
In recent months, the City of El Cerrito has faced substantial public backlash over its decision to cut funding for the library. Despite the residents’ strong desire for this essential community resource, these budget cuts were implemented, leading to widespread discontent. Now, the City has proposed a new funding mechanism: a perpetual $300 annual property tax for each homeowner. This proposal, however, raises several red flags and demands closer scrutiny.
The Deceptive Tactic of the “Forever Tax”
At first glance, the $300 property tax might seem like a reasonable way to secure the necessary funds for the new library. However, this tax is not a temporary measure; it is designed to be perpetual. This “forever tax” tactic is misleading and raises questions about the true intentions behind the proposal.
The city’s residents have been vocal about their need for a new library, especially following the budget cuts. Leveraging this strong public sentiment, the City has proposed this tax under the guise of addressing the community’s demand. But is this really about funding the library, or is there more to the story?
The True Cost of the Library
The City claims that the new library will cost $21,000,000, a figure that many find questionable given the lack of detailed cost analysis. When we dig deeper, it becomes likely that the actual costs are likely significantly lower. The absence of a transparent breakdown of expenses suggests that the $21,000,000 figure might be inflated.
- Land and Site Preparation: The city does not own the land at the new site but will be renting it. The costs of renting the new site should be clearly outlined, yet these details remain vague. Official documents indicate the city will pay market rent, despite claims that it will cost only $1.
- Revenue from Current Site: The city will inevitably make money from the sale of the current library property, but this potential revenue has not been disclosed. This omission is troubling and raises questions about financial transparency.
- Construction and Labor: Standard construction and labor costs should be clearly outlined, yet these details remain vague.
- Design and Architectural Features: While there might be unique design elements, these alone cannot justify such a high total cost.
- Technology and Equipment: Modern libraries do require advanced technology, but the costs for these can be estimated and should not result in such a large overall budget.
Without a detailed analysis, it’s hard to justify the $21,000,000 price tag. This raises the question: what is the real reason behind this inflated figure?
Excessive Spending and Mismanagement
The proposed perpetual tax appears to be a cover for the City Manager’s excessive spending. By overestimating the cost of the library, the City can divert funds to other areas without public scrutiny. This mismanagement of public funds is concerning and warrants further investigation.
Residents deserve transparency and accountability, especially when it comes to long-term financial commitments like a perpetual property tax. The City needs to provide a detailed breakdown of the library’s costs and justify the need for such a significant investment.
Holding the City Accountable
As residents, it is our responsibility to demand transparency and accountability from our city officials. Here are some steps we can take:
- Demand Detailed Cost Analysis: Insist on a comprehensive breakdown of the library’s expenses. This should include land acquisition, construction, design, technology, and operational costs.
- Question the Need for a Perpetual Tax: Why is a perpetual tax necessary? What are the projected long-term benefits, and how will these funds be managed?
- Investigate Alternative Funding Sources: Are there grants, donations, or other financial contributions that can reduce the burden on homeowners?
- Inquire About Revenue from Current Site: Demand transparency on how the revenue from the sale of the current library property will be utilized.
- Clarify Rental Costs: Request official documentation clarifying the rental costs of the new site to ensure there are no discrepancies.
- Engage in Community Discussions: Attend city council meetings, voice your concerns, and participate in community discussions to hold city officials accountable.
Conclusion
The proposal to fund the new library through a perpetual $300 property tax raises serious concerns about transparency and financial mismanagement. The residents of El Cerrito deserve a library, but they also deserve honesty and accountability from their city officials. It’s time to unmask the true costs and demand a fair and transparent approach to funding this vital community resource.
Let’s work together to ensure that our voices are heard and that our city leaders prioritize the needs and interests of the community.
To be transparent would reveal the Supplemental Property Tax as a subsidy for the TOD housing development, a speculative real estate development plan that the City has invested $250,000 in the housing developer (fact). A Supplemental Property tax is intended for “people and programs” funding like after school care or other City sponsored activities. Construction bonds are the appropriate financing tool to construct or renovate the library. The bonds are eventually paid off and retired like a home loan. EC already has “people and programs” in the Contra Costa County Library in which all property owners in Contra Costa County pay 1.5% of their 1% property taxes. The CCC Supervisors have approved the 2024-2025 Library system budget of $43,978,078 for this fiscal year, an increase of 6% over the prior year. I would highly recommend reading the Library budget that provides detailed performance and operating statistics for all the libraries in the system available on the County website. Most importantly in this financing scheme is the question of how does a Supplemental Property Tax which is an annual property tax collected by the County Tax Assessor turn into $21,000,000 of proceeds to finance the construction of the first floor that the library will occupy (and clearly over and above traditional tenant improvements – 6 floors of housing sit on top of the first floor the Tax is paying for). Who is paying the projected $1,600,000 in interest costs shown in the City’s budget? Not the City of El Cerrito. How can there be interest payments if there is no financing? Who has claim to the remaining $900,000 in Supplemental Property tax receipts?
The State of California has approved a $20 billion affordable housing bond for Contra Costa and the surrounding 9 Bay Area Counties to be voted on the Nov 5 ballot as well as lowering the required 2/3’s voter approval. Use those funds for subsidizing the ROI for the developer and not local property tax payers. Yes on Affordable Housing and yes on a standalone library. Why are the two unique projects being combined? Housing is a separate project with its own issues and the same for the Library. Renovating or rebuilding the library at the site that was intended by library City leaders is the most practical as well as appropriate (the City owns the property!). I would love to see an architecturally significant larger building (12,000 sq ft two story building) that is something all residents can support and be proud of and not some Barnes & Noble style retail library.
On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 8:49 AM El Cerrito Committee for Responsib
LikeLike
This is great! Do you mind if we turn this into a post?
LikeLike
you have my permission to use as a post
On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 11:26 AM El Cerrito Committee for Responsib
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you It will post tomorrow Feel free to call us out if we make any errors or omissions
LikeLike
Regarding Mr. Klaus’s proposal: these seem the most reasonable and intelligent approach. Using the existing property owned by the city is the prudent and responsible plan. Mixing up library business with housing, child care, and retail is to invite unnecessary complications with competing interests. A two-story 12,000 sq. ft. standalone library built just where it is now sounds just peachy. $21,000,000 sounds like grift with a large helping of lard.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No fight here 😉
LikeLike