Skip to content
Grand Jury Hub
← All civic questions
Following through across jury terms

What public evidence would help residents track progress on airport planning and grant-eligibility actions across jury terms?

In its review of 2024–2025 airport recommendations, the current jury says responses were generally reasonable but actions were not verified, and recommends further follow-up for R1, R3 and R4. These are historical recommendations, not new numbered 2025–2026 items.

Why this matters

Residents need to distinguish promised steps, published plans and verified completion.

Participate in this conversation

Public participation

Participate in this conversation

Use Pol.is below to respond to statements, see where participants agree, and add a perspective for others to consider.

Loading the Pol.is conversation...
Open on Pol.is

Supporting evidence

Evidence from the report

This Phase 1 citation points back to the source material that informed the civic question.

Supporting report

Sustaining Progress: Continuity Report On Grand Jury Recommendations

Report section
Federal Funding Flies Elsewhere — 2025–2026 Grand Jury Evaluation of Responses
Source citation
Sustaining Progress: Continuity Report On Grand Jury Recommendations, Federal Funding Flies Elsewhere — 2025–2026 Grand Jury Evaluation of Responses, physical PDF page 12 (printed page 5).
View referenced source