After substantial public pressure, El Cerrito has released selected findings from the library survey. The results reveal significant concerns about the city’s management and financial planning, particularly regarding the library project.
Key Survey Findings:
- Library Project Cost vs. Funding Gap: The projected cost for the library stands at $21,214,000, but identified revenue sources cover only $2,500,000.
- Declining Resident Satisfaction: Compared to May 2019, fewer residents are satisfied with the quality of life and the City’s services in El Cerrito.
- Dissatisfaction with Public Funds Management: Only 45.6% to 53.6% of residents feel satisfied with the City’s handling of public funds, while 27.0% to 32.9% express total dissatisfaction.
- Limited Support for Parcel Tax: Just 32.2% of surveyed residents would definitely support a parcel tax initiative.
The survey results suggest a lack of confidence in the City’s management and transparency, especially in financial matters. Despite having a Finance Director, consultants, and a fully staffed department, the City has been criticized for not providing accurate and complete information.
Library Financing Options: A Closer Look
The City Manager has proposed four potential financing options for the library project, three of which are deemed insufficient:
- Existing General Fund and Reserves: Currently woefully inadequate to fund the project.
- Private Placement Financing: Challenging to secure due to a BBB bond rating.
- State Library Infrastructure Grant: Covers a maximum of 50% of the costs.
- The “Forever Tax” Ballot Measure: The only option that could fully fund the library.
EECRG argues that the City Manager has offered non-viable options, leaving the ballot measure as the only feasible choice.
Financial Analysis and Further Questions
The City has yet to disclose a comprehensive financial analysis of the library project. Also, the survey presentation includes two charts that highlight the stark contrast between the project’s expenses and the potential sources of revenue. Additionally, the parcel tax rate has been increased from 10 cents to 17 cents per square foot without explanation.
In March 2023, public funds were used for El Cerrito entered contracts with Gobe Research and Reynolds Strategies for voter research and bond measure strategy planning, totaling $74,775.
BREAKING NEWS: Contracts and Mayoral Transparency Issues
Questions arise regarding library discussions and the mayor’s transparency. In February 2023, the City’s attorney raised concerns about Mayor Lisa Motoyama’s potential conflict of interest in her consultancy role. When the City Attorney Sky Woodruff wrote to the State of California Fair Political Practices Commission, he posed four questions to the commission:
1. May Mayor Motoyama participate in City Council discussions and decisions related to placing a measure on the ballot seeking voter approval for funding a new library in one of the Plaza BART Project affordable housing buildings if she does not participate in other decisions involving the agreement between the City and the Development Team or BART to acquire the property for the library?
2. If the City acquires the necessary property for the library from BART and the necessary funds upon the approval of the related ballot measure, may Mayor Motoyama participate in City.
3. May Mayor Motoyama participate in City Council decisions related to the formation of an enhanced infrastructure financing district(“EIFD”) and inclusion of the Plaza BART Project property in the district?
4. May Mayor Motoyama participate in City Council decisions involving the City’s on-street parking program in the vicinity of the Plaza BART Project?
On July 12, 2023, the Commission responded to the City’s attorney. Here’s an excerpt:
“Under Section 1091(b)(1), Mayor Motoyama has a financial interest in contracts related to the Plaza BART Project resulting from her remote interest in her nonprofit employer, when a client of her nonprofit firm is also a member of BART’s Development Team. Accordingly, she is prohibited from participating in decisions related to the City’s potential contract with BART including City Council decisions related to the ballot measure seeking voter approval for funding for a new library, an essential preliminary step in reaching an agreement with the Development Team or BART to acquire property for a new library.”
EECRG has several concerns:
- Timing of the Mayor’s Inquiry: The discussions about the library have been ongoing for an extended period. What prompted the Mayor to seek clarification regarding her role in the library project specifically in February, after years of ongoing discussions? This inquiry seeks to understand the factors influencing the timing of her decision.
- Initial Non-Disclosure of Conflict: Given the importance of transparency in public office, it is crucial to question why the Mayor did not disclose her potential conflict of interest at an earlier stage. What were the circumstances or considerations that led to the delay in this disclosure? This query aims to explore the reasons behind the initial withholding of information that could be perceived as a conflict of interest.
- Continued Non-Disclosure Post-Advisory: Following the official advisory in July about the conflict of interest, the Mayor chose not to disclose her conflict. What were the reasons or motivations behind the Mayor’s decision to maintain non-disclosure, even after being formally advised of the conflict? This question seeks to delve into the rationale behind the Mayor’s continued non-disclosure, examining the implications of this choice on public perception and trust.
Legal Remedies to Compel Disclosure
As you may recall, EECRG has found free legal resources and will be pursuing this further to compel the release of work product funded by tax dollars. They gave us some sage advice. First, they said “The CPRA exempts from disclosure “[p]reliminary drafts, notes, or interagency or intra-agency memoranda that are not retained by the public agency in the ordinary course of business, if the public interest in withholding those records clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.” Govt. Code § 7927.500.
To justify this exemption, the agency must generally prove each of its “statutory conditions”: “(1) The record sought must be a preliminary draft, note, or memorandum; (2) which is not retained by the public agency in the ordinary course of business; and (3) the public interest in withholding must clearly outweigh the public interest in disclosure.” Citizens for a Better Envt. v. Dept. of Food & Agriculture, 171 Cal. App. 3d 704, 711–12 (1985).
Not every “draft” necessarily qualifies for this exemption, the purpose of which “is to provide a measure of agency privacy for written discourse concerning matters pending administrative action” and to “foster robust discussion within the agency of policy questions attending pending administrative decisions.” Id. at 712–13. The exemption can cover “advisory opinions, recommendations, and policy deliberations” but not “compiled factual material or purely factual material” that can be segregated from exempt content. Id. at 713.
The agency must show the withheld records are in fact “drafts … produced in the course of a determinate process” that “results in administrative action,” and they must also prove their “policy and custom concerning retention of preliminary materials.” Id. at 713-14. “If preliminary materials are not customarily discarded or have not in fact been discarded as is customary, they must be disclosed.” Id.
In other words, the City cannot just claim immunity from releasing documents, the City must PROVE their assertion that they are immune from the law requiring them to release the documents.
Then, they took it one step further: If you determine that you would like to pursue litigation, the CPRA provides for legal action to enforce the right to inspect or copy public records. See Govt. Code §§ 7923.000, 7923.100.
In such litigation, a person prevailing against an agency in a CPRA case is generally entitled to recover costs & attorney fees. Govt. Code § 7923.115(a). An agency is not entitled to recover costs or attorney fees from a requester who brings suit unless the court finds the case is “clearly frivolous.” Govt. Code § 7923.115(b).
In litigation, an agency bears the burden of proof to justify withholding requested records. International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 21, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court, 42 Cal. 4th 319, 328 (2007).
In other words, in addition to the public embarrassment, the City would foot the bill for legal fees.
Conclusion
What else are they hiding? These findings from the library survey point to pressing issues in El Cerrito’s governance, financial management, and transparency, raising critical questions about the future direction of city projects and policies.
If you want to take action we would suggest writing the council people and asking for additional transparency regarding the outstanding questions and concerns. The library is on tomorrow’s City Council Meeting agenda and you will be able to comment in person.
Email addresses are as follows
Mayor Gabe Quinto gquinto@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
Mayor Pro-Tem Motoyama lmotoyama@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
Councilperson Rudnick trudnick@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
Councilperson Janet Abelson jabelson@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
Councilperson Paul Fadelli pfadelli@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
El Cerrito Committee for Responsible Government (ECCRG) 