Summary Response Statement:*

The SJHTCA has completely fulfilled its original mandate to plan, finance, and build SR-73 yet it continues to involve itself in future planning efforts, some of which are probably outside the purview with its charter. Response: Partially disagrees with the finding. The SJHTCA is not involving itself in planning efforts which are "probably" outside the purview of their charter, since their efforts concern the SR-73, which is within the purview of their charter.

Some budget cost allocations burden SJHTCA with costs not associated with an agency who has fulfilled its mandate, such as Strategic Planning and Advocacy. Based on relative road lengths, SJHTCA is allocated more than its share of common TCA costs, reducing its ability to retire its debt. Response: The Grand Jury Report does not contain sufficient information and data upon which the Board of Supervisors can agree or disagree with this finding.

The F/ETCA has fulfilled the bulk of its original mandate to plan, finance, and build the SR-133, 241, 261 transportation corridor network. Only the SR-91 to SR-241 connector and in compliance with the approved Alternative 22 to the SCTRE report, the termination of the link between SR-241 and I-5 remain to be completed. Response: Partially disagrees with the finding. The characterization that the F/ETCA has fulfilled "the bulk" of its original mandate is inaccurate, as projects remain in progress at this time, as acknowledged by the report and this finding. Additionally, TCA will continue to partner with the County in development and execution of Alternative 22.

The TCA has been and continues to be involved in projects, such as the I-5 HOV and HOT lanes, toll road enhancements, bike lanes, landscape maintenance, which may be considered beyond its original and currently legislated mandate. Response: Partially disagrees with the finding. The TCA founding documents envision that ongoing activities would occur. The Joint Powers Agreements for F/ETCA and SJHTCA both state as part of their purpose that they would, "maintain, repair, manage, operate, and control facilities" of "environmentally-sensitive thoroughfares and bridges that conform to the technical standards of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)."

With the exception of the repayment of its accumulated debts, there appears to be little if anything in the matter of highway planning, construction, or any county transportation activities the TCA can do that is not already being accomplished by OCTA and/or Caltrans. Response: Partially disagrees with the finding. Given that TCA's specific statutory mandate differentiates them from OCTA and/or Caltrans, it cannot be said that the activities that TCA has undertaken are already being accomplished by OCTA and/or Caltrans.

The TCA receives payment of Development Impact Fees for new construction per the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program which remains in effect until all TCA bonds have been fully repaid, requiring Orange County residents and corporations to continue to pay the fees which increase every year. Response: Agrees with the finding.

While the idea of using tolls to fund the development of new state highways in California's historically free highway system enabled construction of the roads, toll lanes are now instead being used to increase the average speed of HOV lanes to meet the federal mandate. Response: The Grand Jury Report does not contain sufficient information and data upon which the Board of Supervisors can agree or disagree with this finding.

The TCA employs political and public relations consultants as a promotional tool to help broaden its scope of activities (to include advertising aimed at improving its public image) that would extend beyond its legislated boundary limits. Response: Disagrees wholly with the finding. Based on the evidence in this report, it is not clear that TCA employs political and public relations consultants for the narrow purpose stated in this finding.

The TCA has a capable in-house communications staff as evidenced by the excellent COVID-19 Communications Plan. Response: The Grand Jury Report does not contain sufficient information and data upon which the Board of Supervisors can agree or disagree with this finding. The "COVID-19 Communications Plan" is not attached to this report.

Not all material presented in TCA committee meetings is available in the Board Meeting packet resulting in an incomplete presentation to the Board and public. Response: The Grand Jury Report does not contain sufficient information and data upon which the Board of Supervisors can agree or disagree with this finding.

Recently, much of the planning is being performed by consultants and TCA staff, who have a financial interest in seeing the TCA continue beyond its original mandate, and out of view of many of the TCA board members and the public thus creating a conflict of interest issue. Response: Disagrees wholly with the finding. No evidence demonstrating a conflict of interest issue under the law is presented in this report.

Elected officials who have voiced opposition to the TCA have been subjected to negative information campaigns by TCA proponents. Response: Disagrees wholly with the finding. No evidence supporting this assertion is presented in this report.

It appears that neither the F/ETCA nor the SJHTCA has complied with April 5, 2001 MOU signed by each of these agencies with SCAG regarding their agreement to collectively construct approximately 150 additional lane miles of highway to (per section 1.1., 1.2, 1.3 Recitals, and following) over the ensuing span of the agreement. Response: The Grand Jury Report does not contain sufficient information and data upon which the Board of Supervisors can agree or disagree with this finding.

It was observed that some elected BoD members showed limited knowledge of the agreements and codes that govern the creation and operation of their agency possibly contributing to the potential for poor management and/or leadership. Response: Disagrees partially with the finding. While the report suggests that some BoD members showed limited knowledge of the agreements and codes that govern the creation of TCA, there is no evidence that such limited knowledge contributed to the potential for poor management and/or leadership.