In any healthy democracy, trust between the public and its government is built on one essential principle: transparency.

When a city openly shares information, explains its decisions, and responds clearly to questions, residents can evaluate those decisions for themselves. Even when people disagree, transparency builds confidence that decisions were made honestly and thoughtfully.

But when information is withheld, obscured, or brushed aside with vague responses, trust erodes.

That is exactly the situation many residents now see unfolding in El Cerrito.

A Simple Request for Public Information

Resident Betty Buginas submitted a straightforward request under the California Public Records Act. She asked the City to identify and provide the reports, studies, memoranda, presentations, consultant materials, or other formal documents supporting the City Manager’s February 19, 2026 statement about city-owned sites that had been evaluated and rejected for a new library.

Her request was not unusual. It did not involve confidential personnel matters, litigation strategy, or protected information.

It asked for the basic documentation that should exist behind a major public claim.

Instead of identifying the responsive records and providing them, the City responded by directing her to two broad sections of the City website containing hundreds of pages of unrelated materials.

Simply telling residents to “look at the website” is not transparency. It is avoidance that occurs often.

The California Public Records Act is clear: when directing a requester to records online, an agency must identify the specific documents that are responsive. Public agencies are also required to assist requesters in identifying records.

That did not happen here.

Why Transparency Matters

Transparency is not just a legal requirement. It is the foundation of public trust.

When residents ask reasonable questions and the City responds with vague or incomplete answers, people begin to wonder what is being hidden — even when the issue may simply be uncomfortable rather than confidential.

In this case, there appears to be no legal reason for withholding the information. There is no claim of confidentiality, no litigation exemption, and no protected personnel matter.

The only apparent risk is that the record may not reflect well on the City’s decision-making process.

But protecting appearances is not a legitimate reason to withhold public information.

A Narrow Search for Alternatives

Buginas’ review of materials on the City’s website raises additional concerns.

Based on available documents, it appears the City considered only two options for building a library on city-owned land:

• A combined theater and library project on the Contra Costa Civic Theatre block, rejected due to cost (2016 feasibility report)

• A combined community center and library project at the current Community Center site discussed in a 2019 workshop

Both options were built around a set of assumptions:

• The library must be approximately 20,000 square feet

• It must have extensive parking

• It must be centrally located

Those assumptions were largely based on a consultant report from 2014 — a very different era for libraries, when DVD circulation dominated usage patterns.

Since then, the City has promoted a different concept: a new library at the BART site.

Yet that proposal appears to apply different criteria.

Parking requirements that were considered essential elsewhere are suddenly flexible. A site that raises concerns about congestion, access, and child-focused design is now being presented as the preferred location. And the City claims the BART option saves $10 million largely because it eliminates structured parking and land acquisition costs.

Meanwhile, the City’s own website states that if the BART opportunity is not pursued, there are no other sites available in the near term.

That conclusion may say less about the availability of sites and more about the limited effort made to identify them.

Trust Requires Openness

Residents do not expect perfection from their government. But they do expect honesty and openness.

If the City evaluated many sites and rejected them for legitimate reasons, the City should be able to identify and provide the documents supporting those decisions.

If no such records exist, that is also information the public deserves to know.

Transparency does not weaken government. It strengthens it.

When leadership is willing to share the facts — even when the facts are messy or inconvenient — trust grows.

When leadership refuses to provide basic information that residents are legally entitled to receive, trust collapses.

The Choice Facing El Cerrito

El Cerrito’s leaders — the City Council, the City Manager, and the City Clerk — face a simple choice.

They can continue offering vague answers and broad website links that leave residents searching for information that may or may not exist.

Or they can identify and provide the documents requested, clarify the record, and demonstrate that transparency still matters in El Cerrito.

Trust is not restored through speeches or press releases.

It is restored through openness.

And it begins with answering reasonable questions from the public.

Influenced by social media

In recent weeks, residents have begun asking a simple question: Who is funding the campaign to pass the proposed El Cerrito library parcel tax?

That question matters because campaign finance often reveals something that campaign messaging tries to obscure — who benefits and who is driving the agenda.

A review of publicly available filings and discussions circulating on social media suggests a stark contrast between the two campaigns.

The political committee supporting the library project — often associated with the Plaza Library proposal — operates under FPPC committee ID 146086. Available filings show that the campaign has raised and spent tens of thousands of dollars annually, much of it directed toward professional services. The expenditures include consultants, signature-gathering firms, website development, and other campaign infrastructure typically associated with well-funded political operations.

Perhaps more notable is the concentration of donors. A relatively small number of contributors appear to provide the bulk of the funding. This pattern is common in campaigns backed by well-resourced individuals or organized interests. It allows campaigns to fund professional political services — the kind most grassroots efforts simply cannot afford.

Contrast that with the committee opposing the tax, which is registered under FPPC ID 1485677. Based on recent filings and publicly discussed accounting, the opposition campaign appears to be funded very differently.

Instead of large checks from a handful of donors, contributions appear to come primarily from small donations from residents, often in the range of $50 to $100, with the median even lower.

Even the campaign infrastructure reflects this difference.

The opposition website was reportedly built by a college student. Campaign pins were produced by a volunteer who simply wanted to help. Yard signs are not free — residents are asked to contribute to their cost. In fact, many of the sign poles being used were recycled from previous campaigns to keep costs down.

In other words, one campaign is powered by consultants and professional political services, while the other appears to rely on volunteer labor and small donations from residents.

That difference raises another question that has surfaced in community conversations.

If the “Yes” campaign has significantly more financial backing, why do so many people report seeing more “No” yard signs across the city?

One possible explanation is simple: residents are paying for them themselves.

On the “No” campaign website, signs reportedly cost about $10 each, meaning every sign represents a resident who was willing to spend their own money to express an opinion.

Meanwhile, the “Yes” campaign advertises that its signs are free.

That dynamic flips a common assumption. A large number of “No” signs may not indicate better funding — it may actually reflect stronger grassroots participation.

And that is ultimately what this debate is about.

Many residents support libraries. Many residents support strong public services. But increasingly, people are asking harder questions about this specific proposal — including whether a $37 million project tied to downtown development is the right priority for the city.

When residents start asking questions like:

Why is this project being pushed so aggressively?
Who benefits from it?
And who is paying for the campaign to promote it?

Those are not anti-library questions.

They are healthy democratic questions.

Because in local politics, the money often tells the real story.

By Betty Buginas

Taken from the El Cerrito Wire

Copy of email sent the evening of March 10 to the city clerk, city attorney, city manager, and city council members:

Since the city has not adequately responded to my public records request, I would like you to confirm the information I was able to locate on the city’s website:

*The only two options the city has considered for building on city land are:

1)Building a combination new 12,500-square-foot theater and 21,900 -square-foot library with a 130-space parking garage on the block owned by the city and occupied by the Contra Costa Civic Theatre. This option was rejected because of cost. (From the March 1, 2016, El Cerrito Library Site Feasibility and Scope Development Report.)

2)Building a combination Community Center and library with parking at the site of the current Community Center. (The slide from the August 10, 2019 workshop does not include square footage or number of parking spaces.)

*The criteria for limiting the consideration of city-owned parcels to these two was based on the assumptions that the library needs to be 20,000 square feet, have a generous supply of parking, and be centrally located.

*The assumption the city needs a library three times the size of the current one is from an assessment by a consultant written in 2014, a time when the hottest items to check out from the library were DVDs.

The city’s claim that building at BART would save $10 million is based largely on omitting parking and not having to buy the land, so it’s puzzling city leadership hasn’t taken another look at building on city land. This would avoid the need to buy a site, with the bonus that the library wouldn’t be on someone else’s property. If you are willing to disregard parking requirements in one of the most congested areas in town, why not elsewhere?

It’s also puzzling that you have not explored options for a library of less than 20,000 square feet. It would save construction costs as well as reduce the annual operation and maintenance costs of a larger library, expected to increase to as much as $797,000 per year for a 20,000-square-foot library. Any reduction in size increases the number of possible sites, city owned and not.

At the BART site, you are willing to build on parking lots. If that’s an acceptable practice, that would further expand the list of possible sites.

The city has applied different criteria for analysis of the BART site than it has to any other. It ignores the concerns documented on the city website about the BART location – not centrally located, inadequate parking, traffic congestion, less child focused, many factors outside of city control, not easily accessible by public transportation for people coming from many parts of El Cerrito.

The city website says, “If the current opportunity is not pursued, there are no other sites identified for moving forward a new library project in the near-term.” That’s because the city has not made the effort to identify other sites.

Submitted Feb. 23 using online form:

Under the California Public Records Act, I request copies of any reports, studies, memoranda, presentations, consultant reports, or other formal documents supporting or relating to the City Manager’s statement at the February 19, 2026 Special City Council meeting regarding city-owned sites the City had identified, evaluated, and rejected for a library.

This request includes records sufficient to show which city-owned sites were considered and the basis for their evaluation and rejection.

I request these records in electronic format if available.

If any portion of this request is denied, please cite the specific legal exemption and provide any reasonably segregable non-exempt portions.

If some responsive records are readily available, I respectfully request that they be provided promptly, and that any remaining records that require additional time to retrieve also be produced promptly once available.

Thank you

Feb. 24 City Response

All the responsive records have been posted to the City website. Please find the records of your request at the links below:

Information about the El Cerrito Library | El Cerrito, CA – Official Website
( https://www.elcerrito.gov/483/Library )

Council Meeting Videos & Materials | El Cerrito, CA – Official Website
( https://elcerrito.gov/482/Council-Meeting-Videos-Materials )

Thank you.

City of El Cerrito
City Clerk Department
cityclerk@elcerrito.gov

My Feb. 25 email to city clerk and city attorney

City Clerk,

Thank you for your response to my Public Records Act request.

My request specifically sought copies of reports, studies, memoranda, presentations, consultant reports, or other formal documents relating to the City Manager’s February 19, 2026 statement regarding city-owned sites the City had evaluated and rejected for a library, including records sufficient to show which city-owned sites were considered and the basis for their evaluation and rejection.

Your response stated that all responsive records have been posted on the City website and provided links to general webpages containing a large volume of materials.
Under Government Code §§ 7922.530 and 7922.545, public records must be made promptly available, and when directing a requester to records posted online, the agency must identify the specific location of the responsive records.

Accordingly, please identify the specific documents and their locations on the City website that are responsive to my request.

In addition, please confirm whether the City conducted a reasonable search for responsive records, including records not posted on the City website, and whether any additional responsive records exist.

Thank you for your assistance, and I look forward to your response.

Betty Buginas

My March 5 email to the city clerk, city attorney, city manager, all five council members

City Clerk,

I am writing because ten days have now passed since I submitted my Public Records Act request seeking documents supporting the City Manager’s February 19, 2026 statement regarding city-owned sites that were considered and rejected for a library, including the basis for those decisions.

The City’s initial response directed me to two very broad sections of the City website. Such a broad response is insufficient to meet the requirements of the Public Records Act. I subsequently requested that the City identify the specific documents responsive to my request.

Under Government Code § 7922.600, the City is required to provide reasonable assistance in identifying records responsive to a request.

Please provide the requested documents within five days, electronically if available, or photocopied if not. If no such documents exist, please confirm that the City has conducted a reasonable search and that no records exist supporting the City Manager’s February 19 statement.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Betty Buginas

Engagement Is Allowed. Action Requires an Agenda.

In recent meetings in El Cerrito, we’ve heard councilmembers suggest that they do not respond to residents during public comment because of the Brown Act.

Let’s clarify what the law actually says.

The Ralph M. Brown Act (Gov. Code § 54950 et seq.) is California’s open meeting law for local government. Enacted in 1953, it ensures transparency, accountability, and meaningful public participation in local government.

It is not a gag order.

What the Brown Act Requires:

• 72-hour advance notice for regular meetings 
• Clear agendas describing items for discussion 
• Open meetings accessible to the public 
• Opportunities for public comment 
• Strict limits on closed sessions 
• Prohibition of serial meetings outside a noticed public meeting 

Its core principle is simple:

The public’s business must be conducted in public.

Engagement vs. Action — The Key Distinction

Here is where confusion often occurs.

The Council can engage during public comment. Members may:

• Briefly respond 
• Ask clarifying questions 
• Provide factual information 
• Direct staff to follow up 
• Request that an item be placed on a future agenda 

What the Council cannot do is:

• Deliberate on an item that is not on the agenda 
• Take action on an issue raised during public comment if it has not been properly noticed 

If a resident raises a new issue during public comment, the Council cannot suddenly vote on it.

To take action, the item must be:

1. Properly agendized  
2. Posted at least 72 hours in advance 
3. Clearly described so the public knows action may occur 

That is the safeguard.

It prevents surprise decision-making. 
It does not prohibit conversation.

Silence Is a Choice, Not a Legal Mandate

There is a difference between not taking action and not acknowledging the public at all.

The Brown Act restricts action without notice. 
It does not require officials to remain silent.

Government Code § 54954.3 expressly allows brief responses and clarifications during public comment, so long as members do not engage in substantive deliberation.

Choosing not to respond may be a governance style. 
But it should not be described as a legal obligation.

Why This Matters in El Cerrito

El Cerrito is a small city of approximately 25,000 residents. People show up. They read staff reports. They ask informed questions about budgets, taxes, development, reserves, and long-term fiscal sustainability.

When residents receive no acknowledgment — and are told “the Brown Act prevents us from responding” — it creates unnecessary confusion.

City leaders often express concern about declining public trust. They wonder why residents feel skeptical, disengaged, or doubtful about decision-making processes.

This is one of the reasons.

When legal requirements are overstated, when engagement is withheld unnecessarily, and when silence is framed as compliance rather than choice, it erodes confidence.

The Brown Act was designed to increase transparency and public participation.

If trust is the goal, clarity about the law — and a willingness to engage within it — would be a meaningful place to start.

A polished new website has appeared promoting the library tax measure on the June ballot.

It is sleek.
It is well designed.
And it tells a compelling story about a modern library for El Cerrito.

The site appears to be a rebrand of the earlier campaign website that focused heavily on a library at the Plaza. It is unclear whether the change matters, because the city’s own policy documents continue to identify the Plaza as the intended location for the library.

Like most campaign websites, it highlights what supporters want voters to see while leaving out other details that may be relevant for voters trying to understand the full scope of the proposal.

The Real Cost

Campaign materials often highlight selective construction numbers or comparisons.

But the proposal before voters is not a $21 million project.

It is approximately a $37 million library project when all elements are considered — including construction, build-out, furnishings, planning costs, and years of operating support included in the measure.

That represents roughly a $17 million increase from earlier estimates, which supporters attribute largely to inflation.

Some residents have questioned whether the earlier lower estimate influenced the signature-gathering process for the citizen initiative that placed the measure on the ballot.

The Missing Senior Exemption

One issue that has received significant attention in community discussions is the question of a senior exemption.

Supporters of the measure suggested during the signature-gathering phase that seniors might qualify for an exemption from the tax.

However, the ballot language itself does not contain a direct senior exemption.

Instead, it references two state programs:

• The Gonzales-Deukmejian-Petris Senior Citizens Property Tax Assistance Law, which has not been funded since 2009.

• The Senior Citizen Property Tax Postponement Program, which allows taxes to be deferred in exchange for placing a lien on the property. This program is a postponement, not an exemption.

The language mirrors provisions used in Measure H (2019), which also referenced these programs. According to public commentary, no El Cerrito residents have qualified for exemptions through these mechanisms.

The City Council recently voted 4-0 to discuss its intentions regarding a potential senior exemption, but discussion alone does not change the ballot language.

At present, no senior exemption exists in the measure voters will see on the ballot.

The campaign website does not address this issue.

The Duration of the Tax

Another element not prominently explained in the campaign messaging is the duration of the tax.

The parcel tax is structured to last at least 30 years and potentially indefinitely.

That means residents could be paying the tax for decades. In practice, parcel taxes in El Cerrito rarely disappear — they are typically renewed before voters ever experience a “sunset.”

For many homeowners, the obligation could outlast their mortgage or the period they expect to live in the city.

Annual Increases Without Additional Voter Approval

The measure also allows the tax to increase annually based on inflation.

These adjustments could be implemented by the City Council without returning to voters for approval.

As a result, the amount residents ultimately pay could increase over time compared with the amount initially presented when the measure was introduced.

The Library Is Not Guaranteed

The campaign website promotes the measure as a way to build a new library.

However, the ballot language itself is broader.

The revenue may be used for library services, facilities, and related costs, and it is not legally tied to constructing a specific new building.

This means the tax could begin immediately even though a new facility is not guaranteed by the measure itself.

The Development Connection

Another issue not heavily discussed on the campaign website is the relationship between the proposed library and the El Cerrito Plaza development project.

The proposed library location is connected to a private development planned near the BART station.

Some critics have suggested the tax could function as a public subsidy connected to that project. Supporters argue that integrating the library into the development may reduce construction costs.

Regardless of perspective, the relationship between the library proposal and the larger development project is an important policy issue for voters to consider.

What the Website Is — and What It Is Not

The website is a campaign website advocating for a tax measure.

It presents a vision of what supporters hope the project will achieve.

It is not a comprehensive financial analysis of the proposal, and it does not address several issues that voters may wish to evaluate, including:

• the full $37 million estimated project cost
• the absence of a direct senior exemption in the ballot language
• the long duration of the tax
• annual inflation adjustments
• the potential housing cost impacts
• the uncertainty around the final library project
• and the relationship to the Plaza development

The Bottom Line

When voters are asked to approve a long-term parcel tax for a major public project, many residents expect clear and complete information.

Campaign websites help communicate a vision, but voters may also look to other sources — including city documents, ballot language, and public discussions — to understand the full details of what they are being asked to approve.

This blog was heavily influenced by social media commentary, public documents, and local news coverage.

As voters consider the June 2 library tax initiative, one option continues to receive far less attention than it deserves:

Refreshing and improving the existing library site.

In a debate dominated by relocation plans and 20,000-square-foot expansion concepts, the most fiscally responsible and lowest-risk option is often treated as secondary.

It shouldn’t be.

The $6 Million Distortion

Much of the public narrative has centered on the idea that building at the Plaza BART location could save $10 million.

But that gap only appears when alternative scenarios are inflated with more than $6 million in structured parking and land acquisition costs — while those same costs are excluded from the preferred BART site.

When structured parking is removed and core construction costs are compared consistently, the spread between options narrows significantly.

Here is the apples-to-apples comparison.

FACT BOX

Library Scenarios 2, 3, and 4 — Base Costs Without Structured Parking

Scenario 2

Rebuild and Expand Existing Library

13,000 square feet

Base Project Budget: $28,383,000

Difference from Scenario 3: $8,841,000 less

Scenario 3

Build Library at Plaza BART TOD

20,000 square feet

Base Project Budget: $37,224,000

Scenario 4

Standalone Library on New Site

20,000 square feet

Base Project Budget: $41,142,000

Difference from Scenario 3: $3,918,000 more

What This Shows

The frequently cited $10 million savings disappears.

Scenario 2 is nearly $9 million less than the Plaza BART option.

Scenario 4 is about $3.9 million more than the Plaza BART option — not $10 million more.

When parking and land assumptions are removed, voters see a much narrower spread between the options.

But even this table leaves out the most affordable alternative.

Renovate and Refresh the Existing Library

Approximately $10.3 million total capital cost

Why Refreshing the Existing Site Makes Sense

First, it is financially prudent.

At roughly $10.3 million, renovation costs are less than one-third of the Plaza BART option and far below new construction alternatives. In a city with a documented history of fiscal strain, proportionality matters.

Second, it avoids land control uncertainty.

The Plaza BART option involves building on land the City does not own. The standalone new-site option requires land acquisition. The existing site avoids both complications.

Third, it minimizes long-term operating costs.

Three of the five scenarios assume a 20,000-square-foot facility — roughly three times the current 6,500-square-foot building. Larger buildings mean higher utilities, increased maintenance, additional staffing, and greater lifecycle obligations.

A right-sized, modernized library avoids locking taxpayers into permanently higher operating costs.

Fourth, it preserves flexibility.

A refresh allows the City to improve functionality now while retaining the option to reassess future needs without committing to a generational tax burden.

A Question of Scale

The real issue is not which option is architecturally most ambitious.

It is which option aligns with El Cerrito’s financial reality, service needs, and long-term sustainability.

Residents value libraries. Supporting a library does not require supporting the most expensive option available.

Refreshing the existing site is not the loudest proposal.

It is the most proportionate.

In a city working to rebuild trust and strengthen fiscal stability, proportionate solutions are often the wisest ones.

Tuesday night’s City Council presentation finally included publicly shared usage data for the El Cerrito Library. That matters. Decisions of this magnitude should start with facts.

According to the Library’s published FY 2024–25 statistics:

• 10,622 El Cerrito cardholders

• 35% of households with an active account

• 102,362 annual visitors

• 115,530 items borrowed

• 4,894 event attendees

Those numbers provide a baseline. The question is how we interpret them — and how they connect to the scale of the proposed project.

The Age Breakdown Matters

Cardholders by age:

• 0–12: 930 (8.8%)

• 13–17: 733 (6.9%)

• 18–35: 2,111 (19.9%)

• 36–64: 4,756 (44.8%)

• 65+: 2,092 (19.7%)

If we combine residents 36 and older:

4,756 + 2,092 = 6,848 cardholders

Approximately 64.5% of all El Cerrito cardholders are over 36 years old.

Youth (0–17) represent about 15.7% of cardholders.

That doesn’t diminish youth programming. It does suggest that current usage skews older — which should inform programming, design, and space planning assumptions.

Expanding the Key Questions

1. Do current usage levels justify tripling the facility size?

If we are considering a substantially larger building, the community deserves to see:

• Current space utilization rates by hour and by day

• Waitlists for rooms, programs, or seating

• Square footage per visitor benchmarks compared to peer cities

• Documentation of unmet demand

Without that analysis, scale risks being driven by aspiration rather than demonstrated constraint.

2. What capacity constraints exist today?

Are we routinely turning away:

• Students needing study space?

• Seniors needing programming space?

• Community groups needing meeting rooms?

Or is the issue modernization and functionality rather than raw square footage?

There’s a difference between:

• A facility that needs updating

• A facility that is too small

• A facility that is under-optimized

Those require different solutions — and different price tags.

3. What will long-term operating costs look like?

A larger building doesn’t just cost more to build.

It typically means:

• Higher staffing levels

• Increased utilities and maintenance

• Expanded security needs

• Higher lifecycle replacement costs

If we’re evaluating fiscal sustainability, capital costs are only part of the equation. Operating costs compound year after year — long after ribbon cuttings and campaign messaging fade.

4. Who will primarily use a significantly larger facility?

If nearly two-thirds of cardholders are over 36, design assumptions should reflect:

• Adult and senior programming needs

• Quiet study and reading spaces

• Accessible design considerations

• Multi-generational flexibility

If the expansion is justified primarily on projected youth growth, those projections should be transparent and evidence-based — especially given that construction would likely occur 3–5 years from now.

Physical infrastructure should reflect durable demand — not momentary sentiment.

The Core Issue: Alignment

This is not a debate about whether libraries are valuable. They are.

It’s about alignment between:

• Usage data and facility scale

• Capital investment and operating sustainability

• Demographics and design assumptions

• Community priorities and long-term fiscal health

When 35% of households have active accounts, that is meaningful — but it also means 65% do not. A permanent funding structure should be grounded in broad-based, clearly demonstrated need.

Tuesday’s presentation moved the conversation forward by putting numbers on the table.

Now the community deserves:

• Transparent growth projections

• Capacity analysis

• Operating cost modeling

• Peer comparisons

• And a clear articulation of tradeoffs

And alignment starts with asking the hard questions — before committing to long-term financial decisions impacting our already high tax base.

Editorial

The February 19 special meeting was presented as a chance to explain the details of the proposed library initiative. But let’s be clear: this is not simply about a library. This is about a tax.

It is about creating a permanent revenue stream so the City can immediately issue approximately $37 million in bonds and transfer those funds to a private developer. Those bond proceeds would be used to help the developer secure the financing needed to construct the building.

Supporters argue that the project will move forward whether or not the City participates. But the reality is that the full funding is not yet in place. Without the City’s bond financing, the project does not currently have complete financial backing.

That is why this tax matters.

It is not just about library services. It is about using taxpayer dollars to underwrite a private development—while presenting it as a simple investment in a public facility.

At the same time, residents are being told they are “buying” a condominium. But a ground lease is not ownership. Paying rent—even if it is only one dollar a year—is not ownership. If the City truly owned the building, there would be no lease payment at all.

This measure asks voters to approve a permanent tax based on a misleading framing of ownership and risk.

The City will tell residents that this tax can only be used for the library. But the actual terms and conditions are very broad. They allow the City to be reimbursed for a wide range of expenses—including staff time, administrative costs, consulting fees, funds currently earmarked for the library and even the time spent preparing presentations for meetings like the February 19 session.

In practice, this means the tax is not limited to bricks and books. It can be used to backfill many internal costs that would otherwise come out of the General Fund.

Who Really Benefits? Follow the Money.

When you follow the money, the beneficiaries become clear.

First, the developer benefits. By securing the City as an anchor tenant backed by roughly $37 million in bond financing, the project gains instant credibility with lenders. That public commitment makes it far easier for the developer to secure the remaining private financing.

Second, the City benefits—at least in the short term. By creating a dedicated library tax, officials can shift major facility and operating costs off the already strained General Fund and onto a new, permanent revenue stream. This relieves budget pressure.

But accounting relief is not the same as real savings.

At the end of the day, El Cerrito residents are still paying for everything.

The money does not come from outside sources. It comes from local households and small businesses, year after year. The tax may be labeled “for the library,” but in practice, it services long-term debt, reimburses internal costs, and supports private financing.

So while the developer gains financing security and the City gains short-term budget flexibility, residents assume the long-term financial obligation.

That is the real tradeoff voters are being asked to approve.

Voters deserve clear, honest information about what they are being asked to fund, who benefits, and what the City will actually own.

This is not a technical detail. It goes to the heart of fiscal responsibility and public trust.

Pages 37–43 of yesterday’s City Council agenda packet, which contain the staff report for the Midyear Budget Update, should give every El Cerrito resident pause. Together with the accompanying budget presentation, they show a city that is increasingly relying on reserves to cover routine expenses, allowing costs to grow faster than revenues, and drifting toward structural imbalance. In FY 2025–26 alone, the City plans to use approximately $2.8 million from the General Fund balance, including more than $1.1 million in new withdrawals approved through mid-year amendments. During the Midyear Budget Update presentation, staff proposed several hundred thousand dollars in additional reserve-funded expenses, and the City Council approved those additional draws. This is not prudent fiscal management. It is a pattern of patching budget gaps with savings instead of fixing the underlying problem.

A key driver of the reserve reduction was the $1.045 million successor agency closeout payment. To be clear, the City had no real choice but to pay this obligation. It was legally required and unavoidable. However, staff bundled that mandatory payment together with several other discretionary and foreseeable items, making it extremely difficult for Council members to vote no on the overall reduction to reserves. When essential and nonessential items are packaged together, meaningful fiscal oversight is weakened. The result is an “all-or-nothing” vote that pressures elected officials to approve spending they might otherwise question.

What the public should not miss is that none of these items were sudden surprises. The successor agency obligation, rising labor costs, insurance increases, benefit expenses, and program needs were all known when this year’s budget was created. They were foreseeable. They were discussed in prior years. They were embedded in long-term forecasts. They should have been incorporated into the adopted budget last summer. Instead, they were deferred and reintroduced midyear as “adjustments,” creating the appearance of an emergency and limiting public scrutiny.

After these planned drawdowns, the City is projected to be only about $1.2 million above the minimum reserve levels recommended by the Government Finance Officers Association and required under the City’s own financial policies. That is an uncomfortably thin margin for a city facing rising labor, healthcare, insurance, and pension costs. It leaves El Cerrito with little room for error. One economic downturn, one major legal settlement, one infrastructure failure, or one recessionary year could push reserves below accepted professional standards. And let’s be honest, the city has planned cost overruns each year.

City staff acknowledged in both the written packet materials and the Midyear Budget Update presentation that expenses are rising faster than revenues. Non-personnel costs are increasing by more than 5% per year. Insurance costs jumped nearly seventeen percent in a single year. Personnel costs continue to rise due to healthcare, labor agreements, and pension obligations. At the same time, revenues are flattening. The City’s own long-term forecast shows that without meaningful spending changes, El Cerrito will begin running structural deficits starting in FY 2026–27. This is how financially stressed cities get into trouble. It happens slowly at first, then all at once.

Adding to this pressure is the City’s staffing structure. Compared to neighboring and comparable cities such as Albany, San Pablo, and Hercules, El Cerrito employs between one-and-a-half and two times as many staff. This level of staffing creates ongoing upward pressure on salaries, benefits, pensions, and healthcare costs. When a city carries significantly more personnel than its peers, every contract negotiation, benefit increase, and cost escalation is magnified. Overstaffing is not a neutral condition. It is a long-term budget driver that compounds fiscal stress year after year.

Yet this structural issue is rarely addressed openly. Instead, rising personnel costs are often framed as unavoidable. During the Midyear Budget Update presentation, Council members attempted to characterize many of these increases as “beyond our control.” Mayor Pro Tem Saltzman cited healthcare as an example. That argument is only half true. Healthcare is expensive everywhere, but benefit levels, premium sharing, staffing levels, and executive compensation are policy choices. They are negotiated by management, approved by Council, and embedded in labor and executive contracts. No one forced the City to adopt premium benefit packages. No one compelled Council to maintain staffing levels far above regional norms. These were decisions made by elected officials and senior leadership.

This matters because those decisions now limit the City’s ability to manage its finances responsibly. When leadership insulates itself from cost pressures, it erodes trust. It becomes much harder to go back to staff and ask for restraint when executives are protected from sacrifice and staffing levels remain untouched. It becomes difficult to convince residents that every dollar is being managed carefully when reserves are being drained to support an oversized workforce and premium benefits. Fiscal discipline cannot be something that applies only to frontline employees and taxpayers. It has to start at the top.

There are options available if Council is serious about long-term stability. The City could examine staffing levels relative to service demands. It could align workforce size with regional norms. It could require higher employee premium contributions. It could renegotiate executive benefit packages. It could establish firm cost-containment parameters in future labor agreements. It could align compensation growth with revenue growth. None of these steps require new taxes. They require leadership, political courage, and a willingness to make difficult choices before a crisis forces them.

The weakening of reserves is another warning sign highlighted in the packet materials and reinforced in the presentation. While current unassigned reserves remain near nineteen percent of expenditures, the City’s own projections show that they are now hovering just $1.2 million above minimum professional and policy standards. Once reserves drop below those thresholds, financial flexibility disappears. Emergency response becomes harder. Creditworthiness weakens. Outside oversight becomes more likely. This is precisely the trajectory that has placed many California cities on state fiscal watchlists in the past.

Even the City’s Financial Advisory Board has warned that expenses have increased over time and need to be controlled. When independent financial advisors raise concerns, the council should listen and take action. These are not political arguments. They are professional assessments based on audited data and long-term projections.

All of this has direct implications for the proposed library tax. Supporters argue that the funds will be protected and used only as promised. But when a government is under fiscal pressure, money becomes fungible. Restricted revenues are reinterpreted. Temporary “borrowing” becomes permanent. Promises become flexible. History shows that financially stressed cities struggle to honor earmarks when core operations are at risk.

El Cerrito has fallen into a familiar and dangerous cycle: rely on reserves, use one-time money, approve new spending, seek new taxes, and repeat. Structural problems remain untouched. Staffing levels remain misaligned. Accountability is deferred. Long-term reform is postponed. Each round makes the next one harder.

The story told by the agenda packet and the Midyear Budget Update presentation is not one of bad luck or unavoidable circumstances. It is the story of choices. Staff proposed reserve drawdowns. Council approved them. Known costs were deferred. Mandatory and discretionary items were bundled. Benefits were negotiated. Reserves were tapped. Reforms were delayed. Now residents are being asked to provide more money without meaningful structural change.

Before voters are asked to approve another permanent tax, City Hall needs a serious financial and governance overhaul. It needs enforceable cost controls, transparent budgeting, honest forecasting, right-sized staffing, shared sacrifice, and disciplined long-range planning. Without those reforms, new revenue will not solve El Cerrito’s problems. It will only delay the next crisis.

A concerned neighbor created this Library Tax Comparison after learning that the El Cerrito Library Tax language was modeled on San Rafael’s Measure P.

They decided to put the two initiatives side by side.

What they found is sobering.

Seven critical differences — and in every case, El Cerrito residents get the worse deal.

• Higher base tax
• Council can increase it annually without a public vote
• Dual indexing tied to the higher of two growth measures
• An additional 15% “bonus” collection allowed
• Narrow, difficult senior exemption
• No legally fixed location
• No dedicated parking

By contrast, San Rafael’s measure fixed the rate, required voter approval for increases, had no automatic indexing, no 15% add-on, an easy senior exemption, a legally tied location, and a traditional parking strategy.

Each provision alone raises concerns.

Together, they compound the long-term cost and reduce voter control.

If the language was truly based on San Rafael’s initiative, the question isn’t whether residents support libraries.

The question is why El Cerrito residents were given a structurally more expensive, less constrained version.

Before voting, residents deserve to understand exactly what they’re being asked to approve.

Concerned neighbors deserve to make their own decisions about taxation — not have their tax authority compounded.