Judge rejects allegations that Benicia ballot measures are misleading

BENICIA - A Solano County Superior Court judge found Benicia did not use misleading language in ballot measures slated for November’s election to amend the city’s charter in order to pass a real property transfer tax.

Judge Wendy Getty denied the petition for writ of mandate filed by attorney Christopher Shenfield, saying the city’s approved ballot language for Measures Y and Z were not misleading to voters. 

The judge said that the petitioners did not provide sufficient proof that the city’s ballot measure language violated state election law, according to an Aug. 19 minute order.

Getty’s finding arrived just weeks after the petitioners, a group of Benicia residents, filed amended claims alleging the city had not sufficiently improved the ballot measure language during an Aug. 4 City Council meeting. Their original petition was filed July 28 to challenge Measure Y and Measure Z, which are scheduled to go before voters in November and propose changing the City Charter to levy a real property transfer tax.

Mayor Steve Young said of the outcome, “I am pleased that the judge agreed with the city’s contention that the ballot language was not misleading. I look forward to the voters deciding on these important measures in November.”

Shenfield did not respond to requests for comment. He represented residents who opposed the city’s second attempt to pass a transfer tax increase after voters rejected two similar measures in 2024. 

Measure Y, if passed, would make Benicia a limited charter city and make it possible to implement the second measure to levy a real property transfer tax, as Benicia currently cannot levy real property transfer taxes above the transfer tax cap of $0.55 per $1,000. 

Measure Z would enact a new property transfer tax to residential and commercial properties built on or after Jan. 1, 2027. For residential properties built before January 2027, it would apply only to properties valued at $2 million or greater. 

The plaintiffs alleged that both ballot measures contained “campaign-style messaging, inaccurate claims, confusing disclosure of tax rates, and misleading descriptions.” 

They disagreed with the transfer tax measure’s claim that it “primarily ensure[s] newly constructed property sales contribute to maintaining city services and infrastructure,” even though it applies broadly to all commercial property sales and residential property sales over a certain amount.

However, in her Aug. 19 order, Getty said that as written, Measure Y clarifies that the current council-manager governance of Benicia will not change. She said voters may decide to make changes to the charter in the future, but the current ballot and label are not inaccurate.

As to Measure Z, Getty said that although the petitioners objected to the ballot language phrase “to primarily ensure newly constructed property sales contribute to maintaining city services and infrastructure” she did not find the scope of the proposal inaccurate or misleading. 

“Wordsmithing is not the objective,” Getty said. “Is it partisan? An argument could be made that it pits current residents of the city against potential new residents, but that is a stretch.”

“With respect to the proposed tax rate and duration, the language provides sufficient notice to voters of the tiered rates and period,” she said. 

Young said in an interview Tuesday that the judge’s findings “reaffirmed what we were saying all along.”

He thanked Shenfield for filing the initial petition, as per that filing, the city made revisions earlier this month to ballot measure language “that needed to be tightened up.” 

“We made a lot of changes from the 2024 attempt at the same thing,” Young said. “It focuses on the future, on the fact that we’re going to be having a lot of housing development over the next five years.”

Young noted the impacts of Prop 13, which has limited cities’ collection of property tax since it was passed in 1978.

“We’re trying to pay today’s bills with funds that were locked in at a very low rate,” he said. “The reality is we’ve got to continue to increase revenue both through growth and tax measures … while cutting our internal costs. We’re doing what we think is required to continue a path toward financial stability.”

City Manager Mario Giuliani said Tuesday that the results in court show “The city has been truthful and forthright the entire time. Nothing is misleading.” 

He said that since the measures were introduced, there have been rumors “that the city was engaging in a power grab, that was absolutely false,” and said the court decision “puts to bed this nonsense.” 

He added, “I’m thrilled that the California court has affirmed the city’s position all along.” 

The current ballot measure language, with arguments in favor and against both measures as proposed, can be reviewed on the city’s elections website.