FRESNO, Calif. \u2013 The months-long legal and political dispute over whether Fresno County residents will vote on a proposed transportation tax this November is over.<\/p>\n
Now comes the next phase for Measure S: convincing a majority of the electorate in Fresno County to support, or reject, a half-cent sales tax projected to generate nearly $7.4 billion during its 30-year lifespan.<\/p>\n
Measure S \u2013 which is also known as \u201cBetter Roads Safe Streets\u201d<\/a> \u2013 may have a new name, but it is not really a new tax. Rather, it is designed to succeed Measure C, a half-cent sales tax that has been on the books since 1986 and expires June 30, 2027. (In case you were wondering, the \u201cS\u201d in the new measure stands for safety.)<\/p>\n Now that Measure S has been cleared for the November ballot, by judicial decree<\/a>, Fresno County voters will soon be deluged with information from the initiative\u2019s supporters and detractors designed to sway their choice.<\/p>\n \u201cWe want to earn voter support and their trust for this measure,\u201d said Veronica Garibay, the co-director of Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, who was involved in its crafting. \u201cOur strategy and our plan is to talk directly to the voters, even door to door, and make the case for why they should support Measure S.\u201d<\/p>\n By contrast, Fresno County Board of Supervisors Chairman Garry Bredefeld vowed to campaign against the measure.<\/p>\n \u201cBetween now and Nov. 3, we will make the case directly to voters about how their hard-earned money will be misused for 30 years,\u201d Bredefeld said in a statement, \u201cwhy this measure is a betrayal of every resident who has waited decades for their roads to be fixed and how the measure will be the largest misappropriation of taxpayer money in the history of Fresno County.\u201d<\/p>\n With the ballot dispute now in the past, KVPR examined the measure in detail<\/a> to report some of its key aspects.<\/p>\n Tax revenue breakdown\u00a0<\/p>\n The largest, most obvious distinction between Measure S and its predecessor, Measure C<\/a>, is how tax revenues are distributed between local and regional road projects.<\/p>\n Measure S allocates 65% of revenue to existing neighborhood roads and 5% to regional improvements (including 1% to Fresno Yosemite International Airport). That’s compared to 34.6% of revenue for local roads and 30.4% for regional improvements like freeways and major commuter corridors under the expiring Measure C.<\/p>\n Under Measure S, each of Fresno County\u2019s 15 incorporated cities and Fresno County would receive $400,000 a year to maintain, repair or rebuild existing roads.<\/p>\n The balance of local roads funds would then be distributed to each jurisdiction using an \u201c80\/20\u201d formula. That equates to 80% of funds allocated according to population and 20% by the number of maintained public roadway miles. By comparison, Measure C employed a \u201c75\/25\u201d formula.<\/p>\n \u201cMeasure C has historically emphasized building out freeways and some of our major roads,\u201d said Andy Levine, a Fresno Unified School District trustee who also serves as campaign manager for Measure S. \u201cThat choice has come at the expense of investing in and improving our local roads, which is why across all of the listening and engagement we’ve done for the last two years, residents have been loud and clear that they wanted to see a redirection of priority to local existing neighborhood roads.\u201d<\/p>\n On the other hand, Fresno County Supervisor Nathan Magsig is concerned the relatively small allotment for regional projects will hamper local officials from securing state and federal matching funds necessary to complete large-scale roadway improvements.<\/p>\n \u201cCities are going to look to the county to fully fund some of these projects, and it’ll be difficult, if not impossible, to do,\u201d Magsig said.<\/p>\n Under Measure S, cities would have wide leeway over how to spend their funds for local roads. However, they can only spend up to 5% of funds per year on \u201croad expansion or capacity-increasing projects\u201d \u2013 and only if every street in their jurisdiction attains a \u201cPavement Conditions Index\u201d score of 65 or above.<\/p>\n A PCI score of 65 is considered \u201cfair.\u201d PCI provides a snapshot, on a scale of 0 to 100, of the pavement scale of each road. The scores are determined by each jurisdiction\u2019s planning staff or consultants.<\/p>\n For context, Fresno\u2019s 1,800 miles of roads were last rated at an average of 60<\/a>. Mendota, meanwhile, has an average PCI score of 36.<\/p>\n To opponents of Measure S, this limit on \u201ccapacity-increasing\u201d projects is far too restrictive.<\/p>\n \u201cIt just doesn\u2019t work \u2013 it\u2019s not serving the needs of the community because [cities] will never meet that PCI score of 65,\u201d said Henry Perea, a former Fresno city councilman and county supervisor.<\/p>\n