Follow the Money Who Is Funding Measure S

Fresno County needs better roads, safer sidewalks and reliable public transportation. The question is how to meet those needs. Before taxpayers make a 30-year commitment under Measure S, they deserve to understand its spending priorities and who helped choose them. With about 0.9% of county commuters using public transportation to get to work and approximately 0.8% commuting by bicycle, why would the measure dedicate 25% of its revenue to public transit? Who financed this proposal, and what outcomes do its largest contributors expect?

Fresnoland reported on October 6, 2026, that Yes on S had raised more than $1.8 million in contributions through October 2. Central Valley Community Foundation (CVCF), a 501(c)(3) charitable foundation, supplied approximately $848,098 in cash and in-kind support; the North Coast States Regional Council of Carpenters Issues PAC supplied $500,000. Together, they contributed approximately $1.35 million.

The campaign-finance review identifies CVCF as the contributor but does not identify which foundation fund supplied its support. Did the money come from unrestricted resources, a donor-advised fund or contributions designated for Measure S? Who authorized it? A community foundation holds public trust; its name on a disclosure form does not answer those questions.

Public grant databases report that Waverley Street Foundation, a Bay Area foundation, gave CVCF $1 million in 2024 for “Regional Planning Support.” Waverley focuses on climate solutions. Its senior program officer Geri Yang previously served as CVCF’s Senior Fellow for Climate Equity, leading development of a regional climate-focused investment plan. What priorities did Waverley intend its grant to advance? What restrictions applied? Did Yang participate in requesting or approving the grant? Was any grant-funded work used to develop or promote Measure S?

CVCF also serves as the regional coordinator and fiscal agent for Sierra San Joaquin Jobs, a state-funded regional economic development initiative that incorporates environmental stewardship, climate analysis and environmental-justice representation into regional economic planning.

GV Wire reported on September 9, 2026, that CVCF paid two consultants a combined $12,000 per month to support Measure S. Which funds paid them, what services did they provide and how were those payments disclosed?

Other support included $150,000 from Fund for a Better Future, described by GV Wire as a Sacramento-based climate group. Why is a Sacramento-based group investing in this local transportation measure? What policy outcomes does it hope to advance?

During the 2025 Measure C renewal negotiations, the COG Policy Board approved the “One County, One Plan” compromise 11 to 4 on June 26, 2025, combining parallel renewal efforts and expanding the steering committee from 26 to 38 members.

Transportation for All selected the 12 additional representatives, whose organizations advocate on environmental justice, transportation, labor or public health. Recommendations required 70% approval. If all 38 members voted, the 12 newly added representatives collectively had the power to block recommendations, even if all 26 other members supported them.

Who pressed for the additional seats, and what criteria governed selection? How did COG ensure that organized advocacy priorities did not outweigh residents’ transportation needs across the county?

The September review reports nearly $494,265 paid to The Outreach Team for petition circulation and approximately $1.44 million in expenditures through September 19. Substantial resources were committed before many residents began examining the proposal.

A September 9 Fresno Bee report also described a Luce Research poll about Measures S and D. At that time, Luce declined to identify its client, and Yes on S would not confirm commissioning it. Who paid, and where is the sponsor disclosed?

United for Fresno is asking CVCF for a clear public accounting: identify the funds, restrictions and authorizations, and distinguish regional planning from campaign support. If confidentiality limits disclosure, explain what can be shared and why.

Fresno COG’s 2018 transportation plan reported that the city had added 24 miles of bike paths since 2010, along with 213 miles of bike lanes and routes. Yet bicycle commuting remains below 1% countywide. Bicycle lanes can serve valuable purposes within neighborhoods and along routes to schools. What measurable increase in bicycle use should taxpayers expect from further investments?

Fresno Area Express, the city's public transit system, recorded approximately 9.6 million passenger trips in fiscal 2024, about 14.5% fewer than the 11.24 million recorded in 2005, with public transportation accounting for just 0.9% of county commutes.

Better transportation deserves public investment. A 30-year commitment also deserves clear answers. Fresno COG estimated approximately $5.4 billion in countywide pavement maintenance and rehabilitation needs over 10 years. Shouldn’t Measure S address urgent road and sidewalk repairs first, with clear deadlines and measurable results?

Thirty years is an extraordinarily long time to commit future generations to transportation assumptions being made today. How much flexibility will they retain as technology and travel patterns change? Who shaped these priorities, and what did the largest contributors hope to achieve?

Before taxpayers commit, should those answers not be available in plain language?

AJ Rassamni is a community advocate and president of United for Fresno, formerly known as the Blackstone Merchants Association.