HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - #52Orozco, Norma
From: 8u|maroVicente <boomer@chispaocorg>
Sent: Friday, June 2'2O237:20PK4
To: e[omment
Cc: Amezcua'Va|ehe; Lopez, Jessie; Hernandez,]ohnathan; 8acerra' Phil; Vazquez,
Benjamin; Phan, Thai; Penaloza, David
Subject: Agenda Item S2:Ordinance toAdopt Fiscal Year 2O23-2O24Budget Cycle
Attachments: |temS2 [hispaFY2O23-24Budget Lettecpdf
Good Evening,
(}obehalf of Chispa, lum attaching our letter for Agenda Item #5Z-Ordinance tm Adopt Fiscal Year Z#Z324 Budget Cycle.
-
l300u}er
Policy and Political Director |ChiSp8
e: C:
don
IMM
Chispa
June 2, 2023
Mayor Amezcua and Members of the Council
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
P.O. Bo 1988, M31
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Re: Agenda Item # 52 - Ordinance to Adopt Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Cycle
Mayor Amezcua and Members of the City Council,
I write on behalf of Chispa to urge the Santa Ana City Council (Council) to direct the City of Santa Ana
(City) staff to adopt our recommended investments within the City's 2023-24 Fiscal Year (FY).
Chispa is a membership based organization for young Latinxs advocating for systemic changes across
Orange County that uproot systems of oppression and cultivate systems grounded in community
accountability, solidarity, and self-determination for our communities to thrive. In furtherance of our
mission we are committed to advocate for a community -centered municipal budgets that prioritize
investments in our community, police transparency and accountability, and the expansion of youth
programs and job opportunities.
At past City Budget meetings, this Council expressed a strong desire to continue improving safety
by addressing root causes and investing in residents' material needs, well being, and opportunities
to thrive. We believe that the recommendations outlined below achieve these goals by strengthening our
City's infrastructure, focusing on crucial programs such as providing mental health services, counseling
and preventative services, jobs, and recreational activities. The recommendations below also further the
City's goal of developing and maintaining an effective and meaningful system of police oversight that is
responsive to residents' needs..
1. Well -Funded and Robust Police Oversight Commission (Commission)
a. The Council must rollover the previous budget commitment of $1 million dollars and
ensure the Independent Director and the Management Analysis Position are filled and
hired for the Calendar year.
b. Residents deserve a well funded and robust Commission that is adequately staffed and
resourced.
2. Increase Grants to Community Based Organizations (CBO)
a. Allocate $200,000 to provide four $50,000 grants to CBOs.
b. Grants will have the greatest impact on organizations building their capacity, and
prioritize organizations that offer mental health services for LGBTQ youth, re-entry
programs and support for system impacted youth, as well as counseling and preventative
services for youth.
3. Allocate New Funding for a New Pilot Program that Provides Paid Job Opportunities for
Undocumented Youth that are Non-DACA Recipients within City Government
a. Establish a pilot program to provide PAID job and internship opportunities for
Undocumented Youth that are non-DACA recipients for the 2023-2024 FY.
b. Undocumented youth without DACA are currently not eligible for existing paid job
opportunities and internships that the City provides.
4. Increase Funding for Youth Service Programs and Establish a City Youth Center
a. Expand existing opportunities such as cost-free sports programs, fitness centers, and skill
development training for youth.
b. Create a Youth -led center that offers wraparound mental health services, free recreational
activities, college and career readiness resources, and a safe space for youth in need.
Context Police Oversight:
Last fall, the Council responded to a longstanding community demand by passing a historic Commission.
As part of the 2022-2023 FY Budget Cycle, the Council allocated $1 million to fund the newly
established Commission, enabling the hiring of one support staff and an Independent Director to oversee
the Commission. The Council must rollover this previous budget commitment and ensure these positions
are filled for the Calendar year. Residents deserve a well funded and robust Police Oversight Commission
that is adequately staffed and resourced.
Context CBO Grants:
The FY 2022-2023 Budget included a budget allocation of $150,000 for three $50,000 grants to CBOs.
The priority was CBOs that offer crucial mental health services for LGBTQ youth, re-entry programs and
support for system impacted youth, as well as counseling and preventative services for youth. It is vital
for the City to sustain and expand its support for CBOs that provide essential services to youth and
residents as a whole.
Therefore, we request the Council to consider increasing the allocation for CBO grants to $200,000 to
provide four grants of $50,000 each. This funding would provide four organizations with support to
expand their reach and impact, and help the City further address the diverse needs of our youth population
more effectively.
Context Youth Funding:
The City is one of the youngest Cities in Orange County, with one in four residents being less than 18
years old and the average age being 32.6 years old, according to the U.S. Census. This demographic
%•
composition creates an urgent need to provide adequate support and investment in youth. This year, the
Santanero Project, a community -based, youth -led empowerment group, launched a survey and conducted
focus groups to understand how youth felt about establishing a City Youth Center. Thus far, the survey
has garnered 51 responses from young individuals aged 13-20, representing all zip codes within the City.
The survey results shed light on a critical concern expressed by the youth of the City: the lack of safe
recreational spaces and community programs.
In response, we support the Santanero Project's demand to create a Youth -led Center that offers
wraparound mental health services, free recreational activities, college and career readiness resources, and
a safe space for youth in need. Furthermore, we recommend that the City expand existing opportunities,
such as cost-free sports programs, fitness centers, and skill development training for youth. By
implementing these recommendations, the City will be able to provide the necessary support and
opportunities for youth to thrive, securing a brighter and more promising future for the next generation.
Sincerely,
Bulmaro Vicente
Policy and Political Director
Chispa
3
Santa Ana City Council
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Dear City of Santa Ana,
�30,'Nrl't AMR Ct'ry Ct_r.ak
JUN l3'22AM:1: J .:�h
I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the lack of support for children's
programs in our community. As a member of this community, i strongly believe that
investing in children's programs is one of the most important things we can do to ensure
a bright future for our city.
Children are the future of our community, and it is our responsibility to ensure that they
have access to high -quality programs that will help them grow and develop into
successful adults.
Studies have shown that children who participate in after -school programs are more
likely to succeed academically, socially, and emotionally. They are also less likely to
engage in risky behaviors such as drug use and violence. Furthermore, these programs
provide a safe and supportive environment for children who may not have access to
such resources at home.
Unfortunately, many children in our community do not have access to these programs
due to the lack of funding and support. This is a problem that affects us all, as it can
lead to increased crime rates, decreased academic achievement, and a less vibrant
community overall.
Therefore, I urge the City of Santa Ana to prioritize more funding for children's programs
in our community. This includes after -school programs, summer camps, sports
programs, and other activities that provide children with opportunities to learn and grow.
Investing in our children today will pay dividends for years to come. It will create a
brighter future for our community and ensure that our children have the tools they need
to succeed in life. I hope that you will consider rely request and take more action to
support children's programs in our city.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
Resident of Santa Ana
Sara Mai rieta
2620 W Segerstram Avenue #C
Smita Ana, CA 92704-6560
Santa Ana City Council
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
`3.-4I'1yfg NA (.Trtt t«I i-IR
Dear C t� y_ of Santa Ana,
riting to express my deep concern regarding the lack of support for children's
programs in our community. As a member of this community, I strongly believe that
investing in children's programs is one of the most important things we can do to ensure
a bright future for Our city.
Children are the future of our community, and it is our responsibility to ensure that they
have access to high -quality programs that will help them grow and develop into
successful adults.
Studies have shown that children who participate in after -school programs are more
likely to succeed academically, socially, and emotionally. They are also less likely to
engage in risky behaviors such as drug use and violence. Furthermore, these programs
provide a safe and supportive environment for children who may not have access to
such resources at home.
due to the lack of funding. . support.problem
overall.lead to increased crime rates, decreased academic achievement, and a less vibrant
community
Therefore, I urge the City of Santa Ana to prioritize more funding for children's programs
in our community. This includes after -school programs, summer camps, sports
programs, and other activities that provide children with opportunities to learn and grow.
Investing in our children today will pay dividends for years to come. It will create a
brighter future for our community and ensure that our children have the tools they need
to succeed in life. I hope that you will consider my request and take more action to
support children's programs in our city.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
Resident of
Orozco, Norma
From: Yvonne Flores <yvonnefloresrealtor@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2023 12:00 PM
To: BudgetOffice; eComment
Subject: Public Comments - Yvonne Flores
Dear City Council and Budget Office:
I am writing to ask the city Council to adopt an equitable city budget that truly addresses the needs
of our community in Santa Ana.
I stand with Council Member Thai Viet Phan and respectfully ask that we use the $1.4 Million slated
for the Winter Festival and focus the funds on a "Lunar Festival" instead. Unfortunately, the Winter
Festival hasn't had fantastic attendance and is located in such an obscure place that most residents
don't have the opportunity to attend the event. Additionally, the cost is also an obstacle to the
residents at large as parking is not free, and the cost of ice skating is not cheap. With a cost of $1.4
million, we can fund a Lunar Festival that has both cultural benefits, is fun, and inclusive for
attendees. Big sponsorship for this event is difficult at best as it's just a dead zone for lack of any
opened businesses in the area, and especially outside of normal business hours.
Additionally, I would like to ask the Council to think about implementing Park Rangers again as we
had in the 80's and consider creating a 2nd dog park. Our kids, our seniors, even our pets, we all
need more park space in Santa Ana, but we need our parks to be safe and that means we need Park
Rangers to help keep our parks and our residents safe. As we increase our housing units in Santa
Ana, we are also increasing our pet population and new residents and their pets will need a 2nd dog
park soon after the 1st dog park opens.
Please include increased funding in the budget for additional libraries and increased/extended library
hours. In order to best serve our community, we need to make the library accessible to them by
providing longer operating hours and be open on Saturday and Sunday through 9pm.
Last of all, we need increased grant opportunities for community based organizations that provide
youth services and we need a city youth center. We have the largest population of young persons
but yet we don't have a youth center.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yvonne Flores
Downtown Live Scan
Westcliff Properties
211 N Sycamore St., SA CA 92701
(714) 215-7421
1
Orozco, Norma
From: Tim Johnson <tjohnson@jlkrllp.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2023 12:15 PM
To: eComment; Amezcua, Valerie; Phan, Thai; Bacerra, Phil; Penaloza, David; Hernandez,
Johnathan; Lopez, Jessie; Vazquez, Benjamin
Cc: Downs, Kathryn; Mendoza, Steven; Ridge, Kristine
Subject: City Budget- Agenda Item #52 (6/6/23)
Happy Tuesday everyone... tonight I believe you will be considering the FY 23/24 budget. Our city finance team and
others have obviously put a lot of work into preparing a budget based on your guidance. I urge each of you to review
the below email from the May 11t" discussion regarding the same.
I also urge you each to consider when something is saved to not immediately re -allocate those funds for another project
but instead to save it in preparation of a future Measure X revenue drop which is highlighted in the Ten Year Outlook on
page 4 of the Staff Report. If past history, including this year, is any indication, we will continue to spend based on our
revenue and the surplus (Revenue > Spending) in the Ten Year Outlook will erode to next to zero each future year (i.e. FY
24/25, 25/26, 26/27, & 27/28)... the surplus will not be there in the future unless we change spending habits now. We
need to prepare for the future Measure X Revenue drop now instead of saddling a future council and our residents'
future pocketbooks. We cannot lose site of the planned $24M deficit ... small changes in habits now will pay dividends in
the future.
If we continue to spend all of our revenue each year without putting substantial amounts away to plan for the drop in
Measure X revenue in the future, we are putting this all onto our future selves which is not correct. Fast forward to this
time next year, and I bet you the planned FY24/25 $8M surplus will be spent. Just as the surplus is no longer there this
year ... in fact, per the chart on page 3 of the Staff Report, the net activity is actually NEGATIVE $29.285M. We are taking
the 22/23 surplus and spending it in FY 23/24. This is easily highlighted by comparing the estimated ending general fund
balance in the chart on page 2 of the Staff Report. FY 22/23 Revised Budget has an estimated ending general fund
balance of $101.4M wheres the estimated gen fund balance at the end of FY 23/24 is $72.1M... just above the 18%
reserve requirement. We need to stop this cycle of spending each dollar we get into when we know that there is a
planned huge revenue drop in the future. In essence, we are taking the gains we have made in the past and spending
it ... we did that in FY22/23 and are planning on doing it again in FY 23/24.
To recap our general fund balances, as shown in the General Fund table on page 2 of the Staff Report has been
decreasing as follows: $121.4M Beg 22/23 Balance 4 $101.4M Est End FY22/23 Balance 4 $72.1M Est FY23/24
Proposed Balance. That is right, our General Fund Balance will have decreased in a two year period (7/1/22 to 6/30/24)
by approx $49.3M ($121.4M at 7/1/22 to $72.14M at 6/30/24). Let that sink in ... when you are making decisions on
spending.
Also, I cannot tell what is being planned/budgeted for the school crossing guard program but I urge you to not budget
for 100% coverage for the school crossing guard program. This should be at a minimum a shared responsibility between
the city and the school district. Ask yourself ... why are charter elementary and private schools able to get their students
safely to school without the city funding a program for these residents of our city? Are charter and private schools not
residents of the city? Yet, the city chooses to only fund a program for the public school district. If this is for the
community, all students should benefit ... I am not advocating to expand the program to private schools and charter
school but instead pointing out the fact that these schools have been able to find ways to get their students to school
safely without a city funded program and at a MINIMUM the school district should bear at LEAST 50% of the cost of this
program. We should be moving in the direction of the schools figuring it out instead of the city spending taxpayer
dollars on something that other schools have shown that they are able to do it. Our public schools have some great
minds and we should tap into them just as our charters and private schools have done. In fact, I would say that the
school district really should bear more of the cost ... just like public charter schools and private elementary schools have
found a way to do. However, 50% is a good compromise in year one of change. Then, once the city saves these funds,
please do not spend them but instead put it away into a Measure X Stabilization Fund to prepare for the steep decrease
in future revenue.
Thank you for all of your work that you do for our city. Please also pass along all of my appreciation to those involved
with the budgeting process who do not vote but instead put hours into preparing information for you to be able to vote
upon after digesting your opinions and guidance while considering public thoughts. The end result may be a vote, but
the process is grueling I am sure for those tasked with the day to day job.
Tim Johnson, CPA
JLK Rosenberger, LLP
(949) 860-9892
13 (714) 743-1065
From: Tim Johnson
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 12:09 PM
To: ecomment@santa-ana.org; Amezcua, Valerie <VAmezcua@santa-ana.org>; Phan, Thai <TPhan@santa-ana.org>;
Bacerra, Phil <pbacerra@santa-ana.org>; Penaloza, David <dpenaloza@santa-ana.org>; jryanhernandez@santa-ana.org;
Lopez, Jessie <JessieLopez@santa-ana.org>; bvazquez@santa-ana.org
Cc: Downs, Kathryn <KDowns@santa-ana.org>; Mendoza, Steven <SMendoza@santa-ana.org>; Ridge, Kristine
<kridge@santa-ana.org>
Subject: City Budget- Agenda Item (5/11/23)
Good day mayor, council, and selected city leaders ... I am writing today about tonight's special council session agenda
item 1, Work Study Session on the FY 23/24 Budget. I pray that tonight's session is productive for the council receiving
and providing information as well as for the residents and staff. I have a few thoughts that I think are relevant- they may
be a little scattered but the theme is that we need to prepare today for the future. We are not as financially stable as
many may think. We have a significant reduction in revenue on the horizon with the Measure X rate reduction AND our
city has a deficit net position balance meaning that we do not have assets to cover the liabilities that have accrued to
date. We need a plan to improve.
Disclosure ... I am on the Measure X Citizen Oversight Committee but these thoughts are my own only as an interested
and vested resident of Ward 3 in our great city and may not reflect the Measure X Citizen Oversight Committee's
thoughts/recommendations. Although some of my thoughts will echo those presented in the Oversight Committee's
Annual Report which you received at your April 181" meeting, again, these thoughts are my own.
Summary
If you think our city is on secure sound financial ground, I ask that you be open to additional information and to look at
the long game financially. Our city is able to pay its current bills and provide a level of services according to the revenue
being generated presently. However, when you look at the big picture I believe you will see that:
• Our city is not prepared for the 1/3 drop in Measure X (MX) sales tax revenue (1.5% to 1.0%; 0.5% = 1/3). In
today's dollars, that is around $29.5M (using the proposed 23/24 budget MX revenue of $88.616M). Ask
yourself, what our city will look like with reduced revenue of $29.5M. That is what will be coming. We need to
prepare today because next year or 5 years from now may be too late and will only make it that much tougher
to make meaningful change.
Our city has an extreme unfunded debt burden to our residents. Even though we are paying our bills, our city
has a deficit Unrestricted Net Position from Governmental Activities of $468.4M as of 6/30/22. That is approx
$1518 of debt allocated to each of our 308,459 residents. Let that sink in ... each of us are in debt to the tune of
$1518. My family of 5 would be $7592 in debt. We need to understand and recognize that, determine if it is
acceptable, and then come up with a plan to tackle it assuming the council agrees that our city's residents
should not be in debt or at least commits to decreasing the level of debt. We are using today's revenue to pay
for liabilities generated in the past ... we need to make headway.
We need to take steps now to address both of the above items. This needs to be part of a long term financial strategic
plan which would contain goals, steps to achieve those goals, and monitoring of the progress. This also means that such
a plan will span across multiple councils, councilmembers, and possibly even other city leaders such as our city manager
and police chief. We need to take long term financial stability seriously. We need to implement change now in order
secure a better future.
Ten Year Outlook
Director Downs previously provided to you at the April 18t" council meeting on Agenda Item 22, the below Ten Year
Outlook. She has previously provided the a similar schedule multiple times over the past few years. Fortunately, due to
MX, the city's revenue is projected to cover its expenses for the next few years. However, the concern lies when the MX
sales tax rate is reduced from 1.5% to 1% in 2029. As you can see there is a huge gap when this drop off occurs. The city
NEEDS to prepare for this drop in revenue now. I applaud the council members/mayor that brought this up at your May
2nd meeting.
Even if the city is utilizing MX funds for one time expenditures, when one time expenditures are utilized each year, which
they have been, they become viewed as recurring expenditures. Expenditures which the city become reliant upon. If
something is truly one-time, ask yourself, can we just not do that this year and save the money? If the answer is yes,
well, then it is time to start making those decisions. If the answer is no we need to do that ... I question whether it is truly
meets the spirit one-time spending. If we make changes to our spending now, couple that with increasing business
activity and hence revenue in our city, we may be able to make the MX rate reduction impact more of a gradual slide
instead of a drastic cut. Again, I know that it will be easy to say that MX spending is focused on one time items, but
when that spending is happening year after year, it becomes part of the fabric of our city.
I dub this Ten Year Outlook as my "scary chart" because it is scary to look at in 2029 and forward. The yellow (I added)
below is the scary part. That shows our shortfall where projected Spending will exceed projected Revenue. What will
the city look like with a $35M+ shortfall year after year? What can we do now to prepare for that shortfall? The earlier
we plan for this gap, the easier it will be to lessen the impact on our residents, businesses, visitors, and city as a whole.
3
�„ S'SSfk
c
0
$513.7 530.0
b5t14
S497. i
$452.5 $439.9
Sd5'6, 9
S47p 54554
S474.7
$440.2 458.5 S460.2
5453.3
$420.6 $446.8
$436 S413.0 S 438.2
$399.8 S426.5
$404-0
S390
S397.3
$350
FY23.24 FY24,25 FY25-26 FY26-27 FY27-28 FY28-21 FY29 3d FY30-31 FY31-32 FY32-33
--Rcyerrut� -41--Spunding
I ask that our city consider a few action items now in order to prepare for the drop:
1. Direct staff to prepare a big picture pro -forma budget (not line by line but big picture) to illustrate what our city
services will look like based upon the drop. What services will need to be lessened, how this will impact our
residents/business, etc... By doing this, we will see what our city will look like after the MX rate reduction.
2. Direct staff to come up with a MX Sunset Plan with goals of such plan and concreate action steps to achieve
those goals. Presumably, this council's feedback is imperative in coming up with any Sunset Plan. I would
anticipate that this plan would include both spending reductions AND also revenue generation.
3. Create a MX Sunset Stabilization Reserve Fund now. Build it in to the 23/24 budget. Build it into any surpluses
from the 22/23 fiscal year (if any). Our city needs to put money away now to prepare for the MX rate reduction
to lessen the impact and absorb such impact over multiple years instead of at once. MX revenue is such a large
amount and if we truly are favoring one-time spending on MX revenue, we certainly should be able to come up
with a plan now to put aside some of the revenue generated to help with the sunset.
4. Although I am not in favor of extending the 1.5% rate for MX and I believe I have heard current councilmembers
(and past) indicate that they are looking forward to a lower MX sales tax rate, IF the council is going to count on
the full 1.5% of MX revenue in 2029 and forward, they need to be honest with our residents, businesses, and
visitors and tell us now. Obviously, it is not up to the council to make this decision but the council likely will be
the body that would put it on a ballot for the residents to vote upon. IF the current council wants to go that
direction, then they should say so. IF the current council does not want to have a 1.5% MX rate, then they need
to begin take financially prudent steps NOW ... to do otherwise is not financially wise in my opinion.
5. Consider forming a MX Sunset council committee to meet, in public, to discuss and recommend a MX Sunset
Plan. I would prefer that this committee meet in public but if that is not the council's desire, I would ask that
such a committee be tasked with regular reporting to the council and the public.
City Debt (Unrestricted Net Position Deficit)
According to the city's latest Statement of Net Position June 30, 2022 which was present previously, our city has an
Unrestricted Net Position deficit balance from Governmental Activities of $468,389,289 ($468M for ease of
conversation). This $468M is the amount that our city's liabilities exceed its assets adjusted for exclusion of investment
in capital assets and also restricted assets.
Overall, the city has a positive Net Position from Governmental Activities of $685.1M but that figure includes net capital
assets and restricted assets. The city cannot use restricted assets to cover general liabilities due to external restrictions
on use of funds and so it seems prudent to exclude such assets when determining operating debt. Additionally, since
the city is not really able to sell most of its capital assets (such as rights of way, street trees, infrastructure such as
streets and sewer projects) it would also seem appropriate to exclude the net capital assets (net means that included in
this figure is the city's debt on that the capital assets0. After you exclude net positions that are not applicable to
covering general debts, we are at a deficit of $468M.
This is approx $1518 of debt per resident of our city. Let that sink in please ... If each resident of our city were asked to
pay up for a one time assessment so the city could have assets that equal our liabilities, we each (including our kids)
would be writing a check to the city for $1518. This $1518 would not be used to provide additional services to our
residents such as fixing streets, improving parks, or increasing public safety but instead would just get us on sound
footing. That $1518 would be every resident regardless of their ability to pay including those who are already struggling
to find housing, feed their families, and meet general every day needs.
So, when we focus on current Revenue covering our Spending, which seems to be true right now, this is just one part of
the picture ... the bigger picture shows we are in debt. Now a lot of our fellow cities are also in debt though too but that
should not make us feel any better IMO. As of 6/30/21(1 have not looked at the 6/30/22 financials for each city), there
are 17 cities in Orange County that actually have per capita surpluses meaning their unrestricted net position from
government activities is positive. For example, residents of Cypress each have approx $1800 of surplus, Irvine approx
$1400 surplus, Tustin $1300. These are cities whose residents are not in debt just because of where they live. These are
cities that can choose to make investments in services and capital. The other 17 cities are in debt. Santa Ana is 31 out of
34 on that list... Brea, Anaheim, and Costa Mesa all have higher per capital deficits than Santa Ana but just imagine if we
had a goal to erode that deficit year by year and ultimately be one of the cities that has a surplus. When we say we want
to be a top city in the county, we need to have our financial status reflect that also.
The city made progress in reducing its deficit during the FYE June 30, 2022 which is great to see but that likely was due
to a favorable stock/bond market impacting the pension obligations which we may find that flipping in future years due
to the more recent markets especially when combined with a looming/lingering recession and inflationary pressures.
Our city needs to make progress in reducing its deficit balance of our unrestricted net position. The vast majority of our
city's deficit appears to be generated by our pension obligations and retiree benefits (OPEB plan). We have committed
to pay benefits, including pension, to our city workers that we have not funded. We do not have the cash on hand to
pay these obligations currently. We have committed to this yet we will be using future revenue to pay for these
obligations. We need to start making progress, in a meaningful and large way, in reducing our deficit net position
otherwise we are committing to spending future revenue and further burdening our residents now and into the future.
I suggest that our council do the following:
1. Direct staff to provide further detail on our deficit balance in the unrestricted net position for governmental
activities. Essentially, educate our residents and other leaders about the current financial position of the
city. Our focus is usually on our Revenue and Spending, which is appropriate on a year by year basis, but the
future is just as important and to be truly thriving city, the long term needs to be addressed also.
2. Direct staff to come up with a plan to reduce the deficit balance into a neutral position or even a surplus over
time. Nothing will happen overnight but if nothing is done presently, we will be in even more of surprise in the
future. A start is needed and that start needs to be done now.
5
3. Direct staff to come up with a savings plan built into the current budget to implement the plan in #2 above. Yes,
this means that we will need to increase revenue and control spending. We need to fund the liabilities that we
have accrued yet have not funded.
4. If council feels that using continually having a deficit net position is acceptable, then the public should know ... flat
out tell us. Are we OK in being one of the lowest financially stable cities? Again, let's be transparent about it if
we are... if we are not, then let's come up with a plan to improve ... year by year.
The above information can be seen in the city's June 30, 2022 Financial Statements on page 27 (See picture below ... this
is the summary in millions) and the second picture is the detailed Statement of Net Position on page 41. Many will focus
on the Total Net Position but as discussed above, this included restricted net position and the net investment in capital
assets. The more appropriate measure is the unrestricted net position.
XLA AGEA-H- N- 'S I3BC! SSIO--N AND ANALYSIS
CitY-of Sauta qua
Statement
of Net Position
Govvnmm=1
lfrr mess -type
Actaities
Activities
Total
2022
2021
2022
2021
2022
2021
A asets:
cash and m-astmenis.
4 { 7.4 5
3 76.6 S
86.8
$ 959 $
544.2 $
472.5
Cunmd and other assets
194.3
181.7
17.4
14.9
211.7
196.6
Capital assets
1:031.4
1.008.2
157.5
142.5
1,188.4
1,150.7
Tot damets
1,b83.1
1.566.5
261_7
253.3
1,444.8
1,819.8
Deferredcutflow oriesDurces:
Unamwrtaed loss on band deleasance
2.1
2.9
0-1
0.2
2.2
3.1
Def2n-ed amxiuts on pension plans
497.7
81.2
20-0
4-4
517.7
85.6
Defmuad arrnucLs on OPEB plan
4.3
2.6
0.7
0.4
5.0
3.0
Total deirredout$uwsofresources
504.1
86.7
20.$
5-0
524-9
91.7
Liabilitie s:
Lorg-tum lab&be:s
576.9
178.3
30.5
14.9
607A
1932
Netpe=-w3aliabiky
480.1
667.6
183
34.9
498.E
702.5
Tot31DPES labiky
46.9
47.7
7.b
7-5
54.5
552
Chbe habilihes
2?5.9
171.E
16-8
12.7
242.7
184.5
Totalbabiles
1,324.E
1.065.4
73.6
70.0
1,403A
1,135.4
Deferredmflo-3rs of reso-unces:
Defemd aniaums on pension plans
160.2
-
10.8
-
171.0
-
Defen-ed amaunts or. O PEB plan
5.9
3.3
1.0
05
6.4
3.8
Deferred amaums on leases
6.2
-
0.4
-
6.6
-
Totaldefen-ed nfiGvm ofresorffcea
172.3
3.3
122
0.5
184.5
3.8
e#position,
'Net im.estnaecrtmrapitalasseta
941.9
909.6
1413
129.3
1,083.2
1,038.9
Restricted
211.E
208.4
2.5
1.8
214.1
2102
umes+iff++d
(468.4)
(533.5)
529
563
(415.5)
(476.8)
Tot3lnet pasnon $
1585.1 5
5$4.5 $
196-7
$ 187_8 $
881.8
772.3
27
7
MY OF SA-N-Llk ANA.
Sratement of Ner Po5ir on
YFe
Acnyitie i AcbN-ibR i LOW
Assem
C-3Ghh and i37.-P,-W1M f
R LCMalrles:
Taxes
Inteeti
Accaucts, net of allowmaces
Tka
Loam and Dote}
InnmtaiYof nWhP--
Prepaid MM2Z
x an„rmd assets:
C-asll and IMMSE*'ME
Cash and m%msW3Ents with fical agents
Pemam stability fungi
Land held far resale
Capital assets. not being depreciated
Capital assets. being &-prem-ke net of
am+m� &pwaaiims
Leased assets, b mg net of
actunm3lated amubmrft:m
Total asset
Deferred aut{lc s of resources:
lr n ma itiaed less on bond dlefea=e
Deferred arl,aurts on pension Plans
Defened zmm=t: on OPEB plm
Total defenedoutIloix-,afr ces
Loa bilities:
Account: Para n1e
IDterert payal<le
Ket-b-pa{aaile
Due -o city emplo BEL
Due ro GdLer gotiatmtient d anR.w; es
2DOUL
Unearned te;-enme
Long-term liabilities- due withm ome yem:
Total OPM liability- dire , ithim om }EM
Claims pa}alle- due aithmcane ye=
Due in more than am Tear.
Lomg-term liaiulities
Net pemsimlubil -
Total OPEB liability
C:a11YY. payable
Total abilities
Deferred inflows of resources:
Defenec aanaurt: on penman plan-
Deferred ainaurt: on OPEB pl m
Deferredamni t;amleases
Total defin-ed ii~flans of re=rnati
het Position:
�4et un-est ent imcapital assets
Re:tri,cted far:
447,185,233 S 85,815,343 $ 533,000,576
5,M,847
-
5.373,847
907,011
198 &9
1,105,815
4,890.040
16,683,629
21,573,60
80,170,835
-
80.170,835
6,343,255
483,3516
6,826,611
87,993,725
-
87,993,725
IR30D
10,300
597,116
597,116
265,421
-
265,421
7,024.9 D
965,540
7.990,520
Z670,152
-
2,670,152
523,156
-
523,156
7.775.641
-
7,775,641
660,383.477
29,951,865
690..335,342
361.454-189
127,-631,129
489.085,318
9.55{i,755
-
9,550;755
11683,119133
261,729,666
1,944,848,79
'7 097,249
126,397
2,223,646
49�962a838
20,01 360
517,679jn
4;294,654
698,412
4,993,066
504,054341 20,841,169 524,895,910
21,796276
4,660 219
14,510,767
344,98b
36307,043
5.005,205
1,488,667
801,250
2289917
6,530,639
-
6,530,-639
58,791
-
58,608,791
&ASUs4i'1
F,i'f 41
8,U6
125,813.,597
-
125,813,597
25,954,209
1,648,075
27;601284
1,443,356
297,623
11740,979
9,600,O00
-
9,600,OW
498,957,168
28,830,488
527,78T-656
480,076:589
18,'733, 051
498.809,640
45,482,84b
7,333,714
52.81.6,56O
42,361,DW
-
42.361,080
1.329,661.874
73,672,896
1,403-334,-770
160,256,078
10;783,&A
171,039,882
5,926,119
963,733
6,889,852
6,186.242
463,987
6,650,229
172,368,439
12,211,524
184-579,963
941,9W-.878
141,332,453
1,08:3.233 31
Di--4 mice
94,049
- %,049
C,.Pitalprt�ject
58,O14.677
- 58,014,t 77
N atioral polhrbx m dLmharge een a an system
-
2,451,629 2453,629
CanmmnitvDe�eigoPmEat
7807,162
- T807,162
Ca* n=1y Senaces & Phrrnrmg
505,9M
- 505966
Ra-Teatiarn & Cm=mry Sei-s-ioes
2,632,004
- 1632,004
Public Safety
5,253,386
- 5.253,3M
PuDlic Works
104,064,097
- 104-064,087
Spem. n-mauehau=LE311±0rrtyP"BdS
32,737,485
- 32737,485
Pension SU.bLt'V
523,156
- 523,156
Gnre:tncted
(4b8,3892M
52,900,333 (415-488,956)
Total net no -anon
S 695,143,561 S
196,686,415 S 881.&?9,976
See accomamn ine Notes to the Basic Fir a -1l State�
- 41
Further to illustrate the above, I point you to Truth In Accounting's analysis of the City of Santa Ana in the "Financial
State of the Cities 2023" report found here: https://www.truthinaccounting.org/library/doclib/FSOC-2023.pdf Their
analsysi ranks us as #50 out of the 75 largest cities in the US. They utilize a similar analysis as I have above in trying to
determine the city's ability to pay its bills. I believe that there most recent study is based on the 6/30/21
information. Based on the 6/30/21 financials, it puts our deficit (money needed to pay bills) at $565M which is close,
although not exactly at, the unrestricted net position balance at the same period per the above. Their breakdown is
useful, although because of pandemic funds and an increasing investment market, our 6/30/22 1 expect will be
better. Truth in Accounting grades us as a D.... and at 50t" in the nation out of 75 (#1 is best btw).
Even though I say that each resident's share of the city's deficit is about $1500, they have it pegged at $5600. Their
population basis is only those in the city that have a positive federal tax burden per the IRS. I believe for our city, that
reducing the spread of the burden from about 300K people to only about 100K people. I personally think that is not
appropriate to spread the city debt burden across all residents though for a city especially because our city revenue is
driven more by sales tax, property taxes, and other non -income tax related items. The theme is the same though ... each
of us is in debt and we don't even know it.
Here is their analysis of our city:
Ana,,,
Earned
Health
Financial State of Beata Ana
i
After the Covid-pandemic, in part due to iederal government stimulus money, Santa Ana's financial
condition appeared to improve.. Despite apparent improvements, 'Santa Aria had a Taxpayer Burden'- of
$5,600, earning it a'D" grade from Truth in Accounting.
Santa Ana's financial problems stem mostly from unfunded retirement obligations that have accumulated
over the years. Unfortunately, the amounts of unfunded pension and retiree health care benefits used
by 5anta Ana end in this report were the same as 2020, because newer data could not be found. The
outdated numbers used do not reffiec:r the unusual market gains experienced 15y t ALPers in 2021. In
2022, the city had set aside only fib cents for every dollar of promised pension benefits and had no
money set aside for promised retiree health care benefits,
Santa Ana's elected officials have repeatedly made financial visions that left the city with a debt
burden of $565,7 million. That burden came to $5,600 for every city taxpayer, ITT 2022, markets
prcxiucerl negative market returns and federal CO ID relief waned. These conditions may increase the
per taxpayer Tax Ourden. Santa Ana could struggle to maintain current levels of government services and
benefits without further negative impact on its financial health.
The data included in this report is derived from Santa Ana's 2021 audited Annual Comprehensive
Financial Report and retirement plans' reports. To compare prior years and other cities' financial,
demographic, and economic information, gar to Data-Z.org.
Daniels College of Business
UNIVERSITYO' DENVER
School of Accountancy
10
Seats Ana's Financial Breakdown
Fast Felts
* Santa Ana needed $565.7 rnlilion to pay its bills.
• This means each taxpayer would have to pay $5,600 in future taxes for which they would receive
no related services or txenefits.
• Santa Ana's un funded pension and retiree health carc' amounts did not change bmause new
valuations could not be found -
Tot a I Assets
1, 1-r),8s()„()(d0
Minus: Capital assets
- 1, it 50,707,000
Restricted Assets
-S210,213,000
Assets Available to pay Bills
$458,939,000
inUs: Total Bills*
-$ I ,024,E, 4 ,000
orrev Needed to Ray R i I I s
$565,707,{]00
Each Taxpayers Share of this Burden
$5,600
*Breakdown of Total
Bonds
S7.3,947,000
Other Liabilities
$303,78(),000
r inu-.;: Debt Related to Capital Assets
- 111,794,000
UniUnded Pension Benefits
$703,312,005
Unfunded Retiree Health Care Benefits
$55,401,000
Total Bills
$1,024,646,000
DD7Bottom line: Santa Ana would need $5,600 from each of its
laxpayet°s to pa)+ al I of its hills, so 11 has received a "IY for its
finances. According to Truth in Accounting's grading scale,
any government with a Taxpayer Borden between $5,000
and $20,000 receiv(,s a "13" grade.
Truth in Accounting is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit committed to educating and empowering pau with understandable,
reliable, and transparent government financial information so you can be a knowledgeable participant in your
government and its hudget process.
11
Here are a couple of interesting pages from the same Truth in Accounting report that is related to our city's situation
also:
11
All of the 7:5 cities we analyze have balanced budget requirements, which are in place lu assert future
financial €lifficu[ties and to enhance accountability- As the Gawernrewntal Accounting Standards How fI
(GASS) points out, the , rc-,tluiremenis are "to requimi financing and slxcnding practices that c tmblr°
governmental entities to avoid financial difficulty and to livq within their mans,"
AwAher objective of ba landed budget requirements is accountability; elected officials should be accountal-)le
frrr ihr, tax dollars they sswnd. Formv-r U.S, Treasury caff-rc.:iat Fra4 Gwanaugh said it hest' Politiciartis should
not liovv ilie pleasure of spending (geiting woes) without the. pain of'taxing (bring vvtest,k
By de4init iorl, if as city has a balanced but3w r"uirertwi, then sl ndFng should not exceed can *A revenue
brotIgN in during a specific year, BI lanced hudget rrerluirenterrts are meant preventelecW officials from
shifting theburden of payingforcuuent-yelrservices unto (uture-year laxpa)Trs.
So how can cities claim their budgets are balanced while our r"rt AKm,s marry of them are in debt?The
answer is in the accounting tricks used io calculate budgets.
Municipalities balance budgets by using accounting tricks such as the (ollawing:
s Inflating revenue assumptions
* Count!ng borrowed money as income
* Undersiating the true costs of government
+ Belaying the payment of current bills until the start of the next fiscal year so they aren't included in the
catculations
The mast cormn-wm accounting trick cities use is to hide -employee benefits such as healthcare, life insurance,
and pensions, from the current budgeting process by not acknowledging they exist. Cities become obligated
to pay fcxr these benefits as employms earn there_ Although these rc.Mirement benefits will not be paid
until the emplcxym retire, they still represent current compensation costs because they were earned and
incurred thn xighout the empleq*0 tenure, Furthermore, that vnni ey mum be pal init i the rulirument fund
to acc urmu late investment earnings_ Unfortunately, some etected officials have used portions of the nxir y
(3%VLXl to txtnsion and OFEB Binds in keep tam low and pity far politically fx-)pular programs. Instead of
funding promised benefits now, they have been charged to future taxpayers, Shifting these payments to future
taxpayers allows the budget to appear balanced while city debt is increasing,
wernmen% are able to accumulate debt While c:ta iming halantwf I I srid gets h auu?. the Vast rriakttity of
buclfwts are prepared on the cash -basis. This is an aatirtuaterf acroaintin, method chat includes cash inflows,
including loan prod as revenue, and otgi<lowt—in [3t!roer wrartl , r�r4 CheelC% +Wilteri.
Wv rvi-ommend FACT -based budgeting and accountinL& .which stands for (till accrual taltufatians a:rid
techniques tFACTI. FACTS budVing and accounting turves beyond cash -basis to provide More n0ijbte
and truthful budgeting and financial reporting €k curnents.
This is the motivation and foundation for the rorapartisara mission of TIA: to educate and empower citizens
with understandable, reliable, and tramparent gavennment financial information. TIA is a 501Icl(3) nonprofit,
nonpartisan orgaoisitian composed cd business, community, and academic leaders interested in improving
government financial reporting. TiA makes no policy recommendations beyond improvements to budgeting
and accounting practices that will enhance the public's understanding of gowrnmeot finances,
,MMCPAIMI,
12
lensions & Market Volatili
A government's 'e[ Penslon Liability is calculated by sub[racting the market value of its pension plan assets
fmm the estimated arrmunt of po nisi.wl 1*nelfils, When using the n-.arkel value cif pension plan assets, the Net
PenAon Liability +gill fluctuate based upon market conditicm- Some argue that because Net Plension tiabilily
is a coaiTgwwnt of a gomnments Net Position lasrsets minus liabi€itiesl, fluctuations in market values would
result in great volatility in the Net Position. To avoid such fluctuatium, the Covernmental Accounting, Standards
Board allows, governments to atmortize the fluctuation in market values otrer Nme.
Truth in Accounting, heliews that the Net Position should not be shielded ire i'n market il'u tuations. Users
of the financial report, especially taxpayers, need to understand the reality of pensickn plan investrsrents. We
highlight that reporting, including, the marker ralue in the pension liability does not cause great volatifih, in a
governmen6 Net l'osilion. Reality does. Taxpayem need to understand this volatility acid the risk taken asn to
WA-i-rnmunis, which in turn is a risk to taxpayv*.
Therefore. our money needed to pay gills is calculated rasing the market value of pension assets without any
arimrtiaatkm (A the unrealized gains in market value. We "od That for most cities in fiscal year 2021 p-mion
assess" i ncr,wasecl dra,-natically, because of strong markets. The mulling pension lia6i I icy and money needed to
pay hilts dex-reased equally dramatically_
In reviewing cities whose pension plans' fnamial reports fur fiscal year 2022 were available, we usually found
that these unrea.li;ted gains either t#"vped greatly cx svvitchecd tip uorealized Imes,. Therefore, we spat "t
cities' pension liabilities and money needed to pay bills will increase when we issue our next Financial State of
Ihe Cities.
In fir in 5OMe 66(-s we fcxind that Ih4 dramatic gains ci 2021 resulted in their pension plans appearing to
be rnrerfunded, laui irlvewtnk•rit 14A" in ?'W-) hrcts[rght their pen-.iim plash lack to an unckwhinded status. Foe'
example, on Junk 30, 2020. Los Ailgeles Hire and Police Pension System reported a Net Pension Liability of
2.57 billion. in fiscal year 2021 its pension assets experienced unrealized gainstA 32.560%which caused
the pension system to appear to 1>0 ovedunded by $2.7 billion. In liscll }ear 2022 the funds' pension asset
value experienced unrealized lus". of 7.23'1/6, which played a large part in bringing the system back to an
underfunded status veiih a hc•I P nsian Liability of $6,48.8 million.
This highlight_; the volatility and risk surrounding pension plan assets and ccwresponding pensions liabilities.
Taxpayers can only hope that when pension plan investments roved to be sold to pay frx benefilsr the market
value of thow investments #will Iw high, If ", taxpayers will he on the hark ttt pay higlser taxis * cr ww the
promised benefits.
As in time case of a few cities, pension plans should be overfunded during market upturns, 5n they ran
weather downturms in the markcm. Elected officials nvy see this temporary; unrealized awrfu„ded status as an
oppoqun ity to rrfluce pension contributions andior increase benefits. 5ueh actions are rips advisable, lwcause
of fulare downturns in the markets, as happened in 2022. The 2022 dmynturn is switching many overfunded
pension plans back into an underfunded poll on,
' For many cities prior year (2020) amounts were used to calculate their pension liability, including Ihe rowkel
value of pension assets. WhenTruith in Accpunling researchers could find the 2021 year numbers, we used
those slumbers for nur 2021 calculations. Because of the high market valuations that occurred in 2021. the use
of outdated numbers greatly affected the cities' pension liability numbers.
�i
WOO 6
-0-amnam6h,
I hope that you find the above information useful for your discussion tonight and in the future. I believe that our city
Finance Dept is great btw. I don't think they are trying to hide things or are playing accounting tricks (some of the Truth
in Accounting language above implies that). We are fortunate that we have a great finance team which also provides me
hope that they can help be part of the solution here with your guidance. Thank you for each of your attention to our
city. Your time is much appreciated.
MROscubergwr I Tim Johnson, CPA
cA""ud*L Partner
13
Proudly part of the Wglobal family
91®®
(949) 860-9892
(714) 743-1065
tjohnson@jlkrllp.com
2601 Main Street, Suite 580, Irvine, CA 92614
See our latest business news and insights by clicking here
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is
protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. JLK Rosenberger is a California Limited Liability Partnership
and a member firm of PKF International Limited, a family of legally independent member firms and does not accept any responsibility
or liability for the actions or inactions on the part of any other individual member or correspondent firm or firms.
14
Orozco, Norma
From: Debbi Dickinson <debbi@dslextreme.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2023 12:34 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Comments for today's meeting
Attachments: Santa Ana meeting.pdf
Please accept my comments regarding the HUGE need for a low cost spay/neuter service for Santa
Ana. I will also be calling in to speak.
Thank you,
Debbi Hammil
Spay/Neuter/Vaccine and Medical Expenses by two Independent trappers, one
cat networker in Santa Ana alone since the closing of OCAC due to Covid.
2020
30 cats
$8,309
2021
238 cats
$15,166
Only 31 of these cats were TNR'd. All others were networked to rescues and a
majority were kittens that found rescues that then incurred the spay/neuter and
vetting costs.
2022
130 cats
$15,192
2023 ytd
52 cats
$5,368
These numbers are only down because we have so few places to get kitties
fixed. In 2020, we had 5-6 vets that would do low cost spay neuter. Today we
have to go to LA or Riverside County to get low cost.
Due to this, the county most particularly Santa Ana, will be over -run with
homeless animals. We will start looking like a third world country.
Even a rescue I volunteer for, have lost their three vets they have used for 15
years for Spay/neutering.
Orange County has NO truly LOW COST spay/neuter facilities. The few
reasonable vets or vets that accepted vouchers offered by animal welfare
agencies, stopped taking or limiting acceptance of feral cats for spay/neuter.
LA County, San Diego County and Riverside County — less affluent counties
then Orange County, all have these services.
OUTCOME:
Animal owners can not afford to spay/neuter their pets. People who feed
feral/community cats can not afford the cost to spay/neuter. Hence, the cat
population has exploded in Orange County.
This has left the burden of managing these colonies up to independent trappers
who spend hours after working their full-time jobs trapping. They also spend
their own money to fix, vaccinate and vet these cats.
Prior to COVID, OCAC had a RTF (return to field) program for feral and
community cats. It was paid for and sponsored by Stray Cat Alliance. OCAC
shut it down. Last year another another organization offered to sponsor and pay
for a RTF program if it could be hosted at OCAC. OCAC turned it down.
OCAC has continually told people who have brought in found, unfixed cats, to
return them to where they were found, UNFIXED.
When OCAC has taken in kittens, they immediately put them on the Euthanasia
list and guilt rescues to take them in causing rescues to be so overwhelmed and
running out of funds to care for all these cats.
OCAC fosters who step up to foster these euth-listed kittens, are given no
supplies to care for them. When they take in bottle babies, they are told they
will take back and fix once eating on their own and weighing 2 pounds. Now
they are being required to hold for 3 months before the shelter will take back.
This doesn't allow these fosters to take in more high risk kittens.
In addition, anyone going to the shelter to pick up kittens to foster or return
kittens for vet checks, are required to sit inside their cars and sometimes wait an
hour for the kittens to be picked up and returned to them — many times seeing
the shelter worker pull up in their car to come in to do that job. No one seems to
be on site working at the shelter yet the budget shows they are still being paid.
I can only speak to the treatment or lack of treatment for the cat community. I
have heard just as horrid stories for the dogs.
With 17 cities tax dollars going to this beautiful $35 million facility, why has their
been no audit of their practices? How can they claim to be operating this way
do to Covid when most business has fully resumed business as usual?
Orozco, Norma
From: Margot Boyer <margotboyer0@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2023 1:43 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Latest Reports on OC Animal Care!!
Attachments: OCAC Summary Bad Data.pdf, OCAC Wrong Numbers and No Plan.pdf, OCAC bad
Data on Bites.pdf, OCAC bad Data on Animal Counts.pdf, OCAC BOS-Approved 2018
Strategic Plan.pdf
Dear Committee
I have attached a number of reports written by Michael Mavrovouniotis, who up until recently was a volunteer
at the OCAC shelter until he was fired after producing reports that demonstrated that the OCAC figures were
completely incorrect.
Michael is from MIT and has spent his entire career analyzing data, first in academia and then in an investment
form.
It is important that management from Santa Ana council know of the incorrect data that is being produced by
OCAC and where the tax payers spend their money and to consider if you want to change what your budget
should be spent on.
For example, the OCAC is not open to the public, if the public wishes to see an animal then they have to make
an appointment first and only see 2 animals.
Is that considered open in your eyes and what you want for all the money spent each year?
As a consequence to the shelter being shut and not open to the public more animals are being euthanized.
Please read these comprehensive and accurate reports that have been comprised from data provided by OCAC.
Thank you.
Margot Boyer
Excuse my typos. I'm typing this from my phone!
Begin forwarded message:
From: Margot Boyer <margotboyer0@gmail.com>
Date: June 6, 2023 at 10:56:22 AM PDT
To: Destiny Torres <dtorres@scng.com>
Subject: Fwd: Latest Reports on OC Animal Care!!
Hey Destiny.
You might find this useful!
These reports have been taken from the OC Shelters own statistics.
It's just awful and total proof of what is happening there.
Margot Boyer
Excuse my typos. I'm typing this from my phone!
Begin forwarded message:
From: Michael Mavrovouniotis <michaelmavrovouniotis@gmail.com>
Date: June 6, 2023 at 10:04:11 AM PDT
To: Michael Mavrovouniotis <michaelmavrovouniotis@gmail.com>
Subject: Latest Reports on OC Animal Care!!
Hello! You are receiving this email (bcc) because you are on my list of recipients
for Reports on OC Animal Care. If you do not wish to receive these messages,
please let me know.
I have now put all the Reports and supporting documents on a website:
http://OCShelter.com
At the bottom of the webpage, you'll see links to Box folders. The ones tagged as
June 2023 are the new ones.
I will also go ahead and attach the key reports, though you'll have to go to the
website for the supporting documents they reference. (I'm happy to email you
everything, I just thought it would be confusing for the recipients.) Please feel
free to disseminate all the reports, and contact me if you have any questions.
These are the key reports:
"OCAC Summary Bad Data.pdf" (-2 pages) is the recommended starting
point. Structured in charts and bullet items, its main points are:
- OCAC Animal Bite Statistics are just plain WRONG. For more, see a separate
report "OCAC bad Data on Bites.pdf' in the Bites folder.
- Animal counts from OCAC Shelter Animals Count data don't add up. See a
separate report "OCAC bad Data on Animal Counts.pdf'in the Animal Count
folder.
- OCAC's Strategic Plan has been tossed out. See the report "OCAC BOS-
Approved 2018 Strategic Plan.pdf' in the Suppression of Strategic Plan folder.
- What should be done? On this last point, also consult the second summary
document below, whose recommendations are more detailed.
"OCAC Wrong Numbers and No Plan.pdf" (-3 pages) is a wordier summary
document that ties everything together, making references to the remaining
documents from this release. It cites earlier studies on the rising kill rate, return
rate, and length of stay, from the May 2023 studies "OCAC Summary.pdf' and
"OCAC Details.pdf", which are still useful to review. It highlights new results on
the misrepresentation of bites and the inconsistency of OCAC published
statistics. It introduces the curiously neglected Strategic Plan, voted by the Board
of Supervisors in 2018, and largely disdained and disregarded by OCAC and
OCCR in the 2020-2022 period under cover of the pandemic. Finally, it
recommends actions that County administration and the Board of Supervisors can
take to address the problem.
"OCAC bad Data on Bites.pdf' (-8 pages) is a report detailing the finding that
OCAC and OCCR gave false numbers for the bites that occurred in OCAC in
recent years. This is astounding, because OCAC/OCCR constantly used a
supposed dramatic reduction in bites as the reason for continuing the pandemic -
era policies. This report shows that this reduction is in fact much smaller. For
bites by dogs, the report further documents that this effect is largely due to a
change in the number and age distribution of shelter dogs. Once you account for
the reduction in the number of dogs and the fact the average age went down, the
difference becomes quite small.
"OCAC bad Data on Animal Counts.pdf' (-6 pages) details the discrepancies in
the shelter's published statistics. If you start from their stated initial animal count,
add intakes (animals that came in), and subtract outcomes (animals that left, alive
or dead), you don't get their reported final count. It's as if, in your bank
statement, the initial balance plus credits minus debits just doesn't equal the final
balance. This is in direct violation of Industry Standards (documented in files
below).
"OCAC BOS-Approved 2018 Strategic Plan.pdf' (-4 pages) is a quick preview of
the BOS-approved 2018 Strategic Plan and its derailment and suppression by OC
Animal Care and OC Community Resources. Notably, the Strategic Plan
required:
- All qualified dogs in daily playgroups.
- 100% Tracking of animal enrichment activities
- Reduction in average length of stay
More extensive study and a future report are needed. But the BOS and the county
should reaffirm and implement it as quickly as possible.
3
Summary - OC Animal Care: Bad Data & No Plan
Orange County Animal Care (OCAC) and Orange County Community Resources (OCCR) are pulling
numbers out of thin air.
• The animal bite statistics reported by them are fictional.
• Their "industry standard" statistics on the OCAC website have animals appearing and
disappearing when you do a basic check of the numbers.
Can any of their data and "facts" be trusted?
The Strategic Plan for OCAC has been tossed out the window by OCCR without consultation with
stakeholders, experts, or the Board of Supervisors. The Strategic Plan requires:
• Daily playgroups for both large and small dogs.
• Tracking 100% of animal enrichment activities.
• Reduction in average length of stay.
None of these things are happening. What plan are OCAC/OCCR using?
An external audit of OCAC's data gathering, data analysis, and fact compilations is in order. In addition,
there should be an investigation of how and why OCAC and OCCR:
• Misled the public with their "facts".
• Discarded and buried their strategic plan.
OCAC Animal Bite Statistics are just plain WRONG
The animal bite statistics provided by OCAC/OCCR are fictional. For example, in 2022, their tables
show that only 12 animal bites occurred. But there were at least 23 animal bites at OCAC (almost
double the number they reported) in the county -wide bite database and we have the reports.
2022 ANIMAL BITES # Bites Missed byOCAC/OCCR
23
Actual is 92% higher
10 than reported
8
12
a
2
0
CLAIMED ACTUAL 2019 2020 202:. 2022
Vanishing Bite Difference
2019 to 2022
OCCR FALSE CLAIM
43
justifying dog policies
ACTUAL
dog bite difference 15
Adjusted
for lower intakes 6.5
Adjusted
foryoungerdogs s.2
0 10 20 30 40 50
If you look at the bite reports, there were 19 DOG bites alone in 2022. The reduction in dog bites from
34 in 2019 to 19 in 2022 can mostly be explained by the reduction in intakes and changing dog
demographics. OCAC had more older dogs in 2019 and older dogs are more likely to bite.
How did OCAC/OCCR get their numbers so wrong? Did they purposely falsify their animal bite statistics
to justify their policies? Or were they just grossly incompetent? Or perhaps both?
Animal counts from OCAC Shelter Animals Count data don't add up
When asked about data, OCAC/OCCR refer to their "industry standard" statistics on the OCAC website.
But the animal counts given on their website don't add up. If you look at the number of animals at the
start of the period, add the number coming in, and subtract the number going out, you should get the
final count. This is part of the Shelter Animals Count and Asilomar standards.
Summary - 1
If you do this basic check on OCAC's 2021 & 2022 year-end data as well as on the quarterly data, the
number of dogs and cats at the end of the periods aren't what you would expect. Animals are
appearing or disappearing unaccounted for by their data.
Dog Miscount
30
zo
Dogs appearing
10
2021 21-Ql 21-Q2 1-Q 21-Q4 n 22-Ql 22-Q2 22-Q3 22-Q4
10
-20
-30
Dogs disappearing
-40
-s0
Cat Miscount
300
zoo
Cats appearing
100
o u
a0z1 21-Ql 1-Q 1-Q zl-Q4 zozz 22-Ql z-Q 22-Q3 2z-Q4
100
zoo
-300
Cats disappearing
-400
Ili
How can OCAC get their animal counts so wrong? Do they not understand how to do their books? Are
they as careless with their fiscal accounting as they are with their animal accounting?
OCAC's Strategic Plan has been tossed out
A Strategic Plan for OCAC was created when the new shelter was built with the full participation of
animal -sheltering experts, county staff, and the community. The Board of Supervisors (BOS) approved
the Strategic Plan on May 18, 2018.
In 2020, the goals and metrics set out by the Strategic Plan were tossed aside without consultation
with stakeholders, experts, or the BOS. The Strategic Plan required daily playgroups for all qualified
dogs, tracking of all animal enrichment activities, reduction in length of stay, and a lot more.
The reality for early 2023:
• Large dog playgroups virtually never happen, if we exclude isolated for -show instances when
there was active scrutiny by the press. Small dog playgroups occur only 3 times a week.
• Out -of -kennel enrichment is not tracked.
• The average length of stay has steadily climbed from 2019 to 2022 for adult dogs and cats.
20
15
10
s
0
2019
Adult Dogs Length of Stay Adult Cats Length of St,,
2019 2020 2021 2022
14
12
10
e
4
2
0
2018
2019 2020 2021 zozz
Have OCAC/OCCR created a secret strategic plan that has bites as the only metric? Why aren't care,
enrichment, and speed of placement (key components of Strategic Priority #1) being tracked?
What should be done?
Restore good policies, do a thorough external audit, and implement the Strategic Plan.
Summary - 2
OCAC Wrong Numbers and No Plan
Malignant Innumeracy
Most of the numbers OC Animal Care (OCAC) puts forward wither at the slightest scrutiny. A benign
innumeracy might entail merely poor grasp of hard data, but OCAC also invents and distorts numbers
and facts, and it actively resists high quality analysis and statistics. OCAC suffers from malignant
innumeracy.
Oversight by OC Community Resources (OCCR) and upper county leadership has been superficial.
Instead of identifying and remedying the problem, OCCR has enabled it - if not amplified it. OCAC
built a Potemkin village. OCCR and county leadership did not look behind the facade. OCCR abetted
the misrepresentations by acting as OCAC's advertising agency.
Previously, in the saga of OCAC
An earlier round of reports, headlined by "OCAC Summary.pdf" and "OCAC Details.pdf" already
corrected a slew of OCAC's misrepresentations. Just three highlights:
- The kill rate rose in the 2020-2022 period, even though intakes are well below pre -pandemic levels.
- OCAC's Orwellian "Fact Check" brags about the low rate at which adopted animals were returned.
In reality, the return rate was higher in 2022 than in any prior year.
- OCAC claims it maintains a low length of stay of 11 days. The real length of stay has been rising
and, in 2022, reached about 20 days for dogs.
The earlier reports showed the impact of (on -going) pandemic -era policies on large dogs and
proposed remedies. They fell on deaf ears. Suffering from malignant innumeracy, OCAC treats sound
analysis with contempt or hostility, even as it is unable to produce a valid study of its own.
OCAC is refusing to talk about the length of stay or the return rates, because it can't refute
them and they show its poor performance. The misleading metrics in its Orwellian "Fact Check"
document have been exposed, so a code of silence is its only option.
The OCAC/OCCR primary talent is false advertising with invented metrics, telling pretty stories
disconnected from the reality on the ground.
The OCAC Bite Statistics are Wrong
OCAC and OCCR make a show of caring deeply about the number of bites at the shelter. But not
deeply enough to actually count them correctly. Or is it possible that they care too deeply, to the point
of massaging the numbers to better fit a preconceived story?
The report "OCAC Bad Data on Bites.pdf" and its supporting documents show that the number of
bites is 92% higher than the OCAC/OCCR report for 2022. The artificially low numbers of bites
were used to justify dog -kennel policies - without even attempting to look specifically at dog bites.
Apparently, OCAC/OCCR believe that cat bites matter for judging dog adoption procedures.
A simple study shows that the frequency of dog bites depends on the age of the dog. From 2019
to 2022 we saw not only a drop in the number of dogs (intakes or outcomes), but also a shift to
younger dogs. These two effects account for most of the change in the number of dog bites
between 2019 to 2022. Any credit given to procedure changes is preposterously inflated.
OCCR persistently obstructed PRAs over 3.5 months before the bite data was (fortuitously) obtained.
Will OCAC and OCCR inform the county how they arrived at the erroneous numbers, dismal quality
analysis, and flagrant misinterpretation - and why the covered their tracks? Were bites just a ruse to
justify the continuation of pandemic -era policies?
The OCAC Animal Checkbook doesn't Balance
The OCAC never ceases to point to its published statistics which it claims are "Industry Standard" and
"transparent". But a simple consistency check of the OCAC's statistics revealed that its animal
accounts don't balance. If you start from their stated initial animal count, add intakes (animals that
came in), and subtract outcomes (animals that left, alive or dead), you don't get their reported final
Bad Numbers and No Plan - Page 1 of 3
count. It's as if, in your bank statement, the initial balance plus credits minus debits just doesn't equal
the final balance.
The report, "OCAC bad Data on Animal Counts.pdf" and its companion documents show the
pervasiveness of the mysterious appearance and disappearance of animals from the shelter's
accounting. The discrepancies violate "Industry Standards" and any semblance of
"transparency". How can it be that, in the entire OCAC/OCCR hierarchy nobody even took note
of the discrepancy?
OCAC is Suppressing its Strategic Plan
Pop quiz:
- Did you know there is a Strategic Plan for OCAC?
- That it was put together with the full participation of animal -sheltering experts, county staff, and the
community?
- That it was approved by the BOS in 2018?
This Strategic Plan was so well hidden that we only found about it at in the last week of May. It's
nowhere to be found on the OCAC and county websites. Even a cursory glance reveals why: The
goals and metrics set out by the Strategic Plan were quietly cast aside (or thrown with great force) in
2020. For all that and more read the preview report "OCAC BOS-Approved 2018 Strategic Plan.pdf".
The Strategic Plan required daily play groups for large dogs as well as small ones. It required
100% tracking of animal enrichment activities. It required reduction of Length Of Stay (the very
metric our first reports documented and OCAC/OCCR refuse to even study.)
One would think that the Strategic Plan would be prominently displayed on the shelter's website. It is
nowhere to be found. It was procured only by a PRA. Is this a rather implausible oversight, or did
OCAC/OCCR hide the Strategic Plan because they did not intend to abide by it? What is certain
is that OCAC/OCCR overthrew the Strategic Plan without consultation with stakeholders, experts, or
the BOS.
The Strategic Plan has spent too much time in the shadows. It was practically buried without a
funeral. It's time for the BOS to restore it as OCAC's guiding document.
OCCR is Part of the Problem
Consider the totality of OCAC's misrepresentations, including the inconsistent statistics and the flat-
out wrong bite counts. Consider the performance decline documented in the previous reports.
Instead of intervening to identify and solve problems, OCCR devoted its energies on PR to cover up
the shelter's shortcomings. It resisted outside information - as recently as in the last month. For
several months it denied access to the data on bites that exposed OCAC/OCCR disinformation. If just
a fraction of the PR effort had been directed at getting the facts, the county's animals and citizens
would have been better served.
It is reasonable to ask whether OCCR played an active or passive role in the misrepresentations. For
example, it is difficult to imagine that the bite -count slide was believed unchallenged. It is equally
difficult to understand how OCCR could ignore multiple efforts by citizens to inform it of the realities of
the shelter. It seems that OCCR contrived a sequence of ever -changing arguments to justify policies
that were decided for other reasons. Perhaps it was just to save money, but it didn't even do that.
Longer stays raise costs. This falls way short of the high standards citizens and elected officials
expect of Orange County agencies.
Need for Action
In 2022, OCAC received fewer incoming animals than in 2019 (i.e., pre -pandemic), yet it experienced
higher kill rates, higher return rates, longer stays, and higher inventory which led to higher costs and
declining level of care. In 2023 this poor performance is exacerbated by an external factor, a large
increase in intakes.
The OCAC Strategic Plan was put together with the guidance of top-notch experts and input from the
community, and was approved by the Board of Supervisors in 2018. It laid out a plan for the new
Bad Numbers and No Plan - Page 2 of 3
shelter. Under cover of pandemic, OCAC and OCCR management steered a course away from this
Strategic Plan. In most goals and metrics laid out by the Strategic Plan, OCAC is failing spectacularly.
Worse, it's not even trying to meet them.
The Board of Supervisors can remedy the situation by:
- Confirming that the Strategic Plan approved in 2018 is still valid.
- Instructing County staff to take steps towards its rapid implementation.
Given the accumulated errors of OCAC/OCCR, proper implementation of the Strategic Plan should
involve:
- An external audit of OCAC's data -gathering, data -analysis, and fact compilations
- An investigation of how and why OCAC and OCCR misled the public.
In the interim, county leaders should instruct OCAC to state unequivocally that, until the audits can be
completed, it does not have faith in its Bite Statistics, the inconsistent Animal Counts, the so-called
Fact Check document, and all other metrics it has used in presentations to the public and the BOS.
In order for OCAC/OCCR to demonstrate the bare minimum of good intentions:
- OCAC needs to address the socialization needs of dogs by instituting daily playgroups for small
dogs and large dogs, as set forth in the strategic plan. It should commit to socializing the majority of
large dogs. It should meticulously document this activity.
- OCAC should immediately return to the freer pre -pandemic adoption procedures for most of its
hours of operation. The kennel area should be open to visitors a minimum of 4 days a week,
including one weekend day. Modest adjustments can create a welcoming environment for all types of
visitors.
The citizens of Orange County can make up their own mind about assigning responsibility. Those of
us that have the skills and inclination will watch, collect more data, and delve into as -yet -unexplored
areas of the shelter's data.. We can update all graphs and tables on a quarterly basis. To this end,
OCAC and OCCR should commit to fulfilling all data requests speedily and transparently.
Bad Numbers and No Plan - Page 3 of 3
The truth about the number of bites in 2018-2022
Faced with any analysis or recommendations, OC Animal Care (OCAC) and OC Community
Resources (OCCR), always turn the discussion to safety, i.e., bites. A key slide that shows the
number of bites at the shelter each year is present most presentations by OCAC/OCCR. The
slide is shown below.
OCAC and OCCR are proud of the very low number of bites in the 2020-2022 period. You
would think they assembled these statistics (just double-digit numbers annually) carefully.
There are many of ways to do this:
- Put the bite reports in a file drawer, and hand -count them at the end of the year.
- Enter them in a calendar.
- Instruct staff to flag the bite reports with a hashtag.
- Or, lacking all foresight, spend a modicum of effort to sort through the data and count.
As it becomes evident below, OCAC and OCCR took none of these steps. The numbers they
present in the slide are, like so many of their numbers and assertions, fictional.
In effect, nobody knows with certainty how many bites occurred at the shelter in each
recent year. Not OCAC, not OCCR, not the Supervisors, not the public. But we do know one
thing: The bite statistics presented by OCAC/OCCR are wrong by a wide margin.
�2019
9
20
16
bites to employees
bites to employees
bites to employees
6
12
0
bites to volunteers
bites to volunteers
bites to volunteers
2
23
7
bites to members of
bites to members of
bites to members of
public
public
public
What is the true number of bites?
4
bites to employees
4
bites to volunteers
3
bites to members of
public
6
bites to employees
2
bites to volunteers
4
bites to members of
public
The saga of the PRAs and OCCR's resistance are detailed in an Appendix at the end of this
report. The first PRAs were met with an assertion that no records are available! OCCR
avoided full disclosure for over three months. A total of 3 databases (not consistent among
them) were obtained only after a cascade of PRAs. Two were supposed to be specific to bites
occurring in the shelter. One was the master database of all bites in the county, from PRA
23-296 submitted for unknown reasons by an unknown requestor.
Bites - Page 1 of 8
# Bites Missed by OCAC/OCCR
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
2019 2020
2021 2022
These give three close, but not identical, counts by year. ALL THREE show that the bites in
any year EXCEPT 2019 are higher than the numbers reported by OCAC/OCCR.
We cannot be absolutely certain about the correct numbers of bites. The most reliable source
is the county -wide database. We extracted from this database the bites that occurred at the
shelter's street address, using a variety of formulations for how the address can be written.
(There were still dozens of entries with no address, and it is possible that some odd formulation
of the address was overlooked.) In a manual verification, the 2022 bites from this database
all appear valid.
OCAC/OCCR will tell you not to trust this report. But we are providing official
documentation of the 2022 bites, in the PDF file "Bite Reports in OCAC 2022.pdf". A total of
23 bites occurred in OCAC in 2022. Official documents obtained via PRAs are included for all
bites but the last one, B22-001727, represented by a printout from the county -wide bite
database. (Official documents for this last bite have been requested.) We are also providing a
CSV file of all the shelter bites for the 2018-2022 period, "Bites at OCAC Address.csv".
Based on our best efforts to extract the relevant records from the database, the real number
of bites for 2022 is 92% higher than what OCAC/OCCR reported. The number for 2019 is
only off by one. The number of bites missed by OCAC/OCCR is showing in a chart for the
years 2019-2022. We left out 2018 because the magnitude of that correction is enormous.
(The extravagant understatement of 2018 made only 2019 the baddie in the OCAC/OCCR
slide, which raises the question of whether the OCAC/OCCR statistics were meant to pin the
bites on policies followed by a specific previous Director.)
Here is a summary of the corrections that need to be made to OCAC/OCCR numbers in the
2018-2022 period:
Year
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
OCAC/OCCR claim
17
55
23
11
12
Database Count
59
56
25
19
23
Pct correction +347% +2% +9% +73% +92%
Conveniently, the 2019 number, used by OC as a baseline, is the only one almost correct.
If it had been underestimated just like the others, OCAC/OCCR wouldn't get the favorable
comparison they were looking for.
Bites - Page 2 of 8
The OCAC/OCCR slide shown earlier is presented in an annotated form in the file "Bite
Statistics - annotated. pdf". The annotation shows the correct numbers and the size of the
error.
The number of bites is still lower in 2020-2022 than in 2019, BUT that's an apples -and -oranges
comparison. Compared to 2019, the 2020-2022 period had fewer intakes, fewer
adoptions, less animal care staffing, and fewer volunteers. (There was even a drop in
county -wide bites.) Have OCAC/OCCR even considered the effects of these other factors on
the number of bites? Not only did OCAC/OCCR present false data, they failed to carry out any
analysis. OCAC/OCCR didn't even grasp that you need to adjust the number of bites by,
for example, the number of animals.
An initial attempt at a more granular analysis immediately runs into problems. There was
disturbing negligence in collecting the data in the first place. For example, a reasonable
analysis would want to look at bites to children or to senior citizens; but the victim age is
missing in a large number of cases. The bite circumstance field is in most cases "OTHER" -
not very useful. Staff are sometimes identified only by title, making it impossible to tell if the
same staff are repeatedly suffering bites. Given these difficulties, a complete analysis of bite
incidents will have to wait. But there is a basic adjustment we'll look at below to arrive at a fair
comparison.
For Dog Bites, the Reduction is mostly Demographics
Cat programs and their modifications over time are not familiar to the author of this report. In
discussing policies specific to dogs (play groups, access to the kennel buildings), we
have to focus on dog bites, not the total. OCAC/OCCR didn't even achieve this simple feat
of logic.
There were 34 bites by dogs in 2019, and 19 in 2022. This is already a far cry from OCAC's
55-to-12 wild claim.
But remember that, compared to 2019, in 2022 there were fewer dog intakes, fewer dog
adoptions, fewer kennel attendants, and fewer volunteers. If we average two fiscal years to
estimate one calendar year, the number of Kennel Attendant dropped from 21 to 16.5;
Senior Kennel Attendants from 5.5 to 4; and Volunteer hours dropped from roughly 22,000
to 16,000.
To compare bites across years without an adjustment would be foolish.
Here we'll focus on adjusting by the number of dog intakes or adoptions. Even the simplest
adjustment by dog numbers makes the difference shrivel. If we adjust the 2019 number by
the number of dog intakes, i.e., multiply by the ratio of (2022 dog intakes) / (2019 dog intakes)
it goes from 34 to 25.5, and the 2019-2022 difference shrinks to just 6.5 bites per year.
We can do an even better comparison by looking at the one piece of information that is almost
always recorded in the bite database, dog age.
It turns out that the bite rate is strongly dependent on dog age. A large portion of the
reduction in dog bites between 2019 and 2022 can be explained by a simple shift in the
numbers and the age -distribution of shelter dogs. This will be shown via the Table "Dog Bites
based on 2018-2022 Statistics". Each column represents an age bracket for dogs, in years.
(This table is derived from an animal database dump, and imperfections in this dump necessitate omitting
a very small percentage of the entries. The effect on the analysis we are doing here is negligible.) There
is a small number of Unknown ages and the Total is also shown.
Bites - Page 3 of 8
The Bites Countywide as well as the Bites at OCAC show the same trend: More bites by
older dogs. (The only small difference is that bites in the youngest age bracket are somewhat
more common countywide, possibly because, unlike in OCAC, young children can be bitten in
the course of playing with puppies.) The shelter dog population, whether measured as
Intakes or as Adoptions plus Transfers, skews young, with diminishing numbers in the
upper age brackets.
Simply put, a small fraction of dogs going through the shelter accounts for a large
fraction of the bites. Any shift in that fraction will have a strong effect on the expected
number of bites.
To get the Bite Rate in the 2018-2022 period for a given age bracket, we compute the ratio of
the number of bites divided by the number of Adoptions and Transfers (expressed as a
percentage). Why? Because what we achieve at the shelter is Adoptions and Transfers, and
bites are an undesirable penalty we pay. We could have used Intakes as the reference, but
Intakes include a large number of Returned -to -Owner (RTO) dogs that are never handled by
adopters, volunteers, and even most staff. Therefore, it's misleading to include them in this
cost -benefit analysis. Still, the qualitative conclusion would be similar if we used Intakes.
Armed with this overall bite rate per age bracket, we can compare 2019 and 2022. For each
year, we count the Adoptions and Transfers by age bracket, and multiply by the bite rate in
each category; these are then added up in the Total column. We can compare the Expected
Bites (Total) for each year to the Actual number of bites.
Dog Bites based on 2018-2022 Statistics
Age Bracket in Years 0-2 2-4 4-7 7+ Unkn Total
Bites Countywide (Not Used)
1,194
967
1,782
2,418
0
6,361
Intakes (Not Used)
9,129
4,670
3,810
4,459
103
22,171
Outcome Adoption or Transfer
6,012
2,560
1,901
1,737
50
12,260
Bites at OCAC Address
Bite Rate per Adoption or Transfer
2019 Adoption or Transfer
8
19
37
52
0
116
0.13%
0.74%
1.95%
2.99%
0.00%
1,427
737
549
444
10
3,167
2019 Expected Bites
1.9
5.5
10.7
13.3
0.0
31.3
2019 Actual Bites
34
2022 Adoption or Transfer
1,383
460
297
300
16 2,456
2022 Expected Bites
2022 Actual Bites
1.8
3.4
5.8
9.0
0.0 20.0
19
Bites - Page 4 of 8
For 2019, 31.3 bites were expected, 34 occurred. For 2022, 20.0 bites were expected, 19
occurred. The Actual fell within a stone's throw of the Expected. That is to say, the change in
the number of dogs by age bracket largely explains the change in the number of bites.
The chart "Vanishing Bite Difference" tracks how, with honest counting and a bit of common
sense, the false and misleading claim of 43 bites (as the difference between 2019 and 2022, in
the OCCR slide) shrinks to 15 (actual dog bite difference), 6.5 (adjusted just for dog intakes),
and finally 3.7 adjusted for the change in age distribution.
Is it surprising that the pandemic -era policies (which entail reduced dog -human contact) don't
lead to substantially fewer bites? Less contact isn't the only consequence of the policies
followed in the 2020-2022 period. The restrictions caused additional stress to dogs and
longer stays. So the reduction in handling may have caused a reduction in the bite rate -
which was then largely offset by the increase in stress and the longer stays. Suspending
playgroups for large dogs may have avoided bites in the play sessions, but it may have
caused additional bites during regular handling because the dogs are more stressed.
Suppose the continuation of pandemic -era restrictive adoption procedures reduces bites per
day, but the dogs stay twice as long. Then the longer stay presents more occasions for
bites, and the added stress puts more dogs at risk of biting.
Were OCAC/OCCR unaware of the fact that the incoming and outgoing populations of
dogs were different in 2022 vs 2019, both in total numbers and in age distribution? Did
they not care to look at how this might be influencing bites? Perhaps these questions are too
difficult for organizations that didn't want to report the correct number of bites in the first place.
The blindness to the data, intentional or not, also led to failure to recognize an obvious
measure to reduce bites: Focus on behavior issues for dogs age 4 and up, because that 30%
of dogs account for 75% of the bites in the 2018-2022 period. Just the additional staff and
volunteer awareness of the issue would have helped.
Vanishing Bite Difference
2019 to 2022
OCCR FALSE CLAIM
justifying dog policies 43
ACTUAL
dog bite difference 15
Adjusted
6.5
for lower intakes
Adjusted
F3.7
for younger dogs
0 10 20 30 40 50
Bites - Page 5 of 8
Do we have a bite problem?
Of course we do. Every bite is one too many. We had a problem in 2019 and we have a
problem now. This is not the end of the story. After debunking other false or misleading claims
made by OCAC, we can return to this important issue. OCAC should make an effort to fill out
its databases with more complete information, and make all data available for analysis. We
can then examine other factors that affect bites.
OCAC/OCCR didn't even count the bites. They didn't even get that for dog -related policies
you should look at dog bites, not the total. They didn't think to account for the change in the
total number of dogs - let alone the age distribution. They haven't even created a reasonably
complete record of the data for each bite. They can hardly be taken as serious participants
in the more complex task of finding patterns, causes, and remedies.
The policies that OCAC/OCCR based on false data and incompetent analysis should be
immediately reversed. That does not mean being complacent about bites. Common sense
policies can include:
A bite -prevention behavior protocol of dogs older than -4 years (30% of the dogs but
75% of the bites).
No children under 6.
A limit of one child (age 6-12) per adult.
A smarter queuing system that may involve appointments for peak visiting days/times.
Reserving two weekdays (e.g., Monday and Thursday) as quiet, appointment -only days,
to accommodate adopters who prefer it.
Are any numbers or facts produced by OCAC/OCCR reliable?
Does it look like there was much concern about analyzing and rectifying the bite issue? Or
does it look more like bites were a convenient pretext to keep kennel buildings off-limits?
Can we even be sure that OCAC didn't suppress bite reports altogether? Given their other
efforts to present a false rosy picture, are we sure they didn't drop hints that they'd like fewer
official bite reports entered?
OCAC/OCCR are not interested in data and facts that identify problems and suggest
improvements. Rather, OCAC/OCCR use numbers, accurate or not, as public relations
tools to justify already -made decisions, not as analytical tools to identify and resolve
problems. That's why they didn't even want to look at the previous studies that showed an
increase in kill rates, return rates, and lengths of stay.
At the very least, OCCR exercised no oversight and provided no guidance to OCAC to avoid
and correct its mistakes. Instead, it acted as an advertising agency, devoting all its energy to
promulgating its client's claims with no regard for facts. And the Appendix below shows that
OCCR went to great lengths to prevent the truth from coming to light, delaying and
obstructing PRAs.
We cannot trust any "data", "facts", or analysis coming from OCAC/OCCR. An outside audit
is needed, reporting directly to the Board of Supervisors. Since it is impossible to know in
advance what level of county management bears responsibility, an entirely independent review
is indispensible.
Bites - Page 6 of 8
Appendix: How was the truth uncovered?
We cannot know what went on behind closed doors or inside somebody's head. We can only
pose the questions that the published documents, PRAs, and eventually discovered data
suggest:
Did OCAC/OCCR construct numbers favorable to an already -made decision to limit
access to the kennel buildings and suspend play groups?
Did OCCR block access to the data - as might an organization that either invented false
statistics or is just trying to hide its negligence?
Here is the saga of the PRAs that tried to get underlying data. (If it looks like there are too
many requests involved, please bear in mind that if the very first one had been answered
truthfully, the remaining ones would have been moot or trivial.)
PRA 23-456
Submitted 1/31/2023, Response was blatant suppression of the data:
This letter is in response to your California Public Records Act request 23-456, which
OC Animal Care received on 456 [sic]. The request seeks the following records: list of all
incidents of an animal biting a person at the OC Animal Care facility from 11112016 to
the present. For each incident please include:
- Date of incident
- Type of animal (dog, cat, other)
- Whether the person that was bit was a staff member, a volunteer, or a visitor
OC Animal Care has concluded its search and is unable to locate records responsive to
your request.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Kirkpatrick
Custodian of Records
February 2, 2023, 11:23am by Jeff Kirkpatrick, Administrative Manager (Staff)
PRA 23-589
Submitted 2/6/2023. Response was misdirection and deflection. This PRA was merged
with a different PRA (23-556) that was requesting the animal database, and then that second
PRA's response failed to include the bite information.
PRA 23-1283
Submitted 3/21/2023. While not naming bites, this PRA sought access to other PRAs
pertaining to OCAC - and it will turn out that these other PRAs contained bite data. The
response was flagrantly incomplete, listing only a handful of PRAs, a small fraction of the
appropriate set. Among the omissions was the PRA that later turned out to contain the
bite database.
A message was sent challenging this response, informing OCCR that a number of omissions
were independently known to the requestor, and asking that a complete list be provided. In
response, the same reply with all the same files was provided. A further protest yielded no
reply at all.
Bites - Page 7 of 8
Two months into the search, with 3 PRAs blocked and tackled by OCCR, a path
towards bite data remained hidden.
PRA 23-1421
Submitted 3/29/2023, fulfilled 4/20/2023, a full 3 weeks later, exceeding PRA deadlines and
OCCR's normal turnaround time.
A messy table was provided. There are obvious extraneous data. There are obvious
duplications. That made it likely that there were also omissions.
Therefore, without corroborating data, no meticulous researcher would treat this table as a
reliable source. We will not go through this table in detail, but the numbers derived from it,
though inaccurate, are in the ballpark of the ones presented as our best estimate.
PRA 23-2244
Submitted 5/11/2023, and restating the substance of 23-1283. In response to this a complete
(as far as we can tell) list of PRAs was finally supplied, and within this list there was PRA
23-296 which sought and obtained a database of bites for the whole county. (Gratitude is
owed to the unknown author of that request.)
This is a much larger database, unwieldy for anybody without a professional background in
data analysis. But an experienced researcher applying some smart filtering, can use this
database to extract the bites that occurred at the shelter.
This is the most reliable source. Note that 3.5 months elapsed since the first request.
PRA 23-2265
Submitted 5/12/2023 and restating the request of 23-589 in a more argumentative fashion. At
this point, OCAC is already under public scrutiny and receiving data requests from the press.
A database was supplied, but we deem the larger database described above more reliable.
End result
After months of delay and an apparent effort to derail the search, a total of 3 databases
resulted from all this. Two were supposed to be specific to bites occurring in the shelter, yet
they are the least reliable. One was the master database of all bites in the county, from the
coincidental PRA 23-296. It, too, has its problems but is likely the most trustworthy of the
three. It just requires extra effort to extract the data.
On something so central to the OCAC/OCCR narrative, why did it take so much pressure,
and a bit of luck, to get to the facts? Was OCCR trying to hide the truth?
Bites - Page 8 of 8
The shelter's animal checkbook doesn't balance
When confronted with a detailed analysis of the shelter's kill rate, length of stay, return rate,
etc., OC Animal Care (OCAC) and OC Community Resources (OCCR) refuse to engage with
any analysis. As part of their effort to avoid confronting the deterioration of the shelter's
performance, their mantra is that they are "transparent" and publish "industry standard"
statistics.
Let's set aside the fact that the industry standard obviously does not preclude additional
analysis - warranted in this case by declining performance. We'll take a look at what the
Industry Standard says and show that OCAC/OCCR published statistics do not conform to it.
The Industry Standard is clear
We highlighted in yellow key entries in the Asilomar Accords standard in the attached file
"Industry Standard Asilomar Accords.pdf". They show (emphasis added):
A BEGINNING SHELTER COUNT (date)
The number of dogs and cats in your shelter or in your care including fosters at
the beginning of the reporting period.
W ENDING SHELTER COUNT (date)
The number of dogs and cats in your shelter or in your care including fosters at
the end of the reporting period
To check the accuracy of the shelter data you've compiled, the Beginning Shelter
Count (A) plus the Adjusted Total Intake (H) should equal the Total Outcomes (V) plus the
Ending Shelter Count (W): A + H = V + W
The accuracy check can also be written as A+H-V=W, i.e., Initial+Intake-Outcomes=Ending.
We prefer the latter formulation, because it's reminiscent of a checkbook or bank statement.
We likewise highlighted in yellow key passages from the Shelter Animals Count template in the
attached file "Industry Standard SAC Basic Data Matrix.pdf". (Shelter Animals Count is often
cited by the OCAC.) They show (emphasis added):
Beginning and Ending Shelter Counts
These numbers help frame the population of the animals sheltered and cared for by the
organization. (...j not forgetting to count those animals who have been admitted
but who are not currently within the shelter (foster care, in the care of a veterinary
hospital, etc).
Beginning Count, Ending Count: TOTAL IN CARE
Number of animals at the shelter, offsite locations, and in foster care on the first and
last day of the month.
In both standards, the beginning and ending count are an integral part of the report. Both
specify that all animals that are the shelter's responsibility, even if not on the premises
(e.g., fosters), are to be included.
Asilomar explicitly shows a data check, but that's just a sanity check any sensible observer
would do with these statistics.
If you strip down the complexity, these statistical tables are like a checkbook: You start
with a number of animals, you have intakes that add to it, you have outcomes (live and dead)
that subtract from it, and that gives you the final number of animals. Or it would, if you put all
the entries in correctly.
Animal Counts - Page 1 of 6
The numbers just don't add up
We downloaded annual, quarterly, and monthly statistics (PDF files) for the 2020-2022 period
from the shelter's website. We converted these to Excel spreadsheets (through an Adobe
subscription service). These spreadsheets were grouped by year, and the files are named
"2020 Calculated.xlsx" and so on for 2021, 2022, 2023.
To do the data check, we added two rows to the spreadsheets of the shelter's statistics. The
added rows are yellow and tagged by a red square (empty cell) on the left. One row does the
calculation initial+intakes-outcomes to arrive at the expected final number of animals at
the shelter. The other row computes the discrepancy between the reported final number
and the expected one. A negative number means a deficit, i.e., the shelter is reporting fewer
animals at the end of the period than it should have based on the other numbers. A positive
number is a surplus, i.e., the shelter seems to have more animals than it should at the end of
the period. This second row, labeled "DIFF (ENDING - EXPECTED)" should have
contained all zeros.
For each year, we did this calculation not only for the full -year report but also for the monthly,
quarterly, or other part -year reports available on the shelter's website. We reiterate that the
numbers outside the two added rows are the ones in the shelter's public statistics, since we
started by converting the shelter's PDFs into spreadsheets.
Dog Miscount
30
20
10
0
.1
ci
[V
CA
d
0
C7
o
r l l
rV
N
N
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
Dogs appearing
F-1^ n
q
c1
cf
C
rI
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Dogs disappearing
Animal Counts - Page 2 of 6
In OCAC's statistics, the sum of initial+intakes-outcomes usually doesn't equal the final
count. The DIFF row is almost never zero. Animals are disappearing into thin air and other
animals are sometimes appearing from thin air. We're not talking about animals being booked
in the statistics as "lost" - there is indeed a category for that rare event in the tables. Rather,
one of two things is happening: Real or phantom animals are completely unaccounted for in
intakes or outcomes; or the shelter just doesn't know how many animals it has at the beginning
or the end of the period. This happens on almost ALL their tables, except in the ones
where OCAC doesn't provide a final count at all. Do these empty rows suggest OCAC just
doesn't know how many animals it had? Or is their record -keeping so bad they didn't dare put
a number down?
The charts "Dog Miscount" and "Cat Miscount" show the discrepancies for the years 2021 and
2022, for annual as well as quarterly reports. If the animal accounting were correct, there
should be no yellow bars at all. It should just be a flat zero throughout.
This is accounting, not guesswork, there should be absolutely NO discrepancy. Has
nobody at OCAC or OCCR ever looked at these numbers? If your accountants did your books
this badly, you'd fire them on the spot.
We need answers
The public is entitled to ask:
- Are animals disappearing without anyone's knowledge?
- Are animals brought in without proper recording?
Cat Miscount
300
200 Cats appearing
100
W
.� ._1 N M N � N m
o Cf C7 Cf t7 o cr CI Cf O�
-100 N N N N N N N N
were]
-300
Cats disappearing
M
-500
Animal Counts - Page 3 of 6
Comparison of the Number of Transfers
Dogs Cats
Published Shelter Statistics PRA Published Shelter Statistics PRA
YEAR Adult Juvenile Total Total I DIFF III Adult Juvenile Total Total
2021 I 522_�_ 54 ' 576 582 I61 361 1,084 1,445 1,451
2022 516 90 606 582 I 24 1 329 1,115 1,444 1,441
- Is there an off -the -books population of animals that come and go?
DIFF
Is OCAC just unable to keep good data on its animals - and doesn't even know how many
it has?
- Does nobody at OCAC or OCCR even look at these statistics?
This is just another instance of OCAC's casual indifference to maintaining good data,
OCCR's lack of oversight, and the inability of OCAC/OCCR to even understand statistics,
not even their own. It's no surprise that they've shown an unwillingness to engage with, or
respond to, additional analysis offered to them.
Another Run, a Different Result
Why should we trust the intake and outcome categorizations, inherently trickier, when the more
straightforward initial and final counts are grossly erroneous? In fact, there is additional
evidence that we shouldn't. PRA 23-462 obtained the monthly and annual numbers of
transfers (animals going to rescues or other agencies). We can compare these to the numbers
of transfers in the statistics. The Table "Comparison of the Number of Transfers" shows that
the numbers don't match.
Both sets of numbers are derived from same database. Why should we believe the number
published in the statistics is more reliable than the number disclosed in the PRA?
What happened to those 24 dogs that are classified as a Transfer in the statistics but not on
the PRA? Is it possible - indeed, likely - that other types of intakes and outcomes are
misclassified? Might even the total intakes and outcomes be incorrect?
No easy excuses
A bit of slicing and dicing reveals some likely causes for the discrepancies.
Some large discrepancies in the numbers of kittens may be due to fostered kittens not
being included in the initial and final counts - but being included in outcomes. It's not
clear how they are handled in intake counts. This violates Industry Standards, both
Asilomar and Shelter Animals Count. The shelter should be counting all animals that
are its responsibility, even if they are temporarily off the premises, whether in foster or
for some other reason.
Some discrepancies appear to be caused from copying a row in the table from the same
row in a previous table, except that it's the wrong previous table. That's an erroneous
procedure. The shelter should have a good, clean way to generate these numbers. A
comparison to a previous table is an extra sanity -check to do at the end, not a substitute
for deriving the right inventory number from the database (or from a walk-through).
Again, Industry Standards clearly refer to counting the animals, not just copying a
number from somewhere else.
A
-3
Animal Counts - Page 4 of 6
For the sake of completeness, we give the discrepancy in each category in the table:
Adult and juvenile dogs separately, all dogs combined, adult and juvenile cats
separately, all cats combined, and finally dogs and cats put together. It is possible that a
deficit in juvenile dogs and a surplus of adult dogs is explained by some dogs reaching
adulthood while in the shelter. (But the reverse does not hold. A deficit in adult dogs
and a surplus in juvenile dogs cannot offset.) This should be an unusual case, and the
total for dogs should have still been correct.
Even all these errors combined (as gross and inexcusable as they are) fail to account for the
bulk of the discrepancies. The fact is, the numbers almost never add up correctly.
OCAC/OCCR might say that these are just approximate statistics, a type of survey. It is no
such thing. This is an accounting report and it should match exactly, just like your bank
statement or a company's financial statements. That's why it even provides categories for
animals being lost.
OCAC/OCCR might tell you to just ignore the initial and final counts, because not all other
shelters include those. That would be a remarkable change of tune. They'd be saying that
they intend to follow only the most lax practice they can find in another shelter, not the Industry
Standards. Why? Does OCAC know the number of animals in its care or not? If it does,
why do the numbers not add up? If it doesn't, is it just making guesses, and how can the
shelter be managed without these numbers?
The initial and final counts could should have been derived from the same database tables as
the intake and outcome counts. They serve as a check for the correctness of intake and
outcome counts. In the absence of this check, the intake and outcome numbers could easily
be wrong. If the data is inconsistent, it's inherently untrustworthy. That's the reason the
Industry Standards include these counts, and Asilomar expressly states the data check.
One person's manual error isn't enough to explain this. A sequence of senior staff surely
looked at these numbers. OCAC just publishes half a dozen of these tables per year and
it's constantly talking about them. Did nobody pay any attention? And how come these
discrepancies are so pervasive? So much for "Industry Standards" and "transparency".
Everywhere you look, you find errors, so here's one more. Beginning numbers for one period
should equal the ending numbers from the previous period. In your bank statement, the initial
balance for 2022 is the final balance for 2021. In OCAC's statistics, that pair of years fails to
match. This was already pointed out in a previous report ("OCAC Details.pdf") which OCAC
received on April 16 and OCCR saw on April 26 or earlier. Six weeks later, the discrepancy is
still there. This is not the only case; two dogs appear magically between the ending count of
March 2020 and the beginning count of April 2020. In 2021, the end of Q2 and the beginning
of Q3 don't match.
Is innumeracy the institutional culture of OCAC and OCCR?
Is OCAC trying to avoid scrutiny of its messy data?
The 2022 Annual report was not published in January 2023... or in February... or in early
March. It was published ONLY when a PRA (23-1127, March 12, 2023) asked for it.
The 2023 Q1 report was not published in early April, but rather ONLY on April 26, the day of the
Community Outreach Committee meeting, i.e., only when it was impossible to delay it any
longer. This report, Jan -Mar 2023, gives the date for the beginning shelter count as
04/01/2023 (in April??) and the date for the ending count date as 6/30/2023 (in June??). After
sitting on this report for 25 days, is that the best OCAC/OCCR could do?
Animal Counts - Page 5 of 6
If*SHELTER
ANIMALS HOME ABOUT EXPLORE THE DATA GET INVOLVED NEWS &UPDATES SUPPORT
COUNT
THE NATIONAL DATABASE
Participating Organizations
Registered/Participating Shelters I California SHELTER
ANIShelter/Rescue Type lGovernment Animal Services HE NA. oNAC TNALs
COUNT
IE
To explore the nearly 7,000 organizations who have contributed intake/outcome data to The National Database, select criteria from the drop downs
To learn more about an organization, clickon the organization name or circles under the years to see their website. If website is unavailable, the organization
needs to enter more recent data or update their website in their data portal.
SELECTAREA SELECT ORG NAME ORG TYPE
California (All) Government Animal Services
Name
COUNTY LAST REPORTED 2020 2021 2022 2023
Monterey County Animal Services MONTEREY Apri12023 •
•
•
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Napa County Animal Shelter NAPA January 2023 •
•
is
O
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Newman Animal Services STANISLAUS Apri12023
Q
Newport Beach Animal Shelter
ORANGE December 2016
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Oakland Animal Services
_ .
ALAMEDA Apri12023 • • • 0
OC Animal Care
ORANGE December 2020 •
There is another nagging question. The shelter routinely cites trends from the national Shelter
Animals Count database, but they stopped sending in their data in 2020. See attached
screen shot, but you can also observe this by going to the webpage as shown below.
https://www.shelteranimalscount.org/about-the-data/
Scroll down to Participating Organizations
Select Area: California
Organization Type: Government Animal services
Scroll though organizations to get to OC Animal Care
Last month reported is December 2020
Action is needed
At a minimum, these discrepancies show innumeracy and rampant carelessness. Since
OCAC/OCCR bear responsibility in making the data so messy, can we trust them to clean it up
without outside auditing and oversight? Once someone is caught for producing inconsistent
data, there is too much temptation for them to cover up the error by making up new numbers.
To go back to accounting, if your accounts are repeatedly incorrect, the imaginative accountant
should step aside and an external audit should take place.
We need a thorough outside audit that will show what went wrong and how it was fixed, not
just with this data but with a slew of misrepresentations that the shelter has made.
Animal Counts - Page 6 of 6
OCAC BOS-Approved 2018 Strategic Plan
"OCAC Strategic Plan 052218 (004).pdf" is a copy of the OCAC Strategic Plan approved on
May 18, 2018 by the Board of Supervisors (BOS). It was Agenda item 44 on that day.
The first two pages (excluding the cover page) of the OCAC Strategic Plan are included below
(and also as a standalone file "OCAC Strategic Plan Priority 1.pdf"). They cover "Strategic
Priority 1: Animal Care, Enrichment, and Placement."
OCAC and OCCR are Ignoring the Strategic Plan
It is remarkable that, from 2020 on, key goals and measures stated in the Strategic Plan
have been thrown overboard by OCAC/OCCR, without any recourse to expertise or
community consultation. The pandemic served as cover for this surreptitious shift.
Why is OCCR so quiet about the Strategic Plan? Has it submitted these major alterations in
aims to the BOS? Has it sought consultation with stakeholders? Has it solicited input from the
experts who were (at the county's behest) instrumental in developing the Strategic Plan?
Perhaps OCCR believes that its casual opinions, unsupported by either facts or data, are
enough to throw the strategic plan overboard.
Strategic Priority 1: Animal Care, Enrichment, and Placement
Goals:
Success Measures:
1. Every animal in the shelter receives
a)
One hundred percent of all dogs qualified (retention met, healthy, friendly) are in daily
daily, varied enrichment.
playgroups. (Small dogs by Summer 2018; large dogs by Fall 2018 with occasional
playgroups before then, as staffing permits).
b)
100% of dogs are provided in -kennel enrichment tailored for their needs daily by June
2018.
c)
Every adoptable cat is taken out of his or her housing unit for enrichment at least three
times per week by Summer 2018.
d)
100% of cats receive appropriate enrichment tailored for their needs daily and are housed
in portalized or large cages by Fall 2018.
2. Every animal's care and status is
a)
Every "must" outlined in ASV Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters is
tracked in order to demonstrate
implemented and occurring at OCAC by Spring 2019.
ongoing, daily care and comfort
b)
100% of "should and ideally" ASV Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters
during their stay.
practices are implemented by Summer 2021.
c)
100% of animal enrichment activities are tracked by Fall 2018.
3. Options for moving animals quickly
a)
Average length of stay (LOS) of 8 days for most "Fast Track" animals and 15 days for most
through the system to live outcomes
"Slow Track" animals by January 2019. Animals may stay beyond this LOS but all efforts
are maximized.
are made to decrease roadblocks to movement of animals to live release.
b)
75% of medical animals (any animal under veterinary care at OCAC) placed for public
adoption while undergoing treatment.
c)
Increase number of fosters able to house animals with medical conditions by 50% by
Summer 2018.
d)
Length of stay for cats with upper respiratory infections is reduced by 20%, as cats recover
quicker through targeted medical fosters.
4. More animals that enter OCAC are
a)
Live release rate for dogs will remain over 90%.
saved annually.
b)
Underage kitten transfers will increase by 10% by December 2018.
c)
Live release for cats will increase by at least 5% each year with a target of 85% or higher
by December 2020.
SP1—Animal Care, Enrichment and Placement
OCAC BOS-Approved 2018 Strategic Plan - Page 1 of 4
Key Metrics are Disregarded
This topic merits a thorough future report, to which the following observations are merely a
prelude. We will contrast excerpts from Strategic Priority 1 (in italics) to the reality (in bold) as it
existed in early 2023.
Goal 1: "Every animal in the shelter receives daily, varied enrichment. " Success Measure (a):
"One hundred percent of all dogs qualified (retention met, healthy, friendly) are in daily
playgroups. "
Early 2023 Reality: Play groups for small dogs occur only 3 times a week. Playgroups for
large dogs virtually never happen, if we exclude isolated for -show instances when there
was active scrutiny by the press.
Goal 2: "Every animal's care and status is tracked in order to demonstrate ongoing, daily care
and comfort during their stay." Success Measure (c): "100% of animal enrichment activities are
tracked by Fall 2018. "
Early 2023 Reality: Out -of -Kennel enrichment is not tracked. Visual inspection of a
whiteboard does not amount to tracking. In response to repeated PRAs (23-1987,
23-2018, 23-2147), OCAC has unequivocally stated that it does not keep any photos of
the whiteboards (where enrichment is marked) for any period, not even intra-day. At the
Goals:
Success Measures:
d) Live release rates for kittens will increase to at least 70% by the beginning of 2019. Staff
will evaluate annually and adjust up as needed.
e) Owner requested euthanasia for dogs and cats decreases to 2% of intake by 2019 (and is
monitored).
f) Owner surrenders for dogs and cats are increasingly referred to our diversion program
instead of shelter intake. A baseline for this metric will be recorded at the end of 2018 and
shall increase by 10%. This metric will be evaluated annually to determine next target.
5. Reunite more lost pets with their
a) Increase RTO (Return to Owner) rate for dogs to 45% and RTO for cats to 5% by
owners.
December 2019.
b) Licensing compliance of 60% or greater by 2019.
c) Increase TNR (Trap -Neuter -Return) rate for cats to 20% by 2019. (Numbers will be
evaluated at the end of 2018; if we have significantly increased our TNR cats by that time,
this metric may be increased.)
Overview of Department Roles in Reaching These Goals:
• Identify and assign leads to accomplish new rounds and
pathway planning procedures.
• Support training in ASV Guidelines for Standards of Care in
Animal Shelters at all -hands meetings.
• Track live release and LOS data to ensure that goals are being
met.
• Ensure ASV Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters
and ASV Guidelines for Spay -Neuter Programs are implemented
and track data components.
Establish messaging with COT and Shelter teams so that the
public receives a consistent answer on OC Animal Care
procedures for Adoption, Redemption, etc from all staff and
volunteers.
Implement methods to increase RTO rate for all animals.
SP1—Animal Care, Enrichment and Placement
OCAC BOS-Approved 2018 Strategic Plan - Page 2 of 4
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
6,000
4,500
3,000
1,500
0
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
,,, Dogs Annual Flow
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
■ Cats Length of Stay
15.0
12.0
9.0
6.0
3.0
0.0
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Cats Annual Flow
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Community Outreach Committee meeting on April 26, 2023, the Director stated that no
per -animal records are kept.
Goal 3: "Options for moving animals quickly through the system to live outcomes are
maximized. " Success Measure (a): "Average length of stay (LOS) of 8 days for most "Fast
Track" animals and 15 days for most "Slow Track" animals by January 2019. Animals may stay
beyond this LOS but all efforts are made to decrease roadblocks to movement of animals to live
release. "
Early 2023 Reality: The Length of Stay has steadily climbed from 2019 to 2022, to roughly
20 days for dogs. The details were given in a previous report ("OCAC Details.pdf" Appendix
A) but we reproduce here the key charts that show the increase in the length of stay for dogs
and cats, despite the fact that the number of dogs and cats the shelter has to process remains
well below 2018-2019 (pre -pandemic) levels.
Goal 4: More animals that enter OCAC are saved annually. Success Measure (0: Owner
surrenders for dogs and cats are increasingly referred to our diversion program instead of
shelter intake. A baseline for this metric will be recorded at the end of 2018 and shall increase
by 10%. This metric will be evaluated annually to determine next target.
Early 2023 Reality: Diversion program does not exist.
OCAC BOS-Approved 2018 Strategic Plan - Page 3 of 4
The Strategic Plan should be Front and Center
One would think that the Strategic Plan would be prominently displayed on the shelter's
website. It is nowhere to be found. It was procured only by a PRA. Is this a rather implausible
oversight, or did OCCR hide the Strategic Plan because they did not intend to abide by it?
The Strategic Plan has spent too much time in the shadows. We plan to look at its provisions
in detail, and a future report will document all the shortfalls in shelter practices.
In the meantime, the only way to return to a well -functioning animal shelter and restore the
trust of the community is for the Strategic Plan to regain its rightful prominent role.
The Board of Supervisors can remedy the situation by:
- Confirming that the Strategic Plan approved in 2018 is still valid.
- Instructing County staff to take steps towards its rapid implementation.
Among other implementation steps, OCAC should:
- address the socialization needs of dogs by instituting daily playgroups for small dogs and
large dogs, as set forth in the strategic plan. It should commit to socializing the majority of
large dogs. It should meticulously document this activity.
- return to the freer pre -pandemic adoption procedures for most of its hours of operation. The
kennel area should be open to visitors a minimum of 4 days a week, including one weekend
day.
OCAC BOS-Approved 2018 Strategic Plan - Page 4 of 4
Orozco, Norma
From: Deborah Felin <catpaws.deborah@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2023 1:49 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Santa Ana cat spay/neuter TNR Program
Greetings,
I am writing in support of a Spay/Neuter program in Santa Ana.
As rescuers, and those who care about animals, we are faced every day with the consequences of unwanted
litters.
As I volunteered at the OC Animal Care Pet Food Pantry one Saturday morning, asking folks what city they
were from and what pets they had, a lady tearfully recounted how she was trying to feed the starving cats
around her apartment complex in Santa Ana, cats who kept getting pregnant, making more homeless kittens,
born to suffer and die. Her English was better than my Spanish but the despair in her voice needed no
translation. She said her neighbor threatened to beat her up for feeding them. She didn't want to see these kittens
dying and suffering, what could she do, she pleaded with me? As I stood there, a line of cars behind her, I gazed
up at the massive, beautiful building that houses Orange County Animal Services, paid for with millions of
dollars of taxpayer money, and told her I didn't know who could help her.
There is no provision at Orange County Animal Care Services for public spay/neuter assistance. There is no
longer a TNR program. Our organization gave out 900 spay neuter vouchers last year, over 500 of which were
redeemed, costing our organization about $50,000 to help people in Orange County get their cats
fixed, over 140 of those to Santa Ana residents alone. This is not an expense our small non-profit cat rescue can
continue to bear. Other groups struggle valiantly, but we are overmatched by the magnitude of the problem.
There are those who will say, 'they're just cats, we have bigger problems'. There are always problems, some
bigger than others, but the suffering of animals intersects with that of humans in a uniquely profound way, and
for those who don't care about the cats I would ask them to care about the people who do. In these unwanted,
sometimes abused and discarded creatures, perhaps some people see themselves, living on the margins of a
society in which they feel they have no voice and no one cares, scrounging just to survive. I have often found it
is the people who have the least who care the most.
I think, too, of shelter staff, confronted with the grim task of killing kitten after kitten after litter. This is a
human toll, too often dismissed and devalued.
A sampling of the many emails and messages we get from residents trying to help cats in their community:
"...my husband checked our cameras and saw that a coyote entered our yard in the early am. We kept filling the
bowls for over a week and drove the neighborhood streets and never saw them again. It broke my heart. To this
day, I look for them. I loved watching them play in our yard"
"I would like to thank you one more time for helping me to right this situation. I hope I have helped my
neighborhood, even just a little, by spaying Mama and getting her children off the streets. In the absence now of
the TNR program this is getting out of hand."
"Helping them has revealed a part of me I didn't know existed. I always considered myself a dog person but this past
year has changed me. Some of the cats have bonded with me and allow me to pet and hold them and put flea collars on
them! I realize how special they are and how they have unique personalities!"
Please consider implementing a spay/neuter program for community cats in Santa Ana, and help the people who
are trying to reduce suffering and make their neighborhoods a little kinder.
Sincerely,
Deborah Felin Magaldi
Director
www.helensanderscatpaws.com
0
Orozco, Norma
From:
michael friedman <mgfajf@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, June 06, 2023 2:06 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
TNR Spay- Neuter Clinic Needed
As a concerned animal lover, I am asking the City of Santa Ana board to include funding in the 2023/ 2024 budget for a
TNR/ spay- neuter clinic. The clinic provides a humane way of controlling the over population of animals/ cats keeping
them out of the Orange County Animal Shelter. The clinic also provides an excellent benefit to lower income pet owners
by giving them the financial support to have their pets spay- neutered.
Thankyou
Michael Friedman
Sent from my iPhone
Orozco, Norma
From: Andi Friedman <andiattheark@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2023 2:10 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Please Include Funds in 2023-2024 Budget for TNR, Spay and Neuter Programs to
Help Extreme Animal Overpopulation, Assist Minority/Marginalized Communities that
Can't Afford TNR, and Save Taxpayers' Money
Dear Council Members and Mayor:
Thank you for allowing public comment on your 2023-2024 budget.
It is extremely important to include adequate funding for mobile TNR Spay and Neuter clinics in the City of Santa Ana's
budget for 2023-2024. We urge you to do so. Statistics reflect that Santa Ana is one of Orange County's cities with the
highest overpopulation of cats and kittens, with most of those animals ending up at the Orange County Shelter (OC
Animal Care) or injured or dead on the street.
By acting proactively and budgeting for mobile TNR Neuter Spay clinics, you will help reduce animal overpopulation and
suffering, and concurrently save tax dollars by utilizing the OC Shelter less. Having these programs also helps the
residents, especially those in minority or marginalized communities, that can not afford to get their animal neutered or
spayed.
Neither the OC Shelter, nor the small non-profit OC animal rescues (that partner with the OC Shelter) can possibly keep
up with the sheer high number of animals needing care and adoption. The current overpopulation of cats and kittens is
untenable from both a humane and financial standpoint.
Please help animals, people and taxpayers by doing the right thing and including this in your budget.
Respectfully,
Andrea Friedman
Sent from my iPhone
Orozco, Norma
From: Carla Etzold <carla@calismisfits.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2023 2:31 PM
To: eComment; Carla Etzold
Subject: Animal Welfare & Community Support
Hello Santa Ana City Council!
I am writing to you as a Santa Ana resident and a community supporter. I have been a member of
the animal rescue community since 2013, when I first started participating in Trap Neuter Return. At
that time OC Animal Care had a wonderful program for the community. The Feral Free Program
allowed members of the community to trap feral & community cats to take to OCAC. At that point the
shelter would then have the cats spayed/neutered, vaccinated and microchipped. Once done
volunteers would release the cats back to their homes (the neighborhoods they were brought in
from).
This program operated for many years and just about the point we were seeing progress the
program was stopped at OC Animal Care. In fact, many changes have happened there that is clear
that OC Animal Care is no longer interested in participating in community support. At the same time
the community is in more need of support than ever, if you own a pet then you know that the costs
associated with owning a pet has increased during the pandemic and now after. Veterinary costs
have sky -rocketed. In local community pages people can often be seen asking for low-cost veterinary
information because they cannot afford to have their pet spayed/neutered at $300+. Those are
owned pets, people also cannot find help for feral and community cats. Instead good meaning people
are left unable to do anything for these free roaming cats. Sadly this unchecked cat population will
mean an increased issue with cats instead of where we were in 2019 finally making an impact with
TNR. I know Santa Ana pays heavily into OC Animal Care, I urge you all to look at what you are
paying for. Animal welfare needs to be proactive and progressive, not just responsive and yet that is
what OC Animal Care is providing. If the animal population continues to increase due to lack of
affordable spay/neuter services the fees Santa Ana incurs from impounded pets will continue to
increase. We are seeing that now in the dog population, there are more and more puppies coming in
to OCAC. On top of that, OCAC no longer accepts stray cats and rather instructs the community to
release them where they were found - without an exam and without vetting. These cats are being
left to multiply, creating more food for wildlife in return. Spay/neuter is absolutely vital and necessary
to keep the animal population manageable, but right now those of us in rescue are struggling without
animal control/shelter support and city support. We cannot support the community on our own.
If funding could be provided for the community for veterinary support for spay/neuter it would make
a huge difference to our community. For owned pets and free roaming cats. We are a very small
rescue organization, we do our best to support but with limited veterinary support and limited
funding we can only do so much. We need our city to see that this need is very real, to support the
animals in our community and the people. We have assisted with 76 cats this year, a majority being
from Santa Ana. Among those cats there are many others that we were unable to support.
I urge you all to look at providing community support in the way of spay/neuter assistance for
animals in our city, owned and free -roaming cats.
1
Thank you,
Carla
Co -Founder and CEO
Cali's Misfits
714-696-4440
ca rl a(cD cal ism isfits. com
www.calismisfits.com
Orozco, Norma
From: agustinluzl992 <agustinluz1992@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2023 3:08 PM
To: eComment
Subject:
Good afternoon my name is Luz.
As a single mother of 3 I have struggle to find an affordable boxing place for my daughters and myself. We are
truly thankful for this club and would love to continue to provide us with their services. I
Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Orozco, Norma
From: Santanero Project <thesantaneroproject@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 4:01 PM
To: eComment
Cc: Lopez, Jessie; Vazquez, Benjamin; Amezcua, Valerie; Phan, Thai; Hernandez, Johnathan;
Bacerra, Phil; Penaloza, David
Subject: Agenda Item 52: Ordinance to Adopt Fiscal Year 2023 - 2024 Budget Cycle
Attachments: Youth Center Memo.pdf
Good afternoon,
On behalf of The Santanero Project, I am attaching our letter for Agenda Item 452.
Thank you,
Lucia Yletzara Gonzalez
The Santanero Project
From: The Santanero Project (thesantaneroproject@gmail.co@
To: Santa Ana City Council
Mayor, Valerie Amezcua
Mayor Pro Tem, Jessie Lopez
Ward 1 Councilmember, Thai Viet Phan
Ward 2 Councilmember, Benjamin Vazquez
Ward 4 Councilmember, Phil Bacerra
Ward 5 Councilmember, Johnathan Ryan Hernandez
Ward 6 Councilmember, David Penaloza
RE: Including a Youth Center in the 2023-24 Budget
The purpose of this memo is to recommend the inclusion of a youth center in the FY 2023-24
budget and to share the work we, the Santanero Project, have done over the past year:
Executive Summary
• Fund a youth center through the upcoming 2023-24 budget adoption
• Include youth up to age 20 in programming and center development
• Services: Mental Health Support/Therapy, DACA/Undocumented Youth Support Staff,
College & Career Readiness
• Location: Youth use public transportation to get around or walk & want a space close to
the center of the city
• Hours: May vary depending on the schedules of the youth but after school and weekend
hours will be beneficial
• Staff: College students who can be role models to youth, current high school students
who want to gain workforce experience and create a nurturing environment for their
peers
Reasons Santa Ana Needs a Youth Center
➢ High Population of Youth: Santa Ana is one of the youngest cities in Orange County, with
1 in 4 residents being less than 18 years old and a median age of 32.6 years old in 2020.1,2
And yet, we have no city -funded youth center. While only 10 percent of Santa Ana's
residents are older than 65 years old, we have two city -funded senior centers: the Santa
Ana Senior Center and the Southwest Senior Center. The same opportunities must be
offered to our youth.3
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/santaanacitycalifornia
z
https:Hdatausa. io/profile/geo/santa-ana-ca/#:—:text=ln%202020%2C%20Santa%20Ana%2C%20CA,%24
72%2C406%2C%20a%209.47%25%20increase
s https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/santaanacitycalifornia
➢ Positive Impacts of Youth Programming and Centers: Research shows that
community -based positive youth development ("PYD") programs are associated with
"reduced poverty in adulthood" and better educational outcomes. 4 Youth centers and
programming can also improve health outcomes. According to the CDC, PYD programs
can reduce rates of substance use, unintended pregnancies, and STDs among young
people.'
City Responsibility to Provide Youth Spaces: Establishing a youth center is a
responsibility of the city council. While 35% of the Proposed FY 2023-24 City Budget
has been allocated for the Santa Ana Police Department ("SAPD"), only 7% has been
allocated for community services such as Parks & Recreation, Community Development
Agency, and Public Libraries.'
Various city council members have made the argument that the Santa Ana Unified School
District ("SAUSD") should be fully or partially responsible for providing youth spaces.
This argument deflects the city's responsibility to ensure youth have safe spaces,
especially given that 77% of SAUSD's budget goes to school employee salaries and
benefits.' SAUSD's budget ensures that students have smaller class sizes and are
adequately supported in school, while the City' current proportion of funds �-oiw to
SAPD only serves to further criminalize young people from Santa Ana. According to a
2017 report by OC Resilience titled "The Status of Youth Investment in Santa Ana,"
"Santa Ana City spends $143 per youth on positive youth development, while it spends
$12,722 each to arrest 1,537 youth."'
Quick Facts
25% of Santa Ana residents are less than 18 years old9
26.6% of Santa Ana youth ages 0-17 years old live below the federal poverty threshold10
42.2% of Santa Ana youth ages 0-17 years old come from low-income families'
67.3% of Santa Ana youth ages 0-17 years old live in crowded households'
78.3% of Santa Ana youth ages 0-17 years old have immigrant parents$
' https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/sl2889-022-13016-z
s
https://www.cdc.gov/heaIthyyouth/safe-supportive-environments/positive-youth-development. htm#::text=
Positive%20youth%20development%20programs%20have,other%20STDs%2C%20and%20unintended%
20pregnancy.
6 https://www.santa-ana.org/fy-23-24-budget-documents/
' https://www.sausd.us/cros/lib/CA01000471/Centricity/Domain/22/2022-23%2OAdopted%2OBudget.pdf
8 https://resilienceoc.org/the-status-of-youth-investment-in-santa-ana/
9 https://data.census.gov/table?t=Age+and+Sex&g=l60XX000S0669000&tid=ACSST5Y2021.SO101
10
https://www.google.com/u rl?q=https://www. kidsdata.org/exportlpdf?loc%3D997&sa=D&source=docs&ust
=1684810456148474&usg=AOvVaw2ewyx9tDdgvlguSDeKZcGT
11% of Santa Ana households have no internet access at home'
17% of Santa Ana residents above 25 years old have obtained a bachelor's degree12
Methodology
➢ Youth Survey: This year, the Santanero Project, a community -based, youth -led
empowerment group, launched a survey and conducted focus groups to understand how
youth felt about establishing a city -funded youth center. So far, our survey has garnered a
total of 51 responses from youth ages 13-20 who represent all zip codes in the City of
Santa Ana. Two respondents did not fill out the survey in its entirety, and were removed
from analysis. Our respondents identified as first -generation college students,
low-income residents, immigrant/DACAmented/undocumented youth, systems -impacted
youth, foster/homeless youth, and LGBTQ+.
Youth Steering Committee: We selected 10 of our survey respondents for a Youth Steering
Committee to discuss their opinions further through group interviews. We met with these
youth for three one -hour sessions over Zoom. The following schools were represented in
our focus groups: Godinez, Legacy College Prep, Middle College, Saddleback, Santa
Ana High School, Santa Ana College, Segerstrom, OCSA, Valley. One of the youth was
not currently in school. A list of interview questions can be found in the appendix.
Findings
The following statistics were calculated from survey responses:
83% stated that having a space where they could be with other young people their age
was "important" or "very important" to them
39% felt the City of Santa Ana "definitely" or "probably" does not have enough free
youth spaces for them to hang out with their friends after school
74% stated that they "definitely" or "probably" would go to a city -funded, youth -led
space or center if one existed in Santa Ana
Im
https://data.census.gov/table?q=Telephone,+Computer,+and+Internet+Access&g=160XX000S0669000&t
id=ACSDT5Y2021. B28002
12 https://data.census.gov/table?q=Sl501&g=160XX000S0669000&tid=ACSST5Y202l .S1501
Reasons Why Survey Respondents Want a Youth Space
Career Resolurces/Resurne Building
To Hang Out With or Make Now FHends
Learn a New Skill or Hobby
Art Lessons
Homework HelprTutoring
Gardening
To Have a Safe Space
Sports
Watching TV or Movies
Music Lessons
Dance Lessons
Video Games
Poetry Workshops/Open Mics
0 20 40 60 80
Percentage of Survey Respondents
Source: 2022 - 2023 Sanitanero Project Survey
The following themes emerged from our qualitative survey responses and focus group sessions:
Current Issues in Santa Ana
1. Lack of recreational spaces
2. Youth feel unsafe
3. Unable to be productive at home
4. Spaces are inaccessible
5. Few spaces for young adults
Benefits of a Youth Center
6. Collaboration
7. Diversity and inclusivity
8. Socializing
9. Support beyond academics
Current Issues in Santa Ana
1. Lack of Recreational Spaces: Students emphasized that there aren't enough safe
spaces for recreational use, and that most youth spaces that do exist in Santa Ana are
focused on academics.
"Whenever I hang out with friends or other people my age, it is always a question of
whether the outing will be free and/or safe. Creating youth spaces is something
objectively important if we wish to see young people thrive in the city." - Godinez, I Ith
Grade
"Peers and friends don't have [a] space for youth that isn't focused on academics, and
many of these places are competitive to get into." - Godinez, 12th Grade
2. Youth Feel Unsafe: Youth reported feeling unsafe without a common place to come
together.
One youth explained that their peers have started to hang out with older people who may
not have their best interests in mind: "To be honest, I noticed people my age, or even
younger, tend to grow up faster than they should because they hang out with older people.
The main reasons why most people hang out with older people is because they like the
feeling of freedom, and [the older people give] them what other people their age can't —
for example a place to hang out. - Saddleback, 12th Grade
Another respondent noted the prevalence of bars and nightclubs in Downtown as a reason
youth feel unsafe: "As Santa Ana has become increasingly gentrified and has increased
its bar population, the city has lost extremely crucial spaces for youth. It's so difficult to
find places where teenagers can roam safely and have a place to clear their heads."
- Santa Ana, 12th Grade
"I think it's highly important to have a space to hang out with friends but also to study or
be away from home safely." - Santa Ana, 12th Grade
3. Unable to be Productive at Home: Many youth reported being unable to do school
work at home and unwind because of various distractions, including younger siblings,
tumultuous relationships with family members, and unstable Wi-Fi connections.
According to U.S. Census data, 67.3% of Santa Ana youth ages 0-17 live in crowded
households, and 11% of Santa Ana households have no internet access.13, 14
13
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.kidsdata.org/export/pdf?loc`/`3D997&sa=D&source=do
cs&ust=1684810456148474&usg=AOvVaw2ewyx9tDdgvlguSDeKZcGT
14
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://data.census.gov/table?q%3DTelephone,%2BComputer,%2Band%2
Blnternet%2BAccess%26g%3D160XX000S0669000%26tid%3DACSDT5Y202l .B28002&sa=D&source=
docs&ust=1686004370449432&usg=AOvVaw2JTh--_Ti02Sx1 vHDTnT-
"I feel overwhelmed at home and end up being 0 productive. My house is usually always
loud and something is always going on and I end up getting distracted, energy to study or
do work leaves."
"For me, there's usually a lot of distractions in the background so it makes me feel
unmotivated to do work at home." - Middle College, loth Grade
"I have younger siblings and sometimes I can't focus."
4. Spaces Are Inaccessible: While some places for youth exist in Santa Ana, youth noted
that they were inaccessible due to their location. Having a central location for youth to
convene is especially important, given that most youth who participated in our focus
groups reported either walking or using OCTA to navigate the city. According to
American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates for 2021, 30% of Santa Ana households
either have 0 or 1 personal vehicle(s) available.15
"I believe these types of spaces allow for the healthy building of relationships with peers
and other teens. However, I feel that most centers are often secluded in the northern
region of Santa Ana, with students from schools such as Saddleback and Godinez having
a more difficult time to get there. - Saddleback, 12th Grade
"I would love for there to be areas where teens my age hang out regularly, but they're
often far or inaccessible." - OCSA, 9th Grade
5. Few Spaces for Young Adults: While some of the high school students we
interviewed were able to participate in college prep programs or teen programming after
school, youth who had already graduated high school reported not having many places to
go after class or work. While the Santa Ana Public Library and the Salgado Community
Center have youth spaces and programming, they are geared towards youth ages 13-17.16
"I feel like it is very hard to feel like there is a community for youth in Santa Ana and this
is something I wish to feel." - Community College, 1st Year
15
https://data.census.gov/table?q=public+transportation&g=l60XXOOUS0669000&tid=ACSDT5Y202l .B082
01
16 https://www.santa-ana.org/teen-hub/
"I personally think it is important to have a safe space to talk with other people my age
because sometimes we don't all have people to go talk to or people who `get' or
`understand' us." - Youth was currently not in school
Benefits of a Youth Center
6. Collaboration: Respondents noted the potential to work together to share different
types of resources amongst each other and to improve their communities at a youth
community space.
"With a youth group people without friends or knowledge of other programs that are
offered in Santa Ana can go and meet other people just like them and make friends or be
informed on similar programs." - Saddleback, loth Grade
"Having more spaces to meet people like us enables us to become more impactful in the
community we live in. The more connected our community the more we can change the
problems within it." - Lorin Griset Academy, I Ith Grade
"I think it's a good idea that young people should collaborate or get together. If it's a safe
space from their complicated problems, then perhaps they can use the issues to create
solutions in the future." - Santa Ana College, 1st Year
7. Diversity & Inclusivity: Youth envisioned a city -funded youth center as a place where
they could socialize with peers who understand them, and youth from other backgrounds.
"We should be able to hang out with people our own age so we don't get judged. Also
hanging out with teens makes us feel more [open minded], at least for me." - Saddleback,
IIth Grade
"I think we need more teen spaces that are inclusive." - Legacy College Prep, 12th Grade
"I would like for there to be diversity in a youth group with various age groups and
backgrounds!" - Santa Ana, loth Grade
"It is important for anyone to have a space where they can be with other people their age
because then you won't feel left out and everyone includes you. If you ever get stuck in a
certain subject there can be people your age that can help you get through it because
sometimes other people understand a certain subject better. Most importantly, helping
each other." - Valley, 12th Grade
8. Socializing With Peers: Some youth stressed the importance of socially connecting
with others their age.
"If a youth center existed I would mainly look for just an area where people my age can
interact and meet new people, while also being able to do assignments and focus on
academics." - Saddleback, loth Grade
"If a youth center is provided we can meet different people from other schools instead of
just people within our school." - Valley, 12th Grade
The importance of having a space to cultivate supportive friendships cannot be
understated. A 2022 National Survey by the Trevor Project found that 50% of LGBTQ+
youth ages 13-17 had contemplated suicide, and 18% had attempted. However, LGBTQ+
youth who had highly supportive friendships reported a 29% decrease in suicide attempts,
compared to youth who received low to moderate support from friends.
9. Support Beyond Academics: Youth envisioned a potential city -funded youth center
as a place where they could receive mental health and social support, on top of academic
programming.
"I feel like the youth center should not only advocate for tutoring or education but some
other topics that can benefit everyone such as sports, music, and arts - mental services
perhaps." - Youth was not in school
"A youth center should have all types of resources that can help young students ranging
from academic to mental help. But generally, it's a place where students can be safe and
feel connected with one another with other students." - Santa Ana College, 1st Year
"I want to go to a place that isn't necessarily a library or a community center, just a place
that's dedicated for [youth] - OCSA, 9th Grade
"Now I'm 20 and I still don't see many spots for youth. I used to go to the teen center at
the public library and there would only be one teen there and an adult but they would do
their own thing and so would I. It was whatever at the time, but now that i look back,
I wish they made activities and paid more close attention to the youth."
- Youth was not in school
Youth Centers in Other Cities
The City of Anaheim has two youth centers. The Downtown Anaheim Youth Center and
West Anaheim Youth Center include a full-sized basketball court, community meeting
rooms, dance and fitness rooms, an internet-accessible computer lab, youth activity
rooms, and youth programming rooms.", is
Garden Grove's Buena Clinton Youth & Family Center provides an after school tutoring
program for students in 1 st - 6th grades, a summer program for students in Kinder - 6th
grade, and a community engagement program for youth ages 13 - 18.19
" https://www.anaheim.net/2208/Downtown-Anaheim-Youth-Center
'$ https://www.anaheim.net/2209/West-Anaheim-Youth-Center
19 https://ggcity.org/buena-clinton/youth-programs
Sources
1. Census Data Quick Facts on Santa Ana, CA
httos://www.census.Rov/ciuickfacts/santaanacitvcalifornia
2. Data USA Statistics on Santa Ana, CA
httDs:Hdatausa.io/Drofile/gco/santa-ana-ca/#:—:text=ln`/`202020`/`2C`/`2OSanta`/`2OAna`/`
2C%20CA,%2 72%2C406%2C%20a%209.47%25%20increase
3. Census Data Quick Facts on Santa Ana, CA
httDS://www.census.f2ov/auickfacts/santaanacitvcalifornia
4. BMC Public Health: Long-term effects of a community -based positive youth
development program for Black youth: health, education, and financial well-being in
adulthood
htti2s://bMCDublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10. 1186/s12889-022-13016-z
5. CDC on Positive Youth Development
httos://www.cdc.Rov/healthvvouth/safe-suor)ortive-environments/nositive-vouth-develon
mgnLh m# x --P i iye%20vouth2l2QALyglQpment%2ODrogramSL20hayQ.QthQrL 20
TDs%2C%20and%20unintended%20Dregnancv.
6. Santa Ana Proposed FY 2023-24 Budget Documents
httos://www.santa-ana.orR/fv-23-24-budRet-documents/
7. Santa Ana Unified School District FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget
httDs://www.sausd.us/cms/lib/CA01000471/Centricitv/Domain/22/2022-23%2OAdoDted
%20Bu&4et.Ddf
8. The Status of Youth Investment in Santa Ana
httDS:Hresilienceoc.orf2/the-status-of-youth-investment-in-santa-ana/
9. Census Bureau Data - Age and Sex in Santa Ana, CA
htti)s:Hdata. census. Rov/table?t=ARe+and+Sex&R= 1 60XXOOUS0669000&tid=ACS ST5Y
202I.S0101
10. Kids Data: Children in Santa Ana, CA
httDs://www.kidsdata.org/exDort/Ddf?loc=997
11. Census Bureau Data - Telephone, Computer and Internet Access in Santa Ana, CA
httD S: Hdata. census. f2ov/tabl e? a =Tel eDhone. +C OMDuter. +and+l ternet+Access&f2=160XX
OOUS0669000&tid=ACSDT5Y202I.B28002
12. Census Bureau Data - Educational Attainment in Santa Ana, CA
https.//data. census. aov/table?a=S 150 1 &a= 1 60XXOOUS0669000&tid=ACS S15Y202 1. S 1
501
13. Kids Data: Children in Santa Ana, CA
httDs://www.kidsdata.or�/exDort/Ddf?loc=997
14. Census Bureau Data - Presence and Types of Internet Subscriptions in Household in
Santa Ana, CA
httDs://www.oo�le.com/url?a=httDs://data.census.�ov/table?a`/`3DTeleDhone,`/`2BComD
uter_%2Band% Blnternet%2BAccess%26�4%3DI60XXOOUS0669000%26tid%3DACSD
T5Y202I.B28002&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1686004370449432&usR=AOvVaw2jTh--
-Ti02SxIYHDTnT-
15. Census Bureau Data - Household Size by Vehicles Available in Santa Ana, CA
httDs:Hdata. census. Gov/table?a=Dublic+transDortation&�= 1 60XXOOUS0669000&tid=AC
SDT5Y202I.BO8201
16. City of Santa Ana Teen Hub
httDs://www.santa-ana.orF),/teen-hub/
17. Downtown Anaheim Youth Center
jQr
18. West Anaheim Youth Center
httDs://www.anaheim.net/2209/West-Anaheim-Youth-Center
19. Garden Grove Buena Clinton Center
htti2s:Haacitv.ora/buena-clinton/vouth-Droaramens
Appendix
Survey Questions
• Do you think there are enough free, youth spaces in Santa Ana for you to hang out with
your friends after school?
• How important is it for you to have a space where you can be with other people your age?
• In 1-2 sentences, explain your answer to the previous question.
• Would you go to a city -funded youth center if it existed in Santa Ana?
• If a city -funded youth center existed in Santa Ana, where would you want it to be
located? Click on one area.
• Do you feel like you have a safe space in Santa Ana?
• Which of the following are safe spaces for you? Please select all that apply.
• On a scale from 0 (very uncomfortable) to 10 (very comfortable), how comfortable do
you feel at the following places? (School and home)
• If a city -funded youth space existed in Santa Ana, what would you want to use it for?
Select all that apply.
• We have some ideas for workshops or activities that could be held at the youth center if it
existed. Select all that interest you!
• Please feel free to leave any thoughts, questions, or comments!
Focus Group 1
• Introductions: name, pronouns, school, why were you interested in joining the focus
group?
• Where do you spend your time after school?
• What would your ideal youth center look like? What types of services or programs would
it provide?
• If a youth center existed in the city, how often would you go? When/what days or times
would you want it to be open?
• Where should a youth center be located? Which areas are easiest for you to get to?
• If you don't currently go to the youth centers in Santa Ana, why not?
• What types of transportation do you usually use to get around the city?
• Do you feel comfortable at home? Why or why not?
• Do you feel comfortable at school? Why or why not?
• When do they kick you off campus?
• Do you currently have any safe spaces? If so, what are they and how do they make you
feel?
Focus Group 2
• Are youth centers important? Why?
• Who has youth space at school?
• What type of staff would you want to work at the center?
• Do you have WIFI? What is your connection like?
• When you're in a comfortable space, how does it make you feel and what are some
effects of that?
Focus Group 3
• Thoughts on the proposal? Anything we're missing?
• How can we engage youth in this project moving forward? What would you and your
friends find most interesting and helpful to learn about the proposal for a youth center?
• Is there anything about your experience as a young person in Santa Ana that we haven't
asked about yet that you would like to share?
Orozco, Norma
From: Selina Mendez <brandyselinamendez@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 4:49 PM
To: eComment
Cc: Vazquez, Benjamin; Penaloza, David; Lopez, Jessie; Hernandez, Johnathan; Bacerra,
Phil; Phan, Thai; Amezcua, Valerie
Subject: Agenda Item #52
Dear City Council Members,
My name is Selina Mendez, this years orange county's youth of the year and this is my public comment
regarding the youth center:
Over 25% of the residents of Santa Ana are teens under the age of 18. Resources in
this community need to cater to the demographic of their areas. Signifying that in order
to prevent teen gang involvement youth centers need to be implemented. With the
integration of community youth centers it would contribute to a higher level of teens
being in spaces that would allow them to focus and excel in educational activities. Not
only would it allow for educational purposes but also for mental health and physical
educational opportunities. This youth center should include a proper space for a
gymnasium, computer center, mental health resources, and high running WiFi to allow
for a focus on homework. The allocation of funds from this budget should properly be
used to support the future of our city which relies solely on the youth. Experiencing first
hand from the impacts of the boys and girls club and their teen center I've seen how so
many youth have benefitted from these centers. As the Orange County Youth of the
Year I feel it is necessary for others to experience opportunities like the ones I have
received from youth center organizations. When spaces for recreation and creative
expression are offered it creates success stories instead of contributing to the "what if'
stories. Don't be a part of the "what if we would have supported the youth center how
many kids would have benefited from it." Be a part of the "because we supported the
center we helped these teens have a safer space." Not only is this center wanted but it
is needed for the future of youth excellence in Santa Ana.
Thank you I hope you can make this a possibility!
Best,
Selina Mendez
1
Orozco, Norma
From: Paul Gonzales <paulgonzales450@icloud.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2023 5:26 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Nuetral Ground Boxing
This program has really helped me and my kids, they are more confident then ever and have learned so much. No longer
are they talking about gangs and other bad stuff. Please continue to fund this program it is a huge blessing to many.
Sincerely,
Eddie Gonzales
Sent from my iPhone
Orozco, Norma
From: Debra Hernandez <DebraD@irvinebmw.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2023 5:16 PM
To: eComment
Subject: june 5th budget meeting
When someone in the community is hosting a event that brings offers awareness and prevention of crime.
They should not have to apply and pay for a permit , if they resided in the city of Santa Ana. Examples
NATIONAL DAY OF REMEMBRANCE, IT'S National.
More cameras should be installed as well as lights, so the families feel safe while out and about.
More money should be offered on rewards.
Orozco, Norma
From: Megan Evans <meggoev@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2023 4:59 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Support for Trap Neuter Return (TNR) budget
Hello Santa Ana City Council Members,
I'm a proud resident of Heninger Park. In the past year I have trapped, neutered, and returned (TNR) over 20
cats just from the alley behind my house. I was regularly seeing litters of sick kittens roaming the alley or dead
cats in the road. I decided I needed to do something about it, and started getting the cats fixed and rescuing the
kittens. Without any support from the shelter, OC Animal Care, this is a huge undertaking for one individual. I
eventually found a local Santa Ana cat rescue organization, Cali's Misfits, to partner with and thankfully they
were able to connect me with low cost spay/neuter appointments. However, even "low cost" is at least $80 a cat,
and when you fix/rescue over 20 cats it adds up fast. It was up to me and the rescue to figure out how to pay for
all of this - again, zero support from animal services or OCAC. TNR is the only humane way to correct the cat
overpopulation issue in Santa Ana.
I strongly support a budget for TNR and urge the city council to allocate funds for this need. The ask was small
relative to the size of the problem, but we have to start somewhere. We have been completely ripped off by
OCAC and the city should be incredibly disappointed in the lack of services provided. I'd rather see them
provide this service like they used to pre -pandemic, but at this point I'll support whatever is needed to get TNR
in Santa Ana. Please allocate budget for this need.
Thank you,
Megan Evans