Measure S Debate: Is 4% of Tax Revenue a Slush Fund or a Safeguarded Program?
With Election Day less than two weeks away, a sharp disagreement has emerged over how Measure S would spend a portion of the half-cent transportation sales tax Fresno County voters will decide on November 3.
At the center of the dispute is the measure’s Access and Innovation Program, which would receive 4% of annual Measure S revenue — roughly $12 million if the measure generates $300 million annually, as opponents estimate. Critics call it a slush fund. Supporters say that charge misrepresents the safeguards built into the measure’s text.
“What it is, in reality, is a slush fund for the nonprofit funders of Measure S,” said Alex Tavlian, campaign manager for the No on Measure S campaign.
Former Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin, now president and CEO of the Central Valley Community Foundation, rejected that characterization. “I think they’re just being fussy and silly and misrepresenting what’s actually in this measure,” Swearengin said.
According to the ballot measure, the Access and Innovation Program funds are intended for planning and projects that enable new transportation technologies, expand zero-emission infrastructure, and increase access to destinations throughout Fresno County.
The measure requires the Fresno Council of Governments to first use those funds to support and maintain free transit programs for seniors, veterans, active-duty military personnel, people with disabilities, children, and students through Fresno Area Express, Clovis Transit, and the Fresno County Rural Transit Agency.
Only if money remains after those obligations are met can the council award competitive grants for projects involving clean transportation, mobility improvements, and emerging transportation technologies. Eligible projects could include electric vehicle charging stations, hydrogen fueling infrastructure, zero-emission vehicle planning, micromobility hubs, telecommuting infrastructure, and other future transportation technologies.
Opponents estimate roughly $8 million could be left over annually after the free-transit obligations are met, and they argue the language gives too much discretion over how tax revenues are spent.
“4% of $300 million seems like a very small amount, but it’s a lot of our money that’s going to go into their pockets to do whatever it is they want to do,” Tavlian said.
Supporters point to requirements in the measure’s text that they say prevent organizations from directly accessing the funds without government oversight.
The measure specifies that while private-sector entities, nonprofits, and other government agencies may apply for grants, their applications must be submitted through and sponsored by the local government where the project is located. Cities and Fresno County are generally intended to serve as the primary applicants.
“They have to go through the local governments that are actually host to the projects. So at the end of the day, our local governments that are directly accountable to the people, they are the ones who decide,” Swearengin said.
Supporters also note that the competitive grant process would be administered by the Fresno Council of Governments and would be subject to implementation policies and guidelines established by the agency.
At a press conference Thursday, Fresno Mayor Jerry Dyer and other local leaders rejected the slush-fund claim. “The inference that it creates a slush fund is taken out of context significantly. In fact, I would say it’s a false narrative,” Dyer said.
Tavlian countered that the structure still allows too much room for favoritism. “They want to partner with the guys who funded this measure to make sure that they get the money, whatever that percentage is for them, that they can get,” Tavlian said.
The measure is supported by 11 of Fresno County’s 15 mayors.
Measure S would replace Measure C, the existing transportation sales tax, and fund transportation projects across Fresno County.
The Breakdown
- Measure S is a half-cent sales tax that would replace Measure C and fund transportation projects across Fresno County.
- The Access and Innovation Program would receive 4% of annual Measure S revenue — estimated at roughly $12 million per year if total revenue is $300 million.
- The Fresno Council of Governments must first use those funds to support free transit programs for seniors, veterans, active-duty military personnel, people with disabilities, children, and students.
- Only money left over after those obligations are met can be awarded as competitive grants for clean transportation, mobility improvements, and emerging transportation technologies.
- Grant applications from private-sector entities, nonprofits, and other agencies must be submitted through and sponsored by the local government where the project is located.
- The Fresno Council of Governments would administer the competitive grant process and establish implementation policies and guidelines.
What This Means for You
Your vote on November 3 will decide whether Fresno County extends its transportation sales tax — and whether the spending plan outlined in Measure S, including the Access and Innovation Program, governs how that taxpayer money is used.
The dispute over the 4% allocation is a direct question about accountability: whether the measure’s language gives local governments enough control over how grant money is distributed, or whether it leaves too much room for discretion in awarding taxpayer dollars to private entities and nonprofits.
If you’re weighing how to vote on Measure S, this disagreement asks you to judge whether the safeguards described by supporters — requiring local-government sponsorship, oversight by the Fresno Council of Governments, and implementation guidelines — are sufficient, or whether the critics’ concern about discretion and favoritism is a real risk worth rejecting the measure over.
What to Watch
The material documents a fundamental disagreement, but it leaves several questions unanswered — questions that would help a voter judge the Access and Innovation Program more clearly.
First, who funded Measure S, and what financial stake do those funders have in the projects eligible for Access and Innovation grants? Tavlian’s claim that supporters “want to partner with the guys who funded this measure” is a specific accusation, but the material does not identify who those funders are or whether any of them stand to benefit from the grant program. Campaign finance filings for Measure S would show who contributed, and at what levels, to the Yes campaign.
Second, what do the “implementation policies and guidelines” that the Fresno Council of Governments would establish actually require? Supporters say those policies would govern the competitive grant process, but the material does not describe what those policies would contain, whether they would be public, or whether they would include conflict-of-interest rules for grant applicants. The measure’s text itself, and any staff reports or planning documents prepared by the Fresno Council of Governments, would clarify what oversight is actually built in.
Third, how much money would actually remain for competitive grants after the free-transit obligations are met? Opponents estimate roughly $8 million annually, but the material does not provide a breakdown of the cost of the free-transit programs or confirm how much of the 4% allocation those programs would consume. A budget estimate from the Fresno Council of Governments or the transit agencies involved would settle that figure.
Fourth, does requiring local-government sponsorship actually prevent favoritism, or does it simply add a procedural step? The measure requires grant applications to be submitted through and sponsored by a local government, but it does not specify what “sponsorship” requires — whether it’s a formal vote, a staff review, or a letter of support. A rhetorical question worth asking: if a nonprofit with close ties to a local government applies for a grant, does the sponsorship requirement function as real oversight, or as a rubber stamp?
Finally, is there a pattern in Fresno County or elsewhere of competitive grant programs being used to direct public money to politically connected organizations? That question is not answered by the material, but it’s the underlying concern driving the slush-fund accusation. A review of past grant awards under Measure C, or comparable programs in other counties, would show whether such concerns have a basis in practice or are speculative.
