OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Merced City Council Regular Meeting – January 20, 2026

City Council & CommissionsTuesday, January 20, 2026
BodyMerced, California
SessionCity Council & Commissions
DateTuesday, January 20, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 4:22:46

Transcript — Verbatim
0:00

To order.

0:02

Okay, agenda item A study session roll call.

0:05

Councilmember DuPont.

0:06

Present.

0:07

Tao.

0:07

Present.

0:08

Harris.

0:09

Present.

0:09

Smith.

0:10

Present.

0:10

Sean.

0:11

Mayor Pro Tem Boyle.

0:13

Here.

0:13

And Mayor Serrado.

0:15

Okay, agenda item B, study session B1 study session for solid waste collection and related services rate study.

0:32

Glen Coordinator.

0:33

Is that better?

0:34

Sorry.

0:35

Okay.

0:36

Um we're here to present our rate study to you, and I have our consultant Garth Schultz here to do the presentation.

0:47

Good evening, Mayor Pro Tem Council.

0:50

Um I'm Garth Schultz.

0:51

I'm principal and president of R3 consulting group, joined by my colleague Jordan Muratsuchi.

0:57

Together we did the rate study for you this evening on your solid waste rates.

1:01

Uh we actually, uh, as our firm did our last weight rate study for you about seven years ago.

1:06

So it's nice to be in this room again and speaking to all of you about uh the next steps in your future solid waste rate adjustments.

1:13

So, in terms of this evening's presentation, ultimately, uh, we've got a presentation for you that covers uh recommended rate adjustments and their reasons for them, as well as options available to the council.

1:25

We are seeking council direction this evening with respect to which of the options uh you would like to see moving forward, or if you have variance on those options, and then to direct staff to proceed to issue the 45 day proposition 218 notice to ratepayers uh so that you can have your rates come back to you at a future public hearing and be considered for adoption by the council.

1:48

We've got a little bit of background for you first.

1:50

Um you may know this already, but it's just helpful to cover this in terms of a base.

1:54

What we're talking about when we talk about solid waste services is ultimately those trucks that go by every home and business in the city on a weekly basis to collect garbage, recycling, and organics.

2:07

They're important for health and safety and reduction of vectors.

2:10

Uh, they're also important in terms of compliance with mandatory state laws that the city or that the state pushes on all local jurisdictions in California.

2:19

Um, our firm here, we conducted a rate and financial analysis and projections over multiple years.

2:25

We haven't done an operation study of your operations, but what we can tell, having worked with your staff on this over the course of the last year, is that they appear well managed and well run.

2:36

Your solid waste rates at present are reasonable, they're proportionate to the cost of providing service, and overall the fiscal house has been in relatively good order.

2:44

Um that said, revenues to your to fund your solid waste collection services uh do require some adjustment.

2:52

Without adjustment, the rates don't continue to escalate with the escalating cost of providing service, which is largely labor and capital and fuel driven, and those costs, of course, change and tend to increase over time.

3:04

Uh so those adjustments are necessary in the course of the coming five years in order to maintain the health of this operation and to maintain the current services that your residents and businesses in the city enjoys.

3:16

In terms of future action that you would make, you may authorize up to five years worth of rates at once in one action.

3:24

That's what you did back in 2019 for your prior five-year rate adjustment.

3:28

Uh, there aren't any other ongoing adjustments outside of a five-year rate schedule.

3:32

So you can't adopt it once and have it go on for CPI in perpetuity.

3:36

So it is necessary to come back to council uh at minimum every five years in order to reauthorize rates.

3:43

In terms of our recommendations, um, what we've found is that um even year-to-year fiscal year to fiscal year rate adjustments uh will be sufficient.

3:52

You don't need an initial bump, um, even though the last couple of years there have been no rate adjustments, and we're recommending rate adjustments somewhere between 4.5 and 5.3%, corresponding to the two options that we put before you this evening.

4:07

Oh, sorry, that was the wrong direction.

4:09

Um a little bit of background.

4:11

Um, so as I mentioned, we did your last five-year solid waste rate study, which was culminated in 2019.

4:17

That's set in uh the council at the time at authorized rate adjustments for the following five fiscal years.

4:24

That last rate adjustment was uh nearly three years ago at this point coming up in July.

4:29

Uh so that would you haven't had rate adjustments uh since July 1, 2023, meaning those rates have me remained flat and residents and businesses have enjoyed that.

4:38

Um that's at the same time, primary cost drivers, which I covered before, do tend to escalate over time.

4:43

And I've also mentioned that the uh solid waste fund, again, you have healthy reserves within the fund at this point.

4:49

Uh it's sufficient to maintain operations in the near term, but without rate adjustments, it will be depleted uh over the course of the coming five years.

4:57

And I've actually got a chart that shows you that in just a couple slides.

5:01

Whenever we do these rate studies, the first thing we're looking at is what are the sources of revenues and understanding those.

5:06

And it is important for the council and the community at home to understand this is a rate funded operation.

5:13

It's not there's no other city funds that are going to provide your solid waste rate services, though there are very small amounts of state grants that support kind of periodic programs.

5:23

They are de minimis in the grand scheme of the overall uh structure of the finances for this operation.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Fiscal Sustainability█████████████████████████25%
Public Works███████████████15%
Public Engagement█████████████13%
Water And Wastewater Management██████████10%
Procedural█████████9%
Public Safety████4%
Urban Planning████4%
Community Engagement███3%
Affordable Housing███3%
Summary of Proceedings

Merced City Council Regular Meeting – January 20, 2026

The Merced City Council convened on January 20, 2026, at 6:00 PM in the City Council Chamber. The meeting included a study session on solid waste collection rates, a public hearing on maintenance district assessments, action on several contracts and grants, and a report on council goals and priorities. Key actions included the acceptance of a $28.2 million Homekey+ grant for affordable housing, general support for a preliminary annexation, and approval of funding for community engagement services. The council also continued a tree removal contract item after a bid protest and directed staff to proceed with a 45-day Proposition 218 notice for solid waste rate adjustments.

Study Session – Solid Waste Collection Rate Study

  • The council reviewed a rate study for solid waste services, presented by consultant Garth Schultz of R3 Consulting Group. Current annual revenues ($24.35M) are below annual expenses ($26.4M), and without adjustments, the fund balance would be depleted by fiscal year 2030–2031. Two options were presented: Option 1 – annual 5.3% increases for five years; Option 2 – annual 4.5% increases for five years followed by higher increases (up to 7.2%) in years six through ten. The study noted that capital costs for zero-emission refuse trucks (estimated to double post-2030) are not forecasted in this five-year window. Councilmembers discussed the options, with some favoring a constant 5.3% increase to avoid a future spike. No formal direction was given; staff was asked to bring the item back to a future meeting to launch the Proposition 218 process.

Consent Calendar

  • K.1–K.12: Ordinances, minutes, and routine approvals were adopted by a single motion, except items K.3, K.8, and K.12 which were pulled for separate consideration.
    • K.3 (OTS Grant): Authorized the police department to apply for up to $427,500 from the California Office of Traffic Safety for DUI enforcement, traffic safety, and related activities. Passed 6–1 (Councilmember Zhang voted no).
    • K.8 (Tree Pruning Service Agreement): A service agreement with West Coast Arborists in an amount not to exceed $413,000 was continued to the next meeting after a bid protest from United Pacific Services alleged it was the lowest bidder. The motion to continue passed unanimously.
    • K.12 (Speed Limits Ordinance): Second reading and adoption of Ordinance 2584 was approved unanimously, with three street segments (Bear Creek Drive, Mansionette Drive, Olive Avenue) referred for further study.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Mike Weber (Superintendent, Weaver Union School District) and Zachary Kaikendall (community member) spoke during the public comment period, urging the council to plan for school impacts from new development. They noted that developer fees only cover a fraction of school construction costs and that Weaver District is already over capacity. Both asked for mitigation measures as growth proceeds.
  • During the maintenance district public hearing, several residents expressed opposition to proposed assessment increases, particularly in Fahrens Park (a jump from ~$31 to $414 per year). Speakers Richard Garcia, Ted Woods, and Shannon questioned the magnitude of the increases, the inclusion of major road maintenance, and the quality of tree trimming. The public hearing was closed, and ballots will be counted on January 21, with results reported on February 2, 2026.

Discussion Items

  • M.1 – Homekey+ Grant for Mercy Village: The council accepted a $28,257,013 conditional grant for a 65-unit permanent supportive housing project at 3015 Park Avenue, in partnership with UPholdings and Self-Help Enterprises. Approved unanimously.
  • M.2 – Preliminary Annexation Support (Mission West): The council expressed general support for a pre-annexation application covering 133+ acres at the southeast corner of Mission Avenue and State Highway 59. The project proposes 618 dwelling units, commercial, and business park space. Passed 6–1 (Councilmember Zhang voted no), with some members noting the need for a community plan and school mitigation.
  • M.3 – Environmental Document for Ardison and Baxter Annexations: The council approved a professional services agreement ($45,068) and a reimbursement agreement ($49,574.80) for environmental review of two adjacent annexations totaling ~208 acres, expected to yield about 786 housing units. Councilmembers Smith and DuPont recused themselves; passed unanimously.
  • M.4 – Community Engagement Contract with Lew Edwards Group: The council approved a $104,375 appropriation and contract for community outreach and communications consulting, to support potential future ballot measures. The discussion included polling results showing 63% support for a general-purpose tax. Passed 6–1 (Councilmember Zhang voted no).
  • M.5 – Gateway to Yosemite Run Proceeds: Accepted $9,178 in race registration fees and a $2,000 sponsorship from CVOF, appropriating some funds to the Aletha June All-Inclusive Playground at General Vang Pao Park. Approved unanimously.

Key Outcomes

  • Solid Waste Rates: Staff was directed to schedule a future meeting to formally launch the Proposition 218 process, with council feedback favoring a constant rate adjustment (likely ~5.3% annually).
  • Tree Pruning Contract: Continued to the next regular meeting to allow staff to address the bid protest from United Pacific Services.
  • Speed Limits: Ordinance 2584 adopted; three street segments referred for further speed study.
  • Maintenance District Assessments: Public hearing closed; ballot counting on January 21, results to be reported February 2.
  • High-Speed Rail Letter: Councilmember Harris successfully requested adding an item to the January 27, 2026 study session agenda to discuss a letter of support for a Southeast Merced high-speed rail station (passed 6–1).
  • Goals and Priorities: The council received an update on 2025 goals and draft 2026/27 department mission goals and CIP requests; a goal-setting session is scheduled for January 31.

Meeting Transcript

To order. Okay, agenda item A study session roll call. Councilmember DuPont. Present. Tao. Present. Harris. Present. Smith. Present. Sean. Mayor Pro Tem Boyle. Here. And Mayor Serrado. Okay, agenda item B, study session B1 study session for solid waste collection and related services rate study. Glen Coordinator. Is that better? Sorry. Okay. Um we're here to present our rate study to you, and I have our consultant Garth Schultz here to do the presentation. Good evening, Mayor Pro Tem Council. Um I'm Garth Schultz. I'm principal and president of R3 consulting group, joined by my colleague Jordan Muratsuchi. Together we did the rate study for you this evening on your solid waste rates. Uh we actually, uh, as our firm did our last weight rate study for you about seven years ago. So it's nice to be in this room again and speaking to all of you about uh the next steps in your future solid waste rate adjustments. So, in terms of this evening's presentation, ultimately, uh, we've got a presentation for you that covers uh recommended rate adjustments and their reasons for them, as well as options available to the council. We are seeking council direction this evening with respect to which of the options uh you would like to see moving forward, or if you have variance on those options, and then to direct staff to proceed to issue the 45 day proposition 218 notice to ratepayers uh so that you can have your rates come back to you at a future public hearing and be considered for adoption by the council. We've got a little bit of background for you first. Um you may know this already, but it's just helpful to cover this in terms of a base. What we're talking about when we talk about solid waste services is ultimately those trucks that go by every home and business in the city on a weekly basis to collect garbage, recycling, and organics. They're important for health and safety and reduction of vectors. Uh, they're also important in terms of compliance with mandatory state laws that the city or that the state pushes on all local jurisdictions in California. Um, our firm here, we conducted a rate and financial analysis and projections over multiple years. We haven't done an operation study of your operations, but what we can tell, having worked with your staff on this over the course of the last year, is that they appear well managed and well run. Your solid waste rates at present are reasonable, they're proportionate to the cost of providing service, and overall the fiscal house has been in relatively good order. Um that said, revenues to your to fund your solid waste collection services uh do require some adjustment. Without adjustment, the rates don't continue to escalate with the escalating cost of providing service, which is largely labor and capital and fuel driven, and those costs, of course, change and tend to increase over time. Uh so those adjustments are necessary in the course of the coming five years in order to maintain the health of this operation and to maintain the current services that your residents and businesses in the city enjoys. In terms of future action that you would make, you may authorize up to five years worth of rates at once in one action. That's what you did back in 2019 for your prior five-year rate adjustment. Uh, there aren't any other ongoing adjustments outside of a five-year rate schedule. So you can't adopt it once and have it go on for CPI in perpetuity. So it is necessary to come back to council uh at minimum every five years in order to reauthorize rates. In terms of our recommendations, um, what we've found is that um even year-to-year fiscal year to fiscal year rate adjustments uh will be sufficient. You don't need an initial bump, um, even though the last couple of years there have been no rate adjustments, and we're recommending rate adjustments somewhere between 4.5 and 5.3%, corresponding to the two options that we put before you this evening. Oh, sorry, that was the wrong direction. Um a little bit of background. Um, so as I mentioned, we did your last five-year solid waste rate study, which was culminated in 2019. That's set in uh the council at the time at authorized rate adjustments for the following five fiscal years.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com