Orange County's Budget and Finance team recently invited residents to provide input on the 2026 Strategic Financial Plan, opening a public comment period on September 4. However, a review by Michael Mavrovouniotis, who retired from a research career in finance and academia, indicates the County’s 672-page adopted budget is significantly lacking in detail, making meaningful public participation challenging.
Mavrovouniotis noted that despite the County's invitation to "Talk Budget," the financial document for the $10.6 billion countywide operation is "woefully vague." He highlighted OC Animal Care as a prime example. This operation, budgeted at $31,353,988 with 143 positions, includes a shelter, veterinary services, field and patrol services, and licensing, serving 14 contract cities and the unincorporated county. Yet, its complete published financial disclosure, found in one page of the budget's Appendix, contains only five numbers each for revenue and spending, with two of those categories being catch-alls like "other" or "miscellaneous."
For instance, OC Animal Care’s spending side lists Salaries & Benefits at $18,613,834, Services & Supplies at $11,651,841, Other Charges at $962,519, Equipment at $20,000, and Other Financing Uses at $105,794. Mavrovouniotis pointed out that critical details, such as overtime spending, the ratio of permanent to temporary positions, how much of the $11.7 million in Services & Supplies goes to outside contractors, or the specific costs for field services versus the shelter, are not disclosed. He noted that a single $11.7 million line item could encompass anything from a vehicle to a pencil or a consulting contract.
While county administration might suggest that producing such detailed information would be burdensome, Mavrovouniotis's review found the County's own documents contradict this. Volume II of the budget includes 18 pages (A279-A296) titled "Description of Major Objects by Classification" and "Description of Revenue Sources by Classification." These sections define more than 300 internal account codes used in the County’s own ledger, including specific categories like "1900 Professional and Specialized Services" and "2700 Transportation and Travel — Meetings/Conferences." However, these detailed distinctions, which citizens would find useful, are not utilized in the public-facing budget itself.
Furthermore, the budget document for OC Animal Care explicitly states, "Detailed budget by expense category and by activity is presented for agency OC Animal Care in the Appendix on page A35." Mavrovouniotis confirmed that page A35 contains no activity details whatsoever. This unfulfilled promise, with only names swapped, appears over a hundred times throughout the budget, routinely leaving residents without the promised specifics.
The lack of granular detail extends across other county departments. For example, OC Community Resources, an operation totaling $900 million, publishes only 65 expense lines, meaning each number represents an average of $13.8 million. The Orange County Housing Authority, with a $352 million budget, has just five expense lines. Its Services and Supplies line, budgeted at $23.5 million last year and $21.3 million this year, shows a variance of spending $6.7 million last year, with no explanation in the published figures. Countywide, $10.6 billion is distributed across 583 expense lines, with an average of $18.1 million behind each number.
Mavrovouniotis compared Orange County's budget transparency to other jurisdictions. Sacramento County's Animal Care Services, a smaller operation at $22.5 million compared to OC's $31.4 million, provides a more detailed budget. Its financial plan (pages F6-F17) is broken down into four distinct programs—Administration, Community Outreach, Dispatch and Field Services, and Shelter Services—each with its own appropriations, revenue, net cost, and staffing. This level of detail allows Sacramento residents to compare the costs of different services, which OC residents cannot do. Similarly, Tuolumne County, with a population of 55,000, publishes its animal shelter budget at the individual account level, itemizing salaries, overtime, office expenses, professional services, and utilities.
These counties, along with Orange County, operate under the same California County Budget Act and State Controller accounting manual. Even non-profit organizations like Pasadena Humane, a local animal shelter smaller than OC Animal Care, must file a federal Form 990, which provides 24 expense lines. This form breaks down revenue from wellness clinics, license sales, adoption fees, and humane education, and details expenses for facilities, equipment, veterinary care, supplies, advertising, and insurance.
Mavrovouniotis concludes that Orange County sets a low bar for itself, often stating it publishes only what the law requires. However, the law explicitly permits counties to "add to the information required, or display it in more detail." The law establishes a minimum standard, not a maximum. While other counties choose to provide more information to their citizens, Orange County does not. Mavrovouniotis assigns the OC budget a "C-minus," indicating it is not failing but requires significant improvement.
He suggests that if adhering to the legal minimum is the County's standard for service, residents might question if it should also apply to compensation for budget managers, who are paid significantly more than minimum wage. Until the County provides more comprehensive details, the Strategic Financial Plan comment period remains an invitation for residents to comment on a spending plan without full knowledge of what current spending entails. The lack of disclosure makes it impossible for those outside the County administration to determine whether any fiscal irregularities exist.