Merced City Council Special Meeting: High-Speed Rail Merced Station Update (January 12, 2026)

The Merced City Council held a special meeting on January 12, 2026, at 6:00 PM in the Council Chamber to consider agenda item D.1, an update from the California High Speed Rail Authority on a proposed conceptual relocation of the Merced station from Downtown Merced to Southeast Merced. After the presentation, public comment, and council deliberation, the council did not vote to support or oppose the relocation. Instead, it directed the Council Transportation/High Speed Rail Subcommittee to continue working with staff, county partners, and the authority and to return with a summary proposal for further council consideration.

Presentation and Staff Report

• Deputy City Manager Quintero introduced the item and said the authority's August 2025 supplemental project update had suggested re-sequencing the Merced station without specifying when it would be built and had proposed rerouting the high-speed rail line from Madera to Gilroy. He noted that Proposition 1A (2008) required a Merced stop on the Los Angeles-San Francisco system and that SB 198 (2022) specifically called for a downtown Merced station.
• Peter Whippy, Chief of External Affairs for the California High Speed Rail Authority, said the authority is proposing a site fewer than four miles southeast of downtown, generally west of Highway 99 and south of Mission Boulevard. He said a downtown station would require acquisition and relocation of the McCombs Youth Center leased by the Boys & Girls Club, the Merced Senior Community Center, and businesses including In-N-Out Burger, Pazin and Myers, and El Bahio Market, and would bring years of severe disruption.
• Whippy said the Southeast Merced location is along the already environmentally cleared alignment, provides more certainty and a clear, fundable path, avoids years of downtown construction, and supports future growth and a UC Merced connection via Campus Parkway. He highlighted authority milestones: 119 miles of civil work from Kern to Madera County, a track and systems contractor expected this summer, a private-delivery-partner procurement, and a clean-power RFEI issued the previous week.
• In response to council questions, authority representatives said no renderings or designs exist yet for a Southeast Merced station; there had been no discussions with UC Merced; changing the station location would require amending SB 198; and some environmental re-examination would be required. They also said the downtown station would cost billions more and add roughly two to three years of heavy construction. Construction in downtown Fresno began in 2015 and is projected to finish in December 2026.
• The authority's draft business plan is expected around February 13, with the final plan due in May. Authority staff said an indication by about the end of January would be needed to remove ambiguity about Merced from the draft business plan.

Public Comments & Testimony

• The City Clerk noted that emails from Strong Towns Merced and Rosie Campania regarding item D.1 were received by the 1 p.m. deadline and posted to the city's website.
• Ron Radney, President of Merced Senior Citizens Inc., supported relocation to Southeast Merced, saying it could prevent demolition of the Senior Center his nonprofit helped fund in 1994 and has managed for 31 years, and preserve businesses that generate significant tax revenue.
• Curtis Thomas, a District 1 resident, supported option B, which would direct staff to provide analysis. He urged the city to obtain written authority commitments that Merced will remain in the initial operating segment, secure commitments from state legislators, and pursue revival of Valley Rail/ACE. He said if those commitments cannot be secured, the city should not agree to relocation.
• John Carcos supported option B and urged 'trust but verify,' including questioning the authority's travel-time claims. He said a station that is just a platform with a pergola would not be acceptable.
• Keith Ensminger, District 2 representative on the HSR station advisory committee, emphasized coordinated transit and last-mile connections, including buses timed to arrive within about 10 minutes of trains, and referenced UC Merced Community and Labor Center surveys.
• Robert Delina, a Southeast Merced landowner/developer, said about 300 to 400 homes could be built in the corridor. He supported relocation only if done correctly, with impacts mitigated, housing kept affordable, and infrastructure such as water, sewer, and Campus Parkway connections provided. He wanted the Merced section built promptly.
• Eric Serrato, president of the Downtown Neighborhood Association, expressed support for moving the station to Campus Parkway, citing preservation of the Senior Center and Boys & Girls Club facilities, the possibility of releasing land-banked downtown property, and stronger connections to UC Merced.
• Marilyn Sobel, a North Merced resident, supported option B. She cited unanswered questions about transit access, pollution, UC Merced's opinion, and the long-term consequences of a station meant to last 50 to 100 years.
• Eric Ham presented property tax data: downtown Merced generates about $274,000 in property tax on 1.4 acres, or about $195,000 per acre; Campus Parkway generates about $292,000 on 8.3 acres, or about $35,000 per acre; and the Merced Mall generates about $322,000 on 27.43 acres, or about $12,000 per acre. He warned that a southeast station could shift infrastructure costs to the city and asked whether the authority would compensate for lost downtown value.
• Livingston City Councilmember Jubjeet Singhupal, a UC Merced alum, strongly supported high-speed rail and moving forward with a faster, more efficient plan, and offered lobbying assistance.
• Sandra Uribe, a land use and policy advocate for Leadership Counsel, supported option B and said South Merced is a disadvantaged environmental justice community. She asked for more information on vehicle miles traveled, air quality, noise, economic vitality, and how funding would be shifted.
• Gene O'Kouy, a farmer and former Merced County Farm Bureau president, supported option B and raised concerns about Pacheco Pass costs, floodplain development, and building away from existing city services.
• Edward Flores, a North Merced resident, cited a UC Merced Community and Labor Center survey of 407 residents in four disadvantaged census tracts conducted October-December 2024. He said residents were largely supportive of downtown high-speed rail development, 60% felt it would provide enhanced transportation options, and 90% favored extensive community engagement.
• Rin Shields, a South Merced resident, asked to see actual images of the proposed site, noted existing noise and air pollution and limited transit in South Merced, and said relocation plans for displaced facilities should be addressed.
• UC Merced Chancellor Munoz said the university has always supported high-speed rail in Merced and is willing to be engaged; he cited more than 9,000 students, thousands of faculty and staff, and a growing medical enterprise.
• Patty Vasquez supported moving the station to South Merced but asked that downtown Merced still receive infrastructure investment such as roads, sewer, and water.
• Rosie Campania, a Merced resident, supported option B and asked for deeper analysis, including studying a State Route 140 alignment and bringing Caltrans into the conversation early.
• Gloria Valdovinos, Executive Director of the Downtown Merced Partnership and Visit Merced, argued against moving the station away from downtown, saying downtown is an economic engine with existing businesses, housing, culture, and walkability, and that a southeast station would separate visitors from the city center.

Council Discussion and Direction

• Councilmember Harris supported option B, saying there were too many unanswered questions for a vote to support or oppose the relocation.
• Mayor Pro Tem Boyle supported relocation and supported conducting staff analysis together with subcommittee work. She said giving the authority a green light would allow it to begin providing answers and that the southeast site is a major economic development opportunity.
• Councilmember Smith said the council did not need city staff to analyze the issue; the authority should do that work. He signaled openness to a Southeast Merced station if it comes with substantial benefits for the city, including a new southeast fire station, police resources, Mission Boulevard improvements, and completion of Campus Parkway to UC Merced. He said a formal up-or-down vote was not appropriate, but the council needed to move quickly because of the state's February and May deadlines.
• Councilmember DuPont said he liked the southeast location for his district but had many unanswered questions about infrastructure, compensation, Mission Boulevard, Campus Parkway, annexation, and SB 198 amendment language. He said he could signal support informally but would not support a formal vote that night.
• Councilmember Zhang criticized the lack of community engagement and said faster and cheaper does not always mean better. He wanted town halls, visuals for residents, and more analysis before a decision.
• Councilmember Harris expressed frustration that subcommittee discussions since September left other councilmembers and the public catching up, with only a 30- to 40-minute authority briefing before the meeting.
• Mayor Serrado supported voting to signal support for relocation that night while continuing analysis. He noted roughly $232,000 remained from a $500,000 authority grant for station planning, cited a $250 million state support precedent for downtown Fresno, and said the downtown plan endangered 10 to 12 of the city's top 20 sales-tax producers.
• Authority staff said an answer by the end of January would be needed to include the Merced station in the draft business plan.

Key Outcomes

• A motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember DuPont, passed 5-2, directing the Council Transportation/High Speed Rail Subcommittee to meet further with county partners, the High Speed Rail Authority, and staff; consider the issues raised at the meeting; and return with a more crystallized summary proposal so the council can decide whether to support moving the station from downtown Merced. Mayor Pro Tem Boyle and Councilmember Zhang voted no.
• The council did not take a formal vote to support or oppose the relocation, and it did not order a standalone staff analysis alone. The adopted direction effectively combined further analysis with subcommittee work.
• The council planned to aim for the second council meeting in February, roughly 30 to 35 days away, rather than the full 45 days, if the work could be completed.
• Issues the subcommittee was asked to address include Mission Boulevard improvements, a southeast fire station, annexation procedures, Campus Parkway completion, transit and last-mile connections, SB 198 amendment language, station design, infrastructure to support development, downtown mitigation, power generation, and community outreach.
• The council then adjourned unanimously in honor of Violet Walker, daughter of Merced Fire Captain Mark Walker, and Norman Rolfe, founder of Rolfe Construction.