REEDLEY — City officials are concerned that the provisions of the Fresno County Transportation Act, known as Measure S, could spell financial trouble for Reedley.
Mike Leonardo, a former executive director for the Fresno County Transportation Authority, gave residents a run-down on the half-cent transportation sales tax on the ballot this November at a special meeting held on Sept. 22. He and city officials voiced concerns that strict requirements could cut funding for local road maintenance projects, and potentially require the city to repay more than $100 million for failing to meet the measure’s road condition standards.
“We can salvage two years without the measure, we can’t salvage 30 years of a bad measure,” City Manager Nicole Zieba said. “There are a lot of things in the current measure that concern me.”
If approved by voters, Measure S would succeed the current countywide transportation sales tax known as Measure C, which is set to expire in June 2027. After Fresno County failed to renew the measure in 2022, officials were locked in years of debate over where funding should be allocated. The Fresno Council of Governments eventually abandoned its efforts to renew Measure C, and a community coalition known as Moving Forward Together picked up the item as a citizen-led ballot measure.
The new version of the measure would dedicate 65% of funds to neighborhood streets and 25% to public transportation. Smaller allocations include 4% to regional projects improving transit between communities, 4% to transportation innovation projects, 1% to airports and another 1% for other administrative costs.
The measure aims to generate about $7.4 billion over its 30-year lifespan for transportation and infrastructure, split between the county and its 15 incorporated cities. But several leaders across the county’s more rural communities have opposed the measure, including Mayor Matthew Tuttle, who spoke at a No on Measure S press conference the morning of Sept. 22.
Tuttle invited Leonardo, who spent six years working on the team that administered Measure C, to present the numbers at the council’s special meeting and help residents better understand the measure.
In his presentation, Leonardo argued that several provisions in the measure would restrict how local transportation funds could be used. He said the measure’s largest allocation, which is dedicated to neighborhood streets, would give Reedley less flexibility to fund road maintenance projects based on the city’s individual needs.
Leonardo pointed to the recent project on Highway 41 between Kings County and Fresno County, where he said five fatal crashes occurred within a two-month period. The project received $13 million in Measure C funding, which helped leverage additional state and federal funding. He said a similar project would be more difficult to fund under Measure S because the measure limits spending on roadway expansion and prohibits local-road funds from being used for streets in “new-growth areas.”
Concerns were also brought up about the measure’s “worst first” requirement, which would prioritize repairs on streets in the poorest condition and require cities to bring those streets to an average pavement condition index (PCI) level of 70.
Zieba noted the measure’s road condition standard would force Reedley to take on fewer projects to stay within budget. She pointed to some of the city’s recent projects to repair deteriorating streets, which together cost the city more than $3 million. Zieba added that Reedley will likely be unable to meet the measure’s street condition standards with the amount of funding the city would receive through the measure. Leonardo said he believes every other city in the county, except Clovis and Kingsburg, would also struggle to meet the standard.
Further, Zieba raised questions regarding the city’s legal liability. She noted that specific language in the measure could force the city to pay back over $100 million in funding if Reedley is unable to get streets up to the measure’s road standards by the end of its 30-year lifespan.
“Reedley is never going to get there because we’re not going to receive enough money from Measure S. We wouldn’t have gotten enough money from Measure C either,” Zieba said.
Leonardo also drew attention to the fact that 25% of the Measure S funds will go towards public transportation. A self-described supporter of public transportation programs, Leonardo said that while the agencies are essential for those with no other options to commute to work, the investment will not “move the needle” without provisions that push agencies to change the way services are provided.
“We’re not talking about trying to eliminate transit, but the intent of this (measure) is to get people who have a choice to pick transit instead of taking their car, and that’s just not a choice that happens,” Leonardo said.
If Measure S fails to secure more than 50% of the vote in November, local governments across the county will lose the sales-tax revenue generated by Measure C when it expires next year, with the earliest potential replacement coming in 2028. Tuttle assured residents that the city is prepared in the case that Measure S fails to pass, saying the outcome will force county leaders back to the negotiation table.
“When you’re asking people to tax themselves, you really need to have almost unanimous support from the elected bodies in the county that this is a good thing,” Leonardo said. “You don’t have that with Measure S.”
