<\/p>\n
The David of Sassoon statue outside the Fresno County Hall of Records, seen Aug. 11, 2026.<\/p>\n
David Taub<\/p>\n
The Fresno Bee<\/p>\n
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors voted to place a controversial transportation tax measure on the March 7, 2028, ballot, setting up a lawsuit over when voters might ultimately decide the measure.<\/p>\n
Tuesday was the moment of truth for the supervisors, but the conflict remains when voters will really decide the half-cent Better Roads, Safe Streets sales tax for transportation projects. Despite the 3-2 vote by the supervisors for a March 2028 vote, Fresno County Clerk\/Registrar of Voters James Kus said a new state law requires him to place the item on the Nov. 3 ballot.<\/p>\n
The supervisors also voted 3-2 to sue Kus, the initiative proponents and the state over a state law passed last week<\/a> mandating the Nov. 3 date. It is not immediately clear when or where the lawsuit might be filed.<\/p>\n Supervisors Garry Bredefeld, Buddy Mendes and Nathan Magsig voted in favor of the March 2028 date and the lawsuit; Luis Chavez and Brian Pacheco voted against. The 2028 tax vote will be known as Measure S.<\/p>\n Separately, four councilmembers called for a special meeting for Wednesday to withdraw the city\u2019s tax measure.<\/p>\n What is the real election date?<\/p>\n Both the supervisors and Kus said they were following state law regarding the real election date.<\/p>\n Last month, the supervisors ordered a financial impact study that delayed a vote on placing the Better Roads, Safe Streets plan on the Nov. 3 ballot. A state law (AB 1923) \u2014 crafted, approved and signed in four days on Aug. 6<\/a> \u2014 took away the supervisors\u2019 ability to vote on placing the measure on the ballot, securing a slot in the Nov. 3 election for the half-cent sales tax to replace Measure C, which is expiring next year.<\/p>\n Supporters say Measure S would raise $7 billion over 30 years.<\/p>\n Andy Levine, the Better Roads, Safe Streets campaign manager, said his group is celebrating being on the November ballot.<\/p>\n \u201cWe have absolute confidence and have been assured by everybody involved that this will be on the November ballot and voters will be able to decide,\u201d said Levine, who is also a Fresno Unified trustee.<\/p>\n Kus told The Bee he might have to hire an attorney just for his office. Usually, they are represented by Fresno County counsel, who now apparently will be filing the lawsuit.<\/p>\n He said that the election process for this matter is handled by state code. \u201cSo that\u2019s where we\u2019re going to be working off of,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Kus must legally deliver the first set of ballots on Sept. 19 to overseas voters and those serving in the military. He would need to send the ballot to the printers by Sept. 8 to meet the deadline.<\/p>\n Supervisors discuss<\/p>\n No supporters of Better Roads, Safe Streets spoke during public comment, leaving the discussion up to the supervisors.<\/p>\n Magsig found a conflict with state law AB 1923 and other election law, namely the Aug. 7 deadline to place measure on the ballot. \u201cThis is something the courts will have to figure out,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Chavez said that supporters of Better Roads, Safe Streets would sue if the election was not Nov. 3. He said he wanted to respect the wishes of the more than 32,000 people who signed the initiative.<\/p>\n \u201cThis body\u2019s done nothing wrong. This body followed election state law,\u201d Bredefeld said. He criticized supporters for crafting a state law specific to Fresno County. \u201cWe have every right to stand up to those special interests.\u201d<\/p>\n Bredefeld also questioned the professional relationship between Central Valley Community Foundation President and CEO Ashley Swearengin \u2014 whose group bankrolled the signature gathering process \u2014 and Gov. Gavin Newsom.<\/p>\n City passed its own tax measure, Measure S says withdraw<\/p>\n City of Fresno voters will also have a second tax measure on the Nov. 3 ballot. This would also raise taxes a half-cent just in the city, once Measure C expires. The city-only measure would go to the general fund instead of being directed at transportation spending. The city measure would automatically expire if voters approve the Better Roads, Safe Streets.<\/p>\n Levine called for the city to withdraw its measure.<\/p>\n \u201cWe can all agree that we do not want to have two potentially … competing measures on the ballot, in this case, city of Fresno voters to have to figure out and complicate things. And so we would recommend for the city of Fresno measure to be pulled back by tomorrow\u2019s deadline, so that we can all coalesce around one single countywide measure that assures voters exactly where the money will go, and specifically to local transportation improvement projects,\u201d Levine said.<\/p>\n Fresno City Council President Nelson Esparza did not immediately respond on Tuesday. He indicated he would not call a meeting in a Monday statement to The Bee.<\/p>\n \u201cThe City\u2019s measure is there simply as a backstop in the unfortunate event that AB 1923 is stymied through defiance or legal challenges. We can\u2019t gamble the livelihoods of several hundred city employees on the judicial process,\u201d Esparza said.<\/p>\n State election law<\/a> gives the city until Wednesday to withdraw. Even though Esparza did not call a meeting, four other councilmembers did, as they are allowed to do. The meeting will take place Wednesday at 3 p.m.<\/p>\n Miguel Arias, Tyler Maxwell, Brandon Vang and Nick Richardson called for the meeting. The council is scheduled to vote on removing its tax measure.<\/p>\n Board received report<\/p>\n The board received the 500-page report<\/a> it requested analyzing the financial impacts of the proposed tax measure.<\/p>\n The report said Measure S is \u201cmore prescriptive and less flexible than prior Measure C programs.\u201d The measure would focus on fixing the \u201cworst first\u201d roads, even if it means lowering the priority of improving more traveled roads. If all roads were to meet the desired PCI 70 metric \u2014 meaning roads are in satisfactory condition \u2014 the county would need to send an extra $29.5 million.<\/p>\n The plan\u2019s 4% allocation to regional roads could affect future funding. \u201c(The) region\u2019s ability to leverage matching funds through competitive programs would be diminished compared to Measure C\u2019s performance,\u201d the report said.<\/p>\n The report criticized several other aspects of Measure S, including governance, meeting needs, and economic benefit.<\/p>\n Magsig said he is concerned the Better Roads, Safe Streets plan would make it more difficult to expand roads to reduce congestion.<\/p>\n Melissa Montalvo contributed to this story.<\/p>\n This story was originally published August 11, 2026 at 2:17 PM.<\/p>\n