Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Measure C Renewal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Renew Measure C debate centers on fixing roads vs. expanding transit funding
Summary
A coalition-backed Measure C renewal proposed by local transportation leaders would direct 82% to roads and 18% to transit over 20 years; presenters said the plan preserves county oversight and aims to leverage state and federal matching funds while a competing 30-year proposal would shift more to transit and change governance.
A county-backed Measure C renewal that would dedicate 82% of proceeds to road repairs and 18% to transit was presented to the Board of Supervisors March 17, sparking extensive questions about project lists, governance and ballot timing.
Mike Leonardo, introduced as a retired FCTA director, told the board the proposal reflects public polling that prioritized "fix roads, fix roads, fix roads" and is designed as a 20-year program to target local pavement repair, regional corridor improvements and to retain Fresno County Transportation Authority (FCTA) oversight.
"82% goes to roads, 18% goes to transit," Leonardo said. He described a structure where 50% of the overall measure dollars go strictly to repairing local roads, another share is available as a flexible local allocation, and 16% supports major corridors and highways. He told supervisors the plan is designed to maximize leverage of state and federal funds and to keep minimum funding levels higher for smaller jurisdictions.
Leonardo contrasted the county-backed plan with a competing 30-year measure that he said restricts major road improvements and diverts a larger share to transit and innovation programs. He said the competing plan eliminates the FCTA and reduces the county's ability to leverage matching funds.
Board members focused on practical consequences: whether funds could be used for widening roads versus bike lanes, the treatment of bridges that cannot be widened without major expense, and how each plan treats regional projects. Supervisor Magnus asked whether the competing plan allows city and county flexibility; Leonardo replied the competing plan is more prescriptive and functionally limits some regional improvements.
Ballot status and petition timing
When asked whether either measure has qualified for the November ballot, presenters and the County Clerk said neither petition had yet completed signature verification. County Clerk James Cous confirmed notices of intent have been published for both local petitions and explained petition verification timelines and the roughly 22,000 valid-signature requirement to meet county thresholds for a November placement.
"Both petitions must return their signatures to my office so that my office can verify those signatures," Cous said, adding that proponents must pass random sample checks and submit in time for verification and board ministerial actions.
What comes next
Leonardo said his group is gathering signatures and preparing outreach to qualify for November. Board members asked staff to invite the competing proponents to present to the board once petitions are qualified so the supervisors can compare plans formally. Several supervisors emphasized the county's need for a revenue measure to address deferred maintenance while showing openness to a robust public debate once signature verification is complete.
The board did not take a policy vote on Measure C during the meeting.
