Merced to fund all available positions in public safety 

The basic choice presented to members of the Merced City Council on Monday night was to freeze four vacant police officer positions, one firefighter role, and one dispatcher job, or to fully fund them all and start to fill them by using Measure C carry-over funds that staff was considering to keep as cushion money for future raises on existing salaries, as well as one-time equipment expenses. 

For a majority of Council members, the choice was clear, if not easy. 

“Before I was elected there was a community-wide discussion about the role that public safety has in our community,” said Councilman Shane Smith. “I think our community has responded resoundingly with not just the passage of Measure C but putting Measure C on the ballot. As a private citizen, I was one of the neighbors out knocking on doors. I had a yard sign, and was glad to see Measure C overwhelmingly pass. I think we are doing the voters a disservice if we hold money from Measure C.”

Said Councilman Darin DuPont: “Public safety officers are the first ones we call in the city when we need help. Our police chief has shown that with good leadership and good direction we can reduce crime within the city. We have seen that in recent statistics.”

Council members Sarah Boyle and Mike Harris also agreed to fully fund the six positions in a series of votes during a nearly 6-hour meeting that approached midnight.  

Mayor Matt Serratto voted NO on funding the PD positions, arguing that the council should be fiscally prudent and think about the cost of keeping the current PD staff — which is at it’s highest level in years (94 positions) — fully funded into the near future. He also argued that future grant money, and the possibility that the Merced City School District will add money for another school resource officer were other reasons to hold back on the spending. The mayor was willing to unfreeze one single PD position, as opposed to all four. 

Looking back, three of the PD positions in question were already frozen in last year’s budget, in part to make way for community service officers, and partly because they weren’t expected to be filled anyway. 

Nevertheless, Merced Police Chief Steven Stanfield told leaders on Monday night that he wouldn’t say no to keeping and filling the designated positions in his department. 

“We had 15 vacancies in 2023 when I started, and we gave up three positions last year knowing that we were a long ways away from filling those, but we have come a long way in a year, and we’re knocking on that door. … You ask me if I need the officers, well of course. I want to continue to reduce crime, and I want to continue to have other programs available for our officers, and I want to continue to lower the crime rates in this town. Our town is growing. I’m seeing about a 3 percent increase in calls for service per year. … which is about on par with our population growth, and eventually, it’s going to be overwhelming for the numbers we have. So we just need to be prepared.”

Councilman Fue Xiong, a consistent voice on the dais for keeping public safety funding in check, voted NO to funding the PD positions. 

“Whenever we talk about the city budget, we have this predetermined way that we talk about it,” Xiong explained. “When we talk about Parks and Development Services, we talk about how the General Fund is going to supplement their operating budget. We never talk about public safety in that way. … We need to redefine what public safety actually means. … If we have art, it reduces graffiti. Right? That is reducing crime right there. If we talk about keeping people housed, that reduces crimes on the streets. Right? … Public safety is so much more than just police and fire, and being reactionary to the root causes of crime.”

The council this week was also tasked with trying to close about a $430,000 shortfall in the budget for the upcoming fiscal year. 

They directed staff to explore the use of city reserves (general fund, pension fund and housing fund ) with the possibility of changing policies linked to annual allocations. 

The final budget is expected to be balanced and approved during the Council meeting on June 16.

At one point during this week’s discussion, Councilwoman Boyle raised some eyebrows by commenting to her colleagues and staff: “I don’t know if this will be a question or a comment, but during our labor negotiations [last year], it was brought to us that there might be a deficit, but it wasn’t Year One. It would be potentially Year 3. So how are we in this position?”

The room fell silent. 

Toward the end of the meeting, the Council also voted to maintain arts funding at $100,000 in the upcoming budget, as well as $30,000 for “community funding.”