Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tracy council deadlocks on immediate appointment; votes to revisit vacancy policy after public outcry
Summary
The City of Tracy heard hours of public comment on whether to appoint third-place finisher Mateo Bedoya to a vacant council seat. A motion to appoint failed for lack of a second; the council voted 3–1 to send the city’s vacancy policy back for review and to return with an appointment item consistent with any changes.
City of Tracy councilmembers on Dec. 17 debated whether to follow a recently amended council policy that directs the council to appoint the next-highest vote-getter from the most recent election to fill a vacancy.
The council clerk’s staff explained that resolution 2024-188 modified the council’s vacancy policy to prefer appointment of the next-highest vote-getter. That provision made Mateo Bedoya—who finished third in the Nov. 5, 2024 municipal election and received roughly 7,600+ votes—an immediate candidate for appointment to the seat vacated when Dan Areola was sworn in as mayor.
Public commenters were sharply divided. Several speakers urged the council to honor the voters’ tally and seat Bedoya, citing the 2019 civil grand jury recommendation that the next-highest vote getter be appointed. Other residents and speakers urged caution, saying the recent election outcome reflected a demand for change and that the council should consider factors beyond raw vote totals, including recent conduct and community trust.
Councilmember Dan Evans moved to appoint Mateo Bedoya as the third-place finisher but the motion received no second and therefore failed. After extended public comment and staff legal guidance, the council then approved a motion (roll call: Abercrombie — Yes; Nygaard — Yes; Areola — Yes; Evans — No) to bring the city’s vacancy policy back for discussion at a soon-to-be-scheduled meeting, and to return an appointment item consistent with any policy changes. Staff noted a 60-day statutory window to fill the vacancy and that special elections could cost roughly $100,000–$300,000, depending on scope.
Councilmember Evans, who originally requested the policy clarification earlier this year, said the council had a duty to follow the grand jury’s recommendation and respect voters’ voices. Opponents emphasized the importance of rebuilding public trust and said a deliberative process—rather than a same-night appointment—would produce a better outcome for the community.
What’s next: The council directed staff to return with a policy discussion and a follow-up agenda item; a special meeting or the January agenda will address any policy changes and the formal appointment. The 60-day statutory deadline to fill a vacancy was noted by staff.
