City Council — September 15, 2026

Meeting Summary

This summary was AI-generated to save you time. It may miss or misstate details, so verify against the official recording and the transcript.

Staff presented the CBD as an alternative to the expiring PBID, outlining a two-phase approval process requiring a 30% petition threshold and a subsequent majority ballot vote.
The district would fund services such as advertising, beautification, and events that are not currently covered by the city’s general budget.
Staff recommended adopting a resolution to approve the district's formation and levy assessments if no majority protest existed.

Two speakers supported the district, citing improvements in cleanliness, business environment, and visitor experience.
One speaker opposed the district, alleging legal defects regarding the use of PBID funds and threatening legal action if the election was validated.

Staff clarified that the CBD is a state-authorized adaptation for charter cities, featuring two benefit zones with different assessment rates.
The City Attorney confirmed all legal steps under municipal code and Proposition 218 were met, distinguishing the new CBD from the sunsetted PBID.
The Executive Director refuted claims of PBID fund misuse, stating the city manager’s budget covered the establishment costs.

The City Clerk reported that 67.67% of weighted votes supported the district, exceeding the required majority.
The Council unanimously voted to close the public hearing, canvass the ballots, and adopt the resolution approving the district's formation and assessments.

City staff presented the process for creating the Downtown El Cajon Community Benefit District (CBD) as an alternative to renewing the existing Property-Based Improvement District (PBID). Staff explained that the process required a 30% approval vote from property owners during the petition phase, followed by an official ballot phase requiring a majority vote in favor of creation. Staff noted that the CBD would provide services such as advertising, beautification, events, and business advocacy, which are not currently funded by the city’s general budget. Staff recommended that if no majority protest exists, the Council adopt a resolution approving the formation of the district and levying the associated assessments.

Three members of the public addressed the Council:
One speaker, a board member of the existing BID and manager of the Magnolia Theater, supported the continuation of the district, citing improvements in cleanliness, beautification, and events.
A second speaker, an operations manager at the Magnolia Theater and alternate BID board member, also supported the district, noting the positive impact on the business environment and visitor experience.
A third speaker opposed the district, alleging legal defects in the process, specifically claiming that PBID funds were used to establish the CBD in violation of PBID laws. The speaker threatened legal action if the Council validated the election without addressing these alleged defects.

Council members asked questions regarding the structural differences between a PBID and a CBD, the geographic boundaries of the district, and the voting mechanism.
Staff and the Executive Director of Downtown Business Partners explained that the CBD is a city adaptation of a PBID allowed under state law for charter cities.
It was clarified that the district includes two benefit zones with different assessment rates based on the level of services received.
Council members inquired about the voting process. Staff confirmed that property owners vote via weighted ballots based on the amount of assessment they pay, consistent with Proposition 218. However, it was noted that board representation is elected and not weighted by assessment amount.
The City Attorney stated that all legal steps required by municipal code and Proposition 218 have been taken. The Attorney clarified that the CBD is a new organization formed under a different process than the sunsetted PBID.
In response to public comments regarding the use of PBID funds, the Executive Director stated that the City of El Cajon paid for the establishment of the CBD from the city manager’s budget, not from PBID funds.

A motion was made and seconded to close the public hearing to allow for the tabulation of ballots. The motion passed by unanimous vote of those present.

A motion was made and seconded to direct the City Clerk to open and canvass the ballots. The motion passed by unanimous vote of those present.

The City Clerk reported the tabulation results: 67.67% of the weighted votes were in support of the El Cajon Community Benefit District, and 32.33% were in opposition.

A motion was made to adopt the resolution approving the formation of the Downtown El Cajon Community Benefit District and levying the assessments therewith. The motion passed by unanimous vote of those present.