Why Taxes Are Stacking Against El Cerrito Residents

Shaped by public discussion and social media analysis from concerned residents across the community.

If this feels familiar, it should.

In 2016, El Cerrito voters rejected a library tax after the city failed to identify a location, and costs rose sharply just before the vote. Voters said no—not because they don’t value libraries, but because the plan didn’t add up.

Nearly a decade later, we’re watching the same pattern repeat.

Different year. Bigger price tag. Same logic.

But the problem now is bigger than one library. It’s bigger than one city. It’s bigger than the math.

Dream First. Budget Never.

When you bought your home, you had a budget.

Maybe $6,000 a month got you a $1 million mortgage at 6%. You shopped within constraints. You compromised—on size, location, or features—because affordability mattered.

That discipline is missing from El Cerrito’s approach to major projects.

The city wants to build a $37 million library on Parcel C West of the Plaza development. But:

• El Cerrito’s City Manager declined to apply for available grant funding that could have offset millions in costs by upgrading the existing library or exploring lower-cost alternatives beyond the BART location.
• There is no funding to build Parcel C West
• The BART location depends on state grants that have been denied.
• Voters are being asked to approve a tax before the site, scope, or financing is secured
• If it passes, homeowners will be on the hook for much more than $37 million Homeowners will be on the hook for at least $100 million or more.

This isn’t planning. It’s backfilling a dream.

How We Got Here

In 2006, the city hired a consultant who projected sharply increasing foot traffic and physical book borrowing. Both have since declined by 30–40%.

The consultant designed a “dream library” with no cost constraints and no budget framework. Instead of revisiting assumptions as conditions changed, the city locked in the vision and ignored the financial reality.

That’s how we arrived at a $37 million project without a viable funding plan.

The Math Still Doesn’t Work—and It Never Did

Even on its own terms, the proposal fails basic arithmetic.

• Proposed tax revenue: ~$2.7 million per year
• Estimated annual costs: Over $3 million
  • ~$2.2 million in bond payments
  • ~$800,000 in operating costs

That means the project is underfunded from day one.

Shortfalls don’t vanish. They roll into the General Fund—or they become the justification for the next tax increase.

But here’s the deeper issue: the system assumes taxpayers will always absorb the gap.

This Is Bigger Than El Cerrito

Public agencies have quietly shifted into employment engines, focused more on sustaining jobs than delivering measurable public outcomes, but the community deserves both.

The idea is that expanding agencies, new projects, and larger staffs are justified because they supposedly deliver public value. That would be fine—if that value were clearly demonstrated.

But across El Cerrito, Contra Costa County, and regional transit agencies, we’re seeing the same pattern:

• Staffing levels continue to rise
• Budgets grow year after year
• Outcomes are rarely defined, tracked, or reported
• Service quality does not materially improve

In too many cases, funding decisions appear driven less by measurable public benefit and more by the assumption that the government’s role is to provide jobs, regardless of whether those roles are actually improving service delivery.

That’s not an argument against public employees. It’s an argument for accountability.

Fact Box: Staffing Growth vs. Measurable Outcomes

(Why voters are questioning “just add money” solutions)

Across local, county, and regional agencies, spending and staffing have grown faster than outcomes.

• Public-sector payroll is the fastest-growing cost in most city and county budgets, often consuming 70–80% of General Fund expenditures.
• Most agencies do not publish outcome-based measures tying staffing increases to better service, lower costs, or improved reliability.
• Bay Area transit agencies have expanded administrative staffing while ridership remains below pre-2020 levels and subsidies per rider have increased.
• Staffing continues to grow even where demand is flat or declining.
• Tax measures rarely include enforceable performance benchmarks or hiring pauses when outcomes fail to improve.

Bottom line:
Without clear outcome metrics, staffing becomes the default indicator of investment. Voters are increasingly asked to fund employment levels, not measurable public value.

Now Add the Tax Stacking

The library tax is only one layer.

At the same time, residents are being asked to absorb:

• A regional transit (BART) sales tax to cover operating deficits
• A proposed Contra Costa County tax, potentially sales- or parcel-based
• Existing local, county, and state taxes are already at historic highs

Each agency plans in isolation. Each insists its request is modest. No one looks at the combined burden on households.

And no one asks why all three levels of government are expanding at the same time without clear performance standards.

The Risk Is Always Shifted Downward

In every case, the structure is the same.

If assumptions fail, taxpayers pay.
If revenues fall short, taxpayers pay.
If agencies do not adapt, taxpayers pay.

There is no requirement to pause hiring, rethink programs, or restructure operations before asking for more money.

The public carries all the risk.
The institutions carry none.

The Choice in Front of Voters

Today, residents are not weighing a single request. We are facing three new taxes at once—a local library parcel tax, a proposed countywide tax, and a regional transit sales tax—on top of already high local, county, and state taxes.

Each proposal is presented as reasonable in isolation. Together, they reflect a system that keeps expanding without clear performance standards, measurable outcomes, or meaningful accountability—and without demonstrating that services are being delivered in the most effective and economical way.

What’s missing is not commitment to public service, but discipline: a clear link between dollars spent and results achieved; an honest assessment of whether services could be delivered more efficiently; and a willingness to modernize operations before asking residents to pay more. Taxpayers are being asked to fund growth, not proven improvements in service quality, reliability, or access.

Voters are being asked to say yes first and trust that the details will work themselves out later. Experience tells us they rarely do.

Until public agencies demonstrate discipline—aligning projects to real budgets, tying funding to outcomes, and reforming systems before asking for more money—the responsible response is restraint.

Vote NO on the El Cerrito tax in June.

And start demanding accountability—not just more taxes—from every level of government.