Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Elections Revenue topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Measure D fails in Yuba City; council reviews results and pledges additional outreach
Summary
Citywide Measure D did not pass Jan. 21; vote totals reported 11,480 in favor and 13,440 opposed. Councilors and staff discussed turnout patterns and community feedback and said they will continue discussions about alternatives and community engagement.
Get email alerts on the Local Elections Revenue topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Yuba City’s proposed Measure D did not pass, City Manager Diana Langley and council members reported at the Jan. 21 meeting. Staff presented precinct‑level results showing the measure passed in parts of the city (council districts identified as 1 and 3 on the map shown to council) but failed overall: 11,480 votes in favor and 13,440 opposed.
Nut graf: Council members reviewed the ballot returns and community feedback collected since the election, and they discussed next steps including meetings with citizens who had volunteered for an oversight group, additional outreach and reconsideration of revenue options for future ballots.
Council discussion and themes: Vice Mayor Boomgaarden and others summarized feedback from post‑election meetings: residents cited distrust of government, concerns about rising costs and uncertainty about how funds would be divided between city and county programs. Some speakers and council members said the ballot’s list of proposed expenditures was too long and lacked specificity. Council members noted geographic patterns in support and opposition — older central neighborhoods in the northwest showed stronger opposition while some southern neighborhoods previously supportive of revenue measures had shifted to oppose Measure D.
Next steps: The mayor proposed an ad hoc revenue committee and a community outreach ad hoc to consider next steps and alternatives; the mayor asked the revenue ad hoc to focus on city‑only options and to return with recommendations in time to consider placement on the November 2026 ballot if desired. Council members said they would continue public outreach, holding meetings with residents and stakeholder groups, and requested staff compile post‑election feedback.
Ending: Councilors thanked volunteers who campaigned and noted they will analyze the post‑election data and public comments as they weigh whether to propose a revised measure in a future election cycle.

