Fresno County Board Adopts New ‘Farms to Forests’ Logo, Phases Out 1964 Seal
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors voted September 22, 2026 to adopt a new county logo and tagline — “Farms to Forests, We Serve” — marking the first rebrand since the current seal was introduced in 1964. The Board retained the existing seal for official documents only, designating it the “Legacy Seal,” while the new logo will replace it on all other print and digital materials going forward.
The decision follows a process that incorporated input from 2,049 county employees — roughly 25% of the workforce — and 933 residents across all five supervisorial districts. Staff framed the shift as a response to changing communication technology: the 1964 design predated digital platforms and the county’s current emphasis on public engagement, according to the staff report.
The rebrand carries no additional net county cost in FY 2026-27. Materials bearing the old seal will be replaced with the new logo only as existing stock runs out or as items need replacement due to damage or wear. For larger projects — signage, vehicle decals — departments will work with the county’s Graphics Communication Services Division to estimate costs and phase in changes based on available funding. Future budget requests will account for any additional replacement expense.
The Board also conducted a first hearing on an ordinance to control use of the county seal and logo, with a second hearing set for October 6, 2026. The proposed ordinance would prohibit unauthorized use of county branding that could mislead the public into thinking a communication is county-sponsored, with penalties for misuse. The ordinance carves out fair use for news, editorial, educational, or political-expression purposes where the message clearly isn’t county-endorsed.
The Breakdown
- The new logo and tagline — “Farms to Forests, We Serve” — were selected based on survey responses: 933 residents participated, with 62% choosing that tagline over two other options.
- The 1964 seal stays in place for official documents; the new logo replaces it everywhere else — websites, social media, business cards, stationery, flags, banners, signage, vehicle decals.
- No dedicated budget line for the rollout — departments absorb replacement costs through normal operations as materials wear out or stock depletes. Larger projects get phased in as funding allows.
- A countywide branding guide will accompany the new logo, standardizing color palette, typography, and messaging across all departments and platforms.
- The proposed ordinance protects the county seal and logo from unauthorized use that could confuse the public about county sponsorship or official association.
What This Means for You
This is a Board decision about how taxpayer money gets spent on county branding over time — not a one-time line item, but a rolling expense as materials get replaced. The “no additional cost” framing means the county isn’t appropriating new funds for a rebrand push; it’s absorbing the expense through existing department budgets as things naturally wear out. For a voter weighing the Board’s spending priorities, the question is whether phasing in a new logo as old materials age out is the most efficient use of those dollars, or whether deferring any rebrand indefinitely would preserve budget capacity for direct services. The ordinance question is simpler: whether protecting county imagery from misuse is worth codifying, or whether existing remedies are sufficient.
What to Watch
The “no additional cost” claim hinges on departments absorbing replacement expense through normal operations — that’s plausible for business cards and stationery cycling through on their own, less clear for larger assets like signage and vehicle decals that don’t naturally wear out on a predictable schedule. The staff report acknowledges that larger projects will require cost estimates and a replacement schedule, with “sufficient appropriations” included in future budget requests. Translation: the full cost of this rebrand isn’t locked in yet. Watch whether future budget cycles show line items for signage or fleet decals that weren’t part of the original “no additional cost” framing — that’s where the real stakeholder impact shows up. The per-asset question is also worth tracking: replacing a fleet’s worth of vehicle decals isn’t small money, and if that expense competes with other capital needs, voters weighing the Board’s capital-allocation judgment need to know what the trade-off was.
