2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
At this time, members of the public may address the Council on matters not listed on the agenda within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council, provided that NO action may be taken on off-agenda items unless authorized by law. Public Comments are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker.
OC Animal Care is wasting the cities' money. While the county makes all the decisions, the cities bear 93% of the costs. The county is indifferent to the consequences of their policies, because the county not footing the bill. It’s up to the cities to protect themselves and their taxpayers.
During the pandemic, fewer animals were coming into the shelter, mitigating the negative impact of bad policies. But now the numbers are returning to pre-pandemic levels, and the full impact of OCAC’s bad policies will fall on the cities.
The increase in costs to the cities is driven by the increase in length of stay, which is the consequence of the bad adoption policies.
If we compare FY 2021-22 to FY 2018-19, we see that:
The number of animals coming in dropped by 37%
Admin costs increased by 15%.
Net cost per intake increased by 69%. This is not caused by inflation (the Consumer Price Index increased by only 11%).
The cost increase is caused by the fact that the shelter is too slow in getting animals adopted. With each animal staying longer, the shelter is warehousing more animals, and all expenses increase accordingly.
This is what the Assistant Director of OC Community Resources (Cymantha Atkinson) wrote on November 14, 2018: “[The OCAC director] can fill you in on the essential component that play groups play in accurate dog evaluation and expedited dog placement. Both these factors decrease length of stay in the shelter which serves our primary goal of providing excellent animal care while simultaneously reducing the financial impact to our partner cities. [The director] can also point to other shelters nationwide that implement this best practice.”
OCAC forgot its responsibility to the cities and is keeping pandemic-era policies in place. OCAC and the county don’t care about the financial impact of their bad policies, because they’re just passing the costs to the cities. The cities are told the increase is driven by external factors (inflation, intakes) when in reality it’s driven by bad policies and bad management.
The city cannot trust OC Animal Care. The shelter just retracted and replaced its 1st Quarter statistics. Their statistics page now states:
"An incorrect version of the 2023 1st Quarter Shelter Statistics report was posted on April 26, 2023. It has been replaced with the correct information as of 8/11/2023.”
https://ocpetinfo.com/about-us/shelter-statistics
These are the shelter’s main statistics. They took action only when an advocate presented iron-clad proof that the statistics were made up. You can find the details in Voice of OC:
https://voiceofoc.org/2023/08/lawther-oc-animal-care-is-unable-to-keep-track-of-its-animals/
In fact, you can read in the Fullerton Observer that their statistics are still fishy:
https://fullertonobserver.com/2023/08/16/oc-residents-raise-concerns-over-oc-animal-care-shelter/
It’s worth asking the county:
- Is it up to ordinary citizens to discover the errors in a county agency’s key report and then patiently wait for dismissive county managers to take the evidence seriously?
- Why should the public trust any numbers put out by the shelter? In most cases, OCAC is unable to back up its claims with any details, data, or calculations.
- Why are the 2nd Quarter statistics (April-June) not available? (All other area shelters put them out weeks ago.)
Is an audit going to be ordered?
The same management team that led the production of the wrong statistics is still in charge . Isn’t it risky to trust its next round of statistics?
OC Animal Care is wasting the cities' money. While the county makes all the decisions, the cities bear 93% of the costs. The county is indifferent to the consequences of their policies, because the county not footing the bill. It’s up to the cities to protect themselves and their taxpayers.
During the pandemic, fewer animals were coming into the shelter, mitigating the negative impact of bad policies. But now the numbers are returning to pre-pandemic levels, and the full impact of OCAC’s bad policies will fall on the cities.
The increase in costs to the cities is driven by the increase in length of stay, which is the consequence of the bad adoption policies.
If we compare FY 2021-22 to FY 2018-19, we see that:
The number of animals coming in dropped by 37%
Admin costs increased by 15%.
Net cost per intake increased by 69%. This is not caused by inflation (the Consumer Price Index increased by only 11%).
The cost increase is caused by the fact that the shelter is too slow in getting animals adopted. With each animal staying longer, the shelter is warehousing more animals, and all expenses increase accordingly.
This is what the Assistant Director of OC Community Resources (Cymantha Atkinson) wrote on November 14, 2018: “[The OCAC director] can fill you in on the essential component that play groups play in accurate dog evaluation and expedited dog placement. Both these factors decrease length of stay in the shelter which serves our primary goal of providing excellent animal care while simultaneously reducing the financial impact to our partner cities. [The director] can also point to other shelters nationwide that implement this best practice.”
OCAC forgot its responsibility to the cities and is keeping pandemic-era policies in place. OCAC and the county don’t care about the financial impact of their bad policies, because they’re just passing the costs to the cities. The cities are told the increase is driven by external factors (inflation, intakes) when in reality it’s driven by bad policies and bad management.
The city cannot trust OC Animal Care. The shelter just retracted and replaced its 1st Quarter statistics. Their statistics page now states:
"An incorrect version of the 2023 1st Quarter Shelter Statistics report was posted on April 26, 2023. It has been replaced with the correct information as of 8/11/2023.”
https://ocpetinfo.com/about-us/shelter-statistics
These are the shelter’s main statistics. They took action only when an advocate presented iron-clad proof that the statistics were made up. You can find the details in Voice of OC:
https://voiceofoc.org/2023/08/lawther-oc-animal-care-is-unable-to-keep-track-of-its-animals/
In fact, you can read in the Fullerton Observer that their statistics are still fishy:
https://fullertonobserver.com/2023/08/16/oc-residents-raise-concerns-over-oc-animal-care-shelter/
It’s worth asking the county:
- Is it up to ordinary citizens to discover the errors in a county agency’s key report and then patiently wait for dismissive county managers to take the evidence seriously?
- Why should the public trust any numbers put out by the shelter? In most cases, OCAC is unable to back up its claims with any details, data, or calculations.
- Why are the 2nd Quarter statistics (April-June) not available? (All other area shelters put them out weeks ago.)
Is an audit going to be ordered?
The same management team that led the production of the wrong statistics is still in charge . Isn’t it risky to trust its next round of statistics?