HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2008-07-14 #VAGENDA STAFF REPORT
s
DATE: July 14, 2008
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: David Carmany, City Manager
FROM: Jeff Kirkpatrick, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: FORMAL RESPONSE O.C. GRAND JURY REPORT -
"IS ORANGE COUNTY GOING TO THE DOGS?"
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
California Penal Code §933 and §933.05 mandate a formal response from city
mayors and agency heads commenting on Grand Jury findings and
recommendations. The 2007-2008 Orange County Grand Jury addressed the
issue of cities deferring the costs of animal control to the Orange County Animal
Care agency (formerly known as the O.C. Animal Control agency). The Grand
Jury's report, "!s Orange Coun Going to the Dogs?"specifically demands
• responses to one finding and one recommendation within its report.
BACKGROUND:
The Seal Beach Police Department administers the City of Seal Beach animal
control program. The City of Seal Beach (City) does not contract with Orange
County Animal Care for any services. The City contracts with two outside
agencies for animal control services:
1. The City of Long Beach Animal Control Bureau: license canvassing,
animal pick-ups, animal welfare enforcement, etc.
2. The Friends of Seal Beach Animal Care Center: an "open-shelter," "no-
kill," animal housing/adoption facility located in the City of Seal Beach and
operated by a private foundation.
The City defers no costs to the Orange County Animal Care agency.
The Seal Beach Chief of Police, as the agency head managing the City's animal
control contracts, has drafted the necessary formal responses for signature. The
responses declare, in the language mandated by the Grand Jury, a neutral
position on the issues.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
•
Agenda Item V
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff submits to the Mayor and City Council a response letter for the Mayor's
signature formally responding to the O.C. Grand Jury dictates. Attached with the •
Mayor's response letter is one signed by the Chief of Police in the capacity of the
agency head responsible for animal control within the City.
Staff recommends that the Mayor and City Council accept and file the letters.
Both letters are then to be forwarded to the presiding judge of the O.C. Superior
Court, pursuant the law.
SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED:
r Patrick, Chief of P David Carmany, City Manager
Attachments:
A. Orange County Grand Jury report, "Is Orange County Going to the Dops~"
B. Mayor's formal Grand Jury response letter
C. Agency head's (Police Chief) formal Grand Jury response letter •
•
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY
700 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701.714/834-3320
FAX 714/834-5555
May 28, 2008
Charles Antos, Mayor
City of Seal Beach
211 8"' Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Deaz Mayor Antos:
Enclosed is a copy of the 2007-2008 Orange County Grand Jury report, "Is Orange County Going to the
Dogs?" Pursuant to Penal Code 933.05(f), a copy of the report is being provided to you at least two working days
prior to its public release. Please note that, "No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency
shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report." (Emphasis added.) It is
required that you provide a response to each of the findings and recommendations of this report directed to your
office in compliance with Penal Code 933.05(a) and (b), copy attached.
For each Grand Jury recommendation accepted and not implemented, provide a schedule for future
implementation. In addition, by the end of Mazch of each subsequent year, please report on the progress being
made on each recommendation accepted but not completed. These annual reports should continue until all
• recommendations are implemented.
It is requested that the response to the recommendations be mailed to Nancy Wieben Stock, Presiding Judge
of the Superior Court, 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701, with a separate copy and an
electronic format (PDF on CD preferred) mailed to the Orange County Grand Jury, 700 Civic Center Drive
West, Santa Ana, CA 92701, no later than 90 days after the public release date, June 3, 2008, in compliance with
Penal Code 933, copy attached. The due date then is September 2, 2008.
Should additional time for responding to this report be necessary for further analysis, Penal Code 933.05(b)(3)
permits an extension of time up to six months from the public release date. Such extensions should be advised in
writing, with the information required in Penal Code 933.05(b)(3), to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court,
with a separate copy of the request to the Grand Jury.
We tentatively plan to issue the public release on June 3. Upon public release, t'ne report wiIl be available on t'~e
Grand Jury web site (www.ocsrandiurv.ora).
AAA:dv
Enclosures•
• Grand Jury Report
Penal Code 933, 933.05
trul yo ,
e
2007-2008 O G LINTY GRAND JURY
IS ORANGE COUNTY GOING TO THE DOGS?
• SUMMARY
Like many California counties, Orange County has an animal overpopulation problem.
The increase in the number of pets in a community is generally proportionate to the
increase inhuman population, and the population in Orange County has been growing
steadily. Along with the growth in the pet population comes the need for care and
control of those animals that may become lost, abandoned, surrendered or neglected
by irresponsible owners. Most of the burden for the well-being and control of these
animals falls to the Orange County Animal Care Services (Now called OC Animal
Care under OC Community Resources which reports to the County Executive Office).
Treatment and care are important, but this study focuses on pet population control.
During a review of the County Animal Shelter operations, the 2007-2008 Orange
County Grand Jury learned that animals have proper board and care, but they have a
brief window of survival. A caveat concerning animals brought to the County Shelter
is that they have less than a 50/50 chance of survival because, if not adopted within a
short timeframe, they may be euthanized. In 2006-2007, the County Shelter
euthanized over 13,000 animals at a cost of $322,478.1 The reasons can be attributed
to several factors.
Pets are not usually brought to public or private shelters to be euthanized. They are
• brought because they are abandoned newborns, unwanted, Iost or stray, injured or
sick, or vicious and dangerous. The shelters may accept and care for the animals that
are waiting for adoption or retrieval by their owners. But they are not always adopted
or retrieved. Local shelter operators may perform a mental triage on a pet brought to
them on the basis of how much room is available and what the odds are that someone
will adopt it. Many city and private shelters focus on the probability of adoption.
Some city and private shelters may suggest that owners drop off the pet at OC Animal
Care and the County Shelter will try to fiord a home for it. When this happens the
limited-access shelters (also called "no-kill" shelters) that suggest owners take their
pet to the OC Animal Care are no longer responsible for what happens to the animal.
They can continue to claim that they are a no-kill shelter all the while knowing that the
animals they have rejected will most likely be euthanized. Animals brought into the
County Shelter are well cared for while waiting to be reclaimed or adopted. Despite
such humane treatment, if the animal is not adopted within four days to two weeks, it
is usually euthanized.
The tragedy of euthanasia is the typical, not the occasional, situation for many reasons.
First, the County Shelter is not in the business of selling animals. It is acting as a
public health service to prevent rabies and other animal-borne diseases from affecting
people. Some shelters can refer to themselves as a no-kill shelter because they know
that they can refuse unadoptable animals which will most likely end up at the County
• i From fiscal year 2006-2007, as stated in letter to Grand Jury from Animal Care Services, HCA, Apri19,
2008
-the animal's last hope of survival. Thus, the stigma and cost of euthanasia falls to
OC Animal Care. The Grand Jury found that this results in something of a "blame
game." The no-kill shelters can deny the pet owner's request to take the pet knowing
full well that the County, an open-access shelter, must accept all animals.
The number of animals accepted by the County Shelter and the high volume that are
euthanized ate perplexing problems confronting the County and pet owners. The main
reason that the County Shelter is full and many animals are euthanatized is that pet
owners, in many cases, have allowed their animals to reproduce beyond the owner's
ability to take care of the offspring. The Grand Jury determined that there should be
some form of mandatory spay/neuter ordinance for all Orange County cities and the
unincorporated areas. This would reduce the animal population, save taxpayers
money, and lower the number of pets being euthanized.
REASONS FOR INVESTIGATION
In 2007, the OC Animal Care received about 29,000 animals and placed many of them.
Despite this fine accomplishment some 13,000 animals were euthanized in fiscal yeaz
2006-2007. The number of euthanized animals led the Grand Jury to question why the
figure is so high. A lazge percentage of the animals euthanized was due to lack of space
at the County Shelter. A spay/neuter program seems to be a viable alternative to
euthanasia and a solution for the animal overpopulation problem.
In the past, mandatory spay/neuter ordinances have been considered but have not been
adopted. Even when such an ordinance has been enthusiastically proposed, cities in
Orange County have failed to support adoption. The City of Huntington Beach recently
adopted a microchip licensing process and attempted to combine it with a mandatory
spay/neuter ordinance. Initially, the City Council was in favor of it, but when push
came to shove, the matter was postponed for further study. Currently, the pets that are
adopted from County and city shelters aze required by State law to be spayed/neutered,
but neither the County nor cities have a mandated spay/neuter ordinance.
The Grand Jury studied the spay/neuter issue to determine if the County of Orange
should implement a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance to control the over-population of
animals and reduce the cost of euthanasia.
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION
To find out why there is currently no mandatory spay/neuter ordinance in Orange
County, members of the Graad Jury reviewed County and city animal regulations and
ordinances, the ordinances of surrounding counties, and the laws of California and
other states regarding animal control. The Grand Jury also conducted interviews and
visited County and city shelters to determine if an ordinance could help eliminate the
overpopulation of animals, many of which end up being euthanized.
•
2
BACKGROUND AND FACTS
• Animal Care Services
OC Animal Care (OCAC) operates the County Animal Shelter, which provides
services to 22 cities and the unincorporated areas of Orange County 24 hours a day.
The Shelter is over 65 years old and is squeezed tightly into afour-acre site in the City
of Orange. It assists people with their animal concerns in a county covering 700
square miles with approximately three million people in 850,000 households. The
County Animal Shelter is the lazgest of its kind west of the Mississippi. The County
Shelter has 872 cages with a capacity for 382 dogs, 435 cats, 25 rabbits, and 30
overIlow cubicles for pigs, goats, horses, etc. To say that the Shelter has a tight fit is
an understatement.
The County's current shelter was built in 1941 to serve a county of 200,000 people -
about the population of Huntington Beach or Irvine today. For decades, efforts to
build a new shelter have failed. In the last 10 yeazs, two previous Grand Jury reports
mentioned the need to build a new shelter.2 The 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report stated
that, "plans for relocating the facility to the site of the former Marine Corps Air
Station in Tustin are pmgressing.s3 However, four years later, when the 2003-2004
Grand Jury reviewed the shelter issue again, its report stated that, "...it appears that
there aze only two viable options: either the Animal Shelter must be relocated
elsewhere or ACS should consider making use of `excess' space at one or more city-
. run animal shelters."~ Again, four yeazs later, nothing has happened.
There is hope. The County is making an effort to build a new shelter at the former
Tustin Marine Corps Air Station by pushing plans through the Federal bureaucracy.
Past efforts to get Federal approval have not been successful. There aze other
possibilities: a site in Santa Ana and another at the former El Toro Marine Corps Air
Station. However, those possibilities seem even further out than the Tustin timeline.
Even if the new site in Tustin is approved, it may only be able to handle an increase in
the animal caseload for a few years unless the pet population tsunami is stabilized or
reversed. Based on county records and growth rates, according to OCAC, the future
animal population projections would put the new shelter at maximum capacity in
about five yeazs. To lower the euthanasia count aad reduce the overpopulation of
unwanted animals in the future, some form of mandatory spay/neuter program may be
required.
The staff at the County Animal Shelter is skilled, hazdworking and dedicated. Yeazly,
their veterinarians perform about 5,000 spay/neuter procedures. In 2007 the staff took
:Orange County Register article, March 7, 2008, by T. Sforra
a 1999-2000 County of Orange Grand Jury Report, "We can do Better... Improving Animal Care in Orange
County."
• a 2003-2004 County of Osage Grand Jury Report, "The Orange County Animal Services -Are
Improvements Needed?"
3
in 29,000 animals, licensed 160,000 dogs, and managed 44,000 service or phone calls,
and did it with 147 employees and 130 volunteers, s Through its outreach efforts and •
working with some 200 rescue organizations, the OCAC reunited or placed over
15,000 animals last year. Adoptions were up for the third year in a row. Despite these
efforts, the County Shelter is nearly always full.
Regardless of the Shelter's location, it will always have a shortage of capacity because
it is an open access shelter. Unlike most other shelters in the county, it takes in any
animal that is dropped off. It takes injured, sick or stray animals. It also accepts
animals from different cities and five other shelters. The Grand Jury learned about
shelter selectivity from the following example: a popular dog like a Jack Russell
terrier would be accepted by a local shelter because finding a new owner is fairly easy.
But if a pit bull is brought in, the pet owner maybe turned away because the local
shelter will have a hard time finding it a home. As anopen-access shelter, the County
obviously has a higher animal population and thus a higher kill rate than limited-
access shelters.
The Euthanasia Issue
In 2007, 13,000 animals were euthanized at the Orange County Animal Shelter. This
number will continue to grow because the number of animals in the county increases
each year. This growth in animal population will continue until the number is reduced
through some form of intervention such as a mandatory spay/neuter program. In 2006_,
the OC Animal Care impounded 17,691 dogs with most adopted or recleaned and just
4,341 (24%) euthanized. Of the 15,705 cats brought to the shelter, only 467 were
reclaimed by their owners, another 4,361 were adopted by new owners, and 9,711 cats
were euthanized (61 %).6 The average total cost to the County to euthanize an animal is
$159.
The South County Dilemma
The policies and location of the County Animal Shelter are major issues with pet
owners residing in South Orange County. The primary concerns of people in that area
are:
• The distance from South County to the present County Shelter
• The County's euthanasia policy
• Adequacy of field service (such as service calls, animal retrieval, etc.)g
While some of the cities have created their own animal shelters, most still contract
with the County Shelter. Mission Viejo, Irvine, Laguna Beach, and San Clemente
have their own city shelters. Other cities also use these shelters: Dana Point with San
s Statistics from ACS power poi presentation, July 19, 2007
s California Dept. of Public Health, Veterinary Public Health, 2006 •
This includes the cost to board an animal for 5 days, and for euthanization and disposal.
° South Orange County Anunal Services Feasibility Study Guidelines, March 18, 2008
4
Clemente, Laguna Niguel with Mission Viejo, Costa Mesa with Irvine, and Laguna
• Woods with Laguna Beach. These facilities are limited-access service shelters formed
to serve their local communities as opposed to the County's open-access Shelter that
serves everyone. The cities of Aliso Viejo, Laguna Hills, Lake Forest, and Rancho
Santa Margarita have explored other options, such as forming a South County Joint
Powers Authority to locate, build and operate an animal shelter to provide services in
the South County. At present, Aliso Viejo is in negotiations with Mission Viejo,
while Rancho Santa Margarita is still reviewing its options. After studying the issue,
Laguna Hills and Lake Forest chose to continue using the County's Animal Care for at
least two reasons:
1. Historically, other animal shelter operations in South Orange County have
been unwilling to provide services on a mutual contract basis.
2. It is too costly for smaller cities to undertake extensive services on their own.
There is also a "wait-and-see" attitude regarding the building of a new shelter at the
former Tustin Marine Corps Air Station, which some South County cities consider
close enough to provide faster service. This project has been discussed and advocated
to the Board of Supervisors over the years and is again on the Boazd's radaz.
5pay/Neuter Programs
Uncontrolled reproduction is a factor in the county's high pet population. It is
• estimated that the average fertile cat hypothetically can produce three Itters a yeaz
with each litter being four to six kittens, while the average fertile dog can produce two
litters yearly at an average of six to ten puppies a litter.9 Using these figures, one can
see how the pet population could greatly increase unless the means and regulations aze
put in place to control pet reproduction. Unlike the Serengeti, urban environments are
"space-limited" with few natural predators.
It is estimated that six to eight million cats and dogs enter shelters in the United States
each year. Of these, approximately half are adopted and half are euthanized.10 That is
disheartening news for animal advocates. To offset this high euthanasia rate, many
cities, counties, and even states have adopted mandated spay/neuter programs with
remarkable results. In 1988, the State of New Hampshire had a similar percentage to
what Orange County had in 2007, of animals euthanized relative to the number
impounded. New Hampshire is often cited as a successful mandated program as it has
dramatically reduced the number of euthanized pets. In the first two years of New
Hampshire's program, the killing of animals in shelters dropped 38%.11 Eight years
after New Hampshire implemented its mandated spay/neuter law, euthanasia was
reduced by 82%. iz
9 The Humane Society of the United States
10 The Humane Society of the United States
i i SPAY, "Top Ten Things We've Learned from New Hampshire's Spay/Neuter Program," 1996
'Z STOP USA Report, State Programs, New Hampshire, 2002
5
The City and County of San Francisco also showed dramatic results by joining forces •
with the San Francisco Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) to
eliminate euthanasia as the common fate of homeless cats and dogs. They created a
model mandatory program which has been used by communities worldwide. Its success
is based on several elements, the main one beiaghiglyvolume spay/neuter surgery to
reduce pet overpopulation and shelter intake, The results over a 12-year period show
that the number of cats and dogs entering the San Francisco shelter system dropped by
41% from 13,189 to 7,836. From 2002 to 2003, the figures for euthanasia dropped from
2,163 to 1,606.13
In 2005, OC Animal Care impounded 9,754 stray dogs of which 6,300 had not been
previously sterilized.14 Using the 13,000 number of Orange County animals
impounded and euthanized in fiscal year 2006-2007, multiplied by the State figure for
the average stay of five days, plus euthanasia and disposal costs, a mandatory
spay/neuter law could save the County about $21 million over eight years.ls
State Assembly Bill 1634
The OCAC's animal care and control ordinances are based upon State law. 16 A
current legislative bill, AB 1634, buried in the bowels of the State Senate, would
establish a mandatory spay/neuter law if passed. AB 1634 could be a remedy for the
future overpopulation of animals by implementing a mandatory spay/neuter law for
dogs and cats. It currently sits in the Senate Business and Professional Committee. It •
is an active bill and, if passed, would be part of the Civil Code § 1834.4 and Sections A
& B of the Food & Agriculture Code.
Nearly a million cats and dogs are abandoned in California yearly, adding a financial
burden to public and private shelters.l~ Proponents of AB 1634 state that, for every
dollaz spent on spay/neuter surgeries, taxpayers would save about $169 in future
animal control cost over a 10-yeaz time frame. If left unspayed or unneutered, animals
will multiply beyond the capacity of our shelters. Even private shelters and volunteer
rescue groups will not have enough space available.
The proposed AB 16341egislation prohibits anyone from owning an unaltered dog or _
cat that is more than six months of age unless issued an exemption permit. The
exemption pernut fee, if any, will be determined by the local jurisdiction.
Municipalities can continue to charge a higher annual licensing fee for unaltered
animals. Fines for failure to alter an animal could be used for the cost of
administration and, if available, to fund free or low-cost spay/neuter programs and
educational efforts at the community level. Overtime, enforcement of the bill could
13 San Francisco SPCA, spay usa.org/main
14 Orange County Animal Care Services letter dated May 6, 2006
is Using a similar success rate as cited in New Hampshire
ie Orange County Codified Ordinances, Title 4, Chpt 1-106
~~ www.healthypets.com
help reduce the animal overpopulation and save public funds, but at this time the
• estimated cost savings and cost of the program have not been determined.
Since all counties and most cities adopt their animal regulations from the California
Codes, the proposed law would help ease Orange County's animal overpopulation and
reduce the operating cost of the County Animal Shelter. The Board of Supervisors
had not taken a stand on AB 1634 at the time of this report.
County of Los Angeles Ordinance
In February 2008, the City of Los Angeles took a major step towards reducing
euthanasia of unwanted pets. The City followed the lead of the County of Los
Angeles and 10 other cities in Los Angeles County with similar ordinances.
The L.A. County mandatory spay/neuter ordinance requires the owner or custodian of
a dog over the age of four months either to have the pet altered or to obtain an
unaltered dog license and pay an annual dog license fee three times the cost of a
license for an altered dog. There are exceptions for "hobby breeders" and
"competition dogs" that are documented by recognized kennel organizations. Other
exemptions are dogs used by law enforcement, a qualified service or assistance dog or
a dog which is unable to be spayed or neutered due to illness or age (requiring written
confirmation from a licensed veterinarian).
• The penalties for violations of any provision of the L.A. County ordinance are steep:
the first violation fine is not to exceed $250 - but a "second violation within a year of
a first violation is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for a
period not to exceed six months or by a fine not to exceed $1,000 or by both such fine
and imprisonment.s18
As a side note, the County of Riverside recently prepared a mandatory spay/neuter
ordinance and will be presenting it to its Board of Supervisors for approval. It
incorporates many of the features in the L.A. County mandatory spay/neuter
ordinance. It also includes spaying and neutering of cats. As of this writing the
County of Riverside had not taken action on the ordinance.
Proposed Orange County Ordinance
An Orange County ordinance could easily be drafted using some of the pertinent
provisions from the existing L.A. County and the proposed Riverside County
spay/neuter ordinances. One of the provisions could include Riverside's proposed
program of a mandatory spay/neuter requirement for cats as well as dogs. An initial
assessment of a mandator~- spay/neuter ordinance was provided by OCAC staff as to
what would be included.l The Grand Jury reviewed this assessment and suggests that
the following points be considered in a revised ordinance.
S ~s LA County Ordinance Section 1, Section 10.20.375
i9 Orange County Animal Care Service letter dated May 6, 2006
7
• Mandate the spaying/neutering of all animals covered in the proposed •
ordinance except those issued exemptions.
• Establish exemption policies for breeders, including an appeals process
• Notify current animal licensees of any new licensing policy for
spaying/neutering of dogs/cats
• Mandate the licensing and the spaying/neutering of any stray dog/cat that
OCAC impounds prior to being adopted or reclaimed unless legally exempt
• Enforce the spay/neuter ordinance with set fines for non-compliance
• Maintain different levels of license fees for unaltered animals
• Utilize some of the fee revenue to pay for educational programs
• Offer free spay/neuter clinics to initiate the program
The cost effectiveness of a spay/neuter program should be recognized. The program
could cut the cost of shelter care and euthanasia for thousands of stray, unwanted or
unclaimed animals due to inadequate space. Based on just the cost of euthanasia, and
using the OCAC figures, the potential savings could reach $322,000 per year.
However, realistically the effectiveness will never reach zero, but may be as high as
90% or $290,000 in annual savings as demonstrated by San Francisco's program.
The most cost-effective and humane long-term method to reduce animal
overpopulation is to spay and neuter pets.
Opposition •
A mandatory spay/neuter State law has the support of some cities and counties, plus
animal shelter and animal welfare organizations, including the ASPCA. However, it is
strongly opposed by the American Kennel Club and other breeder associations.20
These organizations suggest that the problem can be solved through aggressive
education and are lobbying against AB 1634. While some pet owners oppose
spay/neuter legislation on the premise that it smacks of governmental interference or
"nanny-state" mentality, both hobby and registered breeders appear to be more
concerned about the monetary impact than the animal population. They are opposed
even though AB 1634 clearly allows exemptions for certain dogs and for-profit
breeding purposes. Opposition from some breeders may stem from the requirement
that they obtain a business license and pay taxes on profits.
Most pet owners are loving, attentive guardians of their pets. They are protective of
their animals and are conscious of their pet's breeding habits. However, not all pet
owners are as dedicated, particularly when it comes to caring for or placing unwanted
or non-saleable litters. The overpopulation problem is caused primarily by stray,
abandoned and unattended animals which reproduce freely. This places a burden on
animal control agents who must constantly take in animals, the majority of which may
be euthanized because the shelter is at capacity.
m California Healthy Pet Act Summary - AB 1634
8
• Even with the OCAC staff of paid and volunteer veterinarians performing 5,000 spay
and neuter operations in 2006, animal overpopulation remains a major problem in
Orange County. Despite this, the Boazd of Supervisors has not supported a mandatory
spay/neuter ordinance.
Animal Care Outreach Committee
The OC Animal Caze (OCAC) provides educational classes and services to schools
and the public to make them aware of the needs and treatment of animals. To ensure
that this practice is carried out, the Boazd of Supervisors has established the Orange
County Animal Care Outreach Committee (formerly Orange County Animal Control
Advisory Boazd) to support OCAC in achieving its goals. It helps Animal Care to
facilitate community involvement and to provide an opportunity for citizen
participation in support of animal care related issues.
"The Committee is comprised of five (5) members, one (1) member from each
supervisorial district, appointed by a majority of the County Boazd of Supervisors."~i
It assists the OCAC by reviewing community input in order to help improve the
County's animal care services. Members aze volunteer participants who make a major
contribution to the mission of Animal Caze and who work to assure that the public is
awaze of the shelter's processes, as well as the efforts being made to serve the
community's animal requirements.
• CONCLUSION
The Orange County Grand Jury concluded that the OC Animal Caze Department
provides excellent services in spite of the physical restrictions of its site and the
number of unwanted animals shifted from Orange County cities to the County Animal
Care Shelter. However, there is no end in sight to the growing number of pets that the
County will have to euthanize every yeaz.
A mandatory spay/neuter ordinance has been successful in other jurisdictions, such as
the State of New Hampshire and the City and County of San Francisco. Such a
program has been adopted by the City and the County of Los Angeles, to reduce the
number of pets that are euthanized in animal shelters each yeaz. Riverside County is
contemplating the adoption of an "L.A. County-type" ordinance. It is time for Orange
County to adopt a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance as well.
FINDINGS
In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, each finding will
be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are
to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. The 2007-2008 Orange
County Grand Jury has arrived at the following findings:
• Z' Oran a Coun Animal Care Communi Outreach Committee B law
g tY tY Y s
9
F-1-Some cities using limited-access shelters are sending animals deemed •
unadoptable to the County Animal Shelter, thereby shifting the cost and
responsibility for care and euthanasia to the County if the animals are not
adopted.
F-2 -The Orange County Animal County Shelter is faced with a growing animal
population problem that exceeds the capacity of the County Shelter and its
ability to place those animals in homes.
F-3 -The County Board of Supervisors has not taken a position on AB 1634,
legislation which if passed could alleviate many future animal
overpopulation problems.
A response to Finding F-1 is required from the Mayors of all Orange County cities
(listed below) that do not contract with OC Animal Care; and requested from OC
Animal Care.
Costa Mesa
Dana Point
Irvine
Laguna Beach
Laguna Niguel
Laguna Woods
Los Alamitos
Mission Viejo
Newport Beach
San Clemente
Seal Beach
Westminster
A response to Finding F-2 is requested from the County Executive Officer and
requested from OC Community Resources/Animal Care.
A response to Finding F-3 is required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors.
RECOMIVVIENDATIONS
In accordance with Califortua Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each recommendation
will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to
be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings of this
report, the 2007-2008 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:
R-1-The cities utilizing limited-access shelters adopt an open-shelter policy for
all dogs and cats within their city limits or reimburse the County Shelter
for the expense of boarding and euthanizing animals from their cities.
C]
•
10
R-2 -The OC Animal Care Department prepare and present to the Board of
• Supervisors a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance to reduce animal
overpopulation and to ease the strain on the capacity of the County
Shelter.
R-3 -The County Board of Supervisors ezamine and consider supporting State
Assembly Bill AB 1634 to assist in alleviating many of Orange County's
animal overpopulation problems.
REQUIRED RESPONSES
Responses to recommendation R-1 are required from the Mayors of all Orange County
cities (listed below) that do not contract with the OC Animal Care and requested from
the OC Community Resources/Animal Care.
Costa Mesa
Dana Point
Irvine
Laguna Beach
Laguna Niguel
Laguna Woods
Los Alamitos
Mission Viejo
Newport Beach
S San Clemente
Seal Beach
Westminster
Responses to recommendation R-2 is requested from the County Executive O_ fficer
and the OC Community Resources/Animal Care.
Responses to recommendation R-3 are required from the County of Orange Board of
Supervisors.
The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings
and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below:
§933.05(a) for purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 as explanation of the reasons therefore.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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.
•
11
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be
implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. •
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and
the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, acid a timeframe 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 timeframe 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.
•
•
12
California Penal Code Sections X933 and &933.05
• [Note: to reduce grand jury requests for additional response information, the grand ' has bolded those
1mY
words in §933.05 which should be appropriately included in a response)
§933 (a) Each grand jury shall submit to the presiding judge of the superior court a final report of its
findings and recommendations that pertain to county government matters during the fiscal or
calendar year. Final reports on any appropriate subject maybe submitted to the presiding judge of
the superior court at any time during the term of service of a grand jury, A final report maybe
submitted for comment to responsible officers, agencies, or departments, including the county
board of supervisors, when applicable, upon finding of the presiding judge that the report is in
compliance with this title. For 45 days after the end of the term, the forepersoa and his or her
designees shall, upon reasonable notice, be available to clarify the recommendations of the report.
(b) One copy of each final report, together with the responses thereto, found to be in compliance
with this title shall be placed on file with the clerk of the court and remain on file in the office of
the clerk. The clerk shall immediately forward a true copy of the report and the responses to the
State Archivist who shall retain that report and all responses in perpetuity.
(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public
agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment
to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to
matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head
for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60
days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of
supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that
county officer or agency head and nay agency or agencies which that officer or agency head
supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and
recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding
judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury, A copy of all responses to grind jury
S reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county
clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. Oae copy shall be
placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently
impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years.
(d) As used in this section "agency" includes a department.
§933.05 (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation,
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and
parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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
timeframe 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 therefor. ,
(c) However, 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 malting authority. The response of the elected agency or department
head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or '
department.
(d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the
Purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or
entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release.
(e) During as investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation
regarding the investigation, unless the court, either oa its own determination or upon request of the
forepersoa of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental.
(t) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report
relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval
of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall
disclose nay contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report
•
r~
July 14, 2008
Nancy W ieben Stock
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Re.: 2007-2008 Orange County Grand Jury Report, "Is Orancre County Goinp to the Dogs?"
Dear Judge Stock:
This letter is the MAYOR's formal response by the City of Seal Beach pursuant California Penal
Code §933 and §933.05 concerning the 2007-2008 Orange County Grand Jury Report, "Is
Orange County Goina to the Doas?" Specifically addressed as requested are responses to
Findings #F-1, and Recommendation #R-1 of the report.
• The Seal Beach Police Department administers the City of Seal Beach animal control program.
The City of Seal Beach (City) does not contract with Orange County Animal Care for any
services. The City contracts with two agencies for animal control services:
1. The City of Long Beach Animal Control Bureau: license canvassing, animal pick-ups,
animal welfare enforcement, etc.
2. The Friends of Seal Beach Animal Care Center: an "open-shelter," "no-kill," animal
housing/adoption facility located in the City of Seal Beach and operated by a private
foundation.
Finding #F-1 -Some cities using limited-access shelters are sending animals deemed
unadoptable to the County Animal Shelter, thereby shifting the cost and responsibility for care
and euthanasia to the County if the animals are not adopted.
Response to Finding #F-1 -- DISAGREES WHOLLY. The City of Seal Beach
contracts with the City of Long Beach Animal Control Bureau and for animal collection
services and other animal related services such as license canvassing, and animal
welfare enforcement. All animals retrieved within the City of Seal Beach by the Long
Beach Animal Control Bureau are taken to the Friends of Seal Beach Animal Care
Center within the Seal Beach city limits.
Two exceptions exist which deviate from the policy above: 1) if an animal must be taken
as criminal evidence, or 2) if an animal is seized for vicious behavior. Such animals
fitting either of these two criteria are removed and housed at the City of Long Beach
• Animal Shelter. Fees designed to cover the expense of housing and potential
euthanasia are incorporated into the contract between the two cities.
1
The Friends of Seal Beach Animal Care Center pursuant its operating charter with the •
City of Seal Beach, is an "open-shelter," "no-kill" animal housing/adoption facility.
The City of Seal Beach shifts no costs to Orange County Animal Care.
Recommendation #R-1 -The cities utilizing limited-access shelters adopt an open-shelter
policy for all dogs and cats within their city limits or reimburse the County Shelter for the
expense of boarding and euthanizing animals from their cities.
Response to Recommendation #R-1: DISAGREES WHOLLY. The City of Seal
Beach does not contract with the Orange County Anima{ Care. It contracts instead with
its neighboring City of Long Beach Animal Control Bureau and for animal collection
services and other animal related services such as license canvassing, and animal
welfare enforcement. All animals retrieved within the City of Seal Beach by the Long
Beach Animal Control Bureau are taken to the Friends of Seal Beach Animal Care
Center within the Seal Beach city limits.
Two exceptions exist which deviate from the policy above: 1) if an anima! must be taken
as criminal evidence, or 2) if an animal is seized for vicious behavior. Such animals
fitting either of these two criteria are removed and housed at the City of Long Beach
Animal Shelter. Fees designed to cover the expense of housing and potential
euthanasia are incorporated into the contract between the two cities.
The Friends of Seal Beach Animal Care Center pursuant its operating charter with the •
City of Seal Beach, is an "open-shelter," "no-kill" animal housing/adoption facility. It
cannot refuse acceptance of any animal found or recovered in the City of Seal Beach.
The City of Seal Beach knowingly shifts no costs to Orange County Animal Care.
Due to its unique, contractual, arrangement with its neighboring City of Long Beach
Animal Shelter Bureau, the City of Seal Beach takes a neutral position on the Grand
Jury's recommendation.
Please contact me at (562) 431-2527 if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Mr. Charles Antos
Mayor, City of Seal Beach
cc: Foreperson, Orange County Grand Jury
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
U
2
July 14, 2008
Nancy Wieben Stock
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Re.: 2007-2008 Orange County Grand Jury Report, "/s Orange Coun Going to the
DOgS ~„
Dear Judge Stock:
This letter is the Agency Head formal response by the City of Seal Beach pursuant
California Penal Code §933 and §933.05 concerning the 2007-2008 Orange County
• Grand Jury Report, "Is Orange Couniv Goina to the Dogs?" Specifically addressed as
requested are responses to Findings #F-1, and Recommendation #R-1 of the report.
The Seal Beach Police Department headed by its Chief of Police administers the City of
Seal Beach animal control program. The City of Seal Beach (City) does not contract
with Orange County Animal Care for any services. The City contracts with two
agencies for animal control services:
1. The City of Long Beach Animal Control Bureau: license canvassing, animal pick-
ups, animal welfare enforcement, etc.
2. The Friends of Seal Beach Animal Care Center: an "open-shelter," "no-kill,"
animal housing/adoption facility located in the City of Seal Beach and operated
by a private foundation.
Finding #F-1 -Some cities using limited-adcess shelters are sending animals deemed
unadoptable to the County Animal Shelter, thereby shifting the cost and responsibility
for care and euthanasia to the County if the animals are not adopted.
Response to Finding #F-1 -DISAGREES WHOLLY. The City of Seal Beach
contracts with the City of Long Beach Animal Control Bureau and for animal
collection services and other animal related services such as license canvassing,
and animal welfare enforcement. All animals retrieved within the City of Seal
'Beach by the Long Beach Animal Control Bureau are taken to the Friends of
• Seal Beach Animal Care Center within the Seal Beach city limits.
Two exceptions exist which deviate from the policy above: 1) if an animal must
be taken as criminal evidence, or 2) if an animal is seized for vicious behavior.
Such animals fitting either of these two criteria are removed and housed at the •
City of Long Beach Animal Shelter. Fees designed to cover the expense of
housing and potential euthanasia are incorporated into the contract between the
two cities.
The Friends of Seal Beach Animal Care Center pursuant its operating charter
with the City of Seal Beach, is an "open-shelter," "no-kill" animal
housing/adoption facility.
The City of Seal Beach shifts no costs to Orange County Animal Care.
Recommendation #R-1 -The cities utilizing limited-access shelters adopt an open-
shelterpolicy for all dogs and cats within their city limits or reimburse the County Shelter
for the expense of boarding and euthanizing animals from their cities.
Response to Recommendation #R-1: DISAGREES WHOLLY. The City of
Seal Beach does not contract with the Orange County Animal Care. It contracts
instead with its neighboring City of Long Beach Animal Control Bureau and for
animal collection services and other animal related services such as license
canvassing, and animal welfare enforcement. All animals retrieved within the
City of Seal Beach by the Long Beach Animal Control Bureau are taken to the
Friends of Seal Beach Animal Care Center within the Seal Beach city limits.
Two exceptions exist which deviate from the policy above: 1) if an animal must •
be taken as criminal evidence, or 2) if an animal is seized for vicious behavior.
Such animals fitting either of these two criteria are removed and housed at the
City of Long Beach Animal Shelter. Fees designed to cover the expense of
housing and potential euthanasia are incorporated into the contract between the
two cities.
The Friends of Seal Beach Animal Care Center pursuant its operating charter
with the City of Seal Beach, is an "open-shelter," °no-kill" animal
housing/adoption facility. It cannot refuse acceptance of any animal found or
recovered in the City of Seal Beach.
The City of Seal Beach knowingly shifts no costs to Orange County Animal Care.
Due to its unique, contractual, arrangement with its neighboring City of Long
Beach Animal Shelter Bureau, the City of Seal Beach takes a neutral position on
the Grand Jury's recommendation.
Please contact me at (562) 799-4100, extension 1123 if I can be of further assistance.
Sin ,
~, •
ff irkpatrick
Chief of Police, City of Seal Beach
2
•
cc: Foreperson, Orange County Grand Jury
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701