Fresno Council Greenlights Tax Measure, Kills Term-Limit Extension and Redistricting Proposal After 13-Hour Session

Fresno City Council wrapped a 13-hour meeting Thursday by advancing exactly one ballot measure to November—a half-cent general sales tax intended to replace expiring Measure C transportation funding—while voting down or tabling three other proposals introduced just days earlier by Mayor Jerry Dyer and three council members.

The approved tax measure passed 6-1, with Councilmember Annalisa Perea dissenting. Measure C expires in June 2027, and without a replacement, the city projects a $54 million annual shortfall that officials say could force 214 job cuts and transit-service reductions.

The rejected proposals—a term-limit extension allowing three consecutive terms instead of two, a redistricting advisory commission, and financing rule changes for the Southeast Development Area (SEDA)—drew sharp criticism from council members and residents who called the rollout rushed, self-serving, and procedurally opaque.

Advertisement

“It is intentionally removing what we would describe as low propensity voters,” Councilmember Miguel Arias said of the redistricting proposal’s eligibility restrictions, which required applicants to have voted in multiple previous primaries—a bar that would exclude younger voters, newly naturalized citizens, and most residents given typical turnout.

The redistricting measure failed 4-3, with Councilmembers Arias, Perea, Brandon Vang, and Nick Richardson voting against. The proposal would have created a citizen commission to advise on drawing district boundaries, but unlike independent commissions in San Diego or Long Beach, the Fresno council would have retained final say—leaving the process open to the same political influence critics wanted removed.

Kay Bertken, co-president of the League of Women Voters’ Fresno chapter, called the three-day public window to review the measure “terrible” and said promoting the advisory body as an independent redistricting commission was “dishonest.”

The term-limit proposal, which would have allowed Dyer and current council members to run for a third consecutive term (up to 12 years total), was unanimously tabled with no return date after even sponsors acknowledged too many hurdles remained. Esparza, who co-sponsored the measure, said he resented criticism that it was “self-serving,” but Richardson said changing the rules because “I like working with the mayor” was the wrong reason to support it.

When Arias pressed Esparza, Karbassi, and Maxwell on who drafted the proposals and how long they’d been in development, City Attorney Andrew Janz invoked confidentiality privileges and shielded the sponsors from answering. The move raised transparency questions about whether looping in the city attorney could become a precedent for dodging public accountability on future legislation.

Council President Esparza said ahead of the votes that there would be no special meeting to revive failed measures: “Items on the ballot, on the agenda today, live or die.” Esparza and Vice President Maxwell—both sponsors of multiple rejected proposals—do have the power to call such a meeting before the August 7 ballot deadline, though doing so would likely draw further criticism.

The Breakdown

• The approved half-cent general sales tax would generate an estimated $65 million annually and sunset automatically if a countywide transportation tax passes in the future. Because it’s a general tax (not earmarked for a specific purpose), it requires only a simple majority (50% + 1) to pass, but the city cannot guarantee how much will go to transit versus other services.
• The redistricting proposal would have created a commission to recommend district boundaries, but the council would have kept final approval authority—unlike truly independent commissions elsewhere. Eligibility rules required applicants to have voted in multiple primaries, a restriction that would exclude most residents.
• The term-limit extension would have allowed three consecutive terms (12 years) instead of two (8 years) and closed a loophole that currently lets former members return after sitting out. It was tabled unanimously after sponsors conceded the language had too many problems.
• The SEDA financing measure, which would have changed debt rules for the Southeast Development Area project, was tabled 4-3 at the start of the meeting after a litigation threat.

What This Means for You

You’ll vote in November on whether to approve a new city sales tax that replaces Measure C’s transportation funding. The rejection of the other three measures means Fresno’s redistricting process stays in the council’s hands (no citizen oversight), current term limits remain at two consecutive terms (Dyer cannot run for a third), and the SEDA financing measure died. The coalition that killed those measures—Arias, Perea, Vang, Richardson—holds veto power over any future attempts to revive them, and those four votes will shape what else does or doesn’t reach your November ballot before the August 7 deadline.

What You Can Do

Thursday’s meeting was the last regularly scheduled meeting before the August 7 ballot deadline—watch the agenda at fresno.gov/citycouncil to see whether any sponsors attempt to revive rejected measures or introduce new proposals. The approved tax measure is now locked for November.

What to Watch

The approved general sales tax is structured to sunset if a countywide measure passes, but it’s also deliberately vague—because the revenue isn’t earmarked, the city is free to spend it on anything once it’s collected, despite the pitch centered entirely on transit and road funding. Perea’s dissent zeroed in on exactly that gap: the city projects a $54 million transit shortfall and says 214 jobs are at stake, but it cannot legally commit that any specific dollar amount from the $65 million in new revenue will actually go to FAX or transportation. That’s the trade-off built into a general tax: it only needs 50% + 1 to pass instead of a two-thirds supermajority, but voters are being asked to trust the council’s spending priorities rather than locking the money to a stated purpose. Perea acknowledged that the higher threshold would make it harder to pass, but that calculation trades certainty of funding for likelihood of passage.