The False Choice Between Expenses and Services

One of the most overused lines from El Cerrito’s city leadership is: “Cutting expenses means cutting services.” It’s a simplistic and frankly idiotic statement that City Manager Karen Pinkos and Councilmember Lisa Motoyama have repeated so often they seem to believe it themselves.

If that logic were true, the reverse would also be true: adding money to the budget should improve services. Instead, the budget has nearly doubled yet services have declined. Meanwhile, El Cerrito has built one of the most top-heavy administrative structures for a city of 25,000 residents—complete with a City Manager, an Assistant City Manager, an Executive Assistant and four battalion chiefs. More money, more management and yet less value for the community.

A Budget That Keeps Growing

Over the past several years, El Cerrito’s budget has grown dramatically. General Fund expenditures have jumped from about $32 million in FY 2018 to over $60 million in the current cycle. Pension contributions alone have nearly doubled, and salary costs continue to climb – fueling more pension costs. Yet despite this growth, residents experience fewer services, longer wait times, and less responsiveness from City Hall.

Services That Keep Shrinking

Consider a few examples:

• Swim Center – Rather than maintaining the facility properly, projects are repeatedly deferred until they become multimillion-dollar emergencies. Now residents face long closures, ADA upgrades, and lost program revenue.
• Senior Services – Programming has been cut even as the city’s senior population grows – now 27% leaving older residents underserved despite expanding budgets.
• Street Maintenance – Our roads remain in poor condition. Even with more dollars in public works budgets, El Cerrito lags behind neighboring cities in paving and infrastructure improvements.
• Library – Instead of investing in staffing and programs at the existing library, the city cut library hours. Now the town pushes a $75+ million new tax that isn’t actually tied to building a library.

The Reality of Trade-Offs

The truth is, there are trade-offs. We could renew programming at the senior center if El Cerrito weren’t carrying more administrative overhead, per capita, than peer cities of the same size.

El Cerrito is the only city of about 25,000 residents that employs a City Manager, an Assistant City Manager, and an Executive Assistant—an inflated structure that adds cost without adding corresponding value. On top of that, the city funds four Battalion Chiefs in its fire department—far more than comparable cities. Albany, Piedmont, and Hercules all operate with fewer or none at all.

El Cerrito is also one of the few cities without a senior center.

📊 Fact Box: Staffing in El Cerrito vs. Similar-Sized Cities

Executive Office

El Cerrito (pop. ~25,000) • City Manager • Assistant City Manager • Executive Assistant to City Manager ➝ 3-person executive office

Albany (pop. ~20,000) • City Manager • Administrative staff shared across departments ➝ No Assistant City Manager

Piedmont (pop. ~11,000) • City Administrator • One administrative analyst ➝ No executive assistant

Hercules (pop. ~26,000) • City Manager • Administrative support staff (shared) ➝ No Assistant City Manager

Fire Department Command

El Cerrito (pop. ~25,000) • 4 Battalion Chiefs for a fire department supports the town of Kensington – although the city may not be properly compensated for support costs

Albany (pop. ~20,000) • 0 Battalion Chiefs (fire services contracted through Albany–Berkeley model)

Piedmont (pop. ~11,000) • 0 Battalion Chiefs (one fire station with a captain-led structure)

Hercules (pop. ~26,000) • 1 Battalion Chief (shared within Rodeo–Hercules Fire District)

When leadership builds layers of executive staff and fire command positions beyond what peer cities sustain, that money isn’t available for frontline services. If staffing were right-sized instead of inflated, the surplus could be redirected to where residents feel it most—funding essential programs and addressing long-delayed capital needs.

That’s the real conversation our leaders avoid: not whether cuts automatically reduce services, but whether smarter decisions could deliver better outcomes with the resources we already have.

The Political Comfort of Bad Logic

Equating every dollar spent with service delivered is politically convenient but intellectually bankrupt. It assumes El Cerrito is already operating at 100% efficiency, with no room to improve. It denies the possibility of innovation, better prioritization, operational reform or revenue losses.

And it gives cover to leaders like Karen Pinkos and Lisa Motoyama, who cling to this false choice as a shield against accountability. By repeating the mantra, they can dismiss fiscal discipline as “anti-service” altogether. At the same time, pension costs rise, management gives themselves raises while earning overtime, and residents see less for their money.

It’s the same behaviors that sent us to a negative fund balance, put the City on the state auditors top 10 cities at risk of bankruptcy. It’s also the same behaviors that led to our decline to a BBB- bond rating.

What Residents Deserve

It’s time to elect leaders who aren’t tied to the status quo and overstaffing. Cutting fat is not the same as cutting muscle. Time and again, El Cerrito has chosen to prioritize salary increases, top heavy staffing and pet capital projects over the services residents rely on every day.

The community deserves leaders who will manage growing budgets responsibly and deliver better outcomes—not ones who cling to inflated and unsustainable staffing structures and hide behind a tired line that collapses under two minutes of honest thought.