MEASURE C • SHARING YOUR TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
Fresno County Transportation Authority
PROMISES MADE. PROMISES KEPT.
Addressing Our
Transportation
Needs
Measure C Renewal - MC3
Fresno Council of Governments
MEASURE C • SHARING YOUR TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
I ntroduction –Measure C 1 and 2 History
$700 million
75% Urban and Rural State Highways and
Freeways
25% Local Improvements
• NEW Freeway and Highway Construction
(SR-33, 41, 43, 168, 180, 201, & 204)
• Local Streets and Roads Improvements
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities &
Programs
• Airport Improvements
• Public Transportation Services
Original Measure C – 1986-2007 (20 Years)
$1.5 Billion
30% Urban and Rural State Highways and Freeways
70% Local Improvements & Services
• Major Roads, Highways and Freeways of
Regional Significance
• Local Streets and Roads Improvements
• Public Transit Services
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities & Programs
• Airport Improvements
• Environmental Enhancements
• High Priority Grade Separations
Measure C Extension 2007-2027 (20 Years)
Local
Transportation
Regional
Transportation
Regional
Public Transit
Alternative
Transportation
Environmental
Enhancement
Administration
And Planning
Voters Approved the Measure C
Extension with a 78% “YES” Vote
Generates $1.5 Billion in
Measure C Proceeds
July 1, 2007 – June 30, 2027
Generates over $922 Million
in Matching Funds
As of 6/30/20
Total
$1.5 Billion
Measure C Extension – 2007-2027 (20 Years)
(Current Measure)
MEASURE C • SHARING YOUR TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
Measure C Renewal
Measure C Renewal
FCOG & FCTA
Started Effort
in 2020
COVID
Delayed Start
12 months
Measure C Renewal Process
Two
Committees
Formed
Consultants
Retained
Regional Setting
Fresno County Region
• 6,000 sq. miles/6,637 road miles
• Current Population-1,023,358
15 Incorporated Cities
2 Large- Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area
• Fresno- Population-546,770---53.26%
• Clovis-Population- 121,834---11.87%
13 Small Rural Incorporated Cities
• Population Range -4,145-23,000
• 7 eastside cities-Population %-11.97
• 6 westside cities-Population %- 6.32
Fresno County-Unincorporated
• Population-170,067
• Population % -16.56
• Unincorporated Communities “within”
Incorporated Cities:
Fig Garden/Sunnyside/Mayfair/Tarpey, etc.
• 34 “Disadvantaged” Unincorporated
Communities-Examples:
Eastside-Del Rey, Tombstone, Calwa, Malaga,
Westside-Easton, Caruthers, Raisin City
Bowles, Cantura Creek, Lanare, Tranquility,
West Park
Measure C Renewal “Regional” Planning Process - 30-year Time Period The Measure C Renewal Expenditure Plan must balance the inherently varied transportation interests of the different regional stakeholders in order to garner the support of two-thirds of Fresno County voters in 2022 Renewal Plan Executive Committee
Resulted from Request to
Expand the Committee
17 Meetings
Note: Additional members were added in
response to requests from Community Advocates
MEASURE C EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
1 David Cardenas, Mayor, Fowler/Co-Chair—EASTSIDE
2 Lynne Ashbeck, Mayor Pro Tem, Clovis/Co-Chair—METRO
3 Vong Mouanotoua, Councilmember, Clovis--METRO
4 Jerry Dyer, Mayor, Fresno--METRO, Gregory Barfield, Alternate 5 Eli Ontiveros, Mayor, Sanger—EASTSIDE
6 Gary Yep, Mayor, Kerman--WESTSIDE
7 Rolando Castro, Mayor, Mendota—WESTSIDE (Small Business Owner In Mendota 8 Paul Nerland, County of Fresno--COUNTY
9 Sheriff Margaret Mims—COUNTY
10 Chief Greg Tarascou, Sanger Fire/Emergency Medical
BUSINESS/LABOR/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/CIVIC SECTORS
11 Lee Ann Eager, EDC—CIVIC
12 Scott Miller, Fresno Chamber—CIVIC
13 Thilani Grubel, Bitwise—BUSINESS/TECHNOLOGY, Jake Soberal, Alternate 14 Debbie Hunsaker, Alert O Lite—BUSINESS
15 Ryan Jacobsen, Farm Bureau—AG
16 Lorna Roush, Schultz Ranch—AG
17 Roger Van Gronigen, Van G Trucking—GOODS MOVEMENT
18 Chuck Riojas, Central CA Labor Council
19 James Hammond, Laborers Local #294 OE #3-Additional Labor Rep
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS/ADVOCATES/NOT-FOR-PROFITS
20 Linda Hayes, EOC Board of Directors—HUMAN SERVICES
21 Artie Padilla, CVCF—PHILANTHROPY/SERVICE
22 Sarah Harris, Resources for Independence Central Valley --DISABILITY SERVICES 23 Gayle Holman, Community Medical System—HEALTHCARE/SERVICE 24 Cinthya Arriaga, YLI—YOUTH/ADVOCACY - Alternate: D’Aungillique Jackson 25 Mark Keppler, Clovis Community Foundation/Active Transportation/ ADVOCACY 26 Veronica Garibay, CBO/ADVOCACY
27 Letecia Valencia, CBO/Faith/ADVOCACY
28 Sandra Celedon-CBO/ADVOCACY
29 Nayamin Martinez-CBO/Environmental/ADVOCACY
EDUCATION
30 Dr. Aly Tawfik, Transportation Institute, Fresno State-INNOVATION/RESEARCH/HIGHER ED 31 Ruby Duran, Dept. of Counseling Chair, Reedley College & Central Valley Latino Leaders Academy 32 Eric Cedarquist, Superintendent, Fowler Unified School District (retired) Renewal Plan
Technical Working
Group
22 Meetings
Active Transportation
Agriculture
Broad-Based Business
Building Development
Education
Environment
Community Based Organizations
Community Based Organizations
Goods Movement
Measure C Citizen Oversight
Committee
New Technology
Public Health Advocate
ADA/Seniors
Aviation
Construction
Emergency Services/Public
Safety
Fresno COG
FCTA
Labor
FCTA
FCOG
Fresno County BOS
City of Fresno
City of Clovis
Eastside Cities
Westside Cities
Business
Education
Agriculture
Construction
Labor
Transportation/Goods
Movement
Emergency Services
Community Based
Organizations
Health
City of Clovis
City of Coalinga
City of Firebaugh
City of Fowler
City of Fresno
City of Huron
City of Kerman
City of Kingsburg
City of Mendota
City of Orange Cove
City of Parlier
City of Reedley
City of San Joaquin
City of Sanger
City of Selma
County of Fresno San
Joaquin Valley Air District
Caltrans
Public Transportation
Urban
Public Transportation Rural
Executive Committee
Responsibilities
Understand Current & Future Transportation NeedsUnderstand Review Polling & Develop Funding RecommendationsReview
Provide Information & Feedback to Other Related
Stakeholders/Community LeadersProvide
Assist with Preparation of the Draft & Final Measure C Extension Expenditure Plan that best meets Mobility Needs and will have Voter Support
Assist
• Identify Funding Needs, Available Funding,
and Funding Gaps by transportation modeIdentify
• Help develop preliminary recommendations
to the Executive Committee
Help
• Forward draft Working Group products to
Executive Committee for review and
feedback
Draft
• Provide information and feedback to other
related stakeholders
Provide
• Project Identification and Prioritization
Recommendations
Project
Technical Working Group
Responsibilities
MEASURE C • SHARING YOUR TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
Public Engagem ent & Polling
MEASURE C • SHARING YOUR TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
Public E ngagement Strategies
14 Workshops and Community Meetings
Door to Door; 1,070 Spanish responses –
Cantua Creek, Lanare, Tranquillity, Orange
Cove, Parlier, Kerman, Caruthers, Biola,
Hmong Community, Coalinga, Del Rey, Five
Points, Huron, Sanger, Kingsburg, San
Joaquin, Punjabi Community
Community Events
Virtual Meetings
Online & In-Person Surveys; 2,800
surveys, 2,000 comments
2 Public Opinion Polls – Just Short of
5,500 responses
16 Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided,
lean yes
Undecided,
lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
54%
23%
4%
1%
4%
11%
3%
Total
Yes
80%
Total
No
17%
77%
Until Ended
by Voters 30 Years20 Years
Q. Based on this description, would you vote yes in favor of the measure or no to oppose it? Slightly more than three-quarters initially support a Fresno Transportation Continuation Measure regardless of the duration, with roughly half saying they would definitely vote yes. (Each Duration MOE = +/-4.7%; Total MOE = +/-2.7%)
54%
25%
2%
1%
5%
9%
4%
Total
Yes
81%
Total
No
16%
79%
53%
23%
4%
1%
5%
11%
4%
Total
Yes
80%
Total
No
17%
76%
53%
23%
3%
1%
5%
10%
3%
Total
Yes
80%
Total
No
16%
76%
Total
Voter Opinion Poll
Sample Size: 2,465 1st, 2,988 2nd
Poll #1 Taken: 2/11/21 – 3/16/22
Poll #2 Taken: 3/15/22 – 4/18/22
17 There is strong support across the Fresno-Clovis Area, with a high of 83 percent voting yes in the City of Fresno and a low of 70 percent in the unincorporated area just outside Clovis.
Q. Based on this description, would you vote yes in favor of the measure or no to oppose it? Initial Vote on the Continuation of the Voter-Approved Transportation ½-cent Sales Tax (Total) by Region 3: Fresno/Clovis Metro
79%
70%
83%
78%
17%
29%
15%
18% 5%
City of Clovis
City of Clovis Unincorporated
City of Fresno
City of Fresno Unincorporated
Total Yes Total No Undecided
18 There are no meaningful differences in the level of support for the measure by annual household income groupings -
all demonstrate high levels of support.
Q Combined. Based on this description, would you vote yes in favor of the measure or no to oppose it? Initial Vote on the Continuation of the Voter-Approved Transportation ½-cent Sales Tax (Total) by Household Income
83%
84%
81%
85%
78%
79%
82%
82%
82%
81%
14%
14%
16%
12%
19%
19%
15%
15%
15%
17%
<$20,000
$20,000-$30,000
$30,000-$50,000
$50,000-$70,000
$70,000-$100,000
$100,000-$150,000
$150,000+
<$50,000
$50,000-$100,000
$100,000+
Total Yes Total No Undecided
19 Mean
Score
6.3 6.3
6.2 6.1
Keeping local roads and transportation infrastructure in good condition, repairing potholes, creating local jobs, keeping bus fares low, and upgrading structurally declining bridges/overpasses are among voters’ top priorities.
Q. I am going to mention some features and provisions of the proposed Fresno County Transportation Continuation Measure we are discussing. Regardless of your opinion of the measure, please tell me how important it is to you that the feature or provision be included as part of the measure. We will use a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT to you that the feature or provision is included in the measure extension and 7 means it would be VERY IMPORTANT. Split Sample (Ranked by Very Important: 6-7)
81%
81%
77%
76%
8%
8%
10%
11%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
6%
7%
Keeping local roads in good
condition
Repairing potholes
Repairing potholes in every
neighborhood of Fresno County,
including rural and historically
disadvantaged neighborhoods
Very Impt. (6-7) Smwt. Impt. (5) Neutral (4) Not Too/Not at All Impt. (1-3) Don't Know Keeping local roads in
good condition in every
neighborhood of Fresno County,
including rural and historically
disadvantaged neighborhoods
R
R
R
R
20 Continued
Q. I am going to mention some features and provisions of the proposed Fresno County Transportation Continuation Measure we are discussing. Regardless of your opinion of the measure, please tell me how important it is to you that the feature or provision be included as part of the measure. We will use a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT to you that the feature or provision is included in the measure extension and 7 means it would be VERY IMPORTANT. Split Sample (Ranked by Very Important: 6-7)
73%
73%
72%
72%
71%
69%
11%
10%
13%
13%
11%
13%
7%
6%
6%
6%
7%
7%
9%
11%
8%
7%
10%
11%
Creating local jobs
Keeping public transit bus fares
low for students, seniors,
veterans and the disabled
Upgrading structurally declining
bridges and overpasses
Keeping the local transportation
infrastructure in good condition
Improving highway and
freeway safety
Very Impt. (6-7) Smwt. Impt. (5) Neutral (4) Not Too/Not at All Impt. (1-3) Don't Know Mean Score
6.0 5.9
6.0 6.0
5.9 5.8
Adding lanes on highways and
freeways to reduce bottlenecks
and provide a safe way to merge
into traffic
R
R
R
T
F
Greatest
Remaining Need
Fixing Local
Roads
MEASURE C • SHARING YOUR TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
Allocation Plan Alternatives & Revisions
20 Year and
30 Year
Revenue
Projections
• 20 Year --$4 bil l i on
• 30 Year --$ 6.8 billio n
MEASURE C • SHARING YOUR TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
Needs
Assessment
● 2022 Regional
Transportation
Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy
(RTP/SCS)
● Countywide Pavement
Condition Survey
● Other Funding Sources
Identified
● Funding Gaps Identified
MEASURE C • SHARING YOUR TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
Measure C 3
Proportional Allocation Alternative
MEASURE C • SHARING YOUR TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
Measure C 3
Local Choice Allocation Alternative
Local Control,
$1,208,794,520
18%
Major Roads & Highways, Safety
Improvement and Congestion Relief
, $997,713,440
15%
Safe Bikes and Pedestrians
(Including Safe Routes to School &
Access for People with Disabilities),
$75,524,940
1%
Urban & Rural Public Transit,
$811,953,000
12%
Administration, $86,058,856
1.25%
Environmental Sustainability,
$144,000,000
2%
Local & Neighborhood Street
Repair & Maintenance,
$3,511,000,000
51%
Measure C
Funding Allocations
By Program
$6,835,044,756
MEASURE C • SHARING YOUR TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
Allocations
Measure C 3
BY PROGRAM
MEASURE C • SHARING YOUR TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
Measure C 3
Allocations
BY PROGRAM
Allocation Principles
MEASURE C • SHARING YOUR TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
Local Choice,
Local Control Flexibility Fix it First
No
Neighborhood
Left Behind
EquityImprove
Safety
• No l ess than 30% of each agency’s Community
Streets Program funding must be spent i n
disadvantaged areas
• Restriction remains i n effect until agency’s average PCI for the disadvantaged areas i s a minimum PCI
of 65
• Investments must continue until all areas PCI reach
70 • Performance measures to be i mplemented to
m onitor and ensure success
• Bonding and/or borrowing to accelerate repairs
• Delivering projects faster = lower costs and quicker
user benefits
No Neighborhood Left Behind
MEASURE C • SHARING YOUR TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
W hy 30 Years and W hy 2022 ?
20 Year and
30 Year
Revenue
Projections
• 20 Year --$4 bil l i on
• 30 Year --$ 6.8 billio n
W hy 30 Years?
20-Year verses 30-Year
• The need for better roads cuts across all geographic areas, all economic spectrums, and all ethnicities
• Achieving a Countywide PCI of 70 would take nearly 90% of a 20-year MC3
• With a 30-year Measure reaching a PCI of 70 would take about 50% of the Renewal funds
• A 30-year Measure allows sufficient revenues to achieve a “Good” PCI, along with substantial funding for the other important transportation facilities and services including public transit and active transportation W hy 30 Years?
Investment in fixing local streets & roads will pay huge dividends, now and in the future • Fixing roads lowers the cost of owning & maintaining a vehicle, a benefit particularly critical for our lower-income residents
• Investing in the road system can lower the cost of maintaining the system for future generations
• A well-maintained system will benefit public transit & active transportation • A well-maintained road system results in lower emissions of PM 10 and PM 2.5 • Maintaining streets in good condition is less resource-intensive than rebuilding streets, resulting in a more sustainable road system
Polling indicates that all durations; 20-years, 30-years, and Until Ended By Voters enjoy widespread support (80+%)
W hy
2022?
Polling is incredibly high
• Support for Measure C renewal is at 80% countywide
• Even when presented with negative arguments support remains well in the 70s
• Opposition is incredibly low at about 10%. Throughout the State, polling indicated “Definitely No” is usually at 20%
• No guarantee that support would be the same in 2024
Approval in 2022 would allow FCTA and the local
agencies to bond or borrow against future revenues to
begin pavement repairs now
• Brings user benefits sooner
• Lowers the cost of repairs
Presidential Elections (2024) Tend to be Divisive
W hy
2022?
Residents are clear; “Fix Our Roads” is No. 1 Priority
• The Plan is well thought out with substantial public input • Plan is targeted towards the highest needs but has significant local control
• It is flexible, adaptable, and accountable
• The Plan is cost effective – deliver projects faster = lower costs • Better roads benefit all types of transportation; cars, buses, bikes and pedestrians
The goal of those opposed to 2022 is to take the
decision-making authority away from elected officials
• A 2024 plan would attempt to remove local control and decision making
• This Plan gives maximum local control by those elected to represent the people
These are needs now - there is no
time to waste
We owe it to the residents of the
City of Fresno and Fresno County
(as a whole) to move forward
now
Delay simply doesn’t make sense
W hat the Measure C Renewal
will Provide to the City of Fresno
MEASURE C • SHARING YOUR TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
Measure C 3
Local Program Allocations
BY AGENCY
AGENCY M easure C 3
30-Year Apportionment
Orange Cove $ 39,791,905
P arlier $ 60,804,739
Reedley $ 107,393,155
San Joaquin $ 16,972,795
Sanger $ 113,431,849
Selm a $ 100,787,707
County of Fresno $ 1,317,696,922
FCRTA $ 162,390,600
TOTAL $ 5,607,272,460
AGENCY
M easure C 3
30-Year
Apportionment
Clovis $ 577,855,695
C o alinga $ 69,196,730
Firebaugh $ 32,376,516
Fowler $ 29,414,298
Fresno $ 2,779,079,955
Huron $ 28,275,367
Kerm an $ 65,270,367
Kingsburg $ 58,709,643
Mendota $ 47,821,219
Agency allocations based on 75% population and 25% road miles; urban area receives the majority of the funding. Transit allocation split 70% FAX, 20% FCRTA, and 10% Clovis Transit Major Road and Highways Program Allocations
Includes $998 million of
Measure C funds and an
additional $1.530 billion in:
• State Transportation
Improvement Program
• State Highway Operations and
Preservation Program
• State Local Partnership
Program
• Federal Aid Grants
• Regional Transportation
Mitigation Fee Program funds
Total of $2.528 billion
split 75% Urban and 25%
Rural
(50/50 in current
Measure)
City of Fresno will
receive 80% of the Urban
funds, Clovis will receive
20%; close match to the
relative populations
City of Fresno
Fresno can expect
approximately
$1.517 billion from
this program
Local Allocations
City of Fresno
Local Programs:
Local and Neighborhood Street Repair and Maintenance $1.615 billion Urban and Rural Transit $568 million
Safe Bikes and Pedestrians $35 million
Local Control $556 million
Local Programs Total: $2.774 billion
Major Roads and Highways Program: $1.517 billion (incl $35 million FYI) Total City of Fresno: $4.3 billion
Next Steps
MEASURE C • SHARING YOUR TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
Measure C 3
Next Steps
27 May – 27 June
Public review of the Draft Measure C Renewal
Expenditure Plan
30 June
Fresno Council of Governments Board Meeting to
Review and Consider Approval of the Plan
20 July
Fresno County Transportation Authority Board to
Review and Consider Approval of the Plan
Conclusion Fixing Local
Roads
MEASURE C • SHARING YOUR TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
PROMISES MADE. PROMISES KEPT.
Conclusion
Proposed Plan and its Programs
• Have wide support within the two renewal committees and the public at large • Address the identified needs while providing significant local control over spending decisions • Allow for early delivery of critical improvements through bonding or borrowing • Delivering projects faster = lower costs and quicker community benefits • Allow flexibility, now and in the future
• Are accountable – performance indicators and measures included • Provide for equitable distribution of transportation projects and services • Do not increase taxes
• Invests $4.3 billion in the City of Fresno