Benicia Unified approves second interim report; board debates facility fees and transportation costs

The Benicia Unified School District Board of Trustees certified its 2024–25 second interim financial report as "positive" and debated a new facility-fee schedule and transportation costs during a March board meeting.

The district's chief business officer presented the second interim report, saying the district continued to project lower enrollment and reduced average daily attendance. The report showed projected district enrollment declining to about 4,294 and a funded ADA assumption near 95.15 percent; the district's projected ending general-fund balance for 2024–25 was roughly 11.05 percent. The report noted ongoing deficit spending that staff have reduced from a prior projection of roughly $3 million to about $2.4 million by adjusting vacancies and one-time expenditures.

Board members and members of the public pressed staff on the district's spending priorities. Public commenter Lisa Dolorafis, who said she has worked in the district for 36 years, criticized administrative spending relative to classroom staffing: "Budget being spent on administration has grown more significantly than that of the teachers," she said, and described charts showing administrative pay rising faster than teacher pay over the past six years.

Superintendent Damon Wright explained the rationale for a newly proposed facility-fee schedule that the board approved as part of the consent calendar. He said older rates — for example, field rentals previously charged at $40 per day and $70 per day with lights — had not changed in many years and were now well below comparable neighboring districts. Wright said the district examined fees charged by Vallejo, Napa and Fairfield and moved rates toward market levels while adding transparency for specific line items such as tennis-court striping and parking-lot rental.

Wright said the larger apparent increases stemmed from adding explicit charges that previously were absorbed or handled case-by-case. He outlined required on-site staffing costs for many after-hours rentals: custodial services and, in many cases, a campus supervisor to help with crowd control and safety. "When you rent a facility ... we rented the facility and we have a flag football game. That user group is required to rent a hire a custodian because a custodian is responsible for unlocking facility, cleaning the facility, locking the facility, maintaining it, and making sure that they're available should an emergency happen," Wright said. He added that campus supervision was proposed at $50 an hour and custodial coverage at $50 an hour, and that lighting charges would be based on a quoted rate rather than a flat $50-per-hour number to allow flexibility.

Trustees and community members raised concerns about affordability for local youth sports groups and nonprofits. One trustee asked that the district consider explicit priority or reduced rates for Benicia organizations, parent-teacher groups and longtime user groups. Wright said the district will continue the conversation and noted plans to bring data about lighting and operating costs and to convene a community scheduling process before any final policy beyond the adopted fee schedule.

Transportation and special-education costs were another focus. According to district staff, the district contracted transportation for specialized routes and reported about $323,929 in transportation expenditures for the 2023–24 reported year tied to roughly 24 special-education students. The district currently contracts with First Student to provide minivan transport for some students. Staff said the district is exploring options — including leasing vans and using trained classified staff or paraeducators to operate routes — to reduce costs, but that any move must account for training, fingerprinting, insurance and maintenance.

Wright and staff described the state policy that can partially offset local transportation costs: for districts that meet reporting thresholds the state may reimburse up to 60 percent of allowable transportation expenditures. Staff said the district did not receive the full 60 percent for all years and that reimbursement depends on prior-year reported expenditures and state budget actions.

Board members asked staff to return with a more detailed cost analysis. Trustees asked for a line-by-line presentation and a plan for how the district could prioritize Benicia-based users and nonprofit partners. Wright said staff would return with additional data and that bids for 2025–26 transportation will be issued as required by state law.

On votes, the board approved the consent calendar (which included the facility-fee schedule) and later approved the second interim financial report. For the second interim, a trustee moved and another seconded the motion; the motion carried.