While El Cerrito’s population may be relatively small at 25,000, the city is ambitiously proposing a $21 million library project, which translates to an investment of $840 per resident towards its construction. This ongoing tax of around $300 per homeowner will sustain the library’s operations long after its completion.
The city commissioned surveys among El Cerrito residents. When EECRG sought survey results, the city shared two invoices: one for $35,000 to Reynolds Strategies for public information consulting and another for $34,775 to Godbe Research for library-related study.
However, after several attempts to obtain the survey, the actual survey results remain undisclosed.
Despite the city’s claims of accountability and transparency, their actions suggest otherwise, especially with their refusal to share the survey’s findings. The many relevant questions still unanswered include:
Furthermore, it’s essential to note:
- The rationale behind continuing the $300 yearly tax even after the library’s construction.
- The decision against using the proceeds from the sale of the current library space for the new library.
- A lack of clarity on service levels, like operational hours.
- The El Cerrito library’s cost being three times that of San Pablo’s and the apparent lack of attempts at securing external funds.
- The proposed library location near the Albany border might favor Albany residents more.
- El Cerrito had anticipated library funds from Measure V, the Real Property Transfer Tax but the City has used the funding elsewhere.
- Funding for the library should be part of the regular budget, but the city has consistently underfunded it.
- The absence of dedicated library parking could deter elderly patrons and those with mobility challenges.
- The proposed tax never appeared on the Financial Advisory Board agenda for consideration.
- El Cerrito did nothing to apply for grants. San Pablo and Albany received a considerable amount of funding for their library.
Given these concerns, city leadership, encompassing the Council and City Manager, appears to falter in their commitment to transparency and accountability. Residents deserve comprehensive answers before being approached with new tax propositions.
It’s a good practice to encourage evidence-based discussions when disagreeing with these blog posts on social media. It can help maintain a constructive and informed conversation.
Here is how you can help:
– Share this post with other residents.
– Attend the monthly Financial Advisory Board meetings in person.
– Voice your concerns.
– Council meetings are remote and in-person, but public comment is now
limited to in-person attendees. The City Council meeting will be on November 7.
– If you want to contact City Council Members or the City Managers, all their emails are below.
– Karen Pinkos-City Manager kpinkos@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
– Councilperson Gabe Quinto gquinto@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
– Councilperson Carolyn Wysinger cywysinger@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
– Councilperson Tessa Rudnick trudnick@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
– Mayor Lisa Motoyama lmotoyama@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
– Councilperson Paul Fadelli pfadelli@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
El Cerrito Committee for Responsible Government (ECCRG) 
The surveys I was able to obtain are from 2013 and 2014. I can dig them up if you want them. Basically the city manager is relying on this data form 2014 and the smallest of samplings by the consultants. It is not reflective of the population within the city as a whole.
On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 8:17 AM El Cerrito Committee for Responsib
LikeLike
Thank you Steve, the city had a more recent survey and have discontinued the practice of sharing the results.
LikeLike
I am very disappointed by much of the inaccurate and generalized information about the library. I think the factual information should be sited and not based on the discussions on Next Door. I am all for the effort to hold the city officials accountable, but hope that in the efforts to do so, people seeking accountability are willing to hold themselves to the same scrutiny.
Specifically,
State Funding was widely available when the Albany Library was built.
The San Pablo LIbrary had a break in the fact they had a building provided and rennovated. Costs were low, but not a third of the proposed library.
The Article omits the importance of the BART partnership with a lease of $1 a year for use of the building, the 10 million dollar saving of providing the buildout of the building, reducing the library cost to 20-22 million, not 30 million.
The tax itself is to pay for staffing and services at the rate needed for a library of 21,000 square feet.
And so what if Albany can use the library. How many El Cerritans used the Albany library because the current library was insufficient.
How did the writer come up with the tax rate- the parcel tax is on the basis of the size of the building, not the parcel.
I really am disappointed of the direction of this group.
Respectfully,
Sherry
LikeLike
Yes, it would be outstanding if comprehensive information about the library project and tax were available from official sources. But it’s not. The city makes available on the tiniest bit of promotional information but refuses to answer questions or provide documentation. So people who want to understand what is really being proposed are left with exchanging information on NextDoor or here. It is not ideal, but that’s on the city.
By the way, your statement about the use of the proposed tax is incorrect, and the amount may be incorrect too. The purpose is to pay for construction and furnishing of the library space in the new BART apartments building, and only after that does the purpose shift to paying for staffing and services. It is unclear if the construction cost will be $20-22 million as the City Manager said a few weeks ago, or if it will be $36 million as the city budget shows. This is an example of a simple question that the city has refused to answer.
LikeLike
EECRG has been alerted that the city wrote a preliminary letter of interest for grant funding yet did not follow through. Can anyone confirm or refute this claim?
LikeLike