Library Tax Risks: A Local’s Perspective

A concerned citizen would like to add their perspective to a recent post on Nextdoor, which they believe deserves a second read.

The proposed library tax may sound appealing on the surface, but it carries long-term financial consequences that have not been fully explained. Before signing the petition or casting a vote, residents are urged to take a closer look.

El Cerrito currently holds a BBB credit rating with a positive outlook. That’s not a particularly strong position. While there was some expectation of an upgrade to BBB+/A- in 2023, the city’s ongoing deficit spending, its continued use of general funds to address deferred maintenance, and the lack of a medium-term savings strategy make such an upgrade unlikely. In fact, a revision to neutral looks more probable. That shift alone could increase borrowing costs, potentially adding $3.5 million in interest over the life of a library bond. That’s enough to purchase two fire trucks or fully renovate the community swim center.

The proposed library wouldn’t even be owned by the city. Yet the city would still be responsible for $2.5 million in annual debt payments for 30 years—more than $75 million in total. Unlike discretionary services, debt payments can’t be deferred or reduced during financial downturns. That loss of flexibility is dangerous, especially for a city already struggling with financial sustainability.

The citizen also points to Proposition 13 as a structural challenge that flat parcel taxes are trying to patch. Because of how Prop 13 works, residents who bought their homes decades ago often pay far less in property tax than their neighbors. Yet those same residents are sometimes the loudest voices pushing for new public spending. If properties were reassessed closer to market value, the city could collect an estimated $3 million more each year—enough to invest in infrastructure without creating new tax burdens. Ignoring this disparity only makes long-term planning harder.

El Cerrito already faces serious, mandated obligations: it must build 1,600 new housing units by 2031—570 of which must be low-income—and its pension liabilities continue to grow. The city has no concrete plan to address either. Taking on a new, long-term financial obligation for a non-mandated library project—especially one that increases fixed costs without increasing city-owned assets—is fiscally reckless.

There is also no guarantee the new library will provide better service. Library usage is down. The proposed location is less accessible than the current one. The project seems more focused on constructing a new building than improving library services.

This citizen emphasizes that they are not against libraries—they are against irresponsible budgeting. The city should demonstrate two or more years of budget surpluses, actively save for major investments, and stop funding routine maintenance from general reserves before proposing new capital projects. Financial basics must come first.

When a city is managing its finances well, a community conversation about a new library makes sense. But when budgets are being balanced through accounting tricks and one-time fixes, pretending the city can afford a shiny new library does more harm than good.

Many of the same individuals who championed this project were also responsible for El Cerrito’s financial problems prior to 2019. The community cannot afford to repeat the same mistakes.

Unless the city shows that it can manage existing obligations, this proposal should not move forward. This citizen urges others: don’t sign the petition, vote no, and speak up. El Cerrito deserves better—and so do its taxpayers.