📋
Extraído del Informe Consolidado

Esta investigación fue publicada originalmente como parte de un informe consolidado más amplio que contiene múltiples investigaciones. Consulte el PDF consolidado para ver el documento completo.

Lake County Grand Jury • 2010-2011

Public Safety Committee South Lake Holding Facility At Least the Cell Doors Lock

Published: June 30, 2011 10 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings and Recommendations 16 findings

F1 Page 148
The conditions in the South Lake Holding Facility reflect a total lack of respect.
Related Recommendations (5)
R1
Page 148
Place SLHF on the Lake County Public Health Officer’s routine inspection schedule. (F1, F2, F3)
R2
Page 148
Someone assume the responsibility to clean and maintain the holding facility on a regular basis. (F1, F2, F3, F7, F9)
R3
Page 148
Store cleaning supplies in the locked closet for immediate use. (F1, F3, F4) 2010-2011 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Public Safety Committee
R4
Page 149
Replace officers’ makeshift desk and equipment in the guard area with newer, more functional pieces from the County’s surplus inventory. (F1, F4).
R5
Page 149
Improve the lighting for both safety and morale. (F1, F2, F6)
F2 Page 148
SLHF is an old facility and is not required to be maintained by today’s safety and health standards. Lake County Public Health Department informed the Grand Jury that it has not been inspecting this facility.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1
Page 148
Place SLHF on the Lake County Public Health Officer’s routine inspection schedule. (F1, F2, F3)
R2
Page 148
Someone assume the responsibility to clean and maintain the holding facility on a regular basis. (F1, F2, F3, F7, F9)
R5
Page 149
Improve the lighting for both safety and morale. (F1, F2, F6)
R6
Page 149
As protruding plumbing creates a potential suicide-by-hanging hazard, remove pipes from women’s holding cell wall. (F2, F7, F9)
F3 Page 148
Inmate areas were found to be poorly maintained, dirty and unsanitary.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1
Page 148
Place SLHF on the Lake County Public Health Officer’s routine inspection schedule. (F1, F2, F3)
R2
Page 148
Someone assume the responsibility to clean and maintain the holding facility on a regular basis. (F1, F2, F3, F7, F9)
R3
Page 148
Store cleaning supplies in the locked closet for immediate use. (F1, F3, F4) 2010-2011 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Public Safety Committee
F4 Page 148
Since there are no cleaning supplies available, Sheriff Officers are unable to perform emergency cleanups.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3
Page 148
Store cleaning supplies in the locked closet for immediate use. (F1, F3, F4) 2010-2011 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Public Safety Committee
R4
Page 149
Replace officers’ makeshift desk and equipment in the guard area with newer, more functional pieces from the County’s surplus inventory. (F1, F4).
F5 Page 148
Sheriff Officers’ furniture is old and makeshift.
No recommendations for this finding
F6 Page 148
Ambient lighting is insufficient.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Page 149
Improve the lighting for both safety and morale. (F1, F2, F6)
F7 Page 148
In the women’s holding cell, there are nonoperational shower pipes protruding from the wall; this is in an alcove not visible to correctional officers.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2
Page 148
Someone assume the responsibility to clean and maintain the holding facility on a regular basis. (F1, F2, F3, F7, F9)
R6
Page 149
As protruding plumbing creates a potential suicide-by-hanging hazard, remove pipes from women’s holding cell wall. (F2, F7, F9)
F8 Page 148
Open urinal grates without adequate plumbing are unhealthy and unsanitary.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
Page 149
Correct plumbing regarding the open urinal grate. (F8) Request for Responses: Pursuant to Penal Code 933.05 the Grand Jury requests responses as follows:  County Sheriff (60 days)  Public Health Department via Board of Supervisors (90 days)  Board of Supervisors (90 days) 2010-2011 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Public Safety Committee 2010-2011 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Public Services Committee Public Services Committee Table of Contents  Oversights City Of Clearlake Animal Control 137 A Great Idea, if not a Desperate One East Lake/West Lake 143 Resource Conservation Districts (RCD) Lake County Animal Care and Control Oversight 147 We’re not asking for perfection, just a step in the right direction. Lake County Public Service Department Oversight 157 Question: How many hats can a department head wear? 2010-2011 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Public Services Committee 2010-2011 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Public Services Committee City Of Clearlake Animal Control A Great Idea, if not a Desperate One Summary: Saving money during a depressed economic time is akin to grabbing the brass ring, but saving money by not doing a complete job is lacking in fiscal maturity. Substituting County Animal Control with a city run animal shelter saves money, but leaves the City of Clearlake in a reduced state of animal control service. The City of Clearlake began an uphill journey toward a lofty goal. The timeline needed to develop this fledgling service to its full potential of self-reliance was not well planned. Background: The history of the City of Clearlake Animal Control (CCAC) is short. CCAC was brought into being in November of 2009. The concept of a city-run Animal Control was adopted by the City Council as a massive cost saving measure during a crunch time as an afterthought within an already approved budget. With reductions in City funding, the saving of over $100,000 per year was a very enticing idea. The results as shown on the chart attached to this report show a great savings, and it also shows a substantial reduction in performance. The current services offered by the City of Clearlake are mostly dog-oriented. Larger or exotic animals are handled by the County. Cats, most especially feral cats, are generally ignored. The largest problem in both Clearlake and all of Lake County is the feral cat explosion. Reductions in service will not solve this problem. The original concept of an animal control facility in the City of Clearlake was a “seat of the pants” plan to balance the budget. The plan’s long term goal is for a modern, independent animal control facility dedicated to humane treatment of animals and equal to any city or county of its size. Procedure: Interviews were conducted by the Public Services Committee at the Clearlake Animal Control office located in the Clearlake City Hall and at the City Animal Control facility at the city maintenance yard on Old Hwy 53. Several documents were requested, received and reviewed to produce facts in this report. Many County documents were also reviewed for the comparison of facts. Discussion and Facts: 1. The Public Services Committee first toured the Clearlake shelter on September 13, 2010 and observed six dog pens and 20 cat cages with one dog pen unusable. Animal population at that time was four dogs and three cats. The facility currently has one paid staff person and one part-time volunteer to assist with shelter duties. 2. During the Public Services Committee’s second tour of the shelter on 2010-2011 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Public Services Committee December 2, 2010, it was learned that Clearlake Animal Control picked up 406 dogs and cats for the calendar year-to-date. 91 were transferred to the Lake County Animal Care and Control (LCACC) facility at an initial charge of $71 per animal paid for by the City of Clearlake, and 315 were sent to foster homes or other rescue shelters. 3. The current City of Clearlake Animal Control shelter shares a corrugated metal building with city equipment at the city maintenance yards on Old Hwy 53 in the City of Clearlake. 4. Several cages for dogs and cats are arranged on a cement floor for ease of cleaning. A cleaning disinfectant used is called Kennelsol and is effective against most animal diseases. The pens are cleaned and sanitized daily by pressure hose. 5. The exercise area is blacktop to facilitate cleaning and disinfecting. The exercise area is also cleaned and sanitized to prevent the spread of diseases. 6. Plans have been approved for a new floor under the cages that will be elevated and sloped to provide for better drainage and cleanliness. Although Clearlake’s Department of Public Works had planned on completion of this elevated floor improvement by winter of 2010, no work was started as of December 2, 2010. 7. A study done by Stanford University’s Department of Environmental Health concluded that feral cats pose no health threat to humans. Feral cats also pose no threat to bird or other wild life populations. Feral cats’ diets generally consist of garbage, carrion and vegetation. 8. Animal rescue groups are heavily involved in assisting with picking up and spaying and neutering feral cats when requested. One local rescue group makes cages available with a $10 returnable deposit. 9. Working in conjunction with this local animal rescue group, the CCAC Shelter has 27 foster homes available to house cats or dogs until they are adopted or sent to other placement shelters. 10. During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009, LCACC picked up 1,502 assorted animals in the City of Clearlake. In a similar time period, January 2010 to November 2010, Clearlake Animal Control picked up 406 assorted animals. This represents a drop in animal services to the City of Clearlake of 73%. 11. Plans for a new and modern animal control facility to greatly improve and expand animal control service have been submitted by Clearlake Animal Control for budget approval. 12. Clearlake Animal Control activity has included the issuance of 730 animal licenses from November 2009 to November 2010. January 2010 to November 2010 statistics include: 45 animal bite citations issued with 10 additional cases investigated for possible animal bites, 91 notices of 2010-2011 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Public Services Committee violation issued for possible animal neglect which resulted in 59 citations being issued, and 109 reports written regarding overall daily activities. 13. Committee research of documentation shows that spaying and neutering occur much less frequently than euthanasia. Lake County’s euthanasia rate is higher than nearby counties’, the State’s, and the Nation’s. Several populous counties in the state have begun to look into and institute Trap/Neuter/Release programs. The results of these programs have been shown to reduce feral cat populations and reduce euthanasia overall. 14. The current average cost of spaying or neutering a dog or cat in Lake County is $116. In Sonoma County, the average is $92; in Napa County, it is $62.50. The following examples illustrate how the cost of euthanasia of animals can escalate beyond the cost of spaying and neutering, which is a static figure less than the cost of euthanasia: Example (a): “Fido” is taken from CCAC to the Lake County Animal Shelter as a stray. At the time of arrival, the shelter charges the City of Clearlake $43 for the intake, which includes one initial day of care. The dog is then held for two additional days (required by law) at a cost of $9 a day. After that, if the shelter has not adopted the dog out, it will euthanize the animal at a cost of $33. This totals $94 for the impoundment and euthanasia of the animal that CCAC pays to LCACC. Example (b): If an animal bites a human and needs to be held for ten days in bite quarantine (required by law), Lake County Animal Care and Control (LCACC) will charge $43 at the time of transfer for intake and one day of care. The animal must be held for nine additional days at a cost of $9 per day. In addition, the shelter charges a quarantine fee of $50. If the animal is euthanized after being held for a ten day holding period, an additional charge of $33 is required. This totals $207 for the impoundment and euthanasia of the animal paid by the City of Clearlake. Example (c): If an animal is impounded because of a violation and the owner is identified, it must be held for ten days (required by law). LCACC will charge $43 at the time of the transfer for the intake and one day of care. The animal will then be held for nine more days at a cost of $9 per day. If after ten days the animal is not redeemed by its owner and it is determined to be unadoptable, it will then be euthanized at a cost of $33. This totals $157 the City of Clearlake pays for the impoundment and euthanasia of the animal. 2010-2011 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Public Services Committee 15. Because of the costs cited by CCAC, very few cats are included in Clearlake Animal Control services. 16. The attached
F9 Page 148
The Grand Jury was informed that the Sheriff is responsible only for transport and security, and the Court had no knowledge of responsibility; therefore, the Grand Jury was unable to discover just exactly who is responsible for cleaning and maintaining the holding facility. Recommendations:
Related Recommendations (2)
R2
Page 148
Someone assume the responsibility to clean and maintain the holding facility on a regular basis. (F1, F2, F3, F7, F9)
R6
Page 149
As protruding plumbing creates a potential suicide-by-hanging hazard, remove pipes from women’s holding cell wall. (F2, F7, F9)
F10 Page 156
Spaying and neutering animals is less costly than euthanasia.
No recommendations for this finding
F11 Page 156
Utilizing the significant savings the City of Clearlake has achieved by starting its own fledgling animal control facility, it could seriously consider advancing toward its ultimate goal of a permanent modern facility. Staying within budgetary constraints, the city could move the facility beyond its temporary status (Appendix A). 2010-2011 Lake County Civil Grand Jury
No recommendations for this finding
F12 Page 154
Clearlake Animal Control activity has included the issuance of 730 animal licenses from November 2009 to November 2010. January 2010 to November 2010 statistics include: 45 animal bite citations issued with 10 additional cases investigated for possible animal bites, 91 notices of 2010-2011 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Public Services Committee violation issued for possible animal neglect which resulted in 59 citations being issued, and 109 reports written regarding overall daily activities.
No recommendations for this finding
F13 Page 155
Committee research of documentation shows that spaying and neutering occur much less frequently than euthanasia. Lake County’s euthanasia rate is higher than nearby counties’, the State’s, and the Nation’s. Several populous counties in the state have begun to look into and institute Trap/Neuter/Release programs. The results of these programs have been shown to reduce feral cat populations and reduce euthanasia overall.
No recommendations for this finding
F14 Page 155
The current average cost of spaying or neutering a dog or cat in Lake County is $116. In Sonoma County, the average is $92; in Napa County, it is $62.50. The following examples illustrate how the cost of euthanasia of animals can escalate beyond the cost of spaying and neutering, which is a static figure less than the cost of euthanasia: Example (a): “Fido” is taken from CCAC to the Lake County Animal Shelter as a stray. At the time of arrival, the shelter charges the City of Clearlake $43 for the intake, which includes one initial day of care. The dog is then held for two additional days (required by law) at a cost of $9 a day. After that, if the shelter has not adopted the dog out, it will euthanize the animal at a cost of $33. This totals $94 for the impoundment and euthanasia of the animal that CCAC pays to LCACC. Example (b): If an animal bites a human and needs to be held for ten days in bite quarantine (required by law), Lake County Animal Care and Control (LCACC) will charge $43 at the time of transfer for intake and one day of care. The animal must be held for nine additional days at a cost of $9 per day. In addition, the shelter charges a quarantine fee of $50. If the animal is euthanized after being held for a ten day holding period, an additional charge of $33 is required. This totals $207 for the impoundment and euthanasia of the animal paid by the City of Clearlake. Example (c): If an animal is impounded because of a violation and the owner is identified, it must be held for ten days (required by law). LCACC will charge $43 at the time of the transfer for the intake and one day of care. The animal will then be held for nine more days at a cost of $9 per day. If after ten days the animal is not redeemed by its owner and it is determined to be unadoptable, it will then be euthanized at a cost of $33. This totals $157 the City of Clearlake pays for the impoundment and euthanasia of the animal. 2010-2011 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Public Services Committee
No recommendations for this finding
F15 Page 156
Because of the costs cited by CCAC, very few cats are included in Clearlake Animal Control services.
No recommendations for this finding
F16 Page 156
The attached Appendix A shows animal control expenses for the City of Clearlake from Fiscal Year 2007-2008 and Fiscal Year 2010-2011. Findings: F 1. The facility is well maintained and clean, but it appears to be a temporary facility. F 2. The cleaning and disinfecting of all areas habited by the animals was found to be adequate. F 3. A new tilted floor under the pens and cages is already funded and is to be in place this winter. This is for better drainage during cleaning. F 4. If CCAC continues to operate at the same level of staffing (one Animal Control Officer), building a new facility will not remedy Clearlake’s animal control problems. F 5. The number of animals picked up while the City of Clearlake still had its contract with LCACC declined substantially from the number it picked up after the formation of this facility, and can be directly attributed to “understaffing.” The concept of a city animal control facility independent of the County is a long-term project requiring increased financing in the future. F 6. CCAC receives assistance from many private animal care organizations with low or no cost services and supplies. These organizations also contribute many volunteer hours and provide temporary homes for animals in the process of being adopted. F 7. Current plans include making improvements to the temporary CCAC facility. Long range plans are to build a modern animal control facility adequately staffed to perform required duties. F 8. Basically operating as a one man operation, the shelter excels in licensing, issuing citations, and reporting. The number of animals picked up is the main reduction in service. F 9. Trap/Neuter/Release programs have been proven to reduce feral cat populations and thus reduce high euthanasia numbers. Several large and small counties in the state have reported the same result. F 10. Spaying and neutering animals is less costly than euthanasia. F 11. Utilizing the significant savings the City of Clearlake has achieved by starting its own fledgling animal control facility, it could seriously consider advancing toward its ultimate goal of a permanent modern facility. Staying within budgetary constraints, the city could move the facility beyond its temporary status (Appendix A). 2010-2011 Lake County Civil Grand Jury
No recommendations for this finding