What If the New Fresno Tax Does Not Pass and Fresnans Keep $65 Million in Their Pockets?

Drive through almost any older Fresno neighborhood and the pavement tells its own story. Cracked streets. Potholes. Uneven pavement. Broken sidewalks. Curbs that have waited decades for repair.

That is why Fresno’s proposed new half-cent sales tax should be about performance, priorities, accountability and results.

The question is not whether Fresno needs better roads, sidewalks and public transportation. It does.

The real question is whether Fresno voters should approve a new half-cent general sales tax expected to raise approximately $65 million every year, when the revenue would go into the General Fund with no legally binding percentage requiring that it be spent on roads, sidewalks, transit or transportation matching funds.

What happened to the Measure C money Fresno already had?

Fresno County voters approved Measure C in 1986 as a half-cent transportation sales tax. Voters approved another 20-year extension in 2006, which expires June 30, 2027. Measure C therefore had a defined life and a defined transportation purpose.

According to the Fresno County Transportation Authority, Measure C has raised more than $2 billion locally over its history, with roughly $1 billion or more in direct and regional Measure C transportation investment benefiting the Fresno area.

In addition, Measure C and related state and federal resources have contributed to more than $8 billion in transportation investment.

That leads to perhaps the most important question in this debate.

At the July 30, 2026, City Council meeting, Mayor Jerry Dyer said:

“$20.6 million is utilized annually by our departments as a match to seek federal and state dollars.”

He then added:

“Those monies have translated into $368 million.”

That is impressive financial leverage.

But if Fresno has been using approximately $20.6 million every year to help secure hundreds of millions of dollars in state and federal funding, why did Fresno still fall so far behind on basic road and sidewalk maintenance?

Taxpayers should not have to guess.

The growth of Fresno’s deferred-maintenance bill is troubling.

In early 2023, Fresno Public Works Director Scott Mozier estimated deferred maintenance on City streets at approximately $505 million. By June 2025, the street-maintenance backlog had grown to $1.2 billion, plus $300 million in deferred sidewalk maintenance, a $1.5 billion road-and-sidewalk problem.

The Pavement Condition Index tells the same story. Fresno’s average PCI was 72 in 2008, rated “Good.” By 2025, it had fallen to 64, rated “Fair.”

Then Fresno had to borrow another $100 million through the Pave More Now bond program to accelerate road repairs. That may be necessary today, but it raises an important question:

After nearly four decades of transportation taxes, plus other tax revenues, matching funds, and the ability to leverage local dollars into hundreds of millions more, why did Fresno still have to borrow another $100 million just to catch up?

Transparency should help answer these questions.

Fresno should publish one complete transportation ledger showing Measure C revenue, state and federal transportation funding, matching funds, SB 1, gas-tax revenue, bond proceeds, General Fund contributions, actual street and sidewalk expenditures, transit spending, administrative costs, spending by council district, PCI by district and backlog by district.

Money in. Money out. Work completed. Results achieved. That is transparency.

The proposed new tax would go into Fresno’s General Fund, so the growth of that fund also matters.

According to Fresno’s audited financial statements, General Fund revenues increased from approximately $345.6 million in FY2020 to $470.2 million in FY2025, an increase of about $124.6 million.

So, while Fresno’s infrastructure problem became dramatically more expensive, General Fund revenue also grew substantially.

How did Fresno prioritize its growing revenues while basic road maintenance was falling so far behind?

Councilmember Annalisa Perea said during the July 30 discussion:

“Measure C already accomplished what it was set to do.”

That statement deserves consideration.

When a temporary tax approaches its expiration date, the automatic question should not be:

What tax replaces it?

The better questions are:

Why should the temporary tax continue under a new name with fewer restrictions?

And has Fresno demonstrated that another unrestricted $65 million every year will produce a different result?

Most of the discussion focuses on what City Hall would lose.

There is another side.

What happens if Fresno’s taxpayers keep approximately $65 million every year?

Those dollars circulate through Fresno restaurants, stores, contractors, repair shops and service businesses.

Government spending creates economic activity, but so does private spending.

So, voters face two questions.

Do they approve a new half-cent general sales tax, with no legally binding percentage guaranteeing how much must go to roads, sidewalks, transit or matching funds?

Or do they allow the temporary Measure C tax to expire and leave that money in the hands of consumers and businesses?

That is the choice.

It should be about accountability before another tax, facts before fear, results before a new tax, and guarantees before promises.