August 20). Governor Davis signs Laura’s Law: AB1421 will help those with severe mental illnesses who are too sick to help themselves. REPORT Retrieved from: http://oceanpark.com/notes/ab1421_background.html. 9 Simon, R. (2015, January 25). Crisis Stabilization of the Mentally Ill. CBS 60 Minutes (Television news program). New York, NY. REPORT 10 Superior Court of Orange County (2014). Annual Report, Collaborative Courts, p. 23, Santa Ana, CA. REPORT Swartz, M., Steadman, H. & Monahan, J (June 30, 2009). Program Evaluation: New 11 York State Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program Evaluation, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC. REPORT 12 Wolfson, B. J. (2014, October 25,). Psychiatric treatment in Orange County. Orange County Register. Santa Ana, CA. REPORT Zeller, S. (2013, September 16). Psychiatric boarding: Averting long waits in 13 emergency rooms. Psychiatric Times. Retrieved from: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com. REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 55 REPORT 1 The Mental Illness Revolving Door: A Problem for Police, Hospitals, and the Health Care Agency REPORT APPENDIX: ACRONYM LIST 2 AAOAPOD Adult and Older Adult Performance Outcome Department REPORT AOT Assisted Outpatient Treatment 3 BHS Behavioral Health Services REPORT CAT Centralized Assessment Team 4 CIT Crisis Intervention Training REPORT COPS Community Oriented Policing Services 5 CRT Crisis Response Team REPORT EPU Emergency Psychiatric Unit 6 ETS Evaluation and Treatment Services REPORT 7 FSP Full Service Partnership HCA Health Care Agency REPORT 8 LPS Lanterman-Petris-Short Act NAMI National Alliance on Mental Illness REPORT 9 PERT Psychiatric Evaluation and Response Team PES Psychiatric Emergency Services REPORT 10 PET Psychiatric Evaluation Team REPORT POST Peace Officers Standards and Training 11 TACT Time, Atmosphere, Communication, and Tone: A method of talking to the mentally ill REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 56
• CM49
  REPORT The 2014-2015 Grand Jury commends the OC Sanitation District and the OC 10 Water District for the partnership they developed to recycle wastewater for the beneficial use of north and central OC residents. Last year’s average of 77 mgpd of recycled REPORT water reduces dependence on more expensive imported water at a time when the 11 amounts of external water supplies are stressed by the State’s prolonged drought. The 2014-2015 Grand Jury commends the Irvine Ranch Water District for the REPORT years of recycling water for landscape irrigation leadership. Last year they recycled over 12 92% of the wastewater they received. REPORT REFERENCES 13 State of water, summer 2013: A call for investing in reliability.[Pamphlet]. (2013). Municipal Water District of Orange County. REPORT Municipal Water District of Orange County (2014). Water rates and charges. 14 Retrieved from http://www.mwdoc.com/pages.php?id_pge=166 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 10 REPORT Increasing Water Recycling: A Win-Win for Orange County 1 REPORT APPENDIX: 2 GLOSSARY AF. Acre-Foot. The amount of water needed to cover an acre (approximately a football REPORT field) one foot deep, or 325,900 gallons. One acre-foot can support the annual indoor 3 and outdoor needs of between one and two households per year, and, on average, three acre-feet are needed to irrigate one acre of farmland. REPORT Aquifer. A geologic formation of sand, rock and gravel through which water can pass 4 and which can store, transmit, and yield significant quantities of water to wells and springs. REPORT 5 Groundwater. Water that occurs beneath the land surface and fills partially or wholly pore spaces of the alluvium, soil, or rock formation in which it is situated. Does not REPORT include water which is being produced with oil in the production of oil and gas or in a 6 bona fide mining operation. Groundwater basin. A groundwater reservoir defined by all the overlying land surface REPORT and the underlying aquifers that contain water stored in the reservoir. Boundaries of 7 successively deeper aquifers may differ and make it difficult to define the limits of the basin. REPORT 8 Groundwater Replenishment System (GRS). An OCWD/OCSD joint project being developed to provide up to 100,000 acre-feet of reclaimed water annually for groundwater replenishment. Treated wastewater will undergo further treatment at REPORT OCWD-using the same technology as bottled water companies-before it is piped 9 northward along the Santa Ana River to replenish the groundwater basin in the inland part of the county. Visit the GWR System website (http://www.gwrsystem.com). REPORT 10 Imported water. Water that has originated from one hydrologic region and is transferred to another hydrologic region. Metropolitan Water District of Southern REPORT California(MET) imports water from the Colorado River and Northern California. MET’s 11 agency in OC is the Municipal Water District of OC (MWDOC). Potable water. Suitable and safe for drinking. REPORT 12 Primary treated water. First major treatment in a wastewater treatment facility, usually sedimentation removal but not biological oxidation. REPORT Recycling. A type of reuse, usually involving running a supply of water through a closed 13 system again and again. Legislation in 1991 legally equates the term “recycled water” to reclaimed water. REPORT 14 Santa Ana River Basin Aquifer. That portion of the Santa Ana River that is located within OC. REPORT Secondary Treatment. Generally, a level of treatment that produces 85 percent 15 removal efficiencies of biological oxygen demand and suspended solids. Usually carried out through the use of trickling filters or by the activated sludge process. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 11 REPORT Increasing Water Recycling: A Win-Win for Orange County 1 Tertiary treatment. The treatment of wastewater beyond the secondary or biological REPORT stage. Normally implies the removal of nutrients, such as phosphorous and nitrogen, 2 and a high percentage of suspended solids. REPORT Wastewater. Water that has been previously used by municipality/residences, industry 3 or agriculture and has suffered a loss of quality as a result of use. REPORT 4 REPORT 5 REPORT 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 12
• CM50
  THE ORANGE COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER: THE FACILITY, THE FUNCTION, THE FUTURE GRAND JURY 2014-2015 REPORT The Orange County Animal Shelter: the Facility, the Function, the Future 1 REPORT 2 REPORT 3 “Ever occur to you why some of us can be this much concerned with animals REPORT suffering? Because government is not. Why not? Because animals do not vote.” 4 Paul Harvey REPORT 5 REPORT 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 2 REPORT The Orange County Animal Shelter: the Facility, the Function, the Future 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS REPORT 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 5 REPORT 3 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 5 REPORT REASON FOR THE STUDY ........................................................................................... 6 4 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 7 REPORT Interviews ............................................................................................................ 7 5 Site Visits ............................................................................................................ 7 REPORT 6 Previous Grand Jury Reports ............................................................................ 7 Independent Reports on the OC Animal Shelter .............................................. 7 REPORT 7 Internet ................................................................................................................ 8 REPORT INVESTIGATION & ANALYSIS ...................................................................................... 8 8 FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................... 9 REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................. 10 9 REQUIRED RESPONSES ............................................................................................ 11 REPORT 10 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 15 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 3 REPORT The Orange County Animal Shelter: the Facility, the Function, the Future 1 REPORT 2 REPORT 3 REPORT 4 REPORT 5 REPORT 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 County and City Service Areas for Animal Shelter REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Page 4 REPORT The Orange County Animal Shelter: the Facility, the Function, the Future 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT 2 Orange County Animal Care (OCAC) is charged with caring for lost and abandoned animals from the unincorporated areas of Orange County (County) as well REPORT as from the 18 cities that contract with the County for animal shelter services. The 3 Orange County Animal Shelter (Animal Shelter) was built seven decades ago. Today, the 74-year-old facility is rundown, overcrowded, and unable to sustain the primary responsibility of OCAC: compassionate care of the County’s companion animals. The REPORT old, dilapidated, inadequate facility fails to provide a safe, clean environment for staff, 4 volunteers, and the public, and it is unable to provide adequate care of the animals. REPORT For more than 20 years, the Orange County Board of Supervisors (BOS) has 5 been keenly aware of the real and immediate need for a new shelter facility. In fact, in 1995 the BOS set aside seed money ($5 million) for the construction of a new animal REPORT shelter and directed County executives to move forward with the project. To date, 6 nothing substantive has been accomplished toward achievement of this task. In 1999, when the United States Marine Corps closed the Tustin Air Station, the REPORT County agreed to accept from the Department of the Navy (DoN) a five-acre site at the 7 Marine base for a future animal shelter facility. However, long-lingering environmental clean-up issues still need to be addressed by the DoN before conveyance of the REPORT property can take place. Environmental mitigation of contaminated ground water at the 8 site has been underway for 15 years, and the DoN cannot even predict a completion date. Meanwhile, the County has deferred any action with regard to the new shelter, preferring to wait for completion of the DoN’s clean-up of the Tustin site. The County REPORT has no backup plan or secondary site selected despite possible locations such as 9 County-owned property at the James A. Musick Facility, County-owned property at the Irvine Great Park, or sites in unincorporated Ladera Ranch. REPORT 10

Agency Responses 1

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.