Republican Mayors Lead Charge for Measure S Transportation Tax Despite Party Split

When Fresno County Board of Supervisors Chairman Garry Bredefeld called supporters of Measure S “radical leftists,” Coalinga Mayor Nathan Vosburg — a registered Republican who describes himself as “a very conservative person” — couldn’t help but shake his head and roll his eyes.

Vosburg is one of several Republican mayors across Fresno County backing the half-cent transportation sales tax going before voters this November. The group includes Fresno Mayor Jerry Dyer, Clovis Mayor Vong Mouanoutoua, Mendota Mayor Victor Martinez, and Parlier Mayor Alma Beltran — all lining up against three Republican county supervisors who oppose the measure.

“It’s not based on [party affiliation] whatsoever,” Vosburg said. “I think a lot of what the county doesn’t like is because it gives more money to the cities, to the individual cities, to actually fix what needs to be fixed first, rather than expansion.”

The split reveals a tension between cities that see Measure S as overdue correction for years of neglected neighborhood roads, and critics — including Reedley Mayor Matthew Tuttle, also a Republican — who worry about the measure’s priorities and 30-year lifespan.

If passed by a majority, Measure S would generate $7.4 billion through 2057, directing 65% to existing neighborhood roads compared to 34.6% under the expiring Measure C. The revenue shift heavily favors cities: Fresno would see its transportation funding jump from $226 million over 20 years under Measure C to $2.26 billion over 30 years under Measure S. Clovis would go from $48.8 million to $542 million.

Smaller cities stand to gain even more dramatically. Coalinga’s share would rise from $9.2 million to $81.3 million. Mendota’s would jump from $6.9 million to $61.4 million.

“For too long our cities have been forgotten with [Measure C] shorting our cities a lot with funding,” Martinez said. “That explains the reason why these roads in our communities are so bad.”

In downtown Mendota, Martinez points to Naples Street — a side road littered with potholes, some crudely patched, others worn down to gravel. The city’s Pavement Condition Index stands at 36 on a 1-to-100 scale, considered “very poor.” “This road has probably never seen any enhancement since it was constructed 40 or 50 years ago,” Martinez said.

In Firebaugh, Mayor Freddy Valdez walks visitors to residential Yip Street, where spiderwebbed pavement “resembles the leathery scales of an alligator.” Beyond road repairs, Valdez hopes Measure S funding — more than eight times what Firebaugh received under Measure C — could tackle a four-way stop at P Street and Avenue 7½, where traffic from commercial trucks backs up during commute hours near an intermediate school.

“I brought out a bunch of experts to help us to see if building an underpass, building an overpass, building a calming circle are all the answers, and [if] any of those will work,” Valdez said. “But guess what? You need funds.”

Not all mayors are convinced. Tuttle, who voted against Measure S on the Fresno Council of Governments board (11 voted yes, four voted no), argues the measure’s reduction in regional project funding — 5% under Measure S compared to 30.4% under Measure C — would affect connector roads that Reedley residents use daily.

“Reedley is a bedroom community. The majority of our public travels outside the city of Reedley on a daily basis,” Tuttle said. “That regional connectivity is super important, not just to Reedley, but it should be important to everybody.”

Tuttle also criticized the measure’s 30-year lifespan (10 years longer than Measure C), language requiring roads in disadvantaged communities be improved before more affluent areas as “too prescriptive,” and phrasing around bike lanes and school routes as leaving cities “vulnerable to litigation.”

If voters reject Measure S, cities won’t have transportation tax funding until at least the next election cycle. But Tuttle is willing to take that risk: “No measure is better than a flawed measure — especially for 30 years. I would much rather go back to the negotiation table because we can do better.”

Clovis Mayor Mouanoutoua, who is running for county supervisor, responded to critics by redirecting the debate: “We can all debate, but tell me what you don’t like about it — not who you don’t like. That’s your personal problem.”

The Breakdown

• Measure S is a half-cent sales tax projected to generate $7.4 billion through 2057 to fund transportation projects across Fresno County
• 65% of revenue goes to existing neighborhood roads, compared to 34.6% under the expiring Measure C
• 5% goes to regional projects, down from 30.4% under Measure C
• Cities would see dramatically increased funding — Fresno from $226 million (over 20 years) to $2.26 billion (over 30 years); smaller cities like Coalinga from $9.2 million to $81.3 million
• The measure runs for 30 years, 10 years longer than Measure C
• It requires roads in disadvantaged communities be improved before more affluent areas
• The Fresno Council of Governments board voted 11-4 to place it on the ballot

What This Means for You

This is your chance to decide how Fresno County allocates billions in transportation funding over the next three decades. The measure represents a shift: away from regional highway projects and toward neighborhood street repairs within city limits.

If you live in a city with deteriorating roads — particularly smaller west-side communities like Mendota or Firebaugh — Measure S offers significantly more money for local repairs. If you commute between cities on county connector roads, the reduction in regional project funding is a factor to consider. This is a 30-year commitment requiring only a majority vote — your decision sets the course through 2057.

What You Can Do

Measure S appears on the November ballot. Contact your city council or the Fresno Council of Governments to ask how your city would use the funding, what regional projects would be affected, and what oversight mechanisms exist for the 30-year spending plan.

What to Watch

The revenue split — 65% local, 5% regional — raises questions about the allocation formula. Cities with the most residents (Fresno, Clovis) capture the largest dollar amounts in absolute terms, even though smaller cities see the biggest percentage increases.

Tuttle’s concern about “where feasible” language around bike lanes and school routes centers on whether vague requirements could leave cities vulnerable to litigation when advocates claim a city didn’t go far enough.

The requirement to improve roads in disadvantaged communities first raises questions about implementation: how are disadvantaged communities determined, and does that determination remain fixed for three decades regardless of how neighborhoods change?

Finally, Firebaugh’s situation illustrates a broader question about the relationship between local and regional transportation systems. Commercial truck traffic passes through Firebaugh because, as Valdez noted, “People traveling through Firebaugh save 27 minutes to get to the Bay Area” compared to taking Highway 152. Measure S could fund local improvements to manage that traffic, but it doesn’t address why the traffic routes through a small city in the first place.