This story was originally published by Fresnoland.
A slim majority of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors voted to delay placing the Better Roads, Safe Streets transportation sales tax measure on the ballot until staff can complete a study of the measure’s impacts — a decision that will likely preclude the measure from appearing on ballots until 2028.
Supervisors Buddy Mendes and Nathan Magsig joined Board Chair Garry Bredefeld in a contentious vote in support of the study at a meeting on Tuesday. Magsig, identified by his fellow supervisor as the “deciding vote,” joined his conservative colleagues after asking more than an hour of questions of the Better Roads drafters, concluding that he ultimately felt the measure was overly “prescriptive” to the county.
“It’s so prescriptive on how the dollars have to be spent,” Magsig said, “I’m concerned that we open ourselves up to litigation.”
The board majority’s decision came despite several pleas leading up to the vote to respect the will of thousands of voters that signed on in support of placing the plan on the November ballot, with several of those pleas coming from fellow conservatives that supported the Better Roads plan.
“It’s a shame that that happened today. I really mean that. This is probably — I think this is voter suppression, quite frankly,” said Fresno Mayor Jerry Dyer in an impromptu gathering outside the Hall of Records following the vote, “because they did not allow the voters to vote on something that I believe the voters should’ve been able to vote on.”
Mendota Mayor Victor Martinez didn’t mince words either as he walked out of the boardroom on Tuesday, calling the board “racists” and the board chair “Garry Bonaparte.”
“They didn’t stall this measure that belongs to the people today because they really need a study. They stalled it because they really just don’t like us. They don’t want us to fix our roads,” he said outside the Hall of Records. “The City of Mendota has been forgotten, and they never did (anything) about it.”
The supervisors’ vote also comes despite projections from county Public Works staff that the expiration of Measure C in 2027 without a replacement lined up could result in roughly 90 layoffs of county staff — including anyone from county road crews to engineers.
That was one of the concerns highlighted on Tuesday by Board Vice Chair Luis Chavez, who, along with Supervisor Brian Pacheco, voted against the study and instead sought to approve placing the measure on the November ballot.
While supporters of Better Roads packed the boardroom to capacity on Tuesday, including elected officials and residents, a handful of mayors and consultants also came out to urge the supervisors to delay placing the measure on the ballot.
That included political consultant Alex Tavlian, who spoke on Tuesday on behalf of San Joaquin Valley Taxpayers Association. Tavlian was also involved with a group that had announced intentions to gather signatures for a separate ballot measure to rival Better Roads, though the status of those signature-gathering efforts is unknown and was not brought up by Tavlian.
Now, Better Roads’ only path to the November ballot hinges on county staff completing their study of the measure quicker than the 30 days they were allotted to do so — though staff told the board on Tuesday that the study likely would take the full time.
After that, the board would then have to call a special meeting prior to the Aug. 7 deadline to qualify for the ballot — a responsibility that resides with the board chair, Bredefeld, who has been the most vocal opponent of Better Roads on the board. Under state law, a majority of supervisors also have the power to call for a special meeting.
In the absence of those two narrow possibilities, Better Roads likely won’t land on ballots until the March 2028 primary election.
When asked whether the campaign was considering litigation against the county board, Better Roads campaign spokesperson Andy Levine, also a Fresno Unified trustee, said no.
“We are incredibly disappointed in the failure of the majority of supervisors to perform their ministerial duty. Of course they had the option of a 30-day study. They’ve had the option of a 30-day study since Jan. 26 of this year, when we filed our measure. … They intentionally waited until today to start this as a way to run out the clock on the Aug. 7 deadline for ballot placement,” he said.
“At this point, the decision has been made, and we are calling on the county staff who will be completing this study to complete the study but do it efficiently and in advance of the Aug. 7 deadline for qualifying for the November ballot,” he added, “to then call for a special meeting so that voters are not denied this opportunity to be able to decide this themselves.”