If there were an Olympic event for exploiting loopholes, our City Manager would be bringing home gold. Over and over again, residents are told that this tax or that funding source is for a specific purpose. We are assured the money is restricted, safeguarded, and protected from misuse. And yet—time and again—the funds end up blended into the General Fund, with little to no evidence they were used as promised. This isn’t accidental. It’s structural. It’s enabled by vague language and political coordination.

The City received approximately $6 million in federal ARPA funds intended to support community recovery following COVID—economic relief, public health response, and targeted community investment. Instead, the City Manager used a loophole to classify the money as “operations,” allowing it to be swept into the General Fund. Once there, the trail went cold. No clear accounting. No public-facing report showing how those dollars directly benefited the community. What was billed as targeted federal relief became flexible general revenue.

This wasn’t a one-off. The pool tax was marketed for a specific recreational purpose and ended up subsidizing broader City operations. The utility users tax was sold as a way to stabilize essential services, but it was folded into the General Fund. The real property transfer tax (RPPT) was promoted as a tool to support long-term community needs, like a senior center and library, but was again absorbed and blended until it became effectively untraceable. Each time, voters were given a purpose. Each time, execution told a different story.

We are now being asked to approve another parcel tax. Supporters point to reassuring language: construction, library operating costs, and community services. It sounds specific until you look closer. Unlike parcel taxes in neighboring cities, this measure is deliberately loose. There are no hard caps. No precise definitions. No meaningful restrictions prevent funds from covering City overhead.

The City’s recent service delivery study now allows departments to allocate a portion of central administrative costs to individual funded programs. In practical terms, this means that portions of the City Manager’s salary, along with costs for executive support, finance, human resources, and general administration, can be charged directly to the library budget.

While this cost-allocation model is presented as a technical accounting improvement, its real impact is more consequential. It enables the City to shift a significant share of overhead expenses onto the library fund—effectively redistributing General Fund costs into another tax-supported program.

This practice is likely sufficient, at least on paper, to cover ongoing over-expenditures within the library’s operating budget. However, it does not resolve the underlying structural imbalance. The base level of spending continues to exceed the revenue generated by the funding measure itself.

As a result, the City is not correcting the cost problem—it is relocating it to another funding source – again at residents expense.

Historically, this mismatch between recurring expenses and recurring revenues has led to repeated drawdowns of reserves. Instead of aligning service levels with sustainable funding, the City has relied on one-time balances and internal transfers to close the gap. The new allocation framework risks continuing this pattern under a different name.

A sustainable operating model requires more than creative accounting. It requires aligning staffing, administration, and service levels with realistic, long-term revenue—not masking structural deficits by transferring them into separate tax streams.

So even if the measure says funds are for library purposes, a substantial share can legally flow back to City Hall. This is exactly why the language is vague. This is exactly why it matters.

Supporters also suggest this project will help create a downtown. It won’t.

No There is no credible economic case for the claim that adding low-income housing suddenly produces a retail renaissance. Housing alone does not create a downtown. Spending power does. Foot traffic does. Anchors do. And right now, El Cerrito is losing them. Barnes & Noble is gone. The fabric store is gone. There are no anchor stores. Yes, Trader Joe’s is great. Marshall’s is fine. But two national chains do not make a downtown. They make a convenient errand stop. A real downtown requires diverse retail, independent businesses, evening activity, and visitors from outside the city. We are not attracting those conditions. We are losing them.

High taxes don’t invite investment. El Cerrito already has high property taxes, a transfer tax, a utility tax, multiple parcel taxes, and constant talk of “just one more.” Businesses look at that and go elsewhere. Retail follows disposable income and predictable costs. El Cerrito offers neither. Housing policy and economic development are not the same thing. Adding subsidized housing does not automatically generate retail demand. In many cases, it increases service costs without increasing local spending. Calling this a downtown strategy is not optimistic. It is misleading.

We are also being told this new tax initiative is being led independently by Greg Lyman. Technically, that may be true on paper. Politically, it doesn’t add up. Greg Lyman is a former mayor and longtime councilmember. He knows City Hall. He knows where pressure points are. And we are supposed to believe he is advancing a major tax measure without the full knowledge, support, and alignment of City leadership? That is not how local small-town government works. When taxes are involved, everything is coordinated.

City staff and leadership do not sit on the sidelines when millions of dollars are at stake. They provide data. They shape language. They influence framing. They identify legal pathways. They flag opportunities for flexibility. They may not appear on campaign materials, but they are deeply involved in the architecture. That is how these measures are built.

Ask yourself who benefits if this passes. Not residents struggling with rising costs. Not small businesses are facing high taxes. Not homeowners watching assessments climb. The primary beneficiary is City Hall, through increased financial flexibility. More revenue means fewer hard budget choices, less pressure to reform spending, more room for administrative expansion, and more capacity to shift costs internally.

Greg Lyman’s experience should make voters more cautious, not more comfortable. He understands the system. He understands its loopholes. That doesn’t make him dishonest. It does mean he knows exactly how flexible this measure can become once passed.

Loose language is not accidental. Broad categories are not accidental. Missing safeguards are not accidental. They are features. They are what allow future reallocations, overhead charges, and budget maneuvering while officials can still say, “We followed the rules.”

This vote is not about libraries. It is not about downtown revitalization. It is not about community investment. It is about whether residents will again accept vague promises, flexible rules, and after-the-fact explanations.

Stop being fooled. El Cerrito deserves better than magical thinking and financial gamesmanship. Voters deserve the truth, and we recommend voting NO on any new taxes until City Hall establishes a long track record of transparency, truth and a commitment to releasing the full story.

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

If this feels familiar, it should.

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

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

Different year. Bigger price tag. Same logic.

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

Dream First. Budget Never.

When you bought your home, you had a budget.

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

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

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

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

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

How We Got Here

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

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

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

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

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

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

That means the project is underfunded from day one.

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

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

This Is Bigger Than El Cerrito

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact Box: Staffing Growth vs. Measurable Outcomes

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

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

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

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

Now Add the Tax Stacking

The library tax is only one layer.

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

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

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

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

The Risk Is Always Shifted Downward

In every case, the structure is the same.

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

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

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

The Choice in Front of Voters

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

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

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

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

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

Vote NO on the El Cerrito tax in June.

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

Residents of El Cerrito deserve honesty—especially when it comes to millions of dollars and long-term tax burdens.

The City Manager gives shifting reasons for not applying for state library grants.

-First, we were told the City was understaffed.
-Then, that staff didn’t know how to apply.
-Then, that El Cerrito lacked matching funds.

None of these explanations stand up to scrutiny.

Every city faces staffing challenges. That is not unique to El Cerrito. But when staff capacity is limited, responsible cities hire outside help. El Cerrito does this routinely.

The City hires contractors for IT support, revenue analysis, service delivery studies, financial recovery modeling, and organizational assessments. When something matters, the City finds expertise.

Grant writing is no different.

If internal staff lacked time or experience, the logical solution was to hire a grant consultant. A short-term contractor would have cost a fraction of what residents are now being asked to pay. In this case, that consultant would likely have paid for themselves many times over.

The claim that staff “didn’t know how” is also weak. Grant applications are a normal part of municipal management. And again, when knowledge is limited, cities bring in specialists. Lack of expertise is not a reason to give up; it’s a reason to get help.

The most troubling excuse, however, is the claim that El Cerrito lacked matching funds.

Matching funds do not require new taxes. They typically come from existing reserves, capital improvement budgets, operating budgets, or previously approved measures. This is standard practice in cities across California.

El Cerrito’s annual operating budget exceeds $50 million. Between reserves, capital funds, and discretionary operating resources, identifying a modest local match would have been entirely feasible. It would have been an easy fix—if leadership had wanted to fix it.

While El Cerrito hesitated, neighboring cities acted.

In the early 2000s, Hercules won a $6.1 million state grant toward building its library—matched with local funding under $4.2 million, plus donated land—making the library a reality rather than just an idea.

That investment brought a state-of-the-art library into the community. Other smaller local and foundation grants have supported program improvements since.

Hercules didn’t wait. It secured funding and built something lasting.

Likewise, Larkspur assembled a nearly $19.7 million library project by combining foundation support, state grants, city funds, and private contributions. Like Hercules, more than $6 million came from state grants alone.

This did not happen by accident.

It happened because Larkspur’s leadership actively pursued outside funding rather than defaulting to taxpayers.

That contrast matters.

This is not about one missed grant. It reflects a broader pattern.

When faced with financial challenges, El Cerrito’s leadership too often chooses the same path: don’t pursue outside money, don’t hire targeted expertise, and don’t restructure priorities. Raise taxes instead.

Over and over, the burden falls on homeowners—not because there are no alternatives, but because alternatives require effort, planning, and accountability.

Unclaimed grant money increases residents’ financial burden. Missed opportunities raise future taxes, and excuses lead to higher parcel taxes and assessments.

This is not inevitable.

It is a choice.

El Cerrito residents should expect better.

We should expect City leadership to aggressively pursue grants, use outside expertise when needed, plan for matching funds responsibly, and treat taxpayer dollars as a last resort—not the first.

If we do not demand that standard, nothing will change—and we will keep paying for it.

___________

Draft letter for the city manager and council.

Dear Mayor and City Council Members,

I am writing as a concerned resident to express my frustration with the City’s failure to pursue available state grant funding for the library project.

Over time, residents have been given multiple explanations for why El Cerrito did not apply: understaffing, lack of expertise, and lack of matching funds. None of these reasons is persuasive.

When City staff are unavailable, El Cerrito hires contractors for IT, revenue analysis, service studies, recovery planning, organizational assessments, and grant writing. If expertise or time is limited, hiring a grant consultant is a reasonable option and less costly than placing the burden on taxpayers.

The claim that the City lacked matching funds is especially troubling. Matching funds do not require new taxes. They typically come from existing reserves, capital budgets, operating budgets, or previously approved measures. With an annual operating budget exceeding $50 million, identifying a modest local match should have been entirely feasible.

Neighboring cities demonstrate what effective leadership looks like. Hercules secured millions in state funding for its library. Larkspur assembled more than $6 million in state grants as part of its recent project. These cities acted with urgency and creativity to reduce the burden on residents.

El Cerrito did not.

Instead, residents are once again being asked to shoulder the full financial responsibility.

This reflects a troubling pattern: when faced with major funding needs, the City too often defaults to higher taxes rather than aggressively pursuing outside resources and partnerships.

As a resident and taxpayer, I expect better.

Specifically, I expect:

• Active and timely pursuit of all relevant grant opportunities
• Use of outside expertise when internal capacity is limited
• Responsible planning for matching funds within existing budgets
• Transparency and accountability when opportunities are missed

Taxpayers should be the last resort—not the first.

I respectfully ask the Council and City Manager to explain why grant funding was not pursued, what steps will be taken to prevent this from happening again, and how future capital projects will be managed more responsibly.

Our community deserves leadership that works as hard to reduce our financial burden as it does to justify increasing it.

Sincerely,

(your name)

El Cerrito Resident

El Cerrito voters are being asked to approve a June ballot measure that would fund a 20,000-square-foot library with a price tag that is extraordinarily high for a city of this size—an assumption rooted in outdated usage patterns rather than current reality. Library foot traffic has declined structurally, not temporarily, as residents increasingly rely on digital access and shorter, purpose-driven visits. Peer cities are responding by building smaller, more flexible libraries aligned with modern demand. A right-sized library for El Cerrito would likely range from 9,000 to 14,000 square feet maximum.

Approving a significantly larger building would lock residents into decades of higher operating and maintenance costs for space that may never be fully used. This document explains why size—and an exceptionally high price tag—are critical reasons this proposal deserves scrutiny.

Another Reason the Proposed Library Deal Misses the Mark

El Cerrito Is Being Asked to Overbuild for a Use Pattern That’s Declining

In June, El Cerrito voters will be asked to approve a library project that assumes the city needs — and should permanently maintain — a 20,000-square-foot library.

That assumption deserves scrutiny.

Not because libraries aren’t valuable.
But because how libraries are used has fundamentally changed — and this proposal does not reflect that reality.

Foot Traffic Is Down — and That Matters

Across California and nationally, in-person library visits have declined over time. This is not a short-term or post-pandemic anomaly; it reflects a structural shift driven by:

• Digital books, audiobooks, and databases
• Online renewals and holds
• Shorter, more purpose-driven visits
• Reduced need for large physical collections

Libraries remain important civic institutions. But they are no longer high-traffic, all-day destinations in the way they were when many legacy buildings were designed.

Designing a major capital facility as if those usage patterns will rebound risks oversizing a building for demand that may never return.

Other Cities Are Adjusting. This Proposal Does Not.

Recent library projects show that cities are increasingly right-sizing facilities to reflect current usage.

Larkspur, a city of roughly 13,000 residents, explicitly acknowledged declining library foot traffic and significantly reduced the size of its new library. The resulting library footprint is approximately 6,845 square feet — intentionally smaller than historic norms — while still delivering modern, accessible, and flexible space.

El Cerrito has roughly double the population. That does not justify building more than three times as large.

The key takeaway is not that El Cerrito should replicate another city’s exact size, but that building decisions should reflect how libraries are actually being used today.

What a Right-Sized Library for El Cerrito Looks Like

Rather than relying on outdated benchmarks, a more defensible approach is to size the library based on current population and modern service models.

For cities in the 25,000–30,000 population range, contemporary planning norms increasingly fall between:

0.35 to 0.55 square feet per resident

Applied to El Cerrito, that suggests:

• 9,000–10,000 square feet for a lean, digital-first model
• 11,000–12,000 square feet for a balanced, flexible model
• 13,500–14,000 square feet as an upper bound that still reflects discipline

A 20,000-square-foot library sits well outside this range and assumes sustained high foot traffic, large physical collections, long dwell times, and staffing levels to support them indefinitely.

Those assumptions have not been clearly demonstrated.

What This Means for June Voters

– What This Means for June Voters
A “Yes” vote does not just fund a library—it commits El Cerrito residents to maintaining a 20,000-square-foot building for decades, regardless of whether usage justifies it. If foot traffic continues to decline, residents will still be responsible for the staffing, utilities, and long-term maintenance of excess space. Once built, the size cannot be undone.

Why This Matters for the Ballot

This is not only a construction-cost question.

Approving a 20,000-square-foot library with an unusually high price tag commits El Cerrito property owners to decades of:

• Higher staffing requirements
• Higher utilities and maintenance costs
• Larger future repair and replacement obligations
• Reduced flexibility if usage continues to decline

Once built, the square footage is permanent. If demand does not materialize, the city cannot scale back the building.

That makes this a long-term financial decision — not a one-time capital expense.

The Risk Voters Are Being Asked to Accept

The June ballot measure asks residents to fund a library sized for yesterday’s usage patterns at a price that is far too high for today’s realities.

Even for residents who value libraries and support public investment, it is reasonable to ask:

Why is El Cerrito being asked to overbuild when other cities are deliberately building smaller?

If that question cannot be answered clearly and with data, caution is warranted.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is this argument anti-library?
No. The issue is not whether El Cerrito should invest in a library, but whether the proposed size reflects how libraries are actually used today.

Won’t a larger library attract more users?
There is no clear evidence that larger buildings reverse long-term declines in foot traffic driven by digital access and changing habits. Size alone does not create demand.

What about future growth or new programs?
Flexibility matters more than raw square footage. Smaller, adaptable spaces can support evolving programs without locking the city into unnecessary fixed costs.

Isn’t it better to build big once rather than expand later?
Only if demand is reasonably certain. Overbuilding shifts risk to residents, who must pay to operate and maintain unused space indefinitely.

Bottom Line

A well-designed, right-sized library can still serve the community, adapt to future change, and protect public finances.

A 20,000-square-foot library assumes a future that looks increasingly unlikely — while locking residents into permanent costs.

Proponents argue that delaying construction will only make the project more expensive. But common sense says the greater risk is locking property owners into an already overpriced deal. The city carries almost no financial risk; residents carry all of it. That is a legitimate reason for voters to question whether this proposal is the right deal for El Cerrito.

VOTE NO until El Cerrito develops a reasonable plan

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

1. 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?
2. 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
3. Should compensation growth be addressed before imposing permanent new taxes?
4. 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.

EDITORIAL

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.

El Cerrito’s future depends on it.

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

El Cerrito (Today)

• Structural deficits: recurring costs outpace recurring revenues
• 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:

1. At the beginning of the meeting, during general public comment (when the library item was not yet on the agenda)
2. 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.