Thursday, July 16, 2015
Laguna Hills City Meeting - July 14, 2015 - The City of Laguna Hills' Response to the first of the 2 scathing Grand jury Reports this year (The Orange County Animal Shelter: the Facility, the Function, the Future 5/21/15 )
regarding the current condition and function of the Orange County Animal Shelter.
The 74 year old Orange County Animal Shelter deficits are clearly defined by the OC Grand Jury's investigations noted below.
1. - If Animals Could Talk About the Orange County Animal Shelter - 6/17/15
http://www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/2014_2015_GJreport/Shelter_Performance_V8R2_web.pdf
2. - The Orange County Animal Shelter: the Facility, the Function, the Future 5/21/15
http://www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/2014_2015_GJreport/OC_animal_shelter.pdf
Three previous Grand Jurys also pointed out very significant deficits in this 74 year old County Shelter -
1. 1999-2000, We Can Do Better…Improving Animal Care in Orange County
http://www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/GJAnimalCare.pdf
2. 2003-2004, The Orange County Animal Shelter – Are Improvements
Needed?
http://www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/animalshelter.pdf
3. 2007-2008, Is Orange County Going to the Dogs?
http://www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/dogstudy/dog-study.pdf
This council's discussion was aimed at crafting a response to the 5/21/15 Grand Jury Report entitled - The Orange County Animal Shelter: the Facility, the Function, the Future
The facts reported by the Grand Jury included the following:
The old, dilapidated, inadequate facility fails to provide a safe, clean environment for staff, volunteers, and the public, and it is unable to provide adequate care of the animals.
For more than 20 years, the Orange County Board of Supervisors (BOS) has been keenly aware of the real and immediate need for a new shelter facility.
Structural integrity, cleanliness, and sanitation continue to be compromised and pose serious risks to human as well as animal health. The 74-year-old main structure is built of unreinforced brick, and it seems doubtful the structure would survive any seismic event. One member of the BOS has explained to the Grand Jury that the County is unable to inspect the roof of the main structure for fear of its collapse. There are no standard or regularly scheduled inspections of the Animal Shelter.
Assist. City Manager Don White opened the discussion by explaining that the Grand Jury report was critical of the County and it's efforts to build a new shelter.
**Editor's Note - I have recently criticized Don White because he has been a member of the Orange County Shelter's Financial and Operational Advisory Board for many years, including serving as the Chair of this board in 2013, but has never fully informed the residents of Laguna Hills regarding the severity of these chronic conditions at county animal shelter. As a consequences of these omissions of information, Laguna Hills residents, who may use only this shelter, are now having to read this information, from OC Grand Jury Reports.
We sincerely thank the OC Grand Jury, who give up their time for free, for working so hard this year to keep us informed.
Don White read the 4 findings of the first OC Grand Jury report this year which include the following:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
Assist. City Manager Don White also noted that the City need only respond to Recommendation # 4 from the Grand Jury Report which states - 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) Don White continued his explanation by referring the CA. Penal Code Section 933.05's parameters on how to respond and explained the option of 4 possible responses:
(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 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.
Assistant City Manager Don White recommended #2 of the 4 possible responses above - stating "The Recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The time frame for implementation is dependent on the Department of the Navy's completion of the following: 1) environmental documentation: 2) making the finding of suitability to transfer and 3) the processing of all necessary documentation to transfer land at the former Tustin Marine Corps Air station to the County of Orange."
White went on to say that this recommendation is consistent with the CITY'S LONG STANDING POLICY DIRECTIVE to the staff to work with the County of Orange and other contract cities to facilitate the planning and construction of a new county animal shelter at the Tustin Marine Corps Air Base.
Mayor Pro-Tem Barbara Kogerman stated she researched this "Long Standing Policy Directive" and found it in the City's 2011 - 2014 plan of work.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Dr. Jim Gardner, declared that he was speaking here as a Lake Forest Resident but is also currently a Lake Forest City Council Member. He noted that his City would be responding to this Grand Jury Report in one week. He spoke of his July 8, visit to the OC Animal Shelter, accompanied by his Lake Forest fellow city Council Member Adam Nick, Laguna Hills Mayor Pro-Tem Barbara Kogerman, and Rose Tingle. He said they found the OC Animal Shelter to be understaffed, poor physical resources, limited space for the animals, outdated with enclosures that belonged to another century and sparse environments that foster well being. He added they were shocked most by the noise and stench, and especially by the despair in the eyes of most of the animals. He explained that it was heartbreaking and several of them could not endure the extended visit without tears. He added they do not believe that the County has a viable plan to alter these situations in the foreseeable future. He noted the County has been promising to do this for the last 20 years, year after year. We believe the best way to represent our citizens reflect basic decency is to work together to explore the feasibility of locating, building, operating and maintaining a multi-city shelter to serve So. OC Cities. We believe such a shelter could provide a higher quality of care, and better service at a lower price.
Lynn Gabrielson - a business owner in Laguna Hills presented and described photos of the recent tour of the Orange County Animal Shelter described above by Dr. Gardner. She pointed out the jail next door to the shelter, the disarray and added her description of the overwhelming smell with animal feces, dirt and disrepair all over the place. She also showed contrasting photos of one of the new and modern Animal Shelters in Riverside.
Rose Tingle - from Laguna Woods, said she is with the Citizens for Animal Shelter, Orange County. We have been campaigning for better shelter services throughout Orange County. She noted that several cities in the North are looking and she played a video re. Animal Consciousness, explaining that scientifically animal and human consciousness are so similar that how we treat animals required re-defining. Rose noted that last year the County contributed on $250,000 to the $17 million shelter budget, so the longer we wait does not hurt the County but will be felt by the citizens, the cities and the animals. so, the sooner we withdraw from contracting with the County then the better services we can provide and have something we can all be proud of.
Randy Johnson - from Lake Forest noted that he is passionate about this subject and noted that in 2014 the Board of Supervisors raised the dog license fees. He said he researched license fees at other shelters in Orange County and surrounding counties and cities and learned that we pay between 35% and 500% more for our dog licenses than all the other agencies. He declared this is by far excessive!! He added that in his opinion we get lousy services for that. He noted that the Grand Jury reports contained damning evidence. He added this has been going on for 15 years and they refuse to fix the problems. You look at past performance to determine future performance and if this were the case with Orange County Animal Care, they would have been fired long ago. He added the County projects to spend next year $154,000 from it's General Fund in net cost and that's in the appendix of the budget. That is out of $5.8 billion budget and yet they make me pay these dog license fees. That is outrageous and insulting and the shelter's in terrible shape and still 20 to 30 minutes away from my home. He ended by advocating a local shelter for the South County Cities that are still contracted with the County because it would be cheaper than what we're paying now based on what Mission Viejo, Laguna Niguel and Aliso Viejo are paying for Mission Viejo Animal Services now. He stressed that last year Lake Forest spend over $600,000 including fees and General Fund Expenditures and they are paying more for less.
Julie Bierman - stated she is a resident of Laguna Hills who read a statement - The National PTA Congress issued the following statement many years ago. "Children trained to extend justice and kindness and mercy to animals become more just, kind and considerate in their relations to each other. Character training along these lines will result in men and women who have broader sympathies, are more humane, more law abiding, and in every respect more valuable citizens. Humane education with cultivation of compassion for animals and children the principles of justice, goodwill and humanity toward all life. The cultivation of spirit and kindness to animals is a starting point among every race we find. A generation of people trained in these principles will solve their international difficulties over the years.
Tom Epperson - Laguna Hills resident said, with all due respect to the staff report, the response they're suggesting is ridiculous. Number one, they're never going to build a shelter. Number two the only way we're ever going to get any animal care is by forming an association with Lake Forest and some of the other cities around here. I talked to some of you for the last 3 or 4 year about this and the Supervisors have talked for the last 34 years and nothing has happened, except the animals are in worse condition. With respect to some of the previous staff reports Laguna Hills pays less money but LH residents pay more related to some clever accounting they did when we talked abut his 2 years ago, so you're not going to save any money, neither the city nor the citizens of the city. It's something you should do. Do not accept that recommendation of the staff.
Michael Bland - Laguna Hills resident talked about a recent issue he had with the a County Shelter Services Animal Control Officer related to finding a dead skunk on his front lawn. He said he was going to throw it in the trash but his wife said told him that was not allowed by the trash collection service, so she called the County Shelter and reported the skunk which was placed in a plastic bag on the front porch for collection by the County's dead animal removal service. 3 days later the Animal Control Officer showed up and he asked why he was called. Mike responded, because we're supposed to. Mike stated that the ACO then said he would not have done that, he would just have put it in the trash. Mike said he wishes now he would have noted the ACo's badge # and name but he didn't. Mike noted that if we had our own shelter down here he believes the service would have been much better. He noted that he and his wife have worked with Mission Viejo Shelter people for years and the attitude is fantastic. So please consider the option of forming a shelter with other cities down here. As Mike sat down the Mayor Dore Gilbert thanked him for not placing the skunk on his front door step and everyone joined in the laughter.
Many others attending this council meeting related to the animal shelter issue including, Mayor Brad McGirr and Council member Mike Vaughn from Rancho Santa Margarita, and Amber Allison from Rancho Santa Margarita.
Mayor Pro-Tem Barbara Kogerman shared that she had received many e-mails from people from Laguna Hills who could not attend but wanted to be heard including Laura and Bob Dickson, Linda Williams, and Kathryn Singer. Mayor Pro-Tem Kogerman also presented a substitute response from the City to the OC Grand Jury related to keeping the City's options open to look at forming other animal care services with neighboring cities as well as considering any acceptable alternative that the County might offer related to providing a definite and timely plan as opposed to continued delays in service.
**Mayor Pro-Tem Kogerman stressed that the OC Grand Jury clearly pointed out that in a disaster, such as an earthquake, the County Animal Shelter would be unlikely to survive and that would leave all the member cities with no alternatives for caring for animals.
A Substitute to Assist City Manager Don White's Staff Response to the Grand Jury was Suggested by Mayor Pro-Tem Kogerman with a contribution from Mayor Gilbert related to not battling the County but considering all alternatives as the final response to the Grand Jury from the City of Laguna Hills was the following and was passed 5-0: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable as phrased. Instead the City intends to join with neighboring cities that currently contract with the Orange County Animal Care Services to pursue potential animal care opportunities. In addition, the City will ask the County to provide a viable plan with costs and schedule estimates for a new facility or facilities to evaluate as part of their review of alternative animal care opportunities.
Mayor Pro-Tem Kogerman also suggested that as An Alternative to the CITY's LONG STANDING POLICY DIRECTIVE that staff work with the County of Orange and other contract cities to facilitate the planning and construction of a new county animal shelter at the Tustin Marine Corps Air Base. Kogerman proposed that considering the 20 year patience that the city has shown, to no foreseeable results, while conditions at the Orange County Animal Shelter continued to deteriorate, it's time for the City Council to abandon it's long standing policy directive to staff of working with the County of Orange and other contract cities to facilitate the facilitate and planning and construction of a new County Animal Shelter at the former Tustin Marine Corps Airbase. Instead the City needs to put the Orange County Animal Care and the Board of Supervisors on notice that as the problem has not been adequately addressed related to the past 20 years of delays, the city will take steps to determine it's own destiny as related to the kind of animal care services its citizens and their pets deserve.
Kogerman added that while on her tour of the County Shelter she noticed that the staff members were very sincere and interested in helping the animals, but are overworked in a horrible facility, under horrible conditions and it's not wonder that volunteers don't want to be in a place like that. She noted the multiple failings of the County outlined by the Grand Jury in their report including the County's lack of will to change. Please See the complete report at: http://www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/2014_2015_GJreport/OC_animal_shelter.pdf
Following Mayor Pro-Tem Kogerman's suggestion for her alternate response that left the City with options there was a period of questions and a discussion related to the correct method of phrasing a response.
Mayor Dore Gilbert asked if there were any costs associated with Kogerman's alternate response recommendation? Kogerman answered, not at this time but in the future there would be a feasibility study to determine what the costs would be to build a shelter with neighboring cities. She estimated it might be $25 thousand to $30 thousand dollars or more split by the number of cities involved.
Council Member Melody Carruth expressed concern about alienating the County related to the wording of the City's response to the Grand Jury.
Council Member Don Sedgwick noted that everyone seems to be dependent here on a bottleneck related to the County with their revolving leaders and asked if there were any specific reasons to believe things would be different now than they've been in years past with the county?
Mayor Gilbert responded with - Probably not in this lifetime. Assist. City Manger White noted that we could look at the County's response to the Grand Jury to see what we could find.
Council Member Sedgwick also asked why a similar effort to coordinate with other cities for animal care services in the past had failed?
City Manager Channing responded that there was no land located to build a shelter.
Mayor Pro-Tem Kogerman very tactfully responded, that there was a letter involved to the other cities that was not very welcoming.
** Editor's Note - I can answer at least part of Council Member Sedgwick's question about past efforts to coordinate animal services with other cities, having been in the midst of that issue, in 2007 and having requested and received a copy of City Manager Channing's letter to the other cities involved. In my opinion it was clear that there was little to no will from the majority of the Laguna Hills City Council at that time, to form a cooperative group/JPA to consider jointly building and operating an animal shelter in South Orange County. San Juan Capistrano's city council had declared they were not interested and Laguna Hills was the lead city for this effort going forward, but Laguna Hills' City Council's lack of interest was communicated by Laguna Hill's Assistant City Manager Bruce Channing's initial letter to the other 3 cities involved (Lake Forest, Aliso Viejo, and Rancho Santa Margarita). Channing's letter was supposed to be an invitation to the other cities to consider an effort to explore the issue of collaborating with Laguna Hills on a joint animal shelter in So. County, however, his letter began with, "Intuitively speaking, it is difficult to envision this undertaking being feasible without the participation of all five cities. If the three contiguous cities of Mission Viejo, Laguna Niguel and Laguna Hills could not develop a mutually beneficially plan to serve our combined populations of approximately 200,000 people in a cost competitive fashion, it is unlikely that three or fewer non-contiguous cities could reasonably expect to do so. Therefore, if we do not receive a strong showing of interest among the cities enlisted for this study, I cannot assure you that our Council will vote to proceed with the study."
After we discovered City Manager Channing's letter, we (South County Animal Shelter Coalition representatives) had a meeting with Channing, at City Hall, in the presence of Council Member Melody Carruth, and Laguna Hills residents Tom Epperson, and Valerie Bromberg. During that meeting, and in the presence of all who attended, I asked City Manager Channing why his letter to the other cities was so negative and he responded that under his job title it was his prerogative to be negative if he wanted to be. It should also be noted that in March of 2008, the City of Aliso Viejo was able to work out a mutually beneficial plan to partner with the Mission Viejo Animal Shelter in a cost competitive fashion, by taking the spot that had been offered to Laguna Hills in 2006 and they have remained partners with the Mission Viejo Shelter ever since.
Also, as our group (South County Animal Shelter Coalition) reported less than 2 years ago Aliso Viejo, Laguna Niguel and Mission Viejo (with combined city and pet owner's fees) pay more than the (combined City of Laguna Hills and pet owners fees) to the County Animal Care Services.
As City Manager Channing noted we were indeed very unhappy with the City of Laguna Hills being the lead City the last time we explored this issue. So during this council meeting when Channing suggested that in looking for a South County Shelter with other cities we should let one of the other cities be the lead city for this issue, related to the fact that residents were unhappy with the lead from Laguna Hills the last time the city looked at this possibility. We now applaud Channing for his foresight related to suggesting the changes required in this effort.
Jean Bland - Editor and writer for the South County Animal Shelter Coalition and the Laguna Hills Watch Dog.
Council Member Sedgwick said he would like to leave options open with the County and also asked why would we not leave our other options open as well?
Council Member Andrew Blount asked if there were any representatives from the County attending this meeting, but there were no County Supervisors in attendance and there was no one who could speak for them.
***Editor's Note - We congratulate Mayor Pro-Tem Barbara Kogerman for touring to the County Shelter to investigate and for successfully countering the "Standard Staff Report" Response to the OC Grand Jury with a response that is clear and leaves our city with options! We also congratulate the other council members who assisted her to hone her response. We are grateful to have a city council that works together so well with each other and that spirit of cooperation was extended to their interactions with the other city leaders and guests who attended this council meeting. It was a pleasure to attend.
Monday, July 13, 2015
VERY IMPORTANT NOTICE for all people with Pets in Laguna Hills and Lake Forest re. the ORANGE COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER - PLEASE SEE BELOW:
LAGUNA HILLS - Tomorrow night, at 7 p.m on Tuesday July 14 at the Laguna Hills City Council Meeting at city hall. - 24035 El Toro Rd. Laguna Hills, CA 92653
And
Tuesday night, 7 p.m. July 21 at the Lake Forest city council meeting at city hall.
Laguna Hills and Lake Forest, who currently contract with the Orange County Animal Shelter, and will decide how they will respond to the last Orange County Grand Jury report this year which has clearly and concisely exposed the horrible conditions at this 74 year county animal shelter. Please see below for a summary of these reports and web addresses for viewing the entire reports.
It is essential that pet owning residents either attend these meetings at City Hall at 7 PM on Tuesday 7/14/15 or send e-mails to their city council members: at ccouncil@ci.laguna-hills.ca.us
Dore Gilbert, Mayor
Barbara Kogerman, Mayor Pro Tem
Andrew Blount, Council Member
Don Sedgwick, Council Member
Melody Carruth, Council Member
and County Supervisor - Lisa Bartlett for South OC - lisa.bartlett@ocgov.info to voice their concerns and opinions as these issues with the County Animal Shelter have persisted for more than 20 years with no significant changes and with a highly unlikely probability that the county will ever replace the current shelter. Even if the County did decide to honor it's commitment to it's residents for this service, the rate of growth in the county would soon overwhelm one new shelter unless plans are made for multiple shelters located throughout the county.
A big question for the 18 member cities of the County Animal Shelter is should we stop wasting any more energy on trying to get the county to replace the county shelter and form a South County Animal Shelter of our own. The county has been telling the public for close to 20 years that they will replace the county shelter but have made NO PROGRESS, while every year they routinely continue to tell us this proces will only take another 2 to 5 years. Despite all of this, one of our council members in Laguna Hills has consistently continued to support the County's lack of effort claiming that concern for all animals in Orange County, not just ours in Laguna Hill. One of the major flaws in this reasoning is that all animals at the Orange County Shelter would directly and immediately benefit from the So. County Cities breaking away from the county shelter related to an overall reduction in the numbers of animals admitted every year to the County Shelter.
Another disappointment for Residents of Laguna Hills is that our Assist. City Manager, Don White, who is supposed to be serving our residents under the direction of City Manager Bruce Channing, has been a member of the Orange County Shelter's Financial and Operations Advisory Board for many years, including serving as the Chair of this board in 2013, but has never been forthcoming with residents of Laguna Hills regarding the severity of these problems that we are now having to hear from the OC Grand Jury. We thank the OC Grand Jury for these 2 thorough investigations and champion their honesty and courage.
Facts about the County Shelter from the OC Grand Jury Reports this year.
This crumbling 74 year old County Animal Shelter that was built in 1941 to serve about 200,000 residents has never been replaced or significantly updated and is now attempting to serve almost 3 million residents.
If Animals Could Talk About the Orange County Animal Shelter 6/17/15
http://www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/2014_2015_GJreport/Shelter_Performance_V8R2_web.pdf
Brief Summary of text -
The 2014 - 2015 Orange County Grand Jury (OCGJ) discovered that the OC Animal Care has been of countywide concern for several years, as indicated by three prior OCGJ reports. The reports focused on deficiencies in policies and procedures; inadequate staffing; poor employee attitudes; low morale; and lack of communication and cooperation among management, veterinary staff, and kennel staff.
The County agreed with the previous OCGJ findings, but chose not to implement the Grand Jury recommendations.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury found that the Orange County Animal Shelter has serious problems that have needed attention for many years. In addition to the desperate need for a new shelter facility, there have been complaints and allegations from a number of sources inside and outside the Animal Shelter that have focused on the lack of leadership throughout the Orange County Community Resources and Animal Care chain of command. This alleged void in leadership has resulted in either the inability of management to define the problems at hand or, if defined, an unwillingness to correct them. It has been alleged by many that the lack in leadership has led to a few mid-management personnel assuming control of the Animal Shelter daily operations with little or no oversight from upper management.
Additional information has led the Orange County Grand Jury to investigate concerns regarding employee morale, human and animal health issues, feral cat policies, and allegations of criminal behavior. Also, there have been indications of conflict between veterinarians and management staff with regard to medical decisions. The Orange County Grand Jury investigation found substantial factual support for all these allegations. In 2014, a workplace investigation report of the Animal Shelter was ordered by the Board of Supervisors and conducted by an outside firm whose findings revealed that there is significant evidence to support the complaints and allegations.
REASON FOR STUDY
The 2014-2015 OCGJ received written and verbal complaints from current and former employees, including veterinarians, and from various humane organizations. Many of these alleged problems were the same as those discussed in the 1999-2000, 2003-2004, and 2007-2008 OCGJ reports: organizational malfunctions relative to poor morale, unfair hiring and promotion practices; and, mistreatment and mishandling of the animals. As a result of these complaints and allegations, the 2014-2015 OCGJ launched an investigation to determine whether the various claims were valid and whether prior OCGJ recommendations had been implemented.
During an initial visit, the 2014-2015 OCGJ immediately noted that the Animal Shelter was rundown and in dire need of major repair or replacement. During the ensuing investigation, the OCGJ looked into several areas of concern. Among these were the following: health risks, environmental concerns, inhumane treatment of animals, staff training, alleged criminal behavior, and personnel issues.
Soaking the Dogs
During the Animal Shelter inspection, the OCGJ observed that the kennels were hosed down while dogs were in the kennels. The OCGJ has confirmed during various interviews that this was a common, everyday practice. The OCGJ could find no justification to support the practice of soaking the dogs. The accepted standard for cleaning kennels is the “move-one-down” method to avoid soaking the animals. This is accomplished by moving the dog from an adjacent kennel down one kennel into an empty clean kennel. The “move-one-down” method for cleaning kennels is considered one of the best methods in the industry as it helps to lower the dogs’ susceptibility to disease (JVR Shelter Strategies, 2014, p. 15; UC Davis, 2007).
The OCGJ learned during an interview with OC Animal Care management that OC Animal Care was understaffed by approximately 20%. The loss of ACOs has caused significant delays in field services. There have been times when there was only one ACO available to respond to service calls throughout the entire County. On November 4, 2014, the Grand Jury learned that there were 29 vacant Animal Shelter positions that would be filled as soon as possible. As of February 2015, eight of those 29 positions had been filled.
Cat Trailers
During the inspection of the Animal Shelter, Grand Jury members entered one of the cat trailers and were overwhelmed by the strong odor of cat urine. In the two main trailers that house cats, there was limited air flow and no air conditioning. There was also a small cat isolation structure that was in total disrepair. These cat structures had environments that increased the vulnerability and exposure to disease.
The Orange County Animal Shelter: the Facility, the Function, the Future 5/21/15
http://www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/2014_2015_GJreport/OC_animal_shelter.pdf
“Ever occur to you why some of us can be this much concerned with animals suffering? Because government is not. Why not? Because animals do not vote.” Paul Harvey
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Orange County Animal Care (OCAC) is charged with caring for lost and abandoned animals from the unincorporated areas of Orange County (County) as well as from the 18 cities that contract with the County for animal shelter services. The 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 old, dilapidated, inadequate facility fails to provide a safe, clean environment for staff, volunteers, and the public, and it is unable to provide adequate care of the animals.
For more than 20 years, the Orange County Board of Supervisors (BOS) has 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 shelter and directed County executives to move forward with the project. To date, nothing substantive has been accomplished toward achievement of this task. In 1999, when the United States Marine Corps closed the Tustin Air Station, the County agreed to accept from the Department of the Navy (DoN) a five-acre site at the 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 property can take place.
Environmental mitigation of contaminated ground water at the 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 has no backup plan or secondary site selected despite possible locations such as County-owned property at the James A. Musick Facility, County-owned property at the Irvine Great Park, or sites in unincorporated Ladera Ranch.
The Animal Shelter facility is 74 years old and is in utter disrepair. Over time, the shelter’s expansion has been limited to the piecemeal placement of sheds, gazebos, lean-tos, trailers, and miscellaneous pre-fabricated units. Structural integrity, cleanliness, and sanitation continue to be compromised and pose serious risks to human as well as animal health (JVR Shelter Strategies,2014; UC Davis Report, 2008).
The 2014/15 budget for OCAC is $17,862,307. OCAC is virtually self-supporting through fees generated from the 18 contract cities and the unincorporated areas with occasional contributions from the County’s general fund.. The contract cities pay the County for services provided, primarily picking up of dead or injured animals and animal licensing services. The contracting city also pays the County for its stray animals that are impounded at the Animal Shelter. The cities are billed by the County in arrears for these services on a quarterly basis. These fees do not cover the costs of any capital outlay. Thus, the contracting cities do not contribute toward the costs of animal shelter structures, buildings, kennels, or the veterinarian medical clinic. When contacted by the Grand Jury in connection with this report, several of the contract cities explained that they had explored the feasibility of establishing their own animal shelter facility but had found this alternative to be more costly than continuing to contract with the County.
In 1995, the BOS set aside $5 million in seed money for the design and construction of a new animal shelter. There were a series of debits to this fund at a time when the animal care function was a division of the OC Health Care Agency. These debits were for preliminary consultant studies regarding possible facility designs, an environmental study, and architectural designs: all of which were ultimately abandoned. The remaining balance in the set-aside fund is now $4.4 million
The 74-year-old main structure is built of unreinforced brick, and it seems doubtful the structure would survive any seismic event. One member of the BOS has explained to the Grand Jury that the County is unable to inspect the roof of the main structure for fear of its collapse. There are no standard or regularly scheduled inspections of the Animal Shelter. The Grand Jury has found evidence of only one inspection ever conducted at the shelter: in December 2008, the California State Board of Veterinary Examiners inspected the veterinary clinic only, but not the entire facility.
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.
Previous Grand Jury Reports on Deficiencies of the Orange county Animal Shelter.
1. 1999-2000, We Can Do Better…Improving Animal Care in Orange County
2. 2003-2004, The Orange County Animal Shelter – Are Improvements
Needed?
3. 2007-2008, Is Orange County Going to the Dogs?
http://patch.com/california/lakeforest-ca/animal-care-lake-forest-next-step by Lake Forest resident and council member - Dr. Jim Gardner.
http://voiceofoc.org/2015/07/tingle-cities-arent-waiting-for-county-anymore-to-build-animal-shelter/ by Laguna Woods Resident - Rose Tingle.
Citizens for Animal Shelter, Orange County - https://www.facebook.com/pages/Citizens-for-Animal-Shelter-Orange-County/1488250344739258
South County Animal Shelter Coalition - http://scasc1.blogspot.com/
LAST BUT VERY IMPORTANT!!! - These cats do need to get out of this County Animal Shelter !!!
CATOPIA EVENT at the OC ANIMAL SHELTER on SATURDAY JULY 25 - 10 AM to 2 PM.
561 The City Drive, Orange, CA
FREE CAT ADOPTIONS - does not include the cost of microchip and limit of 2 cats per household.
For more information call 714-935-6848
or go to www.ocpetinfo.com
LAGUNA HILLS - Tomorrow night, at 7 p.m on Tuesday July 14 at the Laguna Hills City Council Meeting at city hall. - 24035 El Toro Rd. Laguna Hills, CA 92653
And
Tuesday night, 7 p.m. July 21 at the Lake Forest city council meeting at city hall.
Laguna Hills and Lake Forest, who currently contract with the Orange County Animal Shelter, and will decide how they will respond to the last Orange County Grand Jury report this year which has clearly and concisely exposed the horrible conditions at this 74 year county animal shelter. Please see below for a summary of these reports and web addresses for viewing the entire reports.
It is essential that pet owning residents either attend these meetings at City Hall at 7 PM on Tuesday 7/14/15 or send e-mails to their city council members: at ccouncil@ci.laguna-hills.ca.us
Dore Gilbert, Mayor
Barbara Kogerman, Mayor Pro Tem
Andrew Blount, Council Member
Don Sedgwick, Council Member
Melody Carruth, Council Member
and County Supervisor - Lisa Bartlett for South OC - lisa.bartlett@ocgov.info to voice their concerns and opinions as these issues with the County Animal Shelter have persisted for more than 20 years with no significant changes and with a highly unlikely probability that the county will ever replace the current shelter. Even if the County did decide to honor it's commitment to it's residents for this service, the rate of growth in the county would soon overwhelm one new shelter unless plans are made for multiple shelters located throughout the county.
A big question for the 18 member cities of the County Animal Shelter is should we stop wasting any more energy on trying to get the county to replace the county shelter and form a South County Animal Shelter of our own. The county has been telling the public for close to 20 years that they will replace the county shelter but have made NO PROGRESS, while every year they routinely continue to tell us this proces will only take another 2 to 5 years. Despite all of this, one of our council members in Laguna Hills has consistently continued to support the County's lack of effort claiming that concern for all animals in Orange County, not just ours in Laguna Hill. One of the major flaws in this reasoning is that all animals at the Orange County Shelter would directly and immediately benefit from the So. County Cities breaking away from the county shelter related to an overall reduction in the numbers of animals admitted every year to the County Shelter.
Another disappointment for Residents of Laguna Hills is that our Assist. City Manager, Don White, who is supposed to be serving our residents under the direction of City Manager Bruce Channing, has been a member of the Orange County Shelter's Financial and Operations Advisory Board for many years, including serving as the Chair of this board in 2013, but has never been forthcoming with residents of Laguna Hills regarding the severity of these problems that we are now having to hear from the OC Grand Jury. We thank the OC Grand Jury for these 2 thorough investigations and champion their honesty and courage.
Facts about the County Shelter from the OC Grand Jury Reports this year.
This crumbling 74 year old County Animal Shelter that was built in 1941 to serve about 200,000 residents has never been replaced or significantly updated and is now attempting to serve almost 3 million residents.
If Animals Could Talk About the Orange County Animal Shelter 6/17/15
http://www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/2014_2015_GJreport/Shelter_Performance_V8R2_web.pdf
Brief Summary of text -
The 2014 - 2015 Orange County Grand Jury (OCGJ) discovered that the OC Animal Care has been of countywide concern for several years, as indicated by three prior OCGJ reports. The reports focused on deficiencies in policies and procedures; inadequate staffing; poor employee attitudes; low morale; and lack of communication and cooperation among management, veterinary staff, and kennel staff.
The County agreed with the previous OCGJ findings, but chose not to implement the Grand Jury recommendations.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury found that the Orange County Animal Shelter has serious problems that have needed attention for many years. In addition to the desperate need for a new shelter facility, there have been complaints and allegations from a number of sources inside and outside the Animal Shelter that have focused on the lack of leadership throughout the Orange County Community Resources and Animal Care chain of command. This alleged void in leadership has resulted in either the inability of management to define the problems at hand or, if defined, an unwillingness to correct them. It has been alleged by many that the lack in leadership has led to a few mid-management personnel assuming control of the Animal Shelter daily operations with little or no oversight from upper management.
Additional information has led the Orange County Grand Jury to investigate concerns regarding employee morale, human and animal health issues, feral cat policies, and allegations of criminal behavior. Also, there have been indications of conflict between veterinarians and management staff with regard to medical decisions. The Orange County Grand Jury investigation found substantial factual support for all these allegations. In 2014, a workplace investigation report of the Animal Shelter was ordered by the Board of Supervisors and conducted by an outside firm whose findings revealed that there is significant evidence to support the complaints and allegations.
REASON FOR STUDY
The 2014-2015 OCGJ received written and verbal complaints from current and former employees, including veterinarians, and from various humane organizations. Many of these alleged problems were the same as those discussed in the 1999-2000, 2003-2004, and 2007-2008 OCGJ reports: organizational malfunctions relative to poor morale, unfair hiring and promotion practices; and, mistreatment and mishandling of the animals. As a result of these complaints and allegations, the 2014-2015 OCGJ launched an investigation to determine whether the various claims were valid and whether prior OCGJ recommendations had been implemented.
During an initial visit, the 2014-2015 OCGJ immediately noted that the Animal Shelter was rundown and in dire need of major repair or replacement. During the ensuing investigation, the OCGJ looked into several areas of concern. Among these were the following: health risks, environmental concerns, inhumane treatment of animals, staff training, alleged criminal behavior, and personnel issues.
Soaking the Dogs
During the Animal Shelter inspection, the OCGJ observed that the kennels were hosed down while dogs were in the kennels. The OCGJ has confirmed during various interviews that this was a common, everyday practice. The OCGJ could find no justification to support the practice of soaking the dogs. The accepted standard for cleaning kennels is the “move-one-down” method to avoid soaking the animals. This is accomplished by moving the dog from an adjacent kennel down one kennel into an empty clean kennel. The “move-one-down” method for cleaning kennels is considered one of the best methods in the industry as it helps to lower the dogs’ susceptibility to disease (JVR Shelter Strategies, 2014, p. 15; UC Davis, 2007).
The OCGJ learned during an interview with OC Animal Care management that OC Animal Care was understaffed by approximately 20%. The loss of ACOs has caused significant delays in field services. There have been times when there was only one ACO available to respond to service calls throughout the entire County. On November 4, 2014, the Grand Jury learned that there were 29 vacant Animal Shelter positions that would be filled as soon as possible. As of February 2015, eight of those 29 positions had been filled.
Cat Trailers
During the inspection of the Animal Shelter, Grand Jury members entered one of the cat trailers and were overwhelmed by the strong odor of cat urine. In the two main trailers that house cats, there was limited air flow and no air conditioning. There was also a small cat isolation structure that was in total disrepair. These cat structures had environments that increased the vulnerability and exposure to disease.
The Orange County Animal Shelter: the Facility, the Function, the Future 5/21/15
http://www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/2014_2015_GJreport/OC_animal_shelter.pdf
“Ever occur to you why some of us can be this much concerned with animals suffering? Because government is not. Why not? Because animals do not vote.” Paul Harvey
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Orange County Animal Care (OCAC) is charged with caring for lost and abandoned animals from the unincorporated areas of Orange County (County) as well as from the 18 cities that contract with the County for animal shelter services. The 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 old, dilapidated, inadequate facility fails to provide a safe, clean environment for staff, volunteers, and the public, and it is unable to provide adequate care of the animals.
For more than 20 years, the Orange County Board of Supervisors (BOS) has 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 shelter and directed County executives to move forward with the project. To date, nothing substantive has been accomplished toward achievement of this task. In 1999, when the United States Marine Corps closed the Tustin Air Station, the County agreed to accept from the Department of the Navy (DoN) a five-acre site at the 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 property can take place.
Environmental mitigation of contaminated ground water at the 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 has no backup plan or secondary site selected despite possible locations such as County-owned property at the James A. Musick Facility, County-owned property at the Irvine Great Park, or sites in unincorporated Ladera Ranch.
The Animal Shelter facility is 74 years old and is in utter disrepair. Over time, the shelter’s expansion has been limited to the piecemeal placement of sheds, gazebos, lean-tos, trailers, and miscellaneous pre-fabricated units. Structural integrity, cleanliness, and sanitation continue to be compromised and pose serious risks to human as well as animal health (JVR Shelter Strategies,2014; UC Davis Report, 2008).
The 2014/15 budget for OCAC is $17,862,307. OCAC is virtually self-supporting through fees generated from the 18 contract cities and the unincorporated areas with occasional contributions from the County’s general fund.. The contract cities pay the County for services provided, primarily picking up of dead or injured animals and animal licensing services. The contracting city also pays the County for its stray animals that are impounded at the Animal Shelter. The cities are billed by the County in arrears for these services on a quarterly basis. These fees do not cover the costs of any capital outlay. Thus, the contracting cities do not contribute toward the costs of animal shelter structures, buildings, kennels, or the veterinarian medical clinic. When contacted by the Grand Jury in connection with this report, several of the contract cities explained that they had explored the feasibility of establishing their own animal shelter facility but had found this alternative to be more costly than continuing to contract with the County.
In 1995, the BOS set aside $5 million in seed money for the design and construction of a new animal shelter. There were a series of debits to this fund at a time when the animal care function was a division of the OC Health Care Agency. These debits were for preliminary consultant studies regarding possible facility designs, an environmental study, and architectural designs: all of which were ultimately abandoned. The remaining balance in the set-aside fund is now $4.4 million
The 74-year-old main structure is built of unreinforced brick, and it seems doubtful the structure would survive any seismic event. One member of the BOS has explained to the Grand Jury that the County is unable to inspect the roof of the main structure for fear of its collapse. There are no standard or regularly scheduled inspections of the Animal Shelter. The Grand Jury has found evidence of only one inspection ever conducted at the shelter: in December 2008, the California State Board of Veterinary Examiners inspected the veterinary clinic only, but not the entire facility.
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.
Previous Grand Jury Reports on Deficiencies of the Orange county Animal Shelter.
1. 1999-2000, We Can Do Better…Improving Animal Care in Orange County
2. 2003-2004, The Orange County Animal Shelter – Are Improvements
Needed?
3. 2007-2008, Is Orange County Going to the Dogs?
http://patch.com/california/lakeforest-ca/animal-care-lake-forest-next-step by Lake Forest resident and council member - Dr. Jim Gardner.
http://voiceofoc.org/2015/07/tingle-cities-arent-waiting-for-county-anymore-to-build-animal-shelter/ by Laguna Woods Resident - Rose Tingle.
Citizens for Animal Shelter, Orange County - https://www.facebook.com/pages/Citizens-for-Animal-Shelter-Orange-County/1488250344739258
South County Animal Shelter Coalition - http://scasc1.blogspot.com/
LAST BUT VERY IMPORTANT!!! - These cats do need to get out of this County Animal Shelter !!!
CATOPIA EVENT at the OC ANIMAL SHELTER on SATURDAY JULY 25 - 10 AM to 2 PM.
561 The City Drive, Orange, CA
FREE CAT ADOPTIONS - does not include the cost of microchip and limit of 2 cats per household.
For more information call 714-935-6848
or go to www.ocpetinfo.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)