Agenda Item 9.3
Draft Grand Jury Response Letter
• Staff recommends City Council discuss and provide feedback on the draft Grand Jury Response Letter.
• Direct staff to return with a revised letter for final approval on August 27, 2025.
Recommendation
• California’s civil grand jury system dates back to the 1850s as a mechanism for citizen oversight of local government.
• The civil grand jury investigates and reports on the functions of various government offices, departments, and agencies.
- The grand jury is required to transmit their report to any affected agency - The governing body must comment within 90 days of the transmittal of the report • Grand jury proceedings are secret, but the grand jury report once transmitted to the City, and the City’s response, are public documents. - Governing bodies can only approve the response in public, given the Brown Act requirements.
Background
• On June 27, 2025, the 2024–2025 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury issued a report on the City’s incorporation and growth: “Eyes on San Joaquin County Growth...City of Mountain House San Joaquin County’s Newest City.” • The report contains six findings and seven recommendations to the City Council. - Although the letters were sent to the City Council members individually, only the City Council mandated to respond.
• Council feedback from this meeting will be incorporated into a revised letter. The revised letter will be presented for final approval at the August 27, 2025, City Council meeting.
Background
Grand Jury focused on three basic things:
• Lack of transit options
• Planning for infrastructure to support growth (schools, public safety, public works)
• Economic development to drive revenues and employment Draft Response Letter
Statutory requirements
• Either agree or disagree wholly or partially with each finding. - If the City disagrees, it is required to provide an explanation of the reasons. • Indicate for each of the recommendation whether it:
- Has been implemented with a summary of how
- Has not been implemented but will be
- Requires further analysis
- Will not be implemented “because it is not warranted or is not reasonable”
Draft Response Letter
Finding Response Explanation
F1 Mountain House continues to be a “bedroom community” as the Valley Link Project offers only future benefits that rely on ongoing regional coordination and State and Federal funding/investment.
Partial
disagreement.
Finding overlooks changes in
workforce patterns (WFH) and
ongoing local and regional advocacy
for transportation funding.
F2 Mountain House remains an isolated community due to a lack of local transit options.
Partial
disagreement.
City recognizes need for improved
transit, but finding overlooks the
ongoing advocacy efforts and the
City’s current and future community
infrastructure and recreation
programming.
F3 The incorporation of Mountain House has allowed the city to retain a greater share of revenue and to make local land decisions.
Agreement Not applicable.
Draft Response Letter – Findings
Finding Response Explanation
F4 Mountain House’s high-performing schools and rapid population growth present opportunities and challenges for infrastructure Partial
disagreement.
Finding does not recognize the
community’s proactive planning for
future infrastructure capacity needs.
F5 Mountain House continues to pursue retail and commercial opportunities to offer essential services and retail options for its residents.
Agreement Not applicable.
F6 Mountain House continues to promote economic growth to increase employment opportunities within the city’s boundaries.
Agreement Not applicable.
Draft Response Letter – Findings
Finding Response Explanation
R1 . . . the City Council should pursue regional and
state partnerships to advance transportation
projects such as Valley Link.
Implemented City is actively expanding partnerships and advocating for transportation dollars at state and
federal levels.
R2 . . . the City Council should explore partnering
with the City of Tracy or another entity to
improve connectivity to the local Tracy area, ACE,
and BART transit systems, as well as within its city
limits.
Requires further
analysis.
City is actively assessing unmet transit needs and
evaluating traffic impacts of projects under
development.
R3 . . . the City Council should continue to evaluate
law enforcement and public safety staffing needs,
along with infrastructure requirements, as the
city’s population increases.
Implemented. City is continuing to evaluate and address public safety staffing and infrastructure needs.
Draft Response Letter – Recommendations
Finding Response Explanation
R4 . . . the City Council should engage in proactive planning and funding for K-8 schools and Mountain House High School
construction and educational programs to accommodate the expected student growth.
Will not be
implemented
City does not have jurisdiction over
schools.
R5 . . . the Lammersville Unified School District Board of Governors and City Council should maintain proactive planning and funding from K-8 schools and the construction and educational programs of Mountain House High School to meet the expected student growth.
Will not be
implemented
City does not have jurisdiction over
schools.
R6 . . . the City Council should identify additional funding opportunities to support the future growth of Mountain House High School.
Will not be
implemented
City does not have jurisdiction over
schools.
Draft Response Letter – Recommendations
Finding Response Explanation
R7 … the City Council should prioritize retail and commercial development to increase tax revenues and create employment opportunities within its city limits.
Implemented Economic development is already a
high priority item for the City Council
and the City is developing an Economic
Development strategy, a component of
the City’s Strategic Plan.
Draft Response Letter – Recommendations
• Staff recommends City Council discuss and provide feedback on the draft Grand Jury Response Letter.
• Direct staff to return with a revised letter for final approval on August 27, 2025.
Recommendation
Questions?