Orange County Grand Jury • 2019-2020

The Transportation Corridor Agencies – Are They Taking Their Toll on Orange County?*

Published: September 21, 2020 189 pages Consolidated Report
View Original PDF

Findings 14 findings

F1
implication that the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor The SJHTCA has completely fulfilled its original Agency (SJHTCA) is involved in planning efforts outside of its mandate to plan, finance and build SR 73 yet it scope is unfounded. All projects undertaken by the SJHTCA are continues to involve itself in future planning efforts, well within its legal authority. some of which are probably outside the purview with its charter. State law authorizes SJHTCA to fund, plan, acquire and construct major thoroughfares and bridges in Orange County (Government Code section 66484.3). All roads planned or constructed by the SJHTCA to date are major thoroughfares expressly contemplated by the Joint Exercise of Powers governing the SJHTCA. Additional widenings and construction of interchanges along the 73 Toll Road have been and will continue to be implemented based on traffic demands and approval by the Agency's Board of Directors comprised of elected officials. All planning activities undertaken by the SJHTCA are within its legal authority; therefore, the SJHTCA wholly disagrees with the Grand Jury's Finding. (Response Code 2) The Finding is erroneous and costs should reflect an accounting SJH
F2
perspective on appropriate allocations. Some budget cost allocations burden SJHTCA with costs not associated with an agency that has The length of the road does not always equate to the driver or fulfilled its mandate, such as Strategic Planning the benefit associated with the cost and reliance on this basis and Advocacy. Based on relative road lengths, would ignore reasonable methodologies to allocate costs. SJHTCA is allocated more than its share of Budget allocations are reviewed and adjusted annually based on common TCA costs, reducing its ability to retire its the costs and associated activities included in the budgets debt. adopted by each Agency's Board of Directors. Costs directly related to each Agency are charged entirely to that Agency and costs incurred on behalf of both Agencies are allocated between the Agencies based on the estimated benefit to each Agency. Depending on the type of activity, allocation factors may be based on the number of transactions and other operational metrics (e.g., number of facilities, equipment components, labor, etc.). The SJHTCA wholly disagrees with this the Grand Jury Finding. (Response Code 2) 1Public agencies are required to respond to the findings and recommendations of Grand Jury reports within 90 days. Response Code 1 = TCA agrees with the finding. Response Code 2 = TCA disagrees wholly or partially with the finding. A response specifying the portion of the finding that is disputed and an explanation of reasons must be provided. Responses to Findings | 2 TCA Response and Response Code1 Grand Jury Finding Agency The F/E wholly disagrees with this Grand Jury Finding. Similar to F/E
F3
transportation plans throughout the State of California, the bulk of The F/ETCA has fulfilled the bulk of its original investment is slated for improvements to existing facilities. This is mandate to plan, finance and build the SR 133, not an undertaking that should be easily dismissed. 241, 261 transportation corridor network. Only the SR 91 to SR 241 connector and in compliance The design and initial construction of the 133, 241 and 261 Toll with the approved Alternative 22 to the SCTRE Roads was completed to accommodate planned growth and report, the termination of the link between SR 241 provide alternative routes to existing highways and arterials. and I-5 remain to be completed. Additional widenings and construction of interchanges along The Toll Roads were always contemplated and will be constructed based on traffic demands and subject to approval by the Board of Directors. The absence of these widenings and interchange improvements would 1) necessitate higher toll rates to maintain high levels of service and 2) negatively impact Interstate 5, Interstate 405, State Route 55 and local city roads. Fortunately, the Agency's financial model allows for these improvements to be made without strain on tax dollars or the incurrence of additional debt. Therefore, the F/ETCA wholly disagrees with the Grand Jury's Finding, which implies that there is no merit or effort involved with improving existing facilities. (Response Code 2) TCA wholly disagrees with this Grand Jury Finding as it is Joint
F4
inaccurate in citing the Agencies current efforts and legislative TCA has been and continues to be involved authority. The Grand Jury report contains references to aspects of in projects, such as the I-5 HOV and HOT studies that were completed well in advance of its report being lanes, toll road enhancements, bike lanes, finalized. landscape maintenance, which may be considered beyond its original and currently All projects undertaken by the F/ETCA and SJHTCA were and legislated mandate. are well within legal authority and also meet the requirements set forth under state and federal environmental laws. State law authorizes both Agencies to develop major thoroughfares and bridges in Orange County (Government Code section 66484.3). The Grand Jury report does not recognize requirements for analyzing transportation projects. State and federal laws require project proponents (including TCA) to consider and study a wide range of project alternatives, which is evidenced in the many Environmental Impact Reports and Environmental Impact Statements the Agencies' Boards of Directors have undertaken over the years. The SJHTCA and F/ETCA wholly disagree with the Grand Jury's Finding. (Response Code 2) 1Public agencies are required to respond to the findings and recommendations of Grand Jury reports within 90 days. Response Code 1 = TCA agrees with the finding. Response Code 2 = TCA disagrees wholly or partially with the finding. A response specifying the portion of the finding that is disputed and an explanation of reasons must be provided. Responses to Findings | 3 TCA Response and Response Code1 Grand Jury Finding Agency TCA wholly disagrees with this Grand Jury Finding. TCA works in Joint
F5
close partnership with the Orange County Transportation Authority With the exception of the repayment of its (OCTA) and the California Department of Transportation accumulated debt, there appears to be little (Caltrans) to advance transportation improvements. This is if anything in the matter of highway demonstrated by the universal support for Alternative 22 and the planning, construction, or any county advancement of the 241/91 Express Connector Project as part of transportation activities the TCA can do a suite of projects to improve State Route 91. While the skeletal that is not already being accomplished by structure of the 73, 133, 241 and 261 Toll Roads (accounting for OCTA and/or Caltrans. 20 percent of Orange County's highway system) has been built, capacity and interchange improvements are still anticipated. TCA's involvement, partnerships and efforts to improve existing facilities and construct new facilities like the 241/91 Express Connector are done in collaboration with OCTA and Caltrans. This model has been hugely successful in delivering regional transportation solutions - part of what makes Orange County a great place to work and live. TCA's management of incurred debt supports delivery of these improvements without the use of federal, state or sales tax funding. The investors who purchased TCA's bonds have no ability to seek repayment from any governmental entity or by assessing taxes; security is solely from toll revenue and Development Impact Fees. TCA's financings are the model for non-recourse start-up toll road financings that have been executed across the country to finance highway infrastructure on both a public and a private basis. Even during times of economic uncertainties - and heightened by the COVID-19 pandemic - TCA remains poised to continue as two of the nation's most successful toll facilities utilizing non-recourse financing. Given the unique contributions, authorities and ability of the SJHTCA and F/ETCA to play an important role in delivering needed transportation projects, the Agencies would cite the opportunity for continued partnership with OCTA and Caltrans and wholly disagree with the Grand Jury's Finding. (Response Code 2) 1 Public agencies are required to respond to the findings and recommendations of Grand Jury reports within 90 days. Response Code 1 = TCA agrees with the finding. Response Code 2 = TCA disagrees wholly or partially with the finding. A response specifying the portion of the finding that is disputed and an explanation of reasons must be provided. Responses to Findings | 4 TCA Response and Response Code1 Grand Jury Finding Agency TCA wholly disagrees with this Grand Jury Finding as it misstates Joint
F6
readily available information. TCA receives payment of Development Impact Fees for new construction per the Major Thoroughfare Development Impact Fees (DIF) are one-time fees paid by and Bridge Fee Program, which remains in effect developers on new development only in the "areas of benefit" until all TCA bonds have been fully repaid, requiring surrounding The Toll Roads. Orange County residents and corporations to continue to pay the fees, which increase every year. TCA built The Toll Roads in advance of collecting the fees by issuing toll revenue bonds that are paid back with tolls and DIFs. When developers build projects, they have a responsibility to underwrite some of the cost of the infrastructure that is required to support their projects. Water lines, sewer lines, schools and roads are all part of the infrastructure needed. Thus, DIFs are paid by developers to ensure they pay for the infrastructure from which they benefit, and DIFs ensure that developers' projects have the infrastructure support they need to succeed. TCA's structure for DIFs and the annual escalation was created in partnership with developers - most notably the Irvine Company - understanding the value transportation infrastructure would have for their business and Orange County's quality of life. As the Grand Jury's report incorrectly identifies who pays the fees and ignores TCA's ability to adjust the fees, TCA wholly disagrees with this Finding. (Response Code 2) TCA wholly disagrees with this Grand Jury Finding and it is Joint
F7
unclear how it pertains to the TCA's. However, the Grand Jury's While the idea of using tolls to fund the statement misrepresents the fact there are no "free" roads. The development of new state highway in California's only debate is how best to pay for the cost of constructing, historically free highway system enabled maintaining and improving them. construction of the roads, toll lanes are now instead being used to increase the average User-based fee models such as tolling have proven extremely speed of HOV lanes to meet the federal mandate. effective around the country and the world as a sustainable funding source. Furthermore, the need for user-fee models will undoubtedly grow as vehicles move away from fossil fuels. The report is somewhat accurate in noting the ability of High Occupancy Toll lanes to improve the performance of the entire highway by encouraging carpools through discounts; moving vehicles from the congested general purpose lanes; and improving travel times for transit while also providing funding for the maintenance of the roadway and transit improvements. However, TCA wholly disagrees with the Grand Jury's Finding as it fails to recognize transportation needs and viable solutions. (Response Code 2) Public agencies are required to respond to the findings and recommendations of Grand Jury reports within 90 days. Response Code 1 = TCA agrees with the finding. Response Code 2 = TCA disagrees wholly or partially with the finding. A response specifying the portion of the finding that is disputed and an explanation of reasons must be provided. Responses to Findings | 5 TCA Response and Response Code1 Grand Jury Finding Agency TCA wholly disagrees with this Grand Jury Finding. The Grand
F8
Joint Jury report contains no evidence to support this and it does not The TCA employs political and public relations acknowledge TCA's authority and every transportation consultants as a promotional tool to help broaden agency's state and federal obligations to study potential its scope of activities (to include advertising aimed transportation solutions and keep the affected communities at improving its public image) that would extend informed. beyond its legislated boundary limits. Like other agencies and public entities, TCA utilizes contracted services to execute work and directed efforts approved by its two Boards of Directors; and in alignment with the Agencies' authority. Outreach and communications are an essential component of engaging the community and educating drivers and this has been a critical area of work requiring a team of dedicated TCA in-house staff and professional consultants; therefore, TCA wholly disagrees with the Grand Jury's Finding. (Response Code 2) TCA wholly agrees with this Grand Jury Finding. TCA agrees and Joint
F9
thanks the Grand Jury for acknowledging our talented in-house TCA has a capable in-house Communications Department. The work highlighted by the Grand communications staff as evidenced by the Jury is yet one example of all TCA staff and their capabilities to excellent COVID-19 Communications Plan. perform and complete the work required and approved by the Joint Boards of Directors. The SJHTCA and F/ETCA agree with the Grand Jury's Finding. (Response Code 1) 1 Public agencies are required to respond to the findings and recommendations of Grand Jury reports within 90 days. Response Code 1 = TCA agrees with the finding. Response Code 2 = TCA disagrees wholly or partially with the finding. A response specifying the portion of the finding that is disputed and an explanation of reasons must be provided. Responses to Findings | 6 TCA Response and Response Code1 Grand Jury Finding Agency TCA wholly disagrees with this Grand Jury Finding as it is Joint
F10
inaccurate and misleading. Its conclusion fails to recognize a Not all material presented in TCA committee common practice used by regional agencies and state/federal meetings is available in the Board Meeting packet, legislative bodies. resulting in an incomplete presentation to the Board and public. TCA has an extensive and deliberate Board Member Committee structure in place where staff present business items for discussion and consideration in detail. The Board Committee provides thorough oversight through clarifying questions and also provides specific direction on items presented. The Committee then makes the recommendations to bring items to the full Boards of Directors for consideration and voting for approval/ denial. As Committees of the Boards are comprised of nearly half of the two Boards of Directors, this provides Board Members a defined and structured process to receive and thoroughly analyze and understand the Agencies' various business items. Staff also offer briefings to all Board Members who have questions about any item. No final decisions are made at the Committee level and all materials presented at Committee and Board Meetings are available to the public per the Brown Act. Furthermore, as noted by the Grand Jury, the Agencies have implemented changes aimed at increasing public involvement in Committee and Board meetings. All Committee and Board Meetings are now broadcast live and allow for the public to submit comments ahead of the meetings for the TCA Clerk of the Board to read aloud. These additional measures are aimed at increasing transparency and public participation. The SJHTCA and F/ETCA wholly disagree with the Grand Jury's Finding, as it does not recognize a well- organized and common practice. (Response Code 2) 1Public agencies are required to respond to the findings and recommendations of Grand Jury reports within 90 days. Response Code 1 = TCA agrees with the finding. Response Code 2 = TCA disagrees wholly or partially with the finding. A response specifying the portion of the finding that is disputed and an explanation of reasons must be provided. Responses to Findings | 7 TCA Response and Response Code1 Grand Jury Finding Agency TCA wholly disagrees with this Grand Jury Finding and the report
F11
Joint lacks evidence supporting this unfounded accusation. All TCA Recently, much of the planning is being performed actions are consistent with its legislative authority and the by consultants and TCA staff, who have a financial operable Joint Powers Agreements. Detailed planning work at all interest in seeing the TCA continue beyond its government agencies is done by staff and consultants and the original mandate, and out of view of many of the TCA results and/ Board Members and the public, thus creating a or recommendations are presented to the Boards of Directors for conflict of interest issue. consideration and direction. Final reports are made available to Board Members and the public accordingly. The citation that this common practice creates a conflict is without merit. Similar to other agencies and public entities, TCA contracts with professional consultants with expertise to execute specific scopes of work that are approved by its Boards of Directors. During the consultant's term of services, staff provides updates on work product to the applicable Board Committee throughout the fiscal year and to the full Boards of Directors on at least an annual basis. This is evidenced in the robust annual budget planning process the Agencies undertake each year that includes several workshops, Committees and Board of Directors' input on annual initiatives and fiscal year budget. The SJHTCA and F/ETCA wholly disagree with the Grand Jury's Finding. (Response Code 2) TCA wholly disagrees with this Grand Jury Finding. The Grand
F12
Joint Jury report includes no evidence supporting this and the Grand Elected officials who have voiced opposition to the Jury's lack of recognition that many who have voiced support of TCA have been subjected to negative information TCA, as well as TCA staff and consultants, have also been campaigns by TCA proponents. subjected to negative Information. While the Grand Jury report cites allegations by some who believe they came under attack due to their opposition of TCA, there have been personal attacks on TCA Board Members, staff, consultants and against leaders of trade organizations and business groups that support the Agencies. These attacks appear to relate to a campaign by a contracted consultant citing a strategy to "...increase public antagonism towards the agency; its' Board of Directors within their home cities, taxpayers and even some environmental groups". This statement is supported by the proposal document (attachment 3 to the cover letter) submitted by the City of San Clemente's public relations firm along with posted social media attacks and other visible activities pointing to execution of the proposed plan. Excerpts from the proposal include: "We envision running this engagement like a "campaign", . designed specifically at moving stakeholder sentiment against TCA's plans in and around San Clemente so that various projects are studied and litigated for decades." "Based on our campaign and project issues experience, engagement will include several communications tactics such as community meetings and forums, direct mail, social media, paid advertising, third-party validators, editorial board meetings, etc. The use of negative personal attack tactics is disheartening to the SJHTCA and F/ETCA Boards of Directors and the Boards do not condone this type of activity. Since the SJHTCA and F/ETCA do not authorize the use of such methods, the Agencies wholly disagree with the Grand Jury's Finding. (Response Code 2) 1Public agencies are required to respond to the findings and recommendations of Grand Jury reports within 90 days. Response Code 1 = TCA agrees with the finding. Response Code 2 = TCA disagrees wholly or partially with the finding. A response specifying the portion of the finding that is disputed and an explanation of reasons must be provided. Responses to Findings | 8 TCA Response and Response Code1 Grand Jury Finding Agency This Finding is inaccurate. The Grand Jury report does not Joint
F13
contain information supporting this finding and SCAG has not It appears that neither the F/ETCA nor the SJHTCA communicated any concerns to TCA regarding the MOU. Such has complied with April 5, 2001 MOU signed by an allegation should be substantiated with fact or at a minimum each of these agencies with SCAG regarding their confirmation by a party to the agreement. agreement to collectively construct approximately 150 additional lane miles of highway (per section Contrary to the Grand Jury's statements, the Agencies' MOU with 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 Recitals, and following) over the SCAG requires that it implement an Average Vehicle Occupancy ensuing span of the agreement. (AVO) Monitoring Program on The Toll Roads and submit that report annually to SCAG for concurrence and identification of the following year's AVO goal. The Agencies have complied with the terms of the MOU and have conducted and submitted annual AVO Monitoring Reports to SCAG. The Agencies are in full compliance with the terms of the MOU; therefore, the SJHTCA and F/ETCA wholly disagree with this Finding. (Response Code 2) TCA wholly disagrees with this Grand Jury Finding.
F14
Joint It was observed that some elected BoD members TCA provides a New Board Member Orientation to each Director showed limited knowledge of the agreements and when they are appointed to one of TCA's Boards of Directors. codes that govern the creation and operation of their Board Members understand TCA's legislative authority and operable agency possibly contributing to the potential for poor Joint Powers Agreements. They are kept informed about Agency management and/or leadership. activities, issues and financial standing. This information allows the Boards of Directors to establish policy, exercise appropriate oversight and assign strategic direction while allowing staff management of daily operations. During the New Board Member Orientation, Board Members are presented with a reference binder that contains an introduction to the Agencies and its Boards of Directors; an overview of the Agencies' organization, departments and points of contact; the current Board approved fiscal year initiatives; reference maps that illustrate The Toll Road network within or adjacent to member agency jurisdictions; the Agencies' Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement; a historical timeline of the Agencies since inception; the Boards approved fiscal year budget; independent auditors' financial statements for each of the Agencies; Appendix C of the Agencies' Administrative Code that identifies the Agencies' Board Committees; Appendix F to the Agency Administrative Code of Conduct; and information on the Major Thoroughfare & Bridge Fee Program and Development Impact Fees program. In addition to the New Board Member Orientation, staff continually works with the Boards of Directors through one-on- one briefings, Committee meetings, and input and review of fiscal year initiatives and budgets to complete the required activities. Given the breadth of Board Member education and involvement, the SJHTCA and F/ETCA wholly disagree with the Grand Jury's Finding. (Response Code 2) 1 Public agencies are required to respond to the findings and recommendations of Grand Jury reports within 90 days. Response Code 1 = TCA agrees with the finding. Response Code 2 = TCA disagrees wholly or partially with the finding. A response specifying the portion of the finding that is disputed and an explanation of reasons must be provided. Responses to Findings | 9 Responses to Recommendations TCA Response and Response Code2 Grand Jury Recommendation Agency This Grand Jury Recommendation is not warranted and SJH

Recommendations 10

Conclusions 22

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.