County Responds to Grand Jury on Animal Shelter - Part 1

The County failed to meet the deadline to respond to the Grand Jury report on the condition of animal care, but on Tuesday (Sept 1) the Board of Supervisors will discuss a proposed response. On the agenda are two proposed responses since there were two Grand Jury Reports. This is the first article in a series reporting on the County response.

GRAND JURY REPORT #1

The first report was released on May 21 2015 and called – “The Orange County Animal Shelter: The Facility, the Function, the Future.” The executive summary said –

“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.”

FINDING 1 – LACK OF LEADERSHIP

The report had several findings. The primary findings was –

“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 County said it “disagrees wholly with the finding” and then presented a long list of failed attempts to provide a new shelter. The long list of failed attempts should, in fact, support the Grand Jury’s finding of a “lack of leadership” on the part of the Board of Supervisors and the “failure to address the need of new Animal Shelter facilities”, but apparently, in the mindset of the Board of Supervisors, failure is success. The County, in their defense, notes that a “draft business plan” was recently completed, as if a “draft” business plan just completed in 2015 was somehow an indication of leadership and success.

What the County does not understand, and what the Grand Jury and every animal welfare expert knows, is that a single shelter to handle the needs of 30,000+ animals per year is a recipe for disaster. Even in the face of evidence and expert opinion, the County still clings to their desire for a single shelter to serve the needs of an entire county, over 1000 square miles in size.

Having a single shelter located in Orange or Tustin means that people who live in South County will get poor service, with dead animals lying around for days before they’re picked up. It means if you lose a pet you’ll have to drive for 30 minutes or more to get to the shelter. It means that if they picked up your stray animal, he/she had to sit in a box (possibly along with other strays) for up to 8 hours before returning to the one single shelter. It means if you wanted to volunteer to help, you’d have to spend at last an hour per day to get back and forth. No other County of our size has a single shelter, and many counties with far less people and size have 2 and 3 shelters. The idea of a County single shelter shows that the Board of Supervisors knows absolutely nothing about animal care and is completely unconcerned with the needs of their citizens. The Grand Jury is correct, and the response of the County is wholly inadequate.

FINDING 2 – LACK OF CONCEPTUAL PLANS AND COSTS

The second major finding was –

“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 “disagrees partially” and then “concurs with the fact that conceptual plans and/or schematic designs have not been provided with cost estimates to the contract cities.”

Duh! Did I miss something? The County agrees but simultaneously disagrees. The fact is that there are no “conceptual plans or drawings or planned projects with cost estimates.” The County says they have a “draft” business plan they hope to present and maybe they will have some plans sometime in the future. Why don’t they simply state the truth? Even more worrisome than the deplorable conditions is the fact that the County now tries to deny what everyone else knows to be true.

THE BIG LIE –

Throughout the County’s response, the County repeats this sentence –

“The contract cities have consistently indicated there is broad support for the construction of a new Shelter at the Tustin site…”

Hmmm. Have I been reading the papers correctly? It seems to me that contract cities like Rancho Santa Margarita, Laguna Hills, Lake Forest, San Juan Capistrano, and Brea have all indicated that they are exploring alternatives to the County shelter. Does that sound like “broad support”?

Tomorrow we’ll look at the second Grand Jury report.

COMMENTS

It came to my attention that at times the COMMENTS section of the Patch doesn’t work. I have no control over this. I can neither enable nor disable the Comments section nor can I delete or edit other people’s work. If you encounter this problem, please notify the Patch. If you want to discuss the issues raised in these articles you’re welcome to join more than 300 of us at Lake Forest Town Square, or you can e-mail me individually, come to my office hours, or attend my Town hall meetings.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr. Jim Gardner is on the City Council for Lake Forest. You can check him out on LinkedIn and/or Facebook and you can share your thoughts about the City at Lake Forest Town Square on Facebook. His comments are not meant to reflect official City Policy.

Dr. Gardner has office hours every Tuesday from 3 pm to 5 pm at the City Hall. In addition, he holds a town hall meeting every quarter. The next meeting will be on December 12 at 2 pm at the El Toro Public Library