What's at stake?
A nearly $500 million deferred maintenance backlog, a lack of creative financing options, and a promise of economic mobility and prosperity at Fresno State has accomplished the rare feat of uniting foes on both ends - with business and labor groups in support, and with Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian leaders in opposition.
Once again, voters are being asked to shoulder the cost for upgrades to Fresno State’s aging buildings and a slate of planned athletics facilities. But will Fresno County residents buy the plan this time?
For background: In November of 2022, proponents, led by local contractor Richard Spencer, financed a one-fifth-cent sales tax pitched as a fix to the university’s well-documented facilities woes. It only needed a majority to pass but failed at the ballot with 47% of county voters’ support.
So, what’s changed this time? Proponents like Fresno Chamber of Commerce CEO Scott Miller says he thinks there’s a lot more of specifics in the ballot measure this time around. The Yes on E’s website has a long list of projects that could potentially be funded, if the tax gets a majority of voter support.
The Yes on E campaign’s message emphasizes Fresno State’s importance to sustaining and growing the regional economy providing thousands of construction jobs and generating economic mobility for so many first-generation immigrant families.
They say that we cannot wait for the cash-strapped state to find money to fix old buildings and expand nursing and engineering programs.
“We have a very good history in Fresno County of taking matters into our own hands when the state or federal governments don’t help us the way they should,” said Tim Orman, a political consultant and a lead author of Measure E.
But a much more robust, ideologically diverse coalition has emerged to oppose Measure E this time.
“When was the last time you truly saw Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association stand alongside each other in principle and purpose?” asked former Fresno Unified trustee Brooke Ashjian, at a Feb. 12 news conference.
Those critics had a long litany of reasons to oppose the tax – citing what they said were outrageous salaries for new oversight committee members, a lack of spending guardrails, no community input, and a fundamental opposition to working class families paying for higher education, even when they may not directly benefit from it.
One of the key criticisms from the last time around remains: “A very small percentage of Fresno County residents attend Fresno State, but they’re proposing this billion-dollar tax to be paid on by Fresno County residents,” said Fresno City Councilmember Miguel Arias.
The latest version of Measure E is also more expensive than its earlier model. In 2024, the tax amount increased, from one-fifth to a quarter of a cent, raising an estimated $63 million annually, instead of about $38 million. The tax will last for 25 years, providing an estimated $1.57 billion over the life of the measure, according to proponents.
How will the money be spent?
There are a lot of possibilities listed in the ballot measure – including expanding existing degree programs (nursing and engineering get named frequently), upgrading deteriorating academic buildings and other facilities, providing scholarships for students, and building new facilities.
The official Yes on Measure E website has a hefty list of projects, totaling around $1.57 billion.
It includes things like campus-wide fire alarm replacement ($38 million), a total HVAC overhaul ($30 million) – but also a new, 1,200 seat concert hall ($38 million), affordable student housing ($120 million) and an overhaul of Valley Childrens’ Stadium ($160 million).
That project list was developed by administrators at Fresno State, said Orman.
But will those projects actually get built, and in what order?
Fresno State President Saul Jimenez-Sandoval described the project list currently before the voters as “a draft.”
(It should be noted that Jimenez-Sandoval spoke to Fresnoland not as a proponent nor opponent of Measure E, but as a representative of the university providing context on Fresno State process and capital priorities.)
A new committee, formed by Fresno State, will develop the final list of priority projects. It may look different than what Measure E proponents have put forward, supporters acknowledge.
Nothing in the ballot measure requires that a new nursing building be built, nor that the football stadium gets a dollar.
Critics, like Arias, are raising flags about this, contrasting the flexible nature of Measure E with local bonds or sales taxes like Measure C or Measure Z, where the project lists were more clearly specified within the actual text of the ballot measure.
“And that’s one of the huge roadblocks for us is, you know what you’re getting with Measure C and the zoo. You don’t know what you’re getting with Measure E, because it’s up to seven folks to decide what actually gets built of that list of projects.”
That said, Jimenez-Sandoval named engineering, nursing, and the new concert hall as priorities he expected to remain on the list, should Measure E pass.
The measure does require that two $50 million endowments be created – one for scholarships for low-income local students and veterans, and another for deferred maintenance, and other campus program support. Interest earned on these endowments can be spent on those purposes during the 25-year period of the tax, but the $50 million needs to be preserved after its sunset and handed over to the university.
Orman said he expects those endowments to be created in the first three or four years of the measure.
Every year, 1% will of tax proceeds will be set aside for the county to spend on staffing and administration costs, according to the text of the measure.
Money can be spent within a two-mile radius of the Fresno State campus – or any additional locations in Fresno County owned or leased by the university.
Taxpayer money will also be used on anything within the “improvement zone”, which is defined as an area with a radius of two miles around the physical borders of the physical campus.
Who will decide what specific projects – and contractors – get the money?
Because the ballot measure doesn’t include a specific project list, two committees and the CSU Board of Trustees will all play powerful roles. One of the committees stands to potentially pay its members a significant salary.
Fresno State officials will create a new campus committee with representation from the Faculty Senate, the Associated Student Body, staff, administrators, and community members, to determine university priorities for spending the Measure E funds, according to Jimenez-Sandoval.
A new seven-member Citizens’ Oversight Committee will verify that projects submitted by the campus committee align with the intent of the ballot measure. Five members will be appointed by the Fresno County Board of Supervisors; the other two will be appointed by the CSU Chancellor’s Office and the Fresno State president. This committee will be staffed by Fresno County officials.
Unlike many city and county commissions, however, oversight committee members will be paid – and it could be a significant salary. The exact amount wasn’t specified, but it can’t be greater than the current compensation of the Fresno County Senior Board Member Assistant of the Board of Supervisors. As a reference, the salary for the senior board member assistant in 2023 was $80,574.
Orman said the reason they’re paying committee members is to attract ‘highly qualified’ individuals. But the potential for an unprecedented $80,000 salary for appointed committee members raises eyebrows for opponents, including current Fresno City Councilmembers Garry Bredefeld and Arias, who say it opens the door for cronyism.
The new oversight committee will be subject to California’s Brown Act – meaning that all meetings will be open to members of the public.
Once the Citizens’ Oversight Committee approves a project, it then would go before the CSU Board of Trustees for final approval, Jiménez-Sandoval said.
“They are the ones with the ultimate authority within the CSU system to determine whether or not a building is going to be built on campus and whether or not that building aligns with the mission of the university,” he emphasized.
Bidding for each project will go through the CSU system’s competitive process, according to Jiménez-Sandoval, with the CSU Board of Trustees giving a final nod to each contractor or architect. Once a contractor or vendor is chosen through that process, the Citizen Oversight Committee will then need to approve the chosen bidder, Orman confirmed.
How will oversight committee members be chosen?
The county’s Board of Supervisors gets the final say. Candidates for the committee will be chosen through an application process open to all voting-age Fresno County residents. Applicants cannot be current employees, officials, vendors or contractors that belong to the county. Committee members would serve five-year stints with a three-term limit.
Will all the money go to building a new football stadium?
No, it can’t.
While the Measure E ballot language doesn’t mention any football-related spending, the proponent’s wishlist carves out $240 million for athletics. That’s about 15% of all spending currently planned during the tax’s 25-year lifetime.
This includes modernizing Valley Children’s Stadium, with a $160 million price tag spread across two phases.
But again, the project list developed by Yes on E is not the final list – the oversight committee will ultimately decide, after receiving recommendations from Fresno State, where to direct funds. If they wanted to spend more than $240 million on athletics, they could, as long as they set aside $100 million for the academic and scholarship endowments.
Why is Fresno State going to the taxpayers, not the state, or the private sector, to pay for improvements?
Critics of Measure E say this is one of the fatal flaws of the initiative.
“This is a shift of liability and responsibility from the State of California to fix their buildings to Fresno County taxpayers,” said Ashjian.
“Not one person supporting Measure E came to speak to me to advocate for state resources to come to Fresno State University last year to address the issues they claim we need to pay more taxes for,” said Assemblymember Esmeralda Soria, speaking at the Feb. 12 press conference.
She further clarified that she has met with university leaders on different budget priorities.
Backers of Measure E are the first to remind voters of the overwhelming amount of deferred maintenance on current buildings – around $462 million.
This isn’t just a Fresno State problem.
“The CSU system has a pretty large deferred maintenance backlog,” said Kevin Cook, associate director for the Public Policy Institute of California’s Higher Education Center.
Usually the state sets aside one-time dollars to pay down that backlog, Cook said. But Fresno State didn’t get any of its high-priority deferred maintenance projects – fire alarm replacements, HVAC, or elevators – about $45 million requested – funded in the last state budget. Jimenez-Sandoval doesn’t expect any state funding this year, given California’s current budget crisis.
A state bond to help pay for improvements is an unlikely solution, Cook said.
“In general, the UC and CSU systems have more trouble trying to get bond funding,” Cook explained. The last time California voters approved a higher education bond was in 2006, he added.
Community colleges and K-12 school districts have bonding authority to go directly to the voters to pay for deferred maintenance or new facilities – something that CSUs cannot do. Cook speculated that there may be less support for higher education bond measures because universities have other revenue sources, including tuition.
Cook said a sales tax to fund a local university is pretty rare – he hadn’t heard of any CSU or UC campus attempting a similar feat.
Lease revenue bonds – where a university loans money from the bond market to finance new construction, paid back by revenue from that facility – such as ticket sales, or parking fees are more common, Cook said.
That might be easier for facilities that have a steady revenue stream – like athletics, a parking garage, or a new nursing school that a donor would want to put their name on – not unlike Fresno State’s new Resnick Student Union.
“But who would want the Kevin Cook HVAC system?,” he joked.
The $103 million Save Mart Center, completed in 2003, used private bond financing backed by a naming rights deal, corporate sponsorships, ticket sales, concessions sales, and other donations. But the arena has been a money pit for Fresno State. Ticket and concession revenues pay down the 2003 bond debt but don’t cover the rent.
Orman said it’s very likely that if Measure E passes, the tax revenue would be used to bond out for several of the projects, helping get projects built faster. An economic analysis commissioned by the Yes on E campaign, also mentions that the university expects to raise $50 million in additional private funds to match the estimated $1.57 billion in tax revenues. It does not say what the private funds will be spent on.
Will this prevent new taxes from coming to Fresno County voters in the future?
Could this be the tax to end future taxes, at least locally? Maybe.
California law limits the total sales tax for any county to not exceed 2% over the state’s threshold – limiting Fresno County to 9.25%.
If Measure E passes, many Fresno County cities would be near that limit – from Fowler, Kerman, Kingsburg, Parlier, to Sanger and Huron.
Reedley and Mendota would be exempt from paying into Measure E since the 0.25% tax would push both cities, currently at a 9.225% sales tax rate, over the cap.
That would be bad news for other special interests or community groups interested in going to the voters to fund their plans. They might need to seek an exemption from the state legislature like Alameda County, among other California counties, have done.
What will happen if the tax fails?
Fresno State would still be left with around $462 million left in deferred maintenance and an athletic campaign with a $250 million goal.
Who is funding the support and opposition of Measure E?
The Yes on E campaign has raised over $2.2 million, with $1.71 million coming from entities associated with local contractor Richard Spencer – California Manufacturing & Engineering Co, and Richard F. Spencer and Associates, according to county campaign finance and state business filings.
Opponents to Measure E have not filed any committees to collect donations.
Click on the chart below to explore the donations.
Who is supporting and opposing Measure E?
Support
- Fresno Mayor Jerry Dyer
- Fresno City Councilmember Tyler Maxwell
- Fresno County District 3 Supervisor Sal Quintero
- State Assemblymember Jim Patterson
- Fresno Area Hispanic Foundation CEO Dora Westerlund
- Fresno County Sheriff John Zanoni
- Former Clovis Unified Superintendent Terry Bradley
- Northern California Carpenters Regional Council
- Greater Fresno Area Chamber of Commerce
- Fresno Bee Editorial Board
Opposed
- Assemblymember Esmeralda Soria
- Former Congressman George Radanovich
- Fresno City Councilmember Miguel Arias
- Fresno City Councilmember Garry Bredefeld
- Former State Center Community College District Trustee Eric Payne
- Former Fresno Unified Trustee and businessman Brooke Ashjian
- Fresno County Democratic Party
- Fresno County Lincoln Club
- Fresno County Libertarian Party
- League of Women Voters
- Coalinga City Council
Leave a comment