[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6152417,"mediaKeyId","5498530-6b6d2366b057dd4470a9946de44fe423","parentId",5498530,"title","Merced supervisors back stakeholder outreach on flood control district; engineering, funding questions remain","audioSeconds",3205,"startMs",3305000,"endMs",6510000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5498530-6b6d2366b057dd4470a9946de44fe423&start=3305&end=6510","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5498530-6b6d2366b057dd4470a9946de44fe423/thumbnail_3305000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6152417/Merced-County/California/Merced-supervisors-back-stakeholder-outreach-on-flood-control-district-engineering-funding-questions-remain","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6152417-49b5591e55cb27125c654772ed6fc2d0/orig.mp4?Expires=1770554276&Signature=PB2NGMF~guGjz3g0Oj15ln1wZIdGLJMksw9l6lSXTSbQmsOHPgBY5PQbENisORtVL3~9GsbPb-IAbtqN0GH1HDjusWUfydLX0sH9PsCZxwg5JVIJfNBPCveRpqOD1Q3oBBMBU-k7AJ4323K~0h6mkBNdjX-5J7YldvX23neKkaJFk4zEKT27Dz66lwqXsLD2EkFCjfhfIOn~pjwlZ9WLvextlDLBXSc-iQCPX8Qjab3JVZlpn1KO18DQXyS3o28~rkxoerHuWd7jTIoUPyq1WC8lIiw5fM3qbpDK3Elgpsp9NgKuVuy4UKKG0kJLIqW5W-rIV5gd0XnvPd~GCbKebA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Merced County, CA","date","2025-07-22T00:00:00Z","article","The Merced County Board of Supervisors on July 22 directed staff to begin broad stakeholder engagement and examine governance options for the county’s statutorily created Flood Control District after a multi‑agency presentation outlined jurisdiction, potential projects and funding mechanisms.

Mark Hendrickson, the county executive officer, and staff briefed supervisors on the Flood Control District (established by state statute in 1982), maps of county streams, and the scale of ongoing maintenance. Water resources staff estimated that vegetation management alone for the Merced Streams Group could cost about $3.5 million per year.

“Flood control districts are created exclusively by the legislature,” Lacey McBride, Merced County water resources manager, told supervisors during the presentation. McBride reviewed county‑wide streams, historic assurances tied to federal flood projects and the role of flood control zones.

Nathan Bray, a public‑works presenter, described typical district activities — vegetation management, sediment removal and larger channel projects — and said an initial estimate for vegetation management on listed streams was roughly $3.5 million annually. Rena Gonzalez from county counsel outlined governance choices: the board may act ex‑officio as the district board, appoint a commission of up to seven members and delegate powers, but cannot delegate zone creation or replace appointed members.

Gonzalez also summarized assessment law under Proposition 218 (California): benefit assessments must be supported by an engineer’s report, public notices and a mailed ballot; weighted ballots determine approval and a majority opposing weighted votes defeats an assessment.

Supervisors raised questions about allocation methodology and equity. “Parcel size, land use and location within a mapped floodplain” would affect assessment calculations, Gonzalez said; staff noted impervious surfaces and land use influence runoff coefficients used to estimate each parcel’s contribution to stormwater.

Supervisor Benjamin Silvera urged an emphasis on stakeholder engagement before spending on engineering: “I really think that stakeholder engagement needs to be, like, a higher priority because I’m not willing to put county taxpayer resources at risk, spending… millions of dollars doing engineering reports to then find out that the public that is gonna benefit has no interest in doing it.”

Several public commenters and partners urged collaboration and pointed to funding opportunities. Olivia Gomez of Planada urged coordination with Merced Irrigation District (MID) and noted a separate state planning grant under the Department of Water Resources for a Planada study. A staff member from Congressman Adam Gray’s office said the congressman’s office secured $93 million for Dos Palos water infrastructure and offered to partner.

Matt Beeman of Merced Irrigation District told the board, “MID supports a public process that allows the public to determine, if they want to and the extent that they want to fund, [a] flood control district.”

After public comment and discussion, CEO Hendrickson summarized board direction: staff should begin county‑wide stakeholder engagement, explore formalizing the Merced Streams Group, and seek potential funding sources; staff will return to the board with findings.

No benefit assessment or bond was proposed at the July 22 meeting; supervisors framed the item as an information and direction item to start a community‑based process that would precede detailed engineering and any Proposition 218 ballot effort.

Provenance: Presentation and discussion of the Flood Control District began with County Executive Officer Mark Hendrickson introducing staff at timecode 00:55:05 (tc_start 3305.3599) and continued through CEO Hendrickson’s summary of board guidance near tc_end 01:48:30 (6510.8647).","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Board of Supervisors Meeting - July 22, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Merced County supervisors on July 22 instructed staff to start stakeholder outreach and explore governance options for the county’s Flood Control District after staff outlined high maintenance costs and funding options including benefit assessments under Proposition 218.","taxTitle","Merced County, California","taxId",12479,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6152422,"Merced supervisors postpone vote on terminating solid-waste contracts after haulers warn of SB 1383 costs",886,1570000,2456000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5498530-6b6d2366b057dd4470a9946de44fe423&start=1570&end=2456","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5498530-6b6d2366b057dd4470a9946de44fe423/thumbnail_1570000.jpg","/articles/6152422/Merced-County/California/Merced-supervisors-postpone-vote-on-terminating-solid-waste-contracts-after-haulers-warn-of-SB-1383-costs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6152422-1eb43d3877bd582e830e73b85426b5e2/orig.mp4?Expires=1770554276&Signature=a08j5gFz-UNDYQE~gZqgQFdiNqqsn8RFbbFu-5q1N3i4lK4DWprngz48x2Dd5qr0DIyz2Iqdnx-w4gH7AfYLLU1ej3RloJeXr5ILp61pNM4-QY5SZdFt1WPtbwJ2~7eB112euHUATMTBjawkD~t2MgiCXETfj-ZbJ67tSNgQWlurSHno8GLrIv6wh9DGSrkX1L-PVUMzU3vV7LzM2CKPeqpC5KBxHA8lkipgFKBq9m8366qVYLB2hPMwXKkhsGyXB~g4DnqTYQWkK-mKKfxlp1s86d-YMb5hTBlu8mddpOLwN2CIcTHm24psrfOcs7LeNno8gjZRf~C8MpE81vwnvA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Merced County Board of Supervisors on July 22 postponed consideration of a proposal to terminate existing solid-waste franchise agreements after waste haulers told the board early termination would shift large costs to residents and employees.

Hauler representatives said contracts renegotiated recently anticipated a long rollout to meet state recycling and organics requirements under SB 1383 and that terminating or shortening terms would accelerate depreciation of vehicles and carts and could raise rates.

“WM has already invested millions of dollars into this partnership,” Vanessa Barberis, a Waste Management representative, told the board. “If a termination notice is issued now, we will still be carrying 40% of that investment, costs that were meant to be recovered over a 10 year period. Accelerating that depreciation to a 5 year timeline could create additional cost pressures, which may result in higher rates for residents in the years ahead.”

Savannah Jilton of Jilton Solid Waste said her company similarly made equipment purchases and staffing decisions based on a long-term amortization schedule and asked the county to date any termination to coincide with a 10‑year amortization so haulers could recover those costs.

Supervisor Benjamin Silvera made the motion to postpone the matter to the board’s second August meeting; Supervisor Darren McDaniel seconded and the board voted unanimously to delay the item. The board also agreed to consider item 19 separately from the other public‑works consent items.

During public comment and board discussion, supervisors pressed haulers for details about the SB 1383 rollout and whether residents in automatic waiver zones had been incorrectly placed on delivery lists or billed. Barberis said staff corrected the accounts they were aware of and that WM would work with county GIS to double‑check affected addresses. “Everything that’s been brought to our attention has been corrected,” she said.

Supervisors also asked staff to gather additional information before final action. Supervisor Silvera said he supported postponement to allow time for more research; Supervisor Pereira pressed haulers and staff to ensure that low‑income residents and those in waiver zones are not incorrectly charged. Supervisor McDaniel said staying ahead of maintenance and vegetation issues in waterways is important but distinct from the contract question.

No formal termination or contract change occurred at the meeting; the board’s recorded action was to postpone item 19 to the second meeting in August for further information and deliberation.

The board did not set a new effective date for contract termination at the July 22 session; haulers asked that any termination notice be future‑dated no sooner than July 2030 if the board proceeds, to allow cost recovery over the expected depreciation schedule.

Public records associated with the agenda identify the policy driver for the county’s service and equipment upgrades as California Senate Bill 1383, the state law that requires local jurisdictions to reduce organic waste and expand collection programs. The county and haulers referenced an existing evergreen clause in the contracts that allowed them to continue until terminated with five years’ notice but said negotiations originally had contemplated longer amortization to cover equipment purchases.

The board instructed staff to return with additional information at the next scheduled meeting and directed county staff and haulers to coordinate on address verification for automatic waiver zones and on customer‑service training.

Provenance: Evidence for this article appears in public comment and board discussion on item 19 beginning with Vanessa Barberis of Waste Management (public comment starting at timestamp 1570.995) through the board’s vote to postpone (recorded motion and vote concluding at timestamps near 2446.755–2455.8699).","The Merced County Board of Supervisors on July 22 postponed action on a proposal to terminate solid‑waste franchise agreements after Waste Management and Jilton Solid Waste warned early termination would force companies to accelerate multimillion‑dollar depreciation tied to state SB 1383 requirements, potentially increasing rates for residents.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6152404,"Atwater vendor alleges Supervisor McDaniels intimidated staff, claims county contract denial",118,804000,922000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5498530-6b6d2366b057dd4470a9946de44fe423&start=804&end=922","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5498530-6b6d2366b057dd4470a9946de44fe423/thumbnail_804000.jpg","/articles/6152404/Merced-County/California/Atwater-vendor-alleges-Supervisor-McDaniels-intimidated-staff-claims-county-contract-denial","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6152404-a789314228d4abfb5bc993f0f3005894/orig.mp4?Expires=1770554276&Signature=E4m42R-Ff8qL-nzf1XPB~dYuKY8ci6peZ6DdKukF1cVyESWrYP4w5QGnK3Ylh5yKvCZ5mXH63VEyJk~kCZvS9U7pTOSlxm0dfGt6YoQUc7~~T7bSsf--uoJvKG3QUIZ6Wlh86RhKtbpTWUPx4F4oagKwCC96PCHlMSIMGoa~Evvh8hOdzfmsdlwuA5crUfkKb6RZ1Whv49pzCWELL09l838MAD~OnFP1Epk1fcS08T44J4fPK1omT6hPdB1AQdf1XimlpLyVumEb8vDA~OUsupqoyQ9EeaOVglZsiaqL53hfi5t8V9aTUoGOpTb04JtlE2BFj4lE8UUpYaF8aeA9sA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","During the public comment period at the Merced County Board of Supervisors meeting on July 22, vendor Rudy Ibarra said Supervisor Darren McDaniels went to his food truck at Garton Tractor in late June, handed out a county business card and attempted to intimidate his employee, which Ibarra said led to him having to close that location.

“My name is Rudy Ibarra, Rudy's Tacos. You ask yourself why vendors set up illegally. Why don't they come in and get a permit? Could it be because you have county supervisors like Darren McDaniels trying to intimidate or slander their name?” Ibarra asked the board.

Ibarra also told the board he believed his application for a county contract to park on M Street in 2023 had been denied and suggested the denial was connected to his public critics of an Atwater city council member; he urged Supervisor McDaniels to hand out his business card “with pride and respect instead of intimidation and fear.”

The comments were part of the public comment period; no formal investigation, staff response on the record, or board action was recorded in the meeting minutes. The board did not take action related to Ibarra’s allegations at the July 22 session.

Provenance: Public comments by Rudy Ibarra appear at timestamps beginning 00:13:24 (804.33) through 00:14:28 (821.455) and continuing through about 00:15:36 (843.21497) where he describes the incident and related contract concerns.","A Merced County vendor told the board during public comment that Supervisor Darren McDaniels approached his food‑truck location and intimidated employees, and that a county contract application was later denied; the remarks were made as public comment and no board action followed.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6152410,"Merced board renews military equipment policies, approves annual reports from DA and sheriff",153,2797000,2950000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5498530-6b6d2366b057dd4470a9946de44fe423&start=2797&end=2950","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5498530-6b6d2366b057dd4470a9946de44fe423/thumbnail_2797000.jpg","/articles/6152410/Merced-County/California/Merced-board-renews-military-equipment-policies-approves-annual-reports-from-DA-and-sheriff","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6152410-794060fd3754adf42b9e6374667ffa74/orig.mp4?Expires=1770554276&Signature=Xby5o3YBJnyIqgaTH-uqM~QBoi86s9aN8RDqkApRT-sQ-woWsLSIf4DF3C~-ib6S1PyYrfSYx0ffTn99V~BaXcwFrkSM-ayqueBHvwFYbhC2o4~wN4jrpTp57A4ewP3GQKqDUnKrknU-nRUat4SAtrtiVVmTT~lCbfPX7GRBGBWYUSX1T7SjYIJJyeLWnQtu4CubiMewlbknAu~KoJiv07Ydgdb9mPKdpfdb11~td6x8ptwf-GL8ZvCjbs2feB72bIajUA4nHTSj5kiZXxSLoliX15dfVLli~nnhdr0lc7ZeKQnD2~cy3vx48jG6c5Pso1Oq00iCKsfwgPT9j2uY3A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Merced County Board of Supervisors on July 22 approved annual military equipment use reports and renewed ordinances for both the District Attorney’s Office and the Sheriff’s Office, in compliance with Assembly Bill 481 and related Government Code provisions.

Anna Hazel, chief investigator for the District Attorney, presented the DA’s annual military equipment inventory and said the office had posted its report on June 20, 2025, and given public notice on July 10. Hazel asked the board to renew Ordinance No. 2035, which adopts the DA’s military equipment use policy; the ordinance was originally adopted Oct. 24, 2023, and renewed Oct. 8, 2024.

“Happy to answer any questions that you might have,” Hazel said after briefing the board; the board opened and closed public comment without speakers and then approved the DA report and renewal by motion and voice vote.

Under Sheriff Corey Gibson presented the Sheriff’s Office report, saying the office had posted its policy and report on April 23, 2025, and published notice on July 10. Gibson said the county previously received federal surplus equipment but now owns most less‑lethal equipment; he told the board the process to acquire federal equipment has become more burdensome and that only about six previously loaned federal items remain in county inventory (examples cited included large items used for search and rescue).

Supervisor Darren McDaniel asked about staff time to prepare the reports; Gibson said updating reports, websites and federal submissions takes “staff quite a few hours” annually. McDaniel said the state’s reporting requirements amount to an unfunded mandate that burdens county staff.

The board opened public comment on the sheriff’s report, received no speakers, and approved the Sheriff’s Office annual report and renewal of Ordinance No. 2017 by motion. Both items passed on voice votes with no recorded opposition.

Authorities and statutes cited during the presentations included Assembly Bill 481 and Government Code sections 7070–7075, which require annual reporting and public notice for military equipment used by local law enforcement agencies. The DA’s office noted it had aligned its reporting timeline with the sheriff’s office to streamline future filings.

Provenance: DA presentation and action begins with Anna Hazel presenting at tc_start 00:46:37 (2797.52) and concludes with the board approval near tc_end 00:49:10 (2950.775); the Sheriff’s presentation begins at tc_start 00:49:22 (2962.59) and concludes with approval near tc_end 00:53:41 (3241.95).","The Board of Supervisors on July 22 approved annual military equipment use reports and renewed ordinances for both the District Attorney’s Office and the Sheriff’s Office, citing compliance with state law AB 481 and alignment of reporting between agencies.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Merced supervisors back stakeholder outreach on flood control district; engineering, funding questions remain

Merced supervisors postpone vote on terminating solid-waste contracts after haulers warn of SB 1383 costs

Atwater vendor alleges Supervisor McDaniels intimidated staff, claims county contract denial

Merced board renews military equipment policies, approves annual reports from DA and sheriff