Orange County Grand Jury
• 2011-2012
The Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center --artic-- the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 2 findings
F1
The Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) appears to be adequately funded by federal and state grants and local Proposition M2 taxes, and when constructed, will be a state of the art intermodal transportation hub. OCTA, Board Committee Transmittal, dated February 2011 10 Articinfo.com, Funding Sources, 10/28/11 11 Articinfo.com, Funding Sources, 10/28/11
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The OCTA Board of Directors should inform the public how the authority revised the wording that changed the guidelines of the voter approved Measure M2 – Project T. Responses “In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2011-2012 Grand Jury requires responses from each agency affected by the Findings and Recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. “ Not later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section §914.1 shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations…” Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal code Section 933.05 are requested or required as shown below: OCTA OCTA
F2
The foresight of the OCTA Board of Directors was shown when they were able to change their stated guidelines for M2-T, Despite the fact that high speed rail maybe delayed for 20 years, they changed the criteria for expenditures from “for connect to existing structures” to “relocating” to another site, and from intending for “high speed rail” to “for planned high speed rail”, which allowed the project to continue.
No recommendations for this finding
Agency Responses 1
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.