Measure C is dead. At least in its current form.

The Fresno Council of Governments Policy Board held a special meeting Wednesday night to move the potentially $7 billion tax renewal effort forward, preparing it for the March ballot. The measure expires June 30, 2027, meaning it needs voter approval in 2026.

The board — composed of 15 mayors within the and a member of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors — voted 9-3 to not move forward.

That means that if a transportation tax is to move beyond 2026, it needs to come from a citizen-led initiatives through signature gathering.

Fresno COG Executive Director Robert Phipps called the decision a “disappointment.”

“Unfortunately, the decision was to not move forward at this time, so I’m not sure what the next steps are going to be fore the measure itself,” Phipps told GV Wire. “As far as Fresno COG’s role, that appears to be the end of the line for us.”

Mayors Point Fingers at County for Measure C Death. County Says Plan Was Bad

Several mayors referred to the Measure C renewal plan as a good plan. The “best thing we could create,” as Huron Mayor Rey Leon put it.

“Don’t kill the good for the perfect,” Leon said during the meeting. He said 85% of citizens would benefit from the measure.

Parlier Mayor and Fresno COG Chair Alma Beltran blamed Fresno County supervisors for killing Measure C.

“The reason we’re here is the refusal from the county of working with us,” Beltran said. She told GV Wire that COG worked in good faith to create a measure everyone could support.

Fresno County Board Chair Garry Bredefeld disagreed with Beltran during the meeting, saying COG had caved to demands from Transportation 4 All — a coalition of progressive advocacy groups — despite multiple studies showing high prioritization of road repairs for Measure C.

Demands from Transportation 4 All resulted in expanding the size of the steering committee to include more than a dozen nonprofits.

Bredefeld called the decision a “disgrace” after the governing body spent nearly $1 million to assemble lawyers and committees and studies to prepare the measure for voters.

“They wasted $925,000 of taxpayer money and ended up at the same place where they were threatened that if they didn’t comply with what the radicals wanted, they would do a citizens initiative and put it on the ballot,” Bredefeld told GV Wire. “They ultimately caved, weren’t willing to negotiate to get the support of four other mayors as well as the county.”

Road/Transit Funding Split Has County Interests Divided

After getting the long-awaited spending proposal from Measure C’s steering committee, the tax had several more hoops before making it on the ballot.

Following an approval by COG, it still had to get approval from the various cities as well as Fresno County, where supervisors had voiced strong opposition to the spending plan that would have directed 25% of revenue to alternative transit projects.

Bredefeld said given the $1.3 billion in deferred maintenance for city of Fresno streets and a possible $1.6 billion in deferred maintenance for county streets, the 65% was not enough.

The steering committee proposal also included requirements and benchmarks for new streets including bike lanes and trails that planning experts said were not feasible.

Bredefeld said of the 21,000 homes he visited during his 2024 campaign, “every one” wanted roads fixed.

“This is a measure that basically is designed to try to get people out of their cars and ride buses, bicycles, and electric scooters to work,” Bredefeld said. “It’s an abomination. And the process was completely hijacked by radicals.”

Calls and text messages to Andy Levine of Transportation 4 All and Ashley Swearengin of the Central Valley Community Foundation — which backed T4All’s bid for 12 seats on the steering committee, were not returned before publication of this story.

At the December meeting, Kay Bertken, president of the League of Women Voters of Fresno and a member of the steering committee, said the tax plan needed options to provide transit into the future.

“We’re talking about 2057. They would like to see a community that is not without options to the individual vehicle. We would like to look like other communities in this state, other large cities that have devoted money, time, resources, planning to having a really robust public transit system,” Bertken said.

The Race to Get a New Version on the 2026 Ballot

With Measure C’s future very much uncertain due to competing interests on how tax money should be spent, proponents from both sides have been racing against the clock to get a new initiative on the ballot in time.

Fresno County Clerk/Registrar of Voters James Kus said in December 2025 ideally, an initiative should have gone to him by October 2025.

A citizen-led initiative would only require 50% plus one voter as opposed to the two-thirds voter threshold Measure C would require.

The final date to get a transportation tax on the November ballot is Aug. 7, Kus said previously. Petitions need to be circulated for six months and a notice of intent has to be published.

Will There Be an Alternative?

A group of transportation experts has been working in the background for an alternative Measure C proposal. At the December county board of supervisors meeting, a spending proposal from former COG director Tony Boren and former Fresno County Transportation Authority director Mike Leonardo proposed a 70% dedication to road maintenance, an 11% dedication to transit, and 15% to regional projects.

What About Regional Projects?

Previous discussions have been away from regional projects such as highways and major road improvements. At the December meeting, Supervisor Nathan Magsig had said having a pool for regional projects means finishing Highway 180 West improvements as well as other significant expansion projects.

The 11% for transit would be a near halving from the 20% allocation in the current measure. Measure C funds directly support public transit projects throughout the county.

Swearengin’s group had previously indicated that it would put a competing measure on the ballot if the Transportation 4 All coalition was not included in Measure C decision-making.

If voters approve two versions, the one with the higher vote total would go into effect. Measures placed on the ballot through signature gathering require 50% plus one to pass.