El Cerrito has qualified a ballot measure proposing a 17-cent-per-square-foot tax, yet has not publicly released an analysis explaining why that specific rate is necessary, how it was calculated, or how it aligns with project scope, alternatives, and realistic timelines.

That absence is no longer theoretical. It is now part of the public record.

What the Public Record Shows

During the City Council retreat, concerns were raised through public comment and written submissions entered into the record about the lack of foundational information supporting the proposed tax.

These comments did not argue against libraries or public investment. They focused on process—specifically, whether voters have been given enough information to evaluate a permanent tax responsibly.

The concerns raised were consistent and narrowly framed, calling for:

• Comparative cost estimates for library alternatives
• Greater clarity regarding a parking strategy and mitigation measures
• A realistic development timeline for the El Cerrito Plaza BART site

These were not abstract objections. They were requests for basic decision-making information that typically precedes ballot qualification.

Development Context Remains Unsettled

Uncertainty surrounding the broader Plaza BART development was also acknowledged.

At present, only one building—the 70-unit affordable housing project at 515 Richmond Street—has secured funding through the State of California’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program. That project was approved earlier than the rest of the development, in April 2023, and construction has begun.

No other buildings at the site have confirmed funding to date. As a result, the overall buildout schedule, sequencing, and parking impacts remain unresolved, even as the City advances a tax tied to that broader context.

Library Alternatives: Information Is Coming—After Qualification

According to residents, a separate discussion during the retreat, City Manager Karen Pinkos stated that information on library alternatives will be presented at the January 20 City Council meeting. Assistant City Manager Will Provost explained that the consultant, Griffin Structures, developed five scenarios for a new library. Those scenarios are expected to be included in a council packet released January 15.

By then, the tax measure will already be qualified.

This sequencing means voters are being asked to evaluate a fixed tax rate before seeing:

• Side-by-side cost comparisons across alternatives
• Differences in scope, phasing, or timing
• How each option interacts with development and parking constraints

That limits meaningful public evaluation.

Parking Impacts: Analysis Underway, No Timeline

Parking remains one of the most significant unresolved issues.

When fully built, the Plaza BART development would eliminate 740 existing BART parking spaces and replace them with 743 new apartments. City staff have stated that a plan to modernize on-street parking is intended to address these impacts.

However, staff confirmed during the retreat that there is no timeline for when the public will see that plan.

In November 2024, the City approved a $220,000 contract with Dixon Resources to conduct a parking inventory using drones and license-plate readers, analyze the data, collaborate with staff, and manage public engagement. The contract specifies data collection across multiple weekday and weekend periods.

As of now, that analysis has not been released, and no dedicated library parking has been identified.

The June Special Election Decision

The City has chosen to place the measure on a June special election, rather than a regular November ballot.

A November election would have provided additional time to complete analysis, release comparative cost information, clarify parking impacts, and allow residents to evaluate library alternatives alongside clearer development timelines. It would also have reduced election costs by aligning with a regularly scheduled cycle.

Instead, the City is proceeding with a stand-alone election while acknowledging that key information is still forthcoming.

Special elections are not inherently inappropriate. But when combined with unfinished analysis and unresolved planning questions, the decision reasonably invites scrutiny about timing and preparedness.

Fact Box: What Is Known vs. What Is Pending

✔ What Is Known (On the Public Record)

• A 17-cent per square foot tax measure has been qualified for the ballot in El Cerrito.
• The City has not publicly released a rate study or analysis showing how the 17-cent figure was calculated.
• Public comment and written submissions at the City Council retreat requested additional data before voter consideration.
• Only one building at the Plaza BART site—the 70-unit project at 515 Richmond Street—has secured state funding.
• Construction has begun on that single-funded building; no other buildings have confirmed funding.
• Five library scenarios have been developed by Griffin Structures, per staff statements.
• A $220,000 parking study contract has been approved.
• Staff stated there is no timeline for release of a public parking plan.
• The measure is scheduled for a June special election.

⏳ What Is Pending (Not Yet Released)

• A public explanation of how the 17-cent tax rate was derived
• Side-by-side cost comparisons of library alternatives
• Identification of a preferred option and rationale
• A development timeline for unfunded portions of Plaza BART
• Release of parking inventory data and mitigation strategies
• Clarification of how tax proceeds would be handled if projects are delayed or re-sequenced

The Central Issue Raised at the Retreat: Process

This discussion is not about whether El Cerrito values its library. Past funding decisions and planning efforts make that clear. The issue raised through public retreat comments and written submissions is whether the process provides voters with enough information to make an informed decision about a permanent tax.

A measure has advanced without the City having publicly articulated:

• A documented rationale for the specific tax rate
• A clear comparison of alternatives
• Sequencing across library, parking, and development decisions
• Contingencies if assumptions change

Only after these concerns were formally entered into the record has additional information been scheduled for release.

That sequence does not resolve the concern. It explains it.

A Call to Action: Review the Record Before Voting

Between January 15 and January 20, new information will become public.

Residents should review the council packet carefully, examine cost assumptions, compare alternatives, and consider how unresolved parking and development issues intersect with the proposed tax.

Evaluating a ballot measure is not just about outcomes.
It is about whether the process supports an informed decision.

That is the question now before voters.