📋

Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Orange County Grand Jury • 2014-2015

Investigation & Analysis In 1995, the BOS set aside $5 million in seed money for the design and

Published: June 16, 2014 2 pages

View PDF View Full Original

⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.

⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

Findings 4 findings

The Grand Jury has concluded that the County’s lack of leadership, lack of commitment to animal care, and the prioritization of other Orange County Community Resources Department functions ahead of Orange County Animal Care are the primary reasons for failure to address the need of new Animal Shelter facilities.

The 18 cities that contract with Orange County Animal Care for shelter services have not had an opportunity to contribute to capital costs for a new Animal Shelter facility, or facilities, because they have not been shown any conceptual plans or drawings of planned projects with cost estimates.

The County has not developed any viable conceptual plan for a new animal shelter facility at the Marine Corps Air Station-Tustin, or at any other location, for presentation to the 18 contracting cities despite the cities’ need to see plans before committing to support the project.

Multiple county animal shelters are the standard throughout California counties of similar geographic size and population. In the event of a shutdown at the Orange County Animal Shelter because of quarantine, earthquake, or other disaster, animal-care services in the unincorporated areas of Orange County and the contract cities would cease. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014-15 Grand Jury requires responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation of Orange County Animal Care, the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following four recommendations:

Recommendations 4

R1

The Orange County Board of Supervisors, County Executive Officer, and Director of Community Resources should place a high priority on the design and construction of new, adequately sized, staffed, and funded animal shelter facilities; and should pursue this long overdue project until such time that construction is completed. (F-1, F-4)
R2

The Orange County Board of Supervisors should investigate and analyze the advisability and feasibility of selecting two or three sites for construction of animal care shelters to provide services accessible to all parts of the County. (F-4) The Orange County Animal Shelter: the Facility, the Function, the Future 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury
R3

R4 1 County Chief Executive Officer X X X X 2 Director of Orange County Community Resources X X X X 3 Orange County Board of Supervisors X X X 4 Mayor City of Anaheim X 5 Mayor City of Brea X 6 Mayor City of Cypress X 7 Mayor City of Fountain Valley X 8 Mayor City of Fullerton X 9 Mayor City of Garden Grove X 10 Mayor City of Huntington Beach X 11 Mayor City of Laguna Hills X 12 Mayor City of Lake Forest X 13 Mayor City of Orange X 14 Mayor City of Placentia X 15 Mayor City of Rancho Santa Margarita X 16 Mayor City of San Juan Capistrano X 17 Mayor City of Santa Ana X 18 Mayor City of Stanton X 19 Mayor City of Tustin X 20 Mayor City of Villa Park X 21 Mayor City of Yorba Linda X RESPONSE MATRIX
R4

The 18 contracting cities need to review their long-term commitment to be part of Orange County Animal Care as opposed to pursuing animal-care opportunities on their own or joining with neighboring cities that have shelters. The contracting cities need to demand that the County provide them a viable plan with cost and schedule estimates for a new facility or facilities to evaluate as part of their commitment review. (F-4) REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code section 933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for The Orange County Animal Shelter: the Facility, the Function, the Future 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section 933.05 are required from: Requested Responses: Responses to F-1 and F-4 are requested from the County Executive Officer. Responses to F-1, F-2, F-3, and F-4 are requested from the Director of Orange County Community Resources. Responses to Recommendations R-1 and R-3 are requested from the County Executive Officer. Required Responses: Response to F-4 is required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Responses to Recommendations R-1 and R-2 are required from the County Board of Supervisors. Responses to Recommendation R-4 are required from the Mayors of the 18 Animal Shelter contract cities (listed below): The City of Anaheim The City of Brea The City of Cypress The City of Fountain Valley The City of Fullerton The City of Garden Grove The Orange County Animal Shelter: the Facility, the Function, the Future 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury The City of Huntington Beach The City of Laguna Hills The City of Lake Forest The City of Orange The City of Placentia The City of Rancho Santa Margarita The City of San Juan Capistrano The City of Santa Ana The City of Stanton The City of Tustin The City of Villa Park The City of Yorba Linda See also Response Matrix below for summary of required responses. The Orange County Animal Shelter: the Facility, the Function, the Future 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury The Orange County Animal Shelter: The Facility, The Function, The Future F1 F2 F3 F4 R1 R2 R3 R4 1 County Chief Executive Officer X X X X 2 Director of Orange County Community Resources X X X X 3 Orange County Board of Supervisors X X X 4 Mayor City of Anaheim X 5 Mayor City of Brea X 6 Mayor City of Cypress X 7 Mayor City of Fountain Valley X 8 Mayor City of Fullerton X 9 Mayor City of Garden Grove X 10 Mayor City of Huntington Beach X 11 Mayor City of Laguna Hills X 12 Mayor City of Lake Forest X 13 Mayor City of Orange X 14 Mayor City of Placentia X 15 Mayor City of Rancho Santa Margarita X 16 Mayor City of San Juan Capistrano X 17 Mayor City of Santa Ana X 18 Mayor City of Stanton X 19 Mayor City of Tustin X 20 Mayor City of Villa Park X 21 Mayor City of Yorba Linda X RESPONSE MATRIX Findings RESPONDENTS Recommendations The Orange County Animal Shelter: the Facility, the Function, the Future 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury