Trustees deadlock on Proposition 218 parks assessment; motion to direct district to vote 'yes' ties 2–2 and fails

Benicia Unified trustees debated whether the district should indicate support for the City of Benicia’s proposed parks, landscape and lighting assessment (a Proposition 218 parcel assessment) and whether the superintendent should mark the district’s ballot as a “yes.”

City Manager Mario Giuliani attended and described the proposal’s background, saying the existing assessment district covered only 20 percent of property owners, with a rate frozen since 1989, and that a citywide district would provide a dedicated funding source for parks, medians and lighting. Giuliani told the board the measure would generate roughly $1.4 million in new annual revenue for the parks system on top of the city’s existing funds and that the added revenue would be restricted to park uses under state law and Proposition 218.

Trustees weighed competing fiscal responsibilities. Some trustees said investing about $17,000 per year (the district’s estimated share under the proposal) could help make Benicia more attractive to families and potentially slow declining enrollment; they described the contribution as an investment that could yield larger returns if it encouraged new families to settle in the city. Other trustees said the district is currently deficit spending, that recurring commitments should be avoided while enrollment declines and that there was insufficient guarantee the city would deliver planned park maintenance or prioritize sites used by district students.

Board members and staff also discussed related city–district partnerships: the district’s long-standing use of certain city facilities including the community pool under lease arrangements, the city’s support for crossing guards and a shared cost for a school resource officer, and an arrangement in which the city currently covers some trash/garbage costs for the district under a franchise agreement scheduled to end in 2027. Trustees questioned how long those arrangements would continue and whether the city had honored maintenance obligations on school-adjacent fields.

After extended discussion, a trustee moved that the district vote “yes” on the assessment and a second was recorded. The board vote resulted in a 2–2 tie, which the board secretary said meant no action — the district will not cast an endorsement on the measure. Trustees noted that property-owner ballots are weighted by assessed value and that, in this ballot, the district is a large property owner whose single institutional vote carries significant weight.

City staff told trustees that the expanded assessment would not take effect until August 2026 if approved and that the city council would receive annual reporting on how assessment revenues are spent. Giuliani also quantified deferred park maintenance at roughly $55 million and described many parks and playgrounds as older than 20 years, saying the assessment is an attempt to address decades of deferred upkeep.

Trustees did not direct staff to take further action at the meeting; the board left the decision without a district endorsement.