The URL can be used to link to this page

06/27/2023ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2023 The regular meeting of June 27, 2023 was called to order at 1:32 p.m. in the Council Chamber of Anaheim City Hall, located at 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard. The meeting notice, agenda, and related materials were duly posted on June 22, 2023. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ashleigh E. Aitken and Council Members Jose Diaz, Carlos A. Leon, Norma Campos Kurtz, Stephen Faessel, and Natalie Meeks. Mayor Pro Tern Natalie Rubalcava joined at 1:33 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Jim Vanderpool, City Attorney Robert Fabela, and City Clerk Theresa Bass ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION: None PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: None CLOSED SESSION: At 1:33 p.m., Mayor Aitken recessed to Closed Session for consideration of the following: 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (d)(1) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code) Name of Case: Grandma's House of Hope v. City of Anaheim et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2022-01241823 2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Subdivision (a) of Section 54957.6 of the California Government Code) Agency Designated Representative: Linda Andal, Human Resources Director Name of Employee Organization: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Local 47; and IBEW, Local 47 Part -Time Customer Service Employees; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 47 (Professional Management and Part -Time Management Units) At 3:20 p.m., Mayor Aitken reconvened the Anaheim City Council. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ashleigh E. Aitken and Council Members Natalie Rubalcava, Jose Diaz, Carlos A. Leon, Norma Campos Kurtz, Stephen Faessel, and Natalie Meeks. D106 WORKSHOP: Proposed Fiscal Year 2023/24 Budget (Community Services, Public Utilities, Public Works, Planning & Building, Economic Development, Housing & Community Development, and Convention, Sports, & Entertainment) City Manager Vanderpool reported this is the final workshop in a series to introduce the Fiscal Year 2023/24 Budget. He noted various meetings were held throughout the City to receive the community's input on the proposed budget. The Budget, Investment, and Technology Commission reviewed the proposed budget and will be providing a presentation at the meeting. He introduced Director of Community Services Sjany Larson -Cash to present the Community Services Department Budget. City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 2 of 44 Community Services Department Director of Community Services Larson -Cash highlighted the five divisions that comprise the Department, which include Golf, Library Services, Parks and Capital Development, Recreation Services, and Human and Neighborhood Services. She highlighted the importance of part-time and seasonal staff members to carry out the Department's mission. The Department's proposed budget is $77.6 million, making up 3.7% of the total City budget. Director Larson -Cash detailed the $61.1 million proposed Operating Budget. There was a significant increase in the Library Services division to represent the expansion in library hours and services. 45% of the Operating Budget is allocated to personnel costs, 54% is other operating expenses, and 1 % is allocated to Capital Debt Service and Capital Outlay. The Community Services Administration budget is over $1 million. The division is responsible for the oversight of the Department and provides innovative and creative programs, services, and facilities that are designed to meet the diverse needs of the community to improve life in Anaheim. Director Larson -Cash highlighted the City's two golf courses, Dad Miller Golf Course and the Anaheim Hills Golf Course. The Golf Operations budget of $12.7 million is a fully self -supported Enterprise fund. Due to the pandemic, popularity of the sport rose and since then the Department has continued to see high demand. She noted the increased demand and revenue allowed the Department to address deferred maintenance issues at the golf courses including renovation of the driving range and golf shop, new landscaping, and new special events. She highlighted the $13 million Parks Division budget. The Parks Division provides clean, safe parks, trails, and recreational facilities. Park maintenance is an important responsibility with the upkeep of nearly 800 acres that make up the 67 City parks including 51 play areas. Through the Tree Power Program, 103 new trees and 600 new shade trees were planted in City parks. She highlighted the number of field permits and picnic shelter permits issued throughout the year. Director Larson -Cash noted reduced operating costs for the Human and Neighborhood Services due to grant funding for the Senior Mobility program. The Human and Neighborhood Services division provides and facilitates resources to address needs that support the stability and healthy development of Anaheim's youth, families, and seniors. She noted the division serves as a single point of contact for Anaheim residents in need of assistance. Human and Neighborhood Services connects with residents through regular District meetings, neighborhood resource fairs, and the Mobile Family Resource Center Project. She highlighted the Active Older Adult programs, which partner with 60 local community -based organizations, to provide support to seniors with opportunities to engage, socialize, and thrive to help deter loneliness and isolation. Director Larson -Cash highlighted Family Services which addresses food insecurity through Family Resource Centers, Senior Center, and the Mobile Family Resource Center Program with support from community collaborations. The Anaheim Family Mobile Resource Center Program partners with community organizations to link underserved residents with much -needed resources. She highlighted the program's 84 events in 28 key neighborhoods. Library Services' $16.2 million budget represents the additional funding approved by the City Council to expand library hours across the City. The City operates seven (7) branch libraries, Heritage Services, Founders Park, Mobile Library Services, and ARTIC's Books on the Go. Director Larson - Cash noted that 2.5 million patrons visited Anaheim libraries and 845,000 pieces including books, virtual reading materials, and DVD's were circulated. She added 130,000 participants attended specialized library programs for all ages. Additional funding received for the Fiscal Year will increase City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 3 of 44 the access to libraries to seven (7) days a week across the City. She highlighted the Central Library will celebrate its 60th Anniversary in August and the creation of a Marker Space and Media Lab at Haskett Library. Director Larson -Cash presented the Recreation Services' $10.5 million budget. Recreation Services provides opportunities for personal growth through a variety of leisure activities and programs for all ages, abilities, and economic levels throughout the city in our parks, community centers, and neighborhoods. She noted over 5,000 participants swam at pools throughout the City and over 30,000 youth participated in afterschool programs and activities. She highlighted Park Rangers and the role they serve in keeping parks and events safe and secure. She highlighted various Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) including Aloe Promenade, Peralta Park's new pickleball court, Center Green's new play area, fitness stations at Maxwell Park, and replacing a 20-year old play structure at Citrus Park. The proposed CIP budget is $16.5 million which will be used to transform Boysen Park and expand it by 2.5 acres with a $15 million State earmark. She noted Phase I improvements at La Palma Park will continue focusing on pedestrian safety and connectivity throughout the area. The second phase of the project to provide three much -needed, natural turf soccer fields will begin in 2025. In conclusion, Director Larson -Cash detailed staffs efforts to transform the Santa Ana River into the OC Riverwalk. Staff is working on design documents, permitting, and environmental clearances in coordination with other agencies. She highlighted a partnership with the County of Orange to acquire and improve the west area of Yorba Regional Park with recreational amenities and the installation of a new splash pad for Brookhurst Park. DISCUSSION: In response to Council Member Faessel, Director Larson -Cash clarified the City has retained the same golf contractor for the operations of the Golf facilities. She noted the expansion to include food and beverage services at the Anaheim Hills Golf Course has been successful. Director Larson -Cash explained the additional $500,000 funding for senior citizen programming will be presented for City Council approval during the budget adoption. Council Member Faessel confirmed the Samueli Foundation provides additional funding for emergency funding assistance for programs such as the Mobile Family Resource Centers. Director Larson -Cash noted the funds pay for the resources and do not fund staff costs and the City's support. In response to Council Member Faessel, Director Larson -Cash stated in partnership with the Anaheim Family YMCA, if there is demand for an additional pool the City can explore a partnership with the Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD) for the use of the Katella High School pool. City Manager Jim Vanderpool noted he met with one of the Anaheim Elementary School Superintendents to discuss the expansion of potential partnerships to utilize district properties for recreational programs. Council Member Kurtz thanked staff for the opportunity to vote for additional funding for senior services. She appreciated the allocation of a permanent staff member dedicated to providing services to seniors across the City. She mentioned a $100,000 funding allocation for removal of a volleyball sand area at Paul Revere Park. Council Member Diaz commended the good initiatives brought forward by the department and how the department is well managed. He highlighted the $1.5 million funding allocation to the AUHSD for joint use of District athletic fields. City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 4 of 44 In response to Council Member Diaz, Director Larson -Cash confirmed the extension of operation hours for Library Services. Director Larson -Cash explained during the budget adoption, additional funding can be included for increased programming and staff for senior programs. The additional two (2) full-time and five (5) part-time staff members will establish a single point of contact for seniors at the Senior Centers, Family Resource Centers, West Anaheim Youth Center, and Miraloma Family Resource Center. In response to Council Member Leon, Director Larson -Cash explained the decrease in operating costs in the Human and Neighborhood Services division is due to an OCTA grant for the Senior Mobility Program. The funds will be carried over into the next Fiscal Year. Council Member Leon requested including additional operation hours at the Euclid Branch Library, installation of a splash pad at Modjeska Park for next Fiscal Year, additional mobile services around the ABC neighborhood, and additional programming in District 2 parks. In response to Council Member Leon, Director Larson -Cash noted Park Rangers work closely with the Police Department. She mentioned although they are two different entities, they work in collaboration to support the City's parks. In response to Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava's inquiries, Director Larson -Cash noted the Department's good staffing levels for programs that are provided, however, if there is program expansion additional staffing would be required. She provided examples of deferred maintenance to parks and fields that were not included in the proposed Budget. She explained the Department's high number of part-time staff compared to full-time and expressed satisfaction with current staffing levels. Director Larson - Cash highlighted Project S.A.Y. (Support Anaheim's Youth) which assigns staff to AUHSD schools, if there was additional staff, the Department could allocate one staff member to each school. Council Member Meeks requested exploring additional incorporations into the Strategic Plan. She recommended tracking non -urgent deferred maintenance projects that could be funded with excess TOT funds. In response to Mayor Aitken, Director Larson -Cash confirmed the City does have a process to track facility rentals by group type and resident fees versus non-resident fees. She added the golf rates would be provided during the Public Hearing. Mayor Aitken requested that the third party management company track golf course reservations for residents and non-residents. Mayor Aitken thanked staff for including a pickleball court at Peralta Park. Public Utilities Department Anaheim Public Utilities (APU) General Manager Dukku Lee highlighted the six (6) strategic priorities of the Department including safety; reliability; sustainability; risk mitigation; affordability; and customer focus. He noted the position count remains the same in the proposed budget with 353 full-time and 39 part-time employees. He reported the proposed $633.5 million budget comprises 30% of the total City budget. He shared a breakdown of the proposed budget and noted the decrease in Capital Improvements is due to the amended budget including multi -year projects that have been encumbered. Operationally, the Power Supply budget was amended due to the sharp increase in gas prices over the winter. APU was able to recover costs through wholesale sales and the proposed budget reflects more normalized energy prices. General Manager Lee explained water supply costs reflect a decrease due to the use of groundwater systems compared to importing water. General Manager Lee mentioned APU's debt profile includes prudent long-term borrowings that have helped stabilize customer rates and healthy credit ratings of AA- for electric and AA+ for water. City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 5 of 44 General Manager Lee covered APU's Administration & Risk Services division. The division includes customer service, billing and credit services, enterprise risk management, safety, and environmental compliance. He noted the call center answers 500 to 1,000 calls per day in both English and Spanish. The Department has partnered with Community Services to attend outreach events to bring the call center to residents to provide on -the -spot bill assistance and program information. He highlighted the division's ability to utilize funds from federal, state, Housing & Community Development, and APU's utility program to assist over 7,000 households in paying utility bills. Water Services is responsible for getting water to Anaheim, ensuring water quality, and then delivering it to customers. General Manager Lee highlighted the City's water main break reliability was in the top 25% nationally. Electric Services require effective operations and maintenance, inspection, engineering, infrastructure planning, new development support, and metering services. APU was among the top 25% of public utilities across the country for reliability metrics. The Finance and Energy Resources Division focuses on the long-term fiscal health of APU. The division manages the debt portfolio, power resource procurement, accounting, warehousing, technology development, and compliance with energy regulations. General Manager Lee noted the group is accelerating renewable power investments to meet state mandates for 60% renewables by 2030 and to be carbon -free by 2045 while remaining cost-effective to customers. The General Services division includes communications, records and contract management, employee development, and internship programs. General Manager Lee covered the current year's highlights including groundwater treatment operations, infrastructure investments, the 8th year of the AUHSD high school mentoring program, and a $3 million federal earmark from Congressmember Lou Correa for the Sustainability Education Center. For the upcoming year, APU will begin construction for the Sustainability Education Center, security improvements at critical high voltage substations, undergrounding of Beach Boulevard and wildfire threat areas, and increasing electrifying their fleet. DISCUSSION: Council Member Diaz highlighted APU's initiatives and department management. He emphasized the Department's ability to adapt to needs for water services such as PFAS treatment plants and noted the City has the lowest electrical rates in Orange County. Council Member Leon echoed Council Member Diaz's comments and thanked staff. In response to Council Member Leon, General Manager Lee referenced the City's agreement with the State to administer federal funds for utility bill assistance for residents. Council Member Leon commended APU's quick response to an outage in District 2 near Katella Avenue and Orangewood Avenue and thanked staff for their work. Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava highlighted APU's operations as an Enterprise department and its unique ability to fund itself. In response to Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava, General Manager Lee explained the two different types of theft the Department experiences and revenue loss. The first is break-ins to City facilities to steal salvaged materials with an estimated cost of tens of thousands of dollars. The second is the theft of wires from street lights and the inconvenience to residents with outages. Public Works Department Director of Public Works Rudy Emami highlighted the Department's core services including planning, building, and preserving the community. To maximize those efforts the Department seeks grant opportunities from a wide range of resources to leverage local funds. Efforts include the implementation of new environmental policies to meet changing regulations ranging from water City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 6 of 44 quality to recycling. The proposed budget includes 241 full-time and 42 part-time employees, an additional full-time position in the Sanitation division was included to provide support for the new SB 1383 Organics program. Director Emami detailed the proposed $263.3 million budget. He noted that significant funding sources include restricted funds such as Sanitation, Transportation, and Internal Services funds for fleet and facility maintenance. Of the Department's $174 million operating budget, 85% is spent on Public Works Operations, and Fleet and Facility Services. Director Emami covered the Department's divisions beginning with Administration and Fiscal Services which provides planning and management for the Department including policy direction, program evaluation, budgeting, accounting, special analyses, and administrative support services including Engineering Records and Commuter Services. Engineering Services provide design services, development services, and include traffic and transportation. Public Works Operations performs maintenance of streets, sidewalks, sewer systems, street trees and landscape, and the street sweeping program. The division also provides administration of the solid waste collection and disposal contract and administers the Anaheim Resort Maintenance District. He covered the functions of the Fleet and Facility Services division and Construction Services. Director Emami highlighted a few Fiscal Year 2023/24 projects including the Amboy Neighborhood, Phase 8 and 9 of the Arterial Sidewalk Project, Beach Boulevard, Harbor Boulevard, and the Sabina Neighborhood. Sidewalk Improvements are a major component of the Department's work and a vital component of the City's infrastructure. Director Emami mentioned the proposed budget includes a request for the second installment of a 5-year commitment to improve sidewalks Citywide. He referenced the City's ability to leverage grant funds such as Clean CA to keep the City litter -free and the Staff's assistance with right-of-way rehabilitation and encampment cleanouts. He highlighted the City's Street Tree Maintenance Program which pruned nearly 10,000 trees for safety and tree health, and 11,000 trees for Power Line Clearance in Fiscal Year 2022/23. Additionally, the program plans to plant 350 trees and participates in an annual Arbor Day Tree Planting Ceremony. Residents can interactively engage with using a GIS map available on the City's website to navigate to specific trees in their neighborhood and the City. The Amboy Neighborhood Rehabilitation Project consists of improving existing public right-of-way, concrete, and asphalt in Central Anaheim. The project includes the removal of unhealthy trees, planting new parkway trees, installing new pavement markings, and new street signs. Director Emami featured Engineering Services projects including road rehabilitations including Weir Canyon Road, Euclid Street, and Orangewood Avenue; neighborhood programs including the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program and Residential Parking Program; Sabina Phase 4 and 5 and Sycamore Neighborhood Projects; Lincoln Widening from East Street to Evergreen Street; and a Stormwater Credit Program. DISCUSSION: Council Member Faessel confirmed Police Department fleet is covered under the Public Works Department budget. He applauded the Department for its publicly accessible interactive GIS Street Tree Maintenance Program map. In response to Council Member Faessel, Director Emami mentioned pavement projects are included in the City's Project View Finder. Council Member Kurtz thanked staff for the Street Tree Maintenance Program and their response to residents' concerns. Council Member Diaz applauded the Department for their 24-hour customer service. He provided examples of their services including sidewalk maintenance, traffic management, storm drains, and the implementation of the new State -mandated organics program. He added the budget includes City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 7 of 44 additional funding in the amounts of $300,000 for tree trimming services and $2 million for sidewalk maintenance/replacement. Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava thanked staff for their reactive responses to residents' concerns and the transparency the Tree Maintenance Program brings. She requested information on projects not included in the budget. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Rubalcava's inquiries, Director Emami noted additional requests were conducted through the supplemental process. Council Member Meeks applauded the Department for their services and echoed her recommendation provided to the Community Services Department to create a list of projects not included in the Budget. In response to Mayor Aitken, Director Emami provided examples of the measures used to address traffic calming and bike concerns including installing medians, traffic signal installation, and lane spacing. Planning and Building Department Director of Planning and Building Ted White presented the core services divisions: Planning, Building, and Community Preservation & Licensing. The Planning Division is responsible for services and programs that facilitate the land development and business including the work of the Planning Commission, administering the general plan and zoning code, and managing the City's historic preservation efforts. The Building Division ensures high standards of safety for all construction in the City through the review of plans, issuance of building permits, and performance of building inspections. The Community & Licensing Division helps maintain a high quality of life for the community through enforcement of the Municipal Code, issuance of business licenses, and collection of transient occupancy taxes. The services are provided by 84 full-time and 27 part-time employees which are supplemented by consultants who assist with building plan checks and inspections. Director White reported the Department's proposed budget is $32.2 million which is supported by the General Fund, fees of building permits and land use entitlements, restricted grant funding, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, and state grants. He added approximately half of the Department's budget, $17 million, is allotted to Code Enforcement efforts. He noted that 54% of the Department's expenses are for labor while operations account for 43%. Director White provided an overview of the budgets, functions, and highlights of the Administration Division, Planning Services, Building Services, and Community Licensing & Preservation. The Planning Services budget experienced a 9% reduction from last year reflective of the anticipated completion of the grant -funded Housing Element. Planning Services assisted over 9,300 customers at the public counter, completed 3,700 plan checks, and coordinated 39 land use entitlements. Building Services issued nearly 6,000 building permits, performed 8,600 building plan checks, and conducted over 38,000 building inspections. Code Enforcement responded to 7,500 Code Enforcement cases and 13,00 Anaheim Anytime requests, removed over 3 million square feet of graffiti, issued more than 35,000 parking citations, and processed 21,000 business licenses. Director White provided an overview of the Department's accomplishments and upcoming projects including: ocV!BE, the Platinum Triangle A -Town project, Disneyland Forward, the third draft of the Housing Element, Rebuild Beach project, proactive Pro -Active Quality Corridors Enforcement efforts, street vending enforcement, and Organic Waste Enforcement. He highlighted two customer service enhancements at the Permit Assistance Center including a new look to the lobby and new USB City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 8 of 44 charger outlets. He featured a new program called 'ADUHeim' which provides property owners with a catalog of preapproved plans for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) to expedite the plan check process, review time, and issuance of building permits. DISCUSSION: In response to Council Member Kurtz, Director White confirmed additional Code Enforcement Officers were included in the supplemental budget. Council Member Faessel confirmed the amount of the City's contracted graffiti removal company. He expressed appreciation for their efforts and the efforts of the Department. Council Member Diaz expressed appreciation for the ADU program, and the Department's efforts on Beach Boulevard, ocV!BE, Disneyland Forward, and the Housing Element. He noted the budget includes an $800,000 allocation to upgrade the permitting system. In response to Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava's inquiries, Director White explained the City received grant funds to assist with preparing the Housing Element. She requested further information related to Code Enforcement hours and reactivity. Director White noted various Code Enforcement teams work nights and weekends including Vendor Enforcement, Parking Enforcement, and the Short -Term Rental Enforcement Team. He explained the standard enforcement team works from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., however, if special enforcement is required the schedules can be altered. He stated the policy direction over the last decade has been to be reactive, however, there has been a transition to a proactive approach in the commercial corridors. Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava thanked Staff for resolving parking issues in District 3. In response to Council Member Leon, Director White explained the Pro -active Quality Corridors Enforcement involves Code Enforcement officers taking a proactive approach in citing egregious violations in the commercial corridors. He mentioned flyers were being distributed to property owners to educate them on the expectations of property maintenance. He noted a small percentage of overall violations occur in District 2. Director White provided an update on the ongoing partnership with the County of Orange to confiscate food from food vendors and mentioned the City is proactively citing vendors. He added that there is still consideration to share costs with the County to increase enforcement. Council Member Leon echoed the appreciation of his colleagues and thanked the Public Works Department as well. Council Member Meeks requested a residential property standards handout to educate tenants. In response to Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava, Director White stated additional officers would be required in upcoming years to provide additional responsiveness and proactive efforts. Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava encouraged consideration to explore the establishment of a City Health Department during the Strategic Plan process. Council Member Diaz supported proactive initiatives in the commercial corridors, however, advised against those measures for residential properties. Mayor Aitken encouraged residents to download the Anaheim Anytime app or visit the My Anaheim website for a quick response to any concerns or issues. City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 9 of 44 Economic Development Department Director of Economic Development Sergio Ramirez highlighted the mission of the Department including to identify and support goals, initiatives, and targeted strategies that attract investment, generate revenue, and propel the City of Anaheim forward as a leading hub of business innovation, model of economic vitality, world -class destination, and vibrant community for people to live, work, play, prosper and thrive. For Fiscal Year 2023/24, the Department seeks to increase the number of Full -Time employees from seven (7) to ten (10). Director Ramirez detailed the $44 million proposed budget, a 10% decrease from the prior fiscal year due to a one-time project cost for the 39 Commons Project. He covered the Administration division's approximately $1.5 million budget which is responsible for the management and operations of the Department. The Business Development division is responsible for business attraction, retention, and expansion. The division's budget for Fiscal Year 2023/24 is $1.68 million. Director Ramirez mentioned a one-time request of $2 million was included in the proposed budget. He covered the $6.5 million Property Development budget and the proposed $32.7 million budget for Successor Agency obligations. Project highlights for the department include the redevelopment of the 39 Commons Project, Emprendedores Program, disposition of the Rancho Del Rio property, ocV!BE, Brookhurst Corridor Study and Little Arabia Designation, a new Tesla Car dealership in the Anaheim Canyon, identity signage in the Anaheim Canyon, redevelopment efforts of the Successor Agency site located at Anaheim Boulevard and Ball Road, and the Rebuild Beach Boulevard project. He highlighted the Business Development Team that assisted 150 businesses with ombudsman services including Solita Tacos and Bainni's Coffee. He presented upcoming projects for the next fiscal year including exploring new business opportunities, a new partnership with SBDC/California State University, Fullerton, expanding the Storefront Improvement Program, restaurant attraction initiative, and expediting the disposition of Successor Agency properties. DISCUSSION: Council Member Faessel complimented Staff on the Emprendedores Program and expressed appreciation for the partnership. Mayor Aitken echoed Council Member Faessel's comments and expressed appreciation for the Department working with small businesses. Council Member Leon expressed appreciation for the Department's work in District 2. In response to Council Member Leon's inquiries, Director Ramirez clarified the budget request for the Commercial Storefront Improvement Program was for $2 million compared to $500,000 in the previous fiscal year to focus on larger shopping centers. He mentioned the program received over 300 applicants. He explained next fiscal year the Department will be targeting strip malls and small businesses, however, focus on larger shopping centers. He advised the application process will begin following the approval of the budget. In response to Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava, Director Ramirez explained the 11 % increase in the Administration budget was due to increased staffing. Director Ramirez explained the function of the Business Development division and that the division assisted over 150 businesses. He provided examples of businesses that generate tax revenue for the City including hotels and car dealerships. He confirmed the number of vacant properties that were part of the Successor agency portfolio Mayor Pro Tem Rubalcava recommended partnering with the Housing and Community Development Department to attract and retain businesses. City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 10 of 44 Housing and Community Development Department Director of Housing and Community Development Grace Ruiz-Stepter highlighted the Department's responsibility of working to address current community issues, the provision of affordable housing, and addressing homelessness. The Department's activities fall into four main categories including expanding access to housing options, workforce development, community initiatives, and homeless services. Director Ruiz-Stepter noted the Department is comprised of 79 full-time and under 10 part- time employees. The $202 million proposed budget represents 9.6% of the total budget, $9.5 million from Emergency Rental Assistance Program funds, Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention funds, and Opioid settlement funds. The remaining 95.3% of the budget includes all funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Director Ruiz-Stepter noted $149 million of the budget is dedicated to housing with $96 million being paid directly to area landlords. $44 million is dedicated to grants and homeless services. She mentioned while the Department is responsible for coordinating homeless services, the budget does not represent the total investment in addressing homelessness. 88% of the Department's resources are deployed directly into the community, 1 % for debt service, 5% for Capital Outlay, and the remaining 7% for staffing and supplies. Director Ruiz-Stepter presented the divisions of the Department including Community Development Administration, Workforce Development, Housing Authority and Development, and Grants Management and Homeless Services. She highlighted the Department's largest operational unit, the Housing Authority and Development Department, and the Housing Choice Voucher Program which represents over 30,000 households. The Grants Management and Homeless Services division oversees the output of over $46 million. Director Ruiz-Stepter highlighted the Workforce Development team which continues to maximize the State's Youth Job Corp grant to provide paid work experience to youth, a job fair at the Downtown Community Center, homeless services, ACCESS pilot program, Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program, and Finamore Place. Additional project highlights include the opening of 70 permanent supportive housing units at the Center of Hope campus, the North Harbor site transforming from interim shelter to permanent supportive housing, and the construction of the Miraflores Muti-Family Development. Once construction concludes on the three developments an additional 245 affordable housing units to Anaheim bringing the total number of units to 4,137. In conclusion, Director Ruiz-Stepter presented upcoming development projects involving motel acquisitions, which include the Tampico Motel and the revitalization of Beach Boulevard. Director Ruiz-Stepter shared images of families the Department assisted throughout the year. DISCUSSION: Council Member Faessel complimented the Department and their various projects including the partnership with the Orange County Housing Finance Trust, Hope Now formerly BeWell OC, the Center of Hope, and the Tampico Motel. In response to Council Member Meeks, Director Ruiz-Stepter explained the First Time Homebuyers program and mentioned the current applications for the 100 West Development. The program prioritizes Anaheim residents or individuals who work within City limits and eligible households can receive up to $100,000 in financial assistance. The Department is looking to expand the program by partnering with other opportunities in the future to expand the program. Council Member Meeks confirmed the opportunities are only open to new housing developments due to limited funds. She commented on the importance of homeownership and expressed interest in having discussions in the future. City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 11 of 44 In response to Council Member Leon's inquiry on the ACCESS pilot program, Director Ruiz-Stepter explained the Department provides a one to two-year timeframe for pilot programs to assess the success of the program and funding. She clarified the ACCESS pilot program is funded through Opioid settlement funds and other departments' revenue sources. City Attorney Robert Fabela added that portions of the program related to the City Attorney's Office are funded through their budget. Specialized uses of the program are also funded through the Police Department. In response to Council Member Leon, Director Ruiz-Stepter explained due to the State's surplus budget Home Key funding became available. Council Member Leon expressed appreciation for the Department's efforts related to homelessness in District 2. Council Member Diaz emphasized the impact of the Housing and Community Development Department. He noted the majority of City budgets cover labor costs, however, 88% of the Department's budget covers service to the community. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Rubalcava, Director Ruiz-Stepter explained prior to the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency, the City received $14 million in revenue for flexible uses including the First Time Homebuyers program. Director Ruiz-Stepter added the $14 million included gap financing for affordable housing developments. Mayor Pro Tem Rubalcava thanked staff for their work in the community and provided an example of a resident who received housing assistance. Council Member Kurtz thanked staff for the Finamore Place development to provide housing for families and additional community services to the neighborhood. She praised the quality of housing standards set by the Department in new developments. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Rubalcava, Director Ruiz-Stepter stated after the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency, the department lost 26 staff members. Convention, Sports, and Entertainment Department Convention, Sports, and Entertainment Executive Director Tom Morton reported the department operates as an Enterprise Fund that is responsible for managing the daily operations of the Convention Center and administers the agreements for Angels Stadium, the Honda Center, the City National Grove, ARTIC, Visit Anaheim, and the Sportstown Home Owners' Association. The department budget includes 86 full-time employees and 207 full-time equivalent employees. He detailed the department's $88.1 million proposed budget which composes 4.2% of the overall City budget. Operations represent 67% of the department's overall budget and Visit Anaheim receives approximately 26% of the budget for pass -through funding of the Anaheim Tourism Improvement District (ATID). Increases in the Operations budget represent increased event activity. He noted the Convention Center hosted returning events including the NAMM show, Natural Products, Cal Dental, and Keller Williams. Director Morton announced the Convention Center was named a 2023 Center of Excellence by Exhibitor Magazine and a 2023 Best Convention Center by Smart Magazine. In the upcoming fiscal year, the Convention Center will host the Mens Nations Volleyball League, Produce Marketing Association, the United States Soccer Coaches, Blizzcon, and other annual returning shows. City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 12 of 44 Director Morton reported the Visit Anaheim budget increased due to increases in the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenues. He highlighted Stadium Operations and projected an estimated three million visitors at the Stadium in 2023. He noted the Honda Center and The Grove restored attendance and the number of events held compared to the previous fiscal year. The Grove hosted a number of events throughout the fiscal year including Peppa Pig. He provided background information for ARTIC operation and noted in 2018 the City partnered with ATCM, a subsidiary of H&S Ventures, to provide day-to-day management and cover any annual operating losses. If operations are able to generate a profit, the City will receive 60% of the proceeds. DISCUSSION: Council Member Faessel confirmed the City government does not promote the Convention Center or hotels. Executive Director Morton added Visit Anaheim serves as the City's destination marketing organization. Executive Director Morton confirmed funds for Visit Anaheim are a pass-through of ATID funds collection. He added the City does not have a funding commitment to Visit Anaheim. In response to Council Member Kurtz, Executive Director Morton explained the department projected a loss for the upcoming fiscal year for The Grove operations. He anticipates The Grove making revenue in the next fiscal year and this upcoming fiscal year resulting in decreased expenses. Mayor Aitken confirmed the increase in the department's upcoming budget. Executive Director Morton noted the department's revenue covers operation expenses. In response to Mayor Aitken, Executive Director Morton explained if the Convention Center generates a profit, the funds are allocated toward Capital Improvement projects. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON WORKSHOP: City Clerk Theresa Bass reported there were no in-person speakers or electronic public comments received related to the Budget Workshop. At 5:37 pm, Mayor Aitken concluded the budget workshop and continued with the regular meeting. INVOCATION: Council Member Stephen Faessel Prior to the Flag Salute, Council Member Meeks thanked all military service members for their dedication and service to the country. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Natalie Meeks PRESENTATIONS: Recognizing the Canyon High School Comanches Baseball team on winning the CIF Southern California Division IV Regional Championship Mayor Aitken announced the team won the CIF Championship for the first time in 26 years. She presented the recognition to Coach Jason Smith and the Canyon High School Comanches Baseball team. Coach Jason Smith thanked the City Council for recognizing and supporting the team. He recognized the team for their dedication to the school's core values and their hard work. Recognizing Anaheim student Casey Ortiz for receiving a $50,000 scholarship from Southern California Edison to pursue Civil Engineering Mayor Aitken presented the recognition to recent Esperanza High School graduate Casey Ortiz. She noted the Edison International (a parent company to Southern California Edison) $50,000 scholarship was awarded to 30 California STEM students attending university. Ms. Ortiz plans to attend California City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 13 of 44 State University, Fullerton to become a Civil Engineer. Mayor Aitken highlighted Ms. Ortiz's goals to integrate transit into all communities to create access to equal job opportunities. Budget, Investment, and Technology Commission Presentation Budget, Investment, and Technology Chair Jorge Gavino and Vice Chair Ryann Higgins presented an overview of the Budget, Investment, and Technology Commission. He acknowledged the hard work of Director of Finance Debbie Moreno and the Finance Department. He expressed appreciation for the thoughtful planning of the City Departments related to the City Budget adoption. He provided a brief history of the Commission and noted their monthly meeting schedule from September through June despite the requirement to only meet quarterly. He highlighted the Commission's dynamic conversations and the leadership standard set by former Chair Noteboom. He introduced each Commission member: Paul D'Allura (District 1); Jaime Naranjo (District 2); John Noteboom (District 4); Christopher Nguyen (District 6); Peter Duncan (Mayoral Appointee); himself; and Vice Chair Ryann Higgins (District 5). He outlined the responsibilities of the Committee including reviewing the annual budget, General Fund, and proposals and exploring alternative approaches for financing future Capital Improvement Projects. Additional responsibilities include reviewing investment reports, providing recommendations on investment strategies, acting in an advisory capacity concerning investment of City funds, and recommending technologies. Vice Chair Higgins presented Commission highlights including supporting the transition of the City's ambulance program to in-house, support of IT upgrades, increasing funding of the Public Library, and enhancement of local parks. She highlighted the Commission's recommendations to support the Economic Development Department, outreach and education of City resources and technology platforms, maintenance and infrastructure, supporting homelessness, mental illness, and substance abuse efforts, and preparing for wildfire season. Vice Chair Higgins requested a moment of silence for former Commissioner Member David Klawe who recently passed away. She thanked Commissioner Klawe for his years of service and dedication to the City of Anaheim and expressed condolences to his friends and family. DISCUSSION: Mayor Aitken requested a round of applause for the Commission members. She thanked the Commission members for their service. ACCEPTANCE OF OTHER RECOGNITIONS (To be presented at a later date): Recognizing July 2023, as Muslim American Heritage Month Council on American -Islamic Relations — Los Angeles (CAIR-LA) Policy Coordinator Hadir Azab accepted the proclamation and expressed appreciation for the recognition. She explained the importance of Muslim American Heritage Month to promote equity and diversity and the experiences of the Muslim community. Recognizing July 2023, as National Parks and Recreation Month Community Services Parks Manager JJ Jimenez accepted the proclamation for National Parks and Recreation Month and encouraged the public to attend City parks and recreation classes. He noted the community can visit www.anaheim.net/play to learn about Community Services events and facilities. At 5:58 p.m., Mayor Aitken called to order the Anaheim Housing Authority (in joint session with the City Council) City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 14 of 44 ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA: City Clerk Theresa Bass announced that for Item No. 17, the reimbursement amount to the Agreement with The Salvation Army, First Amendment, is $706,000, not $632,000 as identified on the agenda. PUBLIC COMMENTS (all agenda items, except public hearings): Prior to receipt of public comments, City Clerk Theresa Bass provided an outline of procedures for public comments, notice of translation services, and a brief decorum. City Clerk Theresa Bass reported a total of 43 public comments were received electronically prior to 1:00 p.m. related to City Council agenda items and matters within the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Council. [A final total of 46 public comments were received electronically, distributed to the City Council, and made part of the official records]. — See Appendix. Duane J. Roberts commented on Item No. 4, offering support for the Anaheim Public Library and congratulating the efforts of his news outlet which exposed alleged corruption in the community. Mark Richard Daniels commented on Item No. 25 requesting the City address housing, food insecurity, and homelessness issues, supporting the Anaheim Anytime app, and requesting the City revisit the entertainment tax initiative. Parker Shea commented on Item No. 25 requesting placement of the matter on a general election ballot and expressing concern regarding lack of transparency and costs for a special election. Rachael Rutkowski commented on Item No. 25 expressing concerns the City is violating the State Elections Code related to selection of the special election date for the proposed initiative and requesting placement of the matter on a general election ballot. Wes Jones commented on Item No. 26 expressing concern regarding meeting participation protocols, requesting advertising of extended library hours and other community programming, and expressing concern regarding the costs of a special election. Susana Galan commented on Item No. 26 requesting the City consider the wages required for families like her to live in the new developments in the community. Paul Hyek commented on Item Nos. 1, 16, and 17 requesting clarification on substandard inspections, establishment of a pilot program with the Salvation Army, and homelessness initiatives. Bridget McConaughey commented on Item No. 25 requesting placement of the proposed initiative on a general election ballot. Adam Wood commented on Item No. 26 expressing concern as to the process by which the item was placed on the agenda and requesting additional public participation regarding the City's approach to affordable housing initiatives and policy. Kourosh Karimi commented on Item No. 25 requesting placement of the proposed initiative on a general election ballot. City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 15 of 44 Cesar Covarrubias commented on Item No. 26 citing the need for additional housing options services for community residents and offering recommendations from his organization to the subject commission. Kate Gonzalez commented on Item No. 26 expressing support for affordable housing opportunities, citing the need for services in underserved communities. Rachel Pozos commented on Item No. 26 expressing support for affordable housing opportunities, citing the need for services in underserved communities. Vern Nelson commented on Item No. 25 requesting placement of the proposed initiative on a general election ballot citing low voter turnout in special elections. Jeanine Robbins commented on Item No. 25 expressing concerns regarding the wording of the proposed initiative as submitted by the proponents and concerns regarding the transparency of actions taken by the Mayor as related to the item. She requested clarification regarding the results of the audit report. Mike Robbins commented on Item No. 26 expressing concerns with the economic impacts of increasing worker wages related to the proposed initiative as submitted. Greg Eisenman commented on Item No. 25 thanking the City Council for placing the proposed initiative before the voters for consideration and expressing concern regarding the economic impacts the initiative may have on workers. He requested clarification on the type of voter education the City will conduct on the proposed initiative. Samantha Marquez commented on Item No. 25 expressing support for the upcoming special election date for the proposed initiative measure. Kelly Laimana commented on Item No. 25 expressing support for the upcoming special election date for the proposed initiative measure. Daisy Chavez commented on Item No. 26 expressing support for affordable housing opportunities, citing the need for services in underserved communities. Dara Maleki commented on Item Nos. 25 and 26 expressing support for the upcoming special election date for the proposed initiative measure and requesting the City Council seek input from industry partners related to affordable housing strategies before utilizing outside consultants. Cecil Jordan Corkern commented on various matters related to homeless services, the Disneyland Resort, his personal faith beliefs, and gun laws. John Baca commented on various matters related to the status of IBEW contracts. David Aguon commented expressing concerns related to the status of IBEW contracts and wages. Brian Olson commented expressing concerns related to the status of IBEW contracts and wages. Christine Gallardo commented on various matters related to public safety in District Four and expressed concern regarding the lack of responsiveness from District Four's Council representative, Councilmember Kurtz. City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 16 of 44 Bryan Kaye commented expressing concerns regarding alleged actions taken by the Anaheim Police Department Jose De La Torre commented expressing concerns related to the status of IBEW contracts and wages. Len Beckman commented expressing his personal views on youth and adult gender -related health matters. Cecilia Flores commented expressing concerns related to potential negative impacts on adjacent neighborhoods of proposed development of a charter school on a property formally occupied by a church. Jonathan Alvarez commented expressing concerns related to the status of IBEW contracts and wages. Dinorah E. commented expressing concerns related to the Federal court complaint she filed against the Orange County Housing Authority. Marc Herbert commented expressing concerns regarding meeting participation protocols, wi-fi access in the Council Chamber, and budget allocations for homelessness services and requesting a status update on the construction of Fire Station 12. Jim Nelson commented expressing concerns related to the status of IBEW contracts and wages. Mark Lopez commented on Item No. 26 thanking the City Council for their support of schools and requesting the City Council adopt policies that support students and families citing the need to address housing assistance for same. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS: Council Member Faessel requested the meeting adjourn in remembrance of Anaheim resident Lucy M. Hernandez, a direct descendant of Jose Antonio Yorba. He noted that Ms. Hernandez retired from the Anaheim Elementary School District in 2002. He congratulated Senior Administrative Analyst Lylyana Bogdanovich on her new position with a different local community, thanked her for her service to the City of Anaheim and its residents, and shared that he will miss her. Council Member Kurtz highlighted Ted's Burgers and The Anaheim White House Restaurant and encouraged everyone to visit both restaurants as she believes they are icons in the City of Anaheim. She thanked the Planning and Building and Housing and Community Development Departments for working with the developer to complete Finamore Place, an affordable housing community. Council Member Kurtz thanked the Anaheim Senior Commission for allowing her to visit with them to discuss the availability of present and future senior resources. Council Member Diaz highlighted MJ's Pinoy Fiesta, a Filipino restaurant and market, and asked that everyone visit and support a local business. He shared that Northeast of the Well is a church and non-profit organization that fights against prostitution and human trafficking. He encouraged everyone to support the organization. Council Member Diaz noted that the next Rebuild Beach Boulevard community meeting will be Thursday, June 29th at 6:00 p.m. at the West Anaheim Youth Center. City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 17 of 44 Council Member Leon invited everyone to the upcoming Health and Resource Fair at Savanna High School, in partnership with Senator Tom Umberg's Office. The event will take place on July 8m from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. There will be a number of free resources and services available including general health screenings, dental services, vision, and food distribution. He thanked the Orange County Heritage Council for organizing the Juneteenth Festival on June 17th and shared that it was great coming together as a community to celebrate freedom for all. He welcomed AFC Urgent Care to the community and congratulated them on their grand opening. Council Member Leon highlighted Linbrook Bowling Center as the June 2023 Business of the Month and noted they will be celebrating 65 years in West Anaheim later this year. He highlighted Zait and Zaatar as the June 2023 Restaurant of the Month located at 510 N. Brookhurst St., Suite 106. Mayor Aitken noted that she attended District 4's Community Services meeting, along with Council Member Kurtz. She thanked staff for attending and answering questions from residents. She attended, along with Council Member Faessel, a Neighborhood Clean-up for the Anna Drive community. She highlighted Finamore Place, the City's 42"d affordable housing community. Mayor Aitken shared that she had the opportunity to support Chance Theater's 2023 Chance-a-thon fundraiser and it was fun to see all the performers. She also attended the OC Pride Parade in Santa Ana. Mayor Aitken mentioned that the City of Anaheim will be celebrating the Fourth of July with its annual Firecracker 5K/10k run, Yankee Doodle Dog Show, Fourth of July Parade, Community Festival, and Fireworks Show. She invited everyone in the community to all the events. CITY MANAGER'S UPDATE: City Manager Jim Vanderpool announced that the Anaheim Public Libraries expanded hours begin July 111. Each region (East, West, and Central) will now have seven days of service. For more information regarding the new hours at Central Library, East Anaheim Library, and Haskett Library please visit the City of Anaheim Public Library webpage. He provided an update regarding the Chief of Police recruitment process and noted that the City secured the professional services of Bob Murray and Associates to conduct a national executive search. The recruitment was open for five weeks, ads were placed in 11 national law enforcement professional organizations and outlets, and a public awareness campaign was coordinated by the City's Public Information Officer. Meetings and participation options were advertised on social media, the web, and Channel 3. The City also encouraged each Council Member, Commissioner, and Board Member to get the information out on their social media outlets. Community Services shared the recruitment with non -profits, religious organizations, and school districts. The City conducted six community meetings Citywide. The executive recruiter met with Board Members as well as the Anaheim Police Association (APA), Anaheim Police Management Association (APMA), and the Anaheim Management Employees Association (AMEA). The recruiter also conducted open house and open door hours at the Police Department for personnel to drop in and provide input on the process. In addition, the executive recruiter met with the Mayor and each Member of the City Council for one-on-one input on their expectations for our next Chief of Police. City Manager Vanderpool noted that he has been thoroughly briefed by the recruiter on all interactions with the public, labor groups, and elected officials. Although there was a robust pool of applicants, a smaller highly qualified group will be interviewed on June 28th. There will be four professional panels made up of law enforcement executives and law enforcement professionals. There will be a peer department head panel, a labor panel comprised of APA, APMA, an AMEA, and community panel with representatives from education, non -profits, health care, business, and a member from the Police Review Board. City Manager Vanderpool will then meet which each panel and be briefed on their input from the finalist. Based on input, he will interview a select group of finalists on Thursday, June 291h. The top candidate will move forward with the pre -employment process including a background and reference check. City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 18 of 44 Once completed, City Manager Vanderpool will present his appointment to the City Council for ratification and contract approval 30-45 days from today. At 7.57 p.m., Mayor Aitken recessed the Anaheim City Council meeting to address the Anaheim Housing Authority agenda and convened at 7:58 p.m. CONSENT CALENDAR: At 7:58 p.m., the Consent Calendar was considered with Council Member Leon pulling Item Nos. 7, 16, and 17, Council Member Kurtz pulling Item Nos. 14 and 19, and Council Member Meeks pulling Item No. 18. MOTION: Council Member Faessel moved to waive reading of all ordinances and resolutions and adopt the balance of the consent calendar in accordance with reports, certifications, and recommendations furnished each City Council Member and as listed on the consent calendar, seconded by Council Member Leon. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Rubalcava, Diaz, Leon, Kurtz, Faessel, and Meeks); NOES — 0. Motion carried. B105 4. Receive and file minutes of the Library Board meeting of May 8, 2023. 5. Receive and file the Budget, Investment, and Technology Commission's recommendation D106 letter dated June 21, 2023 regarding the Fiscal Year 2023/24 proposed budget. D116 6. Approve recognitions recognizing Carla Roque and Dr. Yadira Moreno for their work on creating murals for all 23 Anaheim Elementary School District schools. D180 8. Accept the bid from H&H Auto Parts Wholesale, in the amount of $29,035.35 plus applicable sales tax and a 20% contingency, to provide General Motors (GM) automotive parts on an as - needed basis for a one-year period, with four one-year optional renewals; and authorize the Purchasing Agent to execute the renewal options in accordance with Bid #9693. D180 9• Waive the sealed bidding requirement of Council Policy 4.0 and authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue purchase orders to West Coast Lights & Sirens, Inc. and Lehr Auto Electric, in a combined not -to -exceed amount of $50,331.35 plus applicable tax, for installation of city supplied police vehicle equipment on nine new police vehicles. D180 10. Accept the bid from Gunner Concrete, in the amount of $242,853 plus a 20% contingency, to provide volumetric concrete mix and delivery services for the Public Works Department for a one-year period with four one-year optional renewals; and authorize the Purchasing Agent to execute the renewal options in accordance with Bid #9698. D180 11. Accept the bid from Service First, in the amount of $131,834.12, to provide maintenance and repair services for water features at three parks for a one-year period with up to four one-year optional renewals; and authorize the Purchasing Agent to exercise the renewal options in accordance with Bid #9657 (Colony, Ponderosa, and Miraloma parks). City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 19 of 44 D180 12. Waive the sealed bidding requirement of Council Policy 4.0 and authorize an extension to the master agreement with BrightView Landscape Services, in an increased amount not to exceed $253,286, for up to three additional months ending September 30, 2023, for landscape maintenance services covering west and southwest area parks. 13. Waive the sealed bidding requirement of Council Policy 4.0 and authorize the Purchasing D180 Agent to issue a purchase order to 908 Devices Inc., in the amount of $302,286.60 plus applicable tax, for the purchase of three handheld mass spectrometer chemical detection systems for use by the Orange County Hazardous Materials teams. 15. Waive Council Policy 4.1 and approve an agreement with Savage Training Group, in an AGR-14193 amount not to exceed $192,000, for training services, and authorize the Chief of Police, or designee, to administer the agreement and execute any amendments under the terms and conditions of the agreement. 20. RESOLUTION NO. 2023-041 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE D154 CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting a Memorandum of Understanding establishing terms and conditions of employment for employees in classifications represented by Teamsters, Local 952 (effective January 2, 2023 through December 19, 2024). 21. RESOLUTION NO. 2023-042 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE D154.9 CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 2021-119 for the purpose of creating, deleting D154 and/or modifying certain classifications represented by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 2002, General Management Unit (effective July 7, 2023). RESOLUTION NO. 2023-043 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 2022-139, as amended, for the purpose of creating, deleting and/or modifying certain classifications, rates of compensation, and pay policies for classifications designated as Non -Represented Full -Time and Part -Time Employees (effective July 7, 2023). 22. ORDINANCE NO. 6557 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF M142 THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adding Chapter 10.13 (Stormwater Credit Program) of Title 10 (Public Services and Utilities) to the Anaheim Municipal Code establishing a Stormwater Credit Program and based upon the finding and determination that said ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. (introduced at the City Council meeting of June 13, 2023, item No. 26). M142 23. ORDINANCE NO. 6558 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA, adding Chapter 6.101 (Hotel Worker Protections) to Title 6 of the Anaheim Municipal Code to provide safety and security measures for hotel workers in Anaheim (introduced at the City Council Meeting of June 13, 2023; Item No. 28). City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 20 of 44 D114 24. Approve minutes of the City Council meeting of March 28, 2023. BUSINESS CALENDAR: T108 7. Approve the Anaheim Tourism Improvement District Fiscal Year 2021/2022 Annual Reports for Marketing and Transportation Component Funds. Director of Public Works Rudy Emami noted a tax is applied to guests in the Resort area, 75% of which is distributed to the marketing component of the Anaheim Tourism Improvement District (ATID) contracted through Visit Anaheim. The other 25% is for transportation improvements within the Resort. He noted it functions as a pass -through between Visit Anaheim and the Transportation Committee. DISCUSSION: Council Member Leon clarified businesses focused on the Resort area such as Visit Anaheim are not funded by the General Fund. Mr. Emami added the tax is added to the visitor's hotel stay and allocated accordingly. He described the structure of a Board comprised of a member from Visit Anaheim, a member from The Walt Disney Company as the City's largest contributor, and a staff member from the City. In response to Council Member Leon, Director Emami explained if the City brings forward a project the City would serve as the leading agency and those projects would be awarded by the City Council. For example, street widening projects in the Resort area. Other sources include operations for the Anaheim Transportation Network. MOTION: Council Member Leon moved to approve the Anaheim Tourism Improvement District Fiscal Year 2021/2022 Annual Reports for Marketing and Transportation Component Funds, seconded by Council Member Faessel. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Rubalcava, Diaz, Leon, Kurtz, Faessel, and Meeks); NOES — 0. Motion carried. 14. Waive the bidding requirement of Council Policy 4.0 and approve the Second Amendment to Agreement, in substantial form, with American Guard Services, Inc., to extend the contract AGR-8877.A.2 term by one year and increase the compensation by an amount not to exceed $1,200,000 for the period of July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024 for school crossing guard services; and authorize de minimis changes to the Amendment that do not substantially change the terms and conditions as determined by the City Attorney's Office. DISCUSSION: In response to Council Member Kurtz, Police Captain Trapp confirmed for the 2022/23 school year, 39 schools in seven (7) separate school districts and 63 intersections were assisted. He added the intersections are selected by Traffic Engineering to determine safety. Captain Trapp mentioned if a school principal contacted the City with safety concerns, staff members from the Police Department including motorcycle officers and civilian staff would assist. MOTION: Council Member Kurtz moved to waive the bidding requirement of Council Policy 4.0 and approve the Second Amendment to Agreement, in substantial form, with American Guard Services, Inc., to extend the contract term by one year and increase the compensation by an amount not to exceed $1,200,000 for the period of July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024 for school crossing guard services; and authorize de minimis changes to the Amendment that do not substantially change the terms and conditions as determined by the City Attorney's Office, seconded by Council Member Meeks. ROLL City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 21 of 44 CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Rubalcava, Diaz, Leon, Kurtz, Faessel, and Meeks); NOES — 0. Motion carried. Discussion for Item Nos. 16 and 17 were conducted together. 16. Approve the Third Amendment to Agreement Regarding Homeless Shelter with The Salvation Army for the continuation of (224-bed) shelter services, and update the shelter's address of AGR-11285.3 record to 1455 S. Salvation Place (previously 1340 S. Lewis Street); extend the term of the agreement for one additional year to expire on June 30, 2024; approve an additional funding reimbursement amount up to $6,768,000; and authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute the amendment and subsequent amendments or documents necessary for the continuation or administration of shelter services at 1455 S. Salvation Place, provided they are approved by the City Attorney and do not increase the total maximum reimbursement amount payable to The Salvation Army. 17. Approve the First Amendment to Agreement with The Salvation Army for the for the AGR-11285.1.1 continuation of (101-bed expansion) emergency shelter services and approve an additional funding reimbursement amount of $632,000 for a total agreement amount of $4,158,000; update the shelter's address of record to 1455 S. Salvation Place (previously 1340 S. Lewis Street); and authorize the City Manager, or designee to execute the amendment and subsequent amendments or documents necessary for the continuation or administration of shelter services at 1455 S. Salvation Place, provided they are approved by the City Attorney and do not increase the total compensation amount payable to The Salvation Army. DISCUSSION: Council Member Leon clarified both items are for reimbursements to The Salvation Army for their services. In response to Council Member Leon, Director Stepter clarified The Salvation Army permitted the construction of a homeless shelter on their site. The City established contractual relationships to reimburse The Salvation Army for construction and ongoing services. She added funds from the State and Federal governments are scarce, however, when funds are available the Department will supplant the General Fund. MOTION: Council Member Leon moved to approve Item No. 16, the Third Amendment to Agreement Regarding Homeless Shelter with The Salvation Army for the continuation of (224-bed) shelter services, and update the shelter's address of record to 1455 S. Salvation Place (previously 1340 S. Lewis Street); extend the term of the agreement for one additional year to expire on June 30, 2024; approve an additional funding reimbursement amount up to $6,768,000; and authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute the amendment and subsequent amendments or documents necessary for the continuation or administration of shelter services at 1455 S. Salvation Place, provided they are approved by the City Attorney and do not increase the total maximum reimbursement amount payable to The Salvation Army, seconded by Council Member Faessel. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Rubalcava, Diaz, Leon, Kurtz, Faessel, and Meeks); NOES — 0. Motion carried. MOTION: Council Member Leon moved to approve Item No. 17, the First Amendment to Agreement with The Salvation Army for the for the continuation of (101-bed expansion) emergency shelter services and approve an additional funding reimbursement amount of $706,000 for a total agreement City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 22 of 44 amount of $4,158,000; update the shelter's address of record to 1455 S. Salvation Place (previously 1340 S. Lewis Street); and authorize the City Manager, or designee to execute the amendment and subsequent amendments or documents necessary for the continuation or administration of shelter services at 1455 S. Salvation Place, provided they are approved by the City Attorney and do not increase the total compensation amount payable to The Salvation Army, with a correction to reflect a reflect a reimbursement amount of $706,000, not $632,000 as identified on the agenda, seconded by Council Member Faessel. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Rubalcava, Diaz, Leon, Kurtz, Faessel, and Meeks); NOES — 0. Motion carried. 18. Approve an agreement with Be Well OC, in an amount not to exceed $1,300,000, for mobile AGR-14194 mental health crisis response services for one year, and authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute and administer the agreement under its terms and conditions. DISCUSSION: In response to Council Member Meeks, Senior Administrative Analyst Lylyana Bogdonavich provided background information related to the Be Well OC contract. She added under Be Well OC, a mobile response team named Hope Anaheim was a team established using COVID funds for the diversion of calls for service for nonviolent mental health calls. During the initial pilot program, more than 2,200 calls for service were diverted to Hope Anaheim. Ms. Bogdonavich added as the program evolves, new measurables that will be considered including enhancements with a Data Analyst. Measurables that will be tracked include outcomes for hospitalizations, treatments, emergency room transportation, and residential care. She noted Be Well OC provides services to housed and unhoused individuals. She highlighted moving forward there will be clearer data regarding outcomes for individuals who made contact with Be Well OC to identify gaps in service and potential enhancements. Director of Housing and Community Development Grace Ruiz-Stepter added Be Well OC works in conjunction with the ACCESS pilot program to divert individuals with mental health needs from incarceration. She mentioned additional providers such as CCRT have been notified to work collaboratively to address homeless concerns. In response to Council Member Meeks, Ms. Bogdnoavich noted Be Well OC is integral in case management. She provided an example concerning a housed individual with a mental health crisis who would receive assistance from Be Well OC, if the individual is unhoused, Be Well OC would collaborate with CCRT for services. She added Year 2 of the pilot program would continue the 12- hour, seven -day -a -week model with the ability to extend the operations to 16 hours a day. Be Well OC secured a $3 million donation to work directly with the City to enhance the program. Ms. Bogdonavich explained the donation will work toward expanding the collaboration with the ACCESS program to include curriculum at the Family Justice Center and additional partnerships with Be Well OC. Council Member Faessel provided an example of a situation he encountered a few years ago with an individual requiring mental health services. He noted at the time the City did not have an established program to assist individuals requiring mental health services. He expressed support for the program and the additional funding for the contract. He highlighted the program's ability to collaborate with programs such as CCRT to expand services to the community. He encouraged his Council colleagues to support the item. He highlighted Be Well OC's expanding services to other cities including the City of Irvine. In response to Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava, Ms. Bogdanovich noted Be Well OC works collaboratively with CCRT and the Housing and Community Development Department to activate services. She City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 23 of 44 noted Be Well OC received a map tracking calls for service and will proactively explore areas for individuals in need. She highlighted if they are not responding to calls they are conducting outreach in the community. Expansion of the contract will include additional case management services and collaboration with the Police Department and the PERT team. Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava provided a recommendation from the Ad -Hoc Committee to follow the individual's journey until they receive the services they require. Director Ruiz-Stepter noted Year 2 projections will include tracking from the ACCESS pilot program and Be Well OC will be utilizing the Homeless Management Information System to track progress for individuals. Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava requested additional clarity on the needs of individuals. City Manager Vanderpool added the Budget Public Hearing includes a supplemental to double resources dedicated to homeless outreach. Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava appreciated the request for additional funding and reiterated her request to track results. City Manager Vanderpool noted a memo can be distributed to the City Council with current data from City Net and CCRT. In response to Mayor Aitken, Ms. Bogdonavich stated cost savings information for Police time and labor can be provided at a later date. MOTION: Council Member Meeks moved to approve an agreement with Be Well OC, in an amount not to exceed $1,300,000, for mobile mental health crisis response services for one year, and authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute and administer the agreement under its terms and conditions, seconded by Council Member Faessel. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Rubalcava, Diaz, Leon, Kurtz, Faessel, and Meeks); NOES — 0. Motion carried. 19. Approve a Notice of Intent with the County of Orange, in an estimated cost of $4,845,736, for AGR-14581.0.8 animal care and shelter services for the period of July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024 (continued from the City Council meeting of June 13, 2023, Item No. 16). DISCUSSION: Council Member Kurtz requested the list of services provided by the County be distributed to residents and posted on the City's website. Community Preservation and Licensing Manager Brittney Malenofski introduced Dylan Wright and Monica Schmidt from OC Animal Care Services. Ms. Malenofski confirmed the list can be posted on the City's website and is currently posted on the County's website. In response to Council Member Kurtz, Ms. Malenofski confirmed residents can contact Code Enforcement for animal care concerns. Code Enforcement will coordinate with the County to address concerns or delays. Council Member Kurtz reiterated her request to publish the information on the City's website. City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 24 of 44 MOTION: Council Member Kurtz moved to approve a Notice of Intent with the County of Orange, in an estimated cost of $4,845,736, for animal care and shelter services for the period of July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024, seconded by Council Member Meeks. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Rubalcava, Diaz, Leon, Kurtz, Faessel, and Meeks); NOES — 0. Motion carried. E127 25. RESOLUTION NO. 2023-044 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, calling and giving notice of the holding of a special municipal election to be held on Tuesday, October 3, 2023 and ordering the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Anaheim an initiative measure increasing the minimum wage payable to hotel and event center workers in Anaheim to twenty-five dollars per hour with a minimum annual cost of living increase of three percent beginning on January 1, 2026, requiring temporary retention of such workers during a change of ownership/control, and providing for workload regulations and safety measures for hotel workers; requesting that the Orange County Board of Supervisors direct the Orange County Registrar of Voters to render services to the City relating to the conduct of a special municipal election; establishing the deadlines for the filing of arguments and rebuttal arguments; and directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis. Decide whether to submit an argument against the ordinance proposed by the initiative measure as provided in California Elections Code 9282, and if submitting an argument against the ordinance, designate the author of the argument. City Clerk Theresa Bass reported the resolution for City Council consideration is to call and give notice to hold a special municipal election on October 3, 2023 for the Hotel and Event Center Minimum Wage, Worker Retention, and Hotel Worker Safety and Workload Initiative. She added consideration of the item includes rendering election services to the Orange County Registrar of Voters, establishing deadlines for rebuttals and arguments in favor and against the ordinance, and directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis. She noted at the June 131h Council meeting, the City Council voted to submit the initiative measure without alteration to voters via a special election to be held on September 12th. City Clerk Bass reported the Registrar of Voters expressed challenges with the September 12th regarding federally -mandated elections code requirements and printing deadlines for the voter information guide. City Clerk Bass noted the special election date for Council consideration is Tuesday, October 3, 2023. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9282(a), proponents of the initiative measure may file a written argument in favor and the City Council may file a written argument against the ordinance. She added in consultation with the City Attorney's Office, the City Council may designate three or fewer of its members to author the argument against the ordinance. DISCUSSION: Council Member Meeks requested additional information related to the proposed special election date and compliance with the Elections Code. City Attorney Fabela confirmed the proposed date is compliant with the Elections Code. Pursuant to the Elections Code, the special election must take place between 80 to 103 days from the date the election is called. He clarified in consultation with outside Counsel the action presented is standard practice. Council Member Meeks requested the ballot language include additional clarification that the hourly wage becomes effective immediately and with a 3% annual increase commencing in 2026. City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 25 of 44 City Attorney Fabela confirmed the ballot title can be revised as long as it does not exceed 75 words. Council Member Meeks recommended the title read: Shall an ordinance be adopted to immediately increase the hourly minimum wage payable to hotel and event center workers to $25 and with a 3% minimum annual increase beginning in 2026, to afford temporary retention rights to such workers, and to require safety measures and workload restrictions for hotel workers? City Attorney Fabela noted if the measure is approved by the voters it would become effective ten days following approval as declared. He advised the language proposed by Council Member Meeks is compliant with the terms of the ordinance unless there is other language proposed that may be more reflective of the ordinance. Council Member Meeks commented on the submittal of arguments in favor or against and mentioned a committee formed against the ballot initiative. She volunteered to work with the committee to submit an argument opposed to the issue. City Attorney Fabela explained authors of the arguments against the initiative are limited to members of the City Council. He added outside counsel advised that the authors for the arguments in should be exclusive to members of the City Council. Mayor Aitken requested additional clarification on the authors for the opposition. City Attorney Fabela elaborated the argument can be drafted by an individual member of the City Council or no more than three (3) members. He added the alternative would be to present the argument at a City Council meeting for discussion. He noted the alternative would not be feasible due to the deadline for the argument in opposition falling on July 11th, the same date as the next scheduled City Council meeting. He suggested a special meeting can be held to discuss, however, he reiterated staff's recommendation to appoint an Ad -Hoc Committee to compose an argument in opposition to the measure. In response to Mayor Aitken, City Attorney Fabela reported the proponents have not initiated or suggested future litigation over the election date. He noted outside counsel has communicated with the proponents and staff supports the proposed date selected. Council Member Faessel expressed concern over the legality of the proposed special election date. He requested clarification on whether the timeline begins on the date the City Council received the fiscal impact report or the date the Council is taking action to set the election. City Attorney Fabela clarified on June 1311, the City Council directed staff to target a special election date in September. He noted the City Council did not order the special election for September and as stated in the June 131h staff report, staff would return with a resolution placing a measure to a vote on a specific date. He clarified the City Council adopts a resolution ordering a special election at a subsequent meeting. He emphasized the Registrar of Voters notified the City that the September date was a challenge and instead proposed one of two October dates. The resolution permitting the proposed October date is permitted by Elections Code Sections 9212 Subsection (b) and (c) and 1405 Subsection (b). Council Member Faessel confirmed the timeline for the election date would begin on the date the Council takes action. City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 26 of 44 In response to Mayor Pro Tem Rubalcava, City Clerk Bass noted the special election would follow the standard election processes. The voter information guide would be mailed to voters with the initiative title, full text of the ordinance, and the arguments for or against the measure. She confirmed the number of vote centers, hours of operation, and days of operation would mirror the timelines for general municipal elections. Vote centers would remain open for early voting, ten days prior to the election date, and on the election date. Ballot boxes would remain open thirty days prior to the election date. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Rubalcava, City Attorney Fabela explained the City can provide neutral information to the public similar to Measure J, however, cautioned against the use of the word campaign and recommended the information be provided in a way that would not suggest an influence of the outcome or expenditures in an unusual way. Mayor Pro Tem Rubalcava confirmed the requirements and timelines for calling and ordering the elections. City Attorney Fabela added the City Council submitted the measure to the voters on June 131h and the action presented before the Council is to call and order the special election. MOTION: Council Member Diaz moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2023-044 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, calling and giving notice of the holding of a special municipal election to be held on Tuesday, October 3, 2023 and ordering the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Anaheim an initiative measure increasing the minimum wage payable to hotel and event center workers in Anaheim to twenty-five dollars per hour with a minimum annual cost of living increase of three percent beginning on January 1, 2026, requiring temporary retention of such workers during a change of ownership/control, and providing for workload regulations and safety measures for hotel workers; requesting that the Orange County Board of Supervisors direct the Orange County Registrar of Voters to render services to the City relating to the conduct of a special municipal election; establishing the deadlines for the filing of arguments and rebuttal arguments; and directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis and create an Ad -Hoc Committee consisting of Mayor Pro Tem Rubalcava, Council Member Meeks, and Council Member Diaz to submit an argument against the measure, seconded by Council Member Meeks. DISCUSSION: Mayor Aitken clarified if the actions should be voted on separately. City Attorney Fabela recommended the vote be held separately. Council Member Diaz moved to approve the resolution calling the special election. City Clerk Bass requested direction regarding Council Member Meeks's recommendation to include the word immediately or within ten days in the ballot title. Both options were provided to the City Council for review and consideration: Option 1, the proposed title including the word "immediately". - HOTEL AND EVENT CENTER MINIMUM WAGE, WORKER RETENTION, AND HOTEL WORKER SAFETY AND WORKLOAD INITIATIVE ORDINANCE - Shall an ordinance be adopted to immediately increase the hourly minimum wage payable to hotel and event center workers to $25 and a 3% minimum annual increase beginning in 2026, to afford temporary retention rights to such workers, and to require safety measures and workload restrictions for hotel workers? Option 2, the proposed title including the words "ten days City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 27 of 44 HOTEL AND EVENT CENTER MINIMUM WAGE, WORKER RETENTION, AND HOTEL WORKER SAFETY AND WORKLOAD INITIATIVE ORDINANCE - Shall an ordinance be adopted to increase the hourly minimum wage payable to hotel and event center workers to $25 within ten days after voter approval is declared with a 3% minimum annual increase beginning in 2026, to afford temporary retention rights to such workers, and to require safety measures and workload restrictions for hotel workers? Council Member Faessel supported the ballot language with the ten-day language to be consistent with the language included in the ordinance. City Attorney Fabela reread the proposed language to restructure the placement of the added language: HOTEL AND EVENT CENTER MINIMUM WAGE, WORKER RETENTION, AND HOTEL WORKER SAFETY AND WORKLOAD INITIATIVE ORDINANCE - Shall an ordinance be adopted to increase, within ten days after voter approval is declared, the hourly minimum wage payable to hotel and event center workers to $25, and with a 3% minimum annual increase beginning in 2026, to afford temporary retention rights to such workers, and to require safety measures and workload restrictions for hotel workers? MOTION: Council Member Diaz moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2023-044 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, calling and giving notice of the holding of a special municipal election to be held on Tuesday, October 3, 2023 and ordering the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Anaheim an initiative measure increasing the minimum wage payable to hotel and event center workers in Anaheim to twenty-five dollars per hour with a minimum annual cost of living increase of three percent beginning on January 1, 2026, requiring temporary retention of such workers during a change of ownership/control, and providing for workload regulations and safety measures for hotel workers; requesting that the Orange County Board of Supervisors direct the Orange County Registrar of Voters to render services to the City relating to the conduct of a special municipal election; establishing the deadlines for the filing of arguments and rebuttal arguments; and directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis including approval of the ballot language to read: "HOTEL AND EVENT CENTER MINIMUM WAGE, WORKER RETENTION, AND HOTEL WORKER SAFETY AND WORKLOAD INITIATIVE ORDINANCE - Shall an ordinance be adopted to increase, within ten days after voter approval is declared, the hourly minimum wage payable to hotel and event center workers to $25, and with a 3% minimum annual increase beginning in 2026, to afford temporary retention rights to such workers, and to require safety measures and workload restrictions for hotel workers?", seconded by Council Member Meeks. DISCUSSION: Council Member Faessel reconfirmed the language of the ballot language. City Clerk Bass confirmed the language proposed by City Attorney Fabela will be forwarded to the Orange County Registrar of Voters. MOTION: Council Member Diaz moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2023-044 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, calling and giving notice of the holding of a special municipal election to be held on Tuesday, October 3, 2023 and ordering the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Anaheim an initiative measure increasing the minimum wage payable to hotel and event center workers in Anaheim to twenty-five dollars per hour with a minimum annual cost of living increase of three percent beginning on January 1, 2026, requiring temporary retention of such workers during a change of ownership/control, and providing for workload regulations and safety measures for hotel workers; requesting that the Orange City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 28 of 44 County Board of Supervisors direct the Orange County Registrar of Voters to render services to the City relating to the conduct of a special municipal election; establishing the deadlines for the filing of arguments and rebuttal arguments; and directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis including approval of the ballot language: "HOTEL AND EVENT CENTER MINIMUM WAGE, WORKER RETENTION, AND HOTEL WORKER SAFETY AND WORKLOAD INITIATIVE ORDINANCE - Shall an ordinance be adopted to increase, within ten days after voter approval is declared, the hourly minimum wage payable to hotel and event center workers to $25, and with a 3% minimum annual increase beginning in 2026, to afford temporary retention rights to such workers, and to require safety measures and workload restrictions for hotel workers?", seconded by Council Member Meeks. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 6 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Rubalcava, Diaz, Kurtz, Faessel, and Meeks); NOES — 1 (Council Member Leon). Motion carried. Upon approval of the resolution calling and giving notice of a special municipal election, the City Council considered action to submit an argument against the ordinance proposed by the initiative measure as provided in California Elections Code 9282, and if submitting an argument against the ordinance, designate the author of the argument. DISCUSSION: Council Member Diaz explained his designations for the Ad -Hoc Committee noting it does not pertain to political party. MOTION: Council Member Diaz moved to approve the submission of an argument against the ordinance proposed by the initiative measure as provided in California Elections Code 9282 and designating Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava, Council Member Meeks, and Council Member Diaz as authors to submit the argument against the ordinance proposed by the initiative, seconded by Council Member Meeks. DISCUSSION: Council Member Leon requested clarification on how the author's names would appear on the ballot. City Clerk Bass explained the authors would be listed as Anaheim City Council and proceed to list the three names of the authors. Council Member Leon explained he voted no on the previous action for consistency purposes. He explained the importance of providing factual information to residents to ensure trust within the community. Mayor Aitken expressed reservations about the City Council submitting an argument in opposition to the initiative. She noted she would not support submitting an argument against the proposed initiative. City Clerk Bass confirmed the Ad -Hoc Committee would consist of Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava, Council Member Meeks, and Council Member Diaz. MOTION: Council Member Diaz moved to approve the submission of an argument against the ordinance proposed by the initiative measure as provided in California Elections Code 9282 and designating Mayor Pro Tem Rubalcava, Council Member Meeks, and Council Member Diaz as authors to submit the argument against the ordinance, seconded by Council Member Meeks. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 5 (Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava and Council Members Diaz, Kurtz, Faessel, and Meeks); NOES — 2 (Mayor Aitken and Council Member Leon). Motion carried. City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 29 of 44 D155 26. Receive an update from the City's Housing Affordability Ad Hoc Committee and as deemed appropriate, provide direction to City staff. Director of Housing and Community Development Grace Ruiz-Stepter noted on behalf of the Ad -Hoc Committee consisting of Mayor Aitken, Mayor Pro Tem Rubalcava, and Council Member Faessel provided an update on the Ad -Hoc Committee's background. She noted the Committee formed in 2019 and again in 2021 to continue dialogue and discussion of affordable housing production tools. In 2021, the Housing Ad Hoc Committee formulated a draft Housing Strategy for the City's draft Housing Element proposing an "Affordable Housing Development Fee" to apply to certain housing projects that require a City -initiated General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. She noted that during the planning period of the fifth cycle, the City issued permits for housing development that exceeded its total Regional Housing Need Allocation but struggled in the area of the production of housing. The Housing Strategy included a statement the City will establish an Affordable Housing Development Fee to support an Affordable Housing Trust Fund and Production Program, described below in Housing Production Strategy 1A(ii) Affordable Housing Trust Fund and Production Program. In December 2022, a new Ad -Hoc Committee was established consisting of Mayor Aitken, Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava, and Council Member Faessel to continue the work of the previous Council and committees regarding affordable housing production, review the draft Affordable Housing Development Fee Study, and consider other tools the City can utilize to facilitate affordable housing development. She detailed the Committee's March 9th meeting including discussions on current Council policy for affordable housing production programs, Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) housing production goals for the 61h Housing Element Cycle, and the Housing Strategy 1A(1): Affordable Housing Development Fee. At the May 10th meeting, staff provided information on neighboring cities' and State housing programs, guest speaker Kathe Head from Keyser Marston's overview of housing policies adopted throughout the State, and the Committee's desire to evaluate options including an Affordable Housing Development Fee and Inclusionary Housing Program. DISCUSSION: Council Member Faessel noted he was a member of the prior Ad -Hoc Committee and stressed the importance of continuing research. He noted the Committee recommended staff contact a consultant to conduct a study to evaluate communities that have added additional affordable housing, success of current programs, and contributions by the building community. He clarified the Ad -Hoc Committee is not providing a recommendation to the City Council. He addressed the work conducted by Keyser Marston and reiterated the importance of additional research that can be presented to the City Council. Mayor Aitken agreed with Council Member Faessel's comments and explained Keyser Marston was selected to conduct the study due to their history with the City. Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava highlighted the City's leadership in affordable housing and development in the County. She expressed concerns with the consultant due to inclusionary housing being the only proposed solution in previous reports. She recommended a comprehensive overview of affordable housing solutions such as a multi -prong first-time homebuyer program and initiating a competitive bid to hire a consultant. Director Stepter referenced previous testimony from Keyser Marston and their position on inclusionary housing as a solution. They indicated inclusionary housing is one of multiple solutions for affordable housing. She referenced their experience conducting studies throughout the State. She noted the Council is presented with the affordable housing strategy in the Housing Element. She clarified Keyser Marston was invited to inform the Committee about other cities' programs and fact- finding. Director Stepter noted the item presented before Council is the affordable housing strategy in City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 30 of 44 the Housing Element. The proposed strategy is a fee that would be initiated through a study. She clarified the fee proposed in the Housing Element is not inclusionary. Director of Planning and Building Ted White added the policy included in the draft Housing Element proposes an Affordable Housing Development Fee. It does not establish an amount but is subject to consideration by the Council. He explained the policy outlines the policy which projects may be applicable to the fee. Mayor Pro Tem Rubalcava recommended the study include how an inclusionary fee has been applied in other cities. Mayor Aitken added the consultant provided the information at the Committee's meeting on May 101h She expressed concern regarding delaying the process. Mayor Pro Tem Rubalcava expressed concerns about rushing the study. She proposed directing staff to return with consultant options. Council Member Meeks congratulated staff on current affordable housing assistance. She expressed her expectations for a consultant conducting a study and the factors they would need to consider that make the City unique. She echoed Mayor Pro Tem Rubalcava's interest for staff to return with more options at a potential workshop. Council Member Kurtz concurred with Council Member Meeks and expressed hesitation with comparing other cities to Anaheim. She expressed interest in obtaining data and ingenuity for solutions. She provided examples including establishing a housing trust. She expressed interest in Council Member Meeks' idea to conduct a Workshop. Director Stepter expressed excitement over the Affordable Housing Trust fund. She attributed the Department's success due to the land left over from the former Redevelopment Agency. Council Member Kurtz acknowledged the property and funds used for affordable housing, however, expressed concerns about rushing into anything. Council Member Diaz noted his membership on the previous Ad -Hoc Committee that adopted the Affordable Housing Development Fee. He explained the purpose of the fee was to have staff establish the appropriate fee for developers. He discussed inclusionary housing and noted no agency that has adopted inclusionary housing has solved the housing crisis. He stated the solution begins with reducing regulations Statewide. He added a solution could be to revitalize the Redevelopment Agency at the state level which produced substantial affordable housing units. He recommended considering CEQA regulations as well. In response to Council Member Leon, Director Stepter confirmed the action would include direction to conduct a study on affordable housing that could be implemented in the City. Mayor Aitken added the intention for the Committee would be to contract with a consultant to direct staff to address all options for housing solutions and return to the City Council to evaluate the Committee's recommendation after the study. Council Member Leon expressed support for discussing affordable housing options to ensure proactivity in the future and initiating the study. City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 31 of 44 In response to Mayor Aitken, Director Stepter confirmed staff can broaden the search for consultants. Director White clarified if the action would be returning to the Ad -Hoc Committee. Mayor Aitken noted the process does not need to be set through an RFP process. She confirmed approval of an amount that would allow exploration for future options. Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava clarified the discussion item was to contract with a specific consultant. She explained her request to present a scope to the City Council for review to begin the RFP process. Council Member Leon thanked Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava for clarifying. He cited a need for proactivity and expressed support for the item. Council Member Meeks reiterated the request to broaden the scope of work and search for additional consultant options. Council Member Faessel concurred with his Council colleagues, however, he insisted that the report generated by the consultant be reviewed by the Ad -Hoc Committee first. Mayor Aitken agreed with directing staff to develop a scope of work and expressed hesitations with the Committee overstepping staff's work. Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava requested concessions involved by incorporating inclusionary housing including parking compromises, in the scope of work. Director Stepter mentioned the density bonus program impacts parking. Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava requested the study include the effects of density bonus programs. In response to Mayor Aitken and Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava, Director White clarified there are minimum requirements for density bonus programs are state law. He added if inclusionary housing was mandated affordable housing would be included in developments. A cost -benefit of inclusionary housing would be that developments would be subject to the density bonus. He clarified the Council's intent is to receive an overview of policy options available to the City Council to create additional affordable housing in the City (not limited to inclusionary). Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava confirmed the Council's direction is to receive an overview of policy options to create additional affordable housing not limited to inclusionary. City Manager Vanderpool confirmed the Council's request and confirmed staff would select a consultant for the study. Mayor Aitken clarified the direction provided to staff will be the scope of work and select the most qualified consultant. In response to Council Member Meeks, Director White noted the contract may not exceed $50,000, which will not require the contract to return to Council. Council Member Meeks confirmed direction includes presenting the report to the Ad -Hoc Committee for preliminary review and presenting the report to the City Council at a public workshop. City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 32 of 44 City Manager Vanderpool noted upon consultation with the City Attorney the item is not agendized for Council direction. He requested confirmation by the Council to work off the input provided by the City Council. Informational item; Direction provided to staff to prepare a scope of work, select the most qualified consultant to conduct a study to be presented to the Ad -Hoc Committee for preliminary review, and present to the City Council at a future public workshop. 27. Consider (re)appointments to fill a scheduled vacancy, term ending June 30, 2027, and an B105 unscheduled vacancy, term ending June 30, 2025, on the Library Board. DISCUSSION: In response to Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava, City Clerk Bass read the list of the individuals who applied: Steven Franklin (District 3), Shelby Hogan (incumbent, District 3), Elia Renteria (District 3), Sandra Song (District 6), and Jackie Filbeck. NOMINATION: Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava nominated Jackie Filbeck. DISCUSSION: Mayor Aitken requested clarification on the two vacancies. City Clerk Theresa Bass confirmed the first appointment is for the scheduled vacancy for the term ending June 30, 2027 and the second is the unscheduled vacancy for the term ending June 30, 2025. APPOINTMENT: Jackie Filbeck (term ending June 30, 2025) (unscheduled vacancy, David Laviguer) NOMINATION: Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava nominated Jackie Filbeck to fill the unscheduled vacancy on the Library Board for a term ending June 30, 2025, seconded by Council Member Faessel. ROLL CALL VOTE: 6-0-1. AYES — 6 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Rubalcava, Diaz, Leon, Kurtz, and Faessel); NOES — 0; ABSTAIN — 1 (Council Member Meeks). Nomination approved. DISCUSSION: In response to Council Member Leon, City Clerk Bass and Council Member Faessel clarified the Library Board is a Charter Commission with an established membership of five (5) individuals. City Clerk Bass noted a Charter Amendment would need to be presented to the voters at an election. Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava clarified the position is at -large. NOMINATION: Mayor Aitken nominated Shelby Hogan, seconded by Council Member Faessel. NOMINATION: Council Member Meeks nominated Elia Renteria, seconded by Council Member Diaz. DISCUSSION: In response to Council Member Kurtz, City Clerk Bass reported the terms for Library Board members are four year terms and members can serve two consecutive terms. NOMINATION: Mayor Aitken nominated Shelby Hogan, seconded by Council Member Faessel. ROLL CALL VOTE: 4-0-3. AYES — 4 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Leon, Kurtz, and Faessel); NOES — 0; ABSTAIN — 3 (Mayor Pro Tem Rubalcava and Council Members Diaz and Meeks). Nomination not approved. City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 33 of 44 NOMINATION: Council Member Meeks nominated Elia Renteria, seconded by Council Member Diaz. ROLL CALL VOTE: 5-0-2. AYES — 5 (Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava and Council Members Diaz, Leon, Kurtz, and Meeks); NOES — 0; ABSTAIN — 2 (Mayor Aitken and Council Member Faessel). Nomination approved. [RE]APPOINTMENT : Elia Renteria (term ending June 30, 2027) (incumbent, Shelby Hogan) City Clerk Bass confirmed the appointed members and their terms. PUBLIC HEARINGS: D106 28. Public hearing on the Fiscal Year 2023/24 budget and budget appropriations limits for the City and its Community Facilities Districts, and changes in various fee schedules. A. RESOLUTION NO. 2023-045 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting the Fiscal Year 2023/24 Budget. Approved, as amended including three firefighter positions, adding $100,000 to the Community Services budget for Paul Revere Park, approving supplemental requests (ongoing service enhancements), and implementing a two-year cycle for the storage facility project (relocation this year and tenant improvements next year) reducing the Public Works Department budget by $1 million. B. RESOLUTION NO. 2023-046 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, adopting the annual appropriations limit for the Fiscal Year 2023/24. RESOLUTION NO. 2023-047 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, adopting the Community Facilities District No. 06-2 (Stadium Lofts) annual appropriations limit for the Fiscal Year 2023/24. RESOLUTION NO. 2023-048 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, adopting the Community Facilities District No. 08-1 (Platinum Triangle) annual appropriations limit for the Fiscal Year 2023/24. C. RESOLUTION NO. 2023-049 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing fees to be charged for Community Services Department programs and services [includes determination that the adoption of the fee schedule is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 21080(b)(8) of the Public Resources Code]. D. RESOLUTION NO. 2023-050 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the green fees to be charged at the Dad Miller Golf Course and the Anaheim Hills Golf Course [includes determination that the adoption of this fee schedule is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 21080 (b)(8) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15273 California Code of Regulations]. E. RESOLUTION NO. 2023-051 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the schedule of rates, fees and charges for rental of space, parking and for certain labor, equipment and services at the Anaheim City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 34 of 44 Convention Center effective July 1, 2023 [includes determination that the adoption of the schedule of rates is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 21080(b)(8) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15273 of the California Code of Regulations]. F. RESOLUTION NO. 2023-052 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing Life Safety Division fees to be charged by the Fire and Rescue Department of the City of Anaheim and rescinding Resolution No. 2019- 066 [includes determination that the adoption of this fee schedule is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 21080(b)(8) of the Public Resources Code]. RESOLUTION NO. 2023-053 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing paramedic fees in connection with emergency medical services to be charged by the Fire and Rescue Department of the City of Anaheim and rescinding Resolution No. 2019-067 [includes determination that the adoption of this fee schedule is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 21080(b)(8) of the Public Resources Code]. RESOLUTION NO. 2023-054 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM relating to fees and penalties in connection with implementing the Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Material Management Regulatory Program Act and rescinding Resolution 2019-068 [includes determination that the adoption of this fee schedule is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 21080(b)(8) of the Public Resources Code and California Code of Regulations Section 15273]. G. RESOLUTION NO. 2023-055 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending and restating fee and rate schedules for planning, zoning, and environmental petitions, applications, permits, approvals, appeals and inspections [includes the determination that amending and restating the planning, zoning and environmental fees and rates is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 21080 (b)(8) of the California Public Resources Code]. RESOLUTION NO. 2023-056 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting a new schedule of fees, charges and rates for building, construction, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, services and activities [includes determination that amending the fees, charges and rates is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 21080 (b)(8) of the California Public Resources Code]. RESOLUTION NO. 2023-057 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending and restating fee and rate schedules for the Community Preservation & Licensing Division of the City of Anaheim [includes determination that amending and restating the planning, zoning and environmental fees and rates is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 21080 (b)(8) of the California Public Resources Code]. City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 35 of 44 H. RESOLUTION NO. 2023-058 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting new fee schedules for the Public Works Department of the City of Anaheim. RESOLUTION NO. 2023-059 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting a revised schedule of sanitation fees for wastewater and solid waste and rescinding Resolution Number 2022-067 and determining such actions are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080 (b)(8) and guideline Section 15273 (a). RESOLUTION NO. 2023-060 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing the Anaheim Stormwater Credit Program credit price and adding said credit price to the Public Works fee schedule. City Manager Vanderpool introduced the item and noted the City Budget is consistently the recipient of the Government Finance Officers Association Distinguished Budget Presentation Award. He acknowledged the work of the Finance Department on the $2.1 billion budget and thanked members of the Budget, Investment, and Technology Commission for their dedication to the City. He thanked the members of the public who engaged in the eight community meetings and workshops. He noted public safety is one of the City's top priorities to focus on the safety of residents, visitors, and businesses. He highlighted the Fire and Rescue Department's increased budget to include six firefighter positions and cost savings from the Department's Ambulance Program. He noted the Police Department's ongoing efforts to ensure safety in the community and current staffing levels. He noted the budget includes eight additional officers and twelve one-time officers. He highlighted the Police Department's innovative use of technology including the Drone First Responder Program and the Real Time Crime Center. He detailed additional items included in the budget such as the Housing and Community Development Department's homeless outreach and workforce efforts, the Rebuild Beach Boulevard improvements and expansion to other arterial roadways, and expanding grant programs through the Economic Development Department. He reported additional items such as the Library's extended operating hours, the Brookhurst Teen Center expansion, Project S.A.Y's service to Anaheim youth, the Mobile Family Resource Center, expansion of Senior Services, and doubling homeless outreach services. The proposed budget will include improvements to infrastructure such as maintaining and improving sidewalks and Citywide landscaping improvements. He highlighted the Public Utilities Department program, investment in businesses, major developments such as ocV!BE, Disneyland Forward, and adding additional staff to focus on business retention to promote business growth. He concluded the budget recommends important investments and balances resources that protects the City's General Fund reserves while enhancing services to the community. Finance Director Moreno noted the proposed Budget includes Citywide Expenditures totaling $2.1 billion. She reported the largest portion of the budget, 39%, belongs to Enterprise funds. She referenced the June 131h workshop and noted the $6 million budget for ongoing service enhancements to maintain adequate reserves, one-time service enhancements, and deplete bond proceeds by FY 2027/28. She detailed the recommended one-time enhancements budget of $16.6 million to include funding for the special election and expansion of services to the community using the current year's surplus. She noted the recommended budget includes funding for 20 police officers, 6 firefighters, 4 Code Enforcement Officers, and additional staff to support homeless efforts and senior programs. She added the budget includes sidewalk and business storefront improvement programs, upgrades to parks and Citywide landscaping, and a strategic planning effort to identify and prioritize future needs. She displayed a breakdown of the department's individual budgets and the Proposed General Fund Five -Year Forecast. She noted the General Fund's operating sources total $564.2 million and the proposed operating uses total $568 million based on existing service levels. City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 36 of 44 She reported the City relies on bond proceeds to balance the forecast until year five when the proceeds are exhausted. She noted if revenue projections are consistent, the Lease Payment Measurement Revenues (LPMR) bonds will be paid off around 2028. She added, in accordance with the California State Constitution, the Annual Appropriation Limits for FY 2023/24 for the City and two community facilities districts are presented for approval. Limits are based upon the previous Fiscal Year, adjusted for growth factors in City population and California per capital personal income growth. Proposed fee changes for FY 2023/24 for enterprise fees to the Convention Center, Golf, and Public Works and General Fund user fee increases for Planning & Building, Public Works, Fire & Rescue, and Community Services. She reported the Convention Center's proposed rates are an effort to develop fair and equitable charges for the facilities. Public Works is proposing a 5% increase to Solid Waste Collection fees, and a 3% rate increase to support wastewater collection and disposal service to customers. The Program provides public and private projects the opportunity to purchase stormwater credits allowing for offsite stormwater treatment, rather than treating stormwater on -site. The Credit Price is based on the actual cost for the design and construction of the Credit Generator as well as the projected cost for operation and maintenance. The credit price is $32.79/Credit for the Anaheim Bay Watershed and $26.88/Credit for the Santa Ana River Watershed. She added the Dad Miller Golf Course and Anaheim Hills Golf Course propose a fee to offset escalating operational costs by implementing a Dynamic Pricing strategy to replace the fixed senior green fees. She detailed the action items for the FY 2023/24 Budget Adoption, Appropriation Limits, and Fee Changes. DISCUSSION: In response to Mayor Aitken, Director Moreno confirmed to include the supplemental requests and proposed changes to the Budget they would need to be included with the motion. Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava requested additional information on the supplemental requests and her previous budget requests for additional Police Officers and additional personnel for the Fire & Rescue Department. City Manager Vanderpool a memo was distributed to the City Council to outline the requests mentioned from the previous Budget Workshop. Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava recommended the City Council take a brief recess. Mayor Aitken recessed the meeting at 10:11 p.m. and reconvened at 10:22 p.m. City Manager Vanderpool outlined the memo distributed to the City Council. He provided information related to the base budget information. He noted current labor contracts currently under negotiation have not been incorporated into the five-year forecast. Director Moreno added if there was a 1 % increase for labor contracts under negotiation the budget would increase by $3.6 million. City Manager Vanderpool reiterated future labor contract costs were not included in the forecast. He noted structural deficits in the General Fund, however, borrowed bond proceeds allow the City to balance the operating plan across all five years. Due to the strength of the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and the sales tax revenue, the LPMR may be retired as early as 2028. He reported Staff's recommendation for the bond proceeds is to support limited ongoing enhancements to maintain adequate reserves and one-time service enhancements. He outlined the ongoing service enhancements including six (6) School Resource Officers for the Police Department, 6 Firefighters for the Fire and Rescue Department, a second multi -departmental homeless task force, preservation of Be Well OC services, additional staff for senior programming, and additional street tree maintenance. He noted the one-time funding opportunities that total $16.6 million. He outlined the risks of the five- City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 37 of 44 year forecast including recession or slowdown possibilities, the cost of expiring labor contracts, increases to personnel costs from the Class and Compensation study, and homeless shelter operations. He noted the options provided were not part of the recommendation but could be included at the City Council's direction. He outlined additional Public Safety Enhancements including the restoration of 15 frozen positions in the Police Department over a four-year period beginning in FY 2024/25 and three additional firefighter positions. DISCUSSION: Council Member Faessel expressed appreciation for reviewing and explaining the supplemental request. Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava echoed Council Member Faessel's comments and thanked staff for including a plan for the Police Department's supplemental budget. She requested if the three positions discussed could be included in the proposed Fiscal Year. She noted cost savings for the School Resource Officers and the Business Storefront Improvement Program. City Manager Vanderpool noted he communicated with the Anaheim Firefighters Association (AFA) regarding the potential to include the additional positions, if the Council pursued that direction. He noted that half of the funding for the budgeted storage facility for the Police Department and Public Works can be pushed to the next Fiscal Year. He added funding from the Business Storefront Improvement Program can be used to fund the extra positions requested. He recommended utilizing those programs for cost savings compared to the other programs from the one-time enhancements. In response to Mayor Aitken, City Manager Vanderpool noted revenues for the Ambulance Program are returned to fund the program. He mentioned cost savings per firefighter for the Ambulance Program are not monitored. Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava recommended tracking the cost savings per firefighter for the Ambulance Program. City Manager Vanderpool recommended listing the additional items to create an amendment to the staff recommendation. In response to Council Member Faessel, Director Moreno provided examples of potential threats to paying off the LPMR including another pandemic or a general slowdown in the economy. She cited a Chapman University study that predicted a slowdown in the last part of the year. Council Member Kurtz thanked City Manager Vanderpool for reviewing the budget to consider the additional firefighter positions. She inquired about the improvements for Paul Revere Park being included in the Budget. Director Moreno noted the Community Services budget can cover the costs for Paul Revere Park. City Manager Vanderpool recommended $100,000 for the improvements. Council Member Diaz noted he is not supportive of cutting the budgets for street tree maintenance, the Commercial Storefront Improvement Program, street and sidewalk maintenance, and Citywide landscape maintenance. Council Member Faessel agreed with Council Member Diaz on supporting the Commercial Storefront Improvement Program. City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 38 of 44 Council Member Meeks expressed concerns with utilizing funds for one-time enhancements to fund ongoing labor costs. Council Member Leon expressed appreciation for the breakdown costs for cameras on Brookhurst Street. He agreed with Council Member Diaz's comments regarding the Commercial Storefront Improvement Program. He expressed support to increase staffing for the Fire and Rescue Department citing safety to the community. He echoed the comments of Council Member Meeks regarding utilizing one-time enhancement funds to support recurring costs. Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava noted historically the City's economy has sustained itself due to the Resort District. She highlighted overall the County has fared well through recessions. She explained staffing the Ambulance Program well now will ensure the long-term success of the program. In response to Council Member Faessel, Director Moreno noted the homeless shelters were limited - term. The forecast shows decreased funding for shelter operations, however, Director Moreno did note should shelter operations become permanent the budget would need to be amended. Council Member Faessel clarified if shelter operations continue additional funding will need to be determined by the City Council. In response to Council Member Leon, City Manager Vanderpool clarified the motion would include the adoption of the Budget and the supplemental requests and dispersing the funding for the storage facility for the Police Department. In response to Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava, City Manager Vanderpool noted the reimbursement for the School Resource Officers is included in the Budget. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2023-045 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting the Fiscal Year 2023/24 Budget, as amended, including three firefighter positions, adding $100,000 to the Community Services budget for Paul Revere Park, approving supplemental requests (ongoing service enhancements), and implementing a two-year cycle for the storage facility project (relocation this year and tenant improvements next year) reducing the Public Works Department budget by $1 million. DISCUSSION: Council Member Leon requested if funding can be included to expand library hours. City Manager Vanderpool reported it would cost $300,000 per year to expand library hours at all branches. He noted that funding the operational hours would cost $250,000 excluding programming. Council Member Leon retracted his request, however, expressed interest in including expanded operating hours in the next fiscal year budget. Mayor Aitken opened the public hearing. City Clerk Bass reported the City did not receive any electronically submitted public comments related to Public Hearing Item No. 28 [A final total of one (1) public comment was received electronically, distributed to the City Council, and made part of the official record]. — See Appendix. Bryan Kaye commented expressing concerns regarding his submitted petition and allegations of police corruption and abuse in the City. City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 39 of 44 Marc Herbert commented regarding budget allocations for homeless and affordable housing services and the design/build of Fire Station 12. Jorge Gavino commented advocating for the recommendations forwarded by the Budget, Investment, and Technology Commission. Mayor Aitken closed the public hearing. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2023-045 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting the Fiscal Year 2023/24 Budget, as amended, including three firefighter positions, adding $100,000 to the Community Services budget for Paul Revere Park, approving supplemental requests (ongoing service enhancements), and implementing a two-year cycle for the storage facility project (relocation this year and tenant improvements next year) reducing the Public Works Department budget by $1 million, seconded by Mayor Aitken. DISCUSSION: Director Moreno requested clarification on the dollar amount for the firefighter positions. Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava confirmed the amount of $870,000. City Manager Vanderpool clarified the funds would be relocated from the storage facility project and to implement a two-year cycle for the project. Council Member Diaz confirmed the storage facility project has not moved into the design phase. City Manager Vanderpool noted if the project ran according to schedule it would be carried over into the next fiscal year. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Rubalcava moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2023-045 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting the Fiscal Year 2023/24 Budget, as amended, including three firefighter positions, adding $100,000 to the Community Services budget for Paul Revere Park, approving supplemental requests (ongoing service enhancements), and implementing a two-year cycle for the storage facility project (relocation this year and tenant improvements next year) reducing the Public Works Department budget by $1 million, seconded by Mayor Aitken. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Rubalcava, Diaz, Leon, Kurtz, Faessel, and Meeks); NOES — 0. Motion carried. Following approval of the Fiscal Year 2023124 budget, as amended, the City Council considered budget appropriations limits for the Community Facilities Districts and changes in various fee schedules. DISCUSSION: Mayor Aitken requested additional information regarding evaluation of the fee schedule and considering benefits for residents. She recommended a program that would benefit Anaheim residents. Director of Community Service Sjany Larson -Cash clarified fee benefits for residents are in place, however, the Department can explore implementing early registration for residents. She added for the green fees at golf courses, the Department is proposing a program to provide passes to Anaheim seniors for free and increasing the rate for non-resident seniors. The program would provide access to discounted rates for Anaheim seniors. City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 40 of 44 Mayor Aitken requested future consideration to develop a program that would apply discounts to all Anaheim residents for all City facilities. Council Member Faessel referenced Mayor Aitken's previous comments regarding the park's fee schedule. Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava cautioned against providing discounts for sources of revenue such as the Golf courses. She recommended exploring options such as early registration or priority registration for tee times. Mayor Aitken clarified her previous request regarding park -in -lieu fees. Council Member Faessel clarified if there were amendments to the fees, they would be considered during the budget process. Council Member Diaz expressed concerns about subsidizing facility rental fees and golf fees. Mayor Aitken clarified the request is not to subsidize the fees. She added the request is to allow Anaheim residents to have benefits for those facilities including early access tee times. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava moved to approve Item Nos. 28B through 28J relating to budget appropriations limits for the City and its Community Facilities Districts, and changes in various fee schedules, seconded by Mayor Aitken. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Rubalcava, Diaz, Leon, Kurtz, Faessel, and Meeks); NOES — 0. Motion carried. B. RESOLUTION NO. 2023-046 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, adopting the annual appropriations limit for the Fiscal Year 2023/24. RESOLUTION NO. 2023-047 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, adopting the Community Facilities District No. 06-2 (Stadium Lofts) annual appropriations limit for the Fiscal Year 2023/24. RESOLUTION NO. 2023-048 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, adopting the Community Facilities District No. 08-1 (Platinum Triangle) annual appropriations limit for the Fiscal Year 2023/24. C. RESOLUTION NO. 2023-049 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing fees to be charged for Community Services Department programs and services [includes determination that the adoption of the fee schedule is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 21080(b)(8) of the Public Resources Code]. D. RESOLUTION NO. 2023-050 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the green fees to be charged at the Dad Miller Golf Course and the Anaheim Hills Golf Course [includes determination that the adoption of this fee schedule is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 21080 (b)(8) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15273 California Code of Regulations]. E. RESOLUTION NO. 2023-051 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the schedule of rates, fees and charges for rental of space, parking and for certain labor, equipment and services at the Anaheim City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 41 of 44 Convention Center effective July 1, 2023 [includes determination that the adoption of the schedule of rates is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 21080(b)(8) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15273 of the California Code of Regulations]. F. RESOLUTION NO. 2023-052 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing Life Safety Division fees to be charged by the Fire and Rescue Department of the City of Anaheim and rescinding Resolution No. 2019- 066 [includes determination that the adoption of this fee schedule is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 21080(b)(8) of the Public Resources Code]. RESOLUTION NO. 2023-053 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing paramedic fees in connection with emergency medical services to be charged by the Fire and Rescue Department of the City of Anaheim and rescinding Resolution No. 2019-067 [includes determination that the adoption of this fee schedule is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 21080(b)(8) of the Public Resources Code]. RESOLUTION NO. 2023-054 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM relating to fees and penalties in connection with implementing the Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Material Management Regulatory Program Act and rescinding Resolution 2019-068 [includes determination that the adoption of this fee schedule is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 21080(b)(8) of the Public Resources Code and California Code of Regulations Section 15273]. G. RESOLUTION NO. 2023-055 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending and restating fee and rate schedules for planning, zoning, and environmental petitions, applications, permits, approvals, appeals and inspections [includes the determination that amending and restating the planning, zoning and environmental fees and rates is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 21080 (b)(8) of the California Public Resources Code]. RESOLUTION NO. 2023-056 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting a new schedule of fees, charges and rates for building, construction, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, services and activities [includes determination that amending the fees, charges and rates is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 21080 (b)(8) of the California Public Resources Code]. RESOLUTION NO. 2023-057 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending and restating fee and rate schedules for the Community Preservation & Licensing Division of the City of Anaheim [includes determination that amending and restating the planning, zoning and environmental fees and rates is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 21080 (b)(8) of the California Public Resources Code]. City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 42 of 44 H. RESOLUTION NO. 2023-058 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting new fee schedules for the Public Works Department of the City of Anaheim. RESOLUTION NO. 2023-059 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting a revised schedule of sanitation fees for wastewater and solid waste and rescinding Resolution Number 2022-067 and determining such actions are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080 (b)(8) and guideline Section 15273 (a). RESOLUTION NO. 2023-060 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing the Anaheim Stormwater Credit Program credit price and adding said credit price to the Public Works fee schedule. T106 29. Public hearing to consider a resolution to confirm the diagram and assessment and provide for the levy of the annual assessment in and for the Anaheim Resort Maintenance District. RESOLUTION NO. 2023-061 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM confirming the diagram and assessment and providing for the levy of the annual assessment in and for the Anaheim Resort Maintenance District. Director of Public Works Rudy Emami reported at the May 161h City Council meeting, the Council initiated the proceedings for the FY 2023/24 Annual Levy proceedings by accepting the Assessment Engineers Report and scheduling the public hearing. He reported staff's recommendation to confirm the Diagram and Assessment and provide for the levy of the Annual Assessment for the Resort Maintenance District for FY 2023/24. He provided a history of the Resort Maintenance District including its formation by the City Council in 1999 and its 2.2 square mile size. The proposed assessments for Fiscal Year 2023/24 is approximately $5.8 million. The current year's assessments will increase the Consumer Price Index (CPI) by 7%. He reported to relieve the financial burden on property owners during the pandemic, the City waived increases in assessments. A 1.23% catch-up factor was included in the proposed assessments to account for rising maintenance and capital costs. He noted the Resort Maintenance District has four (4) dedicated full-time Public Works staff to oversee operations and maintenance contracts. The five-year Capital Improvement Program addresses the replacement of fixtures and facilities within the District. He reported projects included in the FY 2023/24 budget are exchanging plant materials to opt for a more water -wise landscape, upgrading and replace existing irrigation to be more efficient and conserve water, and upgrading lighting in medians and parkways to energy -efficient lighting for improved performance and longer lifespan. Mayor Aitken opened the public hearing City Clerk Bass reported that no public comments were received in -person or electronically related to Public Hearing Item No. 29. There being no in -person speakers, Mayor Aitken closed the public hearing. MOTION: Council Member Faessel moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2023-061 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM confirming the diagram and assessment and providing for the levy of the annual assessment in and for the Anaheim Resort Maintenance District, seconded by Council Member Diaz. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 43 of 44 Aitken and Council Members Rubalcava, Diaz, Leon, Kurtz, Faessel, and Meeks); NOES — 0. Motion carried. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS: None PUBLIC COMMENTS (non -agenda items): None COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS: None COUNCIL AGENDA SETTING: Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava requested a recognition for Jillian Albayati. She noted Mayor Aitken recognized Ms. Albayati at the State of the City, however, she has not been formally recognized by the City Council. Mayor Aitken clarified the City Council did provide a recognition for Ms. Albayati, however, it was not presented to her due to her school schedule. Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava requested an agenda item to discuss and review the salary study for the Chief of Police. Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava requested information on the reviews for the City Clerk, City Attorney, and City Manager and when they will take place. Director of Human Resources Linda Andal responded that Council appointee reviews are conducted anywhere between June and September. She noted the reviews will be scheduled for the last meeting in August unless the Council decides to conduct them earlier. Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava requested copies of the evaluation forms and requested the City Manager's review be conducted first. Director of Human Resources Andal confirmed the forms will be distributed to the City Council by the end of the week with the evaluations being scheduled for Closed Session at the end of August. Council Member Meeks requested a resolution recognizing September as Service Club Month. She requested agendizing a discussion to approve a resolution on the taking of a position on the initiative. City Attorney Fabela clarified the Council can agendize an item taking a position on the initiative and then approve a resolution. Council Member Leon requested a resolution recognizing Mama Cozza's on their 58th anniversary and clarified the date of the previously requested Linbrook Bowl recognition. Mayor Aitken stated she could collaborate with Council Member Leon to agendize the recognition for Linbrook Bowl for an earlier date. City Council Minutes of June 27, 2023 Page 44 of 44 ADJOURNMENT: At 11:29 p.m., Mayor Aitken adjourned the City Council meeting in memory of Lucy M. Hernandez. Respectfully submitted, T eresa Sass, CIVIC City Clerk Susana Barrios From: Theresa Bass Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 2:11 PM To: Blake Carri; Susana Barrios Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] CalOptima Health Letter of Support, Agenda Items 16 & 17 Re: The Salvation Army Attachments: image001.png; CalOptima Health City of Anaheim -Salvation Army Letter of Support 6.27.pdf Begin forwarded message: From: "Abushawish, Jordan" <jordan.abushawish@caloptima.org> Date: June 27, 2023 at 2:04:14 PM PDT To: Ashleigh Aitken <AAitken@anaheim.net>, Natalie Rubalcava <NRubalcava@anaheim.net>, Jose Diaz <JoDiaz@anaheim.net>, "Carlos A. Leon" <CLeon@anaheim.net>, "Norma C. Kurtz" <NKurtz@anaheim.net>, Stephen Faessel <SFaessel@anaheim.net>, Natalie Meeks <NMeeks@anaheim.net>, City Manager <Citymanager@anaheim.net>, Theresa Bass <TBass@anaheim.net> Cc: Berenice Ballinas <BBallinas@anaheim.net>, Valeria Sandoval <VSandoval@anaheim.net>, Sarah Bartczak <SBartczak@anaheim.net>, jdavis@anaheim.net, Nam Bartash <NBartash@anaheim.net>, Cameron Wessel <CWessel@anaheim.net>, aguerrero@anaheim.net, Gregory Garcia <GGarcia@anaheim.net>, Grace Stepter <GStepter@anaheim.net> Subject: [EXTERNAL] CalOptima Health Letter of Support, Agenda Items 16 & 17 Re: The Salvation Army Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. Good afternoon, Mayor Aitken and Members of the Anaheim City Council — On behalf of Michael Hunn, Chief Executive Officer of CalOptima Health, please find the attached letter of support for agenda items 16 and 17 related to The Salvation Army Emergency Shelter Services. Thank you and have a great day! Joirdainni A. AIl,,)u§hiawisll...ni, MPP Serfl r t)�rector, Fu7derall and Localll G¢7veuir7urruent AfUrs CalOpt�ma Health, A Pulblliu: Agency 1 N..a4;.ebo.0.11k I I_m7.!sta.��.ma.�rr.p. I lf:unu.�.tter I yo.u�lf:u�.be 11111°.Lfissiioin Ouir 1'iiisiioin In 2027 rSuume. Day arc.auns.°urtAudthorizuutiours F0 senwe° Innate e'r health With and L% Re'alhine, Claims fl ayine'nr[s dignrity, n espen.trn g tine Value' and nrc.'eds Of ;= Anrnual A > >c:. ssi nc.°nrts of n iica nbc.rsSocial each p c'rsonr. s.°tensnninr nn�r Of f lealth CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING: This email is intended for the use of the person to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and confidential, the disclosure of which is governed by applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this information is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately and delete the related email. DocuSign Envelope ID: 6196FCAA-EC48-45D6-A4B8-669ACCFC5D24 June 27, 2023 Anaheim City Council 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92805 RE: AGENDA ITEM 16: THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH THE SALVATION ARMY FOR EMERGENCY SHELTER SERVICES (224 BED SHELTER), and AGENDA ITEM 17: FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH THE SALVATION ARMY FOR EMERGENCY SHELTER SERVICES (101 BED EXPANSION) Dear Mayor Aitken and Members of the Anaheim City Council: On behalf of CalOptima Health and the 985,000 members we serve, I would like to express our support for agenda consent items 16 and 17 to approve the emergency shelter agreement between the City of Anaheim and The Salvation Army, California, South Division. The Salvation Army is highly regarded in our community for providing compassionate care and support for individuals experiencing homelessness, and CalOptima Health is proud to endorse this agreement. At CalOptima Health, we believe housing is health and we are dedicated to improving the health and well-being of all our members. Orange County is home to 3.2 million residents, of whom one-third are served by CalOptima Health. The impact on the lives of the members we serve is only as good as the partnerships we have with local organizations like The Salvation Army, and for that, we are very grateful for their tireless efforts to lift and empower our most vulnerable community members with the dignity and respect they deserve. In March of this year, CalOptima Health was honored to award The Salvation Army with $4.1 million in grants toward the Center of Hope Permanent Supportive Housing Units which will house 70 individuals experiencing chronic homelessness. We believe that our members' needs are better served when investments are made locally, and I commend the City of Anaheim for this recognition and supporting The Salvation Army to address the homelessness crisis in Orange County. Thank you very much for your time and consideration of this request. CalOptima Health looks forward to our continued partnership with the City of Anaheim and The Salvation Army. Sincerely, Doc(uS�igned by: EDDDDCC19C894F6... Michael Hunn Chief Executive Officer Susana Barrios From: C. Deon B. Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 3:45 PM To: Natalie Meeks; Stephen Faessel; Norma C. Kurtz; Carlos A. Leon; Jose Diaz; Ashleigh Aitken; Natalie Rubalcava Cc: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] Anaheim Team 2 Proposal Consideration Request Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. Good evening, Mayor Aitken, Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava, and all District Council Members, I am writing to you to ask for your support on the Anaheim Team 2 proposal. My name is Clarence Bates and I have been an Anaheim resident for more than 22 years. My wife and I raised our children in Anaheim because we fell in love with the culture and diversity throughout the community. When the city was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, I began to see more neighbors outside getting to know each other; albeit from a safe distance. I also saw the growth of homelessness and drug addiction and the problems that continue to rise in our city. We recently held a meeting in my community where Councilman Leon, Deputy Director Sandy Lozeau and Officers Lee and Williams of the HALO team met with residents to address safety concerns due to the homeless encampments. I applaud the city for being one of the first to take steps to tackle homelessness and drug addiction around the city by implementing the CCRT, HOT, PERT and the HALO teams to help those in need. However, there is only so much you can do for someone who doesn't want help. Those who choose not to accept the help are causing problems within the community. The problems that we are having along the railroad track crossing between #748008Y (Euclid) and #748009F (Nutwood). These homeless encampments support drug use, violence, and theft to everyone within the community. We are constantly dealing with fires, fights, trash and more importantly, safety concerns for everyone in the community. The initiatives in the Anaheim Team 2 proposal will help eliminate the ability for future homeless transients from establishing an encampment along the railroad tracks, thus providing the residents in district 2 an opportunity to live without listening to constant fights over naloxone injection needles and fires encroaching along the shrubbery along the wall behind homes. In addition, passing the Anaheim Team 2 proposal will provide the HALO team with additional support to address homelessness crimes around the city. I support the hard work each member working for the City of Anaheim, including the hard work the fire fighters do to attend to fires created by the homeless. Many times, the work you do isn't seen and can be viewed as a thankless job. want to say Thank you! I am asking you to help us say "Thank You" to everyone supporting the homeless concerns around the city by supporting the Anaheim Team 2 proposal. Thank you for your consideration, Clarence Bates Susana Barrios From: Erika R Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 5:35 PM To: Public Comment Cc: Ashleigh Aitken; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Norma C. Kurtz; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks Subject: [EXTERNAL] Agenda item 16 Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. Thank you for your time Council Members I was supposed to be here in person saying this to you, however, it was a different type of city council meeting today and I had to leave in order to pick up my child in time. I had been waiting outside since 3:30 p.m. to get into speak and watched hours take away with no clue when I'd be able to speak. This is what I had prepared to say to you today: I'm speaking today on agenda item number 16 which proposes the 22.85% increase requested by OC Animal Care... I highly recommend that the city not grant that increase in here is why: I am uniquely qualified to talk about these issues as I am formally the return to feel coordinator of a non-profit cat rescue contracted by OC Animal Care to return cats brought in by our citizens during that time I also implemented the same program in the city of Garden Grove with their animal control which is still currently running. When the city of Anaheim was approached about buying into the new shelter being built it was promised that one of the services rendered would be a TNR program That was a major buy -in for some of the cities including ours as we and Santa Ana make up 50% of all intake at OC Animal Care. The program was highly successful to the citizens and animals that recite an Anaheim and other communities. Community and feral cats were sterilized, given flea treatment, microchipped, and vaccinated before being returned to their homes. Since OC Animal Care halted that program back in 2019 however, our city has seen a rise in cat noise complaints, over population issues, lack of affordable spay neuter options, dead animal pickup, as well as an uptick and coyote activity. Ocean Animal Care is not accepting healthy cats at all. They only accept kittens up to 8 weeks of age, sick, or injured cats. Anaheim residents who've witnessed people in cars abandoning cats in their neighborhoods have tried to take those cats to OC Animal Care only to be told to release them back to where they were found, or they're asked to pay a $300 owner surrender fee for cats that don't belong to them. This is caused a big issue and cat abandonment, and more kittens being born in our city! OC Animal Care doesn't house animals for long. Instead, they put them on OC rescue track following intake for their non-profit rescue partners to be burdened with the cost and caring for the animals! Even when private entities were willing to find a spay neuter clinic at OC Animal Care, they refused to work with Anaheim citizens and it's non-profit rescues. Could the city of Anaheim possibly exert pressure on OC Animal Care and the OC Board of Supervisors to implement this program, or possibly spay/neuter services at no cost at its facility again? At Santa Ana's budget meeting recently, Santa Ana City Council Members agreed to set aside $75,000 for TNR/spay/neuter. Could the city of Anaheim not do the same should OC Animal Care still refuse a TNR program? Either of these options would be beneficial to our Anaheim residents and animals for not only health reasons, but also money reasons. Cat intake at OC Animal Care would dramatically drop if this were in place, and less money would be spent by the city down the line. It cost MORE to euthanize an animal than it does to fix one! Sandra, the formal head of Code Enforcement, had spoke with myself And OC Community Cats Rescue about doing a pilot program that we are still researching for. If the council members have any questions about that talk with code enforcement, I would be happy to answer any questions they may have. Again, thank you for your time today Council Members. Sincerely, Erika L. Rasmussen Susana Barrios From: ocanimalleague8 Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 7:17 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] Regarding item #16 Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. M Semi from my Galaxy Susana Barrios From: Michael Mavrovouniotis Sent: Friday, June 16, 2023 12:30 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] OC Animal Care - Grand Jury report Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. This is general public comment for the next city council meeting. The Grand Jury Report issued a HIGHLY CRITICAL report on OC Animal Care. You can find it on the Grand Jury website, here: https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A/2F/2Fwww.ocgrandjury.org/2Fpdfs/2F2022_2023_GJ report% 2FGi mme_Shelter_and_a_Pound_of_Advice. pdf&data=05%7C0I%7Cpubl iccomment%40anahei m. net%7C87093 dd03a0546bl4ad908d b6ea0l5a6% 7C74c3739c502a49c68d2l2bbc30f56f22 % 7CO%7CO%7C638225406228505841%7CU nknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWljoi MC4wLjAwMDAi LCJQljoiV2luMzli LCJBTi 16lklhaWwi LCJXVC16Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C %7C%7C&sdata=puQ%2F7VJ6kktxoC4cEl%2BFwLk41aDLZn8jR6hblra%2F6VO%3D&reserved=0 * Write to your County Supervisor, your Mayor, and your City Council. Ask them to read the Grand Jury report, put an end to this scandal, and get OC Animal Care back on the right track. * If you'd like any reports emailed to you, please contact gmoses4819@gmail.com * Other reports on OC Animal Care: https://gcc02.safeI i n ks. protection.outlook.com/?u rl=http%3A%2F%2FocsheIter.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cpu bl iccom ment%40anahei m. net%7C87093dd03a0546b14ad908db6ea015a6%7C74c3739c502a49c68d212bbc30f56f22%7CO%7C0 %7C638225406228505841%7CU nknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWljoi MC4wLjAwMDAi LCJQljoiV21uMzl i LCJ BTil61 klhaWwi LCJXVC16Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PAkOwGoOjkFePRhuNU9KZRJQpw4mexvUtGQH BFA9RIU%3D&reserve d=0 * Another useful information site: https://gcc02.safeI i n ks. protection.outlook.com/?u rl=https / 3A/ 2F / 2FopentheocsheIter.com / 2F&data=05%7C01%7Cp ubl iccomment%40anahei m. net%7C87093dd03a0546b14ad908db6ea015a6%7C74c3739c502a49c68d212bbc30f56f22% 7CO%7CO%7C638225406228505841%7CU n known%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJ W Ijoi MC4wLjAwM DAi LCJQIjoiV21 uMzl i LCJ BTi 16 I klhaWwi LCJXVCI6M n0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=77g4M n m7%2FOm BXl i nwnw%2BtJg3R%2F8SiVHCI Bh IoSNogO s%3D&reserved=0 This is the SUMMARY taken word-for-word from the report: Orange County Animal Care has been a source of public concern since the 1990s, with no less than five previous Orange County Grand Jury reports detailing troubling conditions. The previous reports cited excessive euthanasia rates, poor leadership, inadequate numbers of animal care attendants, a lack of cooperation between staff departments, the exclusion of kennel staff from euthanasia decisions, the lack of proper assessment of animals chosen for euthanasia, and low morale negatively impacting operation of the shelter. Recent public outcry citing conditions at the shelter, recent litigation, and publicly circulated petitions calling for changes at the shelter suggest the previously expressed concerns remain. In addition to these publicly voiced concerns, the current Orange County Grand Jury received direct complaints requesting an inquiry. The Grand Jury determined a renewed investigation was warranted. The investigation focused on three major areas of concern: the management of the shelter, the welfare of animals under shelter care, and the communication and engagement with the public and the animal rescue community. A particular concern of the Grand Jury was the shelter's termination of its Trap, Neuter, and Return (TNR) program for community cats. In early 2020, the shelter decided to stop its TNR program. The Grand Jury's investigation determined that termination of the TNR program had detrimental consequences for the welfare of the animals under the shelter's care. The elimination of the TNR program also has contributed to substantial public dissatisfaction and alienation that undermines the public's and the rescue community's relations with shelter leadership. During the Grand Jury's investigation, it was reported by the shelter's senior management that the termination of the TNR program resulted from an opinion rendered by the County's legal counsel. Understanding the reason leading to the decision to terminate the TNR program would be important for considering whether the program can and/or should be reinstated. Toward that end, the Grand Jury endeavored to obtain a copy of the opinion of the County's legal counsel by directing a written request to the Chair of the Orange County Board of Supervisors. While the Grand Jury recognizes that the opinion may enjoy confidentiality pursuant to the attorney -client privilege, the Board of Supervisors has the discretion to waive that privilege. The Grand Jury's request included its commitment to maintain the confidentiality of the opinion itself and its contents. Nevertheless, the request was declined, as was the Grand Jury's alternative request that the County simply identify the legal authority reviewed in studying the issue. Members of shelter management indicated their understanding the TNR program was terminated due to the opinion that the program violates a state law. The law makes it a crime to willfully abandon an animal notwithstanding that the program was designed to return cats to their original location rather than releasing them to randomly selected sites. TNR programs are widespread throughout California, not to mention the nation as set forth in a report from the American Bar Association. The Grand Jury is unaware of any published court case determining that a bona fide TNR program is prohibited under the anti -abandonment statute. Given the important benefits to animals and the public provided by such programs, the Grand Jury believes it would be prudent for the County to revisit the propriety of the former program and consider obtaining a second legal opinion. This report highlights analysis of data provided to the Grand Jury by the shelter indicating that euthanasia rates related to dog behavior and to cats have increased significantly within the last two years. The increase in dog behavioral euthanasia rates suggests that there is inconsistency over time as to how dogs are being assessed and evaluated for behavior -related euthanasia. The increase in feline euthanasia rates appears to be correlated with elimination of the TNR program. This report also addresses the challenges in maintaining quality staff at the shelter, especially in the Animal Care Attendant positions. Hiring practices for the shelter are too cumbersome, lengthy and lack consideration of how those practices impact animal welfare. Animal Care Attendant staffing at the shelter is inadequate and Animal Care Attendant staffing vacancies need to be filled more quickly. This report discusses major deficiencies with each of the issues identified above and makes specific recommendations to help support a more engaged community. Status quo at the shelter is unacceptable. Appropriate remedial steps must be taken as animal welfare is paramount! Finally, this report comments on the difficulties the Grand Jury encountered during its investigation. Without explanation, the entirety of the Orange County County Counsel's office determined itself to be conflicted with the Grand Jury's inquiry into Orange County Animal Care. The investigation was hampered and slowed during the six weeks the Grand Jury was required to arrange for outside legal counsel. Susana Barrios From: G Moses Sent: Friday, June 16, 2023 12:56 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] OC Animal Care - Where's the Strategic Plan? Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. This is general public comment for the next city council meeting. Why did OC Animal Care chuck its Strategic Plan willy-nilly? And was OC Community Resources asleep at the wheel, or aiding -and -abetting? In 2018, the OC Board of Supervisors approved an excellent Strategic Plan. When the pandemic rolled in, OCAC found cover to quietly ditch the Strategic Plan and make up policies on a whim. The result is HIGHER COSTS and WORSE RESULTS. A short report on this scandal, "OCAC BOS-Approved 2018 Strategic Plan.pdf" can be found in this file -sharing Box folder: https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https/3A/2F/2Fapp.box.com%2Fs/2F2gtbtfll7ai8xsd6int5g37dlp 4huub3&data=05%7C01%7Cpubl iccomment%40anahei m. net%7C237332838fc8466643dd08db6ea3be3e%7C74c3739c5 02a49c68d212bbc30f56f22%7C0%7C0%7C638225422535348357%7CU nknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWljoiMC4wLjAw M DAi LCJQljoiV2l u Mzl i LCJ BTi l6l klhaWwi LCJXVCI6M n0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9Lj i l EOu 11DFYN7Ei n kvRr%2Bzg uAtG % 2 BoQ3XZYF % 2 Fw9a % 2 F4 % 3 D &reserved=0 In the same folder, you'll find the 57-page Strategic Plan that county management has been hiding from you, "OCAC Strategic Plan 052218 (004).pdf". It was approved on May 18, 2018 by the Board of Supervisors. For your convenience, in the same folder, there is a short excerpt: "OCAC Strategic Plan Priority 1.pdf" is just the first two pages Strategic Plan, showing some of the big things that county bureaucrats threw overboard on their say-so. The Plan specified: - All qualified dogs socialized daily. - 100% Tracking to make sure animals get proper care (i.e., make sure the bureaucrats deliver what the citizen is asked to paying) - Reduction in average length of stay (i.e., REDUCTION in COSTS) All this was derailed and suppressed by OC Animal Care and OC Community Resources BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. With NO PLAN, the county is getting HIGHER COSTS and WORSE CARE. * Write to your County Supervisor, your Mayor, and your City Council. Ask them to put an end to this scandal, and get OC Animal Care back on the right track. * If you'd like any reports emailed to you, please contact gmoses4819@gmail.com * Other reports on OC Animal Care: https://gcc02.safeI i n ks. protection.outlook.com/?u rl=http%3A%2F%2FocsheIter.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cpu bl iccom ment%40a na hei m. net%7C237332838fc8466643dd08d b6ea3be3e%7C74c3739c502a49c68d212b bc30f56f22%7C0%7C0 %7C638225422535348357%7CU nknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWljoi MC4wLjAwMDAi LCJQljoiV21uMzl i LCJ BTil61 klhaWwi LCJXVC16Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ZkoP9LBRghigoi PXLUWJv9U8NzxRCU RuW18wuLoFHjU%3D&reserved=0 * Another useful information site: https://gcc02.safeI i n ks. protection.outlook.com/?u rl=https % 3A/ 2F % 2FopentheocsheIter.com % 2F&data=05%7C01%7Cp u bl iccom ment%40a na hei m. net%7C237332838fc8466643dd08d b6ea3be3e % 7C74c3739c502a49c68d212bbc30f56f22%7 CO%7CO%7C638225422535348357%7CU n known%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJ Wljoi MC4wLjAwM DAi LCJQljoiV21 u Mzl i LCJ BTi 161 k 1haWwiLCJXVC16Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=OOgBIBprNERxf400hF3GJkbMmL3wfbsMC3dOX2NOiS8%3D&re served=0 Susana Barrios From: An Doner Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2023 3:12 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] News Stories on the trouble with OC Animal Care Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. This is general public comment for the next city council meeting. There has been a slew of HIGHLY CRITICAL News Stories on OC Animal Care. Here are the dates, titles, and web links, for the five -week period May 7 - June 9 2023: OC Register, May 7, 2023: More adult dogs dying at OC Animal Care, kennels largely off-limits https://gcc02.safeI i n ks. protection.outlook.com/?u rl=https % 3A/ 2F % 2Fwww.ocregister.com % 2F2023 % 2F05 % 2F07 % 2Fm ore-adult-dogs-dyi ng-at-oc-ani mal-care-kennels-largely-off- I i mits % 2F&data=05%7C01%7Cpubl iccomment%40a nahei m. net%7C8cd7fbc8d b644efbd2c208d b6f7fe4b2%7C74c3739c5 02a49c68d212bbc30f56f22%7CO%7CO%7C638226367315700837%7CU nknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWljoiMC4wLjAw M DAi LCJQljoiV2l u Mzl i LCJ BTi l6l klhaWwi LCJXVCI6M n0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lg%2BaShiZtd pykMD375rUXtU UoAebmRuTz8X8joKuVE8%3D&reserved=0 KNX News, May 8, 2023 Orange County animal shelter kill rates double for adult dogs in 3 years https://gcc02.safel i n ks. protection.outlook.com/?u rl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.audacy.com%2Fknxnews%2Fnews%2FIoca l %2Forange-county-animal-shelter-kill-rates-double-in-3- years&data=05%7C01%7Cpubliccomment%40anaheim.net%7C8cd7fbc8db644efbd2c208d b6f7fe4b2%7C74c3739c502a 49c68d 212bbc30f56f22 % 7CO%7CO%7C638226367315700837%7CU n known%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJ Wljoi MC4wLjAwM DA i LCJQljoiV2l u Mzl i LCJ BTi l6l klhaWwi LCJXVCI6M n0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=d HOyObraf6sm2nj7CtK1ay45ZaG6% 2F6kwi BAd73scu DQ%3D&reserved=0 OC Register, May 11, 2023: OC's animal shelter still a killing zone https://gcc02.safeI i n ks. protection.outlook.com/?u rl=https % 3A/ 2F % 2Fwww.ocregister.com % 2F2023 % 2F05 % 2F11 % 2Foc s-animal-shelter-still-a-killing- zone% 2F&data=05%7C01%7Cpubl iccomment%40anahei m. net%7C8cd7fbc8db644efbd2c208db6f7fe4b2%7C74c3739c5 02a49c68d212bbc30f56f22%7CO%7CO%7C638226367315700837%7CU nknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWljoiMC4wLjAw M DAi LCJQljoiV2l u Mzl i LCJ BTi l6l klhaWwi LCJXVCI6M n0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nePoOhgG kX874w4y1FT9U Uea g2BSGoG8P3HzlysLrF4%3D&reserved=0 Voice of OC, May 31, 2023 Head of OC Animal Care Steps Down as Activists Fight for Open Shelter Policies https://gcc02.safeIinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fvoiceofoc.org/2F2023/2F05/2Fhead-of-oc- animal-care-steps-down-as-activists-fight-for-open-shelter- policies%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cpubliccomment%40anaheim.net%7C8cd7fbc8db644efbd2c208db6f7fe4b2%7C74c3739 c502a49c68d 2l2bbc30f56f22 % 7CO%7CO%7C638226367315700837%7CU n known%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJ Wljoi MC4wLjA wM DAi LCJQljoiV2l u Mzl i LCJ BTi I6l klhaWwi LCJXVCI6M n0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=aergL2hxNyis85u pC68QeU km N kGyK%2FieexFudfSU FWO%3D&reserved=0 OC Register, May 31, 2023 OC Animal Care director temporarily moves jobs amid 'escalating negativity' toward her https://gcc02.safeI i n ks. protection.outlook.com/?u rl=https % 3A/ 2F % 2Fwww.ocregister.com % 2F2023 % 2F05 % 2F31 % 2Foc -ani mal-care-di rector-temporarily-moves-jobs-amid-escalating-negativity-toward- her%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cpubliccomment%40anaheim.net%7C8cd7fbc8db644efbd2c208db6f7fe4b2%7C74c3739c502 a49c68d 212bbc30f56f22 % 7CO%7CO%7C638226367315700837%7CU n known%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJ Wljoi MC4wLjAwM D Ai LCJQljoiV2l u Mzl i LCJ BTi l6l klhaWwi LCJXVCI6M n0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VT6O8fcZZcAgxwtVXAwSrBe3oAku dVu PTX38OFV5yxc%3D&reserved=0 Voice of OC, June 7, 2023 Rhoades: OC Animal Care, Open the Facility https://gcc02.safeI i n ks. protection.outlook.com/?u rl=https / 3A/ 2F / 2Fvoiceofoc.org / 2F2023 / 2F06/ 2Frhoades-oc- animal-care-open-the- facility%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cpubliccomment%40anaheim.net%7C8cd7fbc8db644efbd2c208db6f7fe4b2%7C74c3739c 502a49c68d212bbc30f56f22%7CO%7CO%7C638226367315700837%7CU nknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWljoi MC4wLjAw M DAi LCJQljoiV2l u Mzl i LCJ BTi I6l klhaWwi LCJXVCI6M n0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=CN h35Vl m hViQ21%2BKxPx2t8 H rfgW LDISf3VogXZcDLow%3D&reserved=0 Voice of OC, June 8, 2023 Grand Jury: OC Animal Shelter Needs Updated Policies to Stop Killing More Animals https://gcc02.safeI i n ks. protection.outlook.com/?u rl=https%3A/ 2F / 2Fvoiceofoc.org / 2F2023 / 2F06/ 2Fgra nd-jury-oc- animal-shelter-needs-updated-policies-to-stop-killing-more- animals%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cpubliccomment%40anaheim.net%7C8cd7fbc8db644efbd2c208db6f7fe4b2%7C74c3739 c502a49c68d 2l2bbc30f56f22 % 7CO%7CO%7C638226367315700837%7CU n known%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJ Wljoi MC4wLjA wM DAi LCJQljoiV2l u Mzl i LCJ BTi I6l klhaWwi LCJXVCI6M n0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=p65vU hQUt4Wd klAQfld%2Be T8ly8BShhdU3YEGDBZi67c%3D&reserved=0 OC Register, June 9, 2023 OC Grand Jury raises concerns with management, animal welfare at OC Animal Care https://gcc02.safeI i n ks. protection.outlook.com/?u rl=https / 3A/ 2F / 2Fwww.ocregister.com / 2F2023 / 2F06 / 2F09 / 2Foc -grand-jury-raises-concerns-with-management-animal-welfare-at-oc-animal- care% 2F&data=05%7C01%7Cpubl iccomment%40anahei m. net%7C8cd7fbc8db644efbd2c208db6f7fe4b2%7C74c3739c50 2a49c68d212bbc30f56f22%7CO%7CO%7C638226367315700837%7CU nknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWljoi MC4wLjAwM DAi LCJQljoiV2l u Mzl i LCJ BTi I6l klhaWwi LCJXVCI6M n0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=C86cl Pba%2FD60sMv%2FJ4JOu L7 yKugJa6D4ixvbHvfX3FA%3D&reserved=0 Los Angeles Times, June 9, 2023 Status quo at O.C. animal shelter 'unacceptable' as euthanasia rates rise, report says https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https/3A/2F/2Fwww.latimes.com/2Fcalifornia/2Fstory/2F202 3-06-08% 2Forange-county-ani mal-care-shelter-grand-jury-report-dogs-cats- euthanized&data=05%7C01%7Cpubl iccomment%40anahei m. net%7C8cd7fbc8db644efbd2c208db6f7fe4b2%7C74c3739c 502a49c68d212bbc30f56f22%7CO%7CO%7C638226367315700837%7CU nknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWljoi MC4wLjAw MDAiLCJQljoiV2luMzliLCJBTil6lklhaWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0jHeUWSvbn5c2gBD%2FfFC3w 40MNjZgSM9dY2cncfOfVs%3D&reserved=0 KTLA 5 News, June 9, 2023 Grand jury raises concerns about OC Animal Care's policies https://gcc02.safel i nks. protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fktla.com%2Fnews%2FIocal-news%2Fgrand-jury- ra i ses-co nce rns-a bout-oc-a n i ma I-ca res- policies%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cpubliccomment%40anaheim.net%7C8cd7fbc8db644efbd2c208d b6f7fe4b2%7C74c3739 c502a49c68d 212bbc30f56f22 % 7CO%7CO%7C638226367315700837%7CU n known%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJ Wljoi MC4wLjA wM DAi LCJQljoiV21 u MzI i LCJ BTi 161 klhaWwi LCJXVC16M n0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GVAKJ IvU BQIXRBI NOazW%2Bj i brpF28i FDI19zjGwj2CU%3D&reserved=0 * An updated version of this list will be posted regularly, along with other reports on OC Animal Care, here: https://gcc02.safeI i n ks. protection.outlook.com/?u rl=http%3A%2F%2FocsheIter.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cpu bl iccom ment%40anaheim.net%7C8cd7fbc8db644efbd2c208db6f7fe4b2%7C74c3739c502a49c68d212bbc30f56f22%7CO%7C0% 7C638226367315700837%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWljoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQljoiV2luMzliLCJBTil6lklhaWwiL CJXVC16Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=QvS%2BElwhsxbNCRfBDZhd%2BRgwhi rdN6SyU815LBBDJ6k%3D&reserve d=0 * Another useful information site: https://gcc02.safeI i n ks. protection.outlook.com/?u rl=https % 3A/ 2F % 2FopentheocsheIter.com % 2F&data=05%7C01%7Cp u bl iccom ment%40a na hei m. net%7C8cd7fbc8d b644efbd2c208d b6f7fe4b2%7C74c3739c502a49c68d212 bbc30f56f22%7C 0%7CO%7C638226367315700837%7CU n known%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJ Wljoi MC4wLjAwM DAi LCJQljoiV2l u Mzl i LCJ BTi l6l k1 haWwiLCJXVC16Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9EEPOcYmrFJig1D56FpOAwygkSLR9v7qD3b%2FGAkgln8%3D&res erved=0 * If you'd like any reports emailed to you, please contact gmoses4819@gmail.com Susana Barrios From: Michael Mavrovouniotis Sent: Monday, June 19, 2023 9:18 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] OC Animal Care - Grand Jury Attachments: Grand Jury with Comments.pdf, OCAC Summary.pdf Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. I am submitting two short documents on OC Animal Care for distribution to the City Council and inclusion in the record (along with the text of this message): A 6-page file "Grand Jury with Comments.pdf'contains comments on the Findings and Recommendations of the Grand Jury report on OC Animal Care. A 2-page file "OCAC Summary.pdf'contains a brief assessment of the decline in the performance of OC Animal Care. This assessment predates the publication of the Grand Jury report, yet reached the same conclusions. Compared to 2019, the length of stay for adult dogs has increased by 60%, and the kill rate has increased by 104%, even though adult dog intakes have decreased by 28%. This drop in performance is concurrent with changes in animal care and the adoption process: - Adopters can no longer view available dogs in the kennels. - Adopters select up to two dogs to visit per appointment by perusing an online photo lineup. - Play groups for large dogs that were in existence in 2019 have been suspended. A more detailed report can be found here: https:Happ.box.com/s/2nipxbl7kac7wjikyc88519ssjwi5pmt Newer reports and data can be found on the website OCShelter.com The Grand Jury Report can be found here: https://www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/2022 2023 GJreport/Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice.pdf It can also be downloaded from the ocshelter.com website, along with other reports on OC Animal Care. The text of each Grand Jury Finding is the intact text from the Grand Jury Report. Most (but not all) Findings are followed by a Comment in italics, which is the opinion of the author. The same format is used to show, and comment on, the Grand Jury Recommendations. IIIII° IIIII IIIIIJU11Yj'°°°'llllllllll IIIII°IIIIIIIIII Managernent 1 Management has limited flexibility utilizing personnel within Orange County Animal Care across departments due to structured work rules, volunteer work restrictions, and employees working in departmental silos. Comment: The consequence is that kennels are understaffed while the office is overstaffed. F2 Low staff morale exists within Orange County Animal Care. Comment: Management is not providing appropriate policies and resources to take care of the animals. The shelter is not providing proper cleaning, socialization, and enrichment programs. They advertise a luxurious adoption process which the insufficient numbers of kennel staff cannot possible provide. Stressed animals and overworked kennel staff, isn't that a recipe for low staff morale? F3 Orange County Animal Care staffing is negatively impacted by vacant positions remaining unfilled for greater than six months due to burdensome hiring processes. This delay in recruitment and completion of hiring has resulted in qualified candidates declining job offers. Comment. OCAC fails to recognize that good kennel staff have valuable skills and experience. Qualified candidates for these positions are the most likely to find other opportunities while OCAC keeps them waiting. F4 Based upon industry standards and best practices, Orange County Animal Care kennel attendants are understaffed to meet the needs of animals under care. Comment. The consequences of the understaffing are dire and cumulative: Dogs are not getting socialized and spend multi -day stretches shut in the kennels. Kennels cannot be cleaned frequently or thoroughly, and the dogs are typically still in the kennel during cleaning. Perhaps the management bars the public from the kennel areas so that they cannot witness these poor conditions. As to adoptions, there is no way that overworked kennel staff can provide time-consuming "concierge" counseling service; this has been false advertising on the part of shelter management all along. Page 1 of 6 Orange County Animal Care's operating policies and procedures manual is out of date. Comment. Of course they are. The management's energy has been directed at producing outward -looking deceptive advertising. The PR documents are not truthful but they are polished. The substantive documents, including behavior evaluation, enrichment tracking, and adoption range from non-existent to outdated. 6 The Orange County Animal Care Volunteer program was stopped during COVID-19 and restarting the program has been slow, resulting in decreased animal socialization and enrichment. Comment: Instead of recruiting volunteers to provide better care for the animals, the management opted to lower care standards, keep the public from witnessing the deterioration, and present a false glossy image. Orange County Animal Care's Behavior Evaluation Committee evaluates dogs for euthanasia without written guidelines, policies, or procedures, resulting in inconsistent outcomes over time. Behavior evaluated euthanasia outcomes are dependent on the experience and personal considerations of the individual committee members and management rather than written objective standards. Comment: Indeed. Perhaps the shelter finds this convenient. It's easier to euthanize for space and label it as behavior. The rate of behavioral euthanasia of dogs has increased significantly over the last 2 years. Comment: And this happened in the face of lower intakes in 2020-2022 than in the pre - pandemic period (2019). The shelter's policies, from inadequate socialization to sloppy assessment are at fault. Reliable studies have shown that no other explanation can be found for the rising kill rate. Analysis in https://app.box.com/s/nn5d/g95f37nhiip2/5io720gazffs3z IF9 Orange County Animal Care does not employ a professional or trained and certified animal behaviorist to oversee the shelter's dog enrichment program, resulting in dogs with declining behavior being placed at greater risk of being euthanized. Comment. This is part of the overall disregard of behavior issues (except as excuses for euthanasia). F10 While many county and city animal shelters throughout the state have active Trap, Neuter, and Return programs, Orange County Animal Care stopped its Trap, Neuter, and Return program, reportedly on the basis of the County Counsel's legal opinion that the program violates a California statute related to willful animal abandonment. Page 2 of 6 111 The termination of the Trap, Neuter, and Return program is correlated with an increase in adult cat euthanasia rate at the shelter. Comment. No surprise. TNR is an investment that pays off in reduced intakes and euthanasia, especially for kittens. Here is a simple comparison: In 2019 the intake ratio of kittens : adult cats was 1.8:1; in 2022 that ratio rose to 4:1. The shelter is disproportionately taking in, and euthanizing, kittens. TNR can stem that. There have been public concerns and requests expressed over the years for public programs to include a spay/neuter program by Orange County Animal Care. Comment: Whatever the method, it is in the best interest (monetary as well as humane) of the shelter and the participating cities to reduce the overpopulation of animals. Spay/neuter programs are a good way to do that. Con°nnunication / Outreadh F''I 3 The current adoption appointment system restricts public access to the dog kennels, thereby limiting potential adopters' access to all available animals. Comment: This diminished access has slowed down adoptions, and that means animals are staying longer at the shelter. Longer stays mean higher costs, more stress, behavior problems (abetted by inadequate enrichment), and more euthanasia. The rapid increase in length of stay is analyzed by the OCShelter.com website, specifically in Appendix A of this report: https:llapp.box.com/s/2nMxb/7kac7WiLkyc88519ssiwi5pmt. IF 14 Orange County Animal Care's engagement with some animal rescue partners is negatively impacted due to differences of opinion in appropriate animal care policy. Comment: Rescue partners are being asked to shoulder the burden of bad policies. For adult dogs, in 2019 there were 6 adoptions for every transfer to rescue. In 2022, there were only 3.2 adoptions for each rescue. Adult dog intakes were 28% lower in 2022 than 2019. With fewer intakes, the shelter was unable to get animals adopted and resorted to turning up the pressure on rescues. It's only natural that the rescues do not want to shoulder the consequences of the shelter's self-inflicted problems. III 15 Internal and community engagement does not adequately communicate the shelter's mission and operating strategy. Comment: The only discernible an operating "strategy" is putting out abundant untruthful PR. F16 The information currently on the Orange County Animal Care website for low- cost spay/neuter is not up to date with regard to referrals and prices for spay/neuter procedures. Comment: The information on the website has a strained relationship to truth. A prime example is the "Fact Check" document, filled with misleading and flat-out false statements. Page 3 of 6 IIF 117 The OC County Counsel's office misstated to the Grand Jury the scope of its commitment to serving and assisting the Grand Jury in its investigations into County governance respecting managing conflicts between the Board of Supervisors, OC departments and agency clients, and the Grand Jury. II°M JUFIYIII III a III III uu ireirrit: R1 By October 1, 2023, OC Human Resource Services should review and update recruitment strategies to significantly increase the timeliness of recruitment of vacant positions and to anticipate vacancies due to retirement, resignations, transfers. (F3) Comment: This must be done faster, in regard to kennel staff. The shelter is full and kennel staffing is even more deficient now (mid-2023) than at the time of the Grand Jury analysis. IIR2 By December 31, 2023, Orange County Animal Care, OC Community Resources, and OC Human Resource Services should review hiring practices to facilitate process improvements to expedite filling OCAC vacancies. (F3) Comment: Needed faster. See above. IIIR3 By October 1, 2023, OC Community Resources and Orange County Animal Care should review their current staffing allocations of Animal Care Attendants to reflect NACA guidelines and to provide appropriate staffing allocations for animal care, feeding and enrichment. (F3, F4) Comment. Needed immediately. The shelter is full. As a result, quality of care has declined since the Grand Jury's report. Stress has increased, and so has euthanasia. By October 1, 2023, OC Community Resources and Orange County Animal Care should review their current staffing allocations of all positions within the OCAC and reallocate resources to increase Animal Care Attendants to reflect NACA guidelines to provide appropriate staffing for animal care, feeding, and enrichment. (F3, F4) Comment. Needed immediately. See above. III 5 By December 31, 2023, Orange County Animal Care management should review and update policies, procedures, guidelines, and practices to assure they are accurate and reflect current operating practices. (F5) Comment: There are steps that can be taken immediately, such as: Remove the deceptive "Fact Check" document and certain similar portions of the website. Remove the false claims of concierge service and oversold counseling that the shelter is in no position to provide. Page 4 of 6 IR6 By June 30, 2024, the Board of Supervisors should evaluate the strategic option of creating a Joint Powers Authority for the County and fourteen contract Cities to take ownership and shared responsibility for the financial and operating policies and practices of OCAC. (F1 thru F16) Welfare R7 By October 1, 2023, Orange County Animal Care management should establish written guidelines, policies, and procedures as standards for evaluating animal behavior for use by the Behavior Evaluation Committee. (F5, F7) Comment: Sorely needed. R8 By December 31, 2023, in the interests of transparency, Orange County Animal Care management should add a representative from a rescue organization to serve as a non -voting, at -large member on the Behavior Evaluation Committee. (F7, F14) Comment: Needed both to improve the decisions and to re-establish trust with rescue organizations. IIR9 By December 31, 2023, Orange County Animal Care, OC Community Resources, and OC Human Resource Services should hire an animal behaviorist or certified dog trainers to work with aggressive animals to reduce the high rate of dogs being euthanized and enhance their adoptability. (F8, F9) Comment. Needed, both to work directly with dogs and to systematically train volunteers and kennel staff, so that all can work as a team to preempt and address behavior issues. IRS 0 By December 31, 2023, the Orange County Board of Supervisors and Orange County Animal Care management should request that County Counsel reconsider its opinion about the shelter's former Trap, Neuter, and Return program, or seek an independent second opinion to County Counsel's opinion, to ascertain whether the program can be re-established, or a modified version of the program can be implemented. (F10, F11) Comment: An outside counsel opinion could be obtained on a faster timeline. By July 1, 2024, Orange County Animal Care should implement a low-cost public spay/neuter program. (F12) unii uo hi c i uu tre dIII IIIR 12 By October 1, 2023, Orange County Animal Care management should hold all- hands staff meetings at least every quarter. (F1, F2) R13 By October 1, 2023, Orange County Animal Care, OC Community Resources, and OC Human Resource Services should conduct annual Page 5 of 6 surveys of staff to monitor morale and identify opportunities for operational improvement. (F1, F2) IIR 14 By December 31, 2023, Orange County Animal Care management should open the shelter to the public for walk throughs to maximize opportunities for the public to adopt animals under the care of the shelter. (F13) Comment. There is no reason to wait until December. The shelter is full now and in dire need of more adoptions. Allowing the public to walk through the kennel areas is merely a return to the 2019 practices. It's nothing radical. If the shelter needs to ease into this, it can easily do that by designating certain days of the week as free -walk-through days. IIIRl 5 By October 1, 2023, Orange County Animal Care management should look for new ways to be more inclusive and engaged with volunteers and the rescue organizations that are necessary for the shelter's success. (F14, F15) Comment: Indeed. Both of these fall in the purview of the Community Outreach department, which has in the past run roughshod over volunteers and rescues. The entire mode of operation of this department will have to change. IR1 6 By October 1, 2023, Orange County Animal Care should schedule quarterly meetings with community stakeholders to facilitate transparency and engagement. (F14, F15) Comment: These meetings need to be inclusive and substantive. In the current Community Outreach Committee meetings, shelter management treats the community as an adversary to be undercut, not as a partner to work with. Anybody raising a question or a different point of view is beaten back. A different model is needed. R1 7 By October 1, 2023, Orange County Animal Care management should update the information currently on its website for low-cost spay/neuter of feral cats with regard to referrals and prices for spay/neuter procedures. (F16) lrnped[ments to the Investigation IIR 18 Beginning with the 2023/2024 Grand Jury training, and all training thereafter: County Counsel should provide detailed instruction about the circumstances under which the County Counsel's office might recuse itself from assisting with Grand Jury investigations and the alternatives available to the Grand Jury under such circumstances. (F17) Page 6 of 6 An Assessment of OC Animal Care — Summary Orange County Animal Care (OCAC) had excellent performance in 2019. The picture is different in 2022. For adult dogs: • The length of stay has increased by 60%. • The kill rate has increased by 104%. This is not the result of a higher number of incoming animals. Comparing 2022 to 2019: • Adult dog intakes have decreased by 28%. This drop in performance is concurrent with changes in animal care and the adoption process: • Adopters can no longer view available dogs in the kennels. • Adopters select up to two dogs to visit per appointment by perusing an online photo lineup. • Play groups for large dogs that were in existence in 2019 have been suspended. OCAC appears to be unaware of the decline in their critical metrics. • The only way to ensure continuous improvement is to have better data analysis. Length of Stay — Adult Dogs & Cats Cogs Length of Stay 2:s 2D 2.3 t� 202019 2U20 2021 2022. 2018 201.3 2020 .2021, 2022 The length of stay was estimated from the average inventory (based on values from the first and last days of year) and the annual flow (based on incoming and outgoing animals). The graphs above show that the length of stav for adult does and cats has increased dramaticallv from 2019. Cats Length of "stay. Dogs Average Incoming & Outgoing Cats Average Illnconrn4ig gC Ouitgo. ng ("CrIa 4,()00 3„500 `a,cn o Fk WLr dOpS 3„000 4,a(a�;.n 2„500l1Al�i CriL5 3,000 2,000 I noo , Summary - 1 Kill Rate — Adult Dogs duet Dog 011 Rate Are there other mitigating factors? Dog Irttakes by Size Dog Intakes by Breed ne0[7ai �Int,.Ie . .... ��ra7 Intake of three ehallenging a breeds Is LbWER Phan 2t719 ow �4d'"`"� 70047 x€ P4rrlua.i r7r 740f0i1 Ci e�nr 0prn'rp Mff a l.�rr4� DODO um VY A: lifultl 5 0ca7 sc�(aa) 40DO 4000 IWO 2WO 2000 ION 1.111, 701.6 2017 2018 2, 019 7020 20?1 1'.022 20116 201.7 2471.E 2M 9 220 2021 2- 02 2 The intakes for large dogs are somewhat lower than in 2019. The same applies for three of the more challenging breeds. If higher intakes for large dogs or challenging breeds aren't the problem, what is? The problem appears to be the long length of stay that results in: (1) a higher inventory, (2) more behavioral challenges, and (3) higher costs. What can be done? The adoption system is obviously performing poorly now compared to its performance in 2019. What was working in 2019 that isn't working today? Picking a dog: Why can't people walk through the kennels to view the dogs prior to picking a dog? An online photo lineup doesn't tell you anything about the dog's personality. Since a person can only choose two dogs to visit with, being able to see and connect with the dog prior to visiting is important. How does a person choose from multiple huskies that all look similar without seeing them in person? Reducing behavior problems & determining sociability: Play groups for the large dogs are no longer happening. Not only do play groups help reduce stress for the long term residents, but they also provide information to adopters that already have another dog at home. Summary - 2 Susana Barrios From: OC Community Cats - Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 3:29 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] 6/13/23 PUBLIC COMMENT for Anaheim City Council meeting Attachments: Gimme_Shelter_and_a_Pound_of_Advice.pdf Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. My name is Meredith Kirby. I am a volunteer and board member with the non-profit OC Community Cats. We are based in Anaheim and dedicated to the welfare of community (free -roaming) cats in North Orange County. My comment today is specifically addressing Agenda item 16 and the significant increase in the cost of services proposed by OC Animal Care, the shelter Anaheim contracts with. The NOI specifies a nearly 23% increase. However, OC Animal Care is not providing services it promised when the shelter was built. Beginning in early 2020, OC Animal Care made deliberate reductions in services and implemented policy changes that have negative impacts on the animals & residents of Anaheim, and the other cities which contract them. OC Animal Care stopped the very successful Trap, Neuter, Return (TNR) & Return to Field (RTF) programs, resulting in the population explosion of community cats. OC Animal Care no longer accepts healthy stray cats or kittens 8 weeks or older. They tell people to put them back outside where they were found. Yet they say RTF & TNR are "animal abandonment." OC Animal Care does not accept owner surrenders without collecting a $300 fee. Most people can't afford that, so cats are being dumped on the street to fend for themselves. If they are lucky, they find their way to a community cat colony. We have this happening at the colonies we manage. In May, 2 adults & 12 kittens of various ages were dumped at one of our colonies where coyotes are known to travel. OC Animal Care is still accepting some sick/injured stray cats, but they give minimal care and put these cats on "rescue track." That means the cats are available for non-profit, volunteer run, donation funded groups to rescue. Otherwise, they are euthanized. OC Animal Care now has an appointment only policy, so a potential adopter must make an appointment to see a single animal (cat, dog, bunny, etc) at a time. People can't go to the shelter and walk through the kennels to see the animals and make a connection. These policy changes have resulted in a population explosion of community cats, abandonment of cats, increases in dead animals, an uptick in Coyote activity, fewer adoptions, more killing of animals. The burden placed on the shoulders of non -profits, local veterinarians and independent rescuers is devastating. Several vets, such as Pro Pet Fix have closed. Some rescues have had to shut down. Independent rescuers are going broke. They should not have to do the shelter's job without compensation. This county funded, multimillion dollar, state of the art shelter should be providing all the services it promised to the animals and residents of Anaheim and Orange County, not less. So why are they asking for nearly 23% more? What are the animals and citizens of Anaheim getting for this increase? I suggest requiring a detailed explanation from OC Animal Care. Finally, you may not be aware that the OC Grand Jury has recently investigated OC Animal Care and issued a report with their findings and directives. I've heard from an insider that OC Animal Care is not taking it seriously. We should. Link attached. Thank you for your time & consideration. Meredith Kirby Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice TABLEOF CONTENTS.................................................................................................. 2 TABLE OF FIGURES AND TABLES............................................................................... 3 SUMMARY...................................................................................................................... 4 BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................. 5 REASONFOR STUDY................................................................................................... 8 METHODOF STUDY...................................................................................................... 8 Interviews.................................................................................................................... 8 Surveys........................................................................................................................ 9 SiteVisits..................................................................................................................... 9 KeyDocuments........................................................................................................... 9 Documents Requested but Not Provided................................................................... 10 INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS................................................................................ 10 Services and Facilities............................................................................................... 10 Volunteer and Rescue Relations............................................................................... 12 Human Resources..................................................................................................... 13 Animal Care Attendants............................................................................................. 14 Communication.......................................................................................................... 16 Policies and Procedures............................................................................................ 16 COVI D-19.................................................................................................................. 17 FacilitatingAdoption.................................................................................................. 18 Spay and Neuter Overview........................................................................................ 19 Trap, Neuter and Return............................................................................................ 20 EuthanasiaReport..................................................................................................... 22 AsilomarReports....................................................................................................... 22 Analysisof OCAC Data............................................................................................. 23 DogEuthanasia: ........................................................................................................ 25 Impediments to the Investigation............................................................................... 27 CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................. 30 FINDINGS..................................................................................................................... 31 Management: ............................................................................................................. 31 AnimalWelfare.......................................................................................................... 31 Communication / Outreach........................................................................................ 32 DMIAM-AFAMf Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice Impediments to the Investigation............................................................................... 32 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................. 33 Management: ............................................................................................................. 33 Welfare...................................................................................................................... 33 Communication / Outreach........................................................................................ 34 Impediments to the Investigation............................................................................... 35 REQUIREDRESPONSES............................................................................................36 Findings — 90-day Response Required...................................................................... 37 Recommendations — 90-day Response Required ..................................................... 38 REQUESTED RESPONSEs......................................................................................... 39 Findings — 90-Day Response Requested.................................................................. 39 Recommendations — 90-Day Response Requested .................................................. 39 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................. 40 APPENDIX1................................................................................................................. 42 Table 1 - Adult Cat Euthanasia and TNR Rates by Quarter ...................................... 42 APPENDIX2................................................................................................................. 43 Table 3 - Dog Behavioral Euthanasia Rates by Quarter ............................................ 43 APPENDIX3................................................................................................................. 44 Orange County Grand Jury Animal Shelter Contract City Survey .............................. 44 APPENDIX4................................................................................................................. 45 Orange County Grand Jury Independent City Shelter Survey ................................... 45 Appendix5.................................................................................................................... 46 OCAC 4t" Quarter 2022 Asilomar Report................................................................... 46 ABBREVIATIONS: ........................................................................................................ 47 GLOSSARY: ................................................................................................................. 48 DISCLAIMER................................................................................................................ 51 TABLE OF FIGURES AND TABLES Figure 1 - Map of Orange County.................................................................................... 7 Figure 2 - Adult Cat Euthanasia Rates.......................................................................... 24 Figure 3 - Dog Euthanasia Rates (Behavioral).............................................................. 26 OWMA WUNNOW EFUMMAH91=1 Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice Orange County Animal Care has been a source of public concern since the 1990s, with no less than five previous Orange County Grand Jury reports detailing troubling conditions. The previous reports cited excessive euthanasia rates, poor leadership, inadequate numbers of animal care attendants, a lack of cooperation between staff departments, the exclusion of kennel staff from euthanasia decisions, the lack of proper assessment of animals chosen for euthanasia, and low morale negatively impacting operation of the shelter. Recent public outcry citing conditions at the shelter, recent litigation, and publicly circulated petitions calling for changes at the shelter suggest the previously expressed concerns remain. In addition to these publicly voiced concerns, the current Orange County Grand Jury received direct complaints requesting an inquiry. The Grand Jury determined a renewed investigation was warranted. The investigation focused on three major areas of concern: the management of the shelter, the welfare of animals under shelter care, and the communication and engagement with the public and the animal rescue community. A particular concern of the Grand Jury was the shelter's termination of its Trap, Neuter, and Return (TNR) program for community cats. In early 2020, the shelter decided to stop its TNR program. The Grand Jury's investigation determined that termination of the TNR program had detrimental consequences for the welfare of the animals under the shelter's care. The elimination of the TNR program also has contributed to substantial public dissatisfaction and alienation that undermines the public's and the rescue community's relations with shelter leadership. During the Grand Jury's investigation, it was reported by the shelter's senior management that the termination of the TNR program resulted from an opinion rendered by the County's legal counsel. Understanding the reason leading to the decision to terminate the TNR program would be important for considering whether the program can and/or should be reinstated. Toward that end, the Grand Jury endeavored to obtain a copy of the opinion of the County's legal counsel by directing a written request to the Chair of the Orange County Board of Supervisors. While the Grand Jury recognizes that the opinion may enjoy confidentiality pursuant to the attorney -client privilege, the Board of Supervisors has the discretion to waive that privilege. The Grand Jury's request included its commitment to maintain the confidentiality of the opinion itself and its contents. Nevertheless, the request was declined, as was the Grand Jury's alternative request that the County simply identify the legal authority reviewed in studying the issue. Members of shelter management indicated their understanding the TNR program was terminated due to the opinion that the program violates a state law. The law makes it a crime to willfully abandon an animal notwithstanding that the program was designed to Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice return cats to their original location rather than releasing them to randomly selected sites. TNR programs are widespread throughout California, not to mention the nation as set forth in a report from the American Bar Association. The Grand Jury is unaware of any published court case determining that a bona fide TNR program is prohibited under the anti -abandonment statute. Given the important benefits to animals and the public provided by such programs, the Grand Jury believes it would be prudent for the County to revisit the propriety of the former program and consider obtaining a second legal opinion. This report highlights analysis of data provided to the Grand Jury by the shelter indicating that euthanasia rates related to dog behavior and to cats have increased significantly within the last two years. The increase in dog behavioral euthanasia rates suggests that there is inconsistency over time as to how dogs are being assessed and evaluated for behavior -related euthanasia. The increase in feline euthanasia rates appears to be correlated with elimination of the TNR program. This report also addresses the challenges in maintaining quality staff at the shelter, especially in the Animal Care Attendant positions. Hiring practices for the shelter are too cumbersome, lengthy and lack consideration of how those practices impact animal welfare. Animal Care Attendant staffing at the shelter is inadequate and Animal Care Attendant staffing vacancies need to be filled more quickly. This report discusses major deficiencies with each of the issues identified above and makes specific recommendations to help support a more engaged community. Status quo at the shelter is unacceptable. Appropriate remedial steps must be taken as animal welfare is paramount! Finally, this report comments on the difficulties the Grand Jury encountered during its investigation. Without explanation, the entirety of the Orange County County Counsel's office determined itself to be conflicted with the Grand Jury's inquiry into Orange County Animal Care. The investigation was hampered and slowed during the six weeks the Grand Jury was required to arrange for outside legal counsel. Orange County Animal Care (OCAC) began operations in 1941 and was responsible for rabies and tending to lost livestock. In 1950, the population of Orange County was roughly 216,000. By January 2022, the estimated population was 3.1 million people. OCAC provides a myriad of services over a wide territory and variety of client needs and expectations. OCAC serves the unincorporated areas of Orange County and contracts its services to 14 client cities: Anaheim, Brea, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Huntington Beach, Lake Forest, Orange, Placentia, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, Tustin, Villa Park, and Yorba Linda. The remaining cities in Orange County either have their own shelter or contract with other cities or non-profit groups to provide animal care and control services. The unincorporated areas of the county and the 14 Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice contract cities have a combined population of approximately 1.8 million residents, greater than half of the total population of Orange County. In March 2018, a new shelter was opened on a 10-acre site at a cost of $35 million. The shelter includes a two-story, approximately 30,000 square -foot main building, six stand- alone kennel buildings, multiple dog play yards, a barnyard, and a rabbit housing area. OCAC can shelter up to 600 animals and is the single largest municipal animal facility in the western United States serving residents in one location. OCAC has 137 authorized staff positions. Approximately 21 staff are animal care attendants who are represented by the Teamsters Union. All other staff are represented by the Orange County Employees Association. Labor relations and contract terms must be taken into consideration while operating the shelter. OCAC, like most municipal shelters, relies upon a variety of rescue support groups and citizen volunteers to enhance animal welfare and outcomes. The relationship between shelter management, rescue groups, and volunteers has deteriorated in the last three years. The historical partnership between the shelter and rescue groups has become stressed due to a variety of reasons. The breakdown in communication, engagement, and trust between parties has negatively affected shelter operations. Most large municipal shelters are "kill" shelters, which are shelters where animals may be euthanized for any of a variety of reasons. Privately operated shelters and smaller municipal shelters tend to be non -kill shelters. Non -kill shelters may euthanize some animals in special cases, but generally do not euthanize animals. Large municipal shelters, owing to their size, capacity, public responsibility, operational mandates, and their positioning as "shelters of last resort," euthanize animals as a matter of course. Animals are euthanized for a variety of reasons, such as: they suffer from irredeemable disease or injury, they are of a species that represent a danger to the community, or they are behaviorally unfit for adoption. Many shelters have Trap, Neuter and Return (TNR) programs. In accordance with these programs, feral and community cats are captured from their outdoor environment, taken to a shelter or veterinarian where they are neutered, and then returned to the location from where they were trapped. TNR programs serve to reduce colonies of feral and community cats in a humane manner and serve to manage and reduce this cat population. OCAC had a TNR program beginning in 2013 until early 2020 when it was discontinued. Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice Figure 1- Map of Orange County Cities Contracted with Orange County Animal Care The map above shows the cities and unincorporated areas currently contracted with OCAC. All city contracts are not alike in that OCAC may provide partial services for some cities and full services for others. MMIMIMQ� , ,; Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice In 2022, the Grand Jury received 14 complaints about the Orange County Animal Care (OCAC) shelter. Many of those complaints were the same complaints addressed in five previous Grand Jury reports, including: • the shelter's unresponsiveness to community needs, • restricted public access to the shelter's kennels, • restricted opportunities to walk through the kennels and engage with adoptable animals, and • concerns related to inadequate staffing and volunteer levels. Complainants also expressed concerns about animal surrenders, a perceived increase in homeless cats with less spay/neuter availability, and the shelter's increased euthanasia rates. About the same time the Grand Jury was receiving public complaints about the shelter, a petition with thousands of signatures was delivered to the Orange County Board of Supervisors. The petition addressed the same concerns as the complaints received by the Grand Jury and demanded change in the shelter's appointment -only system and reinstatement of the shelter's TNR program. The Grand Jury also learned about a lawsuit filed by Elizabeth Hueg, Safe Rescue Team (a California 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation), and Cats In Need Of Human Care (another California 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation) seeking an injunction from the Orange County Superior Court for the assignment of a shelter monitor to oversee shelter operations. The 2022-2023 Grand Jury revisited OCAC because public discussion pointed to new and allegedly ongoing and unresolved concerns about shelter operations. The Grand Jury focused on current practices at OCAC to determine how well the needs of the animals, staff, and public are being met. The Orange County Grand Jury's objective is to provide an accurate portrayal of OCAC's current operations, culture, inner workings, and challenges. The Grand Jury investigation relied on interviews, public and shelter documents, surveys, site visits, and news accounts about the shelter. The information supporting the facts, findings, and recommendations in this report is corroborated, validated, and verified through multiple sources. haterviews iu The interviews conducted by the Grand Jury focused on an in-depth review of OCAC management, staffing, operating structure, animal care procedures, communications, animal care statistics, operating plan, organization structure, morale, the volunteer Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice program, relationship with rescue organizations, and complaints. Interviews included the following: • Management and staff from OCAC. • Current and former volunteers from OCAC. • Management from the OC Community Resources (OCCR) office. • Management from the Orange County Centralized Human Resources and OCCR Human Resources offices. • Community complainants from Orange County Grand Jury Public Concern Letters. • Retained outside legal counsel. • Leaders of Orange County city -managed shelters. • Animal advocates. Surveys The Grand Jury solicited feedback from the shelter's clients by surveying the 14 cities contracted with OCAC to provide animal care and control services. Questions in the survey were crafted to determine city satisfaction with the services provided and cost effectiveness, and to solicit any concerns city leaders, managers, and residents may have with OCAC. (Appendix 3) A second survey was directed to the five independent city -managed animal shelters in Orange County, soliciting information about their shelter operations, staffing, animal population, adoption procedures, and other challenges. (Appendix 4) Site Visits The Grand Jury conducted tours and site visits to the OCAC shelter: One visit was a guided tour of the facility, during which the Grand Jury was provided behind -the -scenes access to observe conditions and observe shelter staff as they went about their daily routines. A second visit was an anonymous visit by two members of the Grand Jury. The two members visited the shelter to experience, firsthand, guest services and the appointment process for adopting an animal. A third visit was an unscheduled visit to observe kennel cleaning and to gather additional documents and records. The Grand Jury also toured the City of Irvine Animal Shelter and the Mission Viejo Animal Services Center. Key Dommients • Documents and information provided by OCAC: o Policy and Procedure Manual governing the Orange County Animal Shelter o Volunteer Program Manual Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice o Total number of volunteers who have served by year since 2018 o Organization Charts o Job Descriptions of all authorized and contracted positions o Statistics on animals under OCAC care, including adoptions o The OCAC Monthly and Quarterly National Shelter Statistics Project Data Matrix (2018-2022) o OCAC euthanasia records o OCAC Asilomar Reports • OCGJ cat and dog euthanasia statistical analysis derived from OCAC euthanasia records and OCAC Asilomar Reports • City Run Shelters and Contracted City survey responses and summaries • Reports from city -managed shelters • OCGJ Public Concern Letters • Legal briefs filed in the lawsuit against OCAC (Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2022-01282419-CU-WM-CJC) • Reports from five former OC Grand Juries: 1999-2000, 2003-2004, 2007-2008, and 2014-2015 (2 reports in 2014-2015) • OCAC Performance Audit responses (February 4, 2016) • American Bar Association legal opinion 102B, Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section report to House of Delegates - Resolution No. 29N, pages 1 and 2 • California Penal Code Section 597s • OCAC Strategic Plan Executive Summary (January 22, 2018) - Strategic Priority, pages 1 to 4 • Association of Shelter Veterinarians Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters Daily census of all animals plus breakdown of number of cats and dogs from 2018 through 2022 (not provided by OCAC since it reportedly is not tracked). Complaints and Grievance log. The Grand Jury attempted, without success, to obtain a copy of OC County Counsel's opinion concerning the terminated TNR program. The Grand Jury's request to the Chair of the Orange County Board of Supervisors for a copy of the opinion was denied, as was an alternative request that the County simply identify the legal authority reviewed in studying the issue. Services ilia IlFr dill IIII [fines The Orange County Animal Care (OCAC) shelter is the largest municipal shelter in the western United States serving residents in one location. The nature, size, and scope of the shelter adds complexity and unique challenges to its operation. The shelter employs 137 staff engaged in a variety of functions including animal sheltering and care, animal control, reuniting lost pets with their owners, veterinary services, licensing, adoption, marketing, public relations, and administration. Supporting the varied needs of over 1.8 Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice million residents requires a substantial investment in facilities, infrastructure, personnel, organization, customer service, and public outreach. OCAC provides temporary shelter and medical care for "lost" owned or stray animals and opportunities for adoption of these animals. OCAC houses and provides medical care for impounded dogs, cats, and exotic animals. OCAC also provides animal control services that include removing dangerous non -domesticated animals where they pose a hazard to humans or other animals. OCAC is not a No -Kill shelter. OCAC euthanizes animals for several different and sometimes compelling reasons, including animals injured beyond redemptive medical care, behavior, species and breed, and age. The size and complexity of the shelter leads to numerous managerial and operational challenges. The shelter has space capacity to care for up to 600 animals; however, at times, the number of animals at the shelter exceeds shelter capacity. When capacity is exceeded, temporary capacity is created by moving cat cages into administrative areas such as the facility's training and conference room. On the day the Grand Jury toured the shelter, there were 450 animals. The Grand Jury was unable to obtain a full accounting of the average number of animals per day at the facility since OCAC only began keeping daily animal census records in December 2022. However, the Grand Jury was able to estimate average daily cat and dog count from the shelter's Asilomar reports. Average daily cat and dog count based on quarterly Asilomar data for the years 2021 and 2022 was between 350 and 400 cats and dogs. Actual daily counts will vary from the average and counts vary with the seasons. The Grand Jury surveyed the cities being served by OCAC. Most cities expressed satisfaction with the services provided by the shelter. During interviews with the Grand Jury, shelter management voiced the challenge of expanding and enhancing services versus the willingness of contract cities to pay for additional services. Shelter management expressed the need to balance services with the cost consciousness of their contract cities and the county budget, while also providing a level of service expected by the public. Shelter management expressed awareness that contract cities have alternative service options if the prices charged by OCAC for its service are beyond city expectations or budget. From 1995 through 2016, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) collected and published data from California's animal shelters. Currently, CDPH does not keep or compile comprehensive data on animal shelters operating within the State. Out of concern for crowding and high euthanasia rates, animal welfare groups within the State have pressed for legislative action in Sacramento. In January of 2023, Assembly Bill 332, called the "Shelter Animal Collection Data Act," was introduced by Assemblyman Alex Lee (D-San Jose) and coauthored by Assemblywoman Marie Waldron (R-Valley Center). Assembly Bill 332, if adopted, would require shelter data collection and reporting that piggybacks onto current rabies reporting mandates. The bill would further require CDPH to collect and publish animal shelter intake and outcome data, including adoption, redemption, euthanasia, and other categories. Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice Voluriteer arid Rescue Relations Most animal shelters rely on a host of shelter volunteers to help with the care and enrichment of the animals under supervision, and they also rely on private rescue organizations (rescues) to help with the adoption process and fostering. OCAC is no exception. Shelter volunteers help by assisting shelter staff with animal care, socialization, and enrichment; community outreach and events; conducting tours; greeting shelter visitors; and assisting with shelter adoptions. Volunteers are often the ones who walk the dogs, work with their socialization, and foster kittens without mothers. The volunteer program is vital. Rescue organizations help by accepting animals from the shelter and facilitating adoptions or placing animals in foster care for eventual adoption. Rescues help relieve the shelter of overcrowding. These organizations benefit animals by facilitating adoptions or placing them in foster homes with enriched social environments greater than the shelter can reasonably provide. The coordinated efforts of shelter staff, volunteers, and rescue organizations are vital to OCAC's success and the welfare of animals under its care. OCAC has been challenged by both inadequate staffing and strained collaboration between the shelter, volunteers, and rescues. Some challenges are the result of the recent COVID-19 crisis, when the volunteer program was shut down in response to County health mandates. Other challenges are due to some rescue organizations' responses to changes in shelter organization, operation, and procedures within the last 2 to 3 years. Moreover, some organizations report recent funding challenges that limit their ability to fully assist the shelter with its animal welfare mandate. Funding has been especially challenging for rescues since COVID-19. The shelter's volunteer program was not restarted until late 2022, although state COVID- 19 restrictions were lifted June 15, 2021. Unfortunately, restarting the program required more than calling all volunteers back from COVID-19 isolation. Some former volunteers have not returned because they have moved on with their lives. Some volunteers have not returned because of their dissatisfaction with recent changes in organization, operation, and procedures at the shelter. However, some volunteers have returned, and more are being recruited to form the foundation for a re -energized volunteer program. Relationships between the shelter and some rescues remain strained. Leadership changes within the past three years, changes in circumstances at the shelter, and the shelter's response to COVID-19 resulted in changes to shelter priorities and practices to which some rescues object. Some changes were precipitated by differences in priorities and concerns that came with the change in shelter leadership, some changes were in response to COVID-19 restrictions and concerns, and one change came as the result of the shelter's response to a threat of litigation by a lone animal activist from outside Orange County challenging the shelter's TNR program. Strained relations between OCAC and rescue organizations are detrimental to the operations of the shelter and ultimately to the welfare of animals under the shelter's care. Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice To operate at its highest potential, OCAC needs to have a good working relationship with the rescues. Rescues want to have a good working relationship with OCAC. During Grand Jury interviews, both management at OCAC and representatives of rescues indicated a desire to work to resolve their differences, and both expressed the welfare of the animals as being their highest priority. OCAC will benefit if it has a robust outreach program to continually recruit volunteers and will benefit by engaging with the rescue community to mend the fractured relationship that has developed between them. Human Flesources The OCAC shelter is a 24/7 facility that requires adequate staffing during all hours to meet the highest standards of animal welfare. Continuity of leadership at the OCAC shelter has been a challenge over the past four years with turnover in management and supervisorial staff level positions. Over the past four years, two executive directors have been hired with interim leadership having to be provided on two separate occasions. The Chief Veterinary position went unfilled for months until the current Chief Veterinarian was brought onboard in May 2022. Between September 2021 and May 2022, the shelter did not have a chief or a staff veterinarian and services were provided by one contract veterinarian. OCAC is under the direction of OC Community Resources (OCCR). However, day-to- day human resource and recruitment support for the shelter is performed by OC Human Resource Services (OCHRS). OCHRS provides separate, targeted human resource support for OCAC's recruitment, labor relations, and employee relations needs. Personnel turnover in critical job categories, such as kennel attendants, can add huge pressure to the remaining staff. Vacancies in critical positions strain shelter operations and impact animal welfare. There are currently 21 allocated Animal Care Attendant positions out of the 136 shelter staff positions. The 21 animal care attendants are assigned to fill the shelter's attendant needs over the 7-day shelter week. There is reason for concern and urgency when even one Animal Care Attendant position goes unfilled. County policies and practices exacerbate high turnover and make filling vacant positions difficult. Current county practice allows an employee to promote out of their shelter position, or any position, at any time, even while they are still within their probationary period. The ease and fluidity of transitioning adds to the shelter's understaffing and staffing volatility. Staff vacancies, which have been as high as 23%, negatively impact shelter operations and have taken as long as six months or longer to fill. Delays in filling staff positions disrupt shelter operations. Delays have resulted in qualified candidates declining job offers because they have accepted other positions. Animal Care Attendant and Veterinarian positions are particularly critical and vital to the welfare of the shelter's animals. While OCCR has taken some steps to correct hiring delays, there needs to be an increased sense of urgency when posting and filling critical vacant positions. Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice As a unionized organization, limitations exist which impact the assignment of human resources within the shelter's organization and daily operations. Staff are siloed into operational categories and job functions, which limits managerial flexibility in their ability to respond to special operational needs. An inflexibility in management's ability to respond to vacancies in Animal Care Attendant staffing is one such example. Staffing limitations and operational inflexibility has resulted in instances of inefficient allocation of shelter human resources. Moreover, labor rules limit shelter volunteers from performing certain duties that must be performed by shelter employees. Volunteers are drawn to the shelter out of a desire to work and care for the animals. Restricting volunteers from lending a hand when they see the need is disheartening to the volunteers. Animal Care Attendants Animal care attendants at OCAC provide the direct, daily care of the animals. They attend to several areas of responsibilities: • Intaking animals brought to the shelter by the public or impounded by animal control or the cities, entering information about the animal into the shelter's data base, and taking pictures of the animals. • Feeding and watering of all the shelter's animals — domestic, exotic, and wild. • Cleaning and disinfecting kennels, cages, corrals, and equipment and maintaining the general cleanliness of the shelter's kennel facilities. • Monitoring, documenting, and reporting on the health and well-being of sick, exotic, and quarantined animals; reporting any abnormalities or changes in condition to veterinary staff. • Assisting with animal adoptions, including providing counseling on breed characteristics, matching and introducing the appropriate animal to the potential adopter, and instructing adopters in basic animal care. • Grooming the animals for the health and comfort of the animals. • Responding to public inquiries about legal retention, adoption procedures, basic animal care, and behavior. Animal Care Attendants may be assigned into any one of three areas of responsibility: Intake, Cat Team, or Dog Team. Usually, Intake has two Animal Care Attendants assigned to it; they may receive 30 to 60 animals per day. The Cat Team is responsible for the kennel areas housing cats, kittens, rabbits, guinea pigs and other animals. Their duties include cleaning and feeding, enrichment, adoption and the other activities discussed above. The Dog Team is responsible for the kennel areas housing dogs. Their duties include cleaning and feeding, enrichment, adoption and the other activities noted above. In 2016, OCAC brought in professional consultants to provide recommendations for a 2018 Strategic Plan. One of the consultant's recommendations was for the shelter to increase staffing allocation to 26 Animal Care Attendant positions. OCAC did not implement that recommendation. Additionally, the consultant recommended the shelter follow the Association of Shelter Veterinarians (ASV) Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters. Those practices include National Animal Control Association (NACA) Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice guidelines and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) guidelines (which is the current standard). The allocation of Animal Care Attendants at OCAC is insufficient for the shelter to meet industry standards for level of care. NACA and HSUS recommend a minimum of 15 minutes of care per day per animal for feeding and cleaning each animal housed in the shelter; 9 minutes for cleaning and 6 minutes for feeding and watering. There are currently 21 Animal Care Attendant positions allocated at the shelter. Three positions were vacant as of May 1, 2023. A normal Animal Care Attendant daily shift at the shelter is 10 hours, of which the attendants are expected to spend half their time cleaning, feeding, and watering the animals and half their time attending to other responsibilities, including those responsibilities noted above. Half the Animal Care Attendants work from Wednesday through Saturday and the others work Sunday through Wednesday. Animal Care Attendants spend about 4'/2 hours cleaning and feeding the animals each day. The Grand Jury evaluated the Animal Care Attendant's workload during the four -month period between December 4, 2022 and April 10, 2023. Individual Animal Care Attendants cared for 48 animals per shift on average and in some cases up to 90 animals per shift. Conservatively, Animal Care Attendants at the shelter spend less than 6 minutes on average per animal attending to cleaning and feeding, which is much less than the 15 minutes recommended by the NACA and HSUS guidelines. Of note, the four -month period reviewed by the Grand Jury is not the shelter's busy season. During kitten season, the cats and kittens alone can number up to 500 to 600 cats and kittens per day. The Grand Jury could not evaluate daily census records prior to December 4, 2022 because OCAC did not keep daily animal census records prior to that date. There are still other needs the animals have, such as time for animal enrichment which is required daily. The other half of the Animal Attendant's shift is devoted to picking up animals from intake, showing animals for potential adoptions, walking dogs, stocking supplies, washing dishes or other non -direct animal care tasks. ASV Guidelines stress enrichment should be given the same significance as feeding, watering, and veterinary care. Successful enrichment programs prevent the development and display of abnormal behavior and provide for the well-being of the animal. Regular positive daily social interaction with humans is essential for both dogs and cats. Animals need daily walking, playing, grooming, petting, etc. OCAC's 2018 Strategic Plan called for all sheltered dogs and cats to receive appropriate daily enrichment tailored to their needs. The Grand Jury found that other shelters in Orange County walk their dogs several times per day and provide numerous opportunities for enrichment. At the OCAC shelter, dogs are not always walked daily. Instead, animal care attendants only walk dogs every other day, as time permits. The Grand Jury recognizes that resources are limited, but the shelter must prioritize the welfare of the animals over other shelter operation considerations. This puts pressure on management to operate the shelter efficiently. Other animal care facilities report 50% of Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice their staff provide direct care to their animals. At OCAC, only 15% of staff provide direct care. The Grand Jury recommends a review of the current allocation of positions within OCAC. OCAC has 137 budgeted staff positions of which only 21 positions provide direct care to the animals. Assigning adequate resources to the direct care of the animals must be a priority as the health and welfare of the animals is the shelter's primary charge. The current allocation of Animal Care Attendant positions is insufficient. Cornmunication The shelter's organizational challenges are numerous; many challenges are systemic, but some are self-inflicted. With many constituents, such as shelter staff, volunteers, rescue organizations, and the public at large, robust communication programs are essential to addressing the concerns and needs of both internal and external audiences. Collaboration and communication within the shelter are lacking. Departments within the shelter are siloed. Staff within departments focus solely on their duties and responsibilities and are not encouraged to think of their efforts as being part of a "Big Picture." Morale is reported to be low. Workplace rules and position classifications tend to discourage a collaborative mindset. In March 2015, the Orange County Office of the Performance Director issued a report on the OCAC. The OC Auditor noted that, among other things, the shelter was not holding regular "all -hands" staff meetings. The Auditor recommended that the shelter hold meetings at least every quarter. The 2014/2015 Orange County Grand Jury report of the OCAC made the same recommendation. The response from OCAC to this Grand Jury report was that all -hands meetings were implemented. However, all -hands meetings currently do not occur at any regularly scheduled interval. Although shelter staff have a general sense of shelter operations and functions, the shelter is a siloed work environment. Without regularly scheduled all -hands meetings, staff have little opportunity to hear and be heard by shelter leadership and for management to communicate a consistent message. Shelter volunteers are limited to a program that effectively segregates them from shelter staff and management. Volunteers have little to no voice or effective input into the shelter's decision hierarchy. II 011lli cifi s and Rrocedure The Grand Jury found that the shelter's Policies and Procedures manual does not undergo regular internal review. There are policies and procedures in the manual that do not reflect current shelter practices. Additionally, there are important shelter practices and functions that are not addressed or are inadequately documented within the manual. There are some policies and procedures in the manual addressing programs that are no longer relevant or where the manual describes practices that are outdated. It is evident some policies and procedures in the manual have from time to time been inserted or revised, but those cases appear to be done on an ad -hoc basis and are not methodical. Individual policies and procedures documented in the manual are annotated with the date they became effective and, when applicable, revised. However, there is nothing to Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice indicate when or if a policy or procedure has been contemporarily reviewed and determined to be relevant, accurate, and applicable. Some policies and procedures in the manual were written as long ago as the late 1970s with revisions in the mid-2000s. There is no indication that any particular policy or procedure has been reviewed as current and appropriate, or by whom, or when. Operating a shelter without up-to-date, reliable policies, procedures, and guidelines make formal training difficult, if not impossible, and results in inconsistent operating protocols and practices. More importantly, when new staff are hired, training becomes "on the job training" and subject to inconsistency. With the high level of turnover at the shelter, it is all the more important to ensure policies and procedures are up to date. COVID-19 The impacts of COVID-19 on shelter operations should not go unacknowledged. Shelter operations were severely strained as state and county COVID-19 restrictions were put into place. The shelter was effectively closed to the public. Emergency protocols and practices were put into place to ensure the safety of the public and OCAC staff. Leadership had to manage a 24-hour shelter, with many members of the staff required to work on site. Work shifts and resources had to be juggled to ensure staffing was sufficient and personnel were kept safe. Within the limits of the shelter's staffing allocation, management created a Team A/Team B system that isolated one half of the staff from the other half of the staff. Staff came into work only during those days and hours their assigned team was scheduled. Extraordinary sanitation protocols were put into place. Nevertheless, when COVID-19 illnesses did occur, management and staff rose to the occasion, working flexibly and cooperatively to prioritize the care of the animals. Both shelter leadership and staff are to be commended for managing shelter operations through a difficult time. Unfortunately, the volunteer program was suspended during COVID-19 restrictions and engagement with rescues was significantly impacted. The volunteer program was slow to be restarted. Shelter management could and should have anticipated the end of COVID- 19 restrictions and worked toward reinstating the shelter's volunteer program much earlier than late 2022. Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice F��acflitafing Adoption During COVID-19, most animal shelters, including OCAC, closed or restricted their shelters to public access, including stopping all public walk-in visits. Prior to COVID-19, the adoption process at the shelter was relatively open. The public was at liberty to visit the shelter at their convenience without an appointment. The cat and dog kennels were mostly open to public viewing where a potential adopter could experience first-hand the size, look, and manner of a potential adoptee. Volunteers and staff were available to facilitate an intimate meeting where humans and animals could interact and bond. The experience was unconstrained, spontaneous, instinctive, and natural. OCAC previously had an animal behaviorist who worked with stressed animals to facilitate their adoptability. OCAC eliminated the animal behaviorist position. Other animal shelters in Orange County have animal behaviorists working with their animals to facilitate adoptability. During COVID-19, public adoptions were carried out by appointment only and computer facilitated. The public was required to schedule an appointment to visit the shelter. Up to three animals could be selected on the shelter's website from photographs and biographical information about the animals. A one-on-one meet -up with the animal(s) followed. People without computer access could use the shelter's computer kiosk to select an animal, but by appointment only. If a suitable animal was not found among the animals selected via computer, kennel staff might make recommendations to the potential adopter. Currently, the adoption process is less restrictive than during COVID-19 but remains more restrictive than pre-COVID-19. The current appointment system is restrictive and Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice does not provide prospective adopters viewing access to all available adoptable animals. The shelter has opened to limited walk-ins on a stand-by basis when there are openings in the appointment schedule and when staff are available to assist. All potential adopters, appointments, and walk-ins are still required to use the shelter's website to pre -select potential adoptees prior to a one-on-one meeting. The kennels are still off-limits to all visitors. OCAC leadership expressed concern about bites to visitors as the primary reason for restricting kennel access. The shelter experienced a marked drop in bites coincidental with the closure of the facility to the public when COVID-19 restrictions were implemented: • 2019 — 23 bites • 2020 — 7 bites • 2021 — 3 bites • 2022 — 2 bites (as of December 23) However, not all dogs are bite risks and there is space throughout the kennel facilities to provide for public viewing. Public safety is important, however, dogs representing bite risks can be segregated, and supervised viewing is a viable option. Shelter leadership said that public viewing within the kennels stresses the animals and that restricting access keeps the animals calm. However, to address that concern, dogs prone to excitability and stress can be secluded, and supervised viewing is an option. Spay and NeLder Overview As mentioned earlier, the population of Orange County in 1950 was about 216,000. Today the contract cities and unincorporated county areas served by OCAC has a population of approximately 1,800,000. With the population increase comes an increase in the number of dogs, cats, and other pets. Euthanasia of animals at the shelter is a challenging problem confronting OCAC and pet owners. In most cases, members of the public either bring lost animals to the shelter to be reunited with their owners or bring their own animals to be adopted to new homes. Few people bring animals to the shelter to be euthanized. One reason OCAC has so many animals and a high incidence of euthanasia is that many pet owners do not spay/neuter their pets and thereby allow them to reproduce beyond the owner's ability to care for the offspring. Uncontrolled reproduction is a factor in the high population of dogs and especially cats. According to a 2011 report by the North Shore Animal League of America, each day over 70,000 puppies and kittens are born in the United States, and because of overpopulation, more than 3.7 million animals are still being euthanized each year across the country. The absence of TNR at the shelter has seriously increased the rate of euthanasia of cats, especially kittens, who are not old enough or healthy enough to adopt. Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice Many communities incentivize sterilization of pet dogs by significantly lowering the cost of dog licenses for sterilized dogs in their city. Generally, community shelters and rescue organizations will only allow spayed/neutered animals for adoption or require the new owner have the animal spayed/neutered as part of the adoption process. Some complaints received by the Grand Jury assert that the public has requested low/no cost spay/neuter assistance from OCAC without success. OCAC does not offer low or no cost spay/neuter clinics or events but does list on its website feral cat low cost spay/neuter resources. However, the Grand Jury found that some of the listed phone numbers are incorrect and for those that are correct, some of the listed prices are incorrect. Providing a low/no cost spay/neuter clinic would provide a great service to the community, decrease overpopulation of animals, and decrease the potential euthanasia of cats and dogs. ra p, Neuter and Rehm ii OCAC began a pilot Trap, Neuter, and Return (TNR) program for cats in 2013 and over the following years saw cat intake and euthanasia decrease dramatically. TNR has been shown to be the most humane, efficient way of stabilizing feral and community cat populations. TNR is an animal control program practiced by many animal shelters throughout the United States and the State of California. Prior to April 2020, the Orange County Animal Shelter had an active Trap, Neuter, and Return program. Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice OCAC's TNR program was a cooperative endeavor that depended and relied on the efforts of participating non-profit rescue organizations and individual members of the community. Both OCAC and community participants worked together to make the TNR program successful. Non -profits and interested members of the animal welfare community performed the field work necessary to trap feral and community cats and transport the cats to the shelter. OCAC received the animals, performed the spay and neuter procedure, vaccinated the animals, and treated them for injuries or disease. When the animals were healthy, fit, and ready for return to their outdoor home, the same non-profit organization or community members retrieved the cats from the shelter and returned them to the same location from which they were trapped. OCAC only provided TNR related services within its shelter facility and did not participate in locating, trapping, or returning the animals to the location from where they were trapped. However, OCAC played an integral role in the TNR process. When OCAC's participation in the TNR program ended, TNR within the county effectively ceased. OCAC's TNR program was popular among many local animal welfare groups and individuals and is a necessary element to the continuance of a viable TNR program throughout the county. The Grand Jury recognizes there is disagreement among animal control and welfare advocates whether TNR is effective in reducing feral and community cat populations, whether TNR serves the best interest of the individual animal, and whether TNR is an environmentally sound practice. In Orange County at least, there apparently is also disagreement whether TNR programs violate a provision of the California Penal Code dealing with malicious mischief. Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice California Penal Code Section 597s states: (a) Every person who willfully abandons any animal is guilty of a misdemeanor. (b) This section shall not apply to the release or rehabilitation and release of native California wildlife pursuant to statute or regulations of the California Department of Fish and Game. As best as the Grand Jury can determine, the validity of California Penal Code Section 597s or its interpretation or application has never been adjudicated in a reported California court decision. According to a report published by the American Bar Association, it is questionable whether a bona fide TNR program, in which animals are returned to the same location where they were trapped, constitutes willful abandonment. In or about late 2019/early 2020, OCAC received a cease -and -desist complaint demanding that it end its participation in the TNR program. OCAC referred the complaint to OC County Counsel. County Counsel reviewed and responded to the referral in an opinion. The Grand Jury went to great lengths to obtain a copy of County Counsel's opinion, to no avail. The Grand Jury requested a copy of the opinion from OCAC, the County Counsel, the Orange County Board of Supervisors, and Orange County Public Resources. As of the publication of this report, the Grand Jury was not able to acquire a copy of County Counsel's opinion. The Grand Jury was informed that OCCR and OCAC management were advised they could be held personally liable for any legal action arising out of continuance of the TNR program. OCAC's TNR program was terminated in or about April 2020. IIE1��uthanasia I iir OCAC keeps detailed records of each animal it euthanizes. The Grand Jury reviewed a comprehensive list of all euthanasia outcomes at the shelter spanning the period August 19, 2018 through December 4, 2022. The shelter euthanized 11,143 animals during that period. Of the euthanized animals, 5,123 were identified as either domestic cats or dogs. (Feral cats are classified as domestic animals.) The remaining 6,020 euthanized animals included other domestic and/or non -domesticated animals. OCAC's records identify every euthanized animal's date of euthanasia, estimated age, sex, species, breed, and the reason for euthanasia. Estimated animal ages span one day to 50 years. Species span domestic cats and dogs to domestic and/or non - domesticated animals such as snakes, birds, opossums, bats, rabbits, raccoons, skunks, lizards, rats, squirrels, coyotes, deer, and more. Reasons for euthanasia are varied and include irredeemable suffering, Head Test (rabies), disease, behavior, age, species (public safety), and owner request. s uii Bl air Reparts In 2004, leaders representing national organizations and industry stakeholders gathered to find common ground in the animal welfare field. Together, they wrote the Asilomar Accords, which establishes common definitions and a standardized way of reporting shelter statistics. Asilomar reports are statistical reports that animal shelters compile documenting their animal intakes and outcomes. The reports are aggregated into a national Shelter Animals Count National Database. Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice OCAC compiles records and participates according to the Asilomar Accords data collection methods. The shelter publishes its Asilomar reports on its website. OCAC's data includes statistics on monthly (pre-2021) and quarterly (post-2021) cat and dog intake and outcomes such as adoptions, transfers, returns to owner, and euthanasia. Analysis f'C C Data The Grand Jury reviewed euthanasia and Asilomar outcomes to evaluate whether termination of the TNR program may have had any impact on euthanasia rates at the shelter. Possibly confounding the issue is the fact that COVID-19 restrictions were put into place about the same time the TNR program was terminated. Figure 2 shows quarterly OCAC Asilomar adult cat TNR outcomes and adult cat euthanasia outcomes from the 3rd quarter of 2018 through the end of 2022. TNR rates are represented as a percent of total Asilomar outcomes. Euthanasia rates are represented as a percent of total Asilomar outcomes net of TNR outcomes. Juvenile cats are not included in the review because the shelter's juvenile cat population varies widely with the season and, moreover, juveniles are not candidates for TNR. Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice Figure 2 - Adult Cat Euthanasia Rates Adult Cats Euthanized vs. Adult Cats TNR as a % of Total Asiloirnar Outcomes * 60% TNR program terminated and Calif. Covid Restrictions 50% Begin 40% 30% 20% . ....... .......... 10% 1 Average = 20.9% 0% Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Calif. Covid Restrictions End Average = 28.8% .. I., .......... 1. . � ........ A_ - - - . .......... *Adult cats euthanized as a% Asilomar outcomes net of TNR outcomes. - - �'� - , - " _" - -- * - - , e , - - - �// 11 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 --Adult Cats Euthanized TNR Figure 2 illustrates that adult cat euthanasia rates increased at OCAC following the termination of the TNR program and the beginning of COVID-19 restrictions. The average adult cat euthanasia rate in the period from the 3rd quarter of 2018 through the 1st quarter of 2020 (pre-TNR termination and COVID-19 restrictions) was 20.9%. The average adult cat euthanasia rate in the period from the 2nd quarter of 2020 through the end of 2022 (post-TNR and COVID-19) was 28.8%. The increase in the rate of adult cat euthanasia following TNR/COVID-1 9 is 38% over the previous period. The increase is statistically significant. (See Appendix 1) Comparing adult cat euthanasia rates pre-TNR and post-TNR ... the termination of the TNR program correlate to an increase in adult cat euthanasia rate at the shelter. To evaluate whether circumstances related to COVID-19 accounted for the increase in euthanasia rates, the rates from the post-COVID-19/post-TNR termination were compared to the rates pre-COVID-19/pre-TNR termination. Again, the average adult cat Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice euthanasia rate before COVID-19 and during the TNR program was 20.9%. The average adult cat euthanasia rate after COVID-19 restrictions were lifted but still during the termination of the TNR program (Q3 2021 — Q4 2022) was 25.4%. The increase in the rate of adult cat euthanasia following termination of the TNR program but after COVID- 19 restrictions were lifted is 21 % over the pre-TNR termination/pre-COVID-19 restrictions rate. Again, the increase is statistically significant. Comparing adult cat euthanasia rates pre-TNR and post-TNR and pre- and post-COVID- 19 restrictions, it appears both COVID-19 restrictions and the termination of the TNR program correlate to an increase in adult cat euthanasia rate at the shelter. II[)og I t °III iinasia: OCAC euthanizes animals for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to injuries beyond redemptive medical care, age, and behavior. When OCAC euthanizes a dog for medical reasons, the Chief Veterinarian or a staff veterinarian must approve the procedure. In the case of behavior -related euthanasia, approval is determined by a five - member Behavior Evaluation Committee. OCAC euthanizes dogs that are determined to have irredeemable behavioral issues, including displays of aggression toward people or other animals, bites, and severe kennel stress. The five members of the Behavior Evaluation Committee include staff members representing Field Operations, Animal Services Operations, the Community Outreach team, the Chief Veterinarian, and a representative from senior management. While there are five staff members represented on the Behavior Evaluation Committee, only three participants are voting members. The Chief Veterinarian and the member from senior management serve only as advisory members. A majority of the three voting members of the committee must approve a behavioral euthanasia — that is, at least two of the three voting members must approve. OCAC's Behavior Evaluation Committee evaluates dogs for euthanasia without written guidelines, policies, or procedures, resulting in inconsistent outcomes over time. Behavior -evaluated euthanasia outcomes are dependent on the experience and personal considerations of the individual committee members and management rather than written objective standards. The voting members of the Behavior Evaluation Committee may evaluate behavior based on their own observations and/or on the written reports of other staff members. The voting members are not required to directly observe a dog's behavior, and in some cases have not made direct observation, but they do have access to video documentation of a dog's behavior. Voting members come to their own conclusions based on their own understanding of dog behavior and rehabilitative potential. OCAC does not have a professional licensed, trained, or certified animal behaviorist on staff to oversee the dog enrichment programs, resulting in dogs with declining behavior being placed at greater risk of being euthanized. Voting members of the Behavior Evaluation Committee are not required to certify or participate in animal behavior education programs. The Behavior Evaluation Committee meets once per week and participation of the voting member from any one of the three voting departments may be Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice delegated to a lesser experienced staff member when the regular voting member is unavailable. The Grand Jury reviewed dog behavior -related euthanasia data and Asilomar outcomes from the fourth quarter of 2018 to the third quarter of 2022 to evaluate the nature of dog behavioral euthanasia at the shelter over time. The chart below shows quarterly dog behavior euthanasia at OCAC for the third quarter of 2018 through the third quarter of 2022. Euthanasia rates are represented as a percent of total dog Asilomar outcomes by quarter. Juvenile dogs are included in the review because the shelter's juvenile dog population is subject to behavioral euthanasia. The Grand Jury found that for the dogs euthanized for behavior during the period under review, 7.4% of the dogs were no more than 6 months old and 14.2% were less than 1 year old. The Grand Jury was unable to determine why dogs less than one year in age would warrant behavioral euthanasia. Figure 3 - Dog Euthanasia Rates (Behavioral) 6% 6% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% All Dogs Euthanized for Behavior as % of all All Dog ASILOMAR Outcomes Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 04 011 Q2 Q3 Q4 01 Q2 03 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Dog behavioral euthanasia rates increase at OC Animal Care between the second and third quarters in 2021 Figure 3 illustrates that dog behavior -related euthanasia rates increased at OCAC between the second and third quarters of 2021. The average dog behavioral euthanasia rate prior to the end of the second quarter of 2021 was 1.19% of all dog Asilomar outcomes. Beginning in the third quarter of 2021 and through the third quarter of 2022, the average dog behavioral euthanasia rate increased to 3.41 % of all dog Asilomar outcomes, an increase of 187%. The increase is statistically significant. (See Appendix 2) Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice Impediments to the Investigation The Grand Jury's function is to investigate the operation of the various officers, departments, and agencies of the local government. Article 1, Section 23 of the California Constitution states: "One or more grand juries shall be drawn and summoned at least once a year in each county. " Provisions of the California Penal Code define the scope and limitations of a grand jury's authority: Penal Code Section 916: ... Rules of procedure shall include guidelines for that grand jury to ensure that all findings included in its final reports are supported by documented evidence, including ... official records, or interviews attended by no fewer than two grand jurors and that all problems identified in a final report are accompanied by suggested means for their resolution, including financial, when applicable. Penal Code Section 921: The grand jury is entitled to ... the examination, without charge, of all public records within the county. Penal Code Section 925: The grand jury shall investigate and report on the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments, or functions of the county ... The investigations may be conducted on some selective basis each year ... Penal Code Section 925 (a): The grand jury may, at all times, request the advice of the court, or the judge thereof, the district attorney, the county counsel, or the Attorney General ... As a department of Orange County government, the County Counsel's office provides legal counsel and services to the Orange County Board of Supervisors and all other Orange County departments and agencies, including the Grand Jury. At the start of a Grand Jury's one-year term, County Counsel assigns an individual attorney within its office to serve as the Grand Jury's primary attorney. Because the individual serving as the Grand Jury's counsel is also assigned to other departments or agencies within Orange County government, there is the potential for the Grand Jury's designated primary counsel to have a conflict of interest when the Grand Jury investigates a department or agency otherwise served by the primary attorney. To ensure continuity of legal service to the Grand Jury, the County Counsel's office also assigns a back-up attorney that provides service to the Grand Jury when the primary counsel is conflicted. The back-up attorney is selected so that at least the primary or Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice back-up would not have a disabling conflict — that is, one or the other would be available to serve the Grand Jury in any investigation not directly related to the County Counsel's office itself. Back-up counsel advises the Grand Jury on those matters only when the primary attorney is conflicted. Early during its one-year term and early in its investigation, the Grand Jury learned that its primary counsel had a conflict of interest with its investigation of OCAC. The County Counsel's office explained, and the Grand Jury understood, that the services of the County Counsel's office would continue through the back-up attorney assigned for such circumstances. Initially, during the early stages of its OCAC investigation, the Grand Jury received the legal advice and assistance of the back-up attorney in the County Counsel's office. Later during its investigation of OCAC, the Grand Jury inquired into the shelter's prior TNR program and the program's termination in early 2020. The Grand Jury learned the program was terminated after a cease -and -desist demand to stop the program was received from a lone individual residing outside of Orange County. The Grand Jury was informed that the County Counsel's office, in response to a request by OCAC to review the cease -and -desist demand, issued an opinion to the Orange County Board of Supervisors and OCAC about the shelter's TNR program that evidently led to a direction to terminate the program. In the course of the Grand Jury's investigation, including interviews with OCAC and OCCR staff and leadership, the County Counsel's office and its opinion were repeatedly cited as being the source of the decision to stop the TNR program. Grand Jury: Who was the decision maker? Answer: "The County Counsel." The Grand Jury understands County Counsel's role is to provide advice and counsel to the Board of Supervisors, County departments, and various County agencies, but that it has no decision -making authority over any division of County governance, except regarding its own internal functions. While the Grand Jury was skeptical that the County Counsel's office actually made, or had the authority to make, the decision to terminate the TNR program, the Grand Jury nevertheless understood that the County Counsel's opinion was pivotal to the decision. Therefore, the Grand Jury requested a copy of the opinion to learn if there was a clear impediment to or prohibition on a possible renewal of the TNR program. The Grand Jury requested a copy of the opinion from interviewees who were privy to the document or its contents. In addition, the Grand Jury asked the County Counsel's office for a copy of the opinion. In every instance, those requested told the Grand Jury the opinion is a privileged communication between the County Counsel's office and the Board of Supervisors and that only the Board of Supervisors has authority to release the document. Finally, the Grand Jury asked the Board of Supervisors, through its Chair, for Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice a copy of the opinion or alternatively for an identification of the legal authority reviewed in studying the issue, and stated the confidentiality of the document would be maintained, whereupon the Board of Supervisors declined to consider or include the request in its meeting agenda. Unfortunately, and not through a lack of trying, the Grand Jury has been unable to review or assess the basis of the opinion. During the Grand Jury's interviews, when various levels of leadership within OCAC asserted that County Counsel made the decision to terminate the TNR program, the Grand Jury always expressed its skepticism and inquired as to how County Counsel, an advisor to the County and OCAC, and only an advisor, could be making policy decisions for OCAC? The Grand Jury inquired and pressed its interviewees, asking if it was, in fact, a decision made at some level within OCAC's leadership, or by OCCR, or by the Board of Supervisors. When pressed, in every case, each interviewee modified their explanation and affirmed the decision had been theirs or that they had taken part in the decision, each taking personal responsibility for the decision. The Grand Jury was determined to obtain documentation of the decision as it continued to press for a copy of the County Counsel's opinion, The Grand Jury then requested all internal OCAC communications documenting the decision and/or order to stop the TNR program. The Grand Jury requested departmental communications instructing staff to stand down from the TNR program, whether from the OCCR to OCAC, OCAC to animal shelter leadership, or animal shelter leadership to shelter staff. Departmental communications about the TNR program are policy and procedure communications. The Grand Jury assumed that departmental communications would point to how and by whom the decision was made. The Grand Jury understands such communications are public records, not privileged communications. Nevertheless, the Grand Jury's request for documentation was denied by OCAC with the reason that such communications were privileged. Coincidental to the Grand Jury's efforts to obtain a copy of the County Counsel's opinion, at the end of 2022, the County Counsel's office detached itself altogether from all matters related to the Grand Jury's investigation of OCAC. The County Counsel's office informed the Superior Court and the Grand Jury that its entire office was "conflicted" with regard to the investigation into OCAC and would recuse itself from assisting the Grand Jury in its investigation into all matters related to OCAC. No back-up attorney was provided and all communications ceased. Of note, the Grand Jury's investigation was not an investigation of the County Counsel's office. Rather, the Grand Jury was investigating an Orange County agency, a client of the County Counsel, just as every Grand Jury investigation into County agencies represents an investigation into clients of the County Counsel. When the County Counsel's office recused itself from the Grand Jury's OCAC investigation, it did not explain or cite any specific aspect of the OCAC investigation that makes it exceptional from any other of the ongoing Grand Jury investigations into County departments or agencies. Without the services of the County Counsel's office, the Grand Jury suffered a setback in its investigation of OCAC. The pace of the investigation slowed as time and resources Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice were directed toward arranging for alternative outside counsel at the recommendation and with the support of the Superior Court. After losing approximately six weeks, the Grand Jury was able to engage alternative outside counsel in early February of 2023. As of the publication of this report, the Grand Jury was not able to confirm the logic, reasoning, or basis of the County Counsel's opinion, or even whether in fact the County Counsel advised against the continuance of the TNR program. Moreover, the Grand Jury cannot confirm whether, or who, or at what level of authority, within the County government the decision to end TNR emanated. As a consequence, the Grand Jury cannot verify that any such decision was ever actually made, or communicated at any level of authority, by anyone within Orange County's governing hierarchy and, more importantly, why any such decision was made. The only fact the Grand Jury can confirm with any confidence is that the TNR program was terminated in or about early 2020. CONCLUSION OCAC has been a source of public concern since the 1990s, with five previous Orange County Grand Jury reports and an Orange County Performance Audit detailing troubling conditions at the OCAC shelter. This Grand Jury report shines a light on deficiencies at the shelter still needing resolution. The Grand Jury believes that if the recommendations included in this report are implemented: • Internal and external communications at OCAC will improve. • The reallocation of staffing positions within the organization, increasing the number of Animal Care Attendant positions and employing an animal behaviorist or trainer, will improve general animal welfare at the shelter. • Improvements in the timely filling of staff vacancies will enhance shelter operations and overall staff morale. • The adoption process will be more public -friendly, leading to more adoptions. • The behavioral euthanasia decision process will be standardized, articulated, and documented, leading to consistent behavioral euthanasia outcomes. • The shelter's Policies and Procedures will be correct and up to date. • OCAC and Orange County rescue organizations and animal advocates can work toward mending their relations for the welfare of the animals. • The shelter's TNR program will be re-evaluated, reconsidered and reinstated. • The shelter's volunteers will be more integrated into the shelter's personnel team and communications. The Grand Jury conducted many interviews with shelter personnel. The Grand Jury is very impressed with their sense of dedication and earnest concern for the welfare of shelter animals. Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice FINDINGS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2022-2023 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) Responses from each agency affected by the Findings presented in this section. The Responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled, "Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice, The State of Animal Welfare Overseen by the County of Orange," the 2022-2023 Grand Jury has arrived at seventeen Findings, as follows: 1 Management has limited flexibility utilizing personnel within Orange County Animal Care across departments due to structured work rules, volunteer work restrictions, and employees working in departmental silos. 1=2 Low staff morale exists within Orange County Animal Care. II3 Orange County Animal Care staffing is negatively impacted by vacant positions remaining unfilled for greater than six months due to burdensome hiring processes. This delay in recruitment and completion of hiring has resulted in qualified candidates declining job offers. II4 Based upon industry standards and best practices, Orange County Animal Care kennel attendants are understaffed to meet the needs of animals under care. F5 Orange County Animal Care's operating policies and procedures manual is out of date. I` ` The Orange County Animal Care Volunteer program was stopped during COVID-19 and restarting the program has been slow, resulting in decreased animal socialization and enrichment. Animal Welfare H Orange County Animal Care's Behavior Evaluation Committee evaluates dogs for euthanasia without written guidelines, policies, or procedures, resulting in inconsistent outcomes over time. Behavior evaluated euthanasia outcomes are dependent on the experience and personal considerations of the individual committee members and management rather than written objective standards. IIF8 The rate of behavioral euthanasia of dogs has increased significantly over the last 2 years. Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice F° Orange County Animal Care does not employ a professional or trained and certified animal behaviorist to oversee the shelter's dog enrichment program, resulting in dogs with declining behavior being placed at greater risk of being euthanized. While many county and city animal shelters throughout the state have active Trap, Neuter, and Return programs, Orange County Animal Care stopped its Trap, Neuter, and Return program, reportedly on the basis of the County Counsel's legal opinion that the program violates a California statute related to willful animal abandonment. III° III The termination of the Trap, Neuter, and Return program is correlated with an increase in adult cat euthanasia rate at the shelter. There have been public concerns and requests expressed over the years for public programs to include a spay/neuter program by Orange County Animal Care. C rr°nnicatii uiriOutreach I 1 3 The current adoption appointment system restricts public access to the dog kennels, thereby limiting potential adopters' access to all available animals. FIA Orange County Animal Care's engagement with some animal rescue partners is negatively impacted due to differences of opinion in appropriate animal care policy. F15 Internal and community engagement does not adequately communicate the shelter's mission and operating strategy. IIIF1 6 The information currently on the Orange County Animal Care website for low- cost spay/neuter is not up to date with regard to referrals and prices for spay/neuter procedures. IIlhrripedfirnents to the 1I iiiri s iiii at i1 Ong F "7 The OC County Counsel's office misstated to the Grand Jury the scope of its commitment to serving and assisting the Grand Jury in its investigations into County governance respecting managing conflicts between the Board of Supervisors, OC departments and agency clients, and the Grand Jury. Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2022-2023 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the Recommendations presented in this section. The Responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled "Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice, The State of Animal Welfare Overseen by the County of Orange," the 2022-2023 Grand Jury makes the following seventeen recommendations: Management. By October 1, 2023, OC Human Resource Services should review and update recruitment strategies to significantly increase the timeliness of recruitment of vacant positions and to anticipate vacancies due to retirement, resignations, transfers. (F3) R2 By December 31, 2023, Orange County Animal Care, OC Community Resources, and OC Human Resource Services should review hiring practices to facilitate process improvements to expedite filling OCAC vacancies. (F3) By October 1, 2023, OC Community Resources and Orange County Animal Care should review their current staffing allocations of Animal Care Attendants to reflect NACA guidelines and to provide appropriate staffing allocations for animal care, feeding and enrichment. (F3, F4) R4 By October 1, 2023, OC Community Resources and Orange County Animal Care should review their current staffing allocations of all positions within the OCAC and reallocate resources to increase Animal Care Attendants to reflect NACA guidelines to provide appropriate staffing for animal care, feeding, and enrichment. (F3, F4) By December 31, 2023, Orange County Animal Care management should review and update policies, procedures, guidelines, and practices to assure they are accurate and reflect current operating practices. (F5) R6 By June 30, 2024, the Board of Supervisors should evaluate the strategic option of creating a Joint Powers Authority for the County and fourteen contract Cities to take ownership and shared responsibility for the financial and operating policies and practices of OCAC. (F1 thru F16) Welfare R7 By October 1, 2023, Orange County Animal Care management should establish written guidelines, policies, and procedures as standards for evaluating animal behavior for use by the Behavior Evaluation Committee. (F5, F7) Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice By December 31, 2023, in the interests of transparency, Orange County Animal Care management should add a representative from a rescue organization to serve as a non -voting, at -large member on the Behavior Evaluation Committee. (F7, F14) IIR9 By December 31, 2023, Orange County Animal Care, OC Community Resources, and OC Human Resource Services should hire an animal behaviorist or certified dog trainers to work with aggressive animals to reduce the high rate of dogs being euthanized and enhance their adoptability. (F8, F9) RI 0 By December 31, 2023, the Orange County Board of Supervisors and Orange County Animal Care management should request that County Counsel reconsider its opinion about the shelter's former Trap, Neuter, and Return program, or seek an independent second opinion to County Counsel's opinion, to ascertain whether the program can be re-established, or a modified version of the program can be implemented. (F10, F11) 1 By July 1, 2024, Orange County Animal Care should implement a low-cost public spay/neuter program. (F12) F? 12 By October 1, 2023, Orange County Animal Care management should hold all - hands staff meetings at least every quarter. (F1, F2) I 3 By October 1, 2023, Orange County Animal Care, OC Community Resources, and OC Human Resource Services should conduct annual surveys of staff to monitor morale and identify opportunities for operational improvement. (F1, F2) IIR 14 By December 31, 2023, Orange County Animal Care management should open the shelter to the public for walk throughs to maximize opportunities for the public to adopt animals under the care of the shelter. (F13) R15 By October 1, 2023, Orange County Animal Care management should look for new ways to be more inclusive and engaged with volunteers and the rescue organizations that are necessary for the shelter's success. (F14, F15) FZ 16 By October 1, 2023, Orange County Animal Care should schedule quarterly meetings with community stakeholders to facilitate transparency and engagement. (F14, F15) R117 By October 1, 2023, Orange County Animal Care management should update the information currently on its website for low-cost spay/neuter of feral cats with regard to referrals and prices for spay/neuter procedures. (F16) Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice Impediments to the Investigation 1118 Beginning with the 2023/2024 Grand Jury training, and all training thereafter, County Counsel should provide detailed instruction about the circumstances under which the County Counsel's office might recuse itself from assisting with Grand Jury investigations and the alternatives available to the Grand Jury under such circumstances. (F17) Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice California Penal Code Section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g., District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected County official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official's control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 933.05 specifies the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made as follows: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code §933.05 are required and requested from: F[ridiire gs � Response Requ[red Orange County Board of F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12, Supervisors: F13, F14, F15, F16, F17 City of Anaheim: F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F1 0, F1 1, F1 2, F1 3, F1 5, F1 6 City of Brea: F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F1 0, F1 1, F1 2, F1 3, F1 5, F1 6 City of Cypress: F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F1 0, F1 1, F1 2, F1 3, F1 5, F1 6 City of Fountain Valley: F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F1 0, F1 1, F1 2, F1 3, F1 5, F1 6 City of Fullerton: F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F1 0, F1 1, F1 2, F1 3, F1 5, F1 6 City of Huntington Beach: F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F1 0, F1 1, F1 2, F1 3, F1 5, F1 6 City of Lake Forest: F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F1 0, F1 1, F1 2, F1 3, F1 5, F1 6 City of Orange: F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F1 0, F1 1, F1 2, F1 3, F1 5, F1 6 City of Placentia: F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F1 0, F1 1, F1 2, F1 3, F1 5, F1 6 City of San Juan Capistrano: F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F1 0, F1 1, F1 2, F1 3, F1 5, F1 6 City of Santa Ana: F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F1 0, F1 1, F1 2, F1 3, F1 5, F1 6 City of Tustin: F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F1 0, F1 1, F1 2, F1 3, F1 5, F1 6 City of Villa Park: F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F1 0, F1 1, F1 2, F1 3, F1 5, F1 6 City of Yorba Linda: F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F1 0, F1 1, F1 2, F1 3, F1 5, F1 6 Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice Orange County Board of R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R12, Supervisors: R13, R14, R15, R16, R17, R18 City of Anaheim: R6 City of Brea: R6 City of Cypress: R6 City of Fountain Valley: R6 City of Fullerton: R6 City of Huntington Beach: R6 City of Lake Forest: R6 City of Orange: R6 City of Placentia: R6 City of San Juan Capistrano: R6 City of Santa Ana: R6 City of Tustin: R6 City of Villa Park: R6 City of Yorba Linda: R6 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 PAGE 38 OF 51 Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice REQUESTED RESPONSES Fhndings 4' ma IllResponse Requested Orange County Animal Care OC Human Resources Services: Orange County County Counsel: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14, F15, F16 F1, F2, F3, F4, F9 F10,F11,F17 Recorriniendatioris 90-Day Response Requested Orange County Animal Care OC Human Resources Services: Orange County County Counsel: R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R 10, R 11, R 12, R 13, R14, R15, R16, R17 R1, R2, R9, R13 R10, R18 Girnme Shelter and a Pound of Advice REFERENCES American Bar Association, Tort, Trial, and Insurance Practice Section. "Report to the House of Delegates Resolution 102B." 2017.Accessed September 30, 2022. Arnerican-Bar- Association-TNVR-re ort. _d (maddiesfund.ora) American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. "Asilomar Accords: Definitions." 2004. Accessed January 28, .2023, Asilo nar Accords: Definitions LASPCA T ....... Association of Shelter Veterinarians "Shelter Terminology." 2017. Accessed March 25, 2023, Microsoft Word - Shelter. Terininolo s she eryet.o City of Garden Grove. "Ordinance NO. 2911". 2019. Accessed January 28, 2023. 11-26- 19c..c Ordinance Amendina Animal and Fire De Dt Reiated Requl.ations..pdf City of West Hollywood. "An Ordinance of the City of West Hollywood Establishing a Trap - Neuter -Return Program for Community Cats; Amending the Language of the Municipal Code to Reflect a Change in Nomenclature From "Feral Cats" to Community Cats"; Updating Section 9.48.080 To Reflect the Current Code Provision Regarding Animal Noise and Determination that the Project is Exempt From CEQA." November 4, 2019. "California Population." Accessed March 22, 2023. Orange County, California PoL Human Animal Support Services. "Animal Shelter Speak: Understanding Common Animal Services jargon. 2023. Accessed March 25, 2023. Animal Shelter Speak: Understanding Common Animal Ser ices - S hurnananimal.5Lu - Y - balan LLA-5 f. _4)aQrtservices.or91 Newbury, Sandra et al. "Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters. The Association of Shelter Veterinarians. 2010. stielter-standai'd.s-oct201.1.-wforwa..i.-..(I. dif slieftervet.-aw, . North Shore Animal League. "Did you Know?" 2011. Accessed February 24,2023 cats- multiply- y �arnjd�.df animalleague,.or Orange County Animal Care "Strategic Plan - 2018" accessed January 28, 2023. oc.ac......2.0.1..8. st.r..a..t , is plan. cif sta ina��ybeach.org)i Orange County. Office of Performance Audit. "Performance Audit of Orange County Animal Care." Final Report (#141505). Orange County California, 2015. Microsoft Word - Animal Care -Report �oc ov�.com� Orange County Grand jury 2014-2015. "If Animals Could Talk About the Orange County Animal Shelter." 2015. Accessed January 28, 2023. Shelter Performance V8R2 wph-ndf Locgra id ur or Orange County Grand jury 2014-2015. "The Orange County Animal Shelter: the Facility, the Function, the Future." 2015. Accessed January 28, 2023. OC animal sh1(1ten4)df Lo (:. g "ur ,rand�.or4. WO 00MI, MWINUff—MR, W111A FUTIONES111191= f Girnme Shelter and a Pound of Advice Orange County Grand jury 2007-2008. "Is Orange County Going to the Dogs". 2008. Accessed January 28, 2023. 2023, IS ORANGE COUNTY GOINGTO THE..Q0Gj.5 1'oLgr indjury.(jw ... . .. . ...... . ........................ . .......... . ................ Orange County Grand jury 2003-2004. "The Orange County Animal Shelter, Are Improvements Needed?" 2004. Accessed January 28, 2023. Microsoft. Word, - AnftnalShelterRef-)ort draft 12a.doc 'oc prand`uurry,ordl. Orange County Grand jury 1999-2000. "We Can do Better... Improving Animal Care in Orange County." 2000. Accessed January 28, 2023. R NAL.PDiF (ocqjrandLury.org). Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice FIA a a*LI I Q VAG Table 1 - Adult Cat Euthanasia and TNR Rates by Quarter Adult Cats Euthanized as a % of Adult Cat Adult Cat TNR Asilomar Outcomes net Outcomes as % of adult of TNR Outcomes Cat Asilomar Outcomes 2018 Q3 23.17% 40% Q4 17.27% 36% 2019 Q1 17.42% 41% Q2 26.81% 49% Q3 24.95% 47% Q4 18.77% 31% 2020 Q1 18.08% 37% Q2 42.65% 5% Q3 41.67% 4% Q4 25.50% 1 % 2021 Q1 27.50% 0% Q2 27.31% 0% Q3 25.86% 0% Q4 23.21% 0% 2022 Q1 21.93% 0% Q2 30.12% 0% Q3 24.73% 0% Q4 26.26% 0% Table 2 - Adult Cat Euthanasia Sample T-Test Adult Cats Euthanized as a % of Non-TNR Asilomar Outcomes Q3 2018 thru Q1 2020 vs. Q2 2020 thru Q4 2022 (TNR period vs. No TNR period) t-Test: Two -Sample Assuming Unequal Variances Q3 2018 to Q I Q2 2020 to End 2020 of Year 2022 Mean 20.9% 28.8% Variance 0.001571145 0.004841058 Observations 7 11 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 16 t Stat -3.0532928 P(T<=t) one -tail 0.003793173 t Critical one -tail 1.745883676 Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice FLA a a*LI I Q VAW Table 3 - Dog Behavioral Euthanasia Rates by Quarter All Dogs Euthanized for Behavior as % of all Adult Dog ASILOMAR Outcomes Dogs All Dog Euthanized Asilomar % Dogs for Behavior Outcomes Euthanized 2018 Q4 8 1356 0.59% 2019 Q1 21 1385 1.52% Q2 15 1384 1.08% Q3 15 1522 0.99% Q4 16 1312 1.22% 2020 Q1 13 1146 1.13% Q2 7 701 1.00% Q3 13 817 1.59% Q4 13 791 1.64% 2021 Q1 8 746 1.07% Q2 10 824 1.21% Q3 18 868 2.07% Q4 49 882 5.56% 2022 Q1 27 956 2.82% Q2 44 962 4.57% Q3 23 1143 2.01% Table 4 - Dog Behavioral Euthanasia Rates 2 Sample T-Test All Dogs Euthanized for Behavior as a % of All Dog ASILOMAR Outcomes Q4 2018 to Q2 2021 vs Q3 2021 to Q3 2022 t-Test: Two -Sample Assuming Unequal Variances Q4 2018 to Q2 Q3 2021 to Q3 2021 2022 Mean 1.19% 3.41% Variance 9.40995E-06 0.000251006 Observations 11 5 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 4 t Stat -3.109244662 P(T<=t) one -tail 0.017949066 t Critical one -tail 2.131846786 Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice /_1aa:LIQ Orange County Grand Jury Animal Shelter Contract City Survey How long has your city been serviced by the Orange County Animal Shelter? a. What factors motivated the city to contract with the Orange County Animal Shelter? 2. What Services have you contracted for the Orange County Animal Shelter? (i.e., Shelter; Animal Control, Licensing, other) 3. What Animal control and care services does the city continue to reserve for itself or contract out to other agencies or vendors not with the Orange County Animal Shelter? (i.e., Control, Licensing, other) 4. How often is the city contract with the Orange County Animal Shelter reviewed and renewed? 5. Describe any regularly scheduled processes the city has in place to review the quality of service provided by the Orange County Animal Shelter. a. Describe the measure or metrics the city uses when evaluating the Animal Shelter. Please provide a copy of the last review of the Animal Shelter conducted by the city. b. Describe any review of the Orange County Animal Shelter and the services it provides as part of Shelter contract review and renewal? c. Who conducts Animal Shelter reviews for the city. d. Are Animal Shelter reviews presented to the city council for their consideration? 6. Does your City have an appointed member of city staff to serve as liaison between the city and OC Animal Shelter management? a. How frequently does your city meet with the OC Animal Shelter management? 7. As it relates to the sheltering and adoption services provided by the Orange County Animal Shelter(if any) describe your level of satisfaction or any concerns with the service and support. 8. As it relates to Animal Control services being provided (if any) describe your level of satisfaction or any concerns with the service and support. 9. As it relates to Licensing fees and processing (if any) describe your level of satisfaction or any concerns with the service and support. 10. How reasonable are the County fees for providing this service? 11. Have members of you community voiced any concern with Orange County Animal Shelter policies or practices. a. Please provide the Grand Jury with the any of the city's complaint logs or records pertaining to the Orange County Animal Shelter. 12.Are there any improvements in the service OC Animal Shelter provides or in the City's relationship with the Shelter you would like to see? Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice FLAaa LIQVAEAI Orange County Grand Jury Independent City Shelter Survey 1. How is the shelter organized and management governance accomplished at your Center? 2. How many cats, dogs and other animals can you shelter? 3. What services do you provide your local community? 4. How many total staff and volunteers are working or engaged with the shelter? 5. How many volunteers do you require on a daily or weekly basis? a. Do you have adequate volunteers? 6. Do you promote spay/neuter services to the members of your community? a. If yes, is there a cost to the individual? 7. From your perspective what are the challenges faced by your Center? 8. Does your center practice TNR (Trap Neuter Return)? a. If no, was it ever in place and then discontinued - why? b. If yes, how effective is the program? 9. Does your center accept healthy cats and put them up for adoption? a. If yes, please describe the process. 10. What are the parameters that guide euthanasia at your shelter? 11. Do you have an animal behaviorist on staff? If no, why not? 12. Do you have any interaction with the Orange County Animal Shelter? a. If yes, please describe. b. If no, why? 13. How is adoption handled in your center? (Adoption by appointment system, open visits, other)? 14. Do your adoption totals include totals transferred to rescues or does it apply only to private parties? 15. Please provide statistics (attachment) for your center (intake, adopted, transferred to shelter, euthanized, etc. by animal type for the current and past 3 years). 16. How does your center respond to complaints from the community and animal activists? 17. If tracked, please provide statistics on complaints you received. 18. Please provide intake statistics (by Cats and Dogs) for the current and 3 past years: a. Strays b. Relinquished by owner c. Owner intended Euthanasia d. Other Intakes 19. Please provide live outcomes statistics (by Cats and Dogs) for the current and 3 past years: 20. Adoptions a. Return to Owner b. Transferred to another agency c. Returned to Field 21. Please provide other outcomes statistics (by Cats and Dogs) for the current and 3 past years: a. Died in Care b. Shelter Euthanasia Girnme Shelter and a Pound of Advice FLA a a:4 LI I Q OCAC 4 Ih Quarter 2022 Asilomar Report Shelter Animals Courit National Shelter,%fatiskics� llrc�ject D,ala Wditlrix OC Animal Care (hwIlev . Mbru cv n nlf' e lr ozz A IWI(Gt,,INNTNG "IM11:11 V111K ( (MIN'T 1.5 H4 1ir Ili',;n Tfl) B St—y!.At I—ge 777 109 286 835 2,007 C Reim ,q,.ished by 0-n- 135 4 22 19 209 0-- I,Ae.. Ied ID 0 0 0 0 T,—,f—d hI,.—Ag—,y 0 0 0 0 0 Other lntd— (1-1,,d— C-11—t- —fting ft.- bit— — �—Ity in—stigaicnus and Disaster —I.tcd hiipouji&) 125 10 31 8 17-1 TOTAL LTVE VNTAKE 1,07 123 1,1,60 '33 9 ff 891 1,230 2,31M ADJUSTED TOTAL INTAKE (G-D) 11 Adpti— 476 72 159 895 7.,602 11 Rct a to ()—", 357 7 27 3 jjtiT—f--d t. --d— Ag-.y 14P 30 79 1,95 4 422 Rer--d t. riM (TKR P—g—) 1 0 0 1 2 M SUBTCTAL. LIVE OUTCOMES I vJ +'K 4) 9813 109 11092 264 1,081 1130 2,440 1%I Dicd i.. C— 2 4 10 35 51 Cj Lust in Ca— is 0 0 1 1 T, Shnlr- habm—i. 56 6 94 140 2% Q. 0— fnt—&d F,,fh—axis— 0 0 0 0 0 R SUVI'MAL. OTHER OUTCOMES (N TO W 58 10 68 104 176 280 348 4" WN01MC, MEVT EM WPn211 10 W 26 �187 I l011 IRISH M , q "Live Fease rare ruas m(nelnted by divfriinq the L,dve tJ.r rrnmes by the Tr rat Asibmar flea trorn es. Nnre that awm er _ rrerrder fr eurhanasra (. net hs render( —d di,dII-t in on—dfi-n wtisl- p, the nnralb,r,hrchue.re luatoa dwd- '—A qfj¢, i,g unP-6,,g IiA, q..hty ur aggr—i- bd—i— p .....n6ny a risk t. pubfk fLtyar—,quired by owners OC Animal Care IM0 VirtorV Road, Tustin (A W 182 wyywvWpe til"'If".1 11.1".1 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 PAGE 46 OF 51 Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice ABA: American Bar Association ASPCA: The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ASV: Association of Shelter Veterinarians CDPH: California Department of Public Health HASS: Human Animal Support Services HSUS: Human Society of the United States OCAC: Orange County Animal Care OCCR: OC Community Resources OCGJ: Orange County Grand Jury OCHRS: OC Human Resource Services NACA: National Animal Control Association NGA: Non -government Organization TNR: Trap, Neuter, Return Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice GLOSSARY: Adoption Barriers Policies or procedures that make adoption, fostering, or volunteering a challenge. Asilomar Asilomar refers to an animal welfare industry conference held at Asilomar in Pacific Grove, California. Statistical guidelines developed from this meeting became known as the Asilomar Accords. Participating shelters compile their own data into `Asilomar' reports, publish their data, and forward their reports to Humane Rescue Alliance which compiles nationwide animal welfare statistics. Behavior Dogs Dogs identified as having challenging behaviors. Capacity for Care Capacity for Care is an organization's ability to appropriately care for the animals it serves. This is based on a range of parameters including, but not limited to, the number of appropriate housing units; staffing for programs or services; staff training; average length of stay; and the total number of reclaims, adoptions, transfers, returns, or other outcomes. Community Cat An unowned cat can be social with people or not. A "Community Cat" is an umbrella definition that includes any outdoor, free roaming cat. These cats may be "Feral" (un- socialized) or friendly or may have been born into the wild. Usually, a Community Cat is a friendly cat. Feral Cats Feral cats are not socialized to, and are extremely fearful of, contact with people. Typically, they do not respond well in captivity. A feral cat is typically born in the wild or outdoors with little to no human interaction. If you attempt to get too close or try to pet them, feral cats view your hand as a claw that will harm them and will hiss and/or run away. Feral cats are born from other ferals or from stray cats. Iff FFE71-7w. Kill / No Kill refers to a shelter's policy respecting euthanasia. A no kill shelter will not conduct euthanasia, with exceptions for humane reasons. Practices of no kill shelters vary along a spectrum that reject the use of euthanasia as a primary means of population control and health management. A kill shelter will conduct euthanasia for a variety of reasons that include animal control, medical and population control, and Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice behavior. Many municipal shelters are "kill" shelters as their mandates often include animal control. Kitten Season A busy time in the animal shelter world when feral and community cats have kittens. The season occurs during warm weather months. Also referred to as cat breeding season. Typically kitten season is March -October but varies from place to place and in some areas is year-round. Legal Retention The number of days a shelter is required by law to hold an animal for recovery by owner prior to placing the animal for adoption, for sale, or euthanizing. Live Outcome Types Adoption: an animal is adopted Return -to -Owner: an animal is returned to the custody of their human/s. Transferred -Out: an animal is transferred to the custody of another organization. Trap Neuter Return: an animal is returned to their habitat or community after being treated for medical conditions, including spay/neuter. Return to Field: putting an animal back where it was found, often as part of a TNR program. Live Release Rate (Asilomar Report) Live Release Rate is the proportion of animals leaving the shelter alive to the total number of animals leaving alive plus the number of shelter directed euthanized animals. Live outcomes are usually achieved through adoption, reclaim by owner, transfer to another agency or other life-saving actions Other Outcome Types Died in Care: any animal who died while in the custody of the shelter, not by euthanasia. Euthanized/Killed: any animal whose life was ended purposefully while in custody of the organization. Rescue Groups Rescue Groups are often operated by a network of foster home -based volunteers that may or may not be associated with a standing facility. These organizations often accept difficult -to -adopt animals from other shelters and may transfer them or facilitate adoptions outside of the shelter setting. low, 'A MIMI rFUTIONEIRINAI,! Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice Return to the Field An animal who has been returned to its home or habitat. Also referred to as relocate, return to community, or return to wild. Save Rate (Asilomar Report) Save Rate is the proportion of animals leaving the shelter alive to the total number of animal outcomes. Shelter Types Municipal: an organization that provides the animal care services of a city, county, or cities or counties. Municipal Contract: A private organization that provides contracted services for the animal care of a city, county, or cities or counties. Rescue without a Municipal Contract: a private organization that has no affiliation to the city or county animal services. Foster based Rescue without Shelter: an organization who houses all animals in its custody in foster homes. Sanctuary: An organization that offers animals a place to live out the remainder of their life. Sometimes sanctuaries offer the option of adoption placement. Animal welfare sanctuaries often offer this space for animals that have exhausted all other local resources, as an alternative to death. Stray Hold The number of days a shelter must hold a stray animal before determining the outcome, as determined by local ordinances. These vary from place to place. TNR (Trap -Neuter -Return) TNR (Trap -Neuter -Return) refers to an approach for managing community cats that is an alternative to shelter impoundment. In appropriately managed TNR programs, cats are humanely trapped and surgically sterilized, vaccinated, ear tipped, and returned to the location from where they were trapped. TNR cats are often not taken into the custody of a spaying/neutering organization because they generally have established community colonies to which they are quickly returned. Community cat colonies are often under the care of a local human member of a community. Treatable Treatable means dogs and cats with medical or behavioral issues that can be rehabilitated and managed. Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice Unhealthy and Untreatable Unhealthy and untreatable means dogs and cats who, at or subsequent to the time they are taken into possession: have a behavioral or temperamental characteristic that poses a health or safety risk or otherwise makes the animal unsuitable for placement as a pet, and are not likely to become healthy or treatable; or 2. are suffering from a disease, injury, or congenital or hereditary condition that adversely affects the animal's health or is likely to adversely affect the animal's health in the future, and are not likely to become healthy or treatable; or 3. are under the age of eight weeks and are not likely to become healthy or treatable, even if provided the care typically provided to pets by reasonable and caring pet guardians in the community. DISCLAIMER Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code Section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury. Susana Barrios From: Andi Friedman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 2:39 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] OCAC (OC Animal Shelter) Request for 22.8% Increase in Payment by City of Anaheim: Consent Calendar No. 16: Urge a Vote of NO Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. Dear City Council Members and Mayor: OCAC (Orange County Animal Shelter) is asking your city to increase its payment to their shelter to over 22 percent! Please vote no on this request. This large taxpayer funded shelter (built in 2018 at a cost of $35 million) is the only county shelter around that has remained closed to walk-in adoptions, canceled spay/neuter and TNR programs, and the animals in OC and especially Anaheim keep multiplying exponentially. The worst outcome of this shelter's poor management is the horribly high euthanasia rate and the shelter's reliance on nonprofit animal rescues to take too many animals that they should be adopting out themselves and getting spayed or neutered. Animal rescues have no taxpayer support (unlike this shelter) and they are overburdened with an extremely high number of animals from OC Shelter. This shelter has cancelled dog socialization and other related dog programs, TNR programs, has no walk-in adoptions, so animals get labeled aggressive or as having exhibited poor behavior due to kennel stress and not enough time for the public to view them. This shelter has been like this since "Covid," and that was their initial excuse for not doing their job that they are highly paid to do (Director evidently earns close to $300,000 annually). Since we stopped lockdowns, their atrocious practices have continued with all types of nonsensical excuses, i.e., allowing the public to have walk-in adoptions will overly pressure the staff and stress out the animals. So, is it better to have dogs in cages for 3 weeks straight and then label them aggressive and kill them? Does this sound humane? This shelter has been, and is totally mismanaged, yet your city and 13 other OC cities keep paying their requests for more and more funding with almost no programs remaining to help the animals or the public. The other large county shelters like LA are fully open with programs to help the animal overpopulation crisis but this shelter needs an overhaul, not more funding when it fails to even do the minimum to help needy animals in Anaheim. The director is so uncaring and inept that over a period of months, over 50,000 people signed a change.org petition to replace her and bring the shelter up to the standards required under the law for ethical and humane treatment of the animals. Even after that petition, the OC Board of Supervisors did nothing, and continue not to force any positive change there. A few weeks ago the OC Register did an article (front page) on these horrific and inhumane practices at the OC Shelter. That article was followed a few days later by an editorial backed by the full Editorial Board of the OC Register, asking the politicians tasked with overseeing this shelter, The OC Board of Supervisors, to step in and revamp the shelter, reinstate walk-in adoptions, TNR and neuter spay. There was predictably No Response to the OC Register's article and editorial criticizing the OC Shelter. Do not be convinced that the shelter's fee for Anaheim deserves to be increased! They are a killing machine and are not doing their job. Instead of giving them more funds, force them to restart TNR programs to help residents pay for spay and neuter and to reduce the overpopulation in your City. Demand that the shelter fully open up wide to the public for adoptions without appointments like all the other shelters! Their director should be fired and no more taxpayer dollars should be provided from both an ethical and financial standpoint. Why pay an increased fee when the shelter is not even running the same programs to help save animals' lives that were in place pre-Covid in 2019? Thank you for you consideration. Respectfully, Andrea Friedman Sent from my iPhone Susana Barrios From: Michael Mavrovouniotis _ Sent: Monday, June 26, 2023 4:22 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] OC Animal Care Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. Somebody tell OC Animal Care the pandemic is over OC Animal Care is sticking to pandemic -era restrictions, preventing visitors from seeing the dogs in their kennels. A recent announcement of absurdly limited access is designed to fail. Let's look at the dog adoption procedures of our neighbors, LA City and LA County. They were already far more accommodating to adopters. In these two systems, appointments were only a device to regulate flow, not an excuse to keep the kennels out of the public eye. Our neighbors, always looking for improvements, are gradually moving towards even more freedom for prospective adopters. (Quotes are from the websites provided.) LA Animal Services: No appointment needed to adopt, foster pets https:Hheysocal.com/2023/06/22/la-animal-services-no-appointment-needed-to-adopt-foster-pets/ "The Los Angeles Animal Services Department announced Thursday it will no longer require appointments for Angelenos to adopt or foster an animal from its shelters starting June 28." LA County: majority of hours with no appointment, a smaller portion appointment -based (with adopters visiting the kennels in both cases) https:Hanimalcare.lacounty.,gov/adoption-hours/ "Morning visiting hours are BY APPOINTMENT ONLY 10 am -12 pm Daily except Wednesdays." "Appointments are NOT REQUIRED for afternoon visits (2-5 pm everyday except on Wednesdays when visiting hours are 2-7pm)" "For the appointment hours, a staff member or a volunteer will be on hand to assist you in viewing our Ready to Go Home (RTG) animals that day. This means they are spayed or neutered, off stray hold and have gone to dog playgroups at least once (for dogs over 35 lbs.). All RTG animals can be adopted on a first -come, first -served basis. For Non -Appointment visits, assistance will be provided according to staff capacity. We are confident this new process will provide options for potential adopters to view and adopt animals in a way that is accessible and maintains animal health and wellbeing." Only OC Animal Care prevents prospective adopters from seeing dogs in the kennels. Rumor has it they will designate 5 hours a week in which some limited number of visitors will be escorted through an area that houses less than 25% of available dogs. This is meant to deflect criticism rather than solve the problem. OC Animal Care needs to realize that the pandemic is over, and all its fabricated excuses have been exposed. Susana Barrios From: OC Community Cats - Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 2:35 PM To: Public Comment Cc: Natalie Rubalcava; Ashleigh Aitken; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Norma C. Kurtz; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks; Brittney Malenofski Subject: [EXTERNAL] 6/27/23 PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM 19 Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. My name is Meredith Kirby. I am a volunteer and board member with the non-profit OC Community Cats. We are based in Anaheim and dedicated to the welfare of community (free -roaming) cats in North Orange County. My comment today is specifically addressing Agenda item 19 and the significant increase in the cost of services proposed by OC Animal Care, the shelter Anaheim contracts with. The NOI specifies a nearly 23% increase. However, OC Animal Care is not providing services it promised when the shelter was built. Beginning in early 2020, OC Animal Care made deliberate reductions in services and implemented policy changes that have negative impacts on the animals & residents of Anaheim, and the other cities which contract them. OC Animal Care stopped the very successful Trap, Neuter, Return (TNR) & Return to Field (RTF) programs, resulting in the population explosion of community cats. OC Animal Care no longer accepts healthy stray cats or kittens 8 weeks or older. They tell people to put them back outside where they were found. Yet they say RTF & TNR are "animal abandonment." OC Animal Care does not accept owner surrenders without collecting a $300 fee, IF they accept them at all. Most people can't afford that, so cats are being dumped on the street to fend for themselves. If they are lucky, they find their way to a community cat colony. We have this happening at the colonies we manage. In May, 2 adults & 12 kittens of various ages were dumped at one of our colonies where coyotes are known to travel. Recently, OC Animal Care was called to assist in a hoarding case in Anaheim at 1934 W. Tedmar, The family flew in from out of state and were trying to get help from OCAC for the cats. OCAC flatly said NO, they could not help. We jumped in, with 2 other rescues & saved the cats. We are volunteers for non -profits. We should not be doing the work that our county shelter is paid to do. OC Animal Care is still accepting some sick/injured stray cats, but they give minimal care and put these cats on "rescue track." That means the cats are available for non-profit, volunteer run, donation funded groups to rescue. Otherwise, they are euthanized. OC Animal Care now has an appointment only policy, so a potential adopter must make an appointment to see a single animal (cat, dog, bunny, etc) at a time. People can't go to the shelter and walk through the kennels to see the animals and make a connection. These policy changes have resulted in a population explosion of community cats, abandonment of cats, increases in dead animals, an uptick in Coyote activity, fewer adoptions, more killing of animals. The burden placed on the shoulders of non -profits, local veterinarians and independent rescuers is devastating. Several vets, such as Pro Pet Fix have closed. Some rescues have had to shut down. Independent rescuers are going broke. They should not have to do the shelter's job without compensation. This county funded, multimillion dollar, state of the art shelter should be providing all the services it promised to the animals and residents of Anaheim and Orange County, not less. So why are they asking for nearly 23% more? What are the animals and citizens of Anaheim getting for this increase? I suggest requiring a detailed explanation from OC Animal Care. Finally, you may not be aware that the OC Grand Jury has recently investigated OC Animal Care and issued a report with their findings and directives. I've heard from an insider that OC Animal Care is not taking it seriously. We should. Link attached. Gimmee Shelter Thank you for your time & consideration. Meredith Kirby OC Community Cats Susana Barrios From: Laura Lawther Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 4:03 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] City Meeting 06/27/23- Agenda Item 19 Re: OCAC 22% increase Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. To the Mayor and City Council Members: I would like to address the council on item #19 regarding the city contract with OC animal care. The county has presented the city with a 22% increase and as a taxpayer, I would like to know what I am receiving for that significant jump in cost relative to the current services that we are being provided. Currently the shelter is off limits to the public to find an adoptable animal. OC Animal Care continues its restrictive online appointment only COVID policy, which has long been abandoned by other animal shelters. Using this appointment only process, limits access for low-income residents and seniors who may not have access to the technology to search for animals online. It also stops working families who only have time during the weekend to visit shelters to see adoptable pets. The shelter is also off limits if you lose your pet. In fact, did you know if your cat gets lost and someone finds it and takes it to OC animal care they will be turned away? They will not even scan the cat for a microchip. This does not sound like services that we should be paying the county millions of dollars for. Secondly, the county is responsible to provide TNR- trap, neuter, return- to the city and yet they refuse to and no one is holding them accountable. 1 Meanwhile neighborhoods are being overrun by feral cats and nonprofit rescue groups are being inundated with residents asking for help. Every time OC Animal Care are asked why they no longer provide TNR, they cite a recommendation from County Counsel, however there is no evidence of this that can be found. Even the Grand Jury, in the report released this week, couldn't get a straight answer from the county when they pressed them on the reason why they stopped the TNR program. In fact, the entire County Counsel office had to recuse itself from their investigation and the Grand Jury had to seek outside independent counsel which significantly delayed their investigation. It would seem to me that the County is going to great lengths to hide the reasoning behind why we are not receiving yet another service that is being paid for. I am asking the council to request a formal audit of OC Animal Care and to start to reevaluate how the city of Anaheim would like to provide animal services to its residents. I am confident that local nonprofit animal rescue groups could do much more with 5 million dollars a year than the bureaucrats in charge at the county level. Thank you, Laura Lawther N Susana Barrios From: Laura Cunningham <Laura@anaheimchamber.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 3:35 PM To: Ashleigh Aitken; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Norma C. Kurtz; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks Cc: City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] Agenda Item 23 - Safety Ordinance Attachments: Agenda Item 23 - Safety Ordinance - Letter to Council.pdf Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. Dear Mayor Aitken and Members of the City Council, Attached please find our support letter for Agenda Item 23 on today's agenda. LAURA CUNNINGHAM June 27, 2023 Mayor and City Council Anaheim City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California 92805 RE: SUPPORT —Agenda Item 23 —Adoption of Ordinance adding Chapter 6.101 (Hotel Worker Protections) to Title 6 of the Anaheim Municipal Code to provide safety and security measures for hotel workers in Anaheim. Dear Mayor Aitken, Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava, and Members of the City Council: The Anaheim Chamber of Commerce supports Agenda Item 23 to adopt the Hotel Worker Protection ordinance. Safety is the top priority of Anaheim's hotels and Anaheim's business community. This ordinance is a consensus item that protects the safety of hotel workers by giving them personal security devices to activate if they are threatened, at risk of violence, or in another emergency situation with response from designated hotel personnel to respond to those activations. The ordinance also requires hotels to provide their employees with training regarding the rights, responsibilities, and protections of the ordinance and to notify hotel guests about these worker protections. Additionally, this ordinance protects workers who exercise the above rights. The Chamber also thanks Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava for her op-ed in today's Orange County Register ("The way forward on hotel worker safety in Anaheim"). She shares the story of her grandmother's work as a motel housekeeper in Anaheim and emphasizes the importance of hotel worker safety and this ordinance. For all these reasons, the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce supports Agenda Item 23 to adopt the ordinance adding hotel worker protections as Chapter 6.101 to Title 6 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 2099 S. State College Blvd., Suite 650 Anaheim, CA 92806 T (714) 758-0222 AnaheimChamber.org Susana Barrios From: Juan Carlos Mendez advocateslink.com> Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2023 8:55 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] Order a Special Election - Hotel Worker Initiative Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. Dear Anaheim City Council, On June 13 you will consider an ordinance which would drastically impact hotels throughout the City of Anaheim. While promoted by UNITE HERE Local 11 as a measure to increase hotel worker safety, this poorly drafted proposal contains wage and work rules requirements that would devastate Anaheim hotels, with ripple effects that would gut Anaheim's budget. A majority of the council was correct to reject outright adoption at its May 16 meeting and instead direct an economic impact study. We urge adoption to be rejected again. Instead, the City Council should place this matter on the ballot for the people to decide in a special election later this year. As a matter of policy, the hotel proposal written by UNITE HERE Local 11 would be a disaster. Imposing the proposed wage and work rules on Anaheim hotels would be a costly new mandate. Many workers who were supposed to benefit will likely see their hours reduced or their jobs eliminated. Larger hotels will raise their prices for rooms, amenities, and services, resulting in fewer hotel stays and less tax revenue for the city. Smaller hotels, including family owned "mom and pop" hotels, will likely just go out of business. The increased costs of doing business in Anaheim overall will make it tougher for Anaheim to attract and retain the big trade shows and conventions, like NAMM and Natural Products, and make it tougher for families and tourists to justify the costs of a vacation to the Anaheim Resort. Those increased costs could also result in a chilling effect on economic development throughout Anaheim, but especially where tourism matters most: in the Anaheim Resort. Tourism developments, including new hotels, could slow down or be canceled outright because no business will want to make a significant investment in a city where costs are going to skyrocket. From a practical standpoint, the proposal's 10-day implementation window is one that would be impossible to meet during the December 2024 holiday rush, which is exactly what hotels would be faced with if the measure was successful in the November 2024 General Election. If passed in a special election, the measure would at least be somewhat less difficult for some hotels to implement within 10 days. We hope that it will not come to this, however. Once the voters of Anaheim learn how the UNITE HERE Local 11 measure will devastate the city's finances, and threaten the ability of you, the City Council, to properly fund services such as libraries, parks and recreation, street maintenance, and police and fire protection, they will reject this measure. The City Council should give the voters that opportunity by placing it on the ballot in a special election. When city staff present you with the findings of its economic impact research, the consequences of the proposed ordinance will be clear. It is imperative that voters be able to have their say as quickly as possible. We cannot wait until November 2024. Please: Order a special election. Juan Carlos Mendez Susana Barrios From: Holly Felipe <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 4:44 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] No Costly Special Elections, No Wasting Taxpayer Money Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. For Public Cornment, Dear Mayor and Honorable City Couincfl, l write as a concerned citizen of Ainah6lim to ask that you refuse to Iput the Hotell & Event Center Worker Protection 161tiative on a costly speciall election this year. Ainah6lim is a city that should Iprlide itself on fiscall ireslponsibifity and IbdIancing of irevenues and government spending. It imalkes NO SENSE to waste over a mflllioin dollars of taxpayer money for an election lin which fewer than a quarter of registered voters wlilll Illilkelly even show up. For these reasons, Ainah6lim hasn't had a Iballllot Iinlitiative off -cycle lin a speciall election lin decades. This is fiscall liirirespoinsibfl1lty at its worst. According to the Councfl staff report from last month's May 16 meeting, a speciall election would cost the city $1,477,297 $1,632,776. That's compared to the $198,891 $233,265 that it would cost to Iput the 161tiative on the Iballllot lin the geneirdl election lin 2024, for a difference of over a imlTlioin dollars. L.et's Ibe clear: The City of Ainah6lim should NOT dirdlin its coffers to hold a speciall election at the Ibelhest of big business linteirests. If the City of Ainah6lim is serious about fiscall iresponsibiVlity with taxpayer money and commu6ity linlput then it will put our Hotell & Event Center Worker Protection 161tiative on the ballot lin November 2024, which would save the taxpayers over a iml!lIfioin dollars and ensuire maxirndl linlput Iby the iresidents of Ainah6lim. mm� Susana Barrios From: Michael Wade <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2023 3:28 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] Anaheim: Don't Dodge Democracy, Let the Voters Speak! Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. For Public Cornment, Dear Mayor and Honorable City Counces, I, Michaell E. Wade, write as a concerned citizen of Ainah6lim to ask that you refuse to Iput the Hot6l & Event Center Worker Protection 161tiative on a costly speciall election this year. Ainah6lim is a city that has struggled with transparency tin government for too Iong. The voters of this city have the right to Iknow what is Ihalppenliing with our laws and the right to have our voices heard. This 161tiative is an lImportaint step for our city to take, and we ineed as many voters as possible tin this city to cast their Iballllots on this vlitall issue. According to the Counces staff report from last month's May 16 meeting, a speciall election would cost the city $1,477,297 $1,632,776. That's compared to the $198,891 $233,265 that it would cost to put the 161tiative on the Iballllot tin the geneirdl election tin 2024, for a difference of over a iml!Hioin doHairs. L.et's Ibe clear: The City of Ainah6lim should NOT dirdlin its coffers to hold a speciall election at the Ibelhest of big business linteirests. There is ino reason to Ilinteint6oindlllly Illiirnit the aimount of voices Ainah6lim is wHfing to hear on this issue, and scheddllling a speciall election would very likely mean fewer voters would weigh tin on this llimportaint issue, inot to mention the enormous cost the speciall election would have to hairdworking taxpayers tin Ainah6lim. PlIease place this 161tiative on the geneirdl election Iballllot In November of 2024. Michaell Wade 1 Susana Barrios From: Lauren Alexander <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 2:04 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO Costly Special Elections, NO Wasting Taxpayer Money Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. For Public Cornment, Dear Mayor and Honorable City CouncH, l write as a concerned citizen of Ainah6lim to ask that you refuse to Iput the Hot6l & Event Center Worker Protection 161tiative on a costly speciall election this year. Ainah6lim is a city that should Iprlide itself on fiscall ireslponsibifity and IbdIancing of irevenues and government spending. It imalkes NO SENSE to waste over a mflHioin dollars of taxpayer money for an election lin which fewer than a quarter of registered voters wlilll Illilkelly even show up. For these reasons, Ainah6lim hasn't had a Iballllot Iinlitiative off -cycle lin a speciall election lin decades. This is fiscall liirirespoinsibfl1lty at its worst. According to the CouncH staff report from last month's May 16 meeting, a speciall election would cost the city $1,477,297 $1,632,776. That's compared to the $198,891 $233,265 that it would cost to Iput the 161tiative on the Iballllot lin the geneirdl election lin 2024, for a difference of over a iml!Hioin dollars. L.et's Ibe clear: The City of Ainah6lim should NOT dirdlin its coffers to hold a speciall election at the Ibelhest of big business linteirests. If the City of Ainah6lim is serious about fiscall iresponsibiVlity with taxpayer money and commu6ity linlput then it will put our Hot6l & Event Center Worker Protection 161tiative on the ballot lin November 2024, which would save the taxpayers over a iml!Hioin dollars and ensuire maxirndl linlput Iby the iresidents of Ainah6lim. I-auiren Alexander Susana Barrios From: Polly Pelonis advocateslink.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 7:33 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] Order a Special Election - Hotel Worker Initiative Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. Dear Anaheim City Council, On June 13 you will consider an ordinance which would drastically impact hotels throughout the City of Anaheim. While promoted by UNITE HERE Local 11 as a measure to increase hotel worker safety, this poorly drafted proposal contains wage and work rules requirements that would devastate Anaheim hotels, with ripple effects that would gut Anaheim's budget. A majority of the council was correct to reject outright adoption at its May 16 meeting and instead direct an economic impact study. We urge adoption to be rejected again. Instead, the City Council should place this matter on the ballot for the people to decide in a special election later this year. As a matter of policy, the hotel proposal written by UNITE HERE Local 11 would be a disaster. Imposing the proposed wage and work rules on Anaheim hotels would be a costly new mandate. Many workers who were supposed to benefit will likely see their hours reduced or their jobs eliminated. Larger hotels will raise their prices for rooms, amenities, and services, resulting in fewer hotel stays and less tax revenue for the city. Smaller hotels, including family owned "mom and pop" hotels, will likely just go out of business. The increased costs of doing business in Anaheim overall will make it tougher for Anaheim to attract and retain the big trade shows and conventions, like NAMM and Natural Products, and make it tougher for families and tourists to justify the costs of a vacation to the Anaheim Resort. Those increased costs could also result in a chilling effect on economic development throughout Anaheim, but especially where tourism matters most: in the Anaheim Resort. Tourism developments, including new hotels, could slow down or be canceled outright because no business will want to make a significant investment in a city where costs are going to skyrocket. From a practical standpoint, the proposal's 10-day implementation window is one that would be impossible to meet during the December 2024 holiday rush, which is exactly what hotels would be faced with if the measure was successful in the November 2024 General Election. If passed in a special election, the measure would at least be somewhat less difficult for some hotels to implement within 10 days. We hope that it will not come to this, however. Once the voters of Anaheim learn how the UNITE HERE Local 11 measure will devastate the city's finances, and threaten the ability of you, the City Council, to properly fund services such as libraries, parks and recreation, street maintenance, and police and fire protection, they will reject this measure. The City Council should give the voters that opportunity by placing it on the ballot in a special election. When city staff present you with the findings of its economic impact research, the consequences of the proposed ordinance will be clear. It is imperative that voters be able to have their say as quickly as possible. We cannot wait until November 2024. Please: Order a special election. Polly Pelonis Susana Barrios From: Donald Brothers Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2023 8:26 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] Order a Special Election - Hotel Worker Initiative Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. Dear Anaheim City Council, On June 13 you will consider an ordinance which would drastically impact hotels throughout the City of Anaheim. While promoted by UNITE HERE Local 11 as a measure to increase hotel worker safety, this poorly drafted proposal contains wage and work rules requirements that would devastate Anaheim hotels, with ripple effects that would gut Anaheim's budget. A majority of the council was correct to reject outright adoption at its May 16 meeting and instead direct an economic impact study. We urge adoption to be rejected again. Instead, the City Council should place this matter on the ballot for the people to decide in a special election later this year. As a matter of policy, the hotel proposal written by UNITE HERE Local 11 would be a disaster. Imposing the proposed wage and work rules on Anaheim hotels would be a costly new mandate. Many workers who were supposed to benefit will likely see their hours reduced or their jobs eliminated. Larger hotels will raise their prices for rooms, amenities, and services, resulting in fewer hotel stays and less tax revenue for the city. Smaller hotels, including family owned "mom and pop" hotels, will likely just go out of business. The increased costs of doing business in Anaheim overall will make it tougher for Anaheim to attract and retain the big trade shows and conventions, like NAMM and Natural Products, and make it tougher for families and tourists to justify the costs of a vacation to the Anaheim Resort. Those increased costs could also result in a chilling effect on economic development throughout Anaheim, but especially where tourism matters most: in the Anaheim Resort. Tourism developments, including new hotels, could slow down or be canceled outright because no business will want to make a significant investment in a city where costs are going to skyrocket. From a practical standpoint, the proposal's 10-day implementation window is one that would be impossible to meet during the December 2024 holiday rush, which is exactly what hotels would be faced with if the measure was successful in the November 2024 General Election. If passed in a special election, the measure would at least be somewhat less difficult for some hotels to implement within 10 days. We hope that it will not come to this, however. Once the voters of Anaheim learn how the UNITE HERE Local 11 measure will devastate the city's finances, and threaten the ability of you, the City Council, to properly fund services such as libraries, parks and recreation, street maintenance, and police and fire protection, they will reject this measure. The City Council should give the voters that opportunity by placing it on the ballot in a special election. When city staff present you with the findings of its economic impact research, the consequences of the proposed ordinance will be clear. It is imperative that voters be able to have their say as quickly as possible. We cannot wait until November 2024. Please: Order a special election. Donald Brothers Susana Barrios From: Adriana Demendoza @advocateslink.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2023 4:04 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] Order a Special Election - Hotel Worker Initiative Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. Dear Anaheim City Council, On June 13 you will consider an ordinance which would drastically impact hotels throughout the City of Anaheim. While promoted by UNITE HERE Local 11 as a measure to increase hotel worker safety, this poorly drafted proposal contains wage and work rules requirements that would devastate Anaheim hotels, with ripple effects that would gut Anaheim's budget. A majority of the council was correct to reject outright adoption at its May 16 meeting and instead direct an economic impact study. We urge adoption to be rejected again. Instead, the City Council should place this matter on the ballot for the people to decide in a special election later this year. As a matter of policy, the hotel proposal written by UNITE HERE Local 11 would be a disaster. Imposing the proposed wage and work rules on Anaheim hotels would be a costly new mandate. Many workers who were supposed to benefit will likely see their hours reduced or their jobs eliminated. Larger hotels will raise their prices for rooms, amenities, and services, resulting in fewer hotel stays and less tax revenue for the city. Smaller hotels, including family owned "mom and pop" hotels, will likely just go out of business. The increased costs of doing business in Anaheim overall will make it tougher for Anaheim to attract and retain the big trade shows and conventions, like NAMM and Natural Products, and make it tougher for families and tourists to justify the costs of a vacation to the Anaheim Resort. Those increased costs could also result in a chilling effect on economic development throughout Anaheim, but especially where tourism matters most: in the Anaheim Resort. Tourism developments, including new hotels, could slow down or be canceled outright because no business will want to make a significant investment in a city where costs are going to skyrocket. From a practical standpoint, the proposal's 10-day implementation window is one that would be impossible to meet during the December 2024 holiday rush, which is exactly what hotels would be faced with if the measure was successful in the November 2024 General Election. If passed in a special election, the measure would at least be somewhat less difficult for some hotels to implement within 10 days. We hope that it will not come to this, however. Once the voters of Anaheim learn how the UNITE HERE Local 11 measure will devastate the city's finances, and threaten the ability of you, the City Council, to properly fund services such as libraries, parks and recreation, street maintenance, and police and fire protection, they will reject this measure. The City Council should give the voters that opportunity by placing it on the ballot in a special election. When city staff present you with the findings of its economic impact research, the consequences of the proposed ordinance will be clear. It is imperative that voters be able to have their say as quickly as possible. We cannot wait until November 2024. Please: Order a special election. Adriana Demendoza Susana Barrios From: Michael Watkins <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2023 8:04 AM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] Anaheim: Don't Dodge Democracy, Let the Voters Speak! Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. For Public Cornment, Dear Mayor and Honorable City Counces, l write as a concerned citizen of Ainah6lim to ask that you refuse to Iput the Hot6l & Event Center Worker Protection 161tiative on a costly speciall election this year. Ainah6lim is a city that has struggled with transparency tin government for too Iong. The voters of this city have the right to Iknow what is Ihalppenliing with our laws and the right to have our voices heard. This 161tiative is an lImportaint step for our city to take, and we ineed as many voters as possible tin this city to cast their Iballllots on this vlitall issue. According to the Counces staff report from last month's May 16 meeting, a speciall election would cost the city $1,477,297 $1,632,776. That's compared to the $198,891 $233,265 that it would cost to put the 161tiative on the Iballllot tin the geneirdl election tin 2024, for a difference of over a iml!Hioin doHairs. L.et's Ibe clear: The City of Ainah6lim should NOT dirdlin its coffers to hold a speciall election at the Ibelhest of big business linteirests. There is ino reason to Ilinteint6oindlllly Illiirnit the aimount of voices Ainah6lim is wHfing to hear on this issue, and scheddllling a speciall election would very likely mean fewer voters would weigh tin on this llimportaint issue, inot to mention the enormous cost the speciall election would have to hairdworking taxpayers tin Ainah6lim. PlIease place this 161tiative on the geneirdl election Iballllot In November of 2024. Michaell Watkins 1 Susana Barrios From: Theresa Bass Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2023 10:44 PM To: Public Comment Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] THANK YOU for ordering a special election! From: Stephen Faessel <SFaessel@anaheim.net> Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2023 10:40 AM To: Theresa Bass <TBass@anaheim.net> Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] THANK YOU for ordering a special election! Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Naomi Diggs <n .ornJ:_ nnn tt( sn he t ls:cc rrr> Date: June 15, 2023 at 9:10:43 AM PDT To: Stephen Faessel <S_F.ssl(nhn!_!9..:_n_et> Subject: [EXTERNAL] THANK YOU for ordering a special election! Reply -To: n .q.m.I_:_b_ _nnel.1 sn he tels...cQ..m. Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. Dear Councilman Stephen Faessel, THANK YOU for successfully ordering the UNITE HERE Local 11 hotel worker ordinance to a September 12, 2023, special election. I appreciate the time you took to meet with and listen to our hospitality industry members and other stakeholders and for the careful and thoughtful consideration you took while deliberating on this issue over the past several weeks. As you heard from the dozens of public comment speakers and hundreds of emails you received, this issue is of the utmost importance. And as illustrated by the economic reports produced by Baker Tilly and Beacon Economics, the impacts of the ordinance, if enacted, would be a substantial detriment to the hotel industry and the city itself. Thank you for your level-headedness and responsible policymaking. Anaheim's hotel and lodging industry community is deeply appreciative, as am I. Naomi Diggs 616 Convention Way Anaheim, California 92802 Susana Barrios From: RICHARD SIPEK Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2023 10:31 AM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] No Costly Special Elections, No Wasting Taxpayer Money Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. For Public Cornment, Dear Mayor and Honorable City Couincfl, l write as a concerned citizen of Ainah6lim to ask that you refuse to Iput the Hotell & Event Center Worker Protection 161tiative on a costly speciall election this year. Ainah6lim is a city that should Iprlide itself on fiscall ireslponsibifity and Ibdlainciing of irevenues and government spending. It imalkes NO SENSE to waste over a mflllioin dollars of taxpayer money for an election llin which fewer than a quarter of registered voters wlilll Illilkelly even show up. For these reasons, Ainah6lim hasn't had a Iballllot Iinlitiative off -cycle llin a speciall election llin decades. This is fiscall liirirespoinsibfl1lty at its worst. According to the Councfl staff report from last month's May 16 meeting, a speciall election would cost the city $1,477,297 $1,632,776. That's compared to the $198,891 $233,265 that it would cost to Iput the 161tiative on the Iballllot llin the geneirdl election llin 2024, for a difference of over a imlTlioin dollars. L.et's Ibe clear: The City of Ainah6lim should NOT dirdlin its coffers to hold a speciall election at the Ibelhest of big business llinteirests. If the City of Ainah6lim is serious about fiscall iresponsibiVlity with taxpayer money and commu6ity liinlput then it will put our Hotell & Event Center Worker Protection 161tiative on the ballot llin November 2024, which would save the taxpayers over a iml!lIfioin dollars and ensuire maxirndl liinlput Iby the iresidents of Ainah6lim. RICHARD SIPEK 1 Susana Barrios From: pamela.burk info@email.actionnetwork.org > Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2023 1:53 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] Anaheim: Don't Dodge Democracy, Let the Voters Speak! Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. For Public Cornment, Dear Mayor and Honorable City Counces, l write as a concerned citizen of Ainah6lim to ask that you refuse to Iput the Hot6l & Event Center Worker Protection 161tiative on a costly speciall election this year. Ainah6lim is a city that has struggled with transparency tin government for too Iong. The voters of this city have the right to Iknow what is Ihalppenliing with our laws and the right to have our voices heard. This 161tiative is an lImportaint step for our city to take, and we ineed as many voters as possible tin this city to cast their Iballllots on this vlitall issue. According to the Counces staff report from last month's May 16 meeting, a speciall election would cost the city $1,477,297 $1,632,776. That's compared to the $198,891 $233,265 that it would cost to put the 161tiative on the Iballllot tin the geneirdl election tin 2024, for a difference of over a iml!Hioin doHairs. L.et's Ibe clear: The City of Ainah6lim should NOT dirdlin its coffers to hold a speciall election at the Ibelhest of big business linteirests. There is ino reason to Ilinteint6oindlllly Illiirnit the aimount of voices Ainah6lim is wHfing to hear on this issue, and scheddllling a speciall election would very likely mean fewer voters would weigh tin on this llimportaint issue, inot to mention the enormous cost the speciall election would have to hairdworking taxpayers tin Ainah6lim. PlIease place this 161tiative on the geneirdl election Iballllot In November of 2024. pai6IIa.Ibuirlke Susana Barrios From: Erik Acosta <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 3:12 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] Anaheim: Don't Dodge Democracy, Let the Voters Speak! Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. For Public Cornment, Dear Mayor and Honorable City Counces, l write as a concerned citizen of Ainah6lim to ask that you refuse to Iput the Hot6l & Event Center Worker Protection 161tiative on a costly speciall election this year. Ainah6lim is a city that has struggled with transparency tin government for too Iong. The voters of this city have the right to Iknow what is Ihalppenliing with our laws and the right to have our voices heard. This 161tiative is an lImportaint step for our city to take, and we ineed as many voters as possible tin this city to cast their Iballllots on this vlitall issue. According to the Counces staff report from last month's May 16 meeting, a speciall election would cost the city $1,477,297 $1,632,776. That's compared to the $198,891 $233,265 that it would cost to put the 161tiative on the Iballllot tin the geneirdl election tin 2024, for a difference of over a iml!Hioin doHairs. L.et's Ibe clear: The City of Ainah6lim should NOT dirdlin its coffers to hold a speciall election at the Ibelhest of big business linteirests. There is ino reason to llinteintioindlllly Illiirnit the aimount of voices Ainah6lim is wHfing to hear on this issue, and scheddllling a speciall election would very likely mean fewer voters would weigh tin on this llimportaint issue, inot to mention the enormous cost the speciall election would have to hairdworking taxpayers tin Ainah6lim. PlIease place this 161tiative on the geneirdl election Iballllot In November of 2024. Erflk Acosta 1 Susana Barrios From: Theresa Bass Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2023 8:54 PM To: Public Comment Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Hotel and Event Center Minimum Wage, Worker Retention, and Hotel Worker Safety and Workload Initiative Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. Mayor Ashleigh E. Aitken Mayor Pro Tern Natalie Rubalcava Councilmember Jose Diaz Councilmember Carlos A. Leon Councilmember Norma Campos Kurtz Councilmember Stephen Faessel Councilmember Natalie Meeks Mayor Aitken, Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava, and Councilmembers: On behalf of the Stovall's Hotels of Anaheim and the O'Connell Hospitality Group I am writing to ask that the pending Hotel and Event Center Minimum Wage, Worker Retention, and Hotel Worker Safety and Workload Initiative (the "Initiative") be placed on the ballot for the voters of Anaheim to decide at a special election later this year. While we understand that city staff has been directed to undertake and report its findings on the wider consequences of the Initiative on the city, the hospitality industry already knows that the wage, workplace rules, and implementation written into the Initiative make it unworkable, impractical, and unrealistic to abide by even under the best of circumstances. Simply put, this is an attempt by Unite Here to unionize hotels through the ballot box and forgo the process of collective bargaining negotiations. If voters were to approve the measure in a November 2024 vote, implementation would be mandated in the peak of the December 2024 holiday season, when a number of hotel professionals needed to oversee this process would likely be unavailable. The implementation mandate forces hoteliers, large and small, to undertake massive administrative, personnel, and technical changes to policies and procedures at the most inopportune time. Time is of the essence. The need for a special election is necessary due to the fact the business community, specifically the convention center, needs clarity in order to book future conventions. These are typically booked three to five years out. Many meeting planners are indicating they will be holding off future bookings until there is resolution regarding this measure. Equally important, a special election would allow the citizens of Anaheim to better understand the impact of this measure as a stand alone item not to be confused with other measures. Further, if the Initiative is successful at the ballot box in November 2024, the City of Anaheim may find it necessary to hire additional staff, or even to create an additional new department, in order to monitor and enforce the ordinance. Again, this timing would necessarily coincide with the 2024 holidays. While we stand in steadfast support of and agree with the worker safety and "panic button" provisions of the Initiative, we oppose the wage mandate and workplace rules which would devastate smaller Anaheim hotels and force larger ones to increase their costs to consumers — and slash TOT revenue to the city in the process. Voters in Anaheim deserve the chance to vote upon the proposal sooner rather than later. Thank you for your consideration. We hope you will support a special election. Best regards, William R. O'Connell III William R. O'Connell III O'Connell Hotels & Hospitality Stovall's Hotels of Anaheim 1110 W. Katella Ave. Anaheim, CA 92802 Office: 714.778.5220 ext. 164 Susana Barrios From: Theresa Bass Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2023 5:24 PM To: Public Comment Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Item 25: Thank you for calling the 10/3 special election From: Tony Tzeng (advocateslink.com> Date: June 24, 2023 at 2:40:36 PM PDT To: Stephen Faessel <S_F.ssl(nhien_et> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 25: Thank you for calling the 10/3 special election Reply -To: Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. Dear Council Member Stephen Faessel, Thank you for calling the Special Election that will allow voters to decide on this disastrous measure. I am sincerely grateful for your cooperation with the Orange County Registrar of Voters in ensuring all Anaheim voters can participate. Knowing that this measure will have long- lasting negative impacts on residents, taxpayers, small businesses, and the city, I ask that you adopt the resolution to call the Special Election. By adopting the resolution of the election, you will guarantee it takes place on the earliest possible date determined by the Registrar of Voters, October 3, 2023. Tony Tzeng Susana Barrios From: Theresa Bass Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2023 5:23 PM To: Public Comment Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Item 25: Thank you for calling the 10/3 special election From: Marshall Weinstein<rnarsha_I.I(grandle�q_cyhotel.com> Date: June 25, 2023 at 2:50:25 AM PDT To: Stephen Faessel <S_F.ssl(nhi_IO..:_n_et> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 25: Thank you for calling the 10/3 special election Reply -To: marshy_I.I(grandlegq_cyhotel.com Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. Dear Council Member Stephen Faessel, Thank you for calling the Special Election that will allow voters to decide on this disastrous measure. I am sincerely grateful for your cooperation with the Orange County Registrar of Voters in ensuring all Anaheim voters can participate. Knowing that this measure will have long- lasting negative impacts on residents, taxpayers, small businesses, and the city, I ask that you adopt the resolution to call the Special Election. By adopting the resolution of the election, you will guarantee it takes place on the earliest possible date determined by the Registrar of Voters, October 3, 2023. Marshall Weinstein 1650 S Jarbor Blvd Anaheim, California 92802 Susana Barrios From: Jaclueline Duehas <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2023 5:04 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] Anaheim: Don't Dodge Democracy, Let the Voters Speak! Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. For Public Cornment, Dear Mayor and Honorable City Counces, l write as a concerned citizen of Ainah6lim to ask that you refuse to Iput the Hot6l & Event Center Worker Protection 161tiative on a costly speciall election this year. Ainah6lim is a city that has struggled with transparency tin government for too Iong. The voters of this city have the right to Iknow what is Ihalppenliing with our laws and the right to have our voices heard. This 161tiative is an lImportaint step for our city to take, and we ineed as many voters as possible tin this city to cast their Iballllots on this vlitall issue. According to the Counces staff report from last month's May 16 meeting, a speciall election would cost the city $1,477,297 $1,632,776. That's compared to the $198,891 $233,265 that it would cost to put the 161tiative on the Iballllot tin the geneirdl election tin 2024, for a difference of over a iml!Hioin doHairs. L.et's Ibe clear: The City of Ainah6lim should NOT dirdlin its coffers to hold a speciall election at the Ibelhest of big business linteirests. There is ino reason to Ilinteint6oindlllly Illiirnit the aimount of voices Ainah6lim is wHfing to hear on this issue, and scheddllling a speciall election would very likely mean fewer voters would weigh tin on this llimportaint issue, inot to mention the enormous cost the speciall election would have to hairdworking taxpayers tin Ainah6lim. PlIease place this 161tiative on the geneirdl election Iballllot In November of 2024. Jaqu6llline Duehas Susana Barrios From: Francis Tuzzolino Jr advocateslink.com> Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2023 3:29 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] Order a Special Election - Hotel Worker Initiative Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. Dear Anaheim City Council, On June 13 you will consider an ordinance which would drastically impact hotels throughout the City of Anaheim. While promoted by UNITE HERE Local 11 as a measure to increase hotel worker safety, this poorly drafted proposal contains wage and work rules requirements that would devastate Anaheim hotels, with ripple effects that would gut Anaheim's budget. A majority of the council was correct to reject outright adoption at its May 16 meeting and instead direct an economic impact study. We urge adoption to be rejected again. Instead, the City Council should place this matter on the ballot for the people to decide in a special election later this year. As a matter of policy, the hotel proposal written by UNITE HERE Local 11 would be a disaster. Imposing the proposed wage and work rules on Anaheim hotels would be a costly new mandate. Many workers who were supposed to benefit will likely see their hours reduced or their jobs eliminated. Larger hotels will raise their prices for rooms, amenities, and services, resulting in fewer hotel stays and less tax revenue for the city. Smaller hotels, including family owned "mom and pop" hotels, will likely just go out of business. The increased costs of doing business in Anaheim overall will make it tougher for Anaheim to attract and retain the big trade shows and conventions, like NAMM and Natural Products, and make it tougher for families and tourists to justify the costs of a vacation to the Anaheim Resort. Those increased costs could also result in a chilling effect on economic development throughout Anaheim, but especially where tourism matters most: in the Anaheim Resort. Tourism developments, including new hotels, could slow down or be canceled outright because no business will want to make a significant investment in a city where costs are going to skyrocket. From a practical standpoint, the proposal's 10-day implementation window is one that would be impossible to meet during the December 2024 holiday rush, which is exactly what hotels would be faced with if the measure was successful in the November 2024 General Election. If passed in a special election, the measure would at least be somewhat less difficult for some hotels to implement within 10 days. We hope that it will not come to this, however. Once the voters of Anaheim learn how the UNITE HERE Local 11 measure will devastate the city's finances, and threaten the ability of you, the City Council, to properly fund services such as libraries, parks and recreation, street maintenance, and police and fire protection, they will reject this measure. The City Council should give the voters that opportunity by placing it on the ballot in a special election. When city staff present you with the findings of its economic impact research, the consequences of the proposed ordinance will be clear. It is imperative that voters be able to have their say as quickly as possible. We cannot wait until November 2024. Please: Order a special election. Francis Tuzzolino Jr Susana Barrios From: Laura Cunningham <Laura@anaheimchamber.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 3:37 PM To: Ashleigh Aitken; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Norma C. Kurtz; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks Cc: City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] Agenda Item 25 - Special Election Attachments: Agenda Item 25 - Special Election - Letter to Council.pdf Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. Dear Mayor Aitken and Members of the City Council, Attached please find our support letter for Agenda Item 25 on today's agenda. LAURA CUNNINGHAM June 27, 2023 Mayor and City Council Anaheim City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California 92805 RE: SUPPORT — Agenda Item 25 — Calling October 3 Special Election. Dear Mayor Aitken, Mayor Pro Tern Rubalcava, and Members of the City Council: The Anaheim Chamber of Commerce supports Agenda Item 25 to call an October 3 special election to allow Anaheim voters to decide upon the ballot measure that will have a catastrophic effect on Anaheim's economy and Anaheim's small businesses. We thank the Council for enabling voters to move swiftly to resolve the fate of this damaging measure, rather than waiting another year and a half. Holding a special election on this measure will allow voters to focus on the effects of this measure upon Anaheim. The economic impact analyses conducted by independent experts commissioned by the City Council have found this measure will cost Anaheim taxpayers $13 million each year. The Registrar of Voters will mail a ballot to every single Anaheim registered voter, including those Anaheim residents who are military deployed on active duty and those Anaheim residents temporarily living abroad, so any Anaheim voter can cast a ballot on this devastating measure. For all these reasons, the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce supports Agenda Item 25 to call a special election for Tuesday, October 3, 2023. We thank the Council for approving this agenda item. Sincerely, 2099 S. State College Blvd., Suite 650 Anaheim, CA 92806 T (714) 758-0222 AnaheimChamber.org Susana Barrios From: Christine Schachter <christines@pwr.net> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2023 5:48 PM To: City Clerk; Public Comment; Ashleigh Aitken; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Norma C. Kurtz; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks; Berenice Ballinas; Valeria Sandoval; Sarah Bartczak; Taylor N. Griffin; Nadia Villafana; Robert Mendoza; Nam Bartash; Joel Saldivar; Cameron Wessel; City Manager; Jim Vanderpool; Andy Nogal Cc: Phil Hawkins; Tim Shaw Subject: [EXTERNAL] PWR Letter re June 27, 2023 City Council Agenda Item No. 26 Attachments: PWR Letter to Anaheim City Council re Agenda Item 26_6.27.23.pdf; Below -Market Housing Mandates as Takings - Measuring their Impact.pdf, Do Affordable Housing Mandates Work? Evidence from Los Angeles County and Orange County.pdf Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. Honorable Mayor Aitken and Members of the City Council: Please find attached a letter from the Pacific West Association of REALTORS@ (PWR) regarding item no. 26 on the June 27, 2023 meeting agenda. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Christine Schachter Government Affairs Director Pacific West Association of REALTORS@ 1601 E. Orangewood Ave. Anaheim, CA 92805 714-245-5500 (main) 1 714-221-8474 (direct) dhiristi.0 es.�cr7 vvirji t a Serving Orange County & Los Angeles County June 26, 2023 Anaheim City Council 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92805 Re: June 27, 2023, Council Agenda Item No. 26, Housing Affordability Ad Hoc Committee Update Honorable Mayor Aitken and Members of the City Council: The Pacific West Association of REALTORS@ (PWR) is the local real estate association that represents Los Angeles and Orange Counties, including the city of Anaheim, and PWR's 13,000 members promote homeownership, private property rights, and responsible government. We recognize the need both locally and statewide to address the housing affordability crisis, which has made housing a substantial economic burden on working families, senior citizens, and residents on fixed incomes, and we respectfully request that the City of Anaheim support housing policies that are centered around process improvements, incentives and adaptable development standards as opposed to counterproductive measures such as market controls or government mandates. The consideration of an affordable housing development fee or inclusionary housing program by the City's Housing Ad Hoc Committee is problematic without having obtained public input, a competitive bid process for a study of other potential alternatives, and market analysis of existing incentives. A comparable case is that of Santa Ana where burdensome inclusionary housing requirements imposed by the city council effectively halted residential construction across the city. Unfortunately, inclusionary zoning does not address the factors that contribute to the high cost of housing such as land prices, lack of available sites, developer fees and exactions, cumbersome permitting processes, etc. For your reference, please find the following attachments on this topic. "Below Market Housing Mandates as Takings: Measuring Their Impact", Independent Policy Report, by Tom Means, Edward Stringham, and Edward Lopez, November 2007. - "Do Affordable Housing Mandates Work? Evidence from Los Angeles County and Orange County", Reason Public Policy Institute, by Benjamin Powell and Edward Stringham, June 2004. We stand ready to support efforts that are proven to work but placing the burden on current residents by driving up housing prices is not the solution. For so long, Anaheim has been a leader in finding innovative ways to build a vibrant and thriving community and we hope to see that continue. Sincerely, Phil Hawkins Tim Shaw Christine Schachter Chief Executive Officer Government Affairs Director Government Affairs Director PACIFIC WEST ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS@ ANAHEIM OFFICE - MAIN • LONG BEACH OFFICE 1601 East Orangewood Ave., Anaheim, CA 92805 5000 East Spring St Suite #110, Long Beach, CA 90815 (714) 245-5500 1 www.pwr.net Below -Market Housing Mandates as Takings: Measuring their Impact Tom Means, Edward Stringham, and Edward Lopez November 2007 Executive Summary Housing affordability has become a major issue in recent years. To address the problem, many cities have adopted a policy known as below -market housing mandates or inclu- sionary zoning. As commonly practiced in California, below -market housing mandates require developers to sell io—zo percent of new homes at prices affordable to low-income households. Many developers, however, argue that the program is in violation of the takings clause of the U.S. Constitution because it forces devel- opers to use some of their property to advance a public goal. Nevertheless, in Home Builders Association of Northern California v. City of Napa (Zooi), the court ruled against the regu- latory takings argument, saying that below - market housing mandates are legal because (i) they offer compensating benefits to developers and (z) they necessarily increase the supply of affordable housing. This study investigates these claims in the following way: Section 2 discusses the his- tory of regulatory takings and discusses why below -market housing mandates may be con- sidered a taking. Section 3 investigates how much below -market housing mandates cost developers. Section 4 investigates econometri- cally whether below -market housing mandates actually make housing more affordable. Our research indicates that the deci- sion by the California Courts of Appeal is on shaky ground. Below -market housing mandates require developers to forego sub- stantial amounts of revenue and they provide little offsetting benefit. A mandate in Marin, California, for example, would require devel- opers to forfeit roughly 40 percent of revenue from a project, and builders are offered almost nothing in return. We can see how below -market housing mandates affect housing markets by using econometrics to analyze data of price and quantity for California cities in 19go and 2000. Our regressions show that cities that impose a below -market housing mandate actually end up with ro percent fewer homes and Zo per- cent higher prices. For developers, inclusionary zoning has an effect similar to a regulatory taking. For society in general, affordable housing man- dates decrease the supply of new housing and increase prices, which exacerbates the afford- ability problem. Independent Policy Reports are published by The Independent Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan, scholarly research and educational organization that sponsors comprehensive studies on the political economy of critical social and economic issues. Nothing herein should be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Independent Institute or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress. Copyright ©2007 by The Independent Institute All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by electronic or mechanical means now known or to be invented, including photocopying, recording, or infor- mation storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages in a review. The Independent Institute zoo Swan Way, Oakland, CA 946ar-r428 Telephone: 510-632--I366 • Fax: 510-568-6040 Email: info@independent.org Website: www.independent.org ISBN 978-1-S9813-023-2 Below --Market Housing Mandates as Takings Measuring their Impact Tom Means, Edward Stringham, and Edward Lopez i. Introduction High housing prices in recent years are mak- ing it increasingly difficult for many to pur- chase a home. Prices have been rising all over the United States, especially in cities on the East and West Coasts. In San Francisco, for exam- ple, the median home sells for $846,500 (Said, 2oo7, p.ci), which requires yearly mortgage pay- ments of roughly s63,000 (plus yearly property taxes of $8,500),I Not only is the median home unaffordable to most, but there is a dearth of affordable homes on the low end, too. In San Francisco, a household making the median income of $86,roo can afford (using traditional lending guidelines) only 6.7 percent of existing homes (National Association of Homebuilders/ Wells Fargo, zoos). Households making less are all but precluded from the possibility of home ownership (Riches, 2-004). As a proposed solution, many cities are adopting a policy often referred to as below - market housing mandates, affordable housing mandates, or inclusionary zoning (California Coalition for Rural Housing and Non-profit Housing Association of Northern California, 2003). The specifics of the policy vary by city, but inclusionary zoning as commonly prac- ticed in California mandates that developers sell I0-20 percent of new homes at prices affordable to low-income households. Below -market units typically have been interspersed among market - rate units, have a similar size and appearance as market -rate units, and retain their below -market status for a period of fifty-five years.2 The pro- gram is touted as a way to make housing more affordable, and as a way to provide housing for all income levels, not just the rich. In contrast to exclusionary zoning, a practice that uses housing laws to keep out the poor, inclusionary zoning is advocated as a way to help the poor. Because of its expressed good intentions, the program has gained tremendous popularity. First introduced in Palo Alto, California, in 1973, the program has increased in popularity in the past decade 2 I THE INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE and is now in place in one-third of the cities in California (Non -Profit Housing Association of Northern California, 2,007). And it is spread- ing nationwide, having been already adopted in parts of Maryland, New Jersey, and Virginia (Calavita, Grimes, and Mallach, 1997). But the program is not without controver- sy.3 In Home Builders Association of Northern California v. City of Napa (zool), the Home Builders Association maintained that by requir- ing developers to sell a percentage of their development for less than market price, the "ordinance violated the takings clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions." A ruling by the Court of Appeals in California stated that affordable housing mandates are legal and not a taking because (z) they benefit developers, and (z) they necessarily increase the supply of afford- able housing. This report investigates these claims by examining the costs of the programs and reviewing econometrically how they affect the price and quantity of housing. Our report is organized as follows: Section z discusses the history of regulatory takings deci- sions by the courts and relates them to affordable housing mandates. It provides a brief overview of regulatory takings decisions and discusses the arguments about why affordable housing man- dates may or may not be considered a taking. When government allows certain buyers to pur- chase at below -market prices, it is making sellers sell their property at price -controlled prices. If sellers are not compensated for being forced to sell their property at a below -market price, that may be considered a taking. Section 3 investigates how much affordable housing mandates cost developers. By calculat- ing the price -controlled level and comparing it to the market price, we can observe the costs to developers each time they sell a price -controlled home. After estimating how much the program costs developers, we discuss to what extent they are being compensated. We find that the alleged benefits to developers pale in comparison to the costs. Section 4 investigates econometrically whether below -market housing mandates actu- ally make housing more affordable. Using panel data for California cities, we investigate how below -market housing mandates affect the price and quantity of housing. We find that cities that adopt below -market housing mandates actually drive housing prices up by zo percent and end up with zo percent fewer homes. These statistically significant findings thus bring into question the idea that mandating affordable housing neces- sarily increases the amount of affordable hous- ing. Section S concludes by discussing why, con- trary to Home Builders Association of Northern California v. City of Napa (zoos), below -market housing mandates should be considered a tak- ing. 2. Below -market Housing Mandates and Takings What are "takings," and should affordable hous- ing mandates be considered a taking? the most familiar form of taking is when the government acquires title to real property for public use, such as common carriage rights of way (roads, rail, or power lines). Precedent for these types of takings is evident in early U.S. jurisprudence, which institutionalized the principle that the govern- ment's chief function is to protect private prop- erty.4 As such, the government's takings power was limited in several key respects. Most impor- tant, the nineteenth-century Supreme Court prohibited takings that transferred property from one private owner to another and upheld the fundamental fairness doctrine that no indi- vidual property owner should bear too much of the burden in supplying public uses. But government's takings power has expanded over time. Takings restrictions were gradually eroded beginning in the Progressive Era and accelerating during the New Deal, as the Supreme Court increasingly deferred to leg- islative bodies and an ever-expanding notion of public use. Starting in the latter half of the twentieth century, the stage was set to approve takings for "public uses" such as urban renewal (Berman v. Parker, 1954), competition in real estate (Hawaii Housing v. Midkiff, 1984), expan- sion of the tax base (Kelo v. New London, 2005), and other types of "economic development tak- ings" (Somin, 2004). By the final decade of the twentieth century, one prominent legal scholar described the public use clause as being of "nearly complete insignificance" (Rubenfeld, 1993, p.1078). Regulatory takings differ in that they are generally not subject to just compensation, because they rest on the government's police power, not the power of eminent domain. Regulatory takings differ also in that the owner retains title to the property but suffers attenu- ated rights. For example, a government might rezone an area for environmental conservation and thereby prevent a landowner from develop- ing his property. But does an owner still own his property if he is deprived of using it according to his original intent? These were the essential characteristics of the regulation challenged in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992).5 In that case, David Lucas owned two plots of land that he bought for nearly sI million and Below -Market Housing Mandates As Takings 13 intended to develop. But the South Carolina Coastal Council later rezoned his property, stating that it would be used for conservation. The Court sided with Lucas, saying that if he was deprived of economically valuable use, he must be compensated. Under Lucas, federal law requires compensation if the regulation dimin- ishes the entire value of the property, such that an effective taking exists despite no physical removal. This so-called "total takings" test is one of several doctrines that could be used to judge regulatory takings. For example, the diminution of value test could support compensation to the extent of the harm done to the property owner. This was the Court's tendency in the 1922 case Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon, which found that a regulatory act can constitute a taking depending on the extent to which the value of a property is lowered.' So the Lucas Court was not up to something new. As a matter of fact, the concept of regulatory takings was discussed by key fig- ures in the American founding era and became an important topic in nineteenth-century legal scholarship as well.7 Following in this tradition, the Lucas Court addressed several sticking points with regulatory takings law. For example, the majority opinion cited Justice Holmes as stating the maxim that when regulation goes too far in diminishing the owner's property rights, it becomes a taking. However, as the majority opinion pointed out, the Court does not have a well -developed stan- dard for determining when a regulation goes too far to become a taking. Finally, and most impor- tant for our purposes, the Lucas Court also stressed that the law is necessary to prevent poli- cymakers from using the expediency of police power to avoid the just compensation required under eminent domain. The Lucas Court exam- 4 I THE INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE ined regulators' incentives and voiced its dis- comfort with the "heightened risk that private property is being pressed into some form of pub- lic service under the guise of mitigating serious public harm." Because they rezone land, requiring owners to provide a public service of making low-income housing, below -market housing mandates seem like they fit into the Lucas Court's description of what could be considered a taking. This spe- cific issue, however, is still being debated in the courts. In 1999, the Home Builders Association of Northern California brought a case against the City of Napa for mandating that ro percent of new units be sold at below -market rates. The Home Builders Association argued that the affordable housing mandate violated the Fifth Amendment's takings clause stating that "pri- vate property [shall not] be taken for public use without just compensation." The trial court dis- missed the complaint, and in 2001, the Court of Appeals decided against the Home Builders Association, arguing that "[a]lthough the ordi- nance imposed significant burdens on develop- ers, it also provided significant benefits for those who complied."' In addition, the California court argued that because making housing more affordable is a legitimate state interest, then below -market housing mandates are legitimate, because they advance that goal. Judge Scott Snowden (who was affirmed by Judges J. Stevens and J. Simons) wrote, "Second, it is beyond question that City's inclusionary zoning ordi- nance will `substantially advance' the important governmental interest of providing affordable housing for low and moderate -income families. By requiring developers in City to create a mod- est amount of affordable housing (or to comply with one of the alternatives) the ordinance will necessarily increase the supply of affordable housing."9 The Home Builders Association's subsequent attempts to have the case reheard or reviewed by the Supreme Court were denied. So the Court's argument rests on two propositions that it considers beyond question: (i) affordable housing mandates provide sig- nificant benefits to builders that offset the costs, and (z) affordable housing mandates necessarily increase the supply of affordable housing. Both of these are empirical arguments that can be tested against real -world data. We investigate these propositions in the following two sections. 3. Estimating the Costs of Below - market Housing Mandates If one wants to state that "[A]lthough the ordi- nance imposed significant burdens on develop- ers, it also provided significant benefits for those who complied," one needs to investigate the costs of below -market housing mandates in these pro- grams. Yet when this statement was issued by the Court in 2001, there had been no study of the costs.'° The first work to estimate these costs was done by Powell and Stringham (2004a). Let us here provide some sample calculations and then present some data for costs in various California cities. Once we present the costs, we can consider whether the programs have significant, offsetting benefits for developers. First let us consider a real example from Marin County's drafted Countywide Plan." According to the plan, affordable housing man- dates would be designated for certain areas of the county (with privately owned property). In these areas, anyone wishing to develop their property would have to sell or lease 50-6o per- cent of their property at below -market rates.'' The plan requires the below -market -rate homes to be affordable to households earning 60-80 percent of the median income, which means price -controlled units must be sold for approxi- mately 00,000-$240,000.13 Flow much does such an affordable housing mandate cost devel- opers? New homes are typically sold for more than the median price of housing, but for sim- plicity let us assume that new homes would have been sold at the median price in Marin, which is $838,75o. For each unit sold at s18o,002, the revenue is $658,748 less due to the price control. Consider the following sample calculations for a ten -unit project in Marin that show how much revenue a developer could get with and without price controls. Sample calculations for a ten -unit, for sale development in Marin County Scenario is Development without price controls Revenue from a ten-unitprojeet withoutpriee controls [(ten market -rate units) x ($838,750 per unit)] = $8,387,500 Scenario 2: Development with below -market mandate Revenue from a ten -unit project, with So percent of homes underprice controls set for 6o percent of median -income households [(five market -rate units) x ($838,750 per unit)] + [(five price -controlled units) x ($i8o,002 per unit)]= $5,093,760 As these calculations show, the below -mar- ket housing mandate decreases the revenue from a ten -unit project by $3,293,740, which is roughly 40 percent of the value of a project. This is just one example, and there are many more. Below -Market Housing Mandates As Takings Powell and Stringham (2004a and 2004b) estimate the costs of below -market housing mandates in the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles, and Orange counties. By estimat- ing how much units must be sold for at below - market rates and comparing this to how much homes could be sold for without price controls, one can estimate how much money below -mar- ket housing mandates make developers forgo. Even using conservative estimates (to not over- estimate costs), these policies cost developers a substantial amount. Figure i shows that in the median San Francisco Bay Area city with a below -market housing mandate, each price -con- trolled unit must be sold for more than $300,000 below the market price. In cities with high hous- ing prices and restrictive price controls, such as Los Altos and Portola Valley, developers must sell below -market -rate homes for more than $i million below the market price. One can estimate the costs imposed by these programs on developers by looking at the cost per unit times the number of units built. This measure is not what economists call dead- weight costs (which attempts to measure the lost gains from trade from what is not being built), but just a measure of the lost revenue that devel- opers incur for the units actually built. In many cities, no units have been built as a result of the program, but nevertheless, the costs (in current prices) are quite high. The results for the San Francisco Bay Area are displayed in figure 2. In five cities —Mill Valley, Petaluma, Palo Alto, San Rafael, and Sunnyvale —the amount of the "giveaways" in current prices totals over $i bil- lion. The next important question is whether developers are getting anything in return. If Mill Valley, Petaluma, Palo Alto, San Rafael, and Sunnyvale were to issue checks to develop- 6 I THE INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE Figure I Average Lost Revenue Associated with Selling Each Below -market -rate Unit in San Francisco Bay Area Cities $1,300,000 $1,200,000 $1,100,000 $1,000,000 $900,000 $800,000 $700,000 $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $0 00 Z� o w o ro x� v rod v g a o o� ro ❑ a o v ox o.H o 4 oW—'.Y °�� H�U 4 o❑ o o. Z 6> ZUw w w oc� �� v w �� ❑� G �U C j ° Source: Powell and Stringham (2004a, p.15) ers totaling s1 billion, one could say that even though there was a taking, there was also a type of compensation. But the interesting aspect about affordable housing mandates as practiced in California and most other places is that gov- ernment offers no monetary compensation at all. In fact, this is one of the reasons why advo- cates of the program and governments have been adopting it. In the words of one prominent advocate, Andrew Dieterich (1996, P. 41), "a vast inclusionary program need not spend a public dime." In contrast to government -built housing projects, which require tax revenue to construct and manage, affordable -housing mandates impose those costs onto private citizens, namely housing developers. Here we have private parties losing billions of dollars in revenue and receiv- ing no monetary compensation in return. Monetary compensation for developers is not present, but are affordable housing man- dates accompanied by nonmonetary benefits? The Court in Home Builders Association v. Napa (zoos) stated that "[D]evelopments that include affordable housing are eligible for expedited processing, fee deferrals, loans or grants, and density bonuses."14 According to California Government Code section 65915, government must provide a density bonus of at least 25 per- cent to developers who make 20 percent of a project affordable to low-income households. The value of these offsetting benefits will vary based on the specifics, but for full compensa- tion to take place, these benefits would have to be more than $300,000 per home in the median Bay Area city with inclusionary zoning. One could determine in two ways that the offsetting benefits were worth more than the costs.�5 The first way would be if one observed the building industry actively lobbying for these programs. But in California and most other areas, the building industry is usually the most vocal opponent of these programs. In Home Builders Association of Northern California v. City of Napa the court provided no explanation of why the Home Builders Association would be suing to stop a program if it really did provide "significant benefits for those who complied." If the programs really did benefit developers, Below -Market Housing Mandates As Takings 17 Figure 2 Average Lost Revenue Per Unit Times the Number of Units Sold in Below -market Programs in San Francisco Bay Area Cities $250,000,000 $225,000,000 $200,000,000 $175,000,000 $150,000,000 $125,000,000 $100,000,000 $75,000,000 $50,000,000 $25,000,000 O C O C _i� O 2 .. .�_ O. Ca O U w U H �" U .=1 o U cam, vC7i _v 0 ,n Source: Powell and Stringharn (2004a, p.15) there would be no reason why developers would oppose them. Why don't builders want to sell units for hundreds of thousands less than market price for each unit sold? Or why don't California builders want to forgo billions in revenue? All of the builders with whom we have spoken have stated that the offsetting "benefits" are no ben- efits at all. For example, a city might grant a density bonus, but the density bonus might be completely unusable, because density restric- tions are just one of a set of restrictions on how many units will fit on the property. Other con- straints such as setbacks, minimum require- ments for public and private open space, floor area ratios, and even tree protections make it extremely complicated to get more units on the property. Conventional wisdom suggests that building at ioo percent of allowable density will maximize profits, but in reality developers tend to build out at less than full density. The City of Mountain View recently passed a policy requiring developers to provide an explanation for projects that failed to meet 8o percent of the allowable density." Prior projects had averaged around 65 percent of allowable density. So giving builders the opportunity to build at 125 percent of allowable density is often worth nothing, when so many other binding regulations exist. The second and even simpler way to deter- mine whether the affordable housing mandates provide significant benefits to compensate devel- opers for their costs would be to make the inclu- sionary zoning programs voluntary. Developers could then weigh the benefits and costs of par- ticipating, and if the benefits exceeded the costs, the developers could voluntarily comply. A few cities in California tried to adopt voluntary ordi- nances, and perhaps unsurprisingly, they did not attract developers. One advocate of afford- able housing mandates argues that the problem with voluntary programs is "that most of them, because of their voluntary nature, produce very few units" (Tetreault, 2000, p.2o). From these simple observations, we can infer that the significant "benefits" of these pro- grams are not as significant as the costs. In this sense, the program has the character of a regu- 81 THE INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE latory taking. In addition to observing whether builders would support or voluntarily partici- pate in these programs, we can also analyze data to observe how these programs affect the quan- tity of housing. If the Court in Home Builders Association v. Napa is correct that the benefits are significant, then we would predict that imposing an affordable housing mandate would not affect (or it would encourage) housing production in a jurisdiction. If, on the other hand, the program is not compensating for what it takes, we would predict that cities with the program will see less development than in otherwise similar cities without the program. Here the program is a tak- ing that will hinder new development. 4. Testing How Below -market Housing Mandates Affect the Price and Quantity of Housing The court in Home Builders Association v. Napa puts forth an important proposition, which we can examine statistically. The court states: "By requiring developers in City to create a mod- est amount of affordable housing (or to comply with one of the alternatives) the ordinance will necessarily increase the supply of affordable hous- ing" (emphasis added). Although the court sug- gests that it is an a priori fact that price controls will increase the supply of affordable housing, the issue may be a bit more complicated than these appellate judges maintain. Before getting to the econometrics, let us consider some simple economic theory and simple statistics about the California experience. First, if a price control is so restrictive, developers cannot make any prof- its and so the price control can easily drive out all development from an area. Cities such as Watsonville adopted overly restrictive price con- trols, and they all but prevented development until they scaled back the requirements (Powell and Stringham, 2,005). Over the course of thirty years in the entire San Francisco Bay Area, below -market housing mandates have resulted in the production of only 6,836 affordable units, an average of 2,z8 per year (Powell and Stringham, 2004a, P. 5). Controlling for the length of time each program has been in effect, the average jurisdiction has produced only 14.7 units for each year since adopting a below -market housing mandate. Since the programs have been imple- mented, dozens of cities have produced a total of zero units (Powell and Stringham, 2004a, pp. 4-5)• So unless one defines zero as an increase, it might be more accurate to restate "necessarily increase" as "might increase." Economic theory predicts that price con- trols on housing lead to a decrease in quantity produced. Because developers must sell a per- centage of units at price -controlled rates in order to get permission to build market -rate units, this policy also will affect the supply of market -rate units. Powell and Stringham (zoos) discuss how the policy may be analyzed as a tax on new hous- ing. If below -market -rate housing mandates act as a tax on housing, they will reduce quantity and increase housing price. This is the exact opposite of what advocates of below -market -rate housing mandates say they prefer. So we have two competing hypotheses, that of economic theory, and that of the court in Home Builders Association v. Napa. Luckily, we can test these two hypotheses by examining data for housing production and housing prices in California. Our approach is to use panel data, which has a significant advantage over simple cross - sectional or time -series data. Suppose a city adopts the policy, there is an unrelated statewide decline in demand, and housing output falls by zo percent. A time -series approach would still have to control for other economic factors that might have changed and reduced housing out- put. One would still need to compare the reduc- tion in output from a city that adopted the policy to a nearby similar city that did not. A cross - sectional approach can control overall economic factors at a point in time but will not control for unobserved city differences. Our approach is to set up a two -period panel data set to control for unobserved city differences and to control for changes over time. The tests, which we explain in detail below, will enable us to see how adopt- ing a below -market -rate housing mandate will affect variables such as output and prices. 4.1. Description of the Data The first set of data we utilize consists of the 1990 and z000 census data for California cities. The z000 census data are restricted to cities with a population greater than ten thousand, while 1990 census data are not. A decrease in popula- tion for some cities during the decade resulted in a loss of fifteen cities from the sample. We do not include the i98o census, because there were few policies in effect during this decade (Palo Alto passed the first policy in 1972). Focusing on this decade also highlights some economic issues. From 1987 to 1989, housing prices grew very rapidly. Prices for the first half of 1989 grew around 25 percent, only to fall by this amount for the second half of the year, and continue to slide as the California economy declined. For some areas, prices did not recover to their origi- nal level until halfway through the 1990 decade. The California economy grew faster in the sec- ond half of the decade due to the dot -corn boom Below -Market Housing Mandates As Takings 19 in the technology sector. Data from the RAND California Statistics Web site provided average home sale prices for each city for the 1990 and z000 period. The RAND data do not report 1990 home sale prices for some cities, resulting in a loss of more observations. Summary statis- tics are provided in table i. Data on the policy adoption dates came from the California Coalition for Rural Housing and Non-profit Housing Association of Northern California. Table z describes the summary statistics of the policy variables that we con- structed. IZyr is a dummy variable defined to equal one if the city passed a below -market -rate housing ordinance that year or in prior years. As noted above, differences in population cutoff points and missing 1990 housing prices reduced the sample of cities that passed (or did not pass) an ordinance. Starting in 1985, our sample con- tains fifteen California cities that had passed an ordinance. The number increased to fifty-nine cities by the end of 1999. The last column reports the difference between decades. In other words, iz95delta reports the number of cities that passed an ordinance between 1985 and 1995. The differ- ence variables are fairly constant and capture a large number of cities that passed ordinances during the decade. Focusing on the 199o—z000 decade should allow us enough observations to capture the impact of the policy. 4.2. Empirical Tests Jeffrey Wooldridge (zoo6) provides an excellent discussion of how to test the impact of a policy using two -period panel data. Our approach is to specify a model with unobserved city effects that are assumed constant over the decade (i99o- 2-000) and estimate a first -difference model 10 I THE INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE to eliminate the fixed effect. We also specify a semilog model so that the first difference yields the log of the ratio of the dependent variables over the decade. Estimating the models in logs also simplifies the interpretation of the policy variable coefficient as an approximate percent- age change rather than an absolute difference in averages. For the policy variable, we define IZyr as a dummy variable equal to one if the policy was in effect during the current and previous years. To see the importance of the first -differ- ence approach, consider a model specified for each decade. Level Model.' 1nYi t = P. + d,,YR2000i t + d,lZyri t + P,Xit+ai+vit (Equation i) 1 = city t = 199O, 2000 The dependent variable is either housing output or housing prices, YRZ000 is a dummy variable allowing the intercept to change over the decade, IZyr is the policy dummy variable, and the X are control variables. The error term contains two terms: the unobserved fixed city component (a) considered fixed for the decade (e.g., location, weather, political tastes); and the usual error component (vit). If the unobserved fixed effect is uncorrelated with the exogenous variables, one can estimate the model using ordinary -least -squares for each decade. The coef- ficient for IZyr measures the impact of the pol- icy for each decade.17 Unfortunately, estimating the level model may not capture the differences between cities that passed an ordinance and the ones that did not. In other words, suppose cit- ies with higher housing prices are more likely to adopt the policy. The dummy variable may cap- ture the impact of the policy along with the fact that these cities already have higher prices. The above issues can be addressed by dif- ferencing the level models to eliminate the fixed city effect, which yields the first -difference mod- el.Ig First -Difference Model lnYi 2000 - 1nYi,1990 = do + d,IZyri,2000 - dllZyri,Iggo + PIXi,2000 - PIX0990 + vi,2000 - vi,1990 (Equation 2) i = city which can be rewritten as: ln(Yi,2000'yi,1990) = d0 + dlAlZyri t + PIAXi t + Ovi t (Equation 3) I = city t = 2000 Eliminating the unobserved fixed city effect, which we show below in the last two col- umns of tables 3 and 4, has an important effect on estimating the impact of the policy variable. Differencing the panel data also yields a dummy variable that represents the change in policy par- ticipation over the decade (an example of this is the iz95delta appearing in tables 2 through 6). When policy participation takes place in both periods (i990 and Z000), the interpretation of the differenced dummy is slightly different from the usual policy treatment approach. The differenced dummy variable predicts the aver- age change in the dependent variable due to an increase (or decrease) in participation. To see the advantage of the first -difference approach, we first estimated (without control variables, which we will add in tables 5 and 6) the un-differenced equations of the log of aver- Below -Market Housing Mandates As Takings 111 Table i Summary Statistics Variable Observations Mean Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum Population 2000 N=446 65,466 (197,087) 10,007 3,694,834 Population 1990 N=431 58,468 (187,014) 1,520 3,485,398 Households 2000 N=446 22,251 (68,673) 1,927 1,276,609 Households 1990 N=431 20,512 (66,074) 522 1,219,770 Housing Units 2000 N=446 23,278 (71,843) 2,069 1,337,668 Housing Units 1990 N=431 21,745 (70,331) 597 1,299,963 Density 2000 N=446 7.62 (6.06) 0.42 37.32 (persons/acre) Density 1990 N=431 6.87 (5.88) 0.08 37.01 (persons/acre) Median Household N=446 52,582 (21,873) 16,151 193,157 Income 2000 Median Household N=431 38,518 (14,543) 14,215 123,625 Income 1990 Per Capita N=446 23,903 (13,041) 7,078 98,643 Income 2000 Per Capita N=431 16,696 (8,070) 4,784 63,302 Income 1990 Rents/Income N=446 27.60% (3.1%) 14.4% 50.1% 2000 Rents/Income N=431 28.9% (2.7%) 14.9% 35.1 % 1990 Average Home N=360 300,594 (235,436) 49,151 2,253,218 Price 2000 Average Home N=352 206,754 (112,804) 52,858 1,018,106 Price 1990 age housing prices and output (1nY; t = P. + coefficient estimates for the five regressions that d,lZyr t) over various lagged policy dummies. look at housing prices in 19go and have izz985, The first four columns in table 3 report the esti- iz1986, iz1987, iz1988, or iz1989 as the policy vari- mated coefficients (d) for each lag year for the able. The third and fourth columns in table 3 level models. The left two columns show the show the coefficient estimates for the five regres- 12 I THE INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE Table 2 Summary Statistics —Policy Variables Variable # of cities with inclusionary zoning (in that year) Variable # of cities with inclusionary zoning (in that year) Variable Change in # of cities with inclu- sionary zoning (over 10 years) iz95delta iz1985 15 iz1995 50 (which is iz1995-iz1985) 35 iz96delta iz1986 19 iz1996 52 (which is iz1996-iz1986) 33 iz97delta iz1987 19 iz1997 54 (which is iz1997-iz1987) 35 iz98delta iz1988 22 izl998 54 (which is iz1998-iz1988) 32 iz99delta iz1989 23 iz1999 59 (which is iz1999-iz1989) 36 Table 3 Summary of Policy Coefficients from Fifteen Regressions on the Price of Housing by Model and by Lag Year Dependent Variable: ln(Price) Level models for 1990 data Level models for 2000 data First -difference models (2000-1990) Policy Variable Coefficient of Policy variable Coefficient of Policy variable Coefficient of Policy Variable Policy Variable Policy Variable iz1985 .389 iz1995 .627 iz95delta .312 iz1986 .431 iz1996 .642 iz96delta .298 iz1987 .431 iz1997 .637 iz97delta .278 iz1988 .442 iz1998 .637 iz98delta .270 iz1989 .457 iz1999 .642 iz99delta .265 sions that look at housing prices in 20oo and have iz1995, iz1996, iz1997, iz1998, or iz1999 as the policy variable. For example, the 0.389 in the first row indicates that cities with inclusionary zoning in 1985 had 47.6 percent (exp(o.389) - i) higher than average prices in 19go, and the o.627 in the first row indicates that cities with inclu- sionary zoning in 1995 had 87.2 percent higher - than -average prices in z000. For both decades, the impact increases slightly as the lag period is decreased, though the impact for the z000 period is much larger than the 19go period. Below -Market Housing Mandates As Takings Table 4 Summary of Policy Coefficients from Fifteen Regressions on the Quantity of Housing by Model and by Lag Year Dependent Variable: ln(Housing Units) First -difference models Level models for 1990 data Level models for 2000 data (2000-1990) Policy Variable Coefficient of Policy variable Coefficient of Policy variable Coefficient of Policy Variable Policy Variable Policy Variable iz1985 .777 iz1995 .665 iz95delta -.o45 iz1986 .751 iz1996 .614 iz96delta -.024 iz1.987 .751 iz1.997 .585 iz97delta -.027 iZ1988 .679 iZ1998 .585 iz98delta -.038 iZ1989 .653 iZ1999 .618 iz99delta -.051 The estimated coefficients (d) for 19go and 2000 range from 0.389 to o.642 and indicate that cities with inclusionary zoning have 48-90 percent higher housing prices, but this does not take into consideration the possibility that cities that adopted the policy already had higher prices when they did so. To account for this potential problem, the first -difference model estimates how changes in the policy variable (adopting a below - market housing ordinance) alone affect housing prices. The last two columns of table 3 report the first -difference estimates (ln(Y;,Zoo,/Y;,?99O) = do + d,AIZyr; t). For example, the 0.312 in the last column of the first row indicates that cities with below -market housing mandates have 36.6 percent higher prices. Each of the estimated coefficients in table 3 are significant at the z percent level. The results in the last two columns indicate that below - market housing mandates have increased the price of the average home by 30 to 37 percent. The results for housing output (the number of units) are even more interesting. These results are presented in table 4. The estimates of dr for the level models for 19go and 2000 are positive and statistically significant at the one percent level, which indicates that cities with inclusion- ary zoning have more housing production, but similar to the housing price regressions do not take into consideration the possibility that cit- ies that adopted the policy already were grow- ing when they adopted the policy. Again, we need to look at the difference in output based on cities adopting the policy. The last two col- umns in table 4 show how changes in the policy variable (adopting a below -market -rate housing ordinance) alone affect the quantity of hous- ing. Eliminating the unobserved fixed effect by differencing the data switches the sign of the policy variable from positive to negative (though most are statistically insignificant with- out control variables). This switch in sign of d, provides strong evidence of the importance of eliminating the unobserved fixed city effect. The negative impact increases in size and statistical significance when control variables are added to the first -difference model. 13 14 I THE INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE Table 5 Regression Results of How Below -market Housing Mandates Affect the Price of Housing: First -difference Model with Control Variables Dependent Variable: ln(average price 2000/1990) Independent Variable Coefficients and Coefficients and (Standard Errors) (Standard Errors) N=431 N=431 Constant 0.001 -0.009 (0.025) (0.025) iz95delta 0.228*** (0.038) iz99delta 0.217*** (0.037) median income 0.173*** 0.178*** (0.0126) (0.0125) density -0.007 -0.008 (0.011) (0.011) population -0.0017 -0.00112 (0.00661) (0.00662) rent % -0.002 -0.003 (0.005) (0.005) Adj. R-Squared 0.4332 Tables 3 and 4 indicate the importance of differencing the data and removing the unob- served fixed city effect�9 The next set of regres- sions in table 5 report first -difference estimates for housing prices for the five-year and one year lag while adding other control variables that may change over time.20 The other models (using lag periods iz96delta, iz97delta, and iz98delta) yielded similar results. Adding income, whether median household income or per capita income, increases the size of the estimated policy effect. All policy estimates of d, are larger than 0.20, suggesting that cities that impose an affordable housing mandate drive up prices by more than 20 percent. Dropping the insignificant variables and adjusting for heteroscedasticity had little impact on the policy and income variables. 0.4300 The final set of results in table 6 reports the estimated effects on housing quantity for the same lag periods as the price estimates. The results are nearly identical for the other lag peri- ods (iz96delta, iz97delta, and iz98delta). Adding control variables increases the policy impact and its statistical significance. Substituting the num- ber of households for the number of units as the dependent variable does not alter the main results. Adjusting for heteroscedasticity did increase the statistical significance levels slightly for the policy variable. The negative policy coef- ficients (-0.I04 and-o.o97) suggest that cities that impose an affordable housing mandate reduce housing units by more than to percent. Below -Market Housing Mandates As Takings Table 6 Regression Results of How Below -market Housing Mandates Affect the Quality of Housing: First -difference Model with Control Variables Dependent Variable: In(units 2000-1990) Independent Variable Coefficients and (Standard Errors) N=431 Coefficients and (Standard Errors) N=431 Constant -0.056** -0.054** (0.023) (0.023) iz95delta -0.104** (0.042) iz99delta -0.097** (0.041) median income 0.0683*** 0.0660*** (0.0132) (0.0131) density 0.113* 0.114 (0.011) (0.011) population 0.0233* -0.0230* (0.00729) (0.00729) Adj. R-Squared 0.2921 Note: *, **,*** denotes significance at the .10, .05, .01 levels, two -tailed test. 5- Conclusion Our research provides answers to two important questions: How much do below -market housing mandates cost developers, and do below -market housing mandates improve housing affordabil- ity? After showing that below -market housing mandates cost developers hundreds of thou- sands of dollars for each unit sold, we discussed how developers do not receive compensation in this amount. Next we investigated how these policies affected the supply of housing. Using panel data and first difference estimates, we found that below -market housing mandates lead to decreased construction and increased prices. Over a ten-year period, cities that imposed a below -market housing mandate on average ended up with io percent fewer homes 0.2911 and zo percent higher prices. These results are highly significant. The assertion by the court in Home Builders Association v. Napa that "the ordinance will necessarily increase the supply of affordable housing" is simply untrue. The justification for the decision that below -market housing mandates are not a tak- ing rests on some extremely questionable eco- nomic assumptions. We are not sure about the amount of economics knowledge of Judges Scott Snowden, J. Stevens, and J. Simons. Below -market housing mandates are simply a type of price control, and nearly every econo- mist agrees that price controls on housing lead to a decrease in quantity and quality of hous- ing available (Kearl et al., 1979, p.z8). Because these price controls apply to a percentage of new housing, and builders must comply with them 15 16 I THE INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE if they want to build market -rate housing, price controls also will affect the supply of market -rate housing. Because price controls act as a tax on new housing, we would expect a supply shift leading to less output and higher prices for all remaining units. New names for price controls, like "inclu- sionary zoning," make the policy sound innocu- ous or even beneficial (who can be against a policy of inclusion?), but in reality the program is a mandate that imposes significant costs on a minority of citizens. The costs of below -market housing mandates are borne by developers and other new homebuyers who receive little or no compensation. From this perspective, below - market housing mandates are a taking no dif- ferent in substance from an outright taking under eminent domain. Below -market housing mandates represent the sort of abuse the Lucas Court forewarned, and they should rightly be considered a taking. In terms of economics, below -market housing mandates only differ from an outright taking in degree —there is not a "total taking" but a partial taking and clearly a diminution of value without any compensation. The amount of harm imposed by below -market housing mandates should inform their status under the law. References Allen, Charlotte. 2005. `A Wreck of a Plan; Look at How Renewal Ruined SW," Washington Post, July 17, 2005. Calavita, Nicol Kenneth Grimes, and Alan Mallach. 1997. "Inclusionary Housing in California and New Jersey: a Comparative Analysis." Housing Polity Debate, 8(1): pp.109-142. California Coalition for Rural Housing and Non-profit Housing Association of Northern California. 2003. Inclusionary Housing in California: 30 years ofln- novation. Sacramento: California Coalition for Rural Housing and Non-profit Housing Association of Northern California. Construction Industry Research Board. Burbank, CA: Building Permit Data 1970-2003, at www.cirbdata. corn. Dieterich, Andrew G. 1996. An Egalitarian Market: The Economics of Inclusionary Zoning Reclaimed." Ford - ham Urban Law Journal 24: pp. 23-104. Ely, James W. Jr. 2005. "'Poor Relation' Once More: The Supreme Court and the Vanishing Rights of Property Owners." Cato Supreme Court Review: pp. 39--69. Fischel, William A. 2006. "Before Kelo," Regulation (Win- ter 2005-06): pp. 32-35. Follain, Jr., James R. 1979. "The Price Elasticity of the Long -Run Supply of New Housing Construction," Land Economics55(2): pp. 190-199. Gelinas, Nicole. 2005. "they're Taking Away Your Property for What? The Court's Eminent -Domain Ruling is Use- less as Well As Unjust" City journal (Autumn 2005). Glaeser, Edward L., Joseph Gyourko, and Raven E. Saks. 2005. "Why Have Housing Prices Gone Up?" Ameri- can Economics Review 95(2): pp. 329-33. Glaeser, Edward L., Joseph Gyourko, and Raven E. Saks. 2005. "Why Is Manhattan So Expensive? Regulation and the Rise in Housing Prices." The Journal of Law Economics, 48:2: pp. 331-369. Green, Richard K Stephen Malpezzi, and Stephen K. Mayo. 2005. "Metropolitan -Specific Estimates of the Price Elasticity of Supply of Housing, and Their Sources." American Economic Review 95(2): pp. 334-39. Kautz, Barbara Erlich. 2002. "In Defense of Inclusionary Zoning: Successfully Creating Affordable Housing." University of San Francisco Law Review, 36:4: pp. 971-1,032. Kearl, J. R., Clayne L. Pope, Gordon C. Whiting, and Larry T. Wimmer. 1979. A Confusion of Econo- mists?" American Economic Review 69: pp. 28-37. Mayer, Christopher J., and C. Tsuriel Somerville, 2000. "Residential. Construction: Using the Urban. Growth Model to Estimate Housing Supply." journal of Urban Economics 48: pp. 85-109. National Association of Home Builders/Wells Fargo. 2007. "The NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index." Washington, DC: National Association of Home Builders. Non -Profit Housing Association of Northern California. 2007. Affordable by Choice: Trends in California Inclu- sionary Housing Programs. San Francisco: Non -Profit Housing Association of Northern California. Pipes, Richard. 1999. Property and Freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Powell, Benjamin, and Edward Stringham. 2004a. "Hous- ing Supply and Affordability: Do Affordable Housing Mandates Work?" Reason Policy Study 318. Powell, Benjamin, and Edward Stringham. 2004b. "Do Af- fordable Housing Mandates Work? Evidence from Los Angeles County and Orange County." Reason Policy Study 320. Powell, Benjamin, and Edward Stringham. 2004c. Afford- able Housing in Monterey County. Analyzing the Gen- eral Plan Update and Applied Development Econom- ics Report." Reason Policy Study 323. Powell, Benjamin, and Edward Stringham, 2005. "The Economics of Inclusionary Zoning Reclaimed: How Effective are Price Controls?" Florida State University Law Review 33(2). Quigley, John M, and Steven Raphael. 2004. "Is Housing Unaffordable? Why Isn't It More Affordable?" the jour- nalof Economic Perspectives 18(1): pp. 191-214. Quigley, John M. and Steven Raphael. 2005. "Regulation and the High Cost of Housing in California." Ameri- can Economic Review 95(2):pp. 323-28. Quigley, John M., and Larry A. Rosenthal. 2004. "The Ef- fects of Land -Use Regulation on the Price of Housing: What do We Know? What Can We Learn?" Berkeley Program on Housing and Urban Policy, Work- ing Paper 1052. At http://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/ bphupl/1052.html. RAND California Statistics, at www.ca.rand.org/cgi-bin/ homepage.cgi. Riches, Erin. 2004. Still Locked out 2004: California's Af- fordable Housing Crisis. Sacramento: California Budget Project. Richer, Derrell. 1995. "Explaining the Vote of Slow Growth." Public Choice 82: pp. 207-23. Rubenfeld, Jed. 1993. "Usings." Yale Law Review, 102:5 (March): pp. 1,077-1,163. Said, Carolyn. 2007. "Home Prices Rise in July Even as Sales Fall to 12-Year Low." San Francisco Chronicle, August 1.6, 2007. Somin, Ilya. 2004. "Overcoming Poletown: County of Wayne v. Hathcock, Economic Development Takings, and the Future of Public Use." Michigan State Law Review 4: 1,005-40. Tetreault, Bernard. 2000. Arguments Against Inclusionary Zoning you can Anticipate Hearing." New Century Housing, vol. 1, no. 2 (Oct. 2000): pp. 17-20. Thorson, James A. 1997. "The Effect of Zoning on Housing Construction." journal of Housing Construction, 6: pp. 81-91. Westray, Laura L. 1988. "Are Landlords Being Taken by the Good Cause Eviction Requirement?" Southern Califor- nia Law Review, 62: p.321. Below -Market Housing Mandates As Takings Wooldridge, Jeffrey M. 2006. Introductory Econometrics, A Modern Approach, 3,d ed. 'Thomson South -Western. Cases Cited Action Apartments Association v. City of Santa Monica, 123 Cal. App. 4th 47 (2007) Berman et al. v. Parker et al., 348 U.S. 26 (1.954). Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984). Home Builders Association of Northern California v. City of Napa, 89 Cal. App. 4d' 897 (modified and republished 90 Cal. App. 4`h 188) (2001). Kelo et al. v. City ofNew London, Connecticut, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992). Poletown Neighborhood Council a Detroit, 410 Mich. 616, 304 N.W. 2d 455 (1981). Notes 1 Assuming a 30-year fixed -interest -rate mortgage with an interest rate of 6.3 percent. 2 For details about the program, see California Coali- tion for Rural Housing and Non -Profit Housing Association of Northern California (2003) and Powell and Stringham (2004a). 3 For review of the literature, see Powell and Stringham (2005). 4 "The country that became the United States was unique in world history in that it was founded by individuals in quest of private property.... [T]he conviction that the protection of property was the main function of government, and its corollary that a government that did not fulfill this obligation forfeited its mandate, acquired the status of a self-evident truth in the minds of the American colonists." Pipes (1999, p.240). Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992). Pennsylvania Coal a Mahon 260, U.S. 393 (1922). As legal scholar James Ely writes, "In his famous 1792 essay James Madison perceptively warned people against government that `indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions.' Although Madison anticipated the regulatory takings doctrine, the modern doctrine began to take shape in the last decades of the nineteenth century. For example, in a treatise on eminent domain published in 1888, John 17 181 THE INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE Lewis declared that when a person was deprived of the possession, use, or disposition of property `he is to that extent deprived of his property, and, hence ... his property may be taken, in the constitutional sense, though his title and possession remain undisturbed.' Likewise, in 1.891 Justice David J. Brewer pointed out that regulation of the use of property might destroy its value and constitute the practical equivalent of outright appropriation. While on the Supreme Judi- cial Court of Massachusetts, Oliver Wendell Holmes also recognized that regulations might amount to a taking of property. `It would be open to argument at least,' he stated, `that an owner might be stripped of his rights so far as to amount to a taking without any physical interference with his land."' (Ely, 2005, p.43, footnotes in original omitted.) 8 Home Builders Association of Northern California v. City of.Napa (2001), p. 188. 9 Home Builders Association of Northern California v. City of Napa (2001), pp. 195-6. 10 The California Coalition for Rural Housing and Non-profit Housing Association of Northern Califor- nia (2003, p.3) stated, "These debates, though fierce, remain largely theoretical due to the lack of empirical research." 11 Marin County is one of the highest -income and most costly areas in the San Francisco Bay Area. 12 http://www.co.marin.ca.us/EFiles/Does/CD/ P1anUpdate/07_0430_IT_070430091111.pdf (accessed August 1.9, 2007). To simplify the specif- ics, developers have the choice of selling 60 percent of homes to low-income households or 50 percent of homes to very -low-income households, which calculates to roughly the same loss of revenue, so for simplicity we will focus on the latter scenario. 13 Median income for a household of four is $91,200, so a household earning 80 percent of median income earns $73,696, and a household earning 60 percent of the median income earns $55,272. The specific affordability price control formula will depend on cer- tain assumptions (for example, the level of the interest rate in the formula), but using some standard assump- tions we can create an estimate (assuming homes will be financed with 0 percent down, a 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage, and an interest rate of 7 percent, and as- suming that 26 percent of income will pay mortgage payments and 4 percent of income will pay for real estate taxes and other homeowner costs). This formula gives us how much a household in each income level could afford and the level of the price controls. In Marin County, a home sold to a four -person household earning 80 percent of median income could be sold for no more than $240,003, and a home sold to a four -person household earning 60 percent of the median income could be sold for no more than $180,002. The price controls may be set at stricter levels, depending on the city ordinance. For example, the City of Tiburon sets price controls for "affordabil- ity" much more strictly than the above formula. Its ordinance assumes an interest rate of 9.5 percent and assumes that 25 percent of income can be devoted to a mortgage. According to Tiburon's ordinance, a "moderate," price -controlled home can be sold for no more than $109,800. 14 Home Builders Association of Northern California v. City ofNapa (2001), p.194. 15 Powell and Stringham (2005) discuss this issue in depth. 16 Policy on Achieving Higher Residential Densities in Multiple -Family Zones, (September 1.3, 2005). 17 For those readers unfamiliar with semilog models, di provides an interpretation of the policy variable as a percentage change. The estimate of d, is interpreted as the approximate percentage change in Y for cities that pass an ordinance. When the estimate of d, is large (greater than 10 percent), the more accurate estimate is %AY = exp(d,)-1. 18 The first difference model is the fixed -effects model when there are two time periods. 19 Controlling for the endogeneity of the policy variable will have little or no impact. The data reveal that cities that passed an ordinance also have higher housing prices on average. It may be that higher -priced cit- ies are more likely to pass an ordinance. Given our results, we have some doubts about whether this will impact our conclusion. First we lagged the policy variable from one to five years and found very little variation in the OLS estimates. A lag of five years (for a potential dependent variable) should reduce or eliminate the potential bias. Second, the first -differ- ence approach reduced the price effect and signifi- cantly changed the output effect by controlling for unobserved fixed effects. Finally, there are some limits to finding instrumental variables for a first -difference model. Clearly it would not be appropriate to use any of the 2000 data to control for policies passed in earlier years. One could use the 1990 census data, but even here there are some cities that passed the policy prior to 1990. For these reasons, we believe control- ling for endogeneity will not change the basic results. 20 The income and population variables are resealed in units of ten thousand to simplify the coefficient presentation. Below -Market Housing Mandates As Takings 119 About the Authors Tom Means is Research Fellow at the Independent Institute and Professor of Economics at San Jose State University and serves as Director of the Center for Economic Education. He earned his Ph.D. in economics from UCLA in 1983 and has been with San Jose State for twenty-five years. Professor Means teaches the grad- uate microeconomics and econometrics seminars. His research focuses on applied economics in the areas of public choice, labor economics, and forensic economics. He has published in a variety of journals, including Public Choice, The Southern Economics. journal, and The Journal Of Forensic Economics. Since 2-004 he has served on the City Council of Mountain View and is currently Vice -Mayor. Edward P. Stringham is Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, Associate Professor of Economics at San Jose State University, President of the Association of Private Enterprise Education, editor of the Journal of Private Enterprise, editor of two books, and author of twenty articles in refereed journals including the Journal of Institutional 6' Theoretical Economics, Quarterly Review of Economics & Finance, andjournal o Labor Research. Stringham has been discussed on more than ioo broadcast stations including CBS, CNBC, CNN, Fox, Headline News, NPR, and MTV and in hundreds of newspapers world- wide. Stringham earned his Ph.D. from George Mason University in ZooZ, and has won the Templeton Culture of Enterprise Best Article Award, Paper of the Year Award from the Association of Private Enterprise, Best Article Award from the Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, Second Place in the Independent Institute Garvey Fellowship Awards, and Distinguished Young Scholar Award from the Liberalni Institut and the Prague School of Economics. Edward J. Lopez is Research Fellow at the Independent Institute and Professor of Law and Economics at San Jose State University. His main area of research is in public choice and law and economics, with emphases on empirical models of�, creative expression, technological innovation, political ideology, and political insti- tutions. Additional areas of research include antitrust regulation, property rights, campaign finance, term limits, and federal fiscal policy. Professor Lopez has taught courses in microeconomics, macroeconomics, law and economics, public finance, public choice, and mathematical economics. He earned a Ph.D. from George Mason University in 1997. Professor Lopez joined the faculty of San Jose State in the fall of Zoos. Previously he held appointments at the University of North Texas and George Mason University, and he served as staff economist on the joint Economic Committee of Congress. The INDEPENDENT THE INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE is a non-profit, non-par- INSTITVTE tisan, scholarly research and educational organization that sponsors comprehensive studies of the political economy of critical social and economic issues. The Center on Entrepreneurial Innovation pursues research into entre- CENTER ON preneurship and the dynamic process of markets and technological innova- tion, without regard to prevailing popular or political biases and trends. The Entrepreneurial goal is to explore important areas that might otherwise be ignored, includ- ing questions normally considered "out -of -the -box" or controversial, but which might well be crucial to understanding and getting at real answers and lasting solutions. As a result, the Center aims to cut through the intellectual poverty, noise, and spin of special -interest -driven public policy in the U.S. and elsewhere. Founder and President David J. Theroux Research Director Alexander Tabarrok Board of Advisors, Center on Entrepreneur- ial Innovation Bruce L. Benson FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY George Bittlingmayer UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS Peter J. Boettke, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY Reuven Brenner, MCGILL UNIVERSITY, CANADA Enrico Colombatto, UNIVERSITY OF TORINO; INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR ECONOMIC RESEARCH, Peter Gordon, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA P. J. Hill, WHEATON COLLEGE Randall G. Holcombe FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY Daniel B. Klein GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY Peter G. Klein UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI Chandran Kukathas UNIVERSITY OF UTAH; AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE ACADEMY, AUSTRALIA Robert A. Lawson CAPITAL UNIVERSITY Stan Liebowitz UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT DALLAS Roger E. Meiners UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, ARLINGTON Michael C. Munger DUKE UNIVERSITY Robert H. Nelson UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND Benjamin Powell SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY William F. Shughart II UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI Randy T. Simmons UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Russell S. Sobel WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY Gordon Tullock GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY ITALY Stephen E. Margolis Lawrence H. White Price V. Fishback, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA UNIVERSITY AT ST. LOUIS THE INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE 100 Swan Way, Oakland, California 94621-1428, U.S.A. Telephone: 510-632-1366 • Facsimile: 510-568-6040 E-mail: info@independent.org • Website: http://www.independent.org INDEPENDENT STUDIES IN POLITICAL ECONOMY THE ACADEMY IN CRISIS: The Political Economy of Higher Education I Ed. LIBERTY FOR WOMEN: Freedom and. Feminism in the Twenty-first Century by John W. Sommer I Ed. by Wendy McElroy AGAINST LEVIATHAN: Government Power and a Free Society I Robert Higgs ALIENATION AND THE SOVIET ECONOMY: The Collapse of the Socialist Era I Paul Craig Roberts AMERICAN HEALTH CARE: Government, Market Processes and the Public Interest I Ed. by Roger Feldman ANARCHY AND THE LAW: The Political Economy of Choice I Ed. by Edward P. Stringham ANTITRUST AND MONOPOLY: Anatomy of a Policy Failure I D. T. Armentano ARMS, POLITICS, AND THE ECONOMY: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives I Ed. by Robert Higgs BEYOND POLITICS: Markets, Welfare and the Failure of Bureaucracy William Mitchell eT Randy Simmons THE CAPITALIST REVOLUTION IN LATIN AMERICA I Paul Craig Roberts er' Karen Araujo THE CHALLENGE OF LIBERTY: Classical Liberalism Today I Ed. by Robert Higgs & Carl P. Close CHANGING THE GUARD: Private Prisons and the Control of Crime I Ed. by Alexander Tabarrok THE CIE GUEVARA MYTH AND THE FUTURE OF LIBERTY I Alvaro Vargas Llosa CUTTING GREEN TAPE: Toxic Pollutants, Environmental Regulation and the Law I Ed. by Richard Stroup & Roger E. Meiners DEPRESSION, WAR, AND COLD WAR: Studies in Political Economy I Robert Higgs THE DIVERSITY MYTH: Multiculturalism and Political Intolerance on Campus I David O. Sacks & Peter A. 7biel DRUG WAR CRIMES: The Consequences of Prohibition I Jeffrey A. Miron ELECTRIC CHOICES: Deregulation and the Future of Electric Power I Ed. by Andrew Kleit THE EMPIRE HAS NO CLOTHES: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed I Ivan Eland ENTREPRENEURIAL ECONOMICS: Bright Ideas from the Dismal Science Ed. by Alexander Tabarrok FAULTY TOWERS: Tenure and the Structure of Higher Education Ryan Amacher & Roger Meiners THE FOUNDERS' SECOND AMENDMENT Stephen P. Holbrook FREEDOM, FEMINISM, AND THE STATE Ed. by Wendy McElroy HAZARDOUS TO OUR HEALTH?: FDA Regulation of Health Care Products I Ed. by Robert Higgs MAKING POOR NATIONS RICH: Entrepreneurship and the Process of Economic Development I Ed. by Benjamin Powell MARKET FAILURE OR SUCCESS: The New Debate Ed. by Tyler Cowen &Eric Crampton MONEY AND THE NATION STATE: The Financial Revolution, Government, and the World Monetary System I Ed. by Kevin Dowd & Richard H. Timberlake, Jr. NEITHER LIBERTY NOR SAFETY: Fear, Ideology, and the Growth of Government I Robert Higgs & Carl P. Close OPPOSING THE CRUSADER STATE: Alternatives To Global Interventionism I Ed. by Robert Higg & Carl P. Close OUT OF WORK: Unemployment and Government in "Twentieth -Century America I Richard K. redder &Lowell E. Gallaway PLOWSHARES AND PORK BARRELS: The Political Economy of Agriculture E. C. Pasour, Jr. & Randal R. Rucker A POVERTY OF REASON: Sustainable Development and Economic Growth Wi6(red Beckerman PRIVATE RIGHTS & PUBLIC ILLUSIONS I Tibor R. Machan RECLAIMING THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION: The Kentucky & Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy William J Watkins, Jr. REGULATION ANDTHE REAGAN ERA: Politics, Bureaucracy and the Public Interest I Ed. by Roger Meiners & Bruce Yandle RESTORING FREE SPEECH AND LIBERTY ON CAMPUS I DonaldA. Downs RESURGENCE OF THE WARFARE STATE: The Crisis Since 9/11 1 Robert Higgs RE -THINKING GREEN: Alternatives to Environmental Bureaucracy I Ed. by Robert Higgs & Carl P. Close SCHOOL CHOICES: True and False I John Merrifield STRANGE BREW: Alcohol and Government Monopoly I Douglas Glen Whitman STREET SMART: Competition, Entrepreneurship, and the Future of Roads I Ed. by Gabriel Roth TAXING CHOICE: The Predatory Politics of Fiscal Discrimination I Ed. by William F. ,Shughart, H "FAXING ENERGY: Oil Severance Taxation and the Economy I Robert Deacon, Stephen DeCanio, H. E. Frech, III, 6-M. Bruce Johnson THAT EVERY MAN BE ARMED: 'Ihe Evolution of a Constitutional Right Stephen P Holbrook TO SERVE AND PROTECT: Privatization and Community in Criminal Justice I Bruce L. Benson THE VOLUNTARY CITY: Choice, Community and Civil Society I Ed. by David T. Beira, Peter Gordon eT' Alexander Tabarrok HOT TALK, COLD SCIENCE: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate I S. Fred TWILIGHT WAR: The Folly of U.S. Space Dominance I Mike Moore Singer WINNERS, LOSERS & MICROSOFT: Competition and Antitrust in High JUDGE AND JURY: American Tort Law on Trial Technology I Eric flelland eT Alex Tabarrok ,Stan J. Liebowitz eT Stephen E. Margolis LIBERTY FOR LATIN AMERICA: How to Undo Five Hundred Years of State WRITING OFF IDEAS: Taxation, Foundations, & Philanthropy in America Oppression I Alvaro Vargas Llosa Randall G. Holcombe For further information and a catalog of publications, please contact THE INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE too Swan Way, Oakland, California 94621-1428, U.S.A. 510-632-t366 • Fax 510-568-6040 • info(a)indcpcndcnt.org • www.indcpcndent.org Int'N�SSMIPUTE The INDEPENDENT The Independent Institute is a non-profit, non -partisan, scholarly research and educational organization that sponsors comprehensive studies of the political economy of critical social and economic issues. The politicization of decision -making in society has too often confined public debate to the narrow reconsideration of existing policies. Given the prevailing influence of partisan interests, little social innovation has occurred. In order to understand both the nature of and possible solutions to major public issues, the Independent Institute's program adheres to the highest standards of independent inquiry and is pursued regardless of prevailing political or social biases and conventions. The resulting studies are widely distributed as books and other publi- cations, and are publicly debated through numerous conference and media programs. In pursuing this uncommon independence, depth, and clarity, the Independent Institute seeks to push at the frontiers of our knowledge, redefine the debate over public issues, and foster new and effective directions for government reform. Additional copies of this Independent Policy Report are available for $10.00 each. To order, visit www.independent.org or call (510) 632-1366. The Independent Institute • 100 Swan Way • Oakland, CA 94621 • info@independent.org • www.independent.org June2004 DO AFFORDABLE HOUSING MANDATES WORK? EVIDENCE FROM Los ANGELES COUNTY AND ORANGE COUNTY By Benjamin Powell, Ph.D and Edward Stringham, Ph.D Project Director: Adrian I Moore, Ph.D Reawit Reason Public Policy Institute A division of the Los Angeles -based Reason Foundation, Reason public Policy Institute is a nonpartisan public policy think tank promoting choice, competition, and a dynamic market economy as the foundation for human dignity and progress. Reason produces rigorous, peer -reviewed research and directly engages the policy process, seek- ing strategies that emphasize cooperation, flexibility, local knowledge, and results. Through practical and innovative approaches to complex problems, Reason seeks to change the way people think about issues, and promote policies that allow and encourage individuals and volun- tary institutions to flourish. Reason Foundation Reason Foundation's mission is to advance a free society by develop- ing, applying, and promoting libertarian principles, including indi- vidual liberty, free markets, and the rule of law. We use journalism and public policy research to influence the frameworks and actions of poli- cymakers, journalists, and opinion leaders. Reason Foundation is a tax-exempt research and education organiza- tion as defined under IRS code 501(c)(3). Reason Foundation is sup- ported by voluntary contributions from individuals, foundations, and corporations. The views are those of the author, not necessarily those of Reason Foundation or its trustees. Copyright © 2004 Reason Foundation. Photos used in this publication are copyright Oc 1996 Photodisc, Inc. All rights reserved. Policy Study No. 320 Do Affordable Housing Mandates Work? Evidence from Los Angeles County and Orange County By Benjamin Powell, Ph.D. and Edward Stringham, Ph.D Project Director: Adrian T. Moore, Ph.D Executive Summary alifornia and many urban areas nationwide face a housing affordability crisis. New housing production has chronically failed to meet housing needs, causing housing prices to escalate. Faced with demands to "do something" about the housing affordability crisis, many local governments have turned to "inclusionary zoning" ordinances in which they mandate that developers sell a certain percentage of the homes they build at below -market prices to make them affordable for people with lower incomes. The number of cities with affordable housing mandates has grown rapidly, to about 10 percent of cities over 100,000 population as of the mid-90s, and many advocacy groups predict the trend will accelerate in the next five years. California was an early leader in the adoption of inclusionary zoning, and its use there has grown rapidly. Between 1990 and 2003, the number of California communities with inclusionary zoning more than tripled —from 29 to 107 communities —meaning about 20 percent of California communities now have inclusionary zoning. Inclusionary zoning attempts to deal with high housing costs by imposing price controls on a percentage of new homes. During the past 20 years, a number of publications have debated the merits of inclusionary zoning programs. Nevertheless, as a recent report observed, "These debates, though fierce, remain largely theoretical due to the lack of empirical research." Our recent report, Housing Supply and Affordability: Do Affordable Housing Mandates Work?, filled the empirical research void. We measured the actual performance of these ordinances in the San Francisco Bay Area. This study follows up on our previous study by examining data from communities in Los Angeles County and Orange County to evaluate the effects of inclusionary zoning and examine whether it is an effective public policy response to high housing prices. In Los Angeles and Orange Counties, 13 cities have an affordable housing mandate. These communities vary in size and density with different income levels and demographics, so they provide a good sample to tell us how inclusionary zoning is working in Southern California. These are our findings: Inclusionary Zoning Produces Few Units Since its inception, inclusionary zoning has resulted in few affordable units. The 13 Los Angeles and Orange County cities with inclusionary zoning have produced only 6,379 affordable units, with 70 percent of those units being produced in Irvine. After passing an ordinance, the median city produces less than eight affordable units per year. Inclusionary zoning cannot meet the area's affordable housing needs. Inclusionary Zoning Has High Costs Inclusionary zoning imposes large burdens on the housing market. For example, if a home could be sold for $500,000 dollars but must be sold for $200,000, the revenue from the sale is $300,000 less. In half the Los Angeles County and Orange County jurisdictions this cost associated with selling each inclusionary unit exceeds $575,000. In current prices the cost of inclusionary zoning in the average jurisdiction is $298 million, bringing the total cost for all inclusionary units in Los Angeles and Orange County to date to $3.9 billion. Inclusionary Zoning Makes Market -priced Homes More Expensive Who bears the costs of inclusionary zoning? The effective tax of inclusionary zoning will be borne by some combination of market -rate homebuyers, landowners, and builders. How much of the burden is borne by market -rate buyers versus landowners and builders is determined by each group's relative responsiveness to price changes. We estimate that inclusionary zoning causes the price of new homes in the median city to increase by $33,000 to $66,000. In high market -rate cities such as San Juan Capistrano and Laguna Beach we estimate that inclusionary zoning adds more than $100,000 to the price of each new home. Inclusionary Zoning Restricts the Supply of New Homes Inclusionary zoning drives away builders, makes landowners supply less land for residential use, and leads to less housing for homebuyers—the very problem it was instituted to address. We find that new housing production drastically decreases the year after cities adopt inclusionary zoning. For all 1.3 cities average production of housing fell the year following the adoption of inclusionary zoning. In the eight cities with data for seven years prior and seven years following inclusionary zoning, 17,296 fewer homes were produced during the seven years after the adoption of inclusionary zoning. In those cities 770 "affordable" units were produced. One must question whether 770 units are worth the cost in terms of 17,296 fewer homes. By discouraging production of 17,296 homes in those eight cities, $11 billion worth of housing was essentially destroyed. Inclusionary Zoning Costs Government Revenue Price controls on new development lower assessed values, thereby costing state and local governments lost tax revenue each year. Because inclusionary zoning restricts resale values for a number of years, the loss in annual tax revenue can become substantial. The total present value of lost government revenue due to Los Angeles and Orange County Inclusionary zoning ordinances is upwards of $752 million. Price Controls Do Not Address the Cause of the Affordability Problem Price controls fail to get to the root of the affordable housing problem. Indeed, by causing fewer homes to be built they actually make things worse. The real problem is government restrictions on supply. Supply has not kept up with demand due to these artificial restrictions. One recent study found that 90 percent of the difference between physical construction costs and the market price of new homes can be attributed to land use regulation. The solution is to allow more construction. When the supply of homes increases, existing homeowners often upgrade to the newly constructed homes. This frees up their prior homes for other families with lower income. Inclusionary zoning restricts this upgrade process by slowing or eliminating new construction. With fewer new homes available, middle- and upper -income families bid up the price of the existing stock of homes, thus making housing less affordable for everyone. Conclusion Inclusionary zoning has failed to produce a significant number of affordable homes due to the incentives created by the price controls. Even the few inclusionary zoning units produced have cost builders, homeowners, and governments greatly. By restricting the supply of new homes and driving up the price of both newly constructed market -rate homes and the existing stock of homes, inclusionary zoning makes housing less affordable. Inclusionary zoning ordinances will continue to make housing less affordable by restricting the supply of new homes. If more affordable housing is the goal, governments should pursue policies that encourage the production of new housing. Ending the price controls of inclusionary zoning would be a good start. Policy Study No. 320 Table of Contents Introduction................................................................................................................1 The Housing Market and Inclusionary Zoning in Los Angeles and Orange Counties ..... 3 Costs Associated with Below -Market Units.................................................................. 6 A. Estimating the Effects of Price Controls by City................................................................................... 9 B. Who Bears the Burden of Inclusionary Zoning?................................................................................11 C. The Effect of Price Controls on Housing Construction......................................................................15 The Fiscal Cost of Price Controls to State and Local Government...............................18 Conclusion................................................................................................................ 21 Aboutthe Authors..................................................................................................... 22 Related Reason Foundation Studies...........................................................................23 Endnotes................................................................................................................... 24 DO AFFORDABLE HOUSING MANDATES WORK? Part 1 Introduction he number of cities with affordable housing mandates has grown rapidly, to about 10 percent of cities over 100,000 population as of the mid-90s, and many advocacy groups predict the trend will accelerate in the next five years.' California was an early leader in the adoption of inclusionary zoning, and its use there has grown rapidly. Between 1990 and 2003, the number of California communities with inclusionary zoning more than tripled —from 29 to 107 communities —meaning about 20 percent of California communities now have inclusionary zoning.2 Thirteen cities in Los Angeles and Orange Counties have inclusionary zoning. The median price of new housing is $450,000 in Los Angeles County and $660,000 in Orange County.3 Such high prices affect all but the wealthiest families' chances of buying a new home. Of metropolitan areas with more than one million residents, the Los Angeles -Long Beach Metropolitan Area and the Orange County Metropolitan Area respectively rank five and six as the least affordable areas in the nation. Affordable ipo Metro Area Least Affordable Share of Homes Affordable Family Income Metropolitan Areas for Median Incomes San Francisco, CA PMSA* 1 9.2% $86,100 San Josh, CA PMSA 2 20.1% $96,000 San Diego, CA MSA 3 21.6% $60,100 Oakland, CA PMSA 4 23.9% $74,500 Los Angeles -Long Beach, CA PMSA 5 34.4% $55,100 Orange County, CA PMSA 6 37.7% $75,600 Sacramento, CA PMSA 7 43.7% $57,300 Portland -Vancouver, OR -WA PMSA 8 46.6% $57,200 Boston, MA -NH PMSA 9 48.2% $74,200 Riverside -San Bernardino, CA PMSA 10 49.6% $50,300 New York, NY PMSA 11 49.9% $62,800 Miami, FL PMSA 12 58.1 % $48,200 Denver, CO PMSA 13 59.6% $69,900 Bergen -Passaic, NJ PMSA 14 61.5% $78,900 Newark, NJ PMSA 15 61.1 % $78,700 Source: Data are from the "Housing Opportunity Index: First Quarter 2002" (Washington, D.C.: National Association of Homebuilders), *PMSA and MSA are census designations meaning, respectively, Primary Municipal Statistical Area and Municipal Statistical Area. Faced with demands to "do something" about the region's housing affordability crisis, many local governments have turned to inclusionary zoning ordinances. Inclusionary zoning is a name for artificially 2 1 Reason Public Policy Institute lowering the price, and therefore the value, on a percentage of new homes. Builders and subsequent owners are forced to sell the homes so that they are "affordable" to specific income levels. The price controls are set using different formulas so that the "inclusionary" units will be affordable to either "Very Low," "Low," or "Moderate" income households, or some combination thereof. "Very Low" income is most often classified as up to 50 percent of county median income, "Low" as 50-80 percent of median, and "Moderate" as 80-120 percent of median. The percentage of units targeted as inclusionary units varies by jurisdiction, ranging from 5 to 25 percent of the new homes constructed in a project. Typically, the inclusionary units must be constructed within the project and be of the same size and quality as the market - rate units. Some jurisdictions exempt small developments while others require builders to pay an in -lieu fee for developments of 10 homes or fewer to get out from under the price controls. Still others allow in -lieu fees for projects of all sizes. Ostensibly, some jurisdictions also offer incentives for compliance. These can take the form of "density bonuses" (giving builders the option to increase the density of their developments instead of making more of the units affordable), fast -track permitting (speeding up the process of issuing permits for new development), fee waivers, or exemptions from growth controls. In a few voluntary inclusionary programs, incentives are offered in exchange for a builder committing to sell at the price - controlled rates. But most inclusionary zoning programs are mandatory, requiring all builders to participate. The proliferation of inclusionary zoning raises important public policy questions: ■ Is it effective —does inclusionary zoning lead to a substantial increase in affordable housing production? ■ Is it efficient —how do inclusionary zoning's costs compare to its benefits? ■ Is it equitable —does inclusionary zoning fairly apportion the cost of providing affordable housing? Until recently these questions had not been adequately addressed. During the past 20 years a number of publications debated the merits of inclusionary zoning programs. Nevertheless, as the 2003 report Inclusionary Housing in California: 30 Years of Innovation observed, "These debates, though fierce, remain largely theoretical due to the lack of empirical research."4 Without knowing the economic and other real - world consequences of inclusionary zoning, policymakers have difficulty assessing the merits or faults of inclusionary zoning. Our recent report, Housing Supply and Affordability: Do Affordable Housing Mandates Work?, filled the empirical research void. s We measured the actual performance of these ordinances in the San Francisco Bay Area. We found that the San Francisco Bay Area inclusionary ordinances produced few "affordable" units, drove up the price of market -rate homes, and dramatically decreased the supply of new construction. Paradoxically, in the Bay Area, "affordable" housing mandates actually made most housing more expensive. The track record of affordable housing mandates in the Bay Area is consistent with the predictions of economic theory. Inclusionary zoning ordinances act like a tax on new development. Taxes decrease the supply of new housing and increase prices of the few homes that are built. This basic economic model should apply in other regions as well.e This study follows up our prior one to see if the empirical record of inclusionary zoning is consistent with economic theory in another region of California. We use data from communities in Los Angeles County and Orange County to evaluate the effects of inclusionary zoning and examine whether it is an effective public policy in Southern California. We include in our analysis all the cities in these counties with inclusionary ordinances. Included are: Agoura Hills, Brea, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Laguna Beach, Long Beach, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rancho Palos Verdes, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Monica and West Hollywood. These communities have various sizes and densities with different income levels and demographics, so they provide a good sample to measure the effects of inclusionary zoning in Southern California. DO AFFORDABLE HOUSING MANDATES WORK? Part 2 The Housing Market and Inclusionary Zoning in Los Angeles and Orange Counties Anumber of studies document high housing prices and the affordability crisis in California.7 Offering a temperate climate, cultural and natural resources, and job growth, Los Angeles County and Orange County have become increasingly desirable places to live. The percentage of homes affordable to a family earning median income is only 34.4 percent for Los Angeles -Long Beach Metro and 37.7 percent for Orange Metro.' Families earning less than median income have even fewer homes available in their price range. In response to the affordable housing crisis, 1.3 local governments in Los Angeles and Orange County have adopted inclusionary zoning requirements (Figure 1) and remaining cities now face loud calls from planners and advocacy groups to adopt inclusionary zoning as well. Figure 1: Number of Los Angeles County and Orange County Cities with Inclusionary Zoning 14 Number of Los Angeles County and Orange County Cities with Inclusionary Zoning 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Cc r 00 M O W N dO N Cl)d' M " LC) CO r` 00 O CL') CO r` M O O n n n n W O O W 00 00 00 W W O O O O O O Cn O O O O O O O O Cn O O O Cn O O O O O O O O O C2 O O Cn O O O O O 4 1 Reason Public Policy Institute Table 2 shows the jurisdictional requirements and the number of price -controlled units produced by city. Several communities could not report how many affordable units had been produced under the program, demonstrating a simple unwillingness by city officials to keep track of how effective the policy is in spite of its costs. Our calculations of averages and costs exclude these cities. 2: Southern California City Year imposed InclusionaryTable Cities with Percent of new units under price controls Target levels Number of price- Average number of VL=Very Low; controlled units price -controlled L=Low; produced by units produced per M=Moderate program year since program inception Agoura Hills 1987 10 M 50 3.1 Brea 1993 10 VL, L, M 278 27.8 Huntington Beach 2001 10 L 313 156.5 Irvine 1977 5 VL, L, M 4,469 171.9 Laguna Beach 1985 25 VL, L, M 139 7.7 Long Beach 1992 5 M Monrovia 1990 20 M 280 21.5 Pasadena 1991 15 L, M 14 1.2 Rancho Palos 1997 5 VL, L Verdes San Clemente 1980 4 VL 627 27.3 San Juan Capistrano 1995 30 VL, L 196 24.5 Santa Monica 1985 10 VL, L West Hollywood 1986 20 L, M 13 0.8 Sources: California Coalition for Rural Housing and Non -Profit Housing Association of Northern California, Inclusionary Housing in California, (Sacramento, CA: California Coalition for Rural Housing), 2003;.and Calavita and Grimes, "Inclusionary Zoning in California: The Experience of Two Decades." Journal of the American Planning Association v 64 no.2,1998, p. 152. * Inclusionary Housing in California does not report any units for these cities. Advocates of inclusionary zoning herald price controls as the solution to the affordability crisis. They point to the inclusionary units produced and declare the program to be a success. While the program has been a boon to the few families who luck out on getting the artificially reduced homes, the ripple effect distortion in the market caused by inclusion zoning is overwhelming, costing far more. Obviously, a more thorough assessment of inclusionary zoning is necessary. From an overall production perspective, how effective has inclusionary zoning been? The numbers do not look good. Compared to the region's overall affordable housing needs for this period, inclusionary zoning clearly has not made a significant contribution to solving the region's affordable housing crisis. For the 13 cities, the Southern California Association of Governments projects the current 7.5 year affordable housing need for very low, low, and moderate income households to be 12,460.9 But in the 27 years that inclusionary zoning has been implemented in Los Angeles and Orange Counties, inclusionary zoning has resulted in the production of only 6,379 affordable units. Of those, 4,469 were in Irvine, which built a number of the units to settle a lawsuit for not providing "affordable" housing. That averages to only 236 units per year, with 165 in Irvine and 71 in all other cities. Controlling for the length of time each program has been in effect, the average jurisdiction with inclusionary zoning produces only 34 units each year since adoption of its inclusionary zoning requirement. DO AFFORDABLE HOUSING MANDATES WORK? The disparity between the regional housing need and inclusionary zoning production is shown in Figure 2. In Figure 2, the front (red) columns represent the average yearly production of affordable housing reported by cities (only for years when cities had inclusionary zoning) multiplied times 7.5, and the back (green) columns represent the 7.5 year need for affordable housing in the cities with inclusionary zoning. The number of units expected from inclusionary zoning does not meet most cities' needs for affordable housing. Huntington Beach is the most notable exception. Figure 2: Housing Needs Versus Expected Units Produced under Inclusionary Zoning "Affordable" units produced through inclusionary zoning. (Calculated for 7.5 years by multiplying average units per year produced under inclusionary zoning times 7.5.) ® 7.5 year housing needs according to the Southern California Association of Governments "Regional Housing Needs Assessment." 5,000 --- — — 4,000 /------- --- — --- 3,000 2,000 1,000 —__-- 0 ca (a W0 Ca CD -o m N O ca > c` t y c� co fa U C ca O _ O — a) ca ca fa CD O . Q m a) V N 0- Q = M m O C C O O �--V O C W O a)i N C O O M 2 E _ c >j o' ° U ca —� c pC co (a C m cn ca 00 S C/) From an overall production standpoint, inclusionary zoning has not been effective. Some advocates of inclusionary zoning respond to this poor record by calling for more vigorous and numerous restrictions. Instead, jurisdictions need to fundamentally reexamine if price controls are an effective way of producing more affordable housing. Policymakers should analyze the actual consequences of inclusionary zoning and judge whether the poor results achieved by inclusionary zoning are caused by the very nature of these laws. Looking at the number of below -market units created by programs only begins to reveal inclusionary zoning's effect on affordability. Our findings suggest that inclusionary zoning actually leads to less housing and higher prices. 6 1 Reason Public Policy Institute Part 4 Costs Associated with Below -Market Units Supporters often promote inclusionary zoning as a costless way of providing affordable housing. Many highlight the number of units produced under inclusionary zoning and then claim the program to be a success. But the costs of these units and programs are often missed. For example, West Hollywood has had inclusionary zoning since 1986, and the program has led to 13 affordable units. The initial reaction might be to consider the program worthwhile simply because 13 units were built. But accurately judging the efficacy of a program requires looking at its costs. What were the costs of producing each of those units? We all agree that the goal is to help low-income households, but we must recognize that some ways are better than others. If two methods cost the same amount but one helps more, we should choose the one that yields greater benefits. Or, if two methods yield the same benefits but one costs less, we should support the one with lower costs. Even though many cities have adopted inclusionary zoning, to date no one has comprehensively estimated the program costs. Without looking at the costs of inclusionary zoning, one cannot determine if better ways to provide affordable housing exist. By definition, whenever sellers must sell a unit at a government -set price, they cannot sell that unit at the market price. For example, for a home to be "affordable" to a low-income household in West Hollywood, we estimate that the home must be sold for $147,000. If a new home could be sold for $588,000 but must be sold for $147,000, the revenue from the sale is $441,000 less. When someone forgoes one opportunity to take another, economists refer to this as the "opportunity cost." The opportunity cost of selling a "Low" priced unit for $147,000 is not selling the unit for $588,000, i.e., $441,000. Keep in mind that this does not measure production costs. Rather, it represents the lost revenue per sale of price -controlled units. First, let us consider the cost associated with each inclusionary unit by city. We calculate the cost for each unit by subtracting the regulated price from the market price.10 Most inclusionary zoning ordinances mandate that homes be affordable to some combination of very low income, low income and moderate income households. Very low income is typically defined by up to 50 percent of median, low income is defined by up to 80 percent of median, and moderate income is defined by up to 120 percent of median. The California Department of Housing and Community Development provides income levels for four -person households (Figure 3)." DO AFFORDABLE HOUSING MANDATES WORK? Figure 3: 2003 Income Levels for Four -Person Households Defined by California Department of Housing and Community Development ❑ Very Low Income ® Low Income ■ Moderate Income $90,000 $80,000 _ --- $70,000-- $60,000 _ — $50,000 �- $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 rge\es�'��r�y ourty dos P Otarge G Inclusionary zoning sets price controls such that homes can be "affordable" at the specified income levels. Table 3 indicates sample price controls for homes to be "affordable" to the four -person households in the respective income groups. We assume homes will be financed with 0 percent down, a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, and an interest rate of 7 percent. We assume 26 percent of income will pay mortgage payments and 4 percent of income will pay for real estate taxes and other homeowner costs. This formula gives us how much a household in each income level could afford. We decided to use conservative assumptions so that we would not overestimate the costs of inclusionary zoning. Different jurisdictions use different formulas for calculating their price controls; actual price controls will differ accordingly. To the extent that families can afford less than our calculations assume or that jurisdictions set price controls more stringently than we assume, the costs of inclusionary zoning will be significantly higher than our estimates. We can then compare the level of the price controls to the market price of homes. The more restrictive the price controls, the greater the cost for each unit. Figures 4, 5, and 6 compare the median price of existing homes in each county to our sample price controls. The heights of lower (red) bars represent the price controls: "very low" in Figure 4, "low" in Figure 5, and "moderate" in Figure 6. The top of the upper (green) 8 1 Reason Public Policy Institute bars represent the 2003 average market price of new homes by county. The difference between the market price and the price -controlled price (the height of the red bar) is the cost of providing the affordable unit. Figure 4: "Very Low" Price Controls Compared to Average Market Price by County "Very Low" price control ® Cost Associated with selling "Very Low" unit $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $0 Los Angeles County Orange County DO AFFORDABLE HOUSING MANDATES WORK? Figure 6: "Moderate" Price Controls Compared to Average Market Price by County "Moderate" price control M Cost associated with selling "Moderate" unit 700 000 $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $0 Los Angeles County Orange County Comparing the figures, the "moderate" price controls are not as restrictive as the "low" price controls and impose less of a cost. When price controls are at the market price we would not count them as costly. In reality price controls set near the market price also cause builders to lose revenue because the price controls come with other restrictions. Inclusionary zoning ordinances almost always impose restrictions on the resale price of below -market units. The reasoning seems straightforward: the subsidized units should remain affordable for future buyers, and the initial buyers should not be able to cash out on the windfall profits of acquiring a price -controlled unit.' These affordability controls limit appreciation to some formula based on inflation, or they simply mandate that the home be "affordable" to the equivalent income groups calculated at the time of sale. Resale price controls typically last 30 years or more and are renewed upon each sale. Because home ownership is a long- term commitment and affordability controls last a number of years, price -controlled homes are simply less valuable. A. Estimating the Effects of Price Controls by City By comparing the market price to the average level of the price controls in each city, we can estimate the average cost of each price -controlled unit and the total costs for each city. Each ordinance targets different income levels, so each city's price controls will vary. For example, if a city in Orange County required that 15 percent of new units be "affordable" and its only target income group was "very low," we assumed that 15 percent of units needed to be sold for $123,101 each. Or, if a city in Orange County required that 15 percent of new units be "affordable" and its only target income group was "low," we assumed that 15 percent of units needed to be sold for $184,001. 10 Reason Public Policy Institute For cities with more than one target income group, for the sake of simplicity we took the average level of the price controls. For example, if a city in Orange County required that 15 percent of new units be "affordable" and the target income groups were "very low," "low," and "moderate," we assumed that 5 percent of the units needed to be sold for $123,101 each, 5 percent for $184,001 each, and 5 percent for $295,379 each. Taking the average of those figures, we arrive at our estimate that 15 percent of units need to be sold for $200,827 each. Because many towns targeting multiple income groups do not target each income group equally, our estimates will not be 100 percent accurate. If a city targeting multiple income groups requires more "very low" units, our estimates of the costs of zoning will be on the low side. On the other hand, if a city requires more "moderate" units, our estimates will be on the high side. In addition, when a jurisdiction required 10 to 15 percent of units to be affordable, we always chose the lower bound and ignored the upper bound in order not to overestimate the costs of inclusionary zoning.13 Once we arrived at the average price control for each city, we then subtracted it from the market price for each city.'" For example, we estimate that a new home in West Hollywood could be sold for $588,530. West Hollywood requires that 10 percent of homes be priced at "low" and 10 percent at "moderate," which we estimate at $146,875 and $215,265, an average of $181,070 per home. That means 20 percent of homes would need to be sold for $407,460 less than market price. In other words, the cost of providing each inclusionary unit in West Hollywood is $407,460. In high-priced jurisdictions these losses can be quite high. Figure 7 shows the average cost associated with selling a price -controlled unit based on the standards in those cities and the market prices. In cities with more restrictive price controls and higher land values, the cost is higher. In the median city the cost of providing each inclusionary unit is $577,726. Figure 7: Average Cost Associated with Selling Each Price -Controlled Unit $1,600,000 $1,400,000 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 d $200,000 $0 - s U CIDa)i cv o M O O O "O co O C m CE U a> W CD G =_ a"' i = O co U_ (n a)U s m 00 T N N d m — Li ccC G CD d m CD O CL f0 G.> O _N O U CDC ca C y C J N CD C C Q M cc c6 p CD CIO J � O O = V G CO fB DO AFFORDABLE HOUSING MANDATES WORK? 111 The cost of each inclusionary unit is large. Next let us look at the cost per unit times the number produced in each city (Figure 8).15 This gives a measure of the aggregate cost of inclusionary units by city for those that report creating affordable homes under inclusionary zoning. Figure 8: Average Cost Associated with Selling Each Price -Controlled Unit Times the Number of Units Pasadena, $5,851,457 San Clemente, $519,491,982 Agoura Hills, $29,678,632 According to our estimates, the costs associated with producing inclusionary units in Los Angeles County and Orange County have been $3.8 billion. Combining data from Los Angeles and Orange Counties with data from cities in the Bay Area that just adopted their programs, we can get a more accurate estimate of the costs of inclusionary zoning. We find that the median city's cost of below -market units was more than $79 million. B. Who Bears the Burden of Inclusionary Zoning? The costs of inclusionary zoning are largely hidden. None of the costs imposed on the housing market shows up on any city's annual budget, but they still exist. Who ends up paying for that $3.8 billion for below - market rate homes? One can debate exactly who bears the costs, but they are necessarily borne by someone. Because they are imposed on the new housing market and not paid for by government —the costs will be borne by some combination of developers, new homebuyers, and landowners. Exactly who shoulders more of the burden depends on market conditions and supply and demand. All theory and evidence suggest that the costs of inclusionary zoning, effectively a tax, will not be borne by builders but by new homebuyers and landowners.16 Construction is a competitive industry with relatively free entry. Local market conditions will determine exactly how the burden is split. If buyers are more sensitive than sellers to changes in price, then landowners will bear most of the tax. This happens when more 12 1 Reason Public Policy Institute buyers have many options, such as living in similar or nearby areas. If sellers are more sensitive than buyers to changes in price, then new homebuyers will bear most of the tax. This happens when landowners have more options, such as being able to devote their land to commercial, industrial, or other endeavors. If profits are abnormally high, other builders will enter the market and undercut prices, thus bringing profits down. Conversely, if profits are abnormally low it will drive would-be builders to invest in other endeavors. When a tax in the form of inclusionary zoning is placed on builders, it decreases the number of profitable projects that they want to undertake in that jurisdiction. Builders will vote with their feet and undertake fewer projects in jurisdictions with price controls and more in neighboring jurisdictions without price controls. The quantity of housing produced will decrease where there are price controls, but increase in other places where there are not price controls, pushing some homebuyers away from their first choice of locations, and for developers profit rates at the margin will remain the same. Price controls may not stop all development, but new construction will decrease. In order for development in a price -controlled city to be profitable enough to attract builders, one of two things has to happen. Either market -rate home prices must increase, or land prices must decrease to compensate the builder for his losses due to price controls. Even with price controls on a portion of development, builders can still earn the normal rate of return if other home prices increase or land prices decrease. The likely result will be some combination of the two. Both effects lead to a decrease in the quantity of new housing as market -rate buyers will be able to afford less housing and/or landowners will supply less land for residential development due to low market prices. Raising home prices for other new homebuyers creates a paradox because the alleged goal of inclusionary zoning is to make housing more affordable, not less. Decreasing land prices also decreases the quantity of new housing because it discourages landowners from providing their land for residential projects. Instead, more land will be put to uses in which the final product is not subject to price controls. Thus, the restriction on the supply of land restricts the supply of new homes. Advocates of inclusionary zoning tend to assume that the below -market rate units are subsidized out of builder profits, but economics predicts that builders are actually least likely to bear the burden. In the very short run, if builders own the land when the ordinance was passed, they would bear part of the burden. But in the long run, builders are most able to avoid the tax because they can simply move their construction to more profitable locations. The land cannot move, and buyers are often attached to living in a particular locale. Landowners and new homebuyers will end up paying for the subsidy on the price -controlled units. Inclusionary zoning effectively acts as a tax on the production of market -rate units because developers must sell a percentage of units at a loss to gain permits to sell market -rate units. If market prices went up by the exact amount of losses on the price -controlled units, buyers would bear the full burden of the tax. If market prices did not change at all, builders and landowners would bear the full burden of the tax. In most situations buyers and sellers each bear part of the tax burden. Regardless of who bears the burden, because some units are price -controlled and others are not, the losses from price -controlled units must be spread over some combination of buyers and sellers of the remaining units. We calculate the effective tax in each city by looking at the average cost associated with each inclusionary unit and the number of market -priced units over which the cost will be spread. To do this we multiply the cost of each inclusionary unit times the percentage mandated by each city and then divide by the percentage of market -rate homes. To illustrate, for San Juan Capistrano each price -controlled unit has an associated cost DO AFFORDABLE HOUSING MANDATES WORK? 113 of $561,480 (Figure 7) and 30 percent of units must be sold at those price controls (Table 2). The calculation would be [($561,480)X(0.30)]/(0.70)= $240,634. To make it more concrete, if a project bad 10 units, three must be sold at a loss of $561,480. Spreading the loss over the remaining seven units gives a tax of $240,634 per market -rate unit. Figure 9 shows the effective tax on new home purchases imposed by inclusionary zoning. Inclusionary zoning imposes sizeable taxes on each newly constructed home. The median city with inclusionary zoning is effectively imposing $65,952 of taxes on each market -rate home. Figure 9: Effective Tax Imposed on New Market -Rate Units Caused by Inclusionary Zoning $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $0 L U N N N CO C N 'i CDa m to O "a) cn f0 U = f0 = i ca 'O G O N O CO U '� O C 2 L U f0 m — E N ) m (6 G O M N _ O cG y m co O J U O O (O CM Q _ 'CL '� O ca U O) CO CL O C 'C N O O VJ C co(n J U G 2 C ccC/) cQ Cities with higher land values and more restrictive price controls impose the highest effective tax on new homes. In Laguna Beach the equivalent tax on a market -rate home if a developer built and sold an affordable home is approaching $500,000 per newly constructed home. After having calculated the amount of the tax, we can approximate who bears the brunt of the tax. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) takes the position that inclusionary zoning translates into higher prices for new homebuyers. HCD has consistently held this position through both Republican and Democratic Administrations: Under most inclusionary programs, which typically include an in lieu fee [whereby the builder pays a fee to opt out of the inclusionary zone requirements] option, the cost of subsidizing low-income housing units is underwritten by the purchasers of market -rate units in the form of'higher housing prices. This practice of cost shifting is particularly detrimental to a home buyer who marginally qualifies for a mortgage yet earns too much to receive governmental assistance." We have consistently ... asked local jurisdictions to analyze an inclusionary program as a potential governmental constraint. The reasoning, for this is that most programs of this sort impose a fee or dedication requirement upon developers which is passed on to consumers of new market rate housing, raising the price of the market rate housing.'' 14 1 Reason Public Policy Institute Others believe the brunt of the tax will be borne by some combination of builders and landowners.' Figure 10 estimates price increases on new homes under the three scenarios. If the lower bound is accurate (when buyers only pay 50 percent of the tax), the price of new homes is increased by $30,000 or more in 8 of 13 cities. If the upper bound is accurate (when buyers pay all of the tax), the price of new homes is increased by $30,000 or more in 12 of the 13 Los Angeles County and Orange County cities with inclusionary zoning. Agoura Hills is the median city. Inclusionary zoning increases new home prices there by $32,976 in scenario one, $55,400 in scenario two, or $65,952 in scenario three. Although the goal is to produce more affordable housing, inclusionary zoning is actually producing the opposite effect. Inclusionary zoning translates into significantly higher prices for market -rate homebuyers. By creating price controls on a percentage of units, it taxes other new units and leads to higher housing prices. Figure 10: Increases in Price of New Homes Caused by Inclusionary Zoning (Under Three Different Assumptions About Who Bears the Costs) ❑ Assuming 50% of taxis borne by consumers S Assuming 84% of taxis borne by consumers ® Assuming 100% of tax is borne by consumers $500,000 $450,000 $400,000 --- _ $350,000 -- $300,000 = -- _. $250,000 $100,000 ___� ___--_ ------ Ill �i U G O N m 2= E O a)Z fL O ca C Co O J C O O O Ca = N m Co Ca d O O_ ca C/) d C Q 2 O O O O C-13 O G W Co C V O O Cn O N ca � O ca C/) DO AFFORDABLE HOUSING MANDATES WORK? 115 To the extent that sellers bear more of the burden of taxation, the housing market also faces negative consequences. Because builders can move to jurisdictions without inclusionary zoning, they will not bear the burden of the inclusionary zoning tax. Thus, landowners will bear most of the sellers' portion of the burden. Inclusionary zoning ordinances decrease the value for which landowners can sell undeveloped land to homebuilders. Because landowners receive lower prices, they will supply less land for residential development, and fewer homes will be built. Governments already give landowners incentives to supply land for commercial and industrial uses instead of residential ones. Since Proposition 13 limited increases in residential property taxes, governments began creating incentives for developing commercial real estate instead of residential because it generates more revenue. This has become known as the "fiscalization of land use." One study described how local governments responded to limits on property taxes this way: Local municipalities employ two primary methods for revenue generation: the imposition of heavier exaction fees for new development and the promotion of retail development in order to maximize sales tax revenues. This has had a direct, deleterious impact on new housing production. Rather than adopt land -use policies that advance or incentivize new housing production, developing new retail centers — such as big box developments, entertainment complexes, and shopping destinations — emerged as the primary approach for increasing local government revenue. Consequently, residential development (and other forms of development) suffered due to a lack of incentives or outright disincentives.20 Inclusionary zoning ordinances add yet another disincentive to provide land for residential development. When part of the burden of taxation is borne by landowners, we should expect inclusionary zoning to decrease the supply of new housing. C. The Effect of Price Controls on Housing Construction In addition to increasing prices, inclusionary zoning leads to a decrease in new housing. Economics clearly predicts that the quantity of construction will be lower after the adoption of inclusionary zoning. But advocates of inclusionary zoning advance an alternate hypothesis that the quantity of construction will be the same (or higher) after the adoption of inclusionary zoning. By looking at the data of housing construction, we can get an idea of which hypothesis is correct. One test is to look at the amount of new construction in years prior and years following the adoption of an inclusionary zoning law. We examined Construction Industry Research Board yearly housing permit data for single and multifamily dwellings to compute average construction pre- and post -ordinance. For example, San Clemente adopted its ordinance in 1980 and Long Beach adopted its ordinance in 1992. We would thus compare San Clemente housing construction in 1979 and 1981, and Long Beach housing construction in 1991 and 1993. We also can compare housing production for the seven years prior and the seven years following the ordinance, so for San Clemente we would compare housing production in 1973-1979 to housing production in 1981-1987 and for Long Beach we would compare housing production in 1984-1990 to housing production in 1992-1998. Because ordinances have been adopted throughout the past 26 years (Figure 1), economy -wide phenomena such as business cycles should not be biasing the data in either direction. For example, some cities adopted their ordinances during down times while others adopted their ordinances during up times. 16 1 Reason Public Policy Institute The data indicate that inclusionary zoning does indeed lead to a decrease in new construction. For the one-, three-, five- and seven-year averages before and after the ordinances, the production of housing decreased after the adoption of inclusionary zoning. As price controls are in place for more time, the decrease in housing production adds up. Data on housing production seven years prior and seven years following the ordinance exist for 8 of the 13 cities. In those cities in the seven years prior to the adoption of inclusionary zoning 28,296 homes were produced, whereas in the seven years following the adoption of inclusionary zoning only 11,000 homes were produced. In those eight Los Angeles County and Orange County jurisdictions, inclusionary zoning appears to decrease housing by 17,296 units. That amounts to a decrease in housing production by 61 percent. If those 17,296 units would have been worth $650,000 per home, then the value of housing not built because of inclusionary zoning is approximately 11 billion dollars. For those jurisdictions, in only seven years the average destruction of value per city is $1.4 billion. Recall that over 27 years inclusionary zoning in Los Angeles County and Orange County has only led to 6,379 affordable units, which amounts to 1,653 every seven years. In those eight jurisdictions only 1,534 units have been produced. Controlling for the length of time for each ordinance, those cities in total average 110 units per year since an ordinance has been adopted. Multiplying the yearly production rate by seven gives the expected number of "affordable" units over seven years, which amounts to 770 in all of those eight cities. Although those cities together had an estimated increase in 770 "affordable" units the seven years following the adoption of inclusionary zoning, the total number of homes not built was 17,296 (Figure 12). Is a policy that creates 770 "affordable" homes at the expense of discouraging 17,296 market -rate homes worth it? This is crucial because most entry into the housing market by lower -income families is by buying older homes freed up when middle -income families move into new homes.' Reducing the overall production of DO AFFORDABLE HOUSING MANDATES WORK? 117 housing both drives up prices and means that the people crowded out of the housing market are the lower - income would-be homeowners. Figure 12: Comparing the Increase in "Affordable" Units to the Overall Decrease in New Construction Associated with Inclusionary Zoning 5,000 770 0 Inclusionary units produced (for eight cities over seven years) -5,000 -10,000 -15,000 -20,000 -25,000 -17,296 Decrease in overall new construction associated with Inclusionary zoning (for eight cities over seven years) Additional statistical work on inclusionary zoning is needed. The data indicate that the number of units pushed out of the market by inclusionary zoning is much larger than the number of "affordable" units built. Advocates of price controls must recognize that their programs lead to only a handful of below -market units coupled with a sharp decrease in market -rate homes. Because we cannot directly observe the thousands of homes never built, the costs of the program go largely unseen. Also unseen are those 17, 296 families that cannot buy homes because inclusionary zoning prevented the construction of additional homes. Is a program that destroys over $10 billion worth of housing and prevents thousands more families from getting a home than it places in an "affordable" unit worth the high costs? 18 1 Reason Public Policy Institute Part 5 The Fiscal Cost of Price Controls to State and Local Government Nof only do price controls lead to a decrease in the quantity of housing and an increase in prices for consumers, but price controls also Lead to decreased revenue for both state and local government. Inclusionary zoning ordinances are often sold to policymakers as the proverbial free lunch, with proponents claiming "A vast Inclusionary program need not spend a public dime." 22 Even if market -rate buyers and landowners end up paying the price of the subsidy, so the argument goes, at least local governments need not spend revenue to create affordable housing. Proponents write, "From a local agency standpoint, Inclusionary zoning provides affordable housing at no public cost' (emphasis added).23 The story, however, is not that simple. The advocates fail to take account that Inclusionary zoning leads to direct losses in state and local government revenue. Inclusionary units demand and receive the same municipal services as market -rate homes. There is no evidence that providing municipal services to price -controlled homes is less costly than providing to market - priced homes. The cost of inclusionary zoning to governments comes from the fact that price -controlled homes cost the same to service but generate less revenue. Because the values of the homes are set at below - market rates, the assessed values are lower and so their property tax is lower. Thus, although governments may not spend "a public dime" to produce price -controlled homes, they take on an obligation of providing municipal services while receiving lower annual tax revenues. The cost to government from price -controlled units is the difference in the annual tax revenue that would have been generated had the same homes been assessed at market prices. If the real estate tax rate is 1 percent per year, a $700,000 dollar home generates $7,000 in government revenue, whereas a $200,000 home generates $2,000 in government revenue. To calculate the yearly tax revenue lost, we take the difference between current market price and the price -controlled price times 1 percent (for the property tax) for each unit. Multiplying times the number of units in each jurisdiction gives us a rough measure of the lost tax revenue per year. Biasing our numbers downward is the fact that we do not count the lost revenue from the homes never produced because of price controls. Biasing the numbers upward is the fact that not all market -rate homes are assessed at current prices due to Proposition 13. Also, many of the "affordable" units do not remain affordable if resale restrictions are absent. But the numbers illustrate the limit as homes are frequently resold and reassessed at current prices. They also approximate how much revenue would be gained if price -controlled units were reassessed at market rates. Figure 15 shows the yearly loss in combined state and local revenue due to price controls." to "lost state and local revenue combined become significant, as depicted in Figure 13. DO AFFORDABLE HOUSING MANDATES WORK? 119 We do not believe that the goal is to maximize tax revenue at the expense of low-income households, and we are not advocating raising real estate taxes for low-income residents. But before considering inclusionary ordinances, governments must look at their budgets and examine whether better ways of helping low-income households exist. Figure 13: Yearly Loss in Combined State and Local Government Revenue Due to Price Controls (Assuming All Units Are Assessed at Current Prices) Agoura Hills, $296,786 , Irvine, $26,162,480 Monrovia, $799,898 San Juan Capistrano $1,100,503 Brea, $1,244,562 Huntington Beach, $1,808,283 Laguna Beach, $2,041,148 San Clemente, $5,194,920 Government would be well advised to consider these yearly costs before adopting inclusionary zoning. It is important to note that the lost tax revenue occurs not just in one year but every year that the price controls are in existence. The total present value of lost government revenue is upwards of $752 million (Figure 14).24 Although inclusionary zoning is often pitched to governments as a zero -cost method of creating affordable housing, the costs from lower assessed valuations are quite large. Both state and local governments bear some of the burden of lost tax revenue caused by inclusionary zoning. Property tax revenue goes to the state government, and a portion is rebated back to city and county governments. The exact amount returned to each jurisdiction varies significantly, so our above estimates measure the combined total of lost tax revenue without distinguishing the particular splits between local and state governments. Importantly this implies that although inclusionary zoning policies are usually debated and implemented at the city and county levels, state legislators should be concerned with these policies too. Each additional local inclusionary zoning ordinance adversely impacts the tax revenue not just of its own jurisdiction but also decreases the state's tax revenue. 20 1 Reason Public Policy Institute DO AFFORDABLE HOUSING MANDATES WORK? 121 Part 8 Conclusion nclusionary zoning should only be enacted if the goal is to make housing more expensive and decrease the quantity of new housing. Our findings in Los Angeles County and Orange County are consistent with the experience of the San Francisco Bay Area. Inclusionary zoning hurts homebuyers and will price out most low-income families. Despite the good intentions of those who support inclusionary zoning, economics tell us that price controls on new housing will have the unintended consequence of reducing the quantity of new homes built. Rather than helping, inclusionary zoning will actually make the affordability problem worse. We have shown that inclusionary zoning imposes significant costs on the housing sector. Those costs are passed on to landowners and buyers of market -rate homes. Higher housing prices will result. Something should be done about the affordability crisis, but price controls are not the answer and may be part of the problem. Southern California cities will never be able to rely on inclusionary zoning to meet their housing needs. In fact, inclusionary zoning has led to a decrease in housing production. Rather than continuing to impose these policies, jurisdictions would do well to eliminate them. By ending price controls on new construction, builders would have an incentive to supply more housing. The worst possible solution to the affordability crisis is to pass policies that result in restricting the supply of housing. Inclusionary zoning is one such policy. 22 1 Reason Public Policy Institute About the Authors Benjamin Powell is an Assistant Professor of Economics at San Jose State University and an Adjunct Scholar with Reason Foundation. He received his Ph.D. from George Mason University in 2003. He has numerous publications in scholarly journals, policy papers, and the popular press. Edward Stringham is an Assistant Professor of Economics at San Jose State University and an Adjunct Scholar with Reason Foundation. He received his Ph.D. from George Mason University in 2002. He is winner of the Paper of the Year Award from the Association of Private Enterprise, Best Article Award from the Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, and Second Prize from the Independent Institute Garvey Essay Contest. Stringham serves on the Executive Committee of the Society for the Development of Austrian Economics and on the Executive Committee of the Association of Private Enterprise Education. Powell and Stringham's other recent work on housing includes a policy study, "Estimating the Effects of Price Controls in the Redevelopment of the Fort Ord Military Base" and testimony before the Board of the Fort Ord Reuse Authority. Powell and Stringham also have the entry on "Housing" in the forthcoming Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. Note: The authors appreciate research assistance from Ilkay Pulan, Daocheng Zhu, and a research grant from the California Building Industry Association. DO AFFORDABLE HOUSING MANDATES WORK? 123 Related Reason Foundation Studies Supply and Affordability: Do Affordable Housing Mandates Work?, by Benjamin Powell and Edward Stringham, Reason Foundation Policy Study No. 318, April 2004, http://www.tppi.org/ps3l8.pdf Smart Growth in Action, Part 2: Case Studies in Housing Capacity and Development fi^om Ventura County, California, by William Fulton, Susan Weaver, Geoffrey F. Segal, and Lily Okamura, Reason Foundation Policy Study No. 311, May 2003, bttp://www.rppi.org/ps3l I .pdf San Jose Demonstrates the Limits of Urban Growth Boundaries and Urban Rail, by Randal O'Toole, Reason Foundation Policy Study No. 309, April 2003, http://www.rppi.org/ps309.pdf Smart Growth in Action: Housing Capacity and Development in Ventura County, by William Fulton, Chris Williamson, Kathleen Mallory, and Jeff Jones, Reason Foundation Policy Study No. 288, December 2001, http://www.rppi.org/ps288.pdf Smart Growth and Housing Affordability: Evidence from Statewide Planning Laws, by Sam Staley and Leonard C. Gilroy, Reason Foundation Policy Study No. 287, December 2001, http://www.rppi.org/ps287.pdf Urban -Growth Boundaries and Housing Affordability: Lessons from Portland, by Samuel Staley, Reason Foundation Policy Brief No. 11, October 1999, http://www.rppi.org/urban/pbl l.pdf Repairing the Ladder: Toward a New Housing Paradigm, by Howard Husock, Reason Foundation Policy Study No. 207, July 1996, http://www.rppi.org/ps207.pdf 24 1 Reason Public Policy Institute Endnotes 1 See the statements of the housing advocacy coalition National Housing Conference at www.nhc.org 2 National Housing Conference Inclusionary Zoning: The California Experience, Washington, D.C.: National Housing Conference, 2004, http://www.nhc.org/nhcimages/California%20IZ/CalZ04.pdf. 3 Meyers Group "Meyers Group Summary Statistics" January -March 2004. 4 California Coalition for Rural Housing and Non -Profit Housing Association of Northern California (2003). Inclusionary Housing in California: 30 Years oflnnovation, p.3. 5 Powell and Strin ham Housing Supply and Affordability, PP• i-v, pp•1-45. 6 For an in depth explanation of the economics of inclusionary zoning see Housing Supply and Affordability: Do Affordable Housing Mandates Work? . This study also contains discussions about the long-term effects of affordability controls and the current debate on inclusionary zoning. Each of those sections is equally applicable to the Southern California market. Southern California Association of Governments State of the Region 2003 , pp. 35-42 (Los Angeles: Southern California Association of Governments, 2003) a National Association of Homebuilders, Housing Opportunity Index: First Quarter (Washington, D.C.: National Association of Homebuilders, 2002). 9 Calculated by taking the 7.5 year Southern California Association of Governments 1998-2005 Regional Housing Need Assessment for the 13 cities and dividing by 7.5. 10 We are not measuring what economists refer to as social costs, which would include the value of the lost consumer and producer surplus associated with inclusionary zoning. We are simply estimating the monetary amount that a seller must forgo when selling at the restricted price. 1' Income categories are adjusted by household size. Compared to a four -member household, a household with five members can have an 8 percent greater income, a household with six members a 16 percent greater income, etc. Households with three members will have a 10 percent lower income, two members 20 percent lower and one member 30 percent lower according to the Department of Housing and Community Development. Because the four -member household is the baseline, we focus on four - member households throughout the paper. Barbara Kautz, "In Defense of Inclusionary Zoning: Successfully Creating Affordable Housing" University of San Francisco Law Review, vol. 36, 2002, p. 1014, gives an additional legal reason: "An inclusionary ordinance that does not limit the resale prices of for -sale units (creating `premium pricing' for the first buyer) may be vulnerable to attack for `not advancing a legitimate state interest."' 13 For example, inclusionary zoning in Santa Monica requires 10-20 percent of units be affordable, and its target groups are "Very Low" and "Low." In this case we would assume only 10 percent needed to affordable and the share was split 5 percent for "Very Low' and 5 percent for "Low." Because data for specific requirements of each city are currently unavailable, we decided to make simplifying assumptions and again err on the side of lower costs of inclusionary zoning. 14 We estimate market price by city by comparing 2004 data of the average price of new homes by county compiled by Meyers Group and 2000 Census median price of existing homes by city. Because new homes in Los Angeles County and Orange County typically sell for more than the 2000 median price of DO AFFORDABLE HOUSING MANDATES WORK? 125 existing homes, and because new home price data by city is difficult to assemble, we adjust the 2000 Census city data based on each county's price differential for new homes. In Los Angeles County the ratio of the price of new homes to the price of existing homes is 2.2 and in Orange County that ratio is 2.6. For example, the 2000 Census median price of existing homes in the city of West Hollywood was $263,400, so we multiply that by 2.2 to estimate that a new home would be sold for closer to $588,530. 15 The figure looks at costs in today's prices. The divergence between current price controls and the price at which the units currently could sell gives us comparable numbers in today's dollars. It does not calculate the home price for the year the price -controlled units were built or calculate the price controls in that year. Donna Jones, "Homes, Good and Cheap: Low-income Buyers Get High -Quality Homes," Santa Cruz Sentinel, January 10, 2004, p.9. reports on one project built in 1998 that helps illustrates our assumptions. When homes were first sold, government set the prices at around $160,000. Today government sets their prices at $280,000, and "they would be worth at least $800,000 on the open market." For the purposes of our calculations, we would subtract the restricted price of $280,000 from the market price of $800,000 to arrive at the $520,000 difference. That price control (and that difference divergence between the market price and the restricted price) is no longer imposed on the initial seller but is now imposed on the current owner. If 10 homes were in a project, the equivalent cost from the price controls would be 10 times that number. 16 The requirement of subsidized housing has the same effect as a development tax. The developer makes zero economic profit with or without inclusionary zoning, so the implicit tax is passed on to consumers (housing price increases) and landowners (the price of vacant land decreases). In other words, housing consumers and landowners pay for inclusionary zoning." Robert Burchel and Catherine Galley, "Inclusionary Zoning: Pros and Cons," in The California Inclusionary Housing Reader, (Sacramento: Institute for Local Government, 2003), p.29. 17 California Department of Housing and Community Development letter to the city of Fairfield, July 16, 1996. ' 8 California Department of Housing and Community Development letter to the city of Fairfield, April 26, 2001. 19 Laura Padilla, "Reflections on Inclusionary Housing and a Renewed Look at its Viability" Hofstra Law Review, vol. 23, 1995, p.576. 20 Joel Kotkin and Thomas Tseng, Rewarding Ambition: Latinos, Housing, and the Future of California (Malibu, California: Pepperdine University School of Public Policy, 2002). 21 Howard Hussock, Repairing The Ladder: Toward a New Housing Policy Paradigm, Reason Foundation Policy Study No. 207 (Los Angeles: Reason Foundation, July 1996). 22 Andrew G. Dieterich, "An Egalitarian Market: The Economics of Inclusionary Zoning Reclaimed" Fordham Urban Law Journal, vol. 24 (1996) p. 41. 23 Several studies emphasize the assertion that there is no direct cost. See Kautz, "In Defense of Inclusionary Zoning," p.5; Robert Burchel and Catherine Galley, "Inclusionary Zoning: Pros and Cons," in The California Inclusionary Housing Reader (Sacramento: Institute for Local Government, 2003), p.29; and Marc Smith, et.al., "Inclusionary Housing Programs: Issues and Outcomes," Real Estate Law Journal, Fall 1996.. 24 We take into account the length that each city intends to impose price controls (30 years for the median city) and then calculate the present value, assuming a 3 percent discount rate. Reason Public Policy Institute 3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90034 310/391-2245 310/391-4395 (fax) www.rppi.org Susana Barrios From: Adam Wood <awood@biasc.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 8:40 AM To: City Clerk; Public Comment; Ashleigh Aitken; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Norma C. Kurtz; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 26 - Housing Coalition Comment Letter Attachments: Item 26 - Coalition Letter.pdf Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. Please see attached. Thank you. _.. u Adam S. Wood Building Industry Association of Southern California, Inc. gbiasc„orcl h: (949) 777-3860 :,._b sc...mq Address: 17192 Murphy Ave., #14445, Irvine, CA 92623 wn .. _ ORANGE COUNTY JBUSINESS 0)UNCIL CICTmorg 0am Orange County TaxpayersAssmatan Ys�rlwbf�trtfttt`o'Gillors [,,di ;ra final June 27, 2023 Mayor Ashleigh Aitken City of Anaheim 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92805 Re: File Item 26: Update on the City's Housing Affordability Ad Hoc — Oppose Dear Mayor and Council, PACIFIC WEST ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS* Housing affordability is unquestionably a leading issue for California policy makers. Historically high home prices have dominated news cycles and placed undue burdens on communities across the State. Action is needed to address the growing housing crisis but before that can happen, we must first understand the cause. For over 40 years, the population of California has rapidly outpaced housing production. For as complicated as housing policy can be, cost escalation is relatively straight forward. California has not produced enough units to meet the demand. As California remains a highly desirable place to live, the supply/demand imbalance has resulted in rapidly escalating home prices. The specific reasons why California underproduced can be debated but ultimately it results from laws and policies that have constrained production. With this in mind, we are deeply concerned to see the Staff Report for the "Update from the Housing Affordability Ad Hoc Committee" expressing a desire to investigate development fees and inclusionary housing programs. Additional fees and barriers will do nothing to facilitate new housing production in Anaheim. The staff report states that the Ad Hoc Committee specifically looked at development fee programs and inclusionary housing. There is an implication that other programs might have been considered but none are addressed in the staff report. The conclusion of said report states if "staff is directed to conduct a study in furtherance of the Committee's work..." it will cost $50,000. We have considerable concern about the scope and procurement of such direction. The ad hoc committee was not subject to the Brown Act and thus had no public participation. Other than the information contained in the Staff Report, there is no indication as to what exactly a "study in furtherance" would entail. The proposed $50,000 cost estimate indicates a specific scope that staff contemplated. To date, this scope is not public information. Further, proceeding under the City Manger's budget authority raises multiple questions. Will this $50,000 report be competitively bid to ensure the city receives a balanced report? As far as the record reflects, the only outside voice considered at this point is that of Keyser Marston. Input from one potential vendor does not make for a balanced or equitable approach to procurement. In the interest of transparency and best practice, if this advances, we hope multiple firms are contacted and given the ability to submit a reasonable scope of work (and cost estimate) aligning with "a study in furtherance." This, however, brings the central question back into focus. Why is Anaheim even considering fee programs and inclusionary housing? The Staff Report states that on March 9, 2023, staff provided background on current practices which includes meeting with housing developers to review the merits for voluntarily including below market rate units on site. It is implied this meeting did not assuage concerns of the Ad Hoc Committee. This is where concerns about lack of public input comes in to focus. If the goal of this Council is to produce housing, the question is how to maximize production, not squeeze concession. If the current "meet and confer" approach did not address concerns of the Ad Hoc committee, then we need to study why the incentives the city offers are insufficient. The Ad Hoc should consider spending $50,000 on an incentive system that leverages market realities, as opposed to investigating programs to extract fees and impose barriers. A perfect example of why incentives, not fees, should be pursued can be seen in Santa Ana. During a hot housing market, Santa Ana spent years with zero new projects entering the production pipeline. Then, in 2020 their Council reduced burdensome Inclusionary requirements and a flood of new units were proposed. This provides a tangible neighboring -city example where city - imposed burdens on development stopped housing. This is common across the state but remains underreported as there is no database for projects that "didn't happen." Instead, you must look at the continued rates of underproduction to see that no city with development fees and inclusionary "solved" their affordability issues. It does merit mentioning that many supporters of the Inclusionary approach like to cite the city of Irvine as an example of success. If every city had a decommissioned military base with unified development control, then citing Irvine would be valid. As no other jurisdiction sits in a land use or economic situation reflective of Irvine conditions, comparisons are not valid. In conclusion, Inclusionary is not a solution if the goal is housing production. We hope the council will consider leveraging market realities to offer a non —punitive approach to subsidized housing production. Anything short of that will further limit production in Anaheim and will mark a clear departure from the City's long held values of vitality through innovation. We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Adam Wood, Senior Vice President Building Industry Association Southern California — OC Chapter (BIA/OC) Victor Cao, Senior Vice President, Local Public Affairs California Apartment Association (CAA) Jennifer Bullard, Senior Vice President Orange County Business Council (OCBC) Phil Hawkins, Chief Executive Officer Pacific West Association of REALTORSR (PWR) Sara Catalan, President and CEO Orange County Taxpayers Association (OCTax) David Cordero, Executive Director Apartment Association of Orange County (AAOC) Vickie Talley, Executive Director Manufactured Housing Educational Trust (MHET) Susana Barrios From: Amanda Soto <amandas@kennedycommission.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 11:50 AM To: City Clerk Cc: Cesar C Subject: [EXTERNAL] Kennedy Commission Public Comment on Item #26 Attachments: anahiem city council public comment #26.pdf Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. Good morning -- Here is enclosed the Kennedy Commission public comment on Item #26 "UPDATE FROM THE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY AD HOC COMMITTEE" Thank you, Amanda Soto Amanda Soto (she/her) Community Organizer June 27, 2023 Mayor Ashleigh Aitken Anaheim City Council Members City of Anaheim 200 S Anaheim Blvd Anaheim, CA 92805 RE: Item 26 City of Anaheim Council Meeting (June 27, 2023) Dear Mayor Aitken and City Council: 1xvinc, CA V-1614 ;G()15 0 0 (Al The Kennedy Commission (the Commission) is a broad -based coalition of residents and community organizations that advocates for the production of homes affordable for extremely low income families earning less than $30,000 annually in Orange County. Formed in 2001, the Commission has been successful in partnering and working with Orange County jurisdictions to create effective housing and land -use policies that have led to the construction of homes affordable to lower -income working families. We are writing today to request that the City of Anaheim move forward with evaluating policies and programs that would increase affordable housing options in Anaheim. An inclusionary housing program, city owned sites, opportunity sites and other affordable housing programs will ensure that the City will effectively produce affordable housing at the extremely low, very low-, and low-income level. We want to ensure that the city includes an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as part of their housing programs and priorities to support extremely and very low income families in Anaheim. While market rate housing production is clearly happening in Anaheim as a result of incentives and concessions to developers, it is occurring in an unbalanced way that is not producing affordable housing for lower income families. The housing production trends are illustrated by the city's performance in the 2014-2021 Housing Element planning period. The city had a RHNA of 1,256 very low- and 907 low-income households. During this 5th cycle, the city built 298 or 24% of the 1,256 very low income units and 71 or 8% of the 907 low-income units. However, for the above moderate -income units, the city outperformed and exceeded the RHNA by constructing 8,266 or 331 % of the original 2,501 above moderate -income RHNA. The housing imbalance is due to the fact that the city does not have an effective affordable housing policy. In the current 6th cycle planning period, the city has a RHNA of 6,164 units for lower income households. To -date, the city has approved 155 deed -restricted units for lower income units. While the city has approved some lower income developments, the city's plans and programs are falling behind on facilitating the necessary affordable units to meet the needs of the housing crisis to support low and very low-income residents in Anaheim. This comes in comparison to the approved 211 moderate and above -moderate income units, and over 6,106 above market level housing units in the city's development pipeline. As described in the draft Housing Element, the majority of the City's RHNA for above moderate housing needs will be met with these pipeline projects. The deficit of affordable housing in the city is unfortunate given that Anaheim residents are in urgent need for housing at the lower income levels and are looking to the city to construct more affordable housing developments. As Anaheim considers the recommended policies and programs that could increase affordable housing, the Commission recommends that the City adopt new affordable housing priorities and policies that will help develop affordable housing for lower income levels and create balanced housing opportunities in Anaheim. To effectively produce housing at the extremely low, very low-, and low-income level, the Commission recommends that the city adopt the following strategies: 1. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance: To ensure housing is produced equitably and meets the current and future needs of Anaheim residents, the Commission strongly recommends the city adopt an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance that requires 20% of units of all citywide residential projects be set at the extremely low (7.5%), very low (7.5%), and low-income levels (5%). This ordinance will help the city create balanced housing development along with market rate housing. This policy will help create affordable housing that is not created in the Anaheim housing market. The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance should be implemented within the next six months to ensure that affordable housing is created in the city. 2. Affordable Housing Fee: The Commission recommends that if the city elects an affordable housing fee program it considers the following: - The policy should be part of a comprehensive approach to address the production of affordable housing on sites identified to create affordable housing, such as implementing an Inclusionary Housing program as outlined above and having an in lieu fee option. - An in -lieu fee instead of affordable housing should help the city achieve the affordable housing opportunity not realized on the sites. The fee needs to be calculated based on the true cost to develop affordable housing units and other financial and market factors. Given the high cost of land, market rate housing competing for the same sites, construction cost, and the land use and zoning limitations on where affordable housing can realistically be developed, funding generated from this fee would likely have limited success if set to low. The proposed program should evaluate the lost opportunity to create affordable housing on these opportunity sites and actual cost to develop affordable housing elsewhere. - The fee should be in the range of $15,000 - $30,000 per unit to allow the city to leverage state, federal and other affordable housing funds and be able to develop affordable housing developments that will serve lower income families making $30,000-$80,000. We recommend that the fee be utilized specifically for the creation of new affordable housing units for low, very -low, extremely low, and acutely low-income families. An in -lieu fee should be studied and implemented within the next six months. The implementation of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and in -lieu fee will continue to offer development incentives and concessions for market rate development and implement a policy to create affordable housing along with market rate housing. Moreover, it will encourage the City to prioritize housing for residents living below the poverty line and facing housing and economic uncertainty. The Commission looks forward to partnering with the City of Anaheim to create opportunities to increase affordable homes for lower income households in the city. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (949) 250-0909 or cesarc@kennedycommission.org. Sincerely, Cesar Covarrubias Executive Director Susana Barrios From: Wes W Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 11:03 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] Budget priorities - Parks, Libraries, Police Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. Please keep our kids in mind for your budget. I was at Brookhust Park two weeks ago for a little league game. At the end of the game, gangs started fighting and shots rang out. Police must be a priority. Our parks must be a priority. Safety must be a prirotiy. We need morr police. Our libraries help engage our children in learning and reading. Library hours should be expanded. Fail to give kids an outlet like at libraries, and plan to need more police to catch and jail them when many of them become taggers, gang members, and criminals. Thank you. Susana Barrios From: Brandi Garcia-Valdes<brandi.valdes@camortgagerelief.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 3:23 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] Pubic Comment: California Mortgage Relief Program Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. Dear Anaheim City Council, For my public comment for today's meeting, I want to share details with you about the California Mortgage Relief Program (I p //c „irrra it g g „irk„II„iief.._.orgA a state run program that can help homeowners stay in their homes and get caught up with their mortgage. The California Mortgage Relief Program is open to all eligible Californians and is absolutely free —funds never need to be paid back. Grants from the program are paid directly to your bank or mortgage servicer. The program's website is available in 6 languages (English, Spanish, Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese, & Tagalog. The link for the toolkit is provided here (Ijtps //cg_irrra it g g „irk„II„ii a „!rg/p !r i gIE-lEgs !! lE gsJ. The resource page has more information to share with your network and materials. Homeowners can visit the application questionnaire Ihe!re. to find out if they qualify. Property tax has now been added which covers 1 payment owed prior to March 2023. When possible, I'd like to hold a call to go over more details on the program and help gather any questions that you may have. Looking forward to how we can work together. More details of the program: • Previously awarded homeowners who are still eligible and need more assistance can return for additional funds with a maximum of $80,000 in total assistance Assistance is now available for homeowners with partial claim second mortgages or loan deferrals taken during or after January 2020 • The delinquency date for assistance with past -due mortgage and property tax payments was reset - applicants must have missed at least two mortgage payments OR at least one property tax payment prior to March 1, 2023 • Homeowners with a primary residence that includes up to 4 units on the property may now be eligible • Must have faced a pandemic -related financial hardship after January 21, 2020 • Must have missed at least 2 payments by March 1, 2023, and are currently behind. If you have any questions and/or would like further assistance, please feel free to contact me at the information below. Thank you! BraDdiGarcia-Valdes Outreach Specialist Ca|HFAHomeowner Relief Corporation /626\536'96391 brandiva|des@camortQaQere|ief.orQ This message and any attached documents contain information from the[a|HFA Homeowner Relief Corporation that may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message. Thank Susana Barrios From: d u rfeycra ig Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2023 8:18 PM To: joneill@garden-grove.org; johnmo@ggcity.org; johnmo@ggcity.org; Joyce.Rivero@ocgov.com; 'Teresa Pomeroy'; 'Public Records Request'; 'Maria Stipe'; 'Pam Haddad'; senator.nguyen@senate.ca.gov; ADAM.BOMAN@ASM.CA.GOV; 'Nick Dibs'; senator.umberg@senate.ca.gov; gregl @ggcity.org; 'Lisa Kim'; 'Bill Murray'; 'Bill Mock'; gregl @ggcity.org; craigb@ggcity.org; David.Ochoa@sen.ca.gov; 'Kim Nguyen'; kim.vandermeulen@mail.house.gov; REPLOUCORREA@MAILAOUSE.GOV; res onse@oc ov.com; Public Comment; hauwie.tie@asm.ca.gov; 'stevej'; 'stephaniek'; 'Gabriela Mafi'; 'George Brietigam'; 'Garden Grove Chamber of Commerce'; 'GGEA President'; cindyt@ggcity.org; 'communityrelations'; 'Walter Muneton'; 'Bill Mock'; 'Teresa Pomeroy'; 'Dina Nguyen'; Christopher.Aguilera@asm.ca.gov; assemblymember.quirk-silva@assembly.ca.gov; Assemblymember.Davies@assembly.ca.gov; 'Lan Nguyen'; 'Lisa Kim'; 'Bob Harden'; 'PIO Department' Subject: [EXTERNAL] Inspire a love of gardening in youngsters by making it fun/Greening schools and surrounding neighborhoods also has the potential to boost academic achievement by improving students' ability to concentrate. Attachments: Who's Living in Your Backyard and Neighborhood.pdf, Fun Plants for Kids _ Melinda Myers.html; Inspire a love of gardening in youngsters by making it fun - St George News.html; AB 638 (Quirk -Silva) - As Amended March 26, 2021202120220AB638 _Assembly Health.pdf Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. 06-17-2023 (P.R.D.D.C.) PARENTS FOR THE RIGHTS OF DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN CRAIG A. DURFEY FOUNDER OF P.R.D.D.C. U.S. F 404 - HONORING 0III' IIIIG I[NWICIFEY IF IS FIGHT AGAINST AUTISM ... Ms. L0110ETTA S&IM01HEZ of Calliffornila. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkq/CREC-2003-03-27/pdf/CREC-2003-03-27.pdf new website s ci e i s® r_ To whom it may concern. With adolescent growing impact with social media screentime, isolation from the addictions, brain injury having ways to address this with real benefits from Echo Therapy Ecotherapy, also known as nature therapy or green therapy (socialemotionalpaws.com) natures green Nature therapy, also referred to as ecotherapy, is an umbrella term for therapy programs and guided nature -based activities intended to improve mental health. Types of nature therapy include forest bathing, horticultural therapy, wilderness therapy, and animal -assisted therapy. Adults can also with mental health can also benefit from urban forest with dog ,horse, water therapy suffer PTSD. Request a letter of support to address the lack of awareness Echo Therapy with a mental health crises below story about one of many news stories with links ought to inspire our elected leaders, schools, to harness the true power of natures provides us that seems to mis-understood leaving communities without the opportunities to enrich the holistic benefits enhance wellness. FEATURE — Gardening is good for the mind, body and spirit. It is also good for the youngsters in our lives. Research shows gardening helps relieve stress, improve focus, positively impacts mood and psychological well-being, builds a sense of confidence, ani's Look ',, fcreative waysto get children involved in gardening. Tap f other interests or reading, writing, f computers f need to persuade participants f growing plants. Eyeball plant (Acmella oleracea), balloon plant (Gomphocarpus physocarpus) with its hairy inflated seedpods, snake plant, and kangaroo paws (Anigozanthos favidus) are a few to consider. Gardeners of all ages will appreciate the popcorn plant (Senna didymobotrya) with its buttered popcorn -scented leaves or bat -faced cuphea and the hummingbirds Consider adding features that make the garden a fun space to visit. There is a reason bean teepees, sunflower houses, and tunnels in the garden have remained popular with kids of all ages for decades. Or grow a garden shaped like a slice of pizza planted with all the key ingredients or a salsa garden. Everyone will benefit when using freshly harveste�.---, ingredients to create these dishes. Including a teepee or using it as a trellis for pole beans is a fun addition to any kid's garden, location and date unspecified I Photo courtesy of MelindaMyers.com, St. George News A pot or flat of grass makes a nice field for superheroes and a lawn for dolls. A bare patch of soil is perfect for digging, driving cars and trucks, or sculpting hills and valleys. All these build skills that can be applied ♦ future gardening efforts. Plant some salad radishes that are ready to harvest in 25 to 30 days. This will help kee the kids interested in the garden when waiting for the tomatoes, beans and other vegetables to ripen. Call it harvesting when you are thinning the radish planting. Use these greens as a snack or in a salad. Harvesting and eating is more fun for all of us tha just • the excess plants. 31 Use rainy days to create plant labels from paint sticks or stones. Paint individual words :z)n some of the stones and place them in the garden. Let children leave messages for zach other or write poetry. Or repurpose pickle jars into garden treasure jars. Have children decorate the jars. Then you fill the jars with messages or treasures before hiding them in the garden. Explore ways to reuse and recycle landscape trimmings. Put twigs to use creating small- q,cale wattle fences for a fairy, gnome or zombie garden. This is great practice for building a larger -scale wattle fence for the garden. 3 Go on a bug hunt to see who is living in your garden, yard or neighborhood. Look for gooY bugs like lady beetles that eat plant -damaging aphids and bees that pollinate our flowers. Then log what you find in a R,,,YmOoryard Gentle guidance, realistic expectations, and age -appropriate activities will help get kids excited about gardening. The gardens they create and the plants they grow are often amazing but more importantly, it is the experience of growing together that makes it worthwhile. I VTTT r M A1113OU 111I 111I 111411E AU 111I 111401111 Ill M Mr. FT Ill rr--Tm 4, - 0 04040 * 0 a, I Gii,ow I)l seiiIes and the nationally -syndicated 11"YIe lll � ii,ild a's Gaii,deii,lli TV & radio program. Myers is a columnist and contributing editor for Birds & Blooms magazine. Her web site is (2) Inspire a love of gardening in youngsters by making it fun - St George News (stgeorgeutah.com) CA EDUCATION CODE FOR GARDENS § 51795 WASTE MANAEGMENT (socialemotionalpaws.com) Living Schoolyard Month Designates the month of May 2014 (socialemotionalpaws.com) Green Schoolvards America (socialemotionalpaws.com Greening for academic achievement: Prioritizing what to plant and (socialemotionalpaws.com) Ecotherapy, also known as nature therapy or green therapy (socialemotionalpaws.com) The Impact of Schoolyard Greening on Children's Physical Activity (socialemotionalpaws.com) ... . ................. ... .................. , EZMMEM=�� p.j!jOiIr t z.iiro -wlhat-t ... ................ ! ! !! Ilfmj1ps:I/socialei o I inal aws coiirn/11 I . .................................................................... !! ! 9 ................... P ............................................................. R S.1538 - Living Schoolyards Act of 2023 (socialemotionalpaws.com) Trees in Schoolyards - San Diego Regional Urban Forests Council (sdrufc.com) Why trees in schoolyards? (socialemotionalpaws.com) Ilfm.//ii......._Iii.......:iirxU�......._'.E.....aws ........................................................l - ost-1/f/thrust-four- ulllliic-1 ii Ilfmtt .w// ii l ii I in 1. ........._ ii /Ill ost 1/f/Ilfineiiii iiriicllfm iiii biro uses liiviiii scllfmool iir... s-act- iir......._iiii.....-11hm_......._l. Green space is vital to the health to all having a full canopy of trees recommended , parks ratios to match population density, gardens, education can have tangible benefits increasing awareness to encourage more training how Echo Therapy licenses would all benefits Thank You Craig A Durfey 4 its lrll,�v I L Hi, Thanks so much for joining me as we explore our backyards and neighborhoods. Please use this journal to record all the fun, cool and unusual creatures you find on your walks and in your yard. Once you get started you may find you need to print more pages to write down all you see. Be sure to invite your family and friends to explore their yards and gardens too. Invite more toads, pollinators and birds to your backyard by growing plants that provide food and shelter. And don't forget the water. Even a few containers and a birdbath or fountain can attract these welcome visitors to a small yard or balcony. You can find videos and free downloaclable guides for families under Gardening How To on my website at melindamyers.com/garden-how-to. You will find more gardening resources, including some on making pollinator- and bird - friendly gardens throughout my website, MelindaMyers.com. My team, my friends at We Energies, Wisconsin Public Libraries, Upper Peninsula of Michigan Libraries and I hope you have lots of fun. Be sure to explore your gardens, backyards, and other green spaces in your neighborhood. Have fun exploring! ZA al ff a "01 " J r�- Bees, butterflies, hummingbirds, toads and other friendly creatures help make sure we have food to eat, pretty flowers to look at and so much more. O"N 'Dare Flower ti- Was visiFtvt.,Oi D ot+,e- Weati-keev. Wkeye I SeAyCkeA -POY of -key creeki-twes . . . . . ..... . .. .... xgg Wkoti- I FO(AVIA Wkere Tkey Were Ltvtvt5 ov. Vts!Ftvtc .. Ants„ ,.,,,„ ..... . ], ---- — - — — --- - --------- . . ... .. !'� Stu% . ......... .... . ... .....m�/m....,. , G 1L. A..... . ..... [] AF&ds . . ... ... wslff Mites - — - — -------- - Qp, Butterflies .......... .. CaterpMm . . ..... Wip Seed" ,,,71/ . ........ . — — ----- . ......... . Gm"ppm D E"i% lioneOm mrz. ...... &v"ebe" ll[. .......... . ... .... . . -.11 . ..... ...... AB 638 Page I Date of Hearing: April 6, 2021 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH Jim Wood, Chair AB 638 (Quirk -Silva) — As Amended March 26, 2021 SUBJECT: Mental Health Services Act: early intervention and prevention programs. SUMMARY. Revises the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) by authorizing the use of Prevention and Early Intervention (PEI) fields for prevention and early intervention strategies that address mental health needs, substance misuse or substance use disorders, or needs relating to co-occurring mental health substance use. Specifically, this bill: 1) Revises MHSA by authorizing the use of PEI funds for prevention and early intervention strategies that address mental health needs, substance misuse or substance use disorders, or needs relating to co-occurring mental health substance use. 2) Finds and declares that this bill is consistent with and furthers the intent of the MHSA. EXISTING LAW: 1) Establishes the MHSA, enacted by voters in 2004 as Proposition 63, to provide fiords to counties to expand services, develop innovative programs, and integrated service plans for mentally ill children, adults, and seniors through a 1% income tax on personal income above $1 million. 2) Establishes the Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission (MHSOAC) to oversee the implementation of MHSA, made up of 16 members appointed by the Governor, and the Legislature, as specified. 3) Specifies that the MHSA can only be amended by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature and only as long as the amendment is consistent with and furthers the intent of the MHSA. Permits provisions clarifying the procedures and terms of the MHSA to be amended by majority vote. 4) Authorizes the provision of services through the PEI component of the MHSA, to mental health clients in order to help prevent mental illness from becoming severe and disabling. 5) Authorizes the services for adults, older adults, and children, as well as innovative programs and PEI programs that are provided by counties as part of the MHSA to include substance use disorder (SUD) treatment for children, adults, and older adults with co-occurring mental health and SUD who are eligible to receive mental health services under these programs. 6) Authorizes the use of MHSA funds to perform an assessment of whether a person has co- occurring mental health and SUDs and to treat a person who is initially assessed to have co- occurring mental health and SUDs, even when the person is later determined not to be eligible for services provided with MHSA fields. AB 638 Page 2 7) Requires that a person being treated for co-occurring mental health and SUDs who is determined to not need the mental health services eligible under this act, be referred to SUD treatment services in a timely manner. FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill has not been heard by a fiscal committee. COMMENTS: 1) PURPOSE OF THIS BILL. According to the author, some people living with serious mental illness (SMI) simultaneously experience alcohol and drug use disorders, thus complicating diagnosis and treatment. A third of adults who receive county mental health services for SMI, have a co-occurring SUD. The stakes for these individuals is especially high. People with drug or alcohol use disorders are almost six times more likely to attempt suicide than those without a drug or alcohol use disorder. Removing programmatic barriers in serving these individuals with mental health and co-occurring SUDS was an important first step with the adoption of AB 2265 (Quirk -Silva), Chapter 144, Statutes of 2020; however, the COVID-19 pandemic has amplified the need to do more. Unfortunately, this pandemic has affected children and adults in unprecedented ways. Anxiety, depression, isolation, and feelings of despair as well as suicide attempts have increased dramatically among adults, school -aged children and young adults. In concluding, the author states that many who had underlying or diagnosed mental health and SUDS are now dealing with an increased need for services and treatment. 2) BACKGROUND. a) MHSA. Proposition 63, the MHSA was approved by voters in November 2004. The MHSA imposes a 1 % income tax on personal income in excess of $1 million. It created the 16 member MHSOAC charged with overseeing the implementation of MHSA. The MHSA addresses a broad continuum of prevention, early intervention and service needs as well as providing funding for infrastructure, technology, and training needs for the community mental health system. During the of strong economic growth in the state, the measure raises about $2 billion annually for services such as preventing mental illness from progressing, reducing stigma, and improving treatment. Altogether, counties have received upwards of $16.5 billion. The funds are distributed to County mental health agencies. Counties receive monthly distributions of MHSA funds from the State Controller's Office, based on the amount of revenues generated by the tax. These County funds are earmarked by law into three primary funding components. Eighty percent of the funds are attributed to Community Services and Supports (CSS) and 20% to PEI. The counties then are required to use 5% of the CSS and PEI amounts exclusively to fund Innovative Projects (leaving 76% of the original allocation in CSS and 19% in PEI). Counties may then elect to transfer a portion of CSS funds received in any year to one or more of three finther categories: Workforce Education and Training; Capital Facilities and Technological Needs; and, a "Prudent Reserve" fund. Target populations under MHSA include children and adolescents with serious emotional disturbance and transition -aged youth who are unserved, underserved, or inappropriately served (e.g., homeless, frequent hospital users, individuals with criminal justice history). AB 638 Page 3 The PEI component is to prevent mental illness from becoming severe and disabling. In 2020, AB 2265 clarified counties can treat patients with mental health and co-occurring SUDs under MHSA. This was an important first step to remove programmatic barriers in serving these individuals with mental health and co-occurring SUDS. The MHSA contains a provision that specifies the MHSA can only be amended by a two- thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature and only as long as the amendment is consistent with and furthers the intent of the MHSA. Provisions that clarify the procedures and terms of the MHSA can be amended by a majority vote of both houses of the Legislature. Any other proposed use of MHSA funds or change in terms of usage would require the MHSA be amended by voter approval. b) MWSOAC Report on Co -Occurring Disorder: In November 2007, the MHSOAC authorized a 19-member Workgroup on Co-occurring Disorders (COD) to develop comprehensive recommendations to address the needs of individuals with co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse. The COD Workgroup, which met from November 2007 through June 2008, heard briefings by state leaders and experts on the status of the treatment of CODs in California. A report entitled, "Transforming the Mental Health System Through Integration" was issued and the key findings and recommendation to improve the capacity of state and county policy makers and program administrators to address the needs of individuals with CODS follows: i) The central finding of the COD workgroup is that CODS are pervasive and disabling, yet individuals with co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse are among California's most underserved; ii) Individuals with CODs touch every part of our health system. They have more medical problems, poorer treatment outcomes, more negative social consequences, and lower quality of life. They are disproportionately represented among arrestees, foster care placements, veterans, hospitalizations and the homeless. The enormous social consequences of untreated COD prompted the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to identify the treatment CODS as our nation's highest priority; iii) Individuals with co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse are among California's most underserved. Numerous studies demonstrate that integrated care is necessary for successful treatment of CODs. To meet the needs of individuals with COD, there can be "no wrong door" to access treatment. Availability of comprehensively integrated treatment for mental health and substance abuse problems is currently the exception rather than the rule. The unmet need for integrated mental health, alcohol and drug abuse treatment in underserved racial and ethnic communities is even greater; iv) Approximately one-half of the people who have one of these conditions - a mental illness or a substance abuse disorder - also have the other condition. The proportion of co -occurrence may be even higher in adolescent populations. The onset of a diagnosable mental disorder often precedes the onset of a SUD, with SUDs developing typically 5-10 years later in late adolescence or early adulthood. CODs are the norm, not the exception; v) CODs are disabling. Individuals with COD have more medical problems, poorer treatment outcomes, greater social consequences, and lower quality of life. They have more relapses, re -hospitalization, depression and suicidality, interpersonal violence, AB 638 Page 4 housing instability and homelessness, incarceration, treatment non-compliance, HIV, family burden, and service utilization; and, vi) Insufficient support for integrated COD programs leads to a paucity of treatment facilities and properly trained clinicians. Both are essential to provide the full spectrum of necessary care. The lack of such facilities and expertise restricts access to service not just for outpatient care, but also for inpatient mental health units with COD capability. c) Trends in California Drug Overdose Deaths. California Health Policy Strategies, a Sacramento -based consulting firm with a deep commitment to policies that will improve California's health care system, issued a policy brief in January of 2021, entitled "Trends in California Drug Overdose Deaths." The brief reported that drug -related overdose fatalities have risen 50% since 2017. Overdose fatalities are rising faster in California than in the United States in general where overdose deaths are up 15% over the last three years. Other key findings are: i) Drug -related overdose is now a top 10 leading cause of death. In the 12 months between June 2019 and June 2020 there were at least 7,254 overdose deaths, which equals approximately 17 overdose fatalities per 100,000 state residents. Accidental drug overdoses kill twice as many people as car accidents; ii) The rate of overdose deaths related to synthetic opioids (e.g. Fentanyl) has risen by 541% over the last three years. Fentanyl is now the leading cause of opioid-related overdose deaths and 37% of all drug -related overdose fatalities involve fentanyl; iii) The raw number of drug -related overdose deaths are rising in both California and the United States. Preliminary mortality records indicate that in the 12-month period June 2019 and June 2020 there were at least 7,254 drug overdose deaths in California and over 81,003 in the United States. The number of overdose fatalities is rising faster in California than it is in the United States. In California, overdose deaths are up 50% and in the United States overdose deaths are up 15% since the 12-month period June 2016 to June 2017. The age -adjusted rate of drug overdose death has also risen dramatically over the last three years and is at an all-time high; there are approximately 17 overdose deaths per 100,000 state residents; and, iv) Overdose death rates are highly variable across counties in California. In 2019, the average rate of all drug -related overdose deaths across the state was 19.6 deaths per 100,000 state residents and the median was 17.3 deaths per 100,000 state residents. 3) SUPPORT. The Racial and Ethnic Mental Health Disparities Coalition (REMHDCO) in support of this bill states that mental health disorders are among the most common health conditions faced by Californians. Nearly one in six California adults experience a mental illness of some kind, and one in 24 have a serious mental illness that makes it difficult to carry out major life activities. Additionally, one in 13 children have an emotional disturbance that limits participation in daily activities. Left untreated, these illnesses impact qualify of life and survival REMHDCO concludes by stating that unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic has also affected children and adults in unprecedented ways. Many who had underlying or diagnosed mental health and SUDs are now dealing with an increased need for services and treatment. The COVID-19 pandemic has amplified the need to do more. 4) OPPOSITION. The California Right to Life Committee (CRLC), in opposition, states concerns about the apparent lack if any significant improvement in the quality of life for AB 638 Page 5 those suffering from mental illness and questions how more funding will now ensure the quality of life for those living with mental illness. CRLC concludes by asking, specifically what new programs are envisioned? 5) RELATED LEGISLATION. a) AB 686 (Arambula) requires the California Health and Human Services Agency (HHS) to establish the California Community -Based Behavioral Health Outcomes and Accountability Review to facilitate a local accountability system that fosters continuous quality improvement in county behavioral health programs and in the collection and dissemination by the agency of best practices in service delivery. AB 686 is pending in the Assembly Health Committee. b) AB 573 (Carrillo) establishes the California Youth Mental Health Board within HHS to advise the Governor and Legislature on the challenges facing youth with mental health needs and determine opportunities for improvement. Requires each community mental health service to have a local youth mental health board to advise the county mental health programs, school districts, and other entities on issues relating to youth mental health. AB 573 is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee c) SB 749 (Glazer and Eggman), requires the MHSOAC, in consultation with state and local mental health authorities, to create a comprehensive tracking program for county spending on mental and behavioral health programs and services, as specified, including funding sources, funding utilization, and outcome data at the program, service, and statewide levels. SB 749 is pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee. 6) PREVIOUS LEGISLATION. a) AB 2265 authorizes the services for adults, older adults, and children, as well as innovative programs and prevention and early intervention programs that are provided by counties as part of the MHSA to include substance use disorder treatment for children, adults, and older adults with co-occurring mental health and SUD who are eligible to receive mental health services pursuant to those programs. b) AB 2266 (Quirk -Silva) of 2020, would have required the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to establish a pilot program in up to 10 counties and would have authorized funding to be used by participating counties to treat a person with co- occurring mental health and SUDs when the person would be eligible for treatment of the mental health disorder pursuant to the MHSA. AB 2266 was not heard in the Assembly Health Committee due to the shortened Legislative calendar brought on by the COVID- 19 pandemic. c) SB 10 (Beall) of 2019, would have required DHCS to establish, a statewide peer support specialist certification program, as a part of the state's comprehensive mental health and SUD delivery system and the Medi-Cal program. Would have required the certification program's components to include, among others, defining responsibilities, practice guidelines, and supervision standards, determining curriculum and core competencies, specifying training and continuing education requirements, establishing a code of ethics, and determining a certification revocation process. SB 10 was vetoed by the Governor with the following message: AB 638 Page 6 "This bill would require DHCS to establish a new state certification program for mental health and SUD peer support specialists. Peer support services can play an important role in meeting individuals' behavioral health care needs by pairing those individuals with trained "peers" who offer assistance with navigating local community behavioral health systems and provide needed support. Currently, counties may opt to use peer support services for the delivery of Medicaid specialty mental health services. As the Administration, in partnership with the Legislature and counties, works to transform the state's behavioral health care delivery system, we have an opportunity to more comprehensively include peer support services in these transformation plans." d) SB 1004 (Wiener), Chapter 843, Statutes of 2018, requires the MHSOAC, on or before January 1, 2020, to establish priorities for the use of PEI funds and to develop a statewide strategy for monitoring implementation of PEI services, including enhancing public understanding of PEI and creating metrics for assessing the effectiveness of how PEI funds are used and the outcomes that are achieved. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Support California Behavioral Health Directors Association Racial and Ethnic Mental Health Disparities Coalition Opposition California Right to Life Committee, Inc. Analysis Prepared by: Judith Babcock / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097 Susana Barrios From: Craig A Durfey Sent: Monday, June 19, 2023 12:42 AM To: COB_Response; Garden Grove Chamber of Commerce; Lisa Kim; Maria Stipe; Pam Haddad; Public Comment; REPLOUCORREA@mail.house.gov; gregl @ggcity.org; kim.vandermeulen@mail.house.gov; Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Los Angeles Times: L.A. needs 90,000 trees to battle extreme heat. Will residents step up to plant them? Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Craig Durfey Date: Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 12:39 AM Subject: Los Angeles Times: L.A. needs 90,000 trees to battle extreme heat. Will residents step up to plant them? To: communityrelations<communityrelationsgggcity.org>, Joyce Rivero <Joyce.Riverogocgov.com>, Craig Durfey L.A. needs 90,000 trees to battle extreme heat. Will residents step up to plant them? https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2022-06-21/1-a-wants-to-plant-90-000-trees-but-it-needs-your-help Sent from my iPhone Susana Barrios From: Craig A Durfey Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2023 8:32 PM To: CLAYTON.HEARD@asm.ca.gov; Craig A Durfey; rosielyn.pulmano@asm.ca.gov; judy.babcock@asm.ca.gov; lara.flynn@asm.ca.gov; kristene.mapile@asm.ca.gov; lisa.murawski@asm.ca.gov; SEDN.committee@senate.ca.gov; ocbe@ocde.us; Public Comment; SHEA.Committee@senate.ca.gov Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Inspire a love of gardening in youngsters by making it fun/Greening schools and surrounding neighborhoods also has the potential to boost academic achievement by improving students' ability to concentrate. Attachments: Fun Plants for Kids _ Melinda Myers.html; Who's Living in Your Backyard and Neighborhood.pdf, Inspire a love of gardening in youngsters by making it fun - St George News.html; AB 638 (Quirk -Silva) - As Amended March 26, 2021202120220AB638_Assembly Health.pdf Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. ---------- Forwarded messa e--------- From: Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 8:18 PM Subject: Inspire a love of gardening in youngsters by making it fun/Greening schools and surrounding neighborhoods also has the potential to boost academic achievement by improving students' ability to concentrate. To: <joneiII garden- grove. org>, <jg ohnmo ggcity.org>, <Joyce.Riverogocgov.com>, Teresa Pomeroy <teresapgggcity.org>, Public Records Request <cityclerk gggcity.org>, Maria Stipe <marias gci. garden- grove.ca.us>, Pam Haddad <pamha o,ci. ag rden- grove.ca.us>, <senator.n uven g senate. ca. gov>, <ADAM.BOMANgasm.ca.gov>, Nick Dibs <senator.umberggsenate.ca.gov>, <greglgggcity.org>, Lisa Kim <Iisak ,ci. garden- grove.ca.us>, Bill Murray <wem o,ci. garden- grove.ca.us>, Bill Mock <wmocko,octa.net>, <craigbgggcity.org>, <David.Ochoagsen.ca. gov>, Kim Nguyen <KIMN gggcity.org>, <kim.vandermeulengmail. house. gov>, <REPLOUCORREAgmail. house. gov>, <response gocgov.com>, <publiccommentganaheim.net>, <hatiwie.tie asm.ca. ov>, Steve' <stevegarden- grove. org>, stephaniek <stephaniekg garden- grove. org>, , Gabriela Mafi < mafigggusd.us>, George Brietigam <geor eg g y.org>, Garden Grove Chamber of Commerce <staffggardengrovechamber.com>, GGEA President <presidentgggea.org>, <cindytgggcity.org>, communityrelations<communityrelationsgggcity.org>, Walter Muneton <walter.munetonggegusd.us>, Dina Nguyen <dina.n uven9gegusd.us>, <Christopher.A uilera o,asm.ca.gov>, <assemblymember. quirk- silvao,assembly.ca.gov>,<Assemblymember.Daviesgas sembly.ca. gov>, Lan Nguyen <Ian.n uvenggegusd.us>, Bob Harden <bob.harden ggegusd.us>, PIO Department <pio_departmentggegusd.us> 06-17-2023 (P.R.D.D.C.) PARENTS FOR THE RIGHTS OF DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN CRAIG A. DURFEY FOUNDER OF P.R.D.D.C. U.S. F 404 - HONORING 0111AIG llfm'I WIZIIEY F IS FIGHT AGAINST AUTISM ... Ms. L011ZETTA S&IM01HEZ of California. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkq/CREC-2003-03-27/pdf/CREC-2003-03-27.pdf new website sqq1a1emqt1qqg!ppws.qrg To whom it may concern. With adolescent growing impact with social media screentime, isolation from the addictions, brain injury having ways to address this with real benefits from Echo Therapy Ecotherapy, also known as nature therapy or green therapy (socialemotionalpaws.com) natures green Nature therapy, also referred to as ecotherapy, is an umbrella term for therapy programs and guided nature -based activities intended to improve mental health. Types of nature therapy include forest bathing, horticultural therapy, wilderness therapy, and animal -assisted therapy. Adults can also with mental health can also benefit from urban forest with dog ,horse, water therapy suffer PTSD. Request a letter of support to address the lack of awareness Echo Therapy with a mental health crises below story about one of many news stories with links ought to inspire our elected leaders, schools, to harness the true power of natures provides us that seems to mis-understood leaving communities without the opportunities to enrich the holistic benefits enhance wellness. FEATURE — Gardening is good for the mind, body and spirit. It is also good for the youngsters in our lives. Research shows gardening helps confidence,improve focus, positively impacts mood and psychological well-being, builds a sense of ; more. Look for creative ways to get children involved in gardening. Tap into other interests or skills like art, reading, writing, f computers ; Include Eyeball plant (Acmella oleracea), balloon plant (Gomphocarpus physocarpus) with its hairy inflated seedpods, snake plant, and kangaroo paws (Anigozanthos favidus);consider.; ;all ages popcorn plant (Senna didymobotrya) with its buttered popcorn -scented leaves or bat -faced cuphea and the hummingbirds Consider adding features that make the garden a fun space to visit. There is a reason bean teepees,houses, andtunnels in thegarden remained popular kids ;all ages; decades. grow agarden shapedlike a slice; usingpizza planted with all the key ingredients or a salsa garden. Everyone will benefit when freshly harvestedingredients ;create thesedishes. 3 Including a teepee or using it as a trellis for pole beans is a fun addition to any kid's garden, location and date unspecified Photo courtesy of MelindaMyers.com, St. George News A pot or flat of grass makes a nice field for superheroes d a lawn for dolls. A bare patch of soil is perfect for digging, d valleys. All these build skills that can be applied saladPlant some radishes that are ready to harvest in 25 to 30 days. interestedhelp keep the kids in the garden when waiting for the tomatoes,beansd other vegetablesripen. Call it harvesting when you are thinning the radish planting. Use these greens as a snack or in a salad. Harvesting and eating is more fun for all of us than just thinning the excess plants. 1 - rainy days to create plant labelspaint words on some of the stones and place them in the garden. Let children leave messages for each other or write poetry. Or repurpose pickle jars into garden treasure jars. Have children decorate the jars. Then you fill the jars with messages or treasures before hiding them in the garden. Explore d recycle landscape trimmings. Put twigs to use g-,reat practice for building a larger -scale wattle fence for the garden. creating small-scale wattle fences for a fairy, gnome or zombie garden. This Go on a bug hunt to see who is living in your garden, yard or neighborhood. Look for good bugs like lady beetles that eat plant -damaging aphids and bees that pollinate our flowers. Then log what you find in a IJ,,,,7/jackyard joityj.,irii MI. Gentle guidance, realistic expectations, and age -appropriate activities will hel;c get kids excited about gardening. The gardens they create and the plants they grow are often amazing but more importantly, it is the experience of growing together that makes it worthwhile. ABOUTTHE AUTHOR Melinda Myers has written more than 20 gardening books, including Irlliuie PVA�iiWwest Gaiii,,deiii,,,ii�eiii`s and Small Space Gardening. She hosts The Great Courses 11I,Aow to Qi,,ow IIDVIID seiii,iues and the nationally - syndicated PVA�ie l uia's Gaiii,,deiii� TV & radio program. Myers is a columnist and contributing editor for Birds & Blooms magazine. Her web site (2) Inspire a love of gardening in youngsters by making it fun - St George News (stgeorgeutah.com) CA EDUCATION CODE FOR GARDENS § 51795 WASTE MANAEGMENT (socialemotionalpaws.com) Living Schoolvard Month Designates the month of May 2014 (socialemotionalpaws.com) Green Schoolvards America (socialemotionalpaws.com) https://socialemotionalpaws.com/blog-post-1/f/green-schoolyards-america Greening for academic achievement: Prioritizing what to plant and (socialemotionalpaws.com) Ecotherapy, also known as nature therapy or green therapy (socialemotionalpaws.com) The Impact of Schoolyard Greening on Children's Physical Activity (socialemotionalpaws.com) https://socialemotionalpaws.com/blog-post-1 /f/greening-for-academic- achievement-prioritizing-what-to-plant-and https://socialemotionalpaws.com/blog-post-1 /f/trust-for-public-land S.1538 - Living Schoolyards Act of 2023 (socialemotionalpaws.com) Trees in Schoolyards - San Diego Regional Urban Forests Council (sdrufc.com) Why trees in schoolyards? (socialemotionalpaws.com) https://socialemotionalpaws.com/blog-post-1 /f/trust-for-public-land https://socialemotionalpaws.com/blog-post-1 /f/california-lawmakers-advance-bill- to-cool-down-outside-areas-at-s https://socialemotionalpaws.com/blog-post-1 /f/heinrich-introduces-living- schoolyards-act-to-create-unique-heal https://socialemotionalpaws.com/blog-post-1 /f/learn ing-about-trees-in-schools Green space is vital to the health to all having a full canopy of trees recommended , parks ratios to match population density, gardens, education can have tangible benefits increasing awareness to encourage more training how Echo Therapy licenses would all benefits Thank You Craig A Durfey 4 its lrll,�v I L Hi, Thanks so much for joining me as we explore our backyards and neighborhoods. Please use this journal to record all the fun, cool and unusual creatures you find on your walks and in your yard. Once you get started you may find you need to print more pages to write down all you see. Be sure to invite your family and friends to explore their yards and gardens too. Invite more toads, pollinators and birds to your backyard by growing plants that provide food and shelter. And don't forget the water. Even a few containers and a birdbath or fountain can attract these welcome visitors to a small yard or balcony. You can find videos and free downloaclable guides for families under Gardening How To on my website at melindamyers.com/garden-how-to. You will find more gardening resources, including some on making pollinator- and bird - friendly gardens throughout my website, MelindaMyers.com. My team, my friends at We Energies, Wisconsin Public Libraries, Upper Peninsula of Michigan Libraries and I hope you have lots of fun. Be sure to explore your gardens, backyards, and other green spaces in your neighborhood. Have fun exploring! ZA al ff a "01 " J r�- Bees, butterflies, hummingbirds, toads and other friendly creatures help make sure we have food to eat, pretty flowers to look at and so much more. O"N 'Dare Flower ti- Was visiFtvt.,Oi D ot+,e- Weati-keev. Wkeye I SeAyCkeA -POY of -key creeki-twes . . . . . ..... . .. .... xgg Wkoti- I FO(AVIA Wkere Tkey Were Ltvtvt5 ov. Vts!Ftvtc .. Ants„ ,.,,,„ ..... . ], ---- — - — — --- - --------- . . ... .. !'� Stu% . ......... .... . ... .....m�/m....,. , G 1L. A..... . ..... [] AF&ds . . ... ... wslff Mites - — - — -------- - Qp, Butterflies .......... .. CaterpMm . . ..... Wip Seed" ,,,71/ . ........ . — — ----- . ......... . Gm"ppm D E"i% lioneOm mrz. ...... &v"ebe" ll[. .......... . ... .... . . -.11 . ..... ...... AB 638 Page I Date of Hearing: April 6, 2021 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH Jim Wood, Chair AB 638 (Quirk -Silva) — As Amended March 26, 2021 SUBJECT: Mental Health Services Act: early intervention and prevention programs. SUMMARY. Revises the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) by authorizing the use of Prevention and Early Intervention (PEI) fields for prevention and early intervention strategies that address mental health needs, substance misuse or substance use disorders, or needs relating to co-occurring mental health substance use. Specifically, this bill: 1) Revises MHSA by authorizing the use of PEI funds for prevention and early intervention strategies that address mental health needs, substance misuse or substance use disorders, or needs relating to co-occurring mental health substance use. 2) Finds and declares that this bill is consistent with and furthers the intent of the MHSA. EXISTING LAW: 1) Establishes the MHSA, enacted by voters in 2004 as Proposition 63, to provide fiords to counties to expand services, develop innovative programs, and integrated service plans for mentally ill children, adults, and seniors through a 1% income tax on personal income above $1 million. 2) Establishes the Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission (MHSOAC) to oversee the implementation of MHSA, made up of 16 members appointed by the Governor, and the Legislature, as specified. 3) Specifies that the MHSA can only be amended by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature and only as long as the amendment is consistent with and furthers the intent of the MHSA. Permits provisions clarifying the procedures and terms of the MHSA to be amended by majority vote. 4) Authorizes the provision of services through the PEI component of the MHSA, to mental health clients in order to help prevent mental illness from becoming severe and disabling. 5) Authorizes the services for adults, older adults, and children, as well as innovative programs and PEI programs that are provided by counties as part of the MHSA to include substance use disorder (SUD) treatment for children, adults, and older adults with co-occurring mental health and SUD who are eligible to receive mental health services under these programs. 6) Authorizes the use of MHSA funds to perform an assessment of whether a person has co- occurring mental health and SUDs and to treat a person who is initially assessed to have co- occurring mental health and SUDs, even when the person is later determined not to be eligible for services provided with MHSA fields. AB 638 Page 2 7) Requires that a person being treated for co-occurring mental health and SUDs who is determined to not need the mental health services eligible under this act, be referred to SUD treatment services in a timely manner. FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill has not been heard by a fiscal committee. COMMENTS: 1) PURPOSE OF THIS BILL. According to the author, some people living with serious mental illness (SMI) simultaneously experience alcohol and drug use disorders, thus complicating diagnosis and treatment. A third of adults who receive county mental health services for SMI, have a co-occurring SUD. The stakes for these individuals is especially high. People with drug or alcohol use disorders are almost six times more likely to attempt suicide than those without a drug or alcohol use disorder. Removing programmatic barriers in serving these individuals with mental health and co-occurring SUDS was an important first step with the adoption of AB 2265 (Quirk -Silva), Chapter 144, Statutes of 2020; however, the COVID-19 pandemic has amplified the need to do more. Unfortunately, this pandemic has affected children and adults in unprecedented ways. Anxiety, depression, isolation, and feelings of despair as well as suicide attempts have increased dramatically among adults, school -aged children and young adults. In concluding, the author states that many who had underlying or diagnosed mental health and SUDS are now dealing with an increased need for services and treatment. 2) BACKGROUND. a) MHSA. Proposition 63, the MHSA was approved by voters in November 2004. The MHSA imposes a 1 % income tax on personal income in excess of $1 million. It created the 16 member MHSOAC charged with overseeing the implementation of MHSA. The MHSA addresses a broad continuum of prevention, early intervention and service needs as well as providing funding for infrastructure, technology, and training needs for the community mental health system. During the of strong economic growth in the state, the measure raises about $2 billion annually for services such as preventing mental illness from progressing, reducing stigma, and improving treatment. Altogether, counties have received upwards of $16.5 billion. The funds are distributed to County mental health agencies. Counties receive monthly distributions of MHSA funds from the State Controller's Office, based on the amount of revenues generated by the tax. These County funds are earmarked by law into three primary funding components. Eighty percent of the funds are attributed to Community Services and Supports (CSS) and 20% to PEI. The counties then are required to use 5% of the CSS and PEI amounts exclusively to fund Innovative Projects (leaving 76% of the original allocation in CSS and 19% in PEI). Counties may then elect to transfer a portion of CSS funds received in any year to one or more of three finther categories: Workforce Education and Training; Capital Facilities and Technological Needs; and, a "Prudent Reserve" fund. Target populations under MHSA include children and adolescents with serious emotional disturbance and transition -aged youth who are unserved, underserved, or inappropriately served (e.g., homeless, frequent hospital users, individuals with criminal justice history). AB 638 Page 3 The PEI component is to prevent mental illness from becoming severe and disabling. In 2020, AB 2265 clarified counties can treat patients with mental health and co-occurring SUDs under MHSA. This was an important first step to remove programmatic barriers in serving these individuals with mental health and co-occurring SUDS. The MHSA contains a provision that specifies the MHSA can only be amended by a two- thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature and only as long as the amendment is consistent with and furthers the intent of the MHSA. Provisions that clarify the procedures and terms of the MHSA can be amended by a majority vote of both houses of the Legislature. Any other proposed use of MHSA funds or change in terms of usage would require the MHSA be amended by voter approval. b) MWSOAC Report on Co -Occurring Disorder: In November 2007, the MHSOAC authorized a 19-member Workgroup on Co-occurring Disorders (COD) to develop comprehensive recommendations to address the needs of individuals with co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse. The COD Workgroup, which met from November 2007 through June 2008, heard briefings by state leaders and experts on the status of the treatment of CODs in California. A report entitled, "Transforming the Mental Health System Through Integration" was issued and the key findings and recommendation to improve the capacity of state and county policy makers and program administrators to address the needs of individuals with CODS follows: i) The central finding of the COD workgroup is that CODS are pervasive and disabling, yet individuals with co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse are among California's most underserved; ii) Individuals with CODs touch every part of our health system. They have more medical problems, poorer treatment outcomes, more negative social consequences, and lower quality of life. They are disproportionately represented among arrestees, foster care placements, veterans, hospitalizations and the homeless. The enormous social consequences of untreated COD prompted the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to identify the treatment CODS as our nation's highest priority; iii) Individuals with co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse are among California's most underserved. Numerous studies demonstrate that integrated care is necessary for successful treatment of CODs. To meet the needs of individuals with COD, there can be "no wrong door" to access treatment. Availability of comprehensively integrated treatment for mental health and substance abuse problems is currently the exception rather than the rule. The unmet need for integrated mental health, alcohol and drug abuse treatment in underserved racial and ethnic communities is even greater; iv) Approximately one-half of the people who have one of these conditions - a mental illness or a substance abuse disorder - also have the other condition. The proportion of co -occurrence may be even higher in adolescent populations. The onset of a diagnosable mental disorder often precedes the onset of a SUD, with SUDs developing typically 5-10 years later in late adolescence or early adulthood. CODs are the norm, not the exception; v) CODs are disabling. Individuals with COD have more medical problems, poorer treatment outcomes, greater social consequences, and lower quality of life. They have more relapses, re -hospitalization, depression and suicidality, interpersonal violence, AB 638 Page 4 housing instability and homelessness, incarceration, treatment non-compliance, HIV, family burden, and service utilization; and, vi) Insufficient support for integrated COD programs leads to a paucity of treatment facilities and properly trained clinicians. Both are essential to provide the full spectrum of necessary care. The lack of such facilities and expertise restricts access to service not just for outpatient care, but also for inpatient mental health units with COD capability. c) Trends in California Drug Overdose Deaths. California Health Policy Strategies, a Sacramento -based consulting firm with a deep commitment to policies that will improve California's health care system, issued a policy brief in January of 2021, entitled "Trends in California Drug Overdose Deaths." The brief reported that drug -related overdose fatalities have risen 50% since 2017. Overdose fatalities are rising faster in California than in the United States in general where overdose deaths are up 15% over the last three years. Other key findings are: i) Drug -related overdose is now a top 10 leading cause of death. In the 12 months between June 2019 and June 2020 there were at least 7,254 overdose deaths, which equals approximately 17 overdose fatalities per 100,000 state residents. Accidental drug overdoses kill twice as many people as car accidents; ii) The rate of overdose deaths related to synthetic opioids (e.g. Fentanyl) has risen by 541% over the last three years. Fentanyl is now the leading cause of opioid-related overdose deaths and 37% of all drug -related overdose fatalities involve fentanyl; iii) The raw number of drug -related overdose deaths are rising in both California and the United States. Preliminary mortality records indicate that in the 12-month period June 2019 and June 2020 there were at least 7,254 drug overdose deaths in California and over 81,003 in the United States. The number of overdose fatalities is rising faster in California than it is in the United States. In California, overdose deaths are up 50% and in the United States overdose deaths are up 15% since the 12-month period June 2016 to June 2017. The age -adjusted rate of drug overdose death has also risen dramatically over the last three years and is at an all-time high; there are approximately 17 overdose deaths per 100,000 state residents; and, iv) Overdose death rates are highly variable across counties in California. In 2019, the average rate of all drug -related overdose deaths across the state was 19.6 deaths per 100,000 state residents and the median was 17.3 deaths per 100,000 state residents. 3) SUPPORT. The Racial and Ethnic Mental Health Disparities Coalition (REMHDCO) in support of this bill states that mental health disorders are among the most common health conditions faced by Californians. Nearly one in six California adults experience a mental illness of some kind, and one in 24 have a serious mental illness that makes it difficult to carry out major life activities. Additionally, one in 13 children have an emotional disturbance that limits participation in daily activities. Left untreated, these illnesses impact qualify of life and survival REMHDCO concludes by stating that unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic has also affected children and adults in unprecedented ways. Many who had underlying or diagnosed mental health and SUDs are now dealing with an increased need for services and treatment. The COVID-19 pandemic has amplified the need to do more. 4) OPPOSITION. The California Right to Life Committee (CRLC), in opposition, states concerns about the apparent lack if any significant improvement in the quality of life for AB 638 Page 5 those suffering from mental illness and questions how more funding will now ensure the quality of life for those living with mental illness. CRLC concludes by asking, specifically what new programs are envisioned? 5) RELATED LEGISLATION. a) AB 686 (Arambula) requires the California Health and Human Services Agency (HHS) to establish the California Community -Based Behavioral Health Outcomes and Accountability Review to facilitate a local accountability system that fosters continuous quality improvement in county behavioral health programs and in the collection and dissemination by the agency of best practices in service delivery. AB 686 is pending in the Assembly Health Committee. b) AB 573 (Carrillo) establishes the California Youth Mental Health Board within HHS to advise the Governor and Legislature on the challenges facing youth with mental health needs and determine opportunities for improvement. Requires each community mental health service to have a local youth mental health board to advise the county mental health programs, school districts, and other entities on issues relating to youth mental health. AB 573 is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee c) SB 749 (Glazer and Eggman), requires the MHSOAC, in consultation with state and local mental health authorities, to create a comprehensive tracking program for county spending on mental and behavioral health programs and services, as specified, including funding sources, funding utilization, and outcome data at the program, service, and statewide levels. SB 749 is pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee. 6) PREVIOUS LEGISLATION. a) AB 2265 authorizes the services for adults, older adults, and children, as well as innovative programs and prevention and early intervention programs that are provided by counties as part of the MHSA to include substance use disorder treatment for children, adults, and older adults with co-occurring mental health and SUD who are eligible to receive mental health services pursuant to those programs. b) AB 2266 (Quirk -Silva) of 2020, would have required the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to establish a pilot program in up to 10 counties and would have authorized funding to be used by participating counties to treat a person with co- occurring mental health and SUDs when the person would be eligible for treatment of the mental health disorder pursuant to the MHSA. AB 2266 was not heard in the Assembly Health Committee due to the shortened Legislative calendar brought on by the COVID- 19 pandemic. c) SB 10 (Beall) of 2019, would have required DHCS to establish, a statewide peer support specialist certification program, as a part of the state's comprehensive mental health and SUD delivery system and the Medi-Cal program. Would have required the certification program's components to include, among others, defining responsibilities, practice guidelines, and supervision standards, determining curriculum and core competencies, specifying training and continuing education requirements, establishing a code of ethics, and determining a certification revocation process. SB 10 was vetoed by the Governor with the following message: AB 638 Page 6 "This bill would require DHCS to establish a new state certification program for mental health and SUD peer support specialists. Peer support services can play an important role in meeting individuals' behavioral health care needs by pairing those individuals with trained "peers" who offer assistance with navigating local community behavioral health systems and provide needed support. Currently, counties may opt to use peer support services for the delivery of Medicaid specialty mental health services. As the Administration, in partnership with the Legislature and counties, works to transform the state's behavioral health care delivery system, we have an opportunity to more comprehensively include peer support services in these transformation plans." d) SB 1004 (Wiener), Chapter 843, Statutes of 2018, requires the MHSOAC, on or before January 1, 2020, to establish priorities for the use of PEI funds and to develop a statewide strategy for monitoring implementation of PEI services, including enhancing public understanding of PEI and creating metrics for assessing the effectiveness of how PEI funds are used and the outcomes that are achieved. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Support California Behavioral Health Directors Association Racial and Ethnic Mental Health Disparities Coalition Opposition California Right to Life Committee, Inc. Analysis Prepared by: Judith Babcock / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097 Susana Barrios From: d u rfeycra ig Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 7:03 PM To: Don Barnes; 'Teresa Pomeroy'; 'Public Records Request'; 'Maria Stipe'; 'Pam Haddad'; senator.nguyen@senate.ca.gov; ADAM.BOMAN@ASM.CA.GOV; 'Nick Dibs'; senator.umberg@senate.ca.gov; hauwie.tie@asm.ca.gov; David.Ochoa@sen.ca.gov; Christopher.Aguilera@asm.ca.gov; 'Gabriela Mafi'; 'PIO Department'; 'Walter Muneton'; 'Teri Rocco'; 'Dina Nguyen'; 'Lan Nguyen'; 'Bob Harden'; REPLOUCORREA@MAILAOUSE.GOV; kim.vandermeulen@mail.house.gov; alejandro.cardenas@mail.house.gov; alexis.hamel@mail.house.gov; assemblymember.quirk-silva@assembly.ca.gov; Assemblymember.Davies@assembly.ca.gov; assemblymember.rendon@assembly.ca.gov; assemblymember.fong@assembly.ca.gov; assemblymember.friedman@assembly.ca.gov; hauwie.tie@asm.ca.gov; response@ocgov.com; Public Comment; Theresa Bass; johnmo@ggcity.org; Joyce.Rivero@ocgov.com; JANTHAN@GGPD.ORG Subject: [EXTERNAL] Digital dilemma: Here's how to help combat social media's adverse impacts Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. 06-20-2023 (P.R.D.D.C.) PARENTS FOR THE RIGHTS OF DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN CRAIG A. DURFEY FOUNDER OF P.R.D.D.C. U.S. F 404 - HONORING 0IIR IIIIG I[NWICIFEY IF IS FIGHT AGAINST AUTISM ... Ms. L0110ETTA S&IM01HEZ of Calliffornila. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkq/CREC-2003-03-27/pdf/CREC-2003-03-27.pdf new website s i e i s® r_ To Whom it may concern. Digital dilemma: Here's how to help combat social media's adverse impacts. UEATURE — In March, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox signed SB 152 Social Media Regulation Amendments, sponsored by Sen. Mike McKell. The bill places restrictions on social media companies and provides parents with additional tools to protect teens from the harmful effects of social media. Utah is the first state to begin restricting how minors can use social media apps. According to the Utall� Seiiir,,([�ate welE,,�ijs��4e, since 2010, rates of depression and mental health crises in American teens have nearly doubled. Before that, the rates remained stagnant. Social media has been linked to these increased rate] "in Utah, we care deeply about our teen's mental health," said Sen. McKell. "Since 2009, depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation has drastically increased among minors in Utah and across the United States. After reviewing the data and talking with teens and parents, I decided to run S.B. 152 Social Media Regulation Amendments. Utah is leading the way to fight back against the harms of social media and providing parents with more resources and controls." Advertisement An article cited in the Vfi�ied�cW� Assoc �� afi� shares evidence from various studies that implicates social media use in the increase of mental distress, self -injurious behavior, and suicide among youth. Other negative effects include chronic sleep -deprivation, lessened cognitive control, poor academic performance, cyberbullying, poor self -view, and a breakdown in interpersonal Mmlom=- N al media may have adverse impacts on youth, location and date unspecified I Photo courtesy of USU Extension, St. George News Dr. Jack Resneck Jr., president of the American Medical Association, wrote, "With near universal social media use by America's young people, these apps an3, sites introduce profound risk and mental health harms in ways we are only now beginning to fully understand. As physicians, we see firsthand the impact of social media, particularly during adolescence - a critical period of brain development. We continue to believe in the positive benefits of social media, but we also urge safeguards and additional study of the positive and negative biological, psychological, and social effects." U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy said, "Our children don't have the luxury of waiting years until we know the full extent of social media's impact. Their childhoods and development are happening Illurthy recommends the following ways to help families lessen the harms of social media. 1. Create a family media plan. Have open discussions as a family about rules and setting boundaries for social media use. Establish tech -free zones, which will help foster in -person relationships and offline connections. Help youth develop social skills and nurture in -person relationships. 2. Model responsible online behavior. Show youth what it looks like to use social media in a healthy way. Teach by example how to exhibit 3 3. Teach youth how to share information safely and when and how to protect personal information. Discuss the benefits and risks of social media and the importance of respecting privacy. Discuss who they are connecting with, what their online experiences consist of, and how they spend their time online. 1. Reach out to a trusted friend or adult for help if you are negatively affected by social media. Visit 'gov for tips on how to report cyberbullying. If you have experienced online harassment and abuse by a dating partner, contact an expert at �1ove s 111"11,es1l,,�f1ect for support. If your private images have been shared online without your permission, visit IraOw 11t Dowiiirii� to help get the images removed. 2. Limit the use of technology. To ensure you get enough sleep, turn off devices at least one hour before bedtime and leave them off until morning. Keep your phone and other devices from intruding on mealtimes and gatherings by putting them away. This will help promote social connections and conversations with others. Make it a daily priority to connect with people in -person. 3. Carefully choose what you share online and with whom, as it may be stored permanently. When in doubt, don't post! FX rt 11 T 0=1 7 •�,�Ilow to �Ireeiii�,,,ii�s W�1111�� tlli��e bi Or"'jaflIve III i,,rrrf#jj,,,"�facts of So61MI IIVAIed��Ia • IIreeiii,iis aiii,iA So61MI IIVAIedIa UseWlliuiatls tlliuie Iiiiirrfqj,,,"�fiact? Written by 0�,A 11111, 111 S INH�11,,J)A PAY, Utah State University Extension assistant professor, RNEI.ATIEIli STORIES Digital dilemma: Here's how to help combat social media's adverse impacts - St George News (stAeorAeutah.com) 4 Susana Barrios From: Cecilia Flores Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 1:36 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] ATTENTION: MAYOR AITKEN AND COUNCIL MEMBERS Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. Dear Mayor Aitken, and Council Members RE: PROJECT DE2021-00218 PREP CHARTER SCHOOL 2780 E. WAGNER, COVE CHURCH The residents at the Cove Neighborhood work hard to make certain that their neighborhood continues to be a safe place to bring up their families. As you are aware, a Charter School wants to open where a Church resides, at 2780 E. Wagner. It proposes to change the land use from a church to a TK - 8th grade Charter School with an enrollment of 480 students plus staff; they also intend to add a two story building to the lot. I was informed by residents that this type of project was proposed to the city in the past, so I brought this question to the Planning Department. I was informed by Planning that there were two request made in the past, and both were denied as outlined below: Cup No. 1661 on November 8, 1976 - was denied by the Planning Commission to permit a private school with a maximum enrollment of 140 students. The decision was appealed to the City Council who in turn also denied the use. CUP NO. 2347 on July 12,1982 - was denied by Planning Commission To retain and expand an existing private day school (PreK to K) and a maximum enrollment of 300 students grades 1-12.The decision was appealed to the City Council who in turn also denied the use. The reasons stem from the fact that the lot was too small and narrow for the amount of students requesting, development of structures, parking, and not enough land for playground use to accommodate a school. That the school would be intrusive to the neighborhood, community and the city. That the project would be detrimental to the adjacent single family residential properties and that the project would substantially increase the noise level and traffic. That the Church property backed up to 9 homes and the development of the School had not considered the peace, health, safety and welfare of the people who reside in those homes. This time a Charter School wants to change the use and have an enrollment of 480 students and the capacity to expand, almost doubling the enrollment of the previous projects. The area has grown since 1982. Development of homes and apartments have been added , two to three schools have been built in the area, a walking trail has been added and the city is proposing to expand the trail, bringing more traffic, parking problems, and noise levels up. Even the traffic on the freeway has gone up. With no consideration of the residents, especially those that back up to the property. With the records showing that the City agreed twice in the past that the area at 2780 E. Wagner, was not a good location for a school, the Cove Residents hope this motion takes precedence and that the decision continues to hold that the location is not a safe place for a school. Thank you. Cecilia Flores _ Resident Susana Barrios From: jodiemosley Sent: Friday, June 16, 2023 12:58 PM To: Public Comment; Council; aaiken@anaheim.net; Mike Lyster Subject: [EXTERNAL] 39 Commons Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. We in west Anaheim would to know what the hold up is now for 39 Commons on Beach. Decades go by watching Stanton and Buena Park renew Beach blvd., and people are still asking "WHATS WRONG WITH THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE HOLD UP OF 39 COMMONS?" Its like a joke. Commit, and learn to be leaders of this whole community of Anaheim... INCLUDING district 1. You are embarrassing yourselves. WE DEMAND CONSTRUCTION! Scant: from my T-Mobile G Device Susana Barrios From: jodiemosley Sent: Monday, June 26, 2023 3:24 PM To: Council; Public Comment; aaiken@anaheim.net Subject: [EXTERNAL] LA Times Today: Orange County looks to redeem its fabled 'Road to Summer,' one seedy motel at a time - Los Angeles Times Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. https://www.latimes.com/california/oc-road-to-summer-latt-123 Sent from my T-Mobile G Device Susana Barrios From: jodiemosley Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 11:40 AM To: Council; Public Comment; aaiken@anaheim.net; Mike Lyster Subject: [EXTERNAL] https://www.latimes.com/caIifornia/oc-road-to-summer-latt-123 — Nextdoor Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. From my neighborhood: https://nextdoor.com/p/XQnWDdWZtbCX?utm_source=share&extras=NzMxNjc2Njk%3D Still waiting. Sent from my T-Mobile G Device Susana Barrios From: Gaby Noriega Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 1:59 PM To: Public Comment Cc: Jose Duran Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comments on Behalf of the Anaheim Police Association Attachments: Public Comments -Letter to Council_06.27.23.pdf Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. Dear City Staff, Per President Jose Duran, please see attached letter to be submitted into public comments. Respectfully, Gabriela Noriega Executive Director Anaheim Police Association enhirn ap com 3156 E. La Palma Ave., Ste. B, Anaheim, CA 92806 1 V%,5`v, MT11. ffl/,47XW� O 166 E. ILa PalirnaAvenue, Ste. B I Anaheim, Caffornia 92806 'Telephone- ('714) 6 5-0272 June 27, 2023 Mayor Aitken and City Council City of Anaheim 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard 7th Floor Anaheim, CA 92805 Dear Honorable Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and Council Members: On behalf of the Anaheim Police Association, I am reaching out to communicate our deep concern regarding the exclusion of our association from the initial recruitment process for the new chief of police for the City of Anaheim. Historically, the Anaheim Police Association, representing approximately 400 dedicated individuals across various crucial roles, has been actively involved in the recruitment process. This includes participation during recruitment interviews, as demonstrated prior to Chief Jorge Cisneros' appointment. Therefore, the recent deviation from this convention is not only disconcerting but also prompts questions regarding the transparency and fairness of the recruitment process. Working directly in the field and serving the community on a day-to-day basis, our members possess an invaluable wealth of experience and expertise, which can immensely inform the important decision of selecting the next chief of police. While we appreciate the provision granted to us to join a newly formed panel alongside other labor groups, we cannot overlook the representation imbalance. Given that we represent roughly 70% of the department personnel, the single seat allocated to us on the panel seems disproportionately insufficient. In conclusion, we believe that strengthening inclusivity, fostering collaboration, and ensuring transparency should be the cornerstones of our governance approach. We, therefore, respectfully urge you to revisit the decision and continue to involve the Anaheim Police Association in the recruitment process, valuing our broad institutional knowledge and the unique insights and perspectives we bring to the table. Furthermore, we cordially invite you to engage in dialogue with us, as we seek to create a synergistic partnership that best serves our community. Thank you for your attention to this matter. In service, w... d-, Jose Duran, President Anaheim Police Association