EDITORIAL - We should all be in favor of Measure T. Why? Because without it our roads will be even worse and with it we have a chance to finally make them better.

This renewal of Measure T arrives on our ballot despite a choir of crybabies who routinely attack any semblance of progress for Madera County. The ringleader: Mark Reed, a man whose collection of hats include retired criminal defendant, wannabe Hollywood actor, wannabe cowboy, and wannabe District 5 Madera County Supervisor.

Reed, who was a member of the 20-person Measure T steering committee that drafted this renewal effort, routinely negotiated in bad faith, seeking to blow-up efforts to finalize a document because the law wouldn’t allow him to place handpicked cronies into cushy county positions.  That’s right – he and his pal Dan Metz tried unsuccessfully to remake the Madera County Transportation Commission and Authority board despite being advised that their fantasy team would not fly with State law. Never the facts get in the way of an unhinged rant. Here’s the response from the legal team at MCTA. (see below)

Now, he and his allies have devolved into a cacophony of schizophrenic Facebook rantings, propping up so-called “sockpuppet” accounts to attack Measure T in the hopes of serving as a launching pad for a 2026 campaign for Madera County Supervisor.

Despite what Mark Reed and Sierra Citizens say  - Measure T 2024 was and is a citizen-led effort to ensure that Madera County has the resources it needs to continue building and maintaining its transportation infrastructure without imposing additional tax burdens on its residents. That’s right. Not a new tax. 

The measure was written by a diverse group of Madera County residents, with four members from each Supervisorial district, who dedicated six months to evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the current measure. Fun fact - one-of them was Mark Reed. In fact he made the suggestion for the 80% dedicated to local streets and roads with 10% for disadvantaged communities – a first by the way for any measure in California.  That’s up from about half that from the current measure.  At his request – MCTA invited the current chair of the Citizens Oversight Committee to share his ideas for how that could be more transparent with the ability to hire their own auditor and more opportunities for the public to know where their money went. Unlike 2022 - this renewal of Measure T is designed with a 20-year lifespan, ensuring that it is not a forever tax. Oh and its lets the County and the Cities fund evacuation planning and investments, doubles the amount that does to transit and improves the entire public process.  All of which the steering committee unanimously supported – including Reed.

So a group of locals took it upon themselves to float the measure as a citizens initiative which only requires a simple majority to pass – making it impossible for Reed and and Metz to try and hold the County hostage with their Board scheme.  The measure on the ballot and the one developed by the steering committee are exactly the same with one exception – a 30 day review period each year for the public to weight in on proposed expenditures. The County and both cities are taking up resolutions over the next two weeks to adopt that policy. Yeah about about those “out of town developers” – another fallacy. Of course they want T to pass. Better roads = higher property values.  Ditto for the tribe.

So despite Reed’s best efforts to destroy something he helped write, Madera County residents should vote YES on Measure T. There’s simple math as to why.  For every dollar the current Measure T has generated in taxes, Madera County wins roughly two dollars in competitive grants from Sacramento and Washington to extend road construction and repairs.

Most of these grants are exclusively granted to so-called “self-help” jurisdictions, those that have some finances of their own to match with state and Federal grant dollars.

If Measure T is not renewed, Madera County will lose its “self-help” status in Sacramento and Washington and be unable to win these dollars, with our tax money flowing to Los Angeles, where Reed says he owns three homes.

Simply put, the designation as a self-help county in Sacramento and Washington and the ability for all of Madera County to benefit from a countywide Measure T make it clear: we are stronger together with a Measure T designed to improve the quality of life and roads in our communities.

So vote smarter and don’t’ believe the sideshow created by Reed and his cronies. Vote Yes on T.

FAQs – Sierra Citizen’s Proposal to Change Board Composition

1. What is the MCTC, and what does it do?

The Madera County Transportation Commission (MCTC) serves as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), which is established by federal law. MCTC also serves as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), which is established under State law. The purpose of the MPO and RTPA are to develop transportation plans and programs for urbanized areas of the State and allows for access to grants from the State and federal government. MCTC also serves as the Madera County 2006 Transportation Authority (Authority) for the administration of Measure T funds. In other words, MCTC serves multiple functions to promote efficiency and to streamline functionality. However, MCTC as the Authority does not serve as the Measure T Citizens’ Oversight Committee, which is an independent body responsible for the review of Measure T revenues and expenditures.

2. What is the proposal to change the composition of the MCTC to include individuals not elected by the voters?

As part of the Measure T renewal discussion, proponents are requesting to double the number of people to include an additional six representatives to be on the Authority’s board and the commission boards (MCTC, MPO, and RTPA). It appears that at least five of the representatives would not be elected by the voters and therefore not subject to the recall process. One of the members of the Authority is proposed to be from the Measure T Citizens’ Oversight Committee, which is an independent body responsible for the review of Measure T expenditures (i.e., reviewing the actions of the Authority). The selection would be based on miles of road within an area and not population. (Note that Measure T currently distributes funding based on percentage of population.)

3. Is the Board of the MCTC recommending non-elected individuals be appointed?

No. The MCTC Board has not recommended any changes to the current system where elected representatives serve on the Board.

4. Can the Board of Supervisors legally create an entirely new Authority with non-elected members?

No. When creating an authority, the Board of Supervisors is restricted under State law to either designating the RTPA (i.e. the MCTC Board) as the board or to create an entirely new entity. (See Public Utilities Code section 180051(b).) Even assuming a change could be made at this point (and State law does not provide for such a process when there is already an existing Authority), and assuming the MCTC/RTPA Board was not used, the new authority would still be comprised entirely of elected officials under State law. Specifically, “Each member of the authority, and each alternate designated pursuant to subdivision (c), shall be an elected official of a local governmental entity within or partly within the county.” (Id.) The concurrence of a majority of the cities with a majority of the population is also required to determine the membership.

5. Can the Board of Supervisors legally change number of members of the MCTC Board as proposed?

No. State law provides that the Board of Supervisors can only appoint three members to the MCTC. (See Government Code section 29535.) Three other members are appointed by the city selection committee (CSC) per State law. (Id.) The CSC is comprised of the mayors of the incorporated cities of Chowchilla and Madera, as is also required by State law. Currently, the CSC has appointed councilmembers from the City of Madera and the City of Chowchilla to serve on the MCTC. The Board of Supervisors does not have any legal authority to determine appointments or representation allotments for the three members appointed by the CSC, and vice versa. By setting up this County/City mechanism, it appears the legislature may have intended to strike a balance between urban and rural representation. State law also currently limits total membership for the MCTC to a total six individuals – meaning it cannot be legally expanded to include additional members as proposed.

6. Are there any restrictions on the Board of Supervisors appointing nonelected three members to the MCTC Board?

Yes. Even if the Board of Supervisors want to appoint non-elected individuals, there are several hurdles to doing so. Among others County Resolution 72-331 provides that the appointment must be members of the Board of Supervisors. Even if the County were inclined to amend Resolution 72-331, the MCTC is a separate public entity and has adopted its own rules for membership. These rules require that in order to sit on the MCTC Board, the “members shall be appointed by the member agencies with three members from the Madera County Board of Supervisors….” Additionally, the term of the appointment “shall correspondent with his or her term on the agency for which they serve as a representative.” Even alternate members are required to be on the Board of Supervisors. As a result, the MCTC Rules independently require that only elected officials from the Board of Supervisors be appointed from the County to the MCTC Board. There are also federal and State restrictions as noted below.

7. What would it take to amend the MCTC rules?

Among others, amendments to the Rules require ratification of the Commission Board, 50% of which is composed of members from the City of Chowchilla and City of Madera. Note that the proposal as presented would result in diluted representation for the cities of Chowchilla and Madera, who currently have the greatest combined population and generate the most Measure T revenue.

8. Assuming the MCTC rules were changed, could non-elected individuals be appointed to the MCTC, including the MPO, and RTPA Boards?

No. As a practical matter the Board of Supervisors is limited to appointing only elected officials from the County. To change to allow additional or non-elected people to be on the MCTC Board without limiting its current authority and entity designations (including the RTPA and MPO) would be complicated and require approvals from multiple agencies – including changes to federal law that would potentially require the approval of the United States Congress and the President of the United States, approval from the State of California, etc.

9. Why is this so complicated?

Transportation agencies and officers are subject to a variety of State and federal laws. Balancing compliance with State and federal laws can be complex. For example, MCTC serves as the MPO. Federal law regulates MPOs. Under federal law, the proposal would result in a substantial change in the proportion of voting members, which can trigger redesignation requirements. This, in turn, would require approval from the Governor of the State of California and (at a minimum) at least one of the cities in the County. Furthermore, federal regulations state that redesignation is not required for changes involving “periodic rotation of members representing units of general-purpose local government, as established under MPO by-laws.” Such members are elected representatives of local government. This is also unscored by federal law mandates that each metropolitan planning organization that serves an area designated as a transportation management area shall consist of “A) local elected officials; B) officials of public agencies that administer or operate major modes of transportation in the metropolitan area, including representation by providers of public transportation; and C) appropriate State officials.” To change these requirements would require amendment of federal law, which would likely require approval of both the House and Senate of the United States Congress and approval of the President of the United States.

Additionally, MCTC serves as the RTPA. If MCTC were not so designated, the only other alternative is for the County Board of Supervisors is to create a separate authority. This would take time and money and would result in the creation of another governmental agency. Additionally, State law mandates that members of such an entity “shall be an elected official of a local governmental entity within or partly within the county.” This underscores an apparent legislative intent that members be elected officials rather than individuals not elected by the voters. Various approvals from the State would also be required, including addressing existing agreements with the State.

  10.Even if it were possible, could the proposed changes even be made this year?

No. Even assuming that all of the various agencies, etc., were inclined to adopt the proposal, as a practical matter the process would likely take multiple years. There would be significant cost and time needed to substantially reorganize or create new entities (with staffing), obtain the required approvals on both the State and federal levels, secure any needed amendments to the law, etc., before individuals who have not been elected would be permitted to sit on the various boards.