What\u2019s Fresno Mayor Jerry Dyer\u2019s recommendation if Fresno County voters have to decide on two separate, transportation-related tax measures this November?<\/p>\n
Vote \u201cyes\u201d on both.<\/p>\n
The mayor outlined his position on the general tax his staff submitted to the county clerk at the eleventh-hour last Friday<\/a> \u2014 as well as the countywide transportation measure<\/a> he\u2019s championed for months that may also end up on the November ballot, thanks to last-minute intervention from the state<\/a> \u2014 at a news conference Monday morning.<\/p>\n He reiterated that his last-minute reversal on whether to submit the city\u2019s general tax to the clerk by the Aug. 7 deadline to land on the November ballot was to avoid doing anything that could hurt city residents \u2014 and said he feared he would\u2019ve faced a recall effort had he not taken action.<\/p>\n \u201cPeople would have been extremely upset over the fact that we did not act when we should,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n The mayor had originally issued a statement last Thursday saying that he wouldn\u2019t submit the city\u2019s general tax measure to the clerk in order to avoid \u201cconfusion\u201d for voters between the city\u2019s tax and a second, countywide transportation tax measure known as Better Roads, Safe Streets.\u00a0<\/p>\n That statement came shortly after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 1923<\/a>, a state bill from a pair of Central Valley lawmakers<\/a> that aimed to guarantee a spot for Better Roads on the November ballot, despite a controversial move<\/a> from the Fresno County Board of Supervisors last month that likely would\u2019ve delayed the measure from appearing before voters until March 2028.<\/p>\n The city\u2019s tax was originally framed as a stopgap measure<\/a> in case Better Roads didn\u2019t land on the ballot prior to the expiration of the county\u2019s longtime transportation tax, Measure C, in June 2027, leaving millions of dollars and hundreds of jobs on the line for the City of Fresno alone.<\/p>\n But almost exactly 24 hours after Dyer said he wouldn\u2019t move forward with the city\u2019s general tax, the mayor reversed course and issued another statement explaining that he did ultimately choose to submit the city tax measure to the clerk.<\/p>\n Dyer explained to reporters on Monday that the reversal largely came down to concerns from top city officials over whether AB 1923 will hold up against the legal battle the Fresno County Board of Supervisors have vowed to wage<\/a>.<\/p>\n Specifically, he referenced a written legal opinion City Attorney Andrew Janz shared internally last Friday.<\/p>\n That opinion from Janz \u2014 which Dyer later said was a \u201cprotected document\u201d \u2014 outlined risks if the city didn\u2019t submit its own measure, as well as from potential legal challenges from Fresno County.\u00a0<\/p>\n Among those risks were comments at a news conference last Thursday<\/a> from Fresno County Counsel Doug Sloan, who questioned whether AB 1923\u2019s \u201curgency\u201d clause that allowed the law to take effect immediately was appropriately invoked.<\/p>\n The board of supervisors, meanwhile, is scheduled to take its long-awaited ministerial vote on placing Better Roads on the ballot at its regular meeting on Tuesday.\u00a0<\/p>\n The supervisors had originally been scheduled to take that vote on July 14, well before the Aug. 7 deadline to qualify for the November ballot \u2014 but instead opted to call for a 30-day study of the financial impacts of the measure, delaying their ministerial vote on its ballot placement until two business days after the Aug. 7 deadline.<\/p>\n The board will also receive that financial study at Tuesday\u2019s meeting, which was prepared by a consulting firm<\/a> with ties to a group that had at one time announced intentions to put together its own transportation tax measure<\/a>, known as \u201cFix Our Roads,\u201d to rival the Better Roads proposal.<\/p>\n In an unusual step, the agenda item related to Better Roads, sponsored by the Fresno County Clerk \/ Registrar of Voters\u2019 Office, has two different versions of a resolution attached to it. One<\/a> has the supervisors voting to place Better Roads on the March 2028 ballot. A second, \u201calternative\u201d resolution<\/a> has them voting to place it on the ballot this November.<\/p>\n Fresno County Clerk James Kus said in an interview late Monday that he didn\u2019t prepare the alternative resolution and wasn\u2019t aware who did.<\/p>\n The alternative resolution contains multiple clauses documenting the county\u2019s objections to AB 1923, calling it a \u201clast-minute state legislative power grab usurping the County\u2019s authority.\u201d It also echoes Sloan\u2019s comments about the urgency clause.<\/p>\n \u201cNothing in this Resolution constitutes a waiver of any challenge to AB 1923,\u201d the alternative resolution continues, \u201cor an admission that the legislative findings and declarations in AB 1923 are accurate.\u201d<\/p>\n Garry Bredefeld, chair of the board, told Fresnoland in an interview Monday afternoon that the board will consider two options on Tuesday: either to support the resolution that places Better Roads on the November 2026 ballot, or the resolution that places it on the March 2028 ballot.<\/p>\n \u201cThe board followed state election code, and I believe we should follow through on that and move it towards March 2028,\u201d he said. \u201cBut I\u2019m open to hearing other points of view.\u201d<\/p>\n Kus said that a vote on either of the resolutions, both of them or an amended version of either would fulfill the board\u2019s ministerial duty to provide the clerk with a resolution related to Better Roads. If they don\u2019t pass any resolution, Kus said he would have to seek legal counsel.<\/p>\n Also on the board agenda Tuesday is a discussion in closed session to decide \u201cwhether to initiate litigation against the State of California for violation of the State Constitution Article IV and Elections Code.\u201d<\/p>\n Bredefeld said he hopes the board will vote to file a lawsuit against the state regarding AB 1923, calling the law \u201ccompletely unconstitutional.\u201d<\/p>\n In a brief statement shared Monday afternoon, Assemblymember Esmeralda Soria, one of the co-authors of AB 1923, said regarding the supervisors\u2019 agenda item on Tuesday that \u201cany action the Fresno County Board of Supervisors takes should be consistent with the law.\u201d<\/p>\n What happens next?<\/p>\n Although Dyer\u2019s staff submitted the city\u2019s general tax to the county clerk before the deadline to qualify for the ballot, Fresno City Council does have an opportunity this week to withdraw the city general tax from the ballot, Dyer confirmed to reporters on Monday.<\/p>\n But the council would have to call a special meeting to take a vote in time with the Wednesday deadline to withdraw the measure.<\/p>\n Either the council president or a majority of councilmembers have the power to call a special meeting.<\/p>\n