Worried about rising taxes? Concerned neighbors on Nextdoor have been cautioning others on the real reasons they will vote NO on this proposed tax increase.
1. The true price tag is far higher than advertised.
While the city touts a $21 million library, taxpayers will end up paying around $75 million to $100 million over 30 years—mostly in interest, not construction.
2. The “$1-per-year lease” narrative is misleading.
The city frames the lease as nearly free, but in practice, taxpayers are essentially prepaying $21 million to support the developer upfront—about $2.5 million a year.
3. It puts a heavy burden on homeowners.
A 17¢-per-square-foot parcel tax translates to roughly $288 the first year for an average homeowner—and about $7,650 over 30 years, and escalates from there.
4. Annual tax increases are built into the proposal.
The measure permits the city council to raise the tax each year to account for inflation—meaning costs won’t stay level.
5. Longtime homeowners and seniors pay disproportionately more.
Because parcel taxes are not based on property value, seniors who’ve lived here for decades could see their tax bills climb by 12% or more.
6. The cost per use is unsustainable.
The combined $75 million tax plus existing operating costs mean the library will cost around $3.3 million a year—that’s about $28.50 for every book checked out, with usage reportedly declining.
7. It functions as a hidden subsidy for the BART housing project.
The city mandates below-market-rate housing units in the Plaza BART development, making the project financially shaky—and the library tax serves as a bailout.
8. It attempts to circumvent higher voter approval thresholds. The city’s representative Greg Lyman has a petition to make this a citizens initiative Rather than a ⅔ supermajority for tax increases, the city labels this measure a “citizens’ initiative,” lowering the requirement to just 50% + 1 vote.
9. Taxpayer dollars are funding the campaign.
The city has already spent about $100,000 on message-testing polls to support this tax—funding that should come from independent PACs, not public coffers.
10. Renters will pay too.
Even if they don’t own homes, renters will bear the cost: landlords are likely to pass on the tax increase via higher rents, making housing less affordable.
These concerns come from Nextdoor threads, community blogs, and citizen watchdog efforts demanding transparency and fiscal prudence.
If you’re skeptical about the city’s financial stewardship—and you don’t want homeowners and renters stuck with this burden—please join your neighbors – don’t sign Lyman’s citizen initiative petition and vote NO on the 2026 library tax.
If you agree, like and share on your social media outlets. If you disagree, please tell us why.
El Cerrito’s $700,000 Employees: What Transparent California Reveals
Influenced by social media posts of concerned citizens
Have you wondered why city officials say El Cerrito needs higher taxes?
Before voters are asked to approve a permanent new parcel tax, it’s worth examining publicly available compensation data to see how city dollars are already being spent.
According to Transparent California, employee compensation in El Cerrito has changed dramatically over the past six years.
Formal Ballot-Measure Analysis: Fiscal Context for Voters
This analysis is intended to provide voters with relevant fiscal context as they consider any future ballot measure proposing new or increased taxes, including a permanent parcel tax associated with capital projects.
Ballot measures that create long-term or permanent revenue streams are typically evaluated against three core considerations:
Baseline Cost Structure Personnel costs represent the city’s largest ongoing operating expense. Sustained growth in total compensation affects future budgets regardless of economic conditions and reduces fiscal flexibility.
Long-Term Obligations Total compensation includes not only current wages but also benefits and pension-related costs that create long-term liabilities. Increases at the upper end of the pay scale compound future obligations and limit discretionary spending capacity.
Trade-Offs and Timing Capital projects funded through permanent taxes commit future revenue streams. Voters may reasonably assess the cost.
The Shocking Numbers
In 2018
Zero employees earned over $500,000 in total compensation
In 2024
Eight employees earn over $500,000
Three earn over $600,000
Two earn over $700,000
This represents a major structural shift in a short period.
Top Administrative Positions
Total Pay (2018 → 2023 → 2024)
Karen E. Pinkos, City Manager $203,018 → $241,080 → $251,177
Alexandra Orologas, Assistant City Manager N/A → $206,965 → $227,680
Yvetteh D. Ortiz, Public Works Director $187,539 → $207,224 → $217,514
Christopher W. Jones, Recreation Director $171,813 → $203,118 → $213,507
Crystal Reams, Finance Director N/A → $87,955 → $207,431
Melanie A. Mintz, Community Development Director $165,753 → $192,135 → $202,514
Total Compensation (Pay + Benefits + Pension Debt)
Karen E. Pinkos $276,896 → $359,412 → $378,069
Alexandra Orologas N/A → $330,863 → $361,611
Yvetteh D. Ortiz $245,508 → $331,407 → $352,758
Melanie A. Mintz $244,580 → $300,921 → $321,158
Christopher W. Jones $232,487 → $299,816 → $319,278
These figures include salary, benefits, and the city’s share of long-term pension obligations, which continue to place growing pressure on future operating budgets. Let’s not forget that the city council approved restoring the City Manager’s pension plan – the same pension plan that she, while Assistant City Manager, convinced the rest of the staff to give up.
Fire Battalion Chiefs: A $2.5 Million Annual Cost
In 2024, El Cerrito employs four Fire Battalion Chiefs with the following total compensation:
Battalion Chief 1: $756,486
Battalion Chief 2: $733,196
Battalion Chief 3: $591,973
Battalion Chief 4: $455,780
Total annual cost: $2,537,434
Comparison to 2018
2018 total: $1,487,874
2024 total: $2,537,434
Increase: $1,049,560 (70.5%)
The highest-paid Battalion Chief increased from $465,711 in 2018 to $756,486 in 2024 — a 62% increase.
Growth Across the Workforce
Employees earning above key thresholds:
Over $700,000: 0 → 2
Over $600,000: 0 → 3
Over $500,000: 0 → 8
Over $400,000: 2 → 23 (1,050%)
Over $300,000: 15 → 40 (167%)
This growth reflects structural cost increases, not inflation alone.
The $37 Million Proposal
While personnel costs have risen sharply, voters are being asked to approve:
$37 million parcel tax measure
A permanent parcel tax of 17¢ per square foot
A tax that can be imposed with 50% + 1 voter approval
Even if 49% of voters oppose the measure, all property owners would still pay the tax.
Key Questions for Voters
Can El Cerrito afford both escalating personnel costs and a $37 million capital project? Will there be more taxes for the new Safety Center or to pay for ballooning payroll?
Is this fiscally responsible when:
Road conditions fell from #3 to #59 in Bay Area rankings
Certain city fees increased by 700% or more
The city maintains minimal reserves
Should compensation growth be addressed before imposing permanent new taxes?
Staffing levels are 2x more than comparable cities. Should we address this before imposing new taxes?
Revenue Problem or Spending Problem?
Before voting yes on a $37 million tax measure, residents should ask:
Why the city manager and council continue to delegitimize social media commentary without clearly explaining what’s incorrect?
Does El Cerrito have a revenue problem—or a spending problem? El Cerrito has a spending problem, for sure.
Source: Transparent California All compensation data is publicly available. Total compensation includes salary, benefits, and pension liabilities.
Over the past month, multiple El Cerrito residents have reported that yard signs opposing the El Cerrito parcel tax have been taken—quietly removed, without notice, and without explanation. Most recently, a sign near the curb was removed, while another on the same property—closer to the house—remained untouched.
That inconsistency matters.
Most residents understand the City’s long-standing position that yard signs are not allowed on public property or in medians.
The city manager reminded us in her monthly newsletter signaling that some signs were removed by city staff.
Most people try to comply in good faith, carefully and respectfully placing signs. What residents are seeing now, however, looks less like neutral enforcement and more like selective application of the rules.
When Enforcement Depends on the Message
Residents have raised consistent concerns:
Signs opposing the El Cerrito parcel tax are being removed from curb-adjacent areas, while other nearby signs remain.
Numerous signs placed in median strips near businesses remain untouched.
In past election cycles, City Council campaign signs were posted in similar locations + median strips without enforcement.
No clear explanation has been offered for why some signs are removed and others are not.
If signs are prohibited in certain areas, enforcement should be consistent, transparent, and content-neutral. Anything less undermines public trust.
This Doesn’t Feel Like Routine Enforcement
When residents wake up to find a sign gone, the response isn’t clarity—it’s confusion. People are left wondering whether the removal was lawful, whether it was done by City staff, or whether someone took matters into their own hands.
Removing a sign from someone’s property—especially without notice—does not feel like routine code enforcement. It feels like suppression of speech.
The Community Is Paying Attention
And regardless of intent, these actions won’t change the underlying reality: more residents are taking a closer look at the El Cerrito parcel tax and concluding it’s a bad deal for the community.
What’s different now is awareness.
Residents are watching what gets enforced and what gets ignored. They are watching where signs are allowed to stay—and which ones disappear. They are watching whether the rules are applied equally to everyone.
El Cerrito residents care about fairness, transparency, and equal treatment. Selective enforcement—real or perceived—erodes trust and deepens skepticism.
Call to Action: Speak Up, Stay Visible
If a sign opposing the El Cerrito parcel tax was removed from your property, say something. Let your neighbors know. Document it. Ask questions.
If you see selective enforcement, call it out—politely, publicly, and persistently.
And most importantly, don’t be intimidated into silence. Replacements are available for anyone whose sign was taken.
Removing signs won’t stop or deter this conversation. It only signals how important the conversation has become.
El Cerrito is a community filled with history, character, and long-time residents who care deeply about this city. But if we step back and look at our demographics, one trend stands out above all others: El Cerrito is getting older, and young people are not staying.
According to recent Census data, our median age is over 42, noticeably higher than the region and the state. Nearly one in five El Cerritans is 65 or older, while the share of young adults and young families continues to shrink.
This isn’t happening because young people don’t like El Cerrito. It’s happening because they can’t afford to build a future here.
El Cerrito Has Affordable Housing — But Not Affordable Homeownership
This is the distinction that matters most.
In El Cerrito has several affordable housing developments and income-restricted rental units. These units are great for students, single parents, and other lower-income residents, but eventually, many seek homeownership. But when it comes to owning a home, the pathway is increasingly out of reach.
Why? Because of our extremely high tax base, driven by years of layered parcel taxes, assessments, and bond obligations.
A young family can scrape together a down payment. They can manage the mortgage.
But once they see the $1,100 to $1,400 in additional monthly taxes, including the Real Property Transfer Tax attached to even a modest home, the math collapses.
So they do what any rational young household would do: They look elsewhere.
Albany. Pinole. Hercules. Vallejo. Concord. Sacramento cities where owning a home does not require sacrificing long-term financial stability.
City Managers: Young People Don’t Owe Your City Loyalty
This is a message that civic leaders everywhere need to hear:
Young people in your town owe El Cerrito absolutely nothing. They don’t have to stay here. They don’t have to raise their children here. They don’t owe the city or its government blind loyalty.
If a city wants young people and young families, the city must invest in them — and in a future that makes staying possible.
That means:
Smarter fiscal management
Prioritizing service delivery over unnecessary spending
Avoiding projects that require yet another tax measure
Creating a viable path to homeownership
Making long-term financial sustainability the default, not the exception
When cities fail to do these things, young residents leave for places that do. And they’re right to.
What Happens When We Don’t Keep Young Families?
We lose:
School enrollment and school stability
Local economic vitality
Small-business customers
A pipeline of future community leaders
Energy, innovation, and the civic participation that keep a city thriving
A community without younger generations is a community aging into decline.
El Cerrito Is at a Crossroads
El Cerrito has every opportunity to remain a vibrant, multigenerational city. But that will require leaders to confront the real issue:
We cannot tax our way into a prosperous future while simultaneously expecting young households to put down roots here.
Affordable rentals alone are not enough. We need affordable ownership — and fiscal choices that make that possible.
A Path Forward
If we want a balanced, vibrant El Cerrito for the next 50 years, we must make decisions that reflect that future:
Stabilize the tax burden
Invest in core services before new spending
Support housing strategies that build ownership opportunities
Build a city where young people can envision a life — not just a temporary stay
Because the reality is simple:
If we want young people to stay, we must create a city worth staying for.
Shaped by expressions of Concerned El Cerrito Residents
More and more residents are speaking out against this initiative.
Like many El Cerrito residents, we value our library and believe the community deserves a modern, welcoming facility. Supporting a new library, however, does not require blind acceptance of a deeply flawed financing plan and a process that feels anything but transparent.
What troubles us most about the proposed parcel tax—expected to appear on a June ballot—is its tax-dependent financing structure. This is not a one-time, limited assessment. The tax can run for many years and, more concerning, can be increased annually at the City Council’s discretion. There are no meaningful protections against escalation. For residents on fixed incomes—particularly seniors, who make up roughly 40% of our population—this is alarming.
Equally troubling is what the proposal doesn’t include:
No meaningful exemptions or relief for seniors or financially vulnerable residents
No clear guardrails limiting future tax increases
No firm commitment that costs will remain stable over time
We are also deeply concerned by how this measure has been framed as a so-called “Citizens’ Initiative.” In practice, this designation allows the tax to pass with 50% plus one vote, rather than the two-thirds threshold normally required for tax increases. While the City denies involvement, that claim strains credibility.
At the recent public meeting, City staff and councilmembers appeared not only present, but fully invested in the measure’s success. The tone was not exploratory or balanced. It felt predetermined. The preferred outcome—both the tax structure and a Transit-Oriented Development library at the BART Plaza—seemed settled long before public input was solicited.
What we did not see was a serious consideration of alternatives.
Instead, residents were shown polished, aspirational images of multi-use developments presented by the owner’s representative. These visuals were undeniably appealing—but they bear little resemblance to what the proposed library is likely to become, given budget constraints, site limitations, and competing priorities. The effect was more sales pitch than civic discussion.
The overall flavor of the meeting left many of us feeling managed rather than engaged. When a councilmember later criticized “misinformation on social media,” it rang hollow. The City has made no comparable effort to proactively share clear, comprehensive, and accessible information with residents. When official communication is sparse, of course, confusion fills the gap.
Shiny new libraries are easy to sell. Long-term tax risk is harder to explain.
To be clear: we are not opposed to a new library for El Cerrito. We are opposed to this plan, this financing structure, and this lopsided process—one that appears designed to minimize scrutiny, lower the voting threshold, and move forward regardless of community concern.
Residents deserve honesty, options, and real choice—not a single path presented as inevitable.
Before ballots printed, El Cerrito should slow down, lay out the full financial implications, consider genuine alternatives, and design protections for those who will bear the greatest burden. Anything less risks undermining trust in local government—and that cost is far higher than any parcel tax.
Why this parcel tax proposal deserves closer scrutiny
Like many El Cerrito residents, we value our library and believe the community deserves a modern, welcoming facility. Supporting a new library, however, does not require blind acceptance of a deeply flawed financing plan and a process that feels anything but transparent.
What troubles us most about the proposed parcel tax—expected to appear on a June ballot—is its tax-dependent financing structure. This is not a one-time, limited assessment. The tax can run for many years and, more concerning, can be increased annually at the City Council’s discretion. There are no meaningful protections against escalation. For residents on fixed incomes—particularly seniors, who make up roughly 40% of our population—this is alarming.
Equally troubling is what the proposal doesn’t include:
No meaningful exemptions or relief for seniors or financially vulnerable residents
No clear guardrails limiting future tax increases
No firm commitment that costs will remain stable over time
We are also deeply concerned by how this measure has been framed as a so-called “Citizens’ Initiative.” In practice, this designation allows the tax to pass with 50% plus one vote, rather than the two-thirds threshold normally required for tax increases. While the City denies involvement, that claim strains credibility.
At the recent public meeting, City staff and councilmembers appeared not only present, but fully invested in the measure’s success. The tone was not exploratory or balanced. It felt predetermined. The preferred outcome—both the tax structure and a Transit-Oriented Development library at the BART Plaza—seemed settled long before public input was solicited.
What we did not see was a serious consideration of alternatives.
Instead, residents were shown polished, aspirational images of multi-use developments presented by the owner’s representative. These visuals were undeniably appealing—but they bear little resemblance to what the proposed library is likely to become, given budget constraints, site limitations, and competing priorities. The effect was more sales pitch than civic discussion.
The overall flavor of the meeting left many of us feeling managed rather than engaged. When a councilmember later criticized “misinformation on social media,” it rang hollow. The City has made no comparable effort to proactively share clear, comprehensive, and accessible information with residents. When official communication is sparse, of course confusion fills the gap.
Shiny new libraries are easy to sell. Long-term tax risk is harder to explain.
To be clear: we are not opposed to a new library for El Cerrito. We are opposed to this plan, this financing structure, and this lopsided process—one that appears designed to minimize scrutiny, lower the voting threshold, and move forward regardless of community concern.
Residents deserve honesty, options, and real choice—not a single path presented as inevitable.
Now that signatures have already been gathered and the measure is headed for the ballot, the responsibility shifts squarely to the City. If the Council chooses to place this initiative on a June 2026 ballot—at an estimated cost of at least $80,000, paid from reserves the City does not have—residents deserve an honest explanation of why that timing is being pursued. A rushed, off-cycle election funded with scarce reserves raises legitimate questions, particularly when it appears driven by a lack of confidence in achieving broad voter support. At minimum, the City owes the public full transparency on the long-term financial implications, real consideration of alternatives, and meaningful protections for those most vulnerable to rising taxes. Anything less further erodes public trust—and that cost will far exceed the price of any election or parcel tax.
Municipal bankruptcy does not happen overnight. Cities do not wake up one morning and discover they are insolvent. Bankruptcy is the end of a long sequence of ignored warning signs—patterns that repeat themselves with remarkable consistency.
California offers clear case studies. Vallejo filed for bankruptcy in 2008. San Bernardino followed in 2012—different cities, different political cultures—but the same financial failure modes. Vallejo exited bankruptcy in 2011. San Bernardino emerged years later, after a lengthy and costly restructuring that stretched into 2016–2017.
And that is why residents of El Cerrito should be paying close attention now.
Bankruptcy Starts Long Before the Filing
The first and most common warning sign is a structural deficit—when a city’s ongoing revenues cannot cover its ongoing costs, even in good economic years. Vallejo had this problem for years before filing. San Bernardino normalized it. Balanced budgets existed on paper only, patched together with optimism, deferrals, and one-time fixes.
El Cerrito increasingly shows this same pattern. Budgets are described as balanced, but only after dipping into reserves, delaying decisions, or relying on assumptions that require everything to go right. That is not balanced. That is fragility. A city with structural deficits is not facing a one-time challenge. It is facing a math problem that repeats every year until leadership makes structural corrections.
Cash Problems, Not Just Accounting Problems
Another critical signal is cash stress—the inability to comfortably pay obligations as they come due. In San Bernardino, this was unmistakable. Bills stacked up. Financial reporting lagged. The city entered bankruptcy unable to demonstrate basic fiscal control.
El Cerrito is not there—but it is moving closer than residents are being told. When reserves fall below policy targets and are treated as an operating tool instead of a safeguard, the distinction between temporary stress and cash risk starts to blur. The point of reserves is to protect residents from volatility. When reserves are used to fund everyday operations, volatility becomes the operating model.
Fixed Costs Crowd Out Services
In Vallejo and San Bernardino, fixed costs—especially pensions and retiree obligations—grew faster than revenues. Over time, these obligations crowded out basic services. The cities did not fail because residents stopped caring. They failed because leadership allowed long-term commitments to grow without matching revenue capacity.
El Cerrito now faces the same pressure point. When ongoing pension and retirement costs account for approximately 30% of the operating budget, that is not a minor line item. It is a structural constraint that can quietly dominate decision-making. When pension costs take that much of the pie, everything else competes for what is left: staffing, maintenance, public safety support, parks, street conditions, and basic responsiveness. If the city is not willing to reform operations, protect reserves, and improve productivity, the only remaining move is to ask residents for more money.
That is exactly the stage Vallejo and San Bernardino were in before bankruptcy.
Debt and Big Bets Make the Fall Harder
Bankrupt cities often share another risk: big bets made during optimistic years that become heavy burdens when conditions change. When revenues falter, debt service becomes non-negotiable, and services take the hit. Cities end up protecting financing agreements while residents experience fewer services for the same or higher taxes.
El Cerrito residents are being asked to fund large, long-term commitments without a clear demonstration of sustainable operating capacity. When cities borrow or tax to build without proving they can afford to operate, they repeat the same mistake—just with different packaging.
Reserves Are a Warning, Not a Solution
One of the clearest signals across bankrupt cities is the misuse of reserves. Reserves are meant to buffer downturns, not prop up everyday operations. Vallejo and San Bernardino both drained reserves before filing.
El Cerrito continues to claim that they ended last year with a positive fund balance. However, they do not disclose the reason for this balance. In reality, the positive fund balance is due to the city withdrawing money from reserves throughout the year. If the city had not used these general funds, it would have ended the year with a negative balance.
El Cerrito’s reserves are already under pressure. When reserve policies are waived or explained away, that is not prudent management—it is a warning flare. Reserves are the margin between stability and crisis. If that margin is shrinking while the city continues to add long-term commitments, the risk compounds.
Leadership Choices Decide the Outcome
Bankruptcy is not inevitable. Vallejo exited in 2011. San Bernardino emerged years later. But both paid a steep price: damaged credibility, reduced services, years of legal conflict, and long-term constraints that still shape decisions today.
El Cerrito is not bankrupt. That is the point. The lesson is not fear—it is foresight. The difference between cities that fail and cities that recover is leadership willing to confront reality early: acknowledge structural deficits, align long-term costs with real revenues, protect reserves, fix operations before asking residents for more money, and provide timely, complete financial reporting.
The Question for El Cerrito
Residents are being told that new taxes are necessary to preserve quality of life. Vallejo and San Bernardino were told the same thing—right up until bankruptcy proved that the problem was not insufficient taxes, but insufficient discipline.
El Cerrito still has a choice. The warning signs are known. The history is documented. The question is whether city leadership will act now—or whether residents will be asked to absorb the consequences later.
Fact Box: How Cities Slide Toward Bankruptcy
Vallejo (Filed 2008 | Exited 2011)
Long-term labor and retiree costs outpaced revenues
Structural deficits masked by short-term fixes
Reserves depleted before meaningful reform
Bankruptcy used to reset contracts after options were exhausted
San Bernardino (Filed 2012 | Emerged 2016–2017)
Chronic operating deficits became normal
Cash flow problems and late financial reporting
Retirement obligations crowded out services
Years-long bankruptcy with reduced credibility and service impacts
Ongoing pension and retirement costs ate 30% of the operating budget crowd out service capacity unless operations are reformed
Recurring budgets rely on reserves and assumptions
Reserves falling below policy targets
Growing fixed costs with limited structural reform
New taxes proposed before operational corrections are completed
Leadership’s default “solution” is to increase taxes—rather than fix the structural drivers. That is not acceptable. Residents should not be treated as the City’s standing line of credit.
Key Takeaway Cities do not go bankrupt because residents fail to support them. They go bankrupt when leadership delays hard decisions and relies on residents to fill structural gaps—until reserves are gone and the city runs out of options.
Call to Action: Ask for Leadership, Not Another Tax
El Cerrito is not bankrupt. That is precisely why residents must speak up now.
Before approving new taxes or long-term financial commitments, residents should ask city leadership to:
Explain how ongoing costs will be covered without relying on reserves
Demonstrate that existing operations have been right-sized and reformed
Address how pension and retiree cost growth will be managed sustainably
Commit to restoring and protecting reserve levels
Provide clear, timely, and complete financial reporting
This is not about transparency theater. It is about services. Residents pay high taxes for a functioning city—responsive staffing, maintained infrastructure, reliable public services, and honest financial stewardship.
Residents should contact the City Manager and City Council and ask for financial discipline, performance, and leadership that prevent El Cerrito from repeating the mistakes of Vallejo and San Bernardino.
Because bankruptcy is not a surprise. It is a choice made over time—and it is one El Cerrito can still avoid.
At the most recent El Cerrito City Council meeting, the City Clerk clearly stated the rules governing public comment:
• Items not on the agenda are to be addressed at the beginning of the meeting during general public comment • Agenda items are to be discussed only when they appear on the agenda
These rules are routinely stated, well understood by regular attendees, and typically enforced with precision—especially when speakers express views that challenge or oppose City-supported initiatives.
That’s why what occurred at the last meeting deserves attention.
Selective Enforcement in Plain View
Despite the clearly stated rules, the City allowed pro-library speakers to speak:
At the beginning of the meeting, during general public comment (when the library item was not yet on the agenda)
Again, in item 8B, when the Library formally appeared on the agenda
This resulted in certain speakers being permitted to comment twice on the same issue, once before the item appeared and again when it was officially up for discussion.
Residents with opposing views were not afforded the same latitude.
This was not a subtle procedural nuance. It directly conflicted with the rules the Clerk had just announced.
Unequal Enforcement of Time Limits
Equally concerning was the uneven enforcement of the three-minute speaking limit.
Several speakers supporting the library proposal were allowed to exceed their allotted time without interruption. Meanwhile, speakers expressing opposing or critical perspectives were cut off promptly and decisively at the three-minute mark, consistent with how the Clerk typically enforces the rules.
Time limits exist to ensure fairness. When they are enforced selectively, they stop being neutral safeguards and become tools of imbalance.
This Is About Process, Not Position
This is not an argument about the merits of the proposed library project. El Cerrito residents reasonably disagree about cost, location, scale, financing, and timing.
But none of that justifies the uneven application of public comment rules.
Public comment procedures exist to guarantee: • Equal access to decision-makers • Predictable and transparent meetings • Fair treatment across viewpoints • Public confidence in the process
When those procedures are bent for some speakers and rigidly enforced for others, the integrity of the process is compromised.
Residents Are Noticing
This concern is not isolated. It is shaped by multiple social media posts and community discussions from residents who attended or watched the meeting, many of whom independently noted the same inconsistencies in real time.
People noticed: • Speakers commenting on an agenda item both before and during its agenda placement • Speakers being allowed to speak twice on the same issue • Uneven enforcement of time limits • Disparate treatment based on viewpoint
These patterns do not go unnoticed—and they do not build trust.
Neutral Rules Require Neutral Enforcement
If the City wishes to revise its public comment practices—by allowing broader early comment, extended time, or multiple opportunities to speak—those changes should be: • Clearly articulated in advance • Applied uniformly • Adopted as policy, not improvised during meetings
What cannot happen is selective flexibility.
A public meeting is not advocacy theater. It is a civic forum governed by rules designed to ensure fairness, balance, and legitimacy.
The Fix Is Simple
This issue is easily corrected.
The City can: • Reaffirm the public comment rules at the start of meetings • Apply them consistently to all speakers, regardless of viewpoint • Enforce time limits evenly • Ensure speakers are not allowed multiple opportunities to comment on the same agenda item
Doing so would help restore confidence that the process is fair—even when outcomes are debated.
Why This Matters
El Cerrito is navigating consequential decisions that will affect residents for years to come. In moments like these, trust in process is non-negotiable.
Residents do not need unanimity. They do need fairness.
When rules are announced but not evenly enforced, people notice. And when the public begins to believe that process bends depending on who is speaking, confidence erodes quickly.
Fair process isn’t optional. It’s foundational.
Shaped by public discussion and social media analysis from concerned residents across the community.
Supporters of the library initiative often focus on the size of the proposed building—a 20,000-square-foot library—and argue that El Cerrito simply needs something bigger and more modern.
But square footage alone does not determine cost.
Financing does. And financing magnifies every unanswered question.
When voters are asked to approve a parcel tax that allows the City to issue bonds, they are not just approving a building. They are approving decades of financial exposure, structured so that virtually all risk is placed on homeowners and none on the City.
Financing Changes Everything
Bond financing front-loads spending and back-loads repayment. The larger the construction cost, the more dramatically interest multiplies it over time.
Using the upper end of the costs publicly discussed, here is what borrowing looks like.
Loan assumptions
Principal: $75 million +
Interest rate: 7 percent
Term: 30 years
Results
Monthly payment: approximately $499,000
Total paid over 30 years: approximately $179.6 million
Total interest alone: approximately $104.6 million
Bottom line: Borrowing $75 million at 7 percent more than doubles the cost. Interest alone exceeds the original amount borrowed.
That means every assumption about cost, size, and scope matters—because those assumptions are locked into long-term debt.
What Happens If the Money Isn’t Enough?
The initiative authorizes funding for planning, construction, furnishings, and up to ten years of operations. What it does not do is guarantee that the parcel tax will be sufficient to deliver a 20,000-square-foot library as envisioned.
If costs come in higher than expected, several outcomes are possible:
The project is downsized
Features or programming are reduced
Timelines are extended
The parcel tax is increased within the allowed escalation authority
The City returns to voters for additional funding
In every scenario, the City retains flexibility. Homeowners do not.
What Happens If There’s Extra Money?
The reverse question is just as important.
If the parcel tax generates more revenue than needed—because costs are lower, plans are scaled back, or timelines change—there is no automatic mechanism requiring refunds or tax reductions.
While funds are nominally restricted to library-related purposes, the initiative authorizes a wide range of expenditures, including financing costs, administrative costs, election costs, and legal defense costs. Over a 30-year period, those categories can expand considerably.
Once collected, the money stays under City control.
How Upfront Bond Financing Works
When a city needs a large amount of money immediately, it does not wait 30 years to collect taxes.
First, voters approve a parcel tax, creating a guaranteed revenue stream lasting decades.
Next, the City issues bonds right away. Using future tax revenue, it borrows a large lump sum—$37+ million dollars upfront.
Property owners then repay those bonds over time through annual parcel tax payments covering both principal and interest.
The money becomes available before a final plan exists and can be spent immediately on design, site preparation, construction, and related costs.
Why this matters: Upfront bond financing transfers financial risk from the City to taxpayers. If costs rise, plans change, or assumptions fail, the tax obligation remains.
City Risk vs. Homeowner Risk
Issue
City of El Cerrito
Homeowners & Property Owners
Upfront funding
Receives bond proceeds immediately
Pay the parcel tax for up to 30 years
Cost overruns
Can revise scope or downsize project
Pay the tax regardless of reduced scope
Construction delays
No direct financial penalty
Pay the tax even if the library is delayed
Interest rate risk
Passed through via debt structure
Embedded in total long-term payments
If costs exceed estimates
May issue additional debt or revise plans
Absorb higher long-term costs
If costs are lower than expected
Retains control over excess funds
No automatic refund or tax reduction
Bond repayment obligation
Debt not backed by General Fund
Legally obligated to repay principal and interest
Operating cost exposure
Covered for first 10 years
Risk of future taxes or service cuts
Project underperformance
No repayment obligation
Full tax obligation remains
Economic downturn
Insulated from revenue volatility
Tax obligation continues
Ability to exit
Can revise priorities
Cannot opt out
What This Table Shows
This financing structure is not neutral.
Once voters approve the parcel tax, the City gains immediate access to bond money while transferring nearly all financial risk to property owners. If construction costs rise, plans change, or timelines slip, the City can adjust the project without absorbing financial loss. Homeowners, however, remain legally obligated to pay the tax every year for up to 30 years.
There is no built-in mechanism guaranteeing refunds or tax reductions if costs come in lower than expected. The City retains flexibility. Residents do not.
In effect, the City takes planning flexibility without financial exposure, while homeowners assume long-term financial exposure without control over outcomes.
And Again—Why Are We Seeing New Scenarios Now?
The City’s long-range plans have consistently identified the Plaza as the preferred library location.
What has changed is not the site. It is the level of scrutiny.
Only after residents began asking hard questions about cost, financing, and risk did new scenarios emerge. If alternatives were truly viable and competitive, they should have been fully analyzed before voters were asked to approve decades of debt.
The Question Voters Deserve Answered
This is not about opposing a library. It is about understanding the full financial commitment being asked of residents.
Before approving long-term financing, voters deserve clear answers to three basic questions:
What happens if the money isn’t enough?
What happens if there’s extra?
Why does the City bear none of the financial risk, while homeowners bear all of it?
Until those answers are clear, approving the tax is not a vote for a library. It is a vote for financial uncertainty locked in for a generation.
If you agree, share widely on social media and share the blog with your neighbors.
Tuesday night’s City Council meeting on the proposed Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) library tax initiative felt less like civic deliberation and more like a three-ring circus.
Council members appeared unfamiliar with the very Citizens’ Initiative before them. Initiative organizers spoke confidently while glossing over foundational gaps. City staff filled airtime with conceptual slides. And notably absent were representatives from Related California, the development partner at the center of the proposal.
That absence matters.
Related’s founder and chairman emeritus, Stephen Ross, is a billionaire New York developer. Yet the company that stands to benefit most from this project was nowhere to be found to answer basic questions about cost, risk, construction logistics, or long-term obligations.
A Library Without a Plan
The Contra Costa County Librarian spoke briefly in support of a 20,000-square-foot library but offered no meaningful details about operations, staffing, parking, or how such a facility would function inside a six-story apartment building. These are not minor omissions. They are core issues.
Meanwhile, Citizens’ Initiative organizers—at peak form—rebranded the likely ballot measure as a Library Special Tax, urged immediate passage, and downplayed the inconvenient truth that no Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) exists. There is also no finalized site, no construction contract, and no agreed-upon governance structure.
Without a DDA, everything about this project—construction sequencing, cost allocation, risk management, and City ownership of the first-floor condominium—is conceptual. That is not opinion; it is the position of Griffin Structures, the City’s own owner’s representative.
The $37 Million Question
Councilmember William Ktsanes raised a critical issue: the City’s General Plan calls for the library to be located in TOD C West. That is not incidental. The library is the anchor tenant in the proposed C West apartment building and the linchpin justifying roughly $37 million in bonds financed by parcel tax.
This is not simply a library project. It is the keystone of a long-planned downtown redevelopment vision and the capstone of the City’s Downtown General Plan.
And yet, despite that centrality, the City maintains it has no financial risk.
That claim does not withstand scrutiny.
Subsidy by Another Name
When the issue of subsidies arose, Councilmember Rebecca Saltzman was quick to state that the City is not subsidizing Related. Technically, that is true.
But functionally, the City’s $37 million or more in cash equity makes Related’s financing feasible now. Without that public investment, alternatives such as structured parking or additional units would produce weaker returns. This may not be a subsidy per se, but it decisively shifts risk onto taxpayers while improving the developer’s financial position.
Parking Logic That Defies Reality
The irony of the evening came when Griffin Structures argued that a parking garage would be required at the Stockton Avenue site, while simultaneously claiming no dedicated parking is needed at the most congested location in El Cerrito—Plaza Station TOD.
That defies lived experience.
The Stockton location already accommodates school buses and Veterans Building events without congestion. Fairmont Elementary is out of session 133 days a year, making Liberty and Stockton ideal for library parking during evenings, weekends, and summers. The TOD site offers none of that flexibility.
Even more telling, Griffin presented examples of 20,000-square-foot libraries in the Contra Costa County system—none of which could be built at the C West site. A library confined to the first floor of a six-story apartment building will have low ceilings, limited light, and the feel of a bank branch—not a civic landmark.
Timing, Control, and Why It Matters
The City now proposes to form a citizen financial impact committee—yet to be convened—and present findings on February 19, just weeks before deciding whether to place the measure on a June special election ballot or the November general election.
What is left unsaid is that this committee could be convened now, before any election, before ballot placement, and before taxpayers are asked to approve a tax with no fixed scope or cost.
The City Manager has chosen not to do that.
Waiting until after an election allows staff—not residents—to define assumptions, frame tradeoffs, and control outcomes. That is not transparency; it is sequencing designed to manage results.
June matters because the 50 percent plus one initiative, currently on the ballot for repeal, would restore the voter approval threshold for special taxes to 66⅔ percent, the long-standing standard for approving local tax increases. A June election allows the City to move forward on a new parcel tax before voters have fully weighed that threshold question.
The rush is not about libraries. It is about leverage.
Zero Skin in the Game
So here we are: a project with no binding agreements, no fixed costs, no parking plan, and no operational clarity—where the City bears zero downside risk.
The City gets a downtown showpiece. The developer gets a financeable project. Staff gets a completed General Plan vision.
Residents get the bill.
As a long-time El Cerrito resident, I am not opposed to libraries. I am opposed to being asked to approve a tax before the facts exist, under a timeline designed to limit scrutiny, and in a deal where the City has nothing to lose.
That is not a partnership. That is not good governance. And it is not a good deal for El Cerrito residents.
Call to Action
This process will not be slowed. The train has already left the station.
Residents are being asked to approve a new tax before there is a finalized site, a binding development agreement, a real construction budget, or a clear operating plan—and in a deal where the City bears no financial risk.
At this point, the only meaningful safeguard residents have is their vote.
Vote NO on another tax.
Vote no on a parcel tax that locks in permanent revenue first and answers questions later.
Vote no on a project where all the upside flows one way and all the risk flows to taxpayers Learn more at https://nomoreforevertax.org/
City Council supporters and library-initiative advocates have repeatedly said there is no handout to the developer—that the developer would simply add parking or housing to the El Cerrito Plaza project.
If that’s true, an obvious question follows:
Why is the library initiative structured as a parcel tax that allows the City to deliver roughly $30 million upfront—before a single library plan is finalized?
If the developer truly didn’t need city funding, the City would not need to front-load public money through a 30-year parcel tax. Fully financed projects come with clear plans, defined alternatives, and transparent tradeoffs. That is not what residents are seeing here.
A Plan With This Much Public Money Should Already Exist
If this were simply a choice between adding parking or housing, residents would already have seen at least two fully developed scenarios.
A plan with the library on the ground floor. A plan without the library, showing how housing or parking would be delivered instead.
Instead, voters are being asked to approve a long-term tax before any of those options are clearly defined, priced, or compared.
That sequence matters.
When public funding is truly supplemental, plans come first and funding follows. Here, funding is being requested before the plan exists, raising a legitimate concern that the tax itself is what makes the project financially workable.
Fact Box: How Upfront Bond Financing Works
When a city needs a large amount of money immediately, it does not wait 30 years to collect taxes.
First, voters approve a parcel tax. The tax creates a guaranteed revenue stream that lasts for decades.
Next, the City issues bonds right away. Using that future tax revenue, the City borrows a large lump sum—often tens of millions of dollars upfront.
Bond investors are repaid over time. Property owners pay the parcel tax every year, which goes toward repaying the borrowed principal and paying interest, which can equal or exceed the original amount borrowed over 30 years.
The money is available before a final plan exists. Bond proceeds can be spent immediately on design and engineering, site preparation, construction, and other project-related costs.
Why this matters: Upfront bond financing shifts financial risk from the developer to taxpayers. If costs rise, plans change, or the project underdelivers, the tax obligation remains.
Once bonds are issued, the parcel tax is no longer theoretical. It becomes a legally binding, long-term debt.
If the Project Penciled Out, This Wouldn’t Be Necessary
Supporters argue the developer would add parking or housing anyway. But if that were true, there would be no need for the City to step in with early-stage financing.
Projects that are financially viable on their own do not require taxpayers to assume risk before plans are finalized.
Whether labeled a handout or not, the effect is the same: public dollars stabilizing a private development.
The Plaza Was Always the Preferred Site—So Why the New Scenarios Now?
The City’s long-range planning documents have long identified the Plaza as the preferred library location.
What has changed is not the site. It’s the questions residents are asking.
Only after cost concerns and financing risks were raised did new scenarios emerge. If alternative sites or configurations were truly viable, they would have been evaluated before tying voters to a 30-year tax.
The timing suggests reaction, not planning.
The Question Voters Should Be Asking
This is not about whether El Cerrito deserves a modern library. Many residents agree that it does.
The real question is simpler:
If there is no developer subsidy, why does this project require a parcel tax that delivers tens of millions of dollars upfront—before plans are finalized, before alternatives are evaluated, and before residents know what they’re paying for?
Until that question is answered clearly, skepticism isn’t opposition. It’s responsible oversight.
El Cerrito residents are being asked to approve another permanent tax — again. This time it’s wrapped in the language of libraries and community investment. But the real driver isn’t a building. It’s a budget that is being steadily consumed by pension costs, City leadership has failed to confront.
El Cerrito residents are being told the City needs another permanent tax — this time framed around the library. But this is not really about books, buildings, or community space.
It is about a cost structure that City leadership has refused to fix.
For FY 2024–25, El Cerrito adopted a General Fund operating budget of approximately $52.3 million. Before a single service is delivered, a massive portion of that budget is already spoken for.
FACT BOX: EL CERRITO PENSION COSTS & BUDGET IMPACT
FY 2024–25 – Minimum Required Pension Payments
• Baseline annual CalPERS pension costs: $8.56 million
– Normal cost for current employees plus required pension components embedded in CalPERS rates
• Required annual UAL payment: $6.9 million
– Mandatory annual payment toward the unfunded actuarial liability
• Total minimum annual pension payments: $15.46 million
What Percentage of the Operating Budget Is This?
• General Fund operating budget: $52.3 million
• Annual pension payments: $15.46 million
Pension costs consume approximately 29.6% of the General Fund operating budget.
In plain terms: nearly 3 out of every 10 operating dollars go to pensions before paying for police, fire, street maintenance, parks, libraries, planning, or basic customer service.And it’s the real reason why there’s no senior center.
These Costs Are Additive — and Mandatory
The City will pay at least $8.56 million every year in baseline pension costs. In addition, it must make a required $6.9 million annual UAL payment.
These are not alternative costs. They are cumulative. And they must be paid every year.
Prepaying the UAL may reduce interest costs, but it does not eliminate future pension obligations. Unless staffing levels change, these costs continue to grow automatically.
This is not a revenue problem. It is a cost-structure problem. Instead of fixing what’s broken, the City keeps raising taxes—making El Cerrito less affordable for the people who already live here and less attractive to anyone considering buying a home, especially when entry costs like the Real Property Transfer Tax keep climbing.
When nearly 30% of the operating budget is locked into pensions:
• Flexibility disappears
• Services erode
• Maintenance is deferred
• Taxes become the default solution
Raising taxes without fixing the cost structure only pushes the bill onto residents.
This Is Why They’re Pushing Another Forever Tax
This tax push is not really about the library. The library can be improved for a fraction of the proposed tax measure through renovation, phased upgrades, or targeted capital investment. That option exists. It always has.
But modest library improvements do not solve a structural operating gap.
A permanent tax that can be increased at any time does solve their structural problem.
When pension costs consume nearly one-third of the operating budget — and staffing levels remain untouched — City leadership is left with a choice:
• Fix the cost structure, or
• Close the gap on residents’ backs
They have chosen the second.
Using the library as emotional cover to pass a forever tax is not leadership. It is avoidance.
Similar to previous taxes, they entice us with promises of desired projects such as a library, a senior center, reduced crime, and fire prevention, but in the end we receive none of what was promised. The money goes to cover pension costs.
El Cerrito Has Real Options — But Leadership Must Choose Them
Option 1: Rightsize Staffing Levels
Staffing levels, compensation, and classifications drive pension costs. If the City wants long-term stability, staffing must align with service demand, peer cities, and what residents can afford.
Option 2: Use the Improved Bond Rating Responsibly
The City’s improved bond rating can buy time — but only if paired with permanent cost corrections. Bonding cannot replace discipline.
The Bottom Line
This tax is not about books.
It is not about buildings.
It is about closing budget gaps on your back.
CALL TO ACTION
Residents should contact City Council and the City Manager and ask:
1. Why are nearly 30% of General Fund operating dollars committed to pension payments?
2. What staffing changes are planned to slow future pension growth?
3. Why is a permanent tax being proposed instead of structural reform?
CITY CONTACT INFORMATION
City Manager’s Office
citymanager@el-cerrito.org | (510) 215-4300
City Council
Mayor Gabe Quinto – gquinto@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
Councilmember Lisa Motoyama – lmotoyama@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
Mayor Pro Tem Rebecca Saltzman – rsaltzman@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
Councilmember William Ktsanes – wktsanes@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
Budgets reflect priorities. If residents do not demand better, the answer will always the same: pay more taxes, get less.
Pensions vs Core City Services
This chart shows how much of El Cerrito’s FY 2024–pension obligations consume 25 General Fund before services are delivered.
Library Myth vs Budget Reality
MYTH: The City needs a permanent tax to fund a better library.
REALITY: The library can be improved for a fraction of the proposed tax through renovation, phased upgrades, or targeted capital investment.
MYTH: This tax is about community amenities.
REALITY: The tax provides permanent revenue to backfill operating budget gaps caused by pension costs consuming nearly 30% of the General Fund.
This is not a revenue problem. It is a cost-structure
Instead of fixing what’s broken, the City keeps raising taxes—making El Cerrito less affordable for the people who already live here and less attractive to anyone considering buying a home, especially when entry costs like the Real Property Transfer Tax keep climbing.
Tomorrow, January 20, the City Council will accept certification of the Citizens Initiative Petition for the El Cerrito Library Initiative and, in the same meeting, present a Library Facility Update.
That alone should give residents pause.
As you’re pausing, consider this: None of those discussions change the core reality.
This initiative creates a permanent parcel tax—a forever tax—one that the City Council can raise without property owners consent.
An Interesting Scenario, Indeed
Isn’t this an interesting scenario?
We are having a public meeting about the library—its condition, its future, and multiple possible options—while City Council members and the City Manager have said all along that they are not involved in the initiative.
And yet:
The City is presenting cost ranges
The City is outlining scenarios
The City is recommending the next steps
The City is proposing a future Library Task Force
All while a tax initiative tied to that same library is already qualified for the ballot.
If City leadership truly has no role in the initiative, why is the City now shaping the conversation around costs, options, and process for the very project the initiative is designed to fund?
That contradiction matters.
The Process Is Flexible. The Tax Is Not.
Staff is recommending a community-based process, including the appointment of a Library Task Force as early as spring 2026, to discuss options and refine cost estimates.
But none of those discussions change the core reality.
This initiative creates a permanent parcel tax—a forever tax—one that the City Council can raise.
If the initiative passes in June, the tax begins in December—well before a library could be designed, permitted, funded, or built under any of the scenarios being discussed.
Residents will start paying while the City is still talking.
Follow the Money
We also know what happens when revenue reaches City Hall.
Once collected, money enters the City’s broader fiscal system—subject to competing priorities, budget pressures, and internal tradeoffs. In the absence of enforceable guardrails, as we have seen before, funds are not immune from being blended into the same financial structure as other revenues.
Promises made before the money arrives are easy. Accountability after the fact is much harder.
That is why the order of decisions matters.
Call to Action: Questions Residents Should Be Asking
Whether you choose to speak at tomorrow night’s meeting, submit written comments, or simply observe, residents should pause and ask themselves a few fundamental questions:
Will any of the library options being discussed actually change the tax initiative already headed to the ballot?
If so, how—specifically and in writing?
If not, why is public participation being framed as meaningful when the most consequential decision—the tax itself—has already been locked in?
Why should residents trust assurances from leaders who have repeatedly distorted facts, withheld underlying assumptions, and misled the very people they are supposed to serve?
Am I comfortable approving a permanent parcel tax that begins collecting in December, months before a library could realistically be built under any scenario?
If costs rise, timelines slip, or priorities change, who ultimately bears the risk: the City or residents?
These are not questions about whether libraries matter. There are questions about governance, credibility, and accountability.
Once a forever tax is in place, the leverage shifts permanently to property owners.
And when trust is demanded instead of earned, Napoleon is always right.
Share This With Your Community
If you found this analysis helpful, please share it on social media and send it to friends, neighbors, and family who live in El Cerrito.
These decisions affect every household in the city—and informed conversations only happen when information is shared.
Only after meaningful opposition emerged did El Cerrito finally release updated cost estimates for a new library. Now that the numbers are public, the headline is unmistakable:
The Plaza Station Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) library is now estimated to cost $37 million.
That figure, provided by consultant Griffin Structures, will be presented to the City Council on January 20. It represents a 75% increase from the $21 million estimate shared with Council in 2023, and far exceeds the $28 million figure circulated as recently as August 2025.
But the price increase has another consequence that has received far less attention — it dramatically increases the likelihood that the original 17-cent-per-square-foot parcel tax would need to rise – almost immediately.
A Higher Project Cost Means a Higher Tax Burden
The 17-cent parcel tax was framed around much lower project assumptions. A library now estimated at $37 million — with unresolved financing, leasing, and construction risks — almost certainly cannot be delivered under the original tax structure.
That matters because City Council has the authority to increase that parcel tax once approved.
In other words, while voters may be presented with a 17-cent figure at the ballot, the underlying cost escalation means that rate is unlikely to hold over time. The larger the project, the greater the pressure to raise the tax — without returning to voters for approval.
This is not speculation. It is a direct function of how parcel taxes and escalating capital costs work.
The Estimates — Released Late, Still Incomplete
According to the newly released staff report, Griffin Structures evaluated five options:
$10 million — renovate the existing 6,500-square-foot library
$29 million — rebuild and expand the existing library to 13,000 square feet
$29 million — renovate an existing building into a 20,000-square-foot library
$37 million — build a 20,000-square-foot library within the Plaza Station TOD
$43 million — build a new standalone 20,000-square-foot library on a new site
These numbers arrived only after public skepticism intensified — and even now, they are presented without full disclosure of assumptions, contingencies, or downside scenarios.
Parking, Assumptions, and What’s Left Out
Parking alone introduces millions in cost variation:
$6.4 million for a parking structure at the current library site
$4.7 million at a new standalone site
No dedicated parking assumed for the Plaza TOD option
Excluding parking lowers the headline price — but it does not eliminate the cost. It simply shifts it to residents, surrounding streets, and future policy decisions.
Again, assumptions matter. And assumptions have consequences.
And staff are recommending creating a task force to review options. Which one might wonder, shouldn’t this have been done in 2017, immediately after the measure B bond failed?
Transparency Before Taxes Rise
City staff will present the report at the January 20 City Council meeting. The agenda packet is now public. But key questions remain unanswered:
How sensitive is the project to further cost escalation?
What happens if grant funding is delayed or denied?
How much flexibility does Council have to raise the parcel tax — and under what conditions?
What protections exist for residents once the tax is approved?
When a project’s price tag grows by 75%, the risk to taxpayers grows with it — especially when elected officials retain the authority to increase the tax rate after the fact.
Residents are not being unreasonable by asking for clarity. They are being prudent.
Before any tax measure moves forward, voters deserve to understand not just the initial number on the ballot, but the real financial exposure that comes with it — and who controls that exposure once the election is over.
At the Tuesday, January 20, 2026 City Council meeting, expect a fair amount of congratulating.
There will likely be high-fives, back-patting, and reassuring statements about progress — particularly around the City’s summary of the 2025 National Community Survey (NCS), which shows an increase in overall confidence in City government.
According to the City’s published highlights, the percentage of residents expressing confidence rose from roughly 44 percent in 2022 to about 49 percent in 2025.
That improvement is worth acknowledging.
What’s harder to applaud is what hasn’t been shared — and what the City’s own chart quietly reveals.
What Residents Were Shown — and What They Weren’t
The City released a summary emphasizing improved confidence and satisfaction. What it did not release is the entire 2025 NCS report, including the full set of detailed tables that allow residents to understand how different aspects of community life are actually performing.
That distinction matters.
The chart summarizing Facets of Community Livability: Quality shows a clear pattern. Residents rate tangible services and physical amenities relatively well:
Parks and Recreation (78%)
Natural Environment (76%)
Utilities (76%)
Safety (74%)
Mobility (70%)
These are areas where outcomes are visible and experienced directly.
But ratings fall sharply when the focus shifts from services to connection, participation, and economic conditions.
Inclusivity, Engagement — and the Economy — Tell a Different Story
At the bottom of the chart sit two of the most consequential indicators of community health:
Economy: 50%
Inclusivity and Engagement: 49%
These are not peripheral measures. They speak directly to whether residents feel economically secure, included in decision-making, and meaningfully connected to their community.
A 50 percent rating on the economy suggests residents are deeply split on whether El Cerrito is providing the conditions for stability and opportunity. A sub-50 percent rating on inclusivity and engagement signals that many residents do not feel seen, heard, or involved — regardless of how well parks or utilities perform.
Those numbers deserve more attention than they are receiving.
Confidence Up Does Not Equal Inclusion Achieved
A 55 percent confidence rating still means nearly half of residents are unconvinced, uncertain, or dissatisfied. That is not a mandate. It is a caution flag.
Confidence can rise temporarily based on tone, messaging, or selective framing. Inclusivity and engagement, by contrast, are built over time through openness, transparency, and a willingness to share the full picture — especially when results are mixed.
When only the strongest scores are summarized and the lowest-rated areas are downplayed, it reinforces the sense that participation is managed rather than invited.
The Irony Is Hard to Miss
If inclusivity and engagement were truly improving, then full disclosure should be easy.
Instead, residents are once again presented with highlights without context — celebration without scrutiny. That approach undercuts the very outcomes the City says it wants to improve.
You cannot strengthen engagement by withholding information that would allow residents to engage meaningfully.
The Fix Is Simple — and Still Available
El Cerrito does not need spin. It needs sunlight.
If the City wants to turn rising confidence into genuine inclusivity, engagement, and economic credibility, the next step is obvious.
Call to Action: Release the entire 2025 National Community Survey report — including all detailed tables — so residents can see the full picture for themselves.
Engagement grows when information is shared, not curated.
Reposting with correction: A concerned citizen reported an error. The city’s attorney did not write the initiative. As required by law, he wrote the initiative summary for the ballot. See correctiuon below:
Reportedly, Karen Pinkos, City Manager of El Cerrito, characterized statements that she was involved in the library tax as “a lie.”
That framing relies on a narrow legal distinction that may be defensible on paper—but it collapses under ethical scrutiny and lived experience.
The issue is not whether the City Manager is legally permitted to advocate for a ballot measure. The issue is whether city leadership can credibly deny involvement in a project and funding strategy that the city has actively advanced, financially supported, and structured to begin collecting revenue long before a library is ever built.
The Money Comes First — Long Before the Library
Under the current proposal, the city is positioned to receive upwards of $15 million in tax revenue before the library project actually begins—if it begins at all.
That fact alone raises a fundamental governance question:
No final design
No guaranteed construction timeline
No secured build sequence
And multiple unresolved alternatives still under discussion
How can residents be asked to prepay tens of millions of dollars for a facility that has:
When money flows years ahead of delivery, accountability must be airtight. Instead, it is being blurred.
A Track Record That Makes This Riskier
This concern is compounded by something residents already know from experience: El Cerrito has a documented track record of depositing tax-generated revenues into the General Fund without separately tracking them by purpose.
That means:
Funds approved by voters for specific reasons are often not siloed
Once deposited, they become functionally indistinguishable from other revenues
Oversight relies on trust rather than transparent accounting
In that context, assurances that “the money is for the library” are not enough.
If $15+ million is collected years in advance, placed into the General Fund, and not individually tracked, residents are being asked to rely almost entirely on institutional goodwill rather than an enforceable structure.
That is not a theoretical concern. It is a governance risk grounded in precedent.
Against this backdrop, denying involvement in either the project or the tax becomes more than semantics—it becomes avoidance.
The city manager has:
Commissioned library studies and alternatives
Paid consultants to develop scenarios
Integrated the library into redevelopment planning
Issued a $350,000 loan to the developer tied to the broader plan
Advanced a tax that begins collecting far in advance of construction
Those actions require staff leadership, executive oversight, and managerial coordination.
Calling claims of involvement “a lie” depends on redefining involvement so narrowly that it excludes everything residents can plainly see.
Equally important, the city’s attorney, who sits beside the city manager at every council meeting, Sky Woodruff, as required by law, wrote the summary of the initiative for the ballot. The city’s attorney rewrote it after Attorney Jason Bezis wrote him a letter saying there were seven false or misleading statements in the ballot measure summary.
That may be legally convenient. It is not ethically persuasive.
Why This Distinction Fails the Public Test
Residents are not alleging election law violations. They are asking a simpler, more reasonable question:
Who owns the decision to ask the public for money now, without guarantees later—and without dedicated tracking once it’s collected?
Legal distinctions do not answer that question. Ethical leadership does.
That leadership would sound like:
Yes, the city has advanced this project
Yes, the tax and the project are linked
Yes, the money comes in well before construction
Yes, our current accounting practices raise legitimate concerns
And here is how we will protect the public interest
Instead, residents are being told that their understanding is false.
This Is How Trust Erodes
Trust is not lost because people oppose a library. It is lost when:
Large sums are collected long before outcomes are certain
Funds are not transparently tracked
Leadership denies visible involvement
And legitimate concerns are dismissed as lies
This is not about legality. It is about honesty, stewardship, and respect for the public’s intelligence.
When tens of millions of dollars are at stake—and when history suggests those dollars will be absorbed into the General Fund—splitting legal hairs is not leadership.
It is precisely the moment when ethical clarity matters most.
Reportedly, Karen Pinkos, City Manager of El Cerrito, characterized statements that she was involved in the library tax as “a lie.”
That framing relies on a narrow legal distinction that may be defensible on paper—but it collapses under ethical scrutiny and lived experience.
The issue is not whether the City Manager is legally permitted to advocate for a ballot measure. The issue is whether city leadership can credibly deny involvement in a project and funding strategy that the city has actively advanced, financially supported, and structured to begin collecting revenue long before a library is ever built.
The Money Comes First — Long Before the Library
Under the current proposal, the city is positioned to receive upwards of $15 million in tax revenue before the library project actually begins—if it begins at all.
That fact alone raises a fundamental governance question:
No final design
No guaranteed construction timeline
No secured build sequence
And multiple unresolved alternatives still under discussion
How can residents be asked to prepay tens of millions of dollars for a facility that has:
When money flows years ahead of delivery, accountability must be airtight. Instead, it is being blurred.
A Track Record That Makes This Riskier
This concern is compounded by something residents already know from experience: El Cerrito has a documented track record of depositing tax-generated revenues into the General Fund without separately tracking them by purpose.
That means:
Funds approved by voters for specific reasons are often not siloed
Once deposited, they become functionally indistinguishable from other revenues
Oversight relies on trust rather than transparent accounting
In that context, assurances that “the money is for the library” are not enough.
If $15+ million is collected years in advance, placed into the General Fund, and not individually tracked, residents are being asked to rely almost entirely on institutional goodwill rather than an enforceable structure.
That is not a theoretical concern. It is a governance risk grounded in precedent.
Against this backdrop, denying involvement in either the project or the tax becomes more than semantics—it becomes avoidance.
The city manager has:
Commissioned library studies and alternatives
Paid consultants to develop scenarios
Integrated the library into redevelopment planning
Issued a $350,000 loan to the developer tied to the broader plan
Advanced a tax that begins collecting far in advance of construction
Those actions require staff leadership, executive oversight, and managerial coordination.
Calling claims of involvement “a lie” depends on redefining involvement so narrowly that it excludes everything residents can plainly see.
Equally important, the city’s attorney who sits beside the city manager in every council meeting; Sky Woodruff wrote the tax initiative.
That may be legally convenient. It is not ethically persuasive.
Why This Distinction Fails the Public Test
Residents are not alleging election law violations. They are asking a simpler, more reasonable question:
Who owns the decision to ask the public for money now, without guarantees later—and without dedicated tracking once it’s collected?
Legal distinctions do not answer that question. Ethical leadership does.
That leadership would sound like:
Yes, the city has advanced this project
Yes, the tax and the project are linked
Yes, the money comes in well before construction
Yes, our current accounting practices raise legitimate concerns
And here is how we will protect the public interest
Instead, residents are being told that their understanding is false.
This Is How Trust Erodes
Trust is not lost because people oppose a library. It is lost when:
Large sums are collected long before outcomes are certain
Funds are not transparently tracked
Leadership denies visible involvement
And legitimate concerns are dismissed as lies
This is not about legality. It is about honesty, stewardship, and respect for the public’s intelligence.
When tens of millions of dollars are at stake—and when history suggests those dollars will be absorbed into the General Fund—splitting legal hairs is not leadership.
It is precisely the moment when ethical clarity matters most.
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.
Each budget season over her tenure, the City Manager and Finance team repeat the same core message: delivering services = people. A reduction in staff will significantly impact service delivery. In El Cerrito, that statement has hardened into doctrine. It is no longer tested, benchmarked, or questioned—and that is precisely the problem.
It’s a crippling option of the status quo.
Cities of similar size across California deliver comparable or better services with significantly fewer staff. This is not ideological. It is structural. Yet El Cerrito continues to treat its current staffing model as untouchable rather than as a set of policy choices subject to review.
Headcount Is Not a Strategy at City Hall
Framing service delivery as a simple function of headcount shuts down real analysis. It avoids questions about organizational design, span of control, supervisory layering, overtime dependence, and productivity. High-performing public organizations do not assume every position must be refilled. They manage attrition deliberately, modernize structures, and right-size. El Cerrito does not.
Fire Command Staffing: An Outlier by Any Measure
One example illustrates the problem clearly: El Cerrito maintains four battalion chiefs—a command structure that is highly unusual for a city of this size. El Cerrito has a battalion chief responsible for training. No other Bay Area city utilizes a battalion chief for training. There are no comparable California cities of similar population with that level of fire command staffing. This is not about frontline response or firefighter safety. It is about management layers. As senior staff retire, El Cerrito has a clear opportunity to retire positions, not automatically backfill them. Doing so would preserve service while reducing long-term cost growth.
The Cost Reality Leadership Avoids
Eliminating those battalion chief positions would conservatively save approximately $2 million annually when salary, benefits, and overtime impacts are included. That figure does not account for downstream pension cost reductions. This is not theoretical. It is arithmetic. The upcoming service delivery study will almost certainly confirm what similar studies routinely find: excessive supervisory layers, outdated deployment assumptions, and opportunities to reorganize without degrading outcomes. The real question is not what the study will say. It is whether leadership is willing to act on it.
“We’re Not Hercules or San Pablo” Is an Explanation—Not a Plan
When revenue constraints are raised, leadership often responds with comparisons: we’re not Hercules with a major retail center; we’re not San Pablo with a casino. That may be true, but it is also incomplete. What’s missing is any serious strategy to attract new businesses that generate sales tax, property tax, and long-term economic activity. There is no articulated business attraction plan, no targeted land-use strategy, and no urgency around expanding the tax base. El Cerrito treats its revenue structure as fixed—then asks residents to compensate for that lack of ambition.
“Out of Our Control” Is a Convenient Narrative
Another consistent refrain from the City Manager and Finance Director is that major cost drivers are outside the city’s control, particularly pensions. It is true that El Cerrito relies on CalPERS to invest pension assets. What is not acknowledged is the more important fact: pension costs are high because staffing levels are high. Roughly 30% of the operating budget goes to pension costs. That is not a market accident. It is the predictable outcome of an oversized workforce, layered management, and overtime-heavy operations. The causal chain is straightforward: more staff leads to higher payroll, which leads to higher CalPERS contributions, which leads to higher fixed costs and less fiscal flexibility. Calling this out of our control avoids accountability for the decisions that created it.
The Parcel Tax Bet—and the Absence of a Plan B
This situation reveals an unsettling reality: city leadership seems to be relying almost entirely on a parcel tax set for 2026 to address a fundamental imbalance between revenue and expenses. This approach is not responsible financial management; it shifts the risk onto taxpayers. There is no apparent backup plan if the measure fails, nor is there a serious attempt to proactively restructure the organization. Instead, we hear repeated warnings that any cuts will severely impact services. This calls for a change in leadership.
Why This Requires a Change in Leadership
This pattern is why El Cerrito needs a change in leadership. When leaders default to excuses instead of solutions, reform stalls. When staffing is treated as untouchable, costs compound. When revenue growth is dismissed instead of pursued, taxpayers become the backstop for poor fiscal discipline. Residents should not be asked again to shoulder the burden of fiscal irresponsibility. Taxes should support efficient, well-managed services, not compensate for leadership unwilling to modernize operations, manage workforce size, or plan beyond the next ballot measure. Doing things the way they’ve always been done is no longer neutral. It is a choice. And unless that choice changes, the cost will continue to fall on the people least able to absorb it.
FACT BOX: What to Verify (Before Staff Says “That’s Not True”)
Staffing & Structure Total FTEs per 1,000 residents compared to peer cities; fire command staffing ratios in California cities under approximately 30,000 population; battalion chief salary, benefits, and overtime impact. Pensions Percentage of operating budget spent on pensions; total payroll growth over the last decade; CalPERS employer contribution rate trends. Service Delivery Study Determine whether the scope includes management layers and the span of control, who decides which recommendations are adopted, and the implementation timeline. Revenue Strategy Existence of a business attraction plan; identification of underutilized parcels or corridors; entitlement timelines compared to peer cities.
A longtime resident recently commented, If it’s required by the state or legally binding, El Cerrito might follow it—and even then, only at the minimum level. But when it comes to internal policies, ethics, or transparency, it’s the Wild West. That observation isn’t hyperbole. It’s an accurate description of how governance now functions in El Cerrito—and why trust has eroded.
In El Cerrito, rules that carry external penalties—state mandates, CalPERS requirements, federal regulations—are acknowledged because ignoring them risks lawsuits or loss of funding. But internal discipline? Standards for behavior, performance, transparency, and accountability are applied inconsistently or not at all. This imbalance shows up repeatedly in decision-making, financial stewardship, and public engagement.
Most professional organizations adopt codes of conduct that go beyond legal compliance. These frameworks clarify conflicts of interest, define professional boundaries, and create predictable expectations for public servants. El Cerrito has no publicly available, comprehensive ethics or conduct policy governing staff behavior. As a result, misconduct is addressed subjectively, enforcement is discretionary, and accountability depends on who is involved rather than what is right.
Ethics and Employee Conduct: A Glaring Gap
The consequences are tangible. The city has faced—and continues to anticipate—employment-related legal disputes that taxpayers quietly fund. From retaliation claims to settlements tied to mismanagement, these costs stem from the absence of clear internal guardrails. The city has already set aside funds for upcoming legal action, yet the public receives little detail. What residents do see is the impact: hundreds of thousands of dollars diverted from core services to cover avoidable failures.
Selective Accuracy: The Library Tax Initiative
Trust erodes further when accuracy becomes optional. The City Attorney’s official summary of a proposed library tax initiative included seven statements later described as false and misleading—statements that could have materially influenced voters to sign petitions to place the measure on a future ballot.
That issue was formally raised in a June 10 pre-litigation demand letter from Attorney Jason Bezis, representing two El Cerrito voters and the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association, addressed to City Attorney Sky Woodruff. Only after the challenge were revisions made. The problem wasn’t just the errors—it was that they were allowed to stand until legally challenged. That pattern reinforces a troubling message: correction happens only when forced.
Council members continue to talk about the library, as if they’re not involved however they are completely invested in it. They continue to discuss it during meetings as if it’s a foregone conclusion.
Pension Payments: Minimum Compliance, Maximum Exposure
El Cerrito regularly characterizes its pension payments as responsible stewardship. In reality, the city makes only the required minimum payments. Pension costs now exceed $15 million annually—roughly 30 percent of the operating budget—while the unfunded liability has grown beyond $80 million.
What is sometimes presented as progress toward reducing that liability is simply the baseline payment required to remain compliant. This is not strategy. It is the bare minimum—and it explains why the problem continues to grow.
Performance Standards: Absent or Arbitrary
When expectations are unclear, performance suffers. El Cerrito does not consistently evaluate employees against measurable objectives, nor are promotions and raises reliably tied to outcomes. Effort is rewarded, but results are optional. In some departments, chronic underperformance persists because no policy requires improvement.
Meanwhile, the city has spent public funds on consulting contracts and software tools—particularly in human resources and finance—that were later abandoned or never fully implemented. The issue is not experimentation; it is the absence of follow-through. There is no consistent process to assess value, measure outcomes, or hold anyone accountable when initiatives fail.
Transparency and Public Engagement: The Core Trust Failure
This is where the trust problem becomes undeniable.
El Cerrito technically complies with the Brown Act by posting meeting notices 72 hours in advance—but that is where transparency ends. Special meetings scheduled weeks in advance are noticed the day before the meeting. Council packets including PowerPoint slide decks for Tuesday meetings are released later, limiting meaningful public review. Other cities provide longer lead times as a matter of good governance. El Cerrito chooses not to.
During meetings, the City Council and City Manager do not engage the public in dialogue, despite no legal prohibition against doing so. Public questions are treated as interruptions rather than contributions. Legitimate public records requests are delayed or denied. Reports are frequently late, vague, or incomplete. Spending questions are dismissed as distractions.
This is not accidental. It is a pattern. When engagement is minimized and information is tightly controlled, residents reasonably conclude that transparency is conditional—offered only when convenient.
A clear example is Measure V, the real property transfer tax approved by voters with the understanding that it would support public services, including a senior center. After passage, the senior center was closed. There has been little public accounting for how the more than $3 million per year in revenue was redirected. What is clear is that the funds were absorbed into payroll and pension costs, with no meaningful public discussion.
The Cost of Doing Just Enough
When a city governs by minimum compliance, the costs compound. Taxpayer money is spent settling disputes that better policies could have prevented. Resources are wasted on studies and initiatives that go nowhere. Public confidence erodes—not because residents are unreasonable, but because they notice patterns.
Trust is not lost through one mistake. It is lost when leaders consistently choose the lowest bar, the shortest notice, the least explanation, and the narrowest interpretation of their obligations.
Cities that operate with discipline do more than comply with the law. They set expectations. They enforce standards. They treat transparency and accountability as values, not inconveniences.
El Cerrito can do better—but only if residents demand more than the bare minimum. Compliance is not leadership. And minimum effort is not responsible governance.
El Cerrito residents are not asking for perfection. They are asking for complete, clear, timely information so they can understand what is happening, weigh tradeoffs, and participate in good faith.
Right now, El Cerrito’s own survey data shows a credibility gap that City leadership should treat as an operational risk, not a public relations problem.
The trust gap is measurable in El Cerrito
El Cerrito’s 2022 National Community Survey (representative sample of 463 residents; collected Nov 30, 2022–Jan 11, 2023) reports percent positive for key governance behaviors:
Being honest: 52%
Being open and transparent to the public: 48%
Informing residents about issues facing the community: 40%
Stop calling these numbers good: 40% is an F, and 52% is not passing either
If this were a school test, 40% would be an F. Period.
And 52% is not a passing grade either.
More importantly, resident trust scores do not top out at 100% in real life. There is almost always a segment that is neutral, skeptical, or dissatisfied, no matter what. If we accept that 85–90% positive is about as good as it gets, then these numbers are not OK. They are underperforming.
Using 90% as a practical ceiling, here is what El Cerrito’s 2022 results look like:
Informing residents (40%) = 44% of the ceiling → F
Open and transparent (48%) = 53% of the ceiling → F
Being honest (52%) = 58% of the ceiling → still failing
Why being honest can look better than it is
Many uninformed residents can’t detect misstatements and omissions. But in El Cerrito, more and more residents are becoming informed—paying closer attention to City performance, finances, and how decisions are communicated. As that awareness grows, misstatements and omissions become easier to spot, less tolerated, and far more damaging to trust.
So communications can sound honest, professional, and reassuring while still leaving out significant facts that would change how people interpret the message, such as:
risks and uncertainty
true timelines and decision gates
what is contingent (funding, approvals, market conditions)
long-term operating costs (not just construction costs)
alternatives that were evaluated and rejected
This is why the 40% score for informing residents is the most revealing metric. When people do not feel informed, they cannot accurately judge honesty.
If surveyed today, these scores could be lower
Since 2022, many El Cerrito residents have become more engaged and more informed, especially around the City’s biggest topics: budget and reserves, development and TOD, ballot measures, staffing and service levels.
In that environment, omissions become easier to spot and less tolerated. If the City communicated in the same way today, it is reasonable to expect the honesty, transparency, and informed-residents scores could come in lower than the late-2022 baseline.
The City is also participating in the National Community Survey again in 2025, which will provide updated resident feedback.
What transparent leadership looks like in El Cerrito
Honesty is not only the absence of lies. It is the absence of strategic omission.
If El Cerrito wants higher cooperation, leadership needs a repeatable standard for every major topic (budget and reserves, development and TOD, library measure, public safety staffing, capital projects):
The Four-Part Truth Template
What we know
What we do not know yet
What we are assuming and why
What would change our plan
This turns trust from a personality trait into a system.
A practical transparency plan City Council and staff can implement now
1) Monthly one-page What’s Going On report
Same sections every month:
General Fund snapshot and reserve trend (vs policy target)
what is one-time vs ongoing
top risks and mitigations
upcoming decisions and what public input can still change
2) Publish the decision record, not just the decision
For each major vote, post a short memo capturing:
alternatives considered
tradeoffs discussed
fiscal and staffing impacts
triggers that would cause a pause, reset, or redesign
3) Make timelines honest about money timing
Residents deserve clarity on:
when costs hit
when taxes or fees start (if applicable)
when benefits actually start
what changes if funding does not materialize
4) Treat the trust metrics like operational KPIs
If informing residents is at 40%, do not manage that like a branding problem. Manage it like a performance gap that affects everything downstream: cooperation, turnout, meeting temperature, and future revenue asks.
Repost: We’ve welcomed many new subscribers since yesterday, so we’re reposting this blog to make sure everyone has a chance to see it. Please share with other El Cerrito residents who may find it helpful.
This blog is heavily influenced by a recent social media post that was removed despite strong engagement.
A recent post by an engaged El Cerrito resident was removed from the neighborhood social media platform Next Door, even though it generated meaningful discussion and received many likes. The post raised questions about the proposed El Cerrito library project—specifically, whether there is a funded building at all.
The removal matters less than why the questions resonate. When discussion is curtailed, the responsibility to examine facts doesn’t disappear. It increases.
The Core Issue: There Is No Funding for the Building
The proposed library is planned for Parcel C West at El Cerrito Plaza. As of today, there is no secured funding for Parcel C West, no approved affordable housing project on Parcel C West, and without the housing project, there is no building in which the library can exist.
Despite this, residents are being asked to vote on a 17-cent-per-square-foot parcel tax on June 2, 2026. If approved, tax collection could begin as early as December 2026 and continue indefinitely.
No Plan B, No Second Vote
If voters approve the tax, collections may begin before construction is even possible, funds can legally be used for planning, consultants, and other city purposes, and voters do not get a second chance if the project stalls, changes or fails.
The Timeline That Isn’t Being Talked About
June 2, 2026: Parcel tax vote.
December 2026: Possible start of tax collection.
December 2026: Next announcement of state grant awards.
2032 at the earliest: Possible construction start—if all funding aligns.
The Grant Dependency Problem
The library plan depends on winning a highly competitive state grant tied to affordable housing. These grants are oversubscribed, dependent on volatile revenue sources, and far from guaranteed.
Why This Should Give Voters Pause
All of this should give residents real pause before voting yes on a long-term parcel tax. Voters are not being asked to approve a finished plan. They are being asked to approve a revenue stream first, with no funded building, no secured grant, no clear construction timeline, and no contingency if the core assumptions fail.
Once the tax is approved, it can begin within months, continue for decades, and does not require the library to be built, nor does it require voter reauthorization if plans change.
Pausing is not opposition. Asking for clarity is not obstruction. Declining to prepay for a speculative project is a reasonable response when the risk is asymmetric and the consequences are permanent.
That alone should give people pause when they step into the voting booth on June 2, 2026.
Fact Box: What Voters Should Verify Before June 2, 2026
Proposed Tax: 17 cents per square foot parcel tax
Election Date: June 2, 2026
Potential Tax Start: December 2026
Tax Duration: Indefinite (30+ years)
Library Location: Parcel C West (unfunded)
Current Status of Parcel C West: No secured funding, no approved housing project
Key Dependency: Competitive AHSC (Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities) state grant
Next AHSC Award Announcement: December 2026
Earliest Plausible Construction Start: 2032 (assuming funding is secured)
Risk Holder: Property owners (no second vote, no build requirement tied to tax
El Cerrito Committee for Responsible Government (ECCRG) 