11-05-2025
Fresno voters could face confusing choice between competing tax measures
What's worse than an election with one transportation tax?
An election with two transportation tax initiatives vying for voter approval on the same ballot.
Fresno County voters next June could potentially face a confusing choice between competing sales tax measures to fund roads, public transit, bike lanes and traffic technology if the opposing sides from the 2022 election dust-up don't soon combine forces.
Despite repeated attempts to mend bridges, such a truce has proven elusive. Leaving the county's official Measure C renewal effort led by local electeds and business leaders and the Transportation For All coalition to pursue parallel tracks as both begin their outreach efforts.
Opinion
Over the last few weeks, county transportation officials named a 23-member Measure C steering committee tasked with drafting an expenditure plan for the new initiative between now and November. The committee held its first meeting Thursday; six more are scheduled.
At the same time, staff and consultants began making the rounds at city council meetings. Monday's presentation before the Clovis City Council contained heavy doses of doom and gloom about what would happen if Measure C expires (the official sunset date is June 30, 2027) with no extension in place.
Not to be outdone, Transportation For All held its first 'community visioning session' on May 3 in tiny San Joaquin, where more than 200 people turned out. The next such meeting is May 17 at the Reedley Community Center, followed by five more through the end of June.
Formed in 2022 to successfully oppose the Measure C renewal during that election cycle, Transportation For All is composed mainly of community groups and environmental justice advocates including Fresno Building Healthy Communities, Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, League of Women Voters, Cultiva La Salud and Youth Leadership Institute.
With a little more than one year before the June 2026 election, coalition members remain hopeful an agreement will be reached that allows the two sides to join forces. Furthermore, they say that is their goal.
'We're getting closer and closer to the wire here, but we've been trying everything we can to try to make this one merged, coordinated effort,' said Fresno Unified board member Andy Levine, one of a handful of elected officials who opposed Measure C in the last election.
'We need Measure C. We need the best possible version of Measure C.'
The other big player in this drama is the Central Valley Community Foundation, the region's largest philanthropic organization helmed by former Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin, which backed the Transportation For All-led No on C campaign in 2022.
Speaking on behalf of the CVCF during last month's Fresno Council of Governments policy board meeting, Alan Pierrot said the organization is willing to foot the $400,000 bill for a signature drive to qualify the measure for the ballot – and lower the required voter threshold to a simple majority – but only if the two sides come together.
To assist in bridging the gap between the county's Measure C campaign and the one community groups are unfurling, the CVCF recruited a surprising name: Steve Brandau, the former Fresno County supervisor.
Interesting choice to play peacemaker. While Brandau was the only county supervisor to oppose Measure C in 2022, calling 11th-hour maneuverings 'a shitshow,' he employed the equally colorful phrase 'poverty pimps' in 2018 to describe environmental justice advocates who are now key players in Transportation For All.
Brandau declined to be interviewed, citing the sensitive nature of ongoing talks. But face-to-face conversations have taken place between Brandau, representing the CVCF, and Fresno BHC CEO Sandra Celedon, both confirm.
Oh, to be a fly on the wall during those sessions
'Everyone is playing a multi-billion dollar game of chicken, waiting to see who will blink first,' CVCF board member J.P. Shamshoian told the Fresno COG board during its April 24 meeting.
Neither initiative's spending plan – the county's Measure C renewal or Transportation For All's version – has actually been formulated. So any comparison at this point is impossible.
The biggest difference between the two sides is how much weight each gives to community engagement early in the process.
The county's way of doing things allows the public to have a voice, except with no guarantee anyone listens. The actual decision-making takes place among a group of insiders on the steering committee (mainly hand-picked industry and executives) and during meetings that are noticed and streamed online but offer no way for the public to participate.
Craft the measure, then go out and sell it to voters.
By contrast, the process favored by Transportation For All begins with a series of public meetings that build upon one another and identify community priorities that inform the spending plan. In addition, a citizen panel would get one final review before it goes before each city council, transportation agency boards and finally the county Board of Supervisors for ballot approval.
'Our process is really inclusive and democratic in that it ensures that residents and taxpayers have both the voice and the power they deserve to shape transportation decisions in Fresno County,' said Celedon, who is running for state Assembly.
'It's a very clear, sequential approach to developing a plan we can all support versus what the COG is doing, which is relying on the same process from the last go-around when the measure failed.'
The Measure C steering committee held its first meeting Thursday, during which not a word was uttered about the competing effort until member Gail Miller mentioned it to county consultant Kendall Flint at the very last moment.
Miller, who represents Fresno COG's citizens oversight committee, told Flint she had met with members of the Transportation For All coalition and said it would be 'disastrous to the community' if there were two competing tax measures.
'We're working on it,' Flint replied tersely.
Better work fast, because two isn't better than one in this case. Only more confusing – and therefore less likely to garner voter trust.
