City Council/Public Finance and Economic Development Authority/Parking Authority - Regular Meeting

I'll repeat myself.

What if we can, can we like make it a, extend the public hearing or something?

All right, so we can start.

Wait a minute.

Can we start closed? What's for dinner? We can start eating pizza. Yeah, it makes sense. Okay. All right, Jennifer, we'll call a closed session to order.

Okay, and item A, closed session roll call. Council Member Dupont.

Present.

Tao.

Present.

Harris.

Present.

Smith.

Present.

Zhang. Mayor Pro Tem Boyle. Here. And Mayor Serrato.

Here.

Okay, council will go into closed session and discuss items B1 and B2. And just for the record, there are no audience members to leave a public comment.

All righty, thank you, Jennifer. All right, good evening, everybody. Welcome, welcome to the June 15th meeting of the Merced City Council. We're gonna begin today with an invocation from Mr. Lamar Henderson from Counties All Dads Matter. And then after that, Council Member Smith will lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Henderson.

Good afternoon. Please join me in a moment of reflection and prayer. Heavenly Father, we come before you tonight with grateful hearts, thankful for the opportunity to serve our community and work together for the common good. We ask for your wisdom and guidance upon our mayor, city council members, staff, public safety personnel, and all who dedicate themselves to improving the lives of others. Lord, in a time when differences can often divide us, remind us that our greatest strength is found in unity. Help us to listen with respect, to lead with humility, and to seek solutions that reflect compassion, fairness, and hope for every resident we serve. May our decisions be guided not by personal interests, but by a sincere desire to build a stronger, safer, and more thriving community for all. As we prepare to celebrate Father's Day this coming weekend, we pause to honor fathers, grandfathers, stepfathers, mentors, coaches, and father figures whose love, sacrifice, and guidance helped shave our future generations. We are especially reminded of Joseph, the earthly father entrusted with raising Jesus. Though not Jesus' biological father, Joseph faithfully embraced his calling with courage, humility, and unwavering devotion. He protected his family, followed God's directions even when the path was uncertain, and demonstrated that true fatherhood is measured not simply by biology, but by commitment, presence, and love. May Joseph's example inspire all fathers and father figures to remain steadfast in their responsibilities, faithful in their service, and intentional in their efforts to nurture, teach, and guide the children entrusted in their care. May we never underestimate the profound impact a dedicated father can have on a child, a family, and an entire community. Bless the families represented here tonight. Strengthen those who carry the responsibilities of parenthood. Comfort those who are missing fathers they love, and encourage those who step forward every day to serve as positive role models in the lives of our youth. May we leave this place committed with unity, love, and devotion for all of our community. In the name of Jesus Christ, we pray, amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Councilmember Smith. Thank you, Mr. Henderson. It's a pleasure, Cesar.

Okay, agenda item D, roll call. Council Member Dupont.

Present.

Tao.

Present.

Harris.

Present.

Smith.

Present.

Zhang.

I'm here.

Mayor Pro Tem Boyle? Here. And Mayor Serrato? Here. Mayor, I'd like to remind the audience if they wish to address the City Council, please submit a green request to speak form located at the podium in the back of the chamber. Additionally, citizens can submit public comment to the City Council electronically no later than 1 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Comments received before the deadline will be sent to the City Council and will be part of the record and will be mentioned as part of the written petitions and communications portion of the agenda and will be posted on the City's website. Material may be emailed to cityclerk at cityofmerced.gov and any correspondence received after 1 p.m. will be distributed to the city council and retained for the official record. Also for those audience members who wish to hear the council meeting translated into Spanish, please let our interpreter know.

Good evening.

In accordance with government code 54952.3, it is hereby announced that the city council sits either simultaneously or serially as a public financing and economic development authority, parking authority, and or successor agency to the redevelopment agency. City council members receive a monthly stipend of $500 by charter for sitting as a city council, and the mayor receives an additional $100 each month as part of the adopted budget and resolution 2024-78. The public financing and economic development authority, parking authority and successor agency to the redevelopment agency received no compensation. Agenda item E, report out of closed session.

There is no report out of closed session.

Agenda item F, special presentations. F1, special presentation on the upcoming changes to council meetings and how meetings will be conducted with SB 707 in effect.

Thank you. Do we have our presenter for this item here? Oh, sure.

Good evening, mayor and council. I'm the assistant city clerk, Jennifer Parsley. We'll go over the new changes to expect in our next council meeting. So SB 707 will go into effect July 1st. We will be going live with these changes at our first meeting on July 6th. citizen participation and request to speak. So there's two ways that citizens can participate and leave public comment. One's in person like you guys are now, and the other is a two-way teleconference. You can do so by registering online. You can still use the green request to speak forms located in the back if you want, if you're in person. If you are participating via two-way teleconference, you can register online through our public portal. So the deputy city clerk, any grant request or speed forms that we do receive, she'll have a computer in front of her. So she'll be able to manually input those requests into our public portal that will then show up on the queue for whatever item that they wanna speak on. And then I will monitor that queue. And then when we're on that item and the mayor opens the public comment, then I can start naming off the names to do the public comment. We'll be doing the teleconference participants first. This will help allow our deputy city clerk to input the green request to speak forms if we get a bunch of them. And then we'll do the in-person speakers from there. And then from there, let me go back. Well, from there we'll have, once we get through the queue, the mayor will then ask if there's any more requests to speak. I'll let him know that there's no more in the queue. Then the mayor will announce to everybody, both in person and those that wanna participate teleconferencely, if they want to register to do it now, we'll wait a few seconds. And then the mayor will direct me to close out the public comment. So I'll close out the registration for that particular item. And then we'll see if we received any more speakers to continue on to the, for the public comment. And then for the, that would be for the closing of the, for the agenda item. So we'll go by agenda item and we'll be at the beginning. It'll just be whenever the mayor directs the clerk to close out that item. So that way when we still like how we do now, we'll have speakers that wanna come up after some speakers have already spoken. If they have like an idea that popped up, they'll still get that chance to do that as well. Our public portal. So our public portal will be on our city's website. We have a whole webpage dedicated on our website specifically for all these new changes. So there'll be a lot of information on how to do that, where to register and all that information is there. Starting in the next couple of weeks, we'll have QR codes that'll be behind the seats. So if you want, you can also register while you're sitting down, do the public portal that way as well. So this is kind of what the registration for the items that you would want to speak on. You can determine here if you want to do it in person or if you want to do it virtually here. And then you can pick however many items that you want to speak on. You can speak on public comment. There's going to be an option for that. And then any other agenda items that you would like to speak on. If you do register way in advance, you will get an email like four hours before the meeting, just as a reminder of the items that you requested that you wanted to speak on, as well as the information on the number that you would call in to then join in on the teleconference. And then there'll be prompts on that phone call as well to kind of help guide you through those. So outreach, part of SB 707 is that we're required to do outreach. So staff will be working with Jennifer Flackman on social media posts. I believe we'll be talking to newspapers. Jennifer, is that correct? Yes. And just trying to get that message out there and how to register and get all of that information out there for the residents. So with that, I'll just leave you guys with any questions or comments that you may have.

Or any questions for our assistant city clerk? All right, seeing none, that's it.

Oh, hey, Council Member Jean. Just a question with regards to the consent calendar. So the way that we currently do things, we pretty much approve the entire calendar with items being pulled. Is that still the same way?

It will be the same way. It would be the same when the mayor asks if there are any items that any residents wanna speak on consent and I'll let him know if there are any questions on there. There's an ability on my end where I can click on consent calendar. It shows me whoever for whatever item for consent wants to speak on that. So then I can let the mayor know at that point.

Okay, so just speaking here, folks should be prepared that they should register before the entire consent calendar even comes up because there is the potential where the item that they wanna speak on may be approved before they get here.

I mean, we do encourage to try to get people to put in a request to speak ahead of time. That way it's easier for us to organize and we make sure we don't miss anybody, but anyone they can register at any point. But once that item is closed, then it will be grayed out for them and they won't be able to select that item to speak on. Cause we've already gone past that item already.

Awesome. Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem Boyle.

Thank you. I think I asked this last time, but I just want clarification. If you go back to the form, where it says, do you want to speak and no's available? If someone clicks no, what would that then mean on our side?

That is a great question.

I'll have to look into that. I was like, well, that'll be interesting for them to sign up. And then they say, no, I don't want to speak. So thank you.

And it could be that they want to just listen in. That could be what that means, but I'll get verification from our vendor tomorrow when I meet with them. All right. Thank you. All right.

Anybody else? Thank you, Jennifer. Thank you in particular to Jeff as well. I'll throw your hard work on this. It seems like it should hopefully be a smooth transition at our next meeting in July.

I will say there is one. Can you hand me that? I do wanna say one little caveat too, that staff is committed to do everything we can to make this as a smooth transition as possible. But we do understand this is new to our city. This is new to all cities in California. We're all trying to figure out how this thing is gonna work. So there will be some bumps and bruises. So we just ask for grace and patience with us with that. So thank you. Okay, agenda item G, written petitions and communications. Mayor of the Clerk's Office received an email from Strong Towns Merced, Curtis Thomas, and Bryce Prater regarding public comment. Email from Strong Towns Merced regarding agenda item I-10. Emails from Dr. Lee Basie, Tom Clendenin, and Mirza Muna Ware regarding agenda item J1 and emails from Strong Towns Merced and Orla GD regarding agenda item K3. The emails were received by the 1 p.m. deadline. They were sent to council and post on the city's website. Any emails received after the 1 p.m. deadline will be sent to council. Okay, agenda item H, public comments. Members of the public who wish to speak on any matter not listed on the agenda may speak during this portion of the meeting and will be allotted three minutes. The mayor may propose a limit, a further limit to the time available for all speakers at the discretion of the city council in order to accommodate as many speakers as possible. State law prohibits the City Council from acting at this meeting on any matter raised during the public comment period. And members of the public who wish to speak on a matter that is listed on the agenda will be called upon to speak during the discussion of that item. And Mayor, I currently have... Five requests to speak forms.

Okay, thank you, Jennifer. So public comment, four items that aren't on the agenda at this time, general public comment. Jennifer, if you wanna call the first group of speakers up, please.

Okay, I'm just gonna go ahead and call all five. Is that okay, Mayor? Of course. Okay, can I get Cindy Kelly, Leah Brown, Lee Basie, Gloria Sandoval, and Jean Okui.

Thank you, Jennifer. Ms. Kelly, as soon as you're comfortable, you have three minutes to address the council.

Well, good evening, Mayor, City Council, Cindy Kelly from Merced SPCA. It's good to be here after what seems like forever. It's been very, very busy out there on the streets. We are in the thick of kitten season. So I just wanted to give you an update what's been going on with us. So, we have had three successful adoption events. If you look on your screen, say hello to Ash Harris, who will be going with Councilmember Harris this Wednesday. So, we are happy to have him adopt another one of our cats. He took our one-eyed pirate Stella last year, who I understand rules his roost. We have some events coming up. Oh, sorry, we have several events coming up and I have my notes here. So look forward to just a couple of them. We'll have clay and kittens. We will also have kitten yoga and we hope to see you guys there for that one. We were just awarded a $10,000 grant from the ASPCA to fund the spay and neuter vaccination and waive adoption fees for up to 60 foster kittens by the end of the year. We just applied for another very large grant from the ASPCA, which closes at the end of this month, which will allow us to spay, neuter and vaccinate 750 of Merced's pets. So keep your fingers crossed. We're really hoping for that because we know spay and neuter is the way to stop the stray population. A little bit of a downside, we're seeing an uptick of a disease called panleukopenia. The shelter is currently closed with an outbreak. We have lost several kittens in the past week to this disease. It is almost 99% fatal to kittens under the age of two months. So we're losing our babies left and right that are in foster. And then an item I just wanted to bring to you guys, we have had several instances of vandalism in our colonies. And we have people out there who don't necessarily agree with having cat colonies in their areas or along Bear Creek. We're not talking strays. We're talking managed colonies. They've been destroying the signs, the ones the Girl Scouts made for us have gone missing again. Our cat houses are being taken, our feeding stations and watering stations are being taken. And so, you know, just wanna put out there that, you know, you don't have to agree with the cats, you don't even have to like them, but you don't have to hurt them either. There are those of us out there that care for over 700 animals every single day. And we work hard to make sure they're fed and have fresh water and a safe place to be. So great to be here. Good to see everybody. And you guys have a great night.

Thank you, Ms. Kelly. Ms. Brown.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Leah Brown, Senior Planner for Development Services. I wanted to give you a brief update on the progress of the housing element. We've heard some questions lately. So back in March, I believe it was, the city received our, golden ticket email from HCD which basically means our housing element has been found to be in substantial compliance with housing law with some minor modifications so it took a little time to get the legalities of it worked out and to create an ordinance that will address the issues that are necessary for the marina rezones so we have some language coming to you if it's quite a hefty document. So if you're able and interested in looking at it ahead of time, the housing element will be going to planning commission this Wednesday for their review and recommendation to pass it forward to you. So they'll be seeing the housing element, asking for them to recommend adoption as well as the SB 244 analysis, which is the analysis of the disadvantaged unincorporated communities as well as a preview of the draft ordinance. So all of that is coming forth on Wednesday, and then hopefully we will package it all up and bring it to you in July. So that would be the trajectory of our housing element. So I just wanted to give you a heads up. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, who's next? Ms. Sandoval, good evening.

Good evening, where's my little stool? So I can see you guys. I'm happy to be here.

I just wanna- Jennifer, you could pause the time a little bit. Either we're gonna find a stool for you, Gloria, or we can move that. Yeah, there you go.

Yay, all right. I like to see people's faces. Thank you. One thing is,

And we got just, if I could, I interrupted you and the clock ticks, so if you get towards the end, there's a couple more seconds we can.

Okay, thank you, thank you. Yeah, I just wanna respond a little bit to all these communication changes that are happening. I speak Spanish and English fluently, Spanish is my first language, but I do not speak Google or technology that well, okay? I was very impressed with the county that gave out this publication at the state of the county. And I would really like to encourage, I know it means more money, but I also think that it takes away or gives more information to the public where we can access. Let me just ask, I'm sure some of you have already seen this publication, but when I've asked people, what do you think is the number one agricultural commodities trade partner with Merced? And people kind of don't really know. Do you know that it's India? Maybe some of you do know, but do you know that milk production in our county brought in a trillion, $250,286,000? That's the number one commodity. What if it's a trillion? A trillion. Okay, but I think it's important. It also has some information on county budget, which is not very comprehensive. That has always been something very challenging to me. You use many terms, and like I said, I speak two languages, but I do not speak some languages that are used that you expect the public to know. Many times people respond to the budget because we think that there's a heck of a lot of money going to law enforcement. And maybe it's not, because I know that what you have to deal with is all these different packets of money. And so sometimes we need to be educated, the public. Otherwise, we're gonna think that you are all for law enforcement. Well, I'm a person that is passionate about people. I know Miss Kelly, passionate about cats. But my passion is people. And that's been a lot of what I've done in my life. And part of it is I think, Let's really be transparent about what you do, your decisions that are made. That's why you scare people off because you don't really explain what is it that has to be done. You have all kinds of decisions involving millions of dollars, right? And many, many employees. But so some of your employees ain't gonna speak up against you, but I'm not employed by you. I can speak up and I can ask what I think the people need. Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Good point.

All right, who's next? Dr. Basin.

Good evening, Mayor and council members. This might be redundant, but my name is Dr. Lee Baizey. I've been a lifelong resident of Merced for over 30 years, and I'm speaking tonight on behalf of the many residents who have spent the past year reviewing a project that you're gonna hear tonight.

Sir, if I can interrupt you. That'll come up soon on the agenda. That has to be, we can only address that We can't address that now, we have to address that at that time. We can't speak at all. I understand, Mayor.

I guess I was told that we might not be able to address, I was told by the city manager that we might not be able, our speaking would only be restricted to landscaping and heating and anything else we wouldn't be allowed to speak to. So that's why I am appearing here tonight.

Okay, he's shaking his head. I think we'll be good. If it has to do with that project, let's hear it at that time.

Okay, like I said, I'm just clarifying what was said at that meeting. So, right, we all heard that, correct?

Okay, well, hang on. Yeah, if it has to do with that project, we'll hear it at that time. So thank you, sir. Sounds good.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Just wondering what your vision is for Merced. My vision is to have a quality place to live where there's a connected community that is the element that holds everything else together. A strong community is designed around human connection, safety, and mutual support. With shared responsibilities, people pride in the neighborhoods. They look out for one another and actively participate in making local spaces better for everyone. A thriving community relies on a two-way street of trust between residents and local institutions. Trust isn't something that can just be demanded. It has to be earned, and transparency is a foundation it's built on. For me to have trust in the council decisions, I must experience transparency. Open communication and making information accessible allow people to verify things for themselves, which is the only way genuine trust can develop. If you'd like the public to trust you, it's critical that you're transparent. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Cui. Thank you, Jennifer. Any additional public comment?

That's all we have, Mayor.

Okay, takes us to agenda item I, consent.

Okay, agenda item I, consent calendar.

All right, do we have any items on the consent agenda that any members of the council would like to have pulled for separate consideration? I see none. Jennifer, anything from the public? Anyway, the email with respect to I-10, we can pull that for separate consideration.

I do have one from Gloria Sandoval for I-8 and then from LaTanya Richard and Ashley Marie Suarez for I-10.

Okay. All right, so we'll pull eight and... 10 and bring it back to council. Any discussion or a motion with respect to the balance? Motion.

Second.

DuPont and Boyle.

Okay, I have a motion by Councilmember DuPont and a second by Mayor Pro Tem Boyle. The motion will include the adoption of, or agenda item I-4, the adoption of Resolution 2026-32, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Merced, California, calling a general municipal election for the election of three members of the City Council at the general municipal election to be held on November 3rd, 2026, and agenda item I-11, the adoption of resolution 2026-33, a resolution of the city council, the city of Merced, California, authorizing the city manager to ratify the submission of a grant application with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, for a FEMA assistance for firefighter grant AFG. Mayor and council, please cast your votes. And the motion passes unanimously.

Thank you, Jennifer. On to I-8.

Okay, if I can get Gloria Sandoval.

Okay, there's various contracts with outside law firms. All right, welcome back, Gloria.

Thank you. Gloria Sandoval, District 3. The reason I was interested in speaking on this is that I know that budget, there's always a deficit. There's always having to be juggling of items here or there. But then I question why an item that's on consent, which means the public doesn't have to know about it. I thought I'd bring it up. At first, I didn't know what it meant for an amendment, because my notion of an amendment is you add something, like, you know, in the Constitution. But what I understand here is that there were amendments meant that there were changes to a contract that has been had. Like just one... Fifth amendment that was made for one law firm that's out of, excuse me, Riverside, started out in May of 2022 at $25,000. Now, there's an agreement to amend a fifth time to $260,000. To me, that's a lot, a lot of difference. Not only that, there's a second legal firm agreement that's gonna be used for labor relations, consulting, labor contract negotiations, and employee related matters. So the First Amendment was dated August of 2024. And this firm's from Los Angeles. And now there's an increase from $100,000 to $250,000. So now there's gonna be another extension to $295,000. So this is a lot of money. I mean, I've been involved with the issue of the housing and the funds and to try to start this or to start that for vulnerable populations. Now there's a... A third contract that's talked about, they're all laws. Excuse me, Mr. Cornelow, but I don't mean to insinuate that lawyers don't, what is it, deserve, right? But a third contract is gonna have a fourth contract Amendment, and it's going from $125,000 to $341,000, another firm from Los Angeles. And then there's a new contract, a fourth firm, and this was going to be with an hourly rate of $525 an hour, not to exceed $150,000. I know that education costs money, people like to live well, but this money here is our tax money, okay? This is why I'm bringing it up and to tell the public about this. I'm being transparent, thank you.

No, thank you. I think just a quick point too, it's very important that we're transparent. I think local government more than any other form of government is very transparent. Everything we do, all our decision-making, all our conversations have to take place here in open session on an agendized basis. So none of these contracts can be signed, for example, by the city manager or city attorney in their office. They have to be here and be approved by us. And that's a sunlight provision. That's a transparency provision. And this meeting is broadcast live. And we have to, if we're going to make a decision on anything, it has to be agendized. So certainly no one's trying to hide anything. I think it's really important to continue to have transparency, and we do. With that, Mr. Cornwell, why are these contracts a good, part of it too is just the time. Over time, money gets expanded. If a contract's executed in 22, you know, legal needs don't stop. They continue over time. So if a contract's executed, then it goes up to 25,000, then we gotta do another one because there's ongoing legal needs. But with that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Cornwell for additional insight.

Thank you, Mayor, City Council, and thank you for the public comment. I wanna start with just to follow the Mayor in that consent items are as transparent as other items. They go on consent. If we believe that they're non-controversial, sometimes we get it wrong. but the fact that you're able to comment, I think shows the city is still committed to transparency. There are two firms that assist the city with personnel matters. A few years back, there was a request for proposal that two firms, Liebert and Cassidy and Bess and Krager won the bid. And we have funding that's available, but sometimes the contract term ends and we're syncing up the funding that's available for them. to continue that RFP forward. The other items I'd like the community to be aware that I'm working off of a 2022, 2023 budget. It's been consistent since that time, no increases. And what I do to try to meet the demands of the city is I've had a vacancy in my department. And instead of letting that money lapse into the general fund at the end of the year, I try to use that money to continue getting assistance from outside law firms. So I have not, been a additional demand on the budget and on the city's restricted resources. I've still been able to use, you know, money that's been allocated from a couple of years ago. I had a tough time following the numbers you were citing. In the comment, I have... additional compensation of 70,000 to Best Best and Krieger, 45,000 to Lieber Cassidy Whitmore, 50,000 and Richard Watson Gershon, and 150 to Hanson and Bridget. That's the additional money, but that money is not, requiring a modification of the budget or to reach into pots that weren't allocated several years back. So I hope that helps.

Thank you. Questions too, and it demonstrates too how, you know, the city has, we have significant legal needs, you know, being a city of our size or the budget of our size. We have two people, Craig and Rhonda Lucas back there, that's our city attorney's office. But, you know, we feel, they feel, Craig is extremely good about it, about the most efficient way is to have them doing the in-house stuff. And there's a lot of things that are specialized. So they have to contract out for those things that are specialized. So to be able to blend those two and mix those two is the most efficient way to deliver those services. Customer Jean.

Yeah, and Mayor, to that point, I definitely do agree that for specialized needs, we do need to contract out for services. But to the speaker's point, Craig, I think one, two of these contracts are running for like four years now. Should we be expecting at any point for these contracts to be bid out so that we do have the best competitive rates for like the use of tax dollars?

Yes, I think after a certain time we can re-bid some areas. I will say that as a general proposition, our professional contracts don't often go through a bid process. when you're talking about lawyers, architects, engineers, et cetera. But there are times for like internal investigation matters or personnel matters or labor negotiations where we did go out to bid and we can do that process again when these agreements expire.

Thank you, Mayor. I'll give it a little bit of analogy of people that may not know the legal world. But if you have a doctor, a general practicing doctor, they don't always work on the heart. So you got to go to a heart doctor. Or they may not always work on the foot. You got to go to a foot doctor. So you have specialized attorneys as well. a whole book of statutes and multiple books of statutes to deal with. The other thing is bringing up a point of maybe rebidding. Well, we want to be careful because we may reset the market and actually may come out higher for a price than what the price we are already locked into an attorney rate. So we want to be careful with that as well and not ensuring when we're having a good relationship with a law firm, sometimes they are doing it at a lower cost of what their actual market rate is, especially for public agencies.

Councilor Smith. And now I've heard from all of the attorneys on this issue. I agree with council member DuPont. This really doesn't concern me. Craig is running a two person city attorney office. He's gonna have to quarterback other law firms. doing work, some of these firms are well-respected, very well-known in California, Hanson Bridges foremost, one of the foremost land use firms in California. It makes sense that their billable rate would be higher. I agree with Council Member DuPont, we gotta be careful about rebidding to save a couple of bucks on a billable hour, because those are our attorneys. They know our work, they know our projects. the new people who come in to take it over at maybe a lower rate are gonna bill more time to get up to speed. So this doesn't concern me. And if you're extending a contract in 2022, you've built in a rate structure that's now four or five years old, and you're gonna get savings that way. So until we can go back to having five or six in-house city attorneys, I think this is the right way to go. All right, additional comments.

Move to approve. Okay, is there a second? Second. Jennifer, nothing else from the public on this, correct?

We don't have anything, Mayor.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Okay, I have a motion by Councilmember DuPont and a second by Councilmember Smith. Mayor and Council, please cast your votes. Okay, and the motion passes unanimously.

Thank you, Jennifer. Takes us to I-10.

Okay, I have LaTanya Richard and Ashley Marie Suarez.

Thank you. All right, Ashley and Latonya, we'll call you up to speak. Whoever's ready first, feel free to go ahead.

Good evening, council, mayor and residents. My name is Latonya Richard. I'm here to give my support for the implementation of the repeat housing code violators program. Too many landlords in the city of Merced are comfortable allowing their properties to become slums. They have become too complacent in allowing people to inhabit those homes while collecting exorbitant rent, fees and junk charges in order to enrich themselves. This program will hold them accountable. My asks are that you pass it into policy as soon as possible, that you add clear timelines for landlords to show proof that repairs have begun or are completed within 30 days, and that you include a six-week re-inspection clause that will show the offenders that the city is serious about violations being cured and cured in a timely matter. All of you should have received an email from me this evening today with a few photos and videos of the house my family lived in for two months last year, along with the video showing that I made showing my rare disease day video that shows in the last three years, I've had 30 surgeries and procedures. I have been in and out of a wheelchair twice. I should not have to live in a place that is gonna make me worse. Now, there are people who are living in worse conditions than I am. And there are people whose voices will not be heard, yet still deserve the city's protection to ensure rental housing is safe and habitable. And the immortal words of Spike Lee, do the right thing. Thank you.

Thank you. Dr. Swartz.

Good evening, Council. My name is Ashley Marie Suarez. I'm a policy advocate with Leadership Council. And I wanted to start off by thanking you all for being part of this discussion and for getting us to the point where we are now. A lot of the residents that couldn't make it tonight really wanted to express their gratitude in the direction that this policy is heading and the progress that's going to be made moving this forward. I do want to acknowledge a lot of the improvement discussion that happened regarding the rebuttable presumption of extending it from six months to 12 months to prevent landlords from terminating tenancy or evicting someone early after they have reported any uninhabitable conditions, which is immense help. So thank you so much. Additionally, residents would like to see some changes and express their support upon some of the improvements being made to the policy this evening. They would very much like to see clear timelines as the previous speaker had mentioned, including 30 days or less to complete repairs, or at least to begin the process of hiring or contracting out work to ensure that this gets done within a timely manner, as well as making sure that code enforcement officers return within six weeks from the initial inspection to complete reinspection. and to confirm that work is being made or that has been completed according to standards. So we urge the council to make changes to the policy before moving to adopt, but ultimately the goal is to move forward with this policy. So we appreciate the discussion nonetheless. I ultimately wanted to also connect this to future asks, things that residents have been asking for that council has alluded to moving forward in the future. we're looking forward to what's to come from the repeat housing code violators penalty structure and more specifically looking forward to council's motion eventually to direct the funds that will be collected or the revenue that will be collected from the penalty structure to fund tenant relocation assistance and other tenant protections for those council members that would like to speak to residents that you represent present within your districts or just to learn a little bit more about the things that residents have been dealing with regarding uninhabitable conditions, what it has, you know, their experiences with having to move out due to being, you know, their term, the tenancy being terminated and now experiencing homelessness. We really do think that the tenant relocation assistance among Other programs that residents are advocating for would be greatly beneficial to community and they're, you know, outside of the general fund and the city's deficit could definitely be supported through other means such as through the repeat housing code violators penalty structure. So thank you so much for your time and we hope to see what's to come. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Schwartz.

Good evening, council. I'm here to speak on agenda item 10 regarding repeat code violators program. The agenda states this item adds a new chapter to the Merced Municipal Code to penalize property owners who demonstrate patterns of neglect, specifically to preserve the rental housing supply in Merced. I'm here to put the truth on record. The current system is failing. I had an active code enforcement case. That case number is CE250180. which the city closed only after I was evicted from my unit.

Furthermore, there are 279 public records proving that both the landlord and code enforcement

were fully aware of the hazardous conditions in my home, yet departments passed the buck while a tenant was left in danger, and ultimately I was evicted. To truly meet the goal of chapter 8.53, this program cannot just be passive list. We demand two specific mechanisms tonight. First, we need a protective rental registry and a rental inspection policy that requires inspections of all rental properties in Merced, so conditions are caught before families are endangered. Second, we must have a robust tenant relocation assistance programs where the city advances these benefits immediately to families in crisis using its folding 130 to demand reimbursement from the landlord afterward. This is a cost neutral protection, stop passing the buck, hold repeat violators accountable and pass chapter 8.53 with realty tonight. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your comments. Bring it back to council for any discussion, questions, or motion. Motion. Second.

Second.

Motion from council member Harris. Second from Mayor Pro Tem Boyle. Pending discussion. Council member Jean.

Craig, in the staff report, it mentions that the fines and penalties will come back as a resolution. Do we have a timeline of when that we should be expecting it?

Next.

Next meeting. Awesome.

Thank you. Councilor Smith. I would draw Council member Zong stole my question.

Additional questions or any additional discussion? Okay, seeing none, Jennifer will call for the question.

We have a motion by Council Member Harris and a second by Mayor Pro Tem Boyle. The motion will include the adoption of Ordinance 2591, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Merced, California, adding a new Chapter 8.53, Repeat Housing Code Violators Program to the Merced Municipal Code. Mayor and Council, please cast your votes. Okay, and the motion passes unanimously.

All right, thank you, Jennifer.

Okay, agenda item J, public hearings. J1, public hearing site plan review permit number 26-0018, minor use permit number 26-0030, and environmental review number 26-0050, initiated on behalf of Yosemite 1380 LLC property owner, The project site is a 3.19 acre portion of a 5.7 acre parcel. The subject site is generally located on the south side of East Yosemite Avenue, approximately 460 feet west of Parsons Avenue, 1380 East Yosemite Avenue. The site plan review permit would allow the development of a self-storage facility, approximately 500 storage units. The minor use permit would be for interface review to allow commercial development adjacent to or access from a low density residential zone at a site zone plan development number 20 and designated business park in the general plan.

Thank you. Is there probably not much more to add after that description right there. But before we begin, I believe Council Member DuPont, I'll turn it over to you briefly, sir.

Yes, Mayor, I need to recuse myself as the applicant is a client of my law firm.

Mayor, I also have to recuse myself as I vote on this item as a planning commissioner, so.

Okay, thank you, Council Member Tao. So we'll excuse Council Member DuPont and go ahead.

Okay, yeah.

You want us to take a brief recess? Okay. I will take a short recess, ladies and gentlemen. All right, ladies and gentlemen, we'll reconvene. It is 6.57. And we'll begin with the presentation. Whenever you're ready, Valeria, no rush.

My apologies.

No, no problem. Apologize for the delay.

Good evening, Mayor, Council Members. I am Valeria Renteria, Senior Planner here with the City of Merced Planning Department. The project I have for you today is Site Plan Review Permit number 26-0018, Minor Use Permit number 26-0050, and Environmental Review Checklist number 26-0030. This is for a self-storage project located near the southwest corner of East Yosemite Avenue and Parsons Avenue.

Good evening, Council. Rhonda Lucas with City Attorney's Office. I'm going to present the first three slides just to make clear to everybody what is in front of the Council today. So we have site plan review permit number 260018. This verbiage is pulled right from our code. So this is a discretionary action. It enables the city to determine a project's compliance with the zoning ordinance and ensure that the project will not create negative impacts to adjacent properties or the general public. The project needs to be approved if it is consistent with the general plan and any adopted specific plan, if it complies with all applicable zoning ordinance and municipal code provisions, if design and layout will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of existing and future neighboring properties and structures, If architectural designs make use of appropriate materials, texture and color and remain aesthetically appealing and appropriately maintained. If landscaping design and provisions for irrigation, maintenance and protection of landscaping elements complement structures and provide an attractive environment. and that the design will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or be injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the proposed project. along with that is minor use permit number 260030. This too is a discretionary action that enables the city to ensure a proposed use is consistent with all general plan goals and policies and will not create negative impacts to adjacent properties or the general public. Again, a minor use permit is to be approved if the proposed use is consistent with the purpose and standards of the zoning district, the general plan, and the adopted specific plan. If the location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use will be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity of the subject property, If the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of the city. And if the proposed use is properly located within the city and adequately served by existing or planned services and infrastructure. So the subject site and what is before you with these two permits It is consistent because the general plan designation is business park. The zoning classification is plan development number 20. Again, it is consistent. Permissible land use on the site includes, quote, self-storage, which allows for self-storage facilities under the city zoning ordinance with approval of a site plan review permit. That's what's in front of you today. Prior City Council self-storage action directed the applicant to address specific elements of the self-storage business portion of the project including landscape in and around the self-storage business and to address potential heat sink concerns of the proposed self-storage buildings. That action was taken November 17, 2025. And at that time, you did approve the general plan amendment and the plan development, thereby changing both the land use designation and the zoning to be compatible with self-storage uses. But the permits being considered today by you are a new site plan and minor use permit based in part upon applicants heat sink analysis and updated landscaping plans and they are coming directly to the City Council. I would note that But for the direction given to staff back in November, typically minor use and site plan review permits are handled at site plan review committee level and may not even make it to planning commission. And with that, I will turn it back over to Valeria because the legal mumbo jumbo is out of the way.

Thank you, Roneford.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good with legal mumbo jumbo. Valeria.

Okay. This map here displays the location of the project site outlined in red. The site is approximately 3.19 acre portion of a 5.7 acre site. Surrounding the site are medical offices to the east, a church to the north, and single family homes south and west. Here is the proposed site plan displaying the proposed layout of the five storage buildings and office. As part of this application, a landscape plan was provided as seen here and available at attachment five of the admin report. The landscape plan includes landscaping throughout the west, north and east perimeter of the site that would serve as an enhanced natural barrier from the surrounding uses. The landscape plan includes four different types of trees, eight different types of shrubs and a type of vine that would serve as a green wall for the wall facing Yosemite Avenue. The application also contains a heat sink analysis available at attachment six of the admin report. This analysis concludes that the proposed facilities roofing would be constructed with the appropriate slope and material as required per 2022 California green building standards code title 24. Here are some elevations of the self-storage facility. The second picture from the top is what the building will look like from East Yosemite Avenue. The lime green blocks is where the green wall would be located as previously mentioned in the landscape plan. These are some additional renderings provided to better visualize how the self-storage facility would look with the proposed landscape throughout the facility, most specifically the direct view from East Yosemite Avenue. After review of the environmental review checklist number 26-0050, staff has concluded that the project is categorically exempt under CEQA because the proposed has already been analyzed and adopted by the city council under environmental review number 24-25. Some notable conditions of approval include condition number 10, which includes that all landscaping shall be kept healthy and maintained in good condition and any damage or missing landscaping shall be replaced immediately. Condition number 22, parking lot lights, building lights shall be shielded and oriented in a way that does not allow spillover onto adjacent lots or be a nuisance to adjacent residential properties. Condition number 24, the self-storage facility may operate daily between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. And condition number 25, dwellings within the storage units are prohibited. Self-storage facilities are allowed on the subject site under the city's zoning ordinance with approval of a site plan review permit. With the findings and conditions being proposed by staff, for both the site plan review permit and the minor use permit, the proposed self-storage project is consistent with the underlining zoning and land use classifications, as well as the city's current general plan. Staff concurs with the heat sink analysis conclusion that the proposed self-storage facilities roofing be constructed with the appropriate slope and materials consistent with California's 2022 applicable green building standards. The landscaping plan includes landscaping throughout the west, north, and east perimeter that will serve as an enhanced natural barrier from the surrounding uses. This now concludes staff's presentation. We are available for any questions.

Thank you, Ms. Ritteria. Any questions? Any initial questions? Okay, seeing none, we'll open the public hearing. Jennifer, do we have any requests to speak? Before we do that, Council Member Smith. Last minute, just gonna.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Ms. Renteria. Appreciate the presentation. Just one sort of, excuse me, initial question. I'm hoping it doesn't take a whole lot to get past the issue, but you let me know. Was there a notice of CEQA exemption prepared for this project already?

Yes, there was. It's an attachment to the staff report.

Okay. Is it the case that that was just prepared in anticipation of council acting or has that already been filed with the regulatory body?

It has just been prepared to have here for you today. It has not been adopted.

Okay. Thank you very much. Good.

Anybody else? Okay. Jennifer, anything from the public?

We do have six requests to speak forms. Okay, if I can get the first three to the podium to my left. Eric Gonzales, Todd Bender, and Tom Clendenin.

Before we begin, are we gonna have an applicant presentation?

Todd Bender is gonna be the applicant with the 15 minutes.

Mayor, council, thank you for the time this evening. I thought we were gonna be kind of combined with our 15 minutes. So I'm gonna try to keep it short to get it done here in three. So the last time we were here, as mentioned, we were directed to address landscaping and the heat island sink. And with that, we provided a brand new application. And this new application identified a few things within the project that I just wanna point out for you guys. So a few of those things, one of them is that we are at or below the approved building setbacks and standards within this project. Our main entry at the office, as you can see right there, we have 16 feet of glass at the entry, just as an architectural element. All the buildings have texture blocks, stucco pop-out accents, an additional dimension to them to provide various textures throughout the project. You can see on this image right here, this is part of the landscaping and I'll show you the landscape plan in a second here, but this is the landscape, the green screen that's along Yosemite Avenue or the green shielding that's along Yosemite. These trees also are enhanced to 24 inch box trees. So what would maybe be a typical 15 gallon tree, we are enhancing up to a 24 inch box to provide more maturity from day one. Some of the other things that we have done within the project is, if you could put this up here, is in our landscape plan, we came in and identified the exact essentially where the landscaping is gonna be. We've increased 30% over what would be our typical design. We have identified the 33 trees, the 400 plus shrubs, And we've also called out a green screen that is on the inside. So you can see the Yosemite Avenue side that we have. And then we've added this. I wanted you guys to be able to see this image. This is what would be on the inside of the building from Yosemite Avenue. So we'll have the Yosemite Avenue building the trees, multiple layers of landscaping. And then on the inside, this is the side they'll face. So you can see that the split block, the stucco pop-outs, the green screens that are in there, just another layer of dimension within the project to provide just the aesthetic approach to the outside of it. These four green screens right now are roughly 720 square feet. one additional thing with the heat sink that I wanted to address.

Let me, I'll stop you right here. 30 seconds, 32 seconds. Did you guys intend to speak together as the applicant?

Was that your, I think in the, in the past we would kind of tag team on the 15 minutes as the applicant.

You guys prefer to go back and forth like that instead of you. So you have, since you have more, you plan to do more than 30 seconds. Is that the game? I'm trying to just get it through. So what if we do, we'll have you guys together. It'll actually be more efficient. So we'll put 1232 on the clock. Um, So there we go. So 15 minutes together. So you guys combined, this is acceptable. We'll have 1232 left.

Thank you. Appreciate that. Thank you. So let me just take a step back then. With the heat sink, one of the things that was discussed about and we presented the letter, I think one thing that I wanted to know on the heat sink letter was that it also complies with the 2025 code. So when we were here in November, we prepared a letter that was for the 2022 code when we submit our application. Since then the code has been updated. And we also had that, that was submitted, did not believe make it in this, but you might've been, I believe it was gonna be handed to each council member. So I wanted to make that point on there. And then I think the other thing too, if we can go back to this one right here. So the main entry building, I think in terms of a scale and a perspective, as we're talking about architectural elements, that building right there is two feet shorter than what would be the tallest residential adjacent building that was approved for this project. So as a scale of a project, that is the tallest element in the project, and yet is shorter than the surrounding residential projects. So we have, you know, the remaining of the project is considerably lower. There's, The south building, one of the comments early on throughout this process over the last two years has been about even the south wall, this building right here, the overall height of that building. That building was at right around 14 to 16 feet in height. We lowered that building to 12 feet and we materialized that by submitting our application. So our new application with that shows that building at 12 feet in height. That abuts adjoins the residential project that we have to the south. But I wanted to make that clear that that has another item that we took action on and made sure that we were addressing in terms of comments. I think outside of that, I will turn it over to Todd.

Thank you, sir. Evening Mayor, Council. staff nice to be here thank you for hearing this um so yeah our our thought tonight was eric would present the the details and what we've been busy with since directed in the last meeting uh and i i just wanted to step up sort of on big picture and thank everybody again for hearing this tonight and um and for really all the patients and listening along this process. And it has been a process. I just sort of want to point that out again. It's since submitting the application 2024, we've had, I think this is our sixth public meeting. So there's been a lot of communication. We've had a neighborhood meeting and I met personally with some of the neighbors at my office. as well as the city hosted a meeting as recent as last week to go over these adjustments. So I do think there's been a tremendous amount of healthy dialogue on this project and it's allowed us to take that information that neighbors have shared with us and reflect on it and come back and make a considerable amount of changes since beginning. I just felt it was important to point that out. We do appreciate that. I'm happy to go through all of those changes in detail, but I think everybody here is well aware of that. And if it's the council's pleasure, we can do that. But I think more than anything, I just wanted to mention that all of those adjustments that we've made through the years of review or the last year of review, especially with the neighbors were to try to address neighbors input and concern. We respect that. I wish that we could have ended up answering and checking every box and getting there for the neighbors as well. But I think we've come a long way and I think we've listened and made major adjustments. And I think this is gonna be a very attractive project. So bringing it back to what we're here to discuss tonight, I just, again, would ask for your vote of confidence on this. eager to get started and make this investment in the community and provide the service for those who are eager to receive it. So those are my comments available for questions. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Bennett. We'll have eight minutes and eight seconds left on your time. And we'll call you up later if we have any questions for you. All right. Next speakers, Jennifer, do we have a leader of the opposition?

We do, I just haven't called them up yet. We have Tom left and then I'll call the next three.

Sounds good. Yes, Mr. Clendenin. Good evening, sir.

Could you please pass that out there? Good evening, Council, staff, and fellow Mercedians. My name's Tom Clendenin and I live at 1377 Iwani Court. I'm neighboring to this project. We have all agreed that the housing element of this project that has all passed, we're all happy with. But from day one, we have not been happy with the mini storage. And then when we met this last meeting on the 8th, we were supposed to discuss, according to staff, we were told landscape and the architectural aspects of the buildings, the mini storage. Well, basically we were told it was a done deal. Let me tell you on the south wall, the block wall has no landscaping on it. They lowered the wall two feet. Well, it didn't lower then. Mr. Bender himself on November 17th testimony, he lowered that wall previous to that. So the block wall was never showed. And you don't show any drawings in these current situation, this current plans that were sent out to us today or last Thursday. It doesn't show that block wall being lowered. Now let's go on to the letter from Jackson Mann that talked about the roofs, cool buildings. I come from a building contractor building metal buildings for 42 years. And the last decades we've been doing the cool roofs for a long time. This is not nothing new. They do upgrade the plan, but the roofs are been doing this forever. So that's not a change. It's something that's required anyhow. What hasn't been addressed is the asphalt. Now let's go to the landscape plan. Okay, the landscape plan and the site plan do not match. If you look at the site plan, it shows a landscape buffer between the block wall and the property line. You look at the landscape plan, I mean, that was the site plan. If you look at the landscape plan, there is no buffer, there is no landscape on the south wall. Here we are seven months later after these, where they asked for these requirements to be changed, and I really don't see any changes. We have opposed this mini storage starting back in March of 2025. The city council turned down Walmart years ago that had a thousand jobs. We're only looking at three or four jobs here with this mini storage. So what I'm asking you right now is that you have two choices now tonight. One is to side with the developer and go ahead with the mini storage that does not belong on Yosemite Avenue. or you're gonna support the almost 300 people that have signed the petition against this. We originally gave you a signature sheet with 179, I just gave you another list with 104 people. This is not just our neighborhood, that additional 104 that came out today. Those are from all over Merced City and Merced County. Anyhow, if you got any questions, thank you for your time, I appreciate it.

Jennifer.

If I can get the next speakers, Robert DiNuzzo, Carol DiNuzzo, and Lee Basie.

No, each person is allowed three minutes. So you can't, one person can't give their time unless there's a leader of the opposition.

All right, here we go.

All right, so we'll get 15. So I get 15, is that? Yes. Yeah. You're speaking on behalf of others, including Mr. Basie. So you have 15 minutes. And then if you don't have to use it all, whatever you don't use can be saved for potentially for rebuttal or if we have additional questions for you. Okay. So you have up to 15 and you don't have to use it all right now.

All right, good evening, Mr. Mayor and City Council. I'm here once again. My name is Robert DiNuzzo. I've been a lifelong resident of Merced. I've been a licensed architect since 1988, probably longer than Mr. Quintero's been employed with the city. So my whole career has been about design and construction, reading, preparing plans, running construction projects, and being a good steward of the built environment, especially in Merced, since I live here. In the course of my career, I've met and worked with many professional planners and engineers, both in the public and private sectors. I've had conversations with many of them over the last year about this project, both about where it's to be located and the lengthy process of how we got to this, where we are in the public hearing process. None of them can understand how anyone can endorse the location of such a project in the first place. And none of them can understand the disjointed and misguided review and hearing process that's gone on so far. However, having said that, on the chances that this project use may be approved, We brought up many issues concerning making this project more environmentally acceptable for the neighborhood, as well as the overall community, including stormwater concerns, heat sink, shading of hard surfaces, landscape to pavement ratios, community walkability, and presenting a welcoming streetscape. The mini storage plans provided in the agenda packet for tonight are exactly the same plans presented at the outset of this project. The claim of additional landscape is not to be found. The only difference I just heard was the green walls. Original plan submission actually showed more landscaping along the south wall of the project. Mr. Clendenin just brought that up. Even within the agenda packet, one of the site plans shows landscaping along the south wall, separating the residential from the mini storage. Now there's none. The building plans that are currently was approved for the tentative map, that south wall is shown on the property line. with no landscape. The enhanced landscape is only showing the planting plans that would have been part of the construction plans anyway. There's no additional surface area of landscaping compared to one of the first submitted. Let's talk about other projects along the Yosemite Avenue corridor from Highway 59 to Campus Parkway. Most of the projects were held at a high standard of landscape greenery between the roadway and the buildings and or parking lots. So this is the Greystone building complex. And across the street is from the Catholic church. And I can't read the dimensions, but the Catholic church has 33 feet of landscaping to the paving. Greystone professional office has 25 feet of landscaping to the building. The other office complex varies between 20 and 25 feet to the parking lot as a landscape buffer. This is the Yosemite Crossings and Raley Center. The Yosemite Crossings has eight to 20 feet of landscape behind the sidewalk. Now all of these are behind the sidewalk. It does not count the park strip between the sidewalk and the street curb. The Raley Shopping Center has 12 to 20 feet of landscaping behind the sidewalk to the parking lot. And this is the promenade. I mean, good project. The minimum amount of landscaping is 17 feet from the curb to the sidewalk. And now we're getting close to our property, our project site. There's 55 feet of landscape to the church wall across the street from the mini storage site. The surgery center next door has 25 feet to the parking lot and 30 feet to the building. Now let's look at this mini storage project at Yosemite and R Street. It has 15 to 20 feet of landscaping between the sidewalk and the wall of the building. Now this is another strange project. This is the hub that's at McKee and Yosemite. Notice there is no landscaping along Yosemite Avenue and just a minimal amount of landscaping along the McKee and the side yard. This project looks very similar to this as a site plan. This project has minimal landscaping along Yosemite Avenue. And I think the plan showed 7.8 feet. So, So this mini storage has just over seven feet of landscape along Yosemite Avenue, along with a tall black keep out, stay away fence. It might even have the spears, we don't know yet. Beyond that fence is a blacktop fire lane with a majority windowless blank wall. Well, now they've added some green screen walls. The west side is similar, tiny strip of landscape with the black keep away fence, blacktop and a row of 22 garage doors. The east side is likened to an alley with a similar tiny strip of landscape with similar fencing. The south wall is the 12 foot high concrete block wall, now 12 feet high. Concrete block is what's used in warehouses and jails. It's twice as high as a normal concrete subdivision walls and wood neighbor fences. And it is on the property line facing due south, shared with a new homes being proposed. This means that those folks that try to enjoy their backyard can actually walk up and put their hands on that wall. One of our neighbors measured the concrete block wall on our subdivision wall today, and it was 120 degrees on the surface of that wall. And today it only got up to what, 90, low 90s? So imagine what that's gonna be when it's 105. And that block wall is 405 feet long, 12 feet high. That's 4,860 square feet of concrete that will absorb summer heat and reflect it right back into those homes. What would make this project a lesser impact? Remember, first of all, this project does not belong along Yosemite Avenue in the first place. But as we get past that, at the very least, the project should match the characteristics of other Yosemite Avenue projects. For instance, the landscape along Yosemite Avenue should at least match the minimums of the projects, of course, except the hub. The north wall of building E could have false windows, enhancement cereal materials to camouflage its blankness. The west facing building D should at least be divided into two buildings with interior landscape between and to break up the linear sight lines of all the garage doors. The east property line should have an increased landscape buffer to match other projects to soften effects to adjacent properties. The east facing area along the roadway between this and the surgery center should be walkable with sidewalk and landscape buffer to show respect to the surgery center. Building A should be removed. If we could pull up their site plan. The applicant's site plan. Okay, it's on the other slides. But there's a small building A that's along that driveway that is just gonna be a blank wall against that roadway. People are going to be using that roadway as a shortcut between Yosemite, excuse me, and Parsons. There needs to be a sidewalk and a landscape buffer to protect those people. It's part of the new walkability phase of current urban design. The south facing building F should have a landscape buffer between the back wall and the residential backyards. Building F should also be separated into shorter length buildings with landscape in between to break up sight lines. That 405 foot wall is just imposing. Building F should also be shortened at the west end to provide landscape buffer to hide the dead end of that building. Overall, this project bears similarities to the hub in that there's minimal to low landscaping, lots of asphalt in front of the buildings, and long linear buildings with minimal landscape between them. The big difference is that however you look at it, the hub has life, has windows, doors, people parking cars, visiting shops, walking through the buildings. At the end of the day, or rather I should say after a generation, people could travel up and down Yosemite Avenue and wonder, who allowed a mini storage here? Is it not better to wait and have a developer build an actual engaging, inviting asset to the community than rush to fill in a vacant field? I can guarantee you that an overwhelming majority of this entire community, not just our neighborhood, would rather see a vacant field than a mini storage facility. There is also a negative precedent being set that projects an atmosphere of developers manipulating and deviating from the general plan to suit their own needs of other communities. We realize there needs to be a balance of welcoming development versus community wants and desires. But this is not about what the community wants now, it's what the community wants for the future. A denial of this project would restore confidence and leadership and common sense. To approve this by bypassing any mitigating message I spoke about would send a clear message of what agendas our voted leaders want to follow in their future careers. Thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. Three minutes, 38 seconds remain.

And I'm available for any questions.

Okay.

Sounds good. You have 3.38 left. Mr. Nuzzo.

Good evening, Mayor and council members. My name is Carol DiNuzzo, and I'm here tonight to, again, express my opposition to this project. As Merced continues to grow, every major land use decision actually matters. The question before you is not whether a mini storage facility can be built, but whether this is the highest and best use of more than 150,000 square feet of prime commercial property along Yosemite Avenue. I don't believe it is. A mini storage generates very little economic activity, creates only a handful of permanent jobs and provides limited benefit to the broader community. Once this land is developed as storage, that opportunity has effectively gone for decades. We should be asking whether the site could instead support retail, restaurants, offices, housing, entertainment, and other businesses that create jobs, generate sales tax revenue, and serves the needs of Merced's growing population. What has been particularly troubling is the apparent inconsistency in how development projects have been evaluated. Mayor Serrato, during the recent Vallarta Market vote, you cited backlash on social media as a reason for your opposition. Yet throughout the review of this mini storage project, there have been hundreds of residents who signed petition opposing it. Numerous opposition letters to the city and residents who have repeatedly appeared at these public hearings to voice concerns. If public sentiment was significant factor in your decision for Vallarta Market, why does it not carry weight here? Council Member Harris, you supported the Vallarta Market Project and spoke about the importance of 100 jobs it would create in approximately 50,000 square feet of commercial space. Agreed, job creation is one positive outcome of good land use planning. Yet tonight we are discussing a project that would consume more than 150,000 square feet of valuable commercial land while generating only two to four permanent jobs. If jobs, economic activity, and community benefit were compelling reasons for you to support Viarta Market, how can those same principles not apply here? Mayor Pro Tem Boyle, you voted against the Viarta Market citing concerns about over concentration of alcohol sales in the area. Whether people agree or disagree with that position, it was at least based on a perceived market saturation concern. But market saturation is a legitimate consideration, then surely it must also be considered here. There's a mini storage facility directly across from Walmart, 2.7 miles away. There's another brand new facility on Girard Avenue, roughly 3.7 miles away. Both facilities reportedly remain far from full occupancy. So where is the demonstrated need for another massive storage facility? This project is not addressing critical shortage, a pressing community problem, meaningful employment opportunities, and expanding, is not expanding access to essential services.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate your comments. All right, Jennifer, anyone else?

That's all we have, Mayor.

Okay, we have eight minutes and eight seconds left remaining for the applicant and three minutes and 38 seconds left for Mr. DiNuzzo. Allow you guys to respond and then we'll bring it back to council if there's additional questions we have, we'll take care of it at that point.

Yeah, I think my responses can be fairly brief here. I think a great deal of what was just shared is things that we believe were already decided in the last meeting in terms of, does it belong here? I think there was a vote of confidence in a decision the last meeting that decided that at least in our view, and that we thought our job was to demonstrate that our project was compliant with the zoning and development ordinances. And so that's what we came prepared to share. We just, I think in a lot of matters agree to disagree. I appreciate the comment about the future and what we want this project to look like in the future. That's something that's very much on our mind as we still own and manage one down the road that we built 20 years ago. That's very complimentary and attractive. And we design to that rigor as well. We plan to own this a long time. And in fact, some of the exhibits that were shared here tonight as positives were projects that we developed years ago and still manage and maintain and appreciate the landscape. Landscape has always been part of our DNA as a company. But again, there's lots of areas we disagree. Three jobs I heard mentioned. Again, I want to pull our attention back to many of our users are making their living in the economy, and they're not here tonight to share, but they house their goods. They come on a regular basis. They need to be close so they can get those things and make a living, chip them off. And so there are many sort of jobs that can't be sort of determined here tonight, but they are there. They're utilizing this to make a living. And again, I think with the cool roof, we've demonstrated through our professionals that we meet that code. And we've, in fact, we meet the code to come as Eric pointed out, we're ahead of it on that. And I think many of these items will just be worked out. And with the definitive building plans that the building department will determine, that we meet code or we won't be able to move forward. So we do agree on one thing. They mentioned it's been a lengthy process and we agree. It has been a lengthy process. So I don't know if there's specific questions, but those are my answers.

Okay.

Thank you, sir. If we have any questions, we'll address them after we close the public hearing. All right. Mr. News, anything else? Thank you, sir. All right, Jennifer, anyone else?

We don't have anything, Mayor.

Okay. All right, 739, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to council. Again, I want to thank everybody for their... their comments for all their work on this. I know it's been a long road for staff, been a long road for the developer, been a long road as well for the neighborhood. And we appreciate, I don't think we're ever gonna fault anybody for coming and fighting for their quality of life and fighting for their neighborhood. Also too, we're always gonna support folks who wanna bring good projects and good development. to the city. So with that initial comments, I know we've been through this a few times already as council members and we sit here, you know, these can be difficult decisions. We have to balance the needs or the desire of the city the property owners, especially in a free market system where people have ownership of their property and develop their own property. But that said, the city has zoning power. The city also has to take into account the needs of the residents and make sure a project's a good fit. I think over the past couple of hearings, we've done a lot and I think paid very, very close attention to try to do our best to make this project palatable, first the housing part and now the mini storage part. So with those comments, I'll turn it over to my colleagues for any additional questions they have either of staff, of the applicant or of the opposition, and then furthermore for discussion and action. Any additional, any opening comments, discussion, questions or motion?

Councilor Smith. Thank you, could I have Ms. Renteria back to the podium please along with Ms. Lucas. Okay, so everybody breathe, all right. Can I actually start with Ms. Lucas please? Thank you. I just wanna set the stage from a legal perspective and I appreciated your presentation, which I think unlike the staff report touched on the criteria in the municipal code that were to consider. I may have misheard you. Was it your presentation's position that the decision has already been made based upon the record or do we still have discretion to act?

You have discretion to act in that approval of a site plan and minor use permit are discretionary actions.

Okay. So we're not, we're not, council's not in a position where like the die has been cast and we just have to get out a rubber stamp. We can find facts and make findings and come to our own decision based upon the discretion that we have, right?

Yes, within the confines listed up there.

Sure, sure, okay. I guess to Ms. Renteria then please. Now this is, you've been working on this for a long, long time and I appreciate your work in particular. Can you maybe summarize for everybody again sort of the global changes that have been made to this project? Because this is one project, this is one aspect of it that's left. What are the changes that have been made back when this was a dual residential and self-storage project that was proposed?

So some of the changes that were made per our last conversation on November 17th have been the landscape has been enhanced. in comparison to the previous plan. The heat sink analysis that was provided and the determination that the south wall is 12 feet tall. Other than that, the number of buildings and the number of storages have stayed the same and the layout of the buildings as well.

What changes were made to the residential component of the project?

The residential component of the project first started off in the initial application that was submitted in August of 2024. There was approximately 42 residential units. It was brought down to 28 residential units from August 2024 to November 2025. Lots were a lot bigger. There was concessions on the single and two story component of the houses. The houses on the south property line, which are adjacent to the property owners that we have present here today. There's a condition on the staff report that made it so that those houses are strictly single story.

Now you are a senior planner, right?

I am.

Okay. So if you don't know the answer, this is fine. I'm not trying to be play gotcha, but do you have a sense for what kind of projects are coming our way on Yosemite? Like how many multi-unit housing projects do you think are in the queue for Yosemite Avenue between say G street and Lake road?

in our queue as the planning department. I don't think I can think of any. I know there's been a lot that have already been approved and there are in construction that you can kind of go out and see.

Is it fair to say that the number of people living along Yosemite Avenue in the next five years is gonna go up? Yes. Okay. I guess that's all I have, but it looks like Mr. Hsieh might wanna say something.

I'm just here for support.

All right, thank you. All right, thank you both.

Councilman Harris. Mr. Hsieh, don't be shy. You can come rush to the rescue if there's any issues.

Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Don't go far, Sam. After seven years on the Planning Commission, some things were... pretty much beat into us, which was how we could deny or what it took to deny a project and how we had to comply with state law or subject ourselves to liability. There were six five or six criteria that we had to look at in order to deny a project. So between City Attorney Cornwell, Rhonda and Mr. Rache, do you guys remember what they are? I'll give you the first two. They were public health and public safety. And that's where I go blank.

The safety, health, welfare, nuisance of the community and the overall public health is yet, you know, nailed all four of them on these ones. So when we do look at this project, we make sure that safety, health, welfare, public nuisance are addressed when we're moving forward. When we bring these to the, whether it's planning commission, city council, or even on the staff level that we're meeting those criteria is when we make those recommendations that they're consistent with the general plan and zoning. That is something that my staff does not take lightly. I got there, took me a second. Yeah, it is something that my staff doesn't take lightly when we review those analysis. So making sure that the projects that we bring before city council meet those standards.

So there were a number of projects on planning commission that came before us that we might've thought, well, this doesn't really fit the neighborhood as we envision it, but we did not have the criteria to deny it without opening the city to liability. And that was one of our prime concerns if we denied a project. For example, the mayor saying that the Vallarta project, looking at public comment, he was against it. Well, that wouldn't have been a good reason to deny it formally. Mayor Pro Tem De Boyle, overuse of liquor comes a lot closer. You could make that case. So I just wanted to go on record here by saying that the vote we're gonna take has that in mind and has to have that in mind that we're constrained by state law on what we can use to deny a project.

Yes, and if I may kind of piggyback on yours, when you look at the entitlements that were asked and that were approved, the general plan land use designation was approved. The zoning to plan development was approved. And when you go down that rabbit hole for land use nerds like myself, One of the things that we start looking at, which is a component of the plan development, which was approved as the site utilization plan in which the site plan permit is actually attached to. The reason why we were able to ring it before council was because you raised two specific components of this project, which was the heat sink and the landscape. And that's why we focused on those two items. But as far as everything else goes, it was approved.

So would I be correct in saying if those two items hadn't come up from council, this wouldn't be before council today?

That would be correct.

Thank you, sir.

You're welcome. All right, thank you, Council Member Harris. Additional discussion, comments, questions for the applicants, motions?

Motion.

Okay, to clarify, sir, that's a motion to... forces the, go ahead. Just to clarify, what's the motion to adopt the resolution as proposed in the agenda report?

Correct.

All right, is there a second?

I'll second it.

All right, pending, we have a motion and a second, pending discussion, Council Member Smith.

Thank you. I think some other things need to be said before we take a vote. I also wanna talk to my constituents and make sure we're all on the same page about what's going on here. Council member Harris touched on an issue that I think probably should have been raised by staff a couple of meetings ago. I wanna make sure we understand that right now we're sitting up here in a adjudicative capacity, which is probably not satisfying for people but I'm gonna read you from a case that came down against the city of Sacramento a few years back when a city council member took it upon himself to try to kill a gas station in his district that his residents didn't like. And he got the mayor involved and some bad things happened after that. The court phrased the issue this way. We consider the restraints imposed on city council members who are normally policy makers and voices of their constituents when they act in a quasi judicial capacity as adjudicators and matters on appeal from an administrative body. The court went on in its discussion section to instruct, The council members wear many hats. It is commonly understood that they function as local legislators, but sometimes they act in a quasi adjudicatory capacity, similar to judges. Hearing and deciding an appeal of a conditional use permit is one of the times that a city council acts in a quasi judicial capacity. And then there's a quote from other case law. When functioning in such an adjudicatory capacity, the city council must be neutral and unbiased. meaning that the decision maker has no conflict of interest and has not prejudged the specific facts of the case and is free of prejudice against or in favor of any party. So in this instance, we're supposed to make a decision based upon the record that's presented to us by the applicant and the appellee. We are also not supposed to advocate for one side or the other. I submit to you that I probably flagrantly violated that when I forced the developer to sit down with the community and have a meeting and they made some considerable concessions on the residential portion of the project that at that time over a year ago was the biggest concern for my residents. In fact, I heard from somebody who I will not name in the neighborhood that if they changed the story going in behind my house, I'm gonna let the self storage facility go. So I have probably opened myself up to a lawsuit from the developer for getting involved and forcing the developer to talk with you all and hear your concerns and make changes. And I appreciate Mr. DiNuzzo's letter today. It helped me clarify the issues. I actually think he's right as a matter of procedure. This is not about as the heat sink analysis and the landscaping sufficient to check those two boxes. I think council does have the discretion to consider the minor use permit and the site plan review permit under the municipal code, but I'm not the city attorney. So I'll just state that as my opinion. I wish we weren't at this place. This has been tortured for everybody involved. It took way too long. And I just wanna point out again, this has been a good learning experience for our folks pointed to the planning commission. This might've been a different path had this not started with the planning commission deciding not to make findings and not make a decision based upon the record and on the record say, council's gonna decide list, let's just vote no. That's unfortunate. But I think council made the right decision to say process matters, we have to decide this ourselves. Which is why in my mind, I denied the second half of the appeal without prejudice. Because it needs to come back to council to finish the issue. So here's the record I see. Municipal code section 20.68.020. conditions by which a minor use permit may be approved. We have to look at four criteria. We have to find all four criteria. This is another thing that I wish was explained by staff and not by me. We may approve a minor use permit if number one, the proposed use is consistent with the purpose and standards of the zoning district, the general plan and any adopted area or neighborhood plan, specific plan or community plan. Well, I think because of the general plan amendment last time around that criterion is satisfied. That land has been rezoned business park and a self-storage unit is an appropriate permitted use. Number two, and here's where I view a lot of the PLA's argument coming in. The location size design and operating characteristics of a proposed use will be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity of subject property. And that's kind of what we're talking about. I don't think that a storage facility is necessarily a bad thing for a residential zone. I think you can look and see where it fits into the neighborhood and other places. Everybody knows I work at a law firm in Fresno. If you drive down Herndon, there's Daryl Moving Storage, basically near some of the most exclusive neighborhoods in Fresno. And there's not just one of them. So does this one meet the mark? Well, I was concerned about the landscaping before. Maybe it could be punched up, but we're now talking about larger 24 foot trees. There are more trees. There's gonna be greenscape in the interior. And is it compatible with future and existing land uses in the vicinity? Well, this is also my neighborhood. And what I see proposed for the frontage on Yosemite is at least consistent and has grown up as the frontage along Oakmont on Parsons Avenue. And in fact, I think it's actually better than the frontage on Gardner in front of the birds. And it is a heck of a lot better than the plantless frontage near the hub that was approved. And it's better than what was approved before my time at Yosemite Crossing, where you drive down Yosemite and you see the dumpsters behind each of the businesses. So I think that this criteria is met based upon the record. Also my understanding that there are gonna be hundreds of multi-unit buildings going in along Yosemite in the coming years. I think we're not looking at the right picture of demand for something that could be seen by some as a community asset, particularly when it's landscaped to look like the rest of the residential area around it. Number three, prong three in the municipal code. Code requires us to find the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare of the city. I was concerned last time, and Mr. DiNuzzo persuasively argued, I thought, about the heat island effect. That wasn't really properly addressed. It makes sense to me as a non-engineer, we're dropping this massive asphalt and concrete in the middle of a residential area. Well, I then learn, that the building has been designed to actually exceed accepted California building codes for this effect. And I can't repeat back to you the analysis that's in our review packet, but I can accept based upon the record that the applicant has satisfactorily shown that the heat island effect is not going to detrimentally impact public health, safety, and welfare. We heard evidence before that a self storage unit facility actually has fewer car trips than a residential area. There's gonna be less light and sound pollution, we've heard in the record. And I have residents in other parts of my district that complain about things like car washes, drive-through restaurants. These things are not a self storage facility. So I think we have to take it on this record that it could actually be quieter and a better neighbor in some respects. Four, the proposed use is properly located within the city and adequately served by existing or planned services and infrastructure. I think Mr. O'Shea has explained this. This is gonna be put into a CRD for resources. I see language about trash pickup. I got no reason to think that this condition hasn't been met. So as an impartial reviewer of the applicant's appeal on this record, I think I have to vote in favor of granting the appeal. I won't go through everything for the site plan permit. There's actually some more factors, but they substantially get to the same place. And so I think as I thought about this for many, many hours, several times, including provost of today and Sunday, that's where I come down as an impartial judge.

Okay.

Thank you for your comments, sir. Councilor Jean.

So I voted against this project at every step when it comes to council. I wanted to see affordable multifamily units. I wanted to see mixed used development in terms of encouraging walkable, bikeable neighborhoods. And my thoughts are that a self storage facility is not going to be encouraging folks to walk to it because the idea of a self storage is you gotta drive there and put your things in there. So I, I still stand against this development and that's why I'll be voting no.

Thank you, sir. Additional comments, discussion? Jennifer will call for the question.

We have a motion by Council Member Harris and a second by Mayor Pro Tem Boyle. The motion will include the adoption of Resolution 2026-38, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Merced, California, approving Site Plan Review Permit Number 26-0018, Minor Use Permit Number 26-0030, and Environmental Review Number 26-0050. for a project approximately 3.19 acres in size located on the southwest corner of East Yosemite Avenue and Parsons Avenue for the construction of a self-storage facility. Mayor and Council, please cast your votes. Okay, and the motion passes with Councilmember Zhang voting no and Councilmember DuPont and Councilmember Tal recusing themselves.

Okay, thank you, Chair. We'll take no recess, but we'll just take a little, we'll pause for a minute to allow people to go and then got a lot of people moving. So we'll allow that and then allow Council Member DuPont and Council Member Tau to rejoin us. Well, I think if we settle back in, Jennifer will resume with our second of our six public hearings, the second being agenda item J2.

Agenda item J2, public hearing to review and consider the adoption of the draft 2025 urban water management plan and draft water shortage contingency plan.

Thank you. Can I make a special request to have Mr. Baptiste to give the presentation too?

He wouldn't do it. Good evening, council members and mayor. I'm Debbie Forty, water conservation coordinator for the city. I have our consultant here, Blackwater Consulting Engineers, here to do our presentation on our 2025 urban water management plan. I'll let them take over.

Thank you. Mark, you can give me both of you.

Hello, city council members, mayor, and also city staff. My name is Bao and I work for Blackwater Consulting Engineers. I'm here today with Ryan to present to you the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and also the Water Shortage Contingency Plan for the city of Merced. Per the Urban Water Management Planning Act, AB 797, this urban water management plan is required to be completed by an urban water supplier serving more than 3,000 connections or providing more than 3,000 acre feet of water per year. Since the city supplies water to over 24,000 water service connection, the city is considered an urban water supplier and is required to update this plan every five years. This plan has to be adopted by July 1st, 2026 and submitted to the Department of Water Resources in order for the city to qualify for any grant or loans. As you can see on this slide, the purpose of the Urban Water Management Plan is to evaluate future water demands, assess available water supplies, prepare for drought conditions, and identify conservation and infrastructure improvements needed to maintain a reliable service. Basically the main goal is to make sure that the city has enough water supply to serve existing and future customers. Here is an overview of the city's 2025 urban water management plan. It was prepared to meet the requirements of the 2025 urban water management plan guidebook. This urban water management plan goes over the city's water system and supply, and it talks about the baseline and target in which the city has to meet, and also provide water supply service reliability and drought risk assessment. As part of this urban water management plan, we have to prepare the water storage contingency plan. This document is an attachment to the urban water management plan and has to be adopted at the same time as the 2020 urban water management plan. The city's 2025 urban water management plan also goes over the demand management measures and also the adoption submittals and implementations of the 2025 urban water management plan. There has been some changes to the urban water management plans since the last update. Here on this slide shows those minor changes. Part of the changes is minor adjustments to the water code that has been reflected in the city's 2025 urban water management plan. Another change is classification for suppliers with multiple water systems. This doesn't apply to the city since the city doesn't have multiple water systems. There has also been some changes to the submittal tables, for instance, changing the 2020 to 2025 data. One thing that was added to the new guidebook added was the 2028 water loss standard reporting. And this was something that we'll discuss more in the next few slides. Some additional guidance was also provided for lower income housing and also for groundwater recharge and storage reporting. In 2025, the city of Merced supply approximately 19 acre feet of water to about 24 water service connections. The city currently has a population of about 89,000 residents. A majority of the land use within the city consists of single family, multifamily, commercial, industrial, and landscape. In this urban water management plan, we have also incorporated water loss into the report as required by the state. Now I will pass this along to Ryan to present the next few slides.

Thank you, Bill.

Thank you, Bob. In addition to the water use categories discussed in the system description, we're showing this bar chart that's actually reflected in the chapter four water use characterization section. This shows the last five years since the previous urban water management plan, the volume of water used by the city. The primary volume used is the orange residential color, followed by commercial and other demands. The red section on top represents the water loss and overall total. You can see that it remains relatively consistent up until recently where we've shown some decreases in water loss. Looking forward, another part of the urban water management plan is to analyze and project water usage up until 2045. So in five-year increments, we've reflected water use growth and usage based off of current and previous population and projecting growth forward based off of capital improvement and growth plans. You can see a steady increase from 2030 moving forward. Bao mentioned and we do have a slide upcoming discussing the 2028 real water loss standard that is incorporated into the water loss data in 2030, showing a decrease between what is currently accounted for in 2025 and what is reflected in 2030 moving forward. Um, another section of the urban water management plan includes Senate bill X seven dash seven, um, the water use reduction compliance. It is based on, um, It's a baseline of the data of the daily per capita water use. And it is an average from 2001 until 2010, that 298 gallons per capita per day was analyzed and determined to be reduced by 20% by 2020. That 20% reduction was met in 2020 by calculating and determining the water use of 181 gallons per capita per day. And the current 2025 urban water use data calculates out at 174 gallons per capita per day, which shows continual decrease in water use based off of targets. The 2028 real water loss standard is based off of, and it's as per Senate Bill 555, each urban retail water supplier will be required to comply by 2028 with an individualized volumetric water loss standard for the supplier's real loss. Each supplier standard was calculated using the economic model developed by the State Water Board and the supplier's own unique data. To clarify, water loss is determined by subtracting the volume of water authorized or billed from the total water supplied. The real water loss is determined as the physical loss of water from the distribution system before it reaches the consumer. The baseline real loss standard determined was 40.9 gallons per standard connection per day. And the determined 2028 real loss standard is 12.8 gallons per day. um based off of the most recent um complete water audit the 2023 real water loss value was a turn to be 21.1 so that shows significant progress towards reaching the 2028 goal The city is actively implementing projects to improve distribution system efficiency and reduce real water loss with the goal of meeting the 2028 real loss standard ahead of the compliance deadline. reviewing the city's existing groundwater supply. It consists of 21 active wells with a total well capacity approximately 56,900 gallons per minute. I'm looking forward to future groundwater supply. The city has four planned wells and each one of those wells has a capacity of approximately 2,500 gallons per minute. And there's also a future surface water supply treatment plant with the capability of producing 10 million gallons per day. As Val mentioned, the water shortage contingency plan is its own standalone document to be approved, but it is included and incorporated into the urban water management plan within chapter eight. It provides a plan to identify and respond to potential water shortages. The current city shortage level is at a level number two to mitigate the total amount of water usage across the city. Demand reduction actions are being implemented to reach these goals as per the water shortage contingency plan and city ordinance. The table to the right shows the shortage response actions per each water shortage level and its effective percentage shortage range. The shortage level one includes prohibiting outdoor water wasting activities, commercial and industrial water conservation measures. Levels two through four show gradual increases of landscape irrigation limits. And then level five prohibits most landscaping irrigation with level six prohibiting all landscape irrigation. Demand management measures included in the water shortage contingency plan include water waste prevention ordinances, water metering, conservation pricing, incorporating public education and outreach, additional and refined water audits, program coordination and staffing support, Additional demand management measures include residential plumbing retrofits, washing machine rebates, commercial, industrial, and institutional conservation programs, and turf replacement initiatives. We're currently here today on June 15th presenting at the public hearing. Public notices originally were sent out at the beginning of April as the initial preparation notices and in May there were two newspaper notices going over this plan and the intention of getting it approved during this public hearing. Moving forward with the intention of adopting the 2025 urban water management plan and water shortage contingency plan within 30 days of approval, we will be submitting the documents to the Division of Water Resources, the California State Library and other local agencies. Documents will be available for public review. that concludes our presentation and we're open to questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Any questions? Councilman Harris.

Thank you, mayor. Thank you for your presentation. I just had a quick question about the decrease in urban water use from 2020 to 2025. And actually from before that, is that from restrictions on lawn watering? Does that have a lot to do with it or were there other reasons?

That is correct. So the city is now in level two and the city has limit watering days and watering hours and that has helped reduce water. If there's a drought and if the city needs to reduce more water, then we'll go to level three, four, five, or maybe six to not have any irrigation.

My lawn will hate you, but I understand. Thank you.

There's no questions. I have two questions. Maybe Mr. Baptista could assist with these two, sir. First was what are the main sources of water loss in our city?

It might be from leaks. That's something that we are still detecting with the city just to make sure that there's no major losses in the future. But for the city of Merced, there might be some leaks that we haven't identified, and this is something that we'll work with the city to identify those and make sure that they meet the target in 2028. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and add something else. Sure.

Good evening, council and Mr. Mayor. I'm Johnny Baptiste. I'm the water manager. Just, that's a good question you ask about where the loss is coming from. That's the kind of stuff we're tightening up on. We're implementing the user side meters. We're going to go out and test them, make sure that those are good. That's one of the things that kind of, because we got a hole there somewhere we haven't figured out. And that's going to be the, you know, what actually were taken underway. The rest of it is just whatever comes out of a hydrant doesn't, we don't necessarily have a measure on it. And then all the leaks on any of the, all the old piping, it's, it's considerable, but that's just part of it. We're actually really, really doing good. It's just the state is in my opinion, and it's on camera, but they're absolutely crazy. So that's where we're at.

Could you repeat that sir? I don't think we could. I think everybody here knows. What about the health of our wells right now? Obviously our aquifers,

Although aquifers are good, quality's outstanding. There again, this is the craziness of the state that changes anybody's quality. The quality is pretty standard. So when you hear about neighboring towns and the stuff they go through, it isn't that their water chemistry necessarily changed. It's more than likely the state has adjusted the numbers that they're looking for. They do every year, every three years, you do the UCMR, They go out and look for what's out there. Then they come up with a standard. Then they implement it. Then you start having, you see filters, like what Atwater did with all those filters they had to do. It wasn't that their chemistry changed, the state changed what they wanted to see in the water. So we're golden, actually, knock on wood.

we're doing good assuming you know what the city continues to grow like it has and also assuming that we continue to to be better about water conservation you know how long do you think how many years do we have out of our aquifer oh am I allowed to speak freely

I've never known you to speak otherwise, sir. The greatest impact to our aquifer is when the state forces the farmers into the ground. If the state... would leave the surface water alone, let the irrigation companies and the farmers get as much surface water as they need to do what they do, then the farmers would much rather not be having to punch holes and pull water out of the ground. And ag, and I'm not talking any kind of garbage, I love ag and you could look at me, I kind of, you could see, I like food, right? So yeah, the ag need in water is not a bad thing, despite what you may see on from other people's opinion, but ag pools, the number used to be right around, 90% of the, of the, of the demand that's on the aquifer municipalities don't, it's a less than 10%. It was for when I used to be really involved in that, but when Deitch came through, I got moved off of that. So I don't know the numbers as tight as I used to, but that, that was a good, if you go through our entire Valley, you go through the aquifer, municipalities ran around 10% ag use the rest of it as far as what's getting pulled up. So we don't, we're not, we don't ride that. We're, we're riding somebody else's wave on that. Whatever happens, happens. We got, it's the waters. Makes sense. As you get deeper, it's going to change quality. You start getting real deep. Then we're going to have to come up with filters and whatnot. I won't be here. A lot of people in this room won't be here by the time that starts.

Good shape. 20,000 acre feet. So yeah, compared to the, the total, what's been pulled out of the base. It is.

small, small piece. Small potatoes. And also the part of, you can't see in the report there, the biggest, the biggest reduction we experienced is when we put meters in, in 16, 17, we pulled that off. That, that was self-reduction. Yeah. We had like a Leah's in here. We had like a 37% or something. Is that? Yeah. So we got 37 on the, on the reduction, the Mr. Harris was talking about. That was right there. Just folks using less water and us measuring it. So now we're getting tighter numbers on that loss because we go out and do nuts and bolts looking for loss and it's not as easy as we think. So we think we might have a calculation issue. So we're going to make sure the meters are good.

Now we got Ken coming. He's about ready to cue the Oscars, get up the stage music.

No, actually I'm in trouble. I'm not supposed to get up to here and talk. So I might need your backup on that.

Oh, we appreciate you, John.

Do you have something to say, boss?

Who's next? Council member Harris, is that an old one or is that a new one? Council member Smith.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Baptista, you got to come talk to us more often.

Sir, I appreciate that opportunity and it's not hard to get me to talk. I just... Let me ask my question. Go right ahead.

Sir, what do you, as the expert in the, obviously the expert in the room, what's your thoughts on reclaimed or recycling water as a way to reduce our loss? Define recycling water. Well, let's see, recycling gray water in residences. For what use? Turning it back into potable water.

Negative.

And why is that?

what you're talking, my personal opinion? And my personal opinion, I don't think technology's there where I'm comfortable enough with it for the variable, various pharmaceuticals and endocrine disruptors and a bunch of other stuff that people take and put in their waste stream to have it come back into the potable side. One, it's not necessary. It'd have to be real necessary because for the cost that you're talking about and whatever kind of, I'm gonna think a reverse osmosis might get pretty close, but I'm not even gonna say that that's a fact. And it's not necessary. Taking on that kind of effort when it's not really necessary is a difficult thing for me to look at. I would say this, before you get to that point, there's no such thing as a lawn anymore. Before you get to that point, there's no such thing as washing your car. that's before you get to toilet to tap, in my opinion, because it's not necessary. They got a whole bunch of water, not too far from here, and a desalinization plant would stop that aquifer from pumping the water out of the valley in a heartbeat. And as soon as that stops, now the farmer's got water everywhere, they don't know what to do. And so as soon as that happens, well, now the water and aquifer starts coming up and Livingston goes back to having marshes and water two feet below ground. I mean, it's...

That's what I wanted to know. Thank you very much, sir.

That could be wrong.

All right. Additional questions? Anyone here? Mr. Reptisa talk anymore?

Ken said I had to stop, sir.

He came all the way from out there to come back.

All right.

Anybody else? Lost track of where we were. Now we got to open the public hearing. All right. Let's do that. Let's open the public hearing. Okay, take 25, open the public hearing. Jennifer, anything from the public?

We don't have anything, Mayor.

Okay, ladies and gentlemen, now is the time to speak on this item if you'd like. Okay, seeing no takers, we'll close the public hearing, bring it back to council for additional questions, discussion, or a motion.

I move to approve and adopt the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan as well as the 2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan. Second.

Smith, your point. You got him.

I have a motion by Councilmember Smith and a second by Councilmember DuPont. The motion will include the adoption of Resolution 2026-36, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Merced, California, approving and adopting the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan for the City of Merced and the adoption of Resolution 2026-37, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Merced, California, approving and adopting the 2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan for the City of Merced. Mayor and Council, please cast your votes. Okay, and the motion passes unanimously.

Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you, Ryan, about. Appreciate it. Thanks for the report, Johnny.

Agenda item J3, public hearing on the various maintenance districts, engineers reports and budgets for fiscal year 26-27 with adoption of resolution for approval, confirmation and adoption of the engineers reports for the various maintenance districts as originally submitted or modified.

Thank you, Jenna. All right, maintenance districts, once again.

Once again.

Good evening, mayor and council. Back here again to discuss maintenance districts. I'm Stacy Hicks, the landscape maintenance coordinator with the city. I'll do my best to try to not get Ken to come up here during my presentation. Let's see if we can get that done.

So tonight, very relaxed all of a sudden.

So tonight we're here to have the public hearing, um, regarding the maintenance districts budgets for the fiscal year to 2026, 2027. So as a review, the city, we have 39 maintenance districts throughout the city and the individual district engineers reports were made available to the public at the clerk's office for them to come in to review and ask questions. This is our map of the city identifying where the 39 maintenance districts are located. So some of the budget highlights for this next fiscal year, we'll start off with the good news for the Quail Creek, Oakmont, Ridgeview Meadows, and Northwood Village. Those landscaping services will be able to be increased to weekly. Manchinette and Village Landing, we were able to do some negotiations with the landscape contractor and look at their budgets in other areas and increase those to biweekly. Unfortunately, in Ferens 1, the landscape service will be reduced from biweekly to quarterly. In Pleasanton Park, the landscape services will be reduced from monthly to quarterly. We are able though to do some preventative maintenance and repairs for many of the storm pump stations that have not been able to be done in the last few years, as well as some planting projects and irrigation controller updates that we'll be working on the next fiscal year. We still have some carryover money for LED lighting projects in these districts that are listed here on this slide for a total of $44,231. We have some sidewalk curb and gutter repair and replacement projects for these districts that are listed here. The total for that is $62,625. And we have tree trimming, removal, and replacement in these districts for a total of $171,864. So Ferens Park One, going back to when we did the balloting for the underfunded districts, this was one of the maintenance districts that did not pass. And due to that, we are having to reduce the landscape services again from biweekly, which they are currently receiving, to a quarterly basis. We will only be able to turn on irrigation for three months in the summer. Those months would probably be June, July, and August. There are no funds for replacement expense for our storm pump that is in that district. And this level of funding, we are determining that they could be sustained for two years using the current district reserves. And there you see their engineer's report that's being proposed for next fiscal year. So a part of what we are coming to you tonight with is also considering for future ballot these districts that we feel are underfunded. Some of those are familiar. We did go out to ballot for those this current fiscal year, and you see there the dates that these districts have gone out to ballot before. They've all had failed ballots, but these are all districts that currently cannot sustain either if they're a storm pump We are not able to do a lot of the maintenance that needs to be done or their landscape services as I've already gone over are being reduced or Campus North is still, they're staying at two times a year. Any questions?

All right, thank you, any questions? All right, seeing none, we'll open the public hearing. Jennifer, anything from the public?

We don't have anything there.

Okay, ladies and gentlemen, now's your time to address the council and the maintenance districts. In case you no takers, we'll come back to council. We'll close the public hearing. That's it. Again, thank you for all your work on this. I know you've done Yeoman's work over the past year plus on these. With the seven remaining districts that are underfunded, just a couple of thoughts about next, do we try again? Is there a way to work, again, just throwing out thoughts, work with the community about, you know, maybe some different middle ground where you can kind of get some support at the beginning, you know, possible council subcommittee involvement, possible involvement with the various council members of those districts. Just again, just throwing out ideas about ways, you know, you got 32 of the 39 are in good shape, which is great, much better position than we were, you know, five, 10 years ago. But then what do we do with the remaining seven? And how do we, you know, proactively get to a spot where I think is everybody can live with?

absolutely so um obviously we'll sit down as staff and and discuss this but i think there's some of the districts that we did go out to ballot for this current fiscal year that the vote was extremely close and almost passed one of those is hansen park and i believe that maybe a more targeted community meeting instead of just holding general community halls and meetings and inviting people from different districts is going you know maybe even to the park that's there in the maintenance district that's a handsome park and inviting just those property owners to come to that. Campus North was another one that was fairly close in the voting. That is a lot of businesses that are in the El Portal Plaza. So that is a weighted district. We did have a one-on-one meeting with the property manager for El Portal Plaza I would like to go back to him and maybe invite the property owners of El Portal Plaza to have a meeting again just in that location and inviting those residents as well. So I think a little more targeted in some areas. as in Ferens Park One, I know that the issue was the huge increase for the year, looking at not necessarily a phased approach, but see what we can do with the budget and with the landscape contractors, just slowly increasing their service frequency, doing different things like that. Okay, thank you.

Mayor Pro Tem Boyle.

Thank you. I will just echo what you had said. I would appreciate going back out for ballot, especially like Ference Park one that has the storm drain pump. We saw what happened in 2023. And so for not putting money towards that, and then say we have another flood, you know, I just don't want to see that be on us even though that we're not funding it. But I think that what you said, that was the one that like increased the most, but right now it's bi-yearly if I'm correct. And I can't remember what you guys went down to, but is, I think looking at those that did fail, what is that middle ground that maybe they weren't okay with like just example, weekly maintenance, but what would it look like if it was quarterly and just kind of see if that would sustain for the budget. But I think it's having that open dialogue with the community residents of what this truly means. And I understand the shock value, but then a day, I mean, I get, and Scott knows this as well. I will get requests, you know, why does this, why does this area look dead? well, you're part of a maintenance district and you didn't pass the ballot many years ago. And I think just illustrating even that too, this is what it is. Sometimes when people see what it is versus hearing it, then they can picture, do I want my neighborhood to look like this? So fully support whatever you guys need to do that.

So to what extent can we start with a neighbor and almost not negotiate, but say, look, here are some options, get buy-in upfront, say, you know, are you guys looking at a more moderate or modest service level with lower fee or, you know, instead of kind of going for everything we were going for, is that even possible? Or do we set the rate and say, this is what it is?

I think before we bring forward any budgets and are on their engineers reports as proposed is maybe have those meetings with the residents and have those discussions and kind of get a feel for where they're at and what kind of increase that they might look at. To be honest, I think there are some areas that they just, I don't think they'll be buy-in. But I think there are definitely other areas that I think if we sit down and have those conversations, now that it's gone out once, if we have those conversations ahead of time that we might have some more success.

Councilor Schmidt. Thank you, Ms. Hicks. I don't wanna get cumulative with my colleagues. I agree with Council Member Boyle and Mayor Serrato, I think we do need to go back out to ballot, but I've said this before many, many times on this topic, we can't just keep doing the same thing and expect a different result. I would be in favor of giving some of our residents in these persistent, districts, you know, more information, more of a say in the process. And then going out to the ballot is almost something that they're now on board with. I agree with you about Hanson Park, that's in my district, you know, I've offered as well as Olivewood to be a part of some outreach with your office. In terms of Ferens Park One, you know, I've been a loud voice for no more free rides, but I'm concerned that there is such a gulf between what that district needs and what it's paying into that if we don't do anything, is we're gonna have a bigger maintenance problem and quality of life issue that we wanna be dealing with. So, I mean, I would be in favor of maybe even being more proactive with them. I'm gonna defer to you, but I think the mayor is hitting on something here. Sit down with those folks and tell them what the options look like and what do you think you can support? Because what I heard going to the community meeting and granted then we were talking about multiple, right? I really didn't think that our residents in Ferens Park One understood what they stood to lose and that this was not some tax that we were throwing on them. We were just asking them to pay for the maintenance they've already essentially agreed to take on themselves. We just had to reset the amount, right? So, I mean, I would just encourage staff to prioritize Ferens Park One while we look at maybe getting some more of these community resource districts to buy in.

Yeah, and that's just for two, just from the campaign, sort of the political side of it too. I think you have a lot of folks who talk to each other. We saw from the meetings, you know, so to what extent are they going to talk to each other beforehand and try to, you know, build support amongst themselves? I think it's an important thing.

Council Member Jean. I agree with my council members up here. I think it's important to go back out for ballot. I think, especially at Ferens Park 1, it's the sticker shock that really turned folks off, right? If we could look at ways in which we could gradually increase the amount. And I'm thinking even if services are low, I think at the very least we're able to save up for any sort of major pump replacement or any emergencies that come up. And so I think it's important that we do go back out and seek to get increased. It might not be as big as we would like for the services that we would like to render, but at the end of the day, it's important that we save up that money for any major replacement.

All right, additional comments? I see none. Discussion or a motion?

Move to approve. Second.

Okay, I have a motion by Council Member Smith and a second by Council Member Harris. The motion will include the adoption of Resolution 2026-28, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Merced, California, approving, confirming, and adopting engineers' reports on maintenance districts. Mayor and Council, please cast your votes. And the motion passes unanimously.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Stacey. Appreciate all your work on that.

Okay, agenda item J4, public hearings, status of vacancies and recruitment strategies for the city of Merced pursuant to assembly bill 2561.

Good evening, mayor and council members. I'm Suzanne Fierro, human resources manager, reporting on AB2561. So AB2561 was introduced to address the issue of job vacancies in local government, which could adversely affect the delivery of public service and increase employee workload. There are three requirements for AB2561. The first one being a public hearing held at least one time each fiscal year. The public hearing has to be before the governing body and the city shall present information regarding the status of vacancies and recruitment and retention efforts. The second thing, we have to invite employee organizations to participate and allow them to give a presentation during the public hearing if they would like to do so. We do have five bargaining groups, which we did invite to the public hearing tonight. We sent them a notice on June the 1st. The third requirement is we have to, if we have any bargaining groups that have a 20% vacancy or higher, we have to provide additional information. We do not have any bargaining groups with a vacancy rate of 20% or higher, so we are exempt from that requirement. So this is a table that shows the vacancies for each group, the five MPOA, the non-sworn, firefighters, MACE and AFSCME. You can see their vacancy rates all are below the 20% threshold and the bottom three groups are unrepresented groups and they also have a vacancy rate of less than 20%. So positions have become vacant throughout the fiscal year due to employee attrition, which includes resignations, retirements, terminations, as well as a movement due to promotions. Our Human Resources Department, we work diligently to fill vacant positions through ongoing recruitment efforts. This fiscal year, the department we facilitated 57 recruitments. And to date, we have 512 full-time employees. And so overall we have an 8.9% vacancy rate. Any questions?

Questions? All right, we'll open the public hearing. Jennifer, anything from the public?

We don't have anything there.

Okay, there's enough time to speak on city employee vacancies. Any opportunity? Okay, seeing none, we will bring it back to council. We'll close the public hearing and back to council for additional questions for Ms. Fierro, discussion or motion. Or do we even need a motion on this? Yeah, we're just holding the hearing. That's it? Okay, additional questions, discussion? Okay, seeing none, I think that does it. Thank you, Suzanne.

Thank you.

Well done. All right, Jennifer, on to J5.

Okay, agenda item J5, approval to continue public hearing in consideration of parks and community services fee scheduled to include new rates for Bob Hart Square and Merced Open Air Theater and the addition of Ferens Park Disc Golf Course and Merced Regional Sports Complex CP42 to July 6, 2026. Okay.

All right. I'll move to continue as requested by staff.

Okay.

We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second.

Mayor, I do believe we need to open the public hearing for this.

Yes.

So.

Mr. Cornwall. Your advice, sir, is our parliamentarian.

If we, thank you, Mr. Mayor. If we don't have anyone signed up, we can go to the motion to continue.

Thank you.

Yeah, we don't have any requests to speak for this.

Okay, no requests to speak from the public on this and we will entertain the motion absent any additional comments. Okay, seeing none, Jennifer will call for the question.

Can I catch that? I didn't catch the motion.

There's a motion to continue to July 6th. Smith, DuPont.

Okay, I have a motion by Council Member Smith and a second by Council Member DuPont. Mayor and Council, please cast your votes. Okay, the motion passes unanimously.

Thank you. Brings us to J6, budget 845. If you want a short break beforehand. Okay, seeing nods. Venus, come back in 10 minutes. We'll come back at 855. That was a slice of pizza I had in the back. Reconvene and we'll take up agenda item J6, our final budget hearing and our esteemed finance officer, Venus Rodriguez.

Agenda item J6, continued public hearing to allow interested persons to be heard regarding the City Council Public Financing and Economic Development Authority, Parking Authority and successor agency to the redevelopment agency of the City of Merced fiscal year 26-27 budget, adoption of the budget with revisions and appropriation of the revenue and approval of the capital projects for each respective budget.

Thank you, Chair.

Good evening, Mayor, members of the council. Tonight, I will be presenting third and final presentation on the budget adoption. Hopefully by the end of the night, we will have an adopted budget. So again, we're gonna go over and recap some of the slides that I've already presented to you, the highlights of what's in this year's budget. In addition, each slide will have some information on any changes that were either council directed or staff is recommending to be included in a RADA list. So again, the budget includes increases of 4% for labor based on labor negotiated increases, maintenance supplies and services. We kept any increases within zero to 2%. some methodology changes of not adding new proposed grants or something that we might apply for and then not including opioid. Your budget resolution tonight actually allows us to carry over any opioid as a carryover and then new grants will come to you next budget year as they're needed to come to you for approval to apply or based under the grant policy. Parks and community services, again, it's balanced, but it could have future challenges. PCN fleet replacement are not included in the general fund. They are included in enterprise funds and other special revenue funds that we're able to support those. And then it includes the council direction from June 1st that was given at the public hearing. So this did change from the original version. I believe the original version was 461.2 million. This newly proposed budget with all of the errata changes, we have the entire city budget at 461.5 million. So of that 69.2 is the general fund, 210.6 is the enterprise funds. 59.3 is internal service funds, 21.1 are the measure funds, measure C, measure V, measure Y, and all other operating funds are 101.3 million. So this is to show the city manager recommended budget against the council directed budget. So again, we're starting at the same point, 11.8 million. Revenue is increasing because we're adding in the general fund reserve to transfer back and the trust 115 to fill the gap, the shortfall. You see an additional revenue of 1.3 million. We added $23,575 to operating expenses. This is for the council approved stipends that would start in January. the operating transfers did not change. So there you have a total operating expenditures changed by 23,575. So your revenue over, so now you have a balanced budget. So in the previous version, we had a little about 1.3 million shortfall. Now with filling in with the additional revenue transferring in, we have a balanced budget. So zero revenue over expense. Below the line items, so that changed by 30,000. That's adding the community funding that council directed to add. Future planning did not change and the prior year projects carrying over did not change. So the recommended ending balance will be $9.1 million. So that's a different at 1.2 million. Our 5% contingency reserve changes slightly because we added a little bit of operating expense. And so our total available funds at June 30, 2027 are 5.7 million. So again, changing about $1.23 million. So as discussed the general fund transfers to supplement other funds did not change. So we're including the housing admin transfer in, transfer to parks and recreation and airport. So these are the, what we call the non-operating costs in the general fund. So the only thing that we added here is community funding of $30,000. So that's a total $431,000. Again, the economic development opportunity fund, affordable housing fund, and the trust 115 did not change. And because we had enough set aside in the general fund reserve, there's no allocation for that set aside. So there had been discussion about how the financial policy set asides were created, how those dollar amounts are calculated. So the policies include how that would be calculated. And we start with, the fiscal year 24-25 unreserved fund balance at June 30th. So this is a very specific number in our financial statements. If you were to go to our financial statement from that year, you would be able to see that specific number. I will say that we are still working through that audit process and finalizing. There could actually be a change that could that could change this number, it wouldn't be higher, it would likely be a little bit lower. And so if that's the case, we'd actually come back to you at mid-year and discuss that with you, get your direction on if you still want to allocate these same dollar amounts, or if you want to reduce it based on the new dollar amount. So we take that number, we remove the 5% contingency that remains in the general funds. So that left us with 4.5 million. Then we take the 45% excess. And then that 2 million is then divided up between the 115 for pension. So 50% of that goes to the pension trust. Then 30% goes to affordable housing and 20% goes to the economic development opportunity fund. And that's how those numbers are derived.

Bye.

So now that we've changed the general fund a little bit and the general fund reserve, I just wanted to come back to the slide and show you how that's changed. So the general fund balance is 9.1 million, again, 3.4 of that being contingency. The general fund reserve is now funded at its required funding based on the general fund reserve requirement. So it's not overfunded and that's because we're transferring the overfunded amount back to the general fund. So we're at 17.1 million there. and then trust 115 and the other stay the same as we had presented. So just reviewing Measure C again. Measure C, we start the year at 6.4 million. These are all the three funds that make up Measure C. So it's the old Measure C, the 95% allocation for public safety, and then the 5% allocation for roads. We're estimating about 9.3 million in sales tax for next year. total budgeted expenses are 12.7 million and it leaves all three of those funds at a balance of 3.1 by the end of fiscal year 26-27. So similar with Measure Y, so nothing changed here. Each column includes the allocations based on Measure Y ballot requirements, so 20% to police, 20% to fire, 20% parks and rec, and 40% discretionary. So we're estimating to receive about 1.6 million in Measure Y revenue next year. Estimated expenses are a total of 1.3 million, so it leaves all four of those funds at about $406,000. So some very specifics on parks and community service and how we were able to help balance that fund. So again, that gets 20% of the Measure Y funding at 321,590. It gets 50% of the 40% discretionary. So again, same amount. The general fund transfer increased by about 4% from last year. So that's almost 1.8 million of a general fund transfer. They also received additional revenues based on approved rate increases, assuming that CP 42 will be implemented and they'll start to receive field rental revenues. We've included the second year of a zookeeper donation of 76,200. There's a Merced City School District contract for youth sports that we've included $196,850. And then there's a grant for outdoor recreation programs of almost 125,000. And then there's the CFD special taxes. We're estimating to tax a little over 6,000 parcels, which gives them $240,640. In addition, in Measure Y, we were able to fund some of the one-time equipment requests. And that would be for a mule gator, a tractor, a lawn mower, a turf tank lease, a storage container, and a trailer. And most of these items are for CP-42. So just recapping on police, which nothing changed here based on any direction. So again, 143 positions, I'm sorry, 98 of those are sworn officers between general fund measure C and CFD. Some of the requests for this year were to fund CSOs for code enforcement so that those are funded within measure C and measure Y and to replace duty weapons of $105,000. In the fire department, nothing changed here. 93 positions, 888 are sworn officers. They are deleting two battalion chiefs, adding two division chiefs. There's an equity salary adjustment for the fire chief of 9%. The safer grant positions are funded through March. And then after that, there's no grant funding in the budget for these. And then in measure wide, some of the requests were to cardiac monitors for 120,000, weed abatement funding of 80,000 and 11,000 to purchase a narcotic safe. Under administration for the city council, so again, we added a 23,575 in order to meet the newly adopted recommended stipend. Again, would be effective January 1st. In the city manager's office, we're still funding the two part-time interns, which is new, and then we're deleting the two peer support specialists that were funded under the CalVIP grant that expired in December. We're including the 150,000 for compensation study. In the city clerk's office, we've included a part-time deputy city clerk to help with the SB 707 requirements and for public records requests. So continuing with administration and human resources, we're adding the human resources director and information technology, we're adding the cybersecurity specialist and some replacements for end of life servers and end of life wireless access points. Again, no money is going towards the ERP allocation for the actual system itself. We've added some additional funding from the RDA residual as revenue, and we're carrying over $70,500 for arts funding. Council did direct to add $30,000 for community funding, so that is now included on the errata. In downtown, we've also included a ballast station budget. So we're working on selling that property. That property sale will go into probably July, August. And so we have created a three month budget for the ballast station. We're still receiving revenue from the rentals there. So using that rental income, we will try to manage the expenses and be able to pay those for three months. on the airport side. So the question came up about the 20,000 contingency, so I did wanna address that. Sometimes when we have new revenues put into the budget and we're not sure that they're actually going to come to fruition, we like to put some funding in the contingency, that way we can monitor that a little bit more. And then when we know that the revenue is there, then we would allow its use. So in this case, there was $10,000 added for advertising revenue that had not been there before, but that's something that the airport is wanting to be able to do with the new terminal. And then in addition, before the new carrier agreement came on, they had told us that there would be at least $10,000 in additional funding from the new carrier agreement. So because we weren't close enough to know that yet, we put that money in a contingency. For public work staffing, we're adding three maintenance workers, one in streets and two in refuse. They're doing a swapping of positions in the water department, so water distribution quality assurance tech for a water distribution operator three. They're adding a storekeeper in fleets. And in Measure Y with the 40% discretionary, we're continuing to fund mostly park maintenance, so bike path maintenance, tree trimming, playground type maintenance, pool fencing for McNamara and Ada Gibbons, and then the 25,000 deductibles for each of the playgrounds in order to replace them, the insurance would cover the rest. And then we included the $30,000 one-time capital costs from the cellular tower agreement. A couple of the street projects where we did allocate funding, we allocated $300,000 towards the Bellevue Road bike path. an additional 100,000 for the APS-Polaro push buttons at the schools, 40,000 for downtown concrete light poles, and then the new project is $200,000 towards Craig Drive Rehab. So this is the street funding, the different street funding that we get and how much would be available towards projects. So most of it will be put in projects to be determined. The measure C will be unappropriated and then if wanting to be used for a project, we'd have to come to council to appropriate that funding. So to summarize the errata list, so I went through and kind of told you what was added, but just to summarize what is on the list and if the budget is adopted tonight, it would include this into the budget. So we're increasing for the council stipends, 22,575. We're adding community funding of 30,000. The general fund reserve of 5% increases a little bit based on the operating expenses. We're adding a transfer from the general fund reserve to the general fund to cover part of the deficit. So that ended up being $733,682. We're adding a transfer from trust 115 for pension to the general fund to cover the balance of the deficit. So that's $582,608. We added the ballot station budget for three months, which is $27,690. And then because we now have our letter from HUD about what our actual allocations, we just put in an estimate. But now we have that specific dollar amount. So that created an increase of $145,361 for CDBG and $102,366 for homes. So that's my presentation. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

Questions for our finance officers. We'll open the public hearing. Jennifer, any requests to speak from the public?

Mayor, I do have five requests to speak forms. If I can get Latonya Richard, Colton Dennis, Ashley Marie Suarez, Daisy Ramos, and Gloria Sandoval to the podium, please.

Thank you. Your first three minutes.

We honestly live in two different Americas. One group is here fighting for, against the storage unit. The other here is fighting for equitable spending on housing. I am Latonya Richard and I'm here to oppose the current spending plan laid out in the upcoming budget. The city's own mismanagement of funds should not impact programs receiving money that is earmarked for affordable housing. Instead of paying yourselves back again for mismanaging funds, You should use the $607,000 in affordable housing funding and the $739,000 from the General Reserve Fund for a tenant relocation program and an eviction protection program, respectively. Help the people. The government is always very quick to take from the most marginalized groups, then turn around and chastise that group for asking what is a basic human right. Housing is a human right. The city is creating more problems in housing, which would then turn over to the police to handle. The biggest spin for the city is public safety, which is code word for policing. Angela Davis said it best, jails do not disappear problems, they disappear human beings. And the practice of disappearing vast amounts of people from poor immigrant and racially marginalized communities has literally become big business. The jail, therefore, functions ideologically as an abstract site into which undesirables are deposited, relieving us of the responsibility of thinking about the real issues afflicting these communities for which prisoners are drawn into such disproportionate numbers. Just fund the housing programs. Merced doesn't want Orwellian State. We don't want 1984. We don't want Animal Farm. We want you to provide us with programs that ensure safe, affordable housing and funded programs for those that are at risk for becoming homeless. In a city that's only 23.25 square miles, Merced has 11 Starbucks, five 7-Elevens, five Arcos, nine to 10 storage unit facilities with another about to be built. You're gonna approve it. Yet Merced has 552 unhoused people. Even with 52 deaths from last year, it's still a 6.2% increase. It's an increase. So we know the city doesn't build anything, but you do have the power to ensure safe, affordable housing is provided. If you can approve the list of previously approved businesses I listed, then you can approve spending the money earmarked for housing on housing. I ask you to spend the money on a tenant relocation program and an eviction protection program, thank you.

All right, who's next? Mr. Dennis.

Good evening, Mayor, City Council, and city staff. Colton Dennis, I'm with the Vice Chair on the Arts and Culture Advisory Commission. And Venus has done a great job with the budget and everything, but the... I'm gonna ask for some money for arts and culture. The $70,500 that we have as a carryover in the budget actually is allocated, it just hasn't been spent yet. So there are projects that are in the works right now, the calls to be had and events. And then after that, we're not gonna have any more funding. And usually we get about $100,000 for funding every year, or at least has been in the last few years since we started the commission. and I'm requesting to Try to get that much money back twenty nine thousand five hundred to match that hundred thousand dollars We would like to have another art project on the south side Possibly at the near the airport and we do anticipate some Cultural events that will need some funding in the next fiscal year And that's my request. Thank you.

Thanks.

Good evening. I'd like to share a couple of community identified concerns. But before I get there, I did want to address the comment that was made at the last city council meeting. There was a lot of talk about getting rid of the police and fire or not, but that's not exactly what residents really wanted to communicate in our calling for. What is being asked is council to take a look at where there are untouched funds, such as leftover funds that were allocated, for example, to the police department from the general fund, and to redirect any of those untouched funds to support community programs. during the last city council meeting it was also stated that the city had an excess of 739 000 or so dollars that were discretionary dollars within the general fund and this money in combination with grants untouched general fund dollars previously allocated to the police department and other departments and the 600 000 or so affordable housing fund dollars can be used to support the following number one Allocating $250,000 for a tenant relocation assistance program that advances relocation benefits to tenants in the event that a landlord fails to pay benefits to the tenants because of lack of funds or unwillingness. And this one-time allocation would fund one part-time position or cover a portion of a salary for an existing position to manage the program and to do intake of tenants who may qualify for the benefits. And the remaining funds would assist about 15 households for the year if necessary. And that key word, if necessary, right? The goal is to have landlords reimburse the city for advanced benefits that the city can recover the advanced benefits after assisting those tenants. This isn't just free money that is being handed out, but more is a focus on making sure that households that are displaced are able to be prioritized and that they don't have to run around and try to figure out where they're going to live after an order to vacate has been posted on their property. The goal is to have the city recover advanced benefits after assisting tenants. The city has historically spent a lot of money, a lot more money on professional service agreements for environmental impact reports where the city later gets reimbursed by the developer. And this is no different where the city confront the money now and to establish the program and then recover the costs over time through the generation of revenue from the penalties collected from the repeat housing code violators program. And number two, we're asking for at least $500,000 in discretionary dollars in combination with grant funds to establish an eviction prevention pilot program that can run within six to 12 months or more to assist as many tenants as possible to avoid evictions before it gets to court. One of the biggest things that residents have been advocating about is that they're not quite sure when it is an eviction and when it becomes an unlawful detainer. And a lot of the folks that have been reaching out go out to local organizations and get turned away because they're not at that point yet. And so to address any of the gaps in resources, folks that do not currently qualify, we're asking you to support this program. They can help with understanding notices, assisting with settlements or negotiations, and getting legal representation for undocumented tenants. Thank you.

Thank you, Ashley. Appreciate it. All right. Who's next?

Good evening. Thank you for voting yes on Chapter 8.53. You took the first step to hold repeat violators accountable. Now you must fund it. A habitable housing policy without supporting programs and respective funding is just a piece of paper. To ensure the repeat code violators program actually saves lives and prevents the displacement of tenants and improves the quality of life for families, we demand two critical allocations, the 2026 through 2027 budget and beyond. First, allocate $250,000 from the general fund for tenant relocation assistance. Follow the Modesto model, advance the money to families in crisis immediately, and build a landlord to reimburse the city. Second, allocate $500,000 for the eviction protection pilot program. This funding will establish a program so tenants can get help with understanding notices, legal advice, and even legal representation to protect vulnerable renters, including our undocumented neighbors who are often targeted the most. My closed case CE25-0180 and the 279 public records of the neglect proved that tenants cannot wait for buriatic delays. You passed the policy tonight. Now put the money behind your vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Sandoval.

Good evening. I wanted to share a report that I read recently that says no state has an adequate supply of affordable rental housing for the lowest income renters. That's why I'd like you and I'd like to support and encourage you to invest in an eviction protection program that has been talked about. And I wanted to give just an example that could benefit from that along with the repeated violators. One is a person that may not be aware of what their rights are or where to even go and get anything. If they file a complaint about a problem, let's say a water leak, okay? that could be pretty damaging. And then it doesn't get fixed. So the next thing that that tenant would get would be a notice to move. But they're not gonna know if they've got any rights to other remedies with regards to defending themselves. So I think the slumlord or the repeated violators would not kick in because if that would be only the first time, they could still retaliate against the person, some of it due to not knowing. So I think education is needed. on this and I would really encourage if a certain pilot program just to kind of have some idea of the need for this. I think supporting tenants and like we've said, the housing stock is not being developed at the rate that is needed for the income levels. I would encourage you to please consider this eviction protection program, pilot program. Thank you.

All right, thank you. We should have for additional speakers. All right, Dr. Sandoval.

Yeah, good evening. I just wanted to speak briefly to the eviction protection. Last year we went to, a friend of ours was evicted and we went to the court And it was almost like an assembly line. You had the attorney for the realtor that wanted to evict the person. And all these people had talked to legal services, but there was no one in court to represent them. So six right off the bat, And it was like an assembly line basically. Regardless of the reason, like for example, people that had lost their jobs and then got some kind of employment and were trying to make some kind of payment installment plan were getting evicted. So that seems unfair. I think... having some kind of a fund from the city. And as Councilman Shane, for example, had mentioned, for example, some private attorneys may be doing pro bono work. something to help people because it's a balance, it's skewed against poor people and then with the rents that have been high, I think that's really a big consideration. Thank you.

Thank you, Dr. Campbell. Jennifer, any additional public comment?

I believe that's all we have, Mayor.

close the public hearing and bring it back to council for further discussion and action. Comments, questions for finance officer or motion? Council Member DuPont. Thank you, Mayor.

Mr. Rodriguez, can you explain, is the $734,000 that's overfunded in the General Fund Reserve, quote, extra money?

so that money comes from the general fund and so at one point the operating expenses were a certain dollar amount so we moved the funding over to meet the reserve requirement because there has been some changes in the way that we're budgeting or allocating funding that reserve requirement, we needed less basically to meet that reserve requirement. So I'm not sure what you mean by extra money.

What are we using the $734,000 from the general fund reserve in the budget this year?

Where are we using it?

Yeah, and how are we using it?

So we're using it to transfer back to the general fund to fill the shortfall, right? So it will show that your balance is a budget, but it's not new money. It's money that's been generated within the general fund and had moved over there in a previous year.

so we're using that money to close the gap of the shortfall of the departments like parks and community services airport and other departments that may be receiving general fund money correct so it could be for any of the departments within the general fund or any of the departments that we're supplementing funding to Thank you. No further questions. I do have a comment. So I met with leadership council on the repeat housing code of violators program. We actually had a discussion about council. I asked them, you know, why don't you provide some services as counsel. I mean, you know the issues at hand, you know what's going on, you have attorneys on staff, and they told me, no, we don't do that. So I think the message needs to be shown that, you know, even when we're asking for help, organizations are also telling us no. So we can't play this back and forth game of pointing fingers, but the problem is it's working with the legal community and pro bono work, right? I'm not in a position of funding any type of attorneys from the general fund or any funds currently. So we have to understand, we have to work with organizations. So organizations have to stand up.

Additional comments. We've had requests for some of our speakers about the, additional funding for housing, additional funding for a tenant relocation program. I think we discussed that in a pretty decent conversation on it at the last council meeting. With regards to general funding for housing, would note there was a comment about the number of homeless in the city and the county. The last point in time count, there were 403 sheltered homeless countywide. The vast majority of those sheltered either in the city of Merced or the immediately surrounding county areas. So 403 were sheltered. All those are sheltered through some sort of government funded program. So there's already a lot of resources that go into that. So preserving those resources is really important. You have the D street homeless shelter, the navigation center, a variety of rescue mission homes that receive public support. So there's a good number of folks already, you know, in some good work that's being done with the 403 sheltered countywide. In addition to that, the city has a, including stuff that was recently built. And then a lot of stuff more on the horizon, approximately 700, over 700 units of affordable housing, either recently done or in the pipeline as well. So a couple points there. And the other point too is made by Mr. Dennis about additional spending for art as we've allocated in recent years, typically about a hundred thousand dollars. It seems like we've had a lot of success with that as well. So just summarizing some of the public comments. Council Member Smith.

Thank you. On the final day of budget, there's always a lot of inertia, a lot of talk has gone into where we are. I think it's harder to make changes. In terms of the arts funding, I completely agree that the city needs to get back into funding arts projects. I kind of favor that as a mid-year discussion. My understanding is there's still money to be spent. I kind of like to see where we are. We've already had to make some hard choices, including taking money out of trust 115 to balance the budget. So I'd like to see where we are, but I think this is something we need to keep talking with Mr. Dennis and the arts council about. And hats off to the staff and the commission for continuing to do great work to bring some fantastic projects. to the city. On the tenant side, I continue to think as a matter of policy, the right way to fund it is after we get 90 to 180 days of data on the repeat housing code violator ordinance. We're having a discussion about remedies I think next month. In terms of the eviction protection program, I don't know what that means I'm having coffee with leadership council and faith in the valley this week. I want to learn more, but again, on the last day of budget, when I haven't seen a proposal, I think it's hard to, to put it into a budget appropriation, but you know, it's if people feel passionate about it, I'm all ears and we can, we can talk further, but for today, I think, I think guys are more inclined just to kind of stand pat. All right.

Additional comments. Can I ask Ms. Flackman to ask you to come forward and just discuss some of the upcoming arts projects? How long is that funding going to last the arts and culture advisory commission?

Good evening. So of the 70,000 allocated for public art, 22 has been committed to projects 22,000 and the commission will discuss the remaining 48,000 at its next meeting in July. And so we do have the subcommittee met to talk about potential projects. One of which is the commemorative 250th commemorative mural. So, We have 48,000 remaining and those will be set, that will be set in projects by July. And so we'll report back to you in August. Okay.

All right, thank you.

Is that an answer?

Yeah, it does, great answer, thank you.

Councilor Smith. I mean, I'm gonna be clear. I am fully in favor of arts funding, but it's like at this point, where does it come from? I mean, if somebody wanted to make a proposal, for example, to roll back $50,000 I've set aside for the economic development fund, put into arts, we can talk about that. But I mean, this is pretty well plumbed and negotiated and compromised at this point.

Yeah.

Additional comments? No, I agree. I think we can, you know, it's easy to approve the budget as is. And then if, I think art and what we've done over the past several years when it comes to both art and public events, it's a very good Obviously, it's a feel-good thing for the community. It beautifies the community, but it's also a very good investment. I mean, events bring people. That brings revenue. That fills the hotels. And then, for example, we throw some of these big events, and we help them out a little bit, and a lot of the hotels are full. And then also, too, it drives people. I did make in downtown, for example, nicer too. It drives a lot of economic development as well. But yeah, certainly, thanks for asking my thoughts. I think we can certainly, easiest thing is probably just to approve the budget as is, and then we can come back either at mid-year or even before that with some sort of supplemental budget appropriation. If, you know, if it gets to the point where we need to do so, that would be a five vote item at some point during the year, but we can certainly, you know, appropriate money throughout the year as well.

I mean, I would favor that and maybe give the commission a chance to say, if we had X dollars, this is what we might do.

Yeah.

All right. Anybody else? All right. Additional discussion or motion. Council member Jean.

Yeah, just before motion is made, just reiterating my thoughts from last time. I think we really do need to shift focus from public safety into what community needs are. are funding 100,000, 250,000 for a tenant relocation program. Those are what, 350,000, that's small. When we're looking at, again, my thoughts here are with PD funding, right? $31 million, $250,000 is less than 1%, right? And so I think that we need to really evaluate where we're putting money and actually invest in community. Folks out here asking for, pennies compared to the overall grand scheme of the budget. And I think we need to start allocating funds there. And so as I stand, I don't support this.

Anybody else?

Move to approve.

Second.

one quick comment too, I think, you know, with regards to public safety funding or general fund or whatever, the majority of it's salary. So when we're paying folks, you know, we're in that regard, you know, we're supporting, we are supporting people and we're giving somebody a salary, they're doing a job, it's honorable work. And then they use that money to, you know, to invest in the community. buy housing, rent housing, whatever it is. So I think at the same time too, you know, it's the majority of that money is salary and in doing so we're supporting jobs and we're supporting people. Anybody else? Okay, a motion and a second.

Okay, I have a motion by Council Member DuPont and a second by Council Member Harris. The motion will include the adoption of Resolution 2026-35, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Merced, California, adopting the budget and appropriating revenue for fiscal year 26-27. The adoption of resolution PFA 2026-01, a resolution of the City of Merced Public Financing and Economic Development Authority adopting the budget and appropriating revenue for fiscal year 26-27. The adoption of resolution PA 2026-01, a resolution of the City Council or the City of Merced Parking Authority adopting the budget and appropriating revenue for fiscal year 26-27. And the adoption of resolution SA 2026-01, A resolution of the successor agency to the redevelopment agency of the city of Merced adopting the budget and appropriating revenue for fiscal year 26-27. Mayor and council, please cast your votes. Okay, and the motion passes with council member Zhang voting no.

All right, thank you, Jennifer. Venus, thank you. Thank you and all your hardworking staff. We appreciate it. Jennifer, Colton, I encourage you to come back relatively soon with some plans.

Okay, agenda item K, action items K1, approval of a supplemental appropriation from the unencumbered, unreserved fund balance of fund 1017, economic development of opportunity in the amount of $100,000 for the airport terminal replacement project CP230073. Thank you, Chair.

Ms. Baker.

Good evening. My name is Karen Baker. I'm an economic development associate. I'm located at the Merced Yosemite Regional Airport. And this is Rhett Williams behind me who's the airport manager. So what we're bringing behind us or what you have in front of you, pardon me, is the checkpoint relocation effort. And with this, we're requesting council action to approve a supplemental appropriation of $100,000 out of the economic opportunity fund and put into the airport terminal replacement project. The Merced-Yosemite Regional Airport is an essential air service airport. Transportation, the TSA is a requirement of all essential airports. As part of the terminal replacement project, the TSA requires all TSA security equipment to be installed, relocate, and or decommissioned by a certified maintenance provider. trained by original equipment manufacturers. TSA has provided a specific list of four vendors that are approved to move the existing equipment that was moved in after 9-11 into the new terminal and set up new equipment that will be provided by TSA. In addition, the vendor selected will decommission, package, and ship equipment back to TSA, and the vendor selected will provide project management supervision and rigging of one walk-through metal detector, two Leidos explosive trace detection devices, and one bottle liquid scanner, including also barriers, gates, and auxiliary equipment. Unfortunately, this was an unforeseen project expense, pardon me, during the budget process for the terminal replacement project, but it's a required expense to open the new terminal. This is an example of the existing equipment in the picture that I've provided. So this is the X-ray equipment in the walkthrough metal detector. This is the location of the new checkpoint in the new terminal. in the walkthrough metal detector. Leidos has come in the company and already outlined where the new terminal project or the new equipment is going to go. And this is another view of the new terminal checkpoint. Do you have any questions?

Thank you, Karen. Any questions? I see none. Jennifer, anything from the public?

We don't have anything for this item.

All right, back to council. Additional questions, comments? What do you guys think of Red's jacket?

It looks snazzy.

Very Miami Vices. All right, additional discussion or motion?

Motion. Second.

I have a motion by Councilmember Harris and a second by Mayor Pro Tem Boyle. Mayor and Council, please cast your votes. And the motion passes unanimously.

Thank you very much.

Agent item K-2, authorization to procure community outreach and informational mailers with ad mail for printing and postage services in Division D for digital marketing, pre-purchases with ad mail in a not to exceed amount of $46,994.53 and approved purchases with Division D in a not to exceed amount of $42,217.50.

Good evening, Jennifer Flackman, senior management analyst and public information officer. And I'm losing my voice. I'm here tonight to request authorization for the next phase of our community engagement efforts, which includes a report back mailer and a digital outreach component. So over the past several months, we've heard from residents through surveys, stakeholder meetings, and other engagement activities regarding their priorities and city services that matter most to them. So this next phase is focusing on closing the loop by sharing back what we've heard in directing the community to additional information and resources. So we're asking for approval to send out an additional mailer, a report back mailer, and we're also asking for approval to do the same with digital outreach.

Questions? Public comment, Jennifer?

We don't have anything for this item.

Okay, back to council, additional discussion, questions or motion?

Motion.

Second.

Okay, I have a motion by Mayor Pro Tem Boyle and a second by Council Member Smith. Mayor and Council, please cast your votes. Okay, the motion passes with Council Member Zhang voting now. Thank you.

Thank you, Jennifer. K-3, Jennifer.

Agenda item K3, adoption of a resolution accepting a California Air Resources Board Community Planning and Capacity Building Grant for the Connect South Merced Safety and Mobility Planning Project appropriating $499,725.60 grant funds and authorizing the city manager to execute the grant agreement and related documents.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Leah Brown, Senior Planner. Tonight I bring before you the Cal Air Resources Board CARB Planning Grant. It is a state-funded program that supports community engagement and transportation planning in disadvantaged communities. Over the next two years, the grant will allow the city to work with South Merced residents to identify transportation needs and priorities. The grant focuses on mobility related issues, including pedestrian safety, bicycle connectivity, public transit access, and reducing transportation barriers for underserved neighborhoods. Community input will help shape future transportation investments and improve access to jobs, schools, healthcare, parks, and other essential services. The city's long-term goal is to pursue the transformative climate communities or TCC implementation funding to support the broader neighborhood improvements and revitalization efforts. As you may recall, the city applied for the TCC planning grant in 2023. We were unsuccessful at that time. Participation in the CARB planning grant will further strengthen our application and better position the city to pursue the next TCC planning and implementation funding. TCC implementation grants provide significant state investment for projects identified by the community, supporting neighborhood revitalization and improvements related to housing, transportation, public health, economic development, parks, and essential environmental sustainability in South Merced. With the help of the outreach and engagement activities that will be supported by Valley Onward and the Lau family and funded through the CARB planning grant, the city will be better positioned to pursue the next TCC planning grant and build upon the work already underway rather than just starting over. Together the CARB and TCC programs create a strategic pathway, CARB planning, TCC planning, and then the TCC implementation, positioning the city to compete for further implementation funding and bring additional investment to South Merced. Accepting the grant allows the city to leverage outside funding and does not require use of general fund dollars. If the grant is accepted, staff will return to council probably with the next meeting to request an authorization for an administrative analyst position to support the grant administration and community engagement activities. The position is fully funded through the grant and would only exist for the duration of the grant. The grant is more than just a planning effort. It's the first step in a broader strategy to bring additional resources and long-term community driven improvements to South Merced. So we're asking for your approval for accepting the grant tonight.

Thank you, Leah. Very excited. Questions? Councilor Dupont.

Thank you, Mary. Thank you, Leah. A couple of questions I have is once this or if approved, how would the projects or how can someone know what community outreach and how to get involved and know what is going on with this South Merced plan? Absolutely.

So we're going to be leveraging our partnerships with South Merced activists South Merced groups like Valley Onward and allow family to reach into the South Merced community. We will be posting information via social media and our website to reach out to the community and it will be a very grassroots effort to work with our South Merced community where they are at. And so, for example, Valley Onward uses , am I saying that right, Jen? So there are promoters that actually, that speak Spanish and will go in door to door and talk to people in the South Merced community in Spanish or English as needed. And then we also have Lao family who will be reaching out with Hmong language. So there's definitely a grassroots effort. And of course, social media, outreach and engagement, we're gonna have that administrative analyst. We need that. that one person who's gonna go out there and really promote. And so we're looking for that potential, right? And that will actually come to you at the next meeting, because first we wanna make sure that you approve it first, and then we'll go through the efforts to hire that special person who will be in charge of the whole program, overseen by planning, of course, but they would be in charge of the program as far as the implementation and the grant administration and working with our community partners.

And then for those individuals in South Merced or just in Merced General that may not have ties to Valley Onward or Merced Lao family or may not have social media, is there a way in which we're going to be engaging with that group of individuals or where can they find more information about the plan?

Yeah, that's it is a very challenging problem that you're proposing is a challenge. And so definitely, that's why we're going to have our our staff here. And we're going to be meeting with people in community based locations like churches and activity events like that. Years ago, I started working with South Merced Community Group via MCOE. And so they have that engage with our South Merced community too. So I'll be tapping into that resource as well. So we'll be reaching out through the school districts because again, they have a broader range directly in those neighborhoods. So we'll be using all different avenues to reach out to people and we might be tapping on you for assistance as well.

yes please use use my assistance um yeah that's one thing i was going to point out i know weaver school district they have parent square and other aspects like that go directly to the parents communication so uh getting to those um those spaces we may not be in how did we um get to the conclusion of valley onward and merced lau family a part of this process i'm going to let ms jen answer that for us

So we reached out to our community-based organizations and asked about their capacity and Valley Onward was, sorry, available to help us and have the capacity to do outreach, conduct community meetings, going to faith-based organizations, talk to community members in South Merced, hold barbecues, hold coffees, things like that. So they have the capacity or that group has the capacity to do what we need for this grant.

Thank you, no further questions.

Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Smith. So I think this is really exciting, but this is a serious question. So how are we defining South Merced?

That is a great question.

Because a lot of what my colleague was just talking about is actually north of the freeway. So is it, I'm really just asking, is it just District 2? Is it parts of D1?

Do we have a definitive answer?

Yes. So as part of the grant, we were required to identify areas south of the freeway. And so I don't have it right. I don't have the grant in front of me. But those are areas that are identified through the Enviro. What is the Cal Enviro screen? Cal Enviro screen.

OK. Well, look, I mean, any time we can use state money to fund information gathering, they can actually help us direct funds where it most needs to go. I'm in favor of it. We appear here a lot of information about community needs assessments. It'd be nice to have kind of a, my words, like an official city directed, you know, community information provided list of needs.

Yeah, this will be an organized strategy to conduct outreach to our residents in South Merced.

Okay. But I would appreciate some follow-up to council, maybe just an email, you know, what is South Merced in this context?

So we'll be coming back to you probably at the next council meeting and we'll include that in our report.

All right, great. Thank you both.

Anybody else? Councilor Jean. Jennifer, to the point you answer, Council Member DuPont, which other groups were reached out to?

Cultiva La Salud. And then we spoke with MCOE's group loosely, but we had extensive conversations with Valley Onward.

And just making sure this wasn't any sort of RFP or RFI for organizations to apply for?

No.

Okay, thank you.

Additional questions? Okay, Jennifer, I think from the public.

I do have one from Jean Okui.

All right, Jean, welcome back.

Thank you. So Mayor and Council Members, I urge you to lay action on this item for 60 days so the Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Committee has time to provide its assessment, which is still missing. Before moving forward, the public deserves clear assurance that Valley Onward and the Merced Lau family have reviewed the South Merced studies completed in 2003, 2007, and 2015, as well as the Merced County Association of Government Multi-Jurisdictional Local Roadway Safety Plan. If the city is the lead applicant and they have the community-based organizations as co-sponsors, were these co-sponsors enlightened to what they are co-sponsoring? Seeing where the earlier awards funded went might reveal just what on the ground improvements actually occurred promoting safety. We need to use funds to actually build safety not just plan or use the funds elsewhere. Let's walk the walk, not just talk the talk. City council voted to adopt the state systems approach. It is questionable whether or not they understand what they approved. In fairness, if this city is intent on actually delivering safety and mobility for South Merced, a maximum of $150,000 should be allocated for administrative costs and the remaining 349,725 be allotted for safety systems approach, quick build street trees, infield planting, curb extensions at school crossings, and priority corridors, safety. Funding should be appropriate for bottom-up infrastructure improvements that will actually make a difference. The people are crying for on the ground improvements. I request you delay action on this item until the public entities are informed. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Quigg. Chair, for anybody else?

That's all we have, Mayor.

Okay, we'll bring it back to Council. Council Member DuPont.

Thank you, Mayor. The total amount that we have for this grant application, what is the definition or the purpose of the grant?

So this is a planning grant. This is not an implementation grant. It is the beginning. It leverages us to get to the point of an implementation grant. So it makes us more competitive for that TCC grant that we had applied for in 2023 and didn't get. So it gives us more to stand on.

So none of the funding in this grant can be used for project-based purposes.

Correct. It is a planning grant.

No further questions.

Anybody else? Councilor Tao.

Well, first I just wanna say thank you guys. and just Scott McBride and staff for working really hard for this project to earn this grant, because grant is not easy to get. And then when you get it, this grant is an opportunity for South Merced resident to engage. And that's something that South Merced resident has always been concerned about, right? So like Leah said, this is a great opportunity. At the same time, I believe that with this grant, it put us city Merced a chance to a position to apply for bigger grant that we can implement and projects that we, you know, we, we, like someone said, or the proceed, I've been wanting to implement, but then, you know, this project is something that can really help us assess and what needs and, you know, find the needs to help us bring the money that we can work on those projects. So thank you so much.

Anybody else? Again, kudos to staff and the subcommittee. Everybody worked hard on this. There's been a lot of people, a lot of public comment over the past years talking about a South Merced study or planning grant. And so here we go. And we got any additional comments? Council Member DuPont.

Just one comment and then a motion. We've been really focused the past year and a half, two years on safety projects in South Merced. We finished the multi-use pathway on Childs that goes from Golden Valley to Weaver. We've done sidewalk and infrastructure projects in and around South Merced and around Don Sol Elementary. So this just further allows us to continue doing those projects in South Merced and in District 1 specifically. So I'm excited for this process. This is just the initial step, right? This is just the initial step of getting this started. people can still conversate and have input on the South Merced planning project. So with that, I move to approve.

Is there a second?

Second. Second.

Boyle has a second. Pending discussion, Council Member Xiong, I request to speak.

Yeah, I just want to give my thoughts here. I've been a big proponent of investing in sophomore set. I think that historically that area of town has been neglected and have a lot of low-income residents living there. I think having grown up there as well, it's important that we truly invest dollars into that location. That being said, I'm actually gonna vote no on this, because I'm not fond of the process in which we got here, right? I don't think it's fair for the city to simply choose the two organizations in which we're partnering with here, rather than putting that out for a bid. I think we have heard repeatedly sophomore state residents come up to this council, not just during this council meetings, but also during our budget meetings in public. it's frustrating seeing that they're already organized. And yet here we are gathering two completely random groups that haven't been doing that work. And yet at the same time, we're not acknowledging the folks that are already doing that work. And so I completely disagree with how this process is moving.

To discount the work that the Lau family has done in South Merced and in the city of Merced is such a disgrace. So, and the population of South Merced has a large population of Hmong individuals. So I think it's really important to have Merced-Lao family a part of this process. So to say that they're new organizations is just completely false. And it's bringing on a narrative that the Laos family has not impacted this community. that's such a disgrace to say comments like that and put aside the work that Merced-Lau family has done for not only South Merced, but also the city of Merced as well.

Councilor Joe. I know Merced-Lau family better than you do. Okay. I'm sorry to say that. All right. but that's just the case of having been in this community. And so, yeah, I do say this. I'm not saying that they haven't been doing work at all with regards to the community, they have. But every time we hear anything with regards to South Merced that has come up at all, these are typically organized already. The folks already met. Tell me, how many people have gone on the South Merced tour? Right, who is that organized by?

Yeah, go ahead, Greg. Thank you, this is a really good discussion. I just wanna thank the staff for working on this. And I just wanna make sure that we don't miss the point here. We applied to get funding for transformative change and we weren't able to get it. And so one of the ways you do that is by going back out to the community and trying to reorganize people that if you're already engaged, it's perfect. You're miles ahead of the game. but you have to get the content in a way that's right for the programs you're trying to apply funds for. And we didn't have that before. And so this gives us a chance to do that. And so that's really why we're here tonight. This is about making future investments in the community that are lasting, they're done right. And we'll take advantage of everyone who's already out doing good work and we'll bring in new partners to help us do that. And I think in the end, we're much stronger from having the opportunity to get these funds to do that work.

Yeah, no, it's a great, whoever takes the lead, it's a great project value onwards, a fantastic organization too. They've been deep in the South Merced for a long time. And I think, yeah, no matter who leads, everybody else can participate as well. All right, with that and need to see no additional comments, Jennifer will call for the question.

We have a motion by Council Member Dupont and a second by Mayor Pro Tem Boyle. The motion will include the adoption of Resolution 2026-34, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Merced, California, accepting a California Air Resources Board Community Planning and Capacity Building Grant for the Connect South Merced Safety and Mobility Planning Projects and authorizing the City Manager to sign the grant agreement. Mayor and Council, please cast your votes. Okay, the motion passes with Council Member Zhang voting no.

All right, thank you, Lee and Jennifer. K-4, Jennifer.

Okay, agenda item K-4, consider the Recreation and Parks Commission recommendation to award the use of Stephen Leonard Youth Center to Merced Community College through a five-year lease agreement.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, City Council, residents of Merced. Chris Jensen, Parks and Community Services Director, here before you this evening to ask for your consideration of following up on the recommendation made by your Recreation and Parks Commission. Just a little bit of history on this item. Stephen Leonard Youth Center has been in operation in the community for Merced for decades, serving the residents of Stephen Leonard, around Stephen Leonard Park and beyond in South Merced. This facility is right across the street from Sheehy Middle School, located in a neighborhood park that has a skate park, splash pad, playgrounds, and other amenities that the community uses quite often. So it's a local resource. This council made significant investments over the past few years as a result of a unfortunate fire that took place several years ago. Those investments included local funds, federal dollars, and then also some economic opportunity funds as well to make sure that this facility was meeting a variety of needs in the community of South Merced. A little bit of history about the way we utilize youth or recreation centers through parks and community services. They are outsourced to community groups, sometimes nonprofits, community organizations, or other industry partners. we have two forms of agreements that we do these partnerships through. One is a service agreement where the utility bills and other costs of operations are sometimes subsidized by the city of Merced. This case, we are looking at a lease agreement, which is what we have with the McCombs Youth Center and looking to employ here at Stephen Leonard Youth Center as well. The difference here being that the operator of this has to have the financial capacity to not require subsidy by the general fund. So just a quick recap on what brought us here today. The center caught fire in 2002 and required significant reservations as a result. Great effort was used to ensure the building was made available for tenants to expand youth, family, and workforce development in this area. The Parks and Community Services Department released a request for interest to public in January of this year and closed February 20th. The Recreation Commission held meetings on February 23rd but without quorum held a special meeting on March 3rd to establish a review committee of three commissioners. These commissioners met to review each of the proposals that were submitted to the department for interest in use of the facility. and the subcommittee met in our department on March 19th after hours. I do wanna give these commissioners a shout out. They spent three hours reviewing all of these in great detail to come up with their recommendation to the rest of the commission. This is not easy work and not a whole lot of formal training is provided. These are community volunteers that step up as commissioners and take on a lot of weight to make these hefty decisions. The proposal review by the subcommittee followed a certain set of criteria that were reflective of the RFP that was released for the community's consideration. The first area was community impact alignment, making sure that we knew that the applicant was submitting proposals that touched on needs that we had heard from community organizations or individuals from that area. The second was program strength and clarity, making sure that The message was obvious as to what the vendor wanted to apply in the community or alongside the community, the experience and ability to deliver. It's great to have an idea, but can you implement it? Do you have that capacity to follow it through the financial and operational stability? Again, we talked about the difference between a service agreement with our department and a lease agreement, making sure that this that this service provider was able to operate free and clear of required funds from the general fund? And last facility activation and fit, what was the plan for use of the facility itself and also the rest of the park in the surrounding area? The subcommittee met and created a forced ranking system. So they considered each individual applicant one at a time. And if they liked the most recent reviewed applicant better than the prior reviewed, that one moved up into the number one spot. They did that over and over again until they went through all seven applications. We do want to thank all seven applicants that submitted applications. It was very obvious from reading through the proposals individually and collectively that a lot of heart and passion for our community exists in a variety of organizations at Merced. The first ranked applicant was Merced Community College. They focused on teen and adult education, workforce development, family supports, and specifically for children, the College for Kids program. Some of the strengths and concerns that were brought up by the subcommittee are mentioned there. The Youth Leadership Institute was the second highest ranked applicant with a history of successful teen center operation in the city of Merced, focused on teen healing, navigation, linkages, and civic engagement and leadership. The Dr. Jennifer Jones, excuse me, Dr. Jennifer M. Jones Foundation was the third ranked applicant focusing on tutoring, housing stability, mentorship, career readiness, and workshops. We do wanna thank Dr. Jennifer Jones and her staff for applying. I would like to note that they humbly bowed out of the application process at a follow-up meeting that took place later in April. Next, we had the Community Commons Collaborative. This was a resource hub of seven different community organizations. They were looking to offer multilingual programs, arts and crafts, safety education, sobriety support, legal assistance, and opioid education. God's Love Outreach Ministries, or GLOM, was ranked sixth, and they focused on afterschool activities, workforce readiness, life skill training, family engagement, culturally responsive enrichment. And last with Cal Links. This is a relatively new organization to the County of Merced, traditionally from Salinas area, came over the hill and has had some relative success in recent years in the community of Los Banos, who was looking to create roots here in the city of Merced to offer similar services. On March 23rd, the recreation commission denied their subcommittee's recommendation and requested instead to have the applicants present their proposals to the full commission for consideration. On April 27th, excuse me, April 27th, all proposers were invited to present their full, to the full recreation commission. All but one, which was noted earlier, presented proposals to the commission who made the following recommendation. Once again, Merced Community College was ranked number one and the commission provided two alternates for your consideration should Merced Community College decide not to follow through with the lease agreement, which would be Cal Links and Glom. So tonight for City Council action is to accept the recommendation made by the Parks and Recreation, excuse me, Recreation and Parks Commission for the lease of Stephen Leonard Youth Center, or deny that recommendation and provide alternate direction to staff. We do have the lead applicant here if Council has any questions about their proposal, which was also attached to the administrative report.

Okay. Thank you, Chris. Any questions for our Director of Parks and Community Services? Jennifer, anything from the public?

We don't have anything for this item.

Okay, bring it back to council. Additional questions, discussion, or a motion?

Motion.

Second. Okay, motion second. Pending to session, Council Member Tau. Okay, Jennifer, we'll call for the question.

Okay, I have a motion by Council Member Harris and a second by Council Member DuPont. Mayor and Council, please cast your votes. Okay, the motion passes unanimously, or the motion passes with Council Member Zhang voting no. Thank you.

Thank you, Jennifer.

Okay, agenda item K5, request to authorize the city manager to execute contract change order number four with American Paving Company for the additional construction of the third phase of development as Community Park 42 in an amount not to exceed $1,107,754.63 for additional work on Community Park 42.

Good evening council and mayor. So tonight we're looking at change order number four. We're hoping this is the last change order. And how do we, how do I change this? I just, okay. We all look younger in that picture. In 2001, council authorized $5 million in ARPA funds towards the construction of CP42. The base bid award was $5.8 million, and that's everything that's in lined in the red. It excludes the basketball courts, the shade structure, and the play area, and also the two soccer fields to the south. It did include the two soccer fields to the north, tennis courts, pickleball courts, volleyball courts, the futsal parking, pathway lighting, and some parking and pathways. In 2023-24, council approved change order one for $1.3 million. This added pathways in the central area concession, restroom infrastructure, the playground prep area, and the large picnic area that's on the bottom left. That's the big shade structure. In January of 2024, council approved change order number two for $1.5 million. This added additional grading irrigation for the two additional soccer fields to the south. It also added some pathway lighting or pathway, uh, uh, pathways, the sidewalks. It also added two additional, I'm sorry, they added two basketball courts, landscaping and field lights to the pathways. In August, 2024, change order number three for $1.6 million. Council approved it. It added the Musco lights, the shade structure, The frontage landscaping and the parking lot to the northeast corner just above the existing parking lot. And that's just basically just a flat piece of asphalt that we're going to stripe later for bus parking, any additional parking that may be needed for the park. And tonight we're asking council to approve change order number four. Change order number four includes amenities required for pickleball and the basketball courts. We've met with the Merced County, the Merced County Office of Ed and the Merced High School Districts, which is our partners for the JPA and discussed how to construct or how to finish the southern parts of the park. They agreed they would allow us to use the Merced County ARPA funds and that would add additional exterior fencing along Tyler Road, the fifth soccer field and some ADA fire lanes and additional pathway lightings and some additional landscaping green space. And they also requested that we install this smaller restroom, which council approved a month or so ago. Tonight we're requesting council waive the competitive bidding process and award additional sidewalk for single source. The single source process are allowed for the standardization of specific equipment, supplies, or for reasonable reasons of capability or compatibility. the authorization provided in the city charter and it's 3.04.210. And as far as the restroom, we got noted today that the rest of the state had approved the restroom. And so the restroom is under construction and should arrive in late July, early August.

And any questions? Questions for Mr. Cardozo?

You got anything to add, Chris? And that is the park as it is today. We're just about there.

I'll just sit here and watch that for a minute. Where's the fifth field gonna be closer to mission or if you go back to the map, where's...

So the fifth field will be just below the basketball course. I don't know if I can. Yep. They're a lot better than this than I am.

Got it. Okay. And that'll leave the sixth field, some more basketball courts and then landscaping and some other stuff.

Yes, and the fields that are in green have lighting. So those will be able to play at night. The fifth field will only have overflow lighting from the adjacent field. Okay.

Councilor Schmidt. Thank you, Mr. Cardozo. So you made us all laugh. Why is this hopefully the last change order, not the last change order? This is the last change order. How do you know? Because we're out of money. Okay.

That's what I want to get at. Thank you. This is it. Very cool. It gets a little better every time. Jennifer, anything for the public?

We have nothing on this item.

All right. Additional discussion, questions from council or a motion? Councilor DuPont?

uh thank you joe for the presentation uh thank you director jensen for the hard work on this project i think you guys see from uh the photos uh in the presentation that uh it's coming to fruition one of the things that i'd like to point out to kind of closer to the pickleball courts is we did some grading as well as some aggregate work closer to the pick wall courts for extra parking so people didn't have to walk all the way out. So all in all, this project is going to be really good. You'll see in the top picture there. This project is going to be really good for Southeast Merced, South Merced, and it just brings more regionality to the area. So with that, I'll make a motion to approve.

Second.

Motion to second. Okay, Jennifer.

Okay, I have a motion by Council Member DuPont and a second by Mayor Pro Tem Boyle. Mayor and Council, please cast your votes. Council Member Bichon. And the motion passes unanimously.

Thank you. All right. Thank you guys. A plus project. Really good.

Okay. Agenda item L business L1 report on the arts and culture advisory commission selection of the metal canal street blossom public art project in the arch at Bob, Bob Hart square design award.

Slack.

Good evening, so this is an exciting project. We had two submissions and this subcommittee got together and reviewed the submissions and this particular one blew us out of the water. So I'm gonna go through, can I, there we go. So Eddie Magana is a sculptor and he is from Merced and lives in Los Angeles, but his work is throughout the United States. And so his intent is to create a work that honors the rich agricultural history of Canal Street. So he incorporated images of Old Canal and long-lost historical buildings. Oops. And so he included these in his presentation or his submission as inspiration. And so I'm going to flip through those. So this is a three, I don't know if you would call it dimensional, but a three-layered metal design. And so following, this is the abstract flower pattern that you see up on top of the circle and then the design itself is in the circle. So this is part of his manufacturing process with the CNC plasma cutter and then he'll weld three pieces together to create that dimension. And so that is the inspiration. And he could not give us a finished product because he needs to manufacture it. So it'll be manufactured in his studio and then installed with oversight from our engineering department.

Questions?

Customer Jean. Jennifer, would there be any colors to the design?

It's a metal. It's just a... metal i don't know would you go silver color metal is silver so yes it there are no colors other than the metal okay i mean it will look really beautiful in color yes we're super excited so um we um are looking at december 31st as the last project day but of course if he manufactures it sooner we'll we'll create um a grand opening and an unveiling for the project when he installs it because we're here

Thank you, Mayor. I think it's gorgeous. I don't think it really completes the whole arch.

We are part of the inspiration to Ken Elwin because he gave us the idea of honoring Canal Street. So he's.

He's probably at home in his home art studio right now.

Thinking of other concepts.

Jennifer, anything for the pull up?

Nothing for this item, Mayor.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Agenda item M, business. M1, request to add item to future agenda.

All right, on my left, council member Tao. Nothing for me. Council member Smith. No, thank you. Council member Harris.

Nothing tonight.

Council member Jean. Nothing. Council member DuPont. Nothing. Mayor Pro Tem Boyle.

Nothing this evening.

Nothing for me either.

Agenda item M2, city council comments.

On my right, Mayor Pro Tem Boyle.

Nothing this evening.

Council Member DuPont. Nothing tonight. Council Member Jean. Nothing. Council Member Harris.

The Vallarta opening was amazing.

Council Member Smith. I'll defer, thank you. Council Member Tapp. Nothing. All right, nothing from me.

Agenda item in adjournment.

All right, Mayor Pro Tem Boyle, turn it over to you.

Thank you. I would like to motion tonight's adjournment in honor of two individuals in our community who has passed away. The first one is Dawn Bergman, who was a former council member, Marine veteran, and also at one point was the MRSA chamber president. and then also Dan Gallagher, who passed away on June 8th, and he was a commercial real estate agent here in Merced. Second.

Okay, I have a motion by Mayor Pro Tem Boyle and a second by Council Member Smith. Mayor and Council, please cast your votes. And the motion passes unanimously.

All right, thank you, Jennifer. Thank you all. 1032.