Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Measure P Advisory topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Escalon council asks staff to draft Measure P advisory committee bylaws after debate over size and scope
Summary
Councilmembers sought a citizen advisory committee to guide Measure P spending; members debated committee size, representation and the balance between finance staff recommendations and public input and gave staff consensus to develop formal bylaws for council consideration.
Councilmembers on the Escalon City Council signaled consensus for staff to return with a proposed structure and bylaws for a Measure P citizens advisory committee after an extended discussion about the committee’s role, size and membership criteria.
Councilmember Engel proposed a council‑appointed advisory body to meet quarterly and present recommendations to the council annually and at mid‑year on priorities for Measure P funds. Engel said the body should “actively seek feedback from the community and to provide a well rounded representation of our citizens' wants and needs.” He described the body as advisory and expected the council to retain final decision authority.
Several councilmembers suggested possible membership sizes—Engel initially proposed three members; others favored expanding to five if applicant interest warranted. Concerns raised during the discussion included:
- Staff already produces quarterly fiscal updates and the finance director provides detailed briefings; some councilmembers worried a separate committee could contradict or second‑guess trained staff. Finance priorities staff had described for Measure P in an email cited an initial allocation concept: 15% economic development, 25% to reduce retirement (CalPERS) liabilities, 25% for essential services/staffing, and 35% for community infrastructure. Councilmembers said those staff allocations align with the recently adopted strategic plan.
- Supporters said the advisory committee would expand outreach beyond the regular public commenters, improve transparency and help residents understand constraints and timelines for spending (for example that some projects may require multi‑year phasing).
Public comment at the meeting echoed the two main viewpoints: some residents urged strong public representation and limited committee size to encourage action and outreach; others warned that advisory input must be weighed against staff expertise and that interviews or minimal qualification checks would be needed to ensure committee members understand budget realities.
Direction to staff
Council gave staff direction—by consensus rather than formal roll call—to prepare a draft ordinance or resolution, application and bylaws for a Measure P advisory committee and return to council with options (including committee size, duties, nomination process and whether volunteer members would have access to sensitive financial information). Staff said applications would be similar to other city commissions, and a formal vote would be required when the council considers the bylaws.
Ending
No formal vote was taken on the committee’s final structure. Staff will prepare and return with a formal proposal for council action, including suggested membership size, qualification criteria and a timeline for committee formation ahead of the city’s next budget cycle.
