Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Measure P committee declines four economic development pilot funding requests
Summary
The Vallejo Measure P oversight committee voted May 14 to withhold recommendation for four economic‑development pilot projects — an asset management study, brokerage services, pop‑up events and a shop‑local campaign — after public concerns and committee questions about prior vetting and Measure P eligibility.
The Measure P Oversight Committee voted May 14 to recommend that City Council not authorize four proposed economic‑development pilot projects totaling about $508,000, saying the items should be vetted elsewhere and not use Measure P as the first funding source.
Brad Paul, the city’s interim economic development director, presented requests for a two‑year asset‑management plan ($200,000), brokerage services ($200,000) to market city‑owned properties, $37,688 to expand a pop‑up events pilot and $70,312 for a shop‑local campaign. Paul said the efforts would activate vacant storefronts, deter blight, increase foot traffic and generate revenue for the general fund.
Public commenters and several committee members objected that the proposals had not been fully vetted by the Economic Development Commission or the City Council and questioned hiring outside consultants to do work critics said the department could perform. “This proposal should be in front of the council,” public commenter Jose Carrizales said, urging deference to elected officials and the nine Measure P priorities.
Committee members asked how the pilots would coordinate with existing community organizers and whether the proposed work duplicated ongoing efforts. Paul said the Economic Development Commission had discussed related banner and lighting projects and that the pilot approach was intended to produce scalable lessons for other commercial corridors.
Each of the four requests was voted on separately; motions to not recommend the funding carried in each case, and the committee appointed at least one member to explain the denials to the City Council. Committee members cited concerns about process, overlap with regular departmental work and whether Measure P — a locally approved general‑tax stream — was the appropriate funding source for these initiatives.
The committee’s action is a recommendation to the City Council; council members may still approve the proposals or modify the funding source.
