What’s at stake?
Voters living in the City of Fresno may have to weigh in on two separate ballot measures this November aimed at replacing Measure C revenues — one in just the city, the other countywide.
A City of Fresno general tax, framed as a possible backstop for Measure C transportation funds, is staying on the ballot — but not because the Fresno City Council had anything to do with it.
Not directly.
The council was scheduled to debate removing the tax measure from the ballot at a last-minute special meeting on Wednesday afternoon, set to begin just two hours before the county clerk’s 5 p.m. deadline for ballot withdrawals.
But the meeting never started. That’s because the council never reached a quorum — in this case, four members of the seven-member body — as required to conduct business under California’s public meetings laws.
Only Miguel Arias, Brandon Vang and Nick Richardson reported for duty at City Hall on Wednesday, while Annalisa Perea, Mike Karbassi, Tyler Maxwell and Nelson Esparza were absent.
Richardson brushed off words of appreciation from members of the public that waited in vain to make public comment on the lone agenda item before they left the chambers unsatisfied.
“That is the boilerplate expectation of an elected official,” he said in an interview following the non-meeting. “Show up to work.”
Richardson added that he wasn’t going to “castigate” a colleague who said he was absent due to a family emergency. That appeared to be in reference to Karbassi, whose office shared a statement via social media Wednesday afternoon that he wasn’t in attendance due to a “sudden, serious medical emergency affecting a member of his family.”
But as for the others: “I don’t think anyone missed the meeting unintentionally,” the second-year councilmember said. “I’ve never known of them to do that.”
Two other councilmembers also eventually explained their absences Wednesday afternoon.
Council Vice President Tyler Maxwell — who, alongside Vang, Arias and Richardson, signed the resolution calling for Wednesday’s special meeting — said in a text to Fresnoland that he had a “preexisting commitment” preventing him from attending.
“It was my sincere hope,” he added, “that a conversation could have still taken place despite my absence.”
Perea’s office released a statement after the conclusion of Wednesday’s meeting, sharing that she had attempted to make arrangements to attend the meeting via Zoom but that the rushed timeline made that impossible.
“This last-minute move impacted preset, existing travel schedules. I consulted with our City Clerk to place me on (Zoom) so that I could debate this reckless move with my colleagues,” she said, “however, the timing of this rushed public meeting did not allow us to meet legal noticing requirements that would have afforded me the opportunity to participate by (Zoom).”
Esparza didn’t respond to a question about why he wasn’t in attendance on Wednesday. When asked earlier in the week whether he, as council president, would consider calling a special meeting to withdraw the general tax, Esparza told Fresnoland that he didn’t think questions regarding whether a countywide transportation tax proposal to replace Measure C would land on the November ballot would be answered in time for the withdrawal deadline.
In the absence of action from the council on Wednesday, Fresno residents should expect to see at least one measure on their ballot that city officials have pitched as an effort to cover city transportation costs and offset the projected loss of tens of millions annually, plus hundreds of jobs, without a Measure C replacement in line before the longtime tax expires in June 2027.
But it remains possible for Fresno city voters to see two transportation-related measures on their ballots this November, as the embattled Better Roads, Safe Streets campaign waits for the bureaucratic dust to settle.
In July, the Fresno County Board of Supervisors took a controversial vote that likely delayed placing Better Roads on the ballot until 2028, after Measure C expires. Then, last week, a state law seemingly overrode the supervisors’ action by writing a new state law — exclusive to Fresno County — legally requiring the measure be placed on the upcoming November ballot.
On Tuesday, the Fresno County Board of Supervisors fired back and passed a resolution to place Better Roads on the March 2028 ballot, while Fresno County Clerk James Kus said he would take steps to place it instead on the November ballot according to his read of the new state law.
Political maneuvering continued Wednesday as the county filed a lawsuit in Fresno County Superior Court against the State of California, their own county elections clerk, Fresno Mayor Jerry Dyer and others, asking for a preliminary injunction to prevent the clerk from placing Better Roads on the November ballot, among other interventions from the court.
Attorneys representing the board — as well as two fellow petitioners, namely former Fresno County GOP Chairman Fred Vanderhoof, and former conservative talk radio personality Mike Der Manouel, Jr. — have asked the court to weigh in by Sept. 9: the date when “ballot materials are sent to the printer.”
But as of Wednesday afternoon, City Attorney Andrew Janz said in a statement that the city had confirmed Kus “is still not in possession of all materials necessary to officially place ‘Better Roads, Safe Streets’ on the November ballot.”
Kus confirmed in an email Thursday morning that as of 5 p.m. on Wednesday, Fresno County hadn’t filed the resolution to place the Better Roads measure on the ballot with the elections office.
“All jurisdictions are required to file an original, wet-signed copy of their resolution prior to any action being taken by my office regarding their measure,” he said.
Richardson said he’d been looking forward to having a public discussion about the “hour-to-hour” changes regarding whether the Better Roads, Safe Streets tax measure will appear before voters in November and what the city has to lose or gain with putting its own measure on the ballot this year.
That opportunity never came.
But a fellow councilmember was critical of how the special meeting got called in the first place.
“I am disappointed that 4 of my colleagues called for a last-minute special meeting considering that this meeting could have been called for late last week,” said Perea in her statement. “It clearly demonstrates a knee jerk, sloppy maneuver that could negatively affect the very residents that they represent.”
Perea was also the lone councilmember to vote against placing the general tax on the ballot during the first and only time that question was debated publicly at City Hall at a marathon meeting last month. She voiced concerns that it could become a “blank check” since general taxes can’t be earmarked for any specific purpose, despite how city leaders have framed it.
Earlier on Wednesday, multiple union leaders had voiced support for the removal of the general tax from the ballot to avoid confusing voters if Better Roads also appears on the ballot. That included representatives from the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1027, the Central Labor Council, SEIU Local 2015, the Fresno City Employees Association and the City of Fresno Professional Employees Association.
Two candidates for Fresno City Council, Ariana Martinez-Lott and Naindeep Singh, also participated in a brief news conference in front of City Hall on Wednesday calling on the council to remove the general tax, which Singh also referred to as “another blank check for City Hall,” in favor of Better Roads.
The Better Roads campaign was also critical of the city council’s inaction — and the placement of the general tax on the ballot, despite Mayor Dyer’s previous statements that he would withdraw it if Better Roads qualified — after Wednesday’s meeting passed 5 p.m. without a quorum.
“Voters within Fresno city limits will now have to sort through two proposals,” the campaign shared in a statement, “weigh which one actually funds road repairs, and figure out which one is just a general fund grab dressed up as a transportation fix.”
Meanwhile, Dyer earlier this week urged residents to vote “yes” on both measures, potentially, and argued that the two aren’t in competition with each other.
