El Cerrito voters are once again being asked to open their wallets. But this moment doesn’t exist in isolation. It sits on top of years of tax measures, rising costs, and growing concern that the City’s financial challenges aren’t being fixed—just funded. For many property owners, this isn’t about a single ballot measure anymore. It’s about fatigue.

The Last Five Tax Measures: A Pattern, Not an Exception

Over the past decade, El Cerrito residents have been asked repeatedly to approve new or extended taxes. While each measure has had its own justification, the cumulative effect matters. Here’s the pattern property owners are experiencing—now with the real financial impact:

• Utility Users Tax (UUT) – Currently set at 10% on utilities (electric, gas, water, telecom). Extended and increased to support general city services, this tax quietly grows alongside every monthly bill.
• Parcel Taxes – Flat taxes applied per parcel, regardless of income. While individual measures may seem modest (often $100–$300+ per parcel annually), layered over time they create a cumulative, ongoing burden.
• Sales Tax Measures – El Cerrito’s combined sales tax rate is now approximately 10.25%, placing it among the higher rates in the region and increasing the cost of everyday goods and services.
• Real Property Transfer Tax (RPPT) – Increased to approximately $12 per $1,000 of property value, meaning a $1 million sale can trigger roughly $12,000 in transfer taxes—a significant cost that directly impacts property owners, investors, and housing turnover.
• Proposed Library Parcel Tax (Measure C, 2026) – Proposed at approximately $0.17 per square foot of building space annually, with automatic annual increases tied to inflation and a duration exceeding 30 years. For many homeowners, this translates into hundreds—or even thousands—of dollars per year.

Individually, each measure may have sounded reasonable. Together, they tell a different story: a steady and compounding reliance on taxpayers to close financial gaps.

This Isn’t Just About Revenue—It’s About Trust

What’s driving the pushback isn’t just the cost. It’s the growing perception that the City’s challenges are structural—and unresolved. Critics, including residents and local voices, are raising consistent concerns:

Mismanagement and “Bailout” Concerns

• A belief that the City is relying on new taxes instead of fixing underlying issues
• Concerns about high labor costs and excessive overtime
• Questions about whether the City has adapted to changing service demands post-pandemic
• Concerns that the City may be operating with higher staffing levels per capita than peer cities, without clear evidence of better outcomes

More Money—But What Changes?

One of the most consistent frustrations is this: Where are the results? Opponents argue that new tax revenue is not translating into visible improvements:

• No clear performance metrics for service delivery
• Ongoing concerns about cleanliness, safety, and responsiveness
• Limited transparency on how funds improve day-to-day resident experience

Instead, many believe the funds are being used to cover operational deficits, address rising pension and labor costs, and maintain the status quo. That’s a difficult sell to taxpayers who are being asked to commit to 30+ years of additional taxes.

The Tipping Point: Tax Fatigue Is Real

El Cerrito doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Across the Bay Area, residents are already facing sales tax rates approaching or exceeding 10–11% in some regions, rising housing costs, increased utility and service fees, and higher transaction costs due to the Real Property Transfer Tax, which directly impacts homeowners and investors when properties change hands. At some point, taxpayers begin to ask a simple question: How much is enough? For many, that point has already been reached.

The “Washington Monument” Strategy

Another concern being raised is how these measures are being presented. Residents describe a familiar pattern: warnings of service cuts, layoffs, or declining quality if the measure fails, and framing the vote as a choice between funding or failure. This approach—often called the Washington Monument Strategy—relies on highlighting the most visible or valued services to create urgency. But critics argue that these “doomsday” scenarios are often exaggerated—and designed to pressure voters rather than inform them.

What Opponents Are Actually Asking For

This isn’t simply opposition for the sake of it. Many critics are calling for specific, concrete changes:

1. Structural Reform

Address the root causes of financial imbalance—labor costs, staffing levels, and long-term obligations.

2. Operational Accountability

Implement performance standards and benchmarking against similar cities.

3. Efficiency Before Expansion

Demonstrate that existing resources are being used effectively before asking for more.

4. Leadership Accountability

Some argue that leadership—not taxpayers—should bear responsibility for persistent financial challenges.

A Growing Divide

The opposition isn’t limited to one group. It includes business owners concerned about economic competitiveness, residents frustrated by rising costs and unclear outcomes, and taxpayer advocates questioning long-term sustainability. Across public forums—community meetings, social platforms, and local discussions—the same themes keep emerging: High costs. Unclear results. Another tax.

The Bottom Line

El Cerrito property owners are not inherently opposed to investing in their community. But they are increasingly asking for something in return: Clarity. Accountability. Results. Without that, each new tax measure doesn’t feel like progress. It feels like more of the same. And that’s what tax fatigue really is—not resistance to investment, but a loss of confidence that the investment will actually solve the problem.

A recent social media post from a City Councilmember suggested that El Cerrito is growing. That may be the narrative. It is not the reality.

El Cerrito has roughly 25,000 residents today—about the same scale it has been for decades. Growth since 1960 has been modest, and in recent years, population has been flat or even slightly declining at times. Household sizes are shrinking, and like many mature communities, El Cerrito is not experiencing the kind of sustained population growth that would naturally drive large-scale housing demand.

And yet, the City is planning for 1,391 new housing units over the next cycle.

That disconnect matters.

Over the last decade, El Cerrito has added only a few hundred units with most of them concentrated in a single development near El Cerrito del Norte BART. The Mayfair project alone accounts for a significant share of all new housing built in the city. Outside of that, development along San Pablo Avenue has been incremental, uneven, and in some cases stalled due to financial feasibility challenges.

Now layer in vacancy.

Affordable housing units—like those in the Elora (Mayfair Phase II) development are quickly absorbed and often oversubscribed. That reflects real need.

But market-rate units tell a different story. Projects like Mayfair continue to lease, but not instantly. Units remain on the market. Along San Pablo Avenue, smaller developments experience uneven occupancy, with units turning over and, at times, sitting vacant.

This is not a picture of overwhelming demand. It is a picture of a market that is selective, price-sensitive, and uneven.

So we have three realities:

The population isn’t meaningfully growing.

Housing production has been limited and concentrated.

And even newly built market-rate housing is not fully absorbed.

That raises a reasonable question.

Why are we planning for nearly 1,400 new units?

The answer is not local demand. It is state mandate.

Through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation process, cities like El Cerrito are required to zone for housing capacity—regardless of whether the market supports it or whether the population is growing. “Planning for” housing does not mean it will be built. It means the City must show that it could be built.

But planning has consequences.

Upzoning changes neighborhood expectations. It shapes land values. It drives redevelopment pressure along corridors like San Pablo Avenue and near transit. And it creates a narrative of growth that does not align with lived experience.

There is also a deeper tension that is rarely discussed.

El Cerrito is a stable, built-out community. Many residents stay for decades. Some leave as they age or seek different housing options. But that is not the same as a city experiencing rapid inflows of new residents. It is a city managing natural lifecycle changes—not explosive growth.

And yet, the policy response treats it as if it were the latter.

This is not an argument against housing. It is an argument for alignment.

If affordable housing is oversubscribed, that is where the need is. If market-rate housing is slower to lease, that tells us something about pricing and demand. If population growth is flat, that should inform the scale and pacing of planning.

Because building is not the same as needing.

And planning for growth is not the same as experiencing it.

Before we accept the premise that El Cerrito must continue to expand housing at a scale far beyond its historical pattern, we should ask a basic question:

Are we responding to real local conditions—or to a mandate that assumes a version of this city that does not exist?

That is the conversation worth having.

El Cerrito’s financial story is starting to feel familiar.

On paper, the numbers appear solid. The City reports $22.6M in total reserves, but just $9.3M—17% of expenditures—is held as General Fund reserves per policy. That sounds stable.

But the real question isn’t whether the policy is met today. It’s what’s happening around it.

Right now, the City is acting like the frog in cold water—comfortable, because nothing feels urgent. But the temperature is rising.

The City is planning to spend more than it brings in this year. Revenues are projected at approximately $53.8 million, while expenditures exceed $54.6 million, with additional costs—like pool renovations—pushing the gap even wider.

That results in a projected drawdown this year of about $2.8 million.

But that number understates the real trend.

When viewed over multiple years, the City is likely drawing down reserves at a rate closer to $2.5M to $3.0M or more annually.

That’s the pattern that matters.

Because that drawdown doesn’t come from the policy reserve itself—at least not yet.

It comes from what sits above it.

After accounting for restricted funds like the $7.5 million Emergency and Disaster Recovery Fund and roughly $3 million in the Section 115 pension trust, the City’s remaining unassigned balance sits at about $11.9 million.

Of that, $9.3 million is already committed to meeting the City’s 17% reserve policy.

What’s left—about $2.6 million—is the City’s remaining flexibility.

And that flexibility is already being used.

At the current pace, that discretionary buffer could be depleted within roughly a year.

But it doesn’t stop there.

If the underlying imbalance remains, the City won’t simply stop spending—it will continue to draw down reserves.

And that means crossing into the $9.3 million policy reserve.

At current trends, it is entirely plausible that by next year the City will no longer meet its own 17% reserve policy.

That’s the inflection point.

Because once the policy reserve is no longer maintained, the conversation changes—from managing flexibility to managing risk.

The water is getting warmer.

Nothing collapses overnight. There’s no dramatic moment where alarms go off. Instead, the City slowly loses flexibility—year by year, decision by decision.

And by the time the heat is undeniable, the options are already limited.

Because once the General Fund reserve begins to erode, the next step becomes increasingly predictable.

As financial pressure builds—particularly from rising pension costs—the City may begin looking beyond the General Fund for relief.

That puts the Section 115 pension trust in focus.

The Section 115 trust is intended to stabilize long-term pension obligations and protect against volatility. It is a financial safeguard, not an operating backstop.

But under sustained pressure, it can begin to serve a different role.

Not by design—but by necessity.

As pension costs continue to grow, the City may rely on the Section 115 fund to offset those increases and relieve pressure on the General Fund.

And while that may provide short-term budget relief, it comes with a long-term cost.

It reduces the City’s ability to manage future pension volatility and weakens one of its key financial safeguards.

In other words, it shifts risk forward.

If this feels familiar, it should.

In the years leading up to 2018, El Cerrito experienced a similar pattern. Spending pressures outpaced revenue growth. Reserves were gradually drawn down to sustain operations. The City remained fiscally compliant on paper—but with less and less flexibility.

And as that flexibility narrowed, reliance on short-term borrowing increased.

Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes—TRANs—became a more prominent tool.

TRANs are often used responsibly to smooth timing differences between revenues and expenses. But when paired with declining reserves, they can signal something else: a system under strain.

Less cash on hand means less margin for error.

Less margin for error means greater dependence on borrowing.

And borrowing, even short-term, comes with costs and constraints.

This is how structural issues begin to surface—not all at once, but gradually.

Draw down reserves to cover gaps
Reduce financial flexibility
Cross into policy reserves
Increase reliance on short-term borrowing
Shift pressure to pension stabilization funds
Face growing pressure to stabilize the system

We are not at that point today.

But the trajectory is clear.

Because the City is not rebuilding reserves—it is using them.

And if current trends continue, the shift from flexibility to risk may happen sooner than many expect.

The lesson from 2018 isn’t that the system failed.

It’s that the warning signs were there—quiet, gradual, easy to ignore.

Just like now.

The question isn’t whether the water is boiling.

It’s whether we recognize the temperature is rising—before the City moves from managing its finances to reacting to them.

The following analysis is informed by research and materials compiled by a concerned El Cerrito citizen, along with publicly available City documents.

Before you vote, take a closer look at what is — and isn’t — being said.

This measure is being presented as a simple investment in a new library. But when you step back and look at the numbers, the timeline, and the details, a different picture emerges.

This is not just about a library. It is about committing taxpayers to a long-term financial obligation in a city that is already struggling to manage its current finances.

The City Is Already Running a Deficit

According to the City’s own February 2026 budget report, El Cerrito is spending approximately $2.8 million more than it brings in this fiscal year. The gap is being covered by drawing down reserves.

City finance staff have already warned that reserves could fall below the City’s 17% minimum policy threshold.

At the same time:

• Personnel costs are projected to rise another 9% next year
• Insurance costs increased 17% in a single year

This is the financial context in which the City is asking residents to approve a 30+ year tax.

The Senior Exemption Raises Serious Questions

The ballot language promotes a senior exemption as a key feature of fairness.

But under similar criteria used for another local tax, not a single El Cerrito senior has qualified since 2019.

That raises an obvious question: Is this exemption real in practice — or is it included to make the measure more appealing?

If voters are being given the impression of relief that may not actually be accessible, that is not transparency.

The Proposed Site Does Not Exist

The proposed library would be built on Parcel C West at the BART Plaza.

There is one problem: that site does not yet exist.

It has not been constructed, has not secured required state funding, and has no approved or reliable timeline.

A related parcel has already had a grant application rejected.

That means taxpayers could begin paying in December 2026 while construction may not begin until 2030 — if it happens at all.

There is no mechanism for refunds if the project stalls.

Even If Built, the Location Serves Residents Worse

The proposed location is farther from many neighborhoods than the current library.

It is less walkable for large portions of the city and will have significantly less parking.

We already have a functioning library. It is centrally located, accessible, and has parking.

This proposal replaces certainty with risk — and convenience with limitations.

The Financial Math Doesn’t Work

The measure is projected to generate approximately $2.7 million per year.

Estimated bond payments are approximately $2.4 million annually, and estimated operating costs exceed $600,000 annually.

That leaves a structural gap.

City projections show a $797,000 annual shortfall beginning in Year 11.

That gap does not disappear. It gets pushed back onto the General Fund — meaning potential cuts to police, fire, and road maintenance, or future tax increases.

There is also a real risk that the bond may be difficult to issue under these conditions.

Costs Have Already Escalated — Dramatically

When the petition was circulated in 2023, the project was estimated at $21 million.

The current estimate is $37 million — a 75% increase before construction has even begun.

Tax collection begins in December 2026, while construction is not expected until at least 2030.

Residents are being asked to pay now for a project that may not materialize for years — if at all.

This Is a Long-Term Gamble the City Cannot Afford

El Cerrito already owns a library that serves residents today.

At the same time, roads need repair, infrastructure is aging, and the City is drawing down reserves to stay afloat.

This measure asks residents to take on decades of financial risk in exchange for a project surrounded by uncertainty.

The Bottom Line

This is not simply a vote about a library.

It is a vote about fiscal responsibility, transparency, and priorities.

When a city is already struggling to balance its books, the answer is not to take on a long-term obligation based on optimistic assumptions and incomplete information.

Residents deserve clarity. They deserve accountability. And they deserve a plan that works — not one that hopes everything goes right.

Vote No on Measure C.

A Response to Measure C Messaging and the “Myths and Facts” Campaign

Chelsi Sparti has become the new spokesperson for the YES on Measure C campaign.

The campaign supporting Measure C has published a “Myths and Facts” page:

A recent interview featuring the new campaign spokesperson Chelsi in conversation with Wally:

Chelsi is not featured on the “Myths and Facts” page—but she is now the public voices advancing the same messaging. Taken together, these represent the campaign’s clearest attempt to shape how voters understand this measure. Which makes one thing especially important: if you are going to call something a fact, it needs to be the whole truth.

The “Myths and Facts” framing is powerful. It signals to voters that something is settled, accurate, and not open to interpretation. But when key information is left out or selectively framed, it crosses from advocacy into something else. Not necessarily false—but misleading by omission. And in a 30+ year tax decision, that matters.

In the interview, Chelsi suggests the tax would cost about $28 per month. That number may reflect a starting point, but it leaves out a critical fact: the measure allows the City Council to increase the tax annually based on inflation with a simple majority vote. This does not go back to voters. It is built into the measure and can be enacted administratively.

Supporters frame this as the Council may increase the tax. That is technically true. But it is equally true that the authority is already granted, there is no obligation for restraint, and historically this Council has not passed on opportunities to increase revenue when given the option. The result is that $28 per month is not the cost. It is the entry point to an escalating tax of about 5% per year.

In the interview, Chelsi’s introductory commentary, speaks as if we don’t already have a library. We do have a library. We love the location and we own the library. She suggested that if the library is not built, there would be no reason to collect the tax. What she does not say is that the measure itself does not automatically make the tax disappear if the project fails to materialize. Voters should understand that approving the tax is not the same as guaranteeing a completed library. The tax authority can outlive delays, changes, and shifting plans, which means residents would still be on the hook even if the promised outcome never arrives.

Chelsi also suggests that the location of the new library has not been determined. That statement does not align with how this project has been discussed historically. For years, the City’s planning documents and strategic direction have centered on the El Cerrito Plaza area as the intended site.

The city has already loaned the developer at least $350,000 and they have already entered into contracts at El Cerrito Plaza.

That has been the working assumption reflected in prior planning efforts, development discussions, and public-facing concepts tied to transit-oriented development. More recently, the messaging has shifted to emphasize flexibility and uncertainty around location.

Voters should understand the distinction: the measure may not legally lock in a site, but the policy direction and planning history have consistently pointed to the Plaza. Presenting the location as entirely undecided without that context creates a different impression than the one supported by the City’s own trajectory.

In the interview, there is also a clear implication that if Measure C does not pass, the current library could be at risk.

Let’s be clear: this is entirely untrue.

El Cerrito’s library is part of the Contra Costa County Library system. The County funds and operates the library, and the City contributes a relatively small amount for extended hours. There is no policy or funding trigger that would cause closure if this measure fails. The baseline service continues regardless of Measure C. Framing the vote as a choice between a new library or no library is not a factual representation. It introduces fear into what should be a financial decision.

The City’s own materials make clear that this is a long-term parcel tax tied to square footage, designed to run for decades, with built-in escalation authority, and funding operations only for a limited period before shifting costs back to the General Fund. This is a complex financial commitment. But the campaign messaging simplifies it into something that feels small, certain, and necessary. That gap between simplicity and reality is where the ethical concern lies.

Looking at both the website and the interview, a pattern emerges: anchor voters to a low monthly number, omit or downplay escalation, present future assumptions as certainty, reframe known elements like location as uncertain, and suggest loss of current services if the measure fails. Each point, on its own, may seem minor. Together, they create a narrative that is more reassuring than reality supports.

If you haven’t seen the interview, it’s worth watching:
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DWXtWMyE6iO/?igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

It’s pretty clear there are two very different interpretations being presented. You can make up your own mind.

This is not about whether a library is a good idea. It’s about how we ask voters to pay for it. If the case for Measure C is strong, it should stand on transparent numbers, full financial context, and honest tradeoffs. Not on selective framing. Because when something is labeled a fact, it should reflect the full picture—not just the version that’s easier to sell.

Before you vote on Measure C, it’s worth taking a closer look at the official argument in favor. On its surface, it reads as straightforward and reassuring. But when you examine the details, a different picture emerges—one that relies heavily on selective framing, optimistic assumptions, and in some cases, claims that simply are not supported.

Let’s walk through it.

The campaign tells voters this is a new library for less than $1 a day. That framing is technically derived from the proposed rate of $0.17 per square foot, but it simplifies what is actually a long-term financial commitment. For a typical homeowner, the estimate of about $28 per month depends entirely on home size assumptions. Larger homes will pay significantly more. And importantly, this is not a fixed cost—the tax can increase annually based on inflation, with City Council approval. Over time, that “$1 a day” becomes something quite different.

We’re also told the measure pays for construction and ten years of operating costs. That part is only partially complete. After those first ten years, the ongoing cost of operating the library does not disappear. It is likely to shift back to the City’s General Fund. Prior estimates suggest that could be as high as roughly $800,000 per year—substantially more than what the City spends today. That means future budgets will have to absorb those costs, whether through cuts, reallocations, or additional revenue measures.

The senior exemption is another example where the promise does not match reality. While the measure references an exemption, it is tied to state programs that are either inactive or require participation in property tax deferral programs that place a lien on the home. In practice, very few—if any—El Cerrito seniors have qualified for similar exemptions in recent years. The exemption exists on paper, but not in a way most seniors can actually use.

Then there are the economic claims.

The argument suggests that a new library will boost nearby business activity by 23 percent and increase home values by $10,000. These are not El Cerrito-specific findings. There is no local data, no appraisal analysis, and no credible evidence supporting a flat increase in home values tied to this project. Real estate values are influenced by many factors—schools, location, market conditions, and broader economic trends. While amenities can contribute to desirability, assigning a specific dollar increase across all homes is not grounded in reality. It is campaign messaging, not financial analysis.

Similarly, the claim about increased local spending appears to be drawn from generalized studies, not conditions specific to our city. Without context or supporting data, it should be treated with caution.

The measure also emphasizes fiscal accountability through oversight and audits. While these mechanisms are standard and important, they do not control spending decisions. Oversight committees review and report—they do not prevent cost increases, budget pressures, or future funding gaps.

And then there is the question of who is making these arguments.

One of the named proponents, Mark Figone, is identified as a local business owner. What is not disclosed is that he does not live in El Cerrito. He would not personally bear the long-term residential tax burden in the same way homeowners do. At the same time, as a business owner, he stands to benefit from increased activity tied to the project. That doesn’t invalidate his perspective—but it is important context for voters evaluating whose interests are being represented. Another named proponent, Scott Lyons, who is listed as in El Cerrito science teacher, however he doesn’t live in El Cerrito.

This is not about whether libraries are valuable. They are. The question before voters is whether this specific proposal—with its structure, cost, and long-term implications—is the right approach for El Cerrito at this moment.

Because once approved, this is a 30+ year commitment. One that escalates over time. One that may create additional pressure on the City’s General Fund. And one that is being presented with claims that deserve closer scrutiny.

Voters deserve the full picture—not just the most appealing version of it.

A recent campaign finance filing shows that the President and VP of East Bay Sanitary Co., Inc.—the company that holds El Cerrito’s exclusive solid waste contract—contributed $12,500 to the Committee for a Plaza Station Library.

This is significant because East Bay Sanitary is not just another local business. It holds an exclusive franchise agreement with the City to provide garbage and organics services. That agreement is structured to roll forward annually and can extend through 2047.

There does not appear to have been a competitive procurement process associated with the City’s 2022 agreement or any agreement before then.

That matters.

Under California law, cities are allowed to award exclusive solid waste franchises. A formal RFP is not always required. So this structure may be legally permissible.

But legality is not the same as good governance.

When a contract is not periodically rebid, the City loses one of its most important tools: competition.

Competition keeps pricing disciplined.
Competition drives innovation.
Competition gives the City leverage to negotiate on behalf of residents.

Without it, the system relies on trust.

And trust is not a substitute for accountability.

El Cerrito’s solid waste rates already appear higher than neighboring jurisdictions. Yet there has been no recent competitive process to demonstrate that residents are receiving the best value.

At the same time, the company benefiting from that exclusive, non-competed arrangement is participating in local ballot measure funding and donating $12,500 to the “Yes” on Measure C library campaign. This is particularly relevant given that they live in Corte Madera and Lafayette. You can find this data on El Cerrito’s website as well here: .

Let that sink in

When a company has a protected position in a city—one that is not regularly tested through competition—and is also financially participating in local political campaigns, it raises a reasonable question:

Is the system designed to protect the public interest, or is it too insulated from it?

To be clear, this is not an accusation of wrongdoing.

It is a governance issue.

• Should long-term exclusive contracts be periodically rebid?
• Should ratepayers have clearer assurance that pricing is competitive?
• Should there be stronger separation between city contractors and local political campaigns?

These are the questions that matter.

Good governance is not just about following the law.
It is about designing systems that consistently deliver the best outcomes for residents.

Right now, El Cerrito residents are being asked to trust a system that does not regularly test itself.

That is a choice.

And it is one worth examining.

There’s something deeply uncomfortable about what’s emerging from the pro-library tax campaign.

Not because people support a library. Most of us do.

But because of how this campaign is choosing to make its case.

Buried in the outreach is a call for students—our kids—to join the campaign as “youth social media contributors.” The pitch? Spend a few hours a week helping “shape the future of our library” while learning storytelling and digital strategy.

Let’s be honest about what that really means.

It means asking students to promote a tax measure they didn’t design, don’t fully understand, and are not be financially responsible for.

That’s not civic engagement. That’s outsourcing advocacy.

The campaign frames this as mentorship and skill-building. But storytelling requires a story grounded in truth, tradeoffs, and transparency. And that’s exactly what’s missing here.

There is no clear, stable cost.

There is no honest discussion of long-term financial impact.

There is no acknowledgment that this tax is designed to grow year after year.

Instead, what we’re seeing is a push for a library at any cost—wrapped in feel-good language about community, safety, and the future.

If the case for this tax were truly strong, it wouldn’t need student amplifiers.

It would stand on its own.

And that raises a bigger question: what are we teaching young people about civic responsibility?

Are we teaching them to ask hard questions about public finance?

To weigh tradeoffs?

To challenge assumptions?

Or are we teaching them that advocacy comes first—and understanding comes later?

Because those are two very different lessons.

Real civic education doesn’t recruit students into campaigns.

It equips them to analyze them.

It teaches them to ask:
Who pays for this?
How much will it really cost over time?
What are the alternatives?
What are we giving up?

Those are the questions adults in this community are still trying to get answered.

And until they are, asking students to help “sell” the measure feels premature at best—and inappropriate at worst.

El Cerrito deserves a real conversation.

One grounded in facts, not framing.

In transparency, not tactics.

And certainly not one that leans on students to carry a message that adults haven’t fully justified.

A Reality Check on the Library Proposal

Supporters of the proposed library tax are now suggesting the project will create an economic boom for El Cerrito. At this point, it feels like they are grasping at straws.

Public libraries are valuable community assets. But they are not economic development engines, and they are rarely structured as financing tools for private real estate projects.

El Cerrito even has a dedicated economic development officer. If this is the strongest economic development argument the city can put forward, residents should reasonably ask whether the claim holds up.

What is being proposed appears to function very differently from the way it is being presented.

The proposal effectively asks El Cerrito property taxpayers to fund a $37 million public library as the ground floor of a private mixed-use development.

The issue is not simply the library itself. It is how the building is being used in the financing structure.

In mixed-use projects, ground floor commercial space is often the hardest space to finance.

Banks typically hesitate to lend against speculative retail space, low-rent commercial tenants, or uncertain cash flow. Because that income stream is unreliable, banks frequently will not underwrite significant debt against it.

A publicly funded library solves that problem.

If taxpayers fund the ground floor, the developer avoids financing the most difficult portion of the building. The developer reduces their own equity investment. The rest of the building—particularly housing above—becomes easier to finance.

In other words, public funds de-risk the private development.

Under the proposal, El Cerrito taxpayers fund the $37 million library space. The library occupies the most difficult space to finance. The remaining private portions of the building become easier for the developer to finance.

This is why critics argue the library is functioning less like a civic investment and more like an equity contribution from taxpayers into a private project.

Supporters describe the project as economic development. But residents should ask a basic question.

Economic development for whom?

The developer receives a fully funded ground-floor tenant. The project becomes easier to finance. Private risk is reduced.

Meanwhile taxpayers carry the long-term parcel tax, the city assumes the public cost, and the economic return to residents remains unclear.

That raises a legitimate public policy question.

Is the purpose of the library tax to fund a library, or to help make a private real estate development financially viable?

Libraries serve communities because they provide learning, access to information, public gathering space, and educational resources. Those are strong reasons to invest in a library.

But when a public facility becomes part of a complex real estate financing structure, voters deserve a full and transparent explanation of the economics behind it.

Right now, residents are being asked to approve a tax based on claims of economic development.

Before voting, the community should clearly understand who the economic development is actually for.

This analysis was also informed by insights shared by another concerned El Cerrito resident who has been closely examining the financial structure behind the proposal.

Over the past several months, El Cerrito residents have heard several different numbers about the cost of a new library.

First we were told the project would cost about $21 million.
Later, that estimate changed to $37 million.

Neither number tells the full story. Both figures focus primarily on construction and do not include interest payments, long-term maintenance, or ongoing operating costs.

Because the estimates keep shifting, it makes more sense to look at the actual tax residents are being asked to approve.

When you do that, the scale of the proposal becomes much clearer.

The Tax Adds Up to About $186 Million

Based on calculations shared publicly by El Cerrito resident Wally, the proposed parcel tax is expected to generate approximately $186 million over 30 years.

For a typical homeowner, that works out to close to $20,000 over the life of the tax.

That number is dramatically larger than the construction estimates residents have been hearing.

Wally created a chart illustrating how the tax grows over time, which helps make the math much easier to understand.

Why the Total Gets So Large

The reason is simple: this tax is designed to increase every year.

Most parcel taxes and school bonds are fixed annual amounts. Once voters approve them, residents know exactly what they will pay each year.

This measure works differently.

It allows the City Council to increase the tax annually using whichever of two inflation indexes is higher. In other words, the tax is structured to automatically grow every single year.

Over a 30-year period, those increases compound. That is why the total revenue generated by the tax reaches roughly $186 million.

What Residents Should Understand

Libraries are important civic institutions, and El Cerrito residents clearly value them. But voters deserve clear and consistent information about the financial commitments being proposed.

When project estimates move from $21 million to $37 million, while the tax structure generates $186 million over time, it raises reasonable questions that deserve careful consideration.

Residents should understand:

• The total amount of tax revenue expected to be collected
• How the annual tax increases work
• Whether the project estimates reflect the full financial picture

Wally’s chart helps illustrate how the numbers add up over time and why the total tax burden is far larger than the construction estimates that have been discussed publicly.

Before voters are asked to approve a 30-year escalating tax, the community deserves a clear conversation about the full scope of the financial commitment.

Over the past several City Council meetings, something unusual has been happening in El Cerrito.

The last few council meetings have been scheduled at the normal, regular meeting time, yet they have been labeled Special City Council Meetings instead of regular meetings.

At first glance, that might seem like a minor administrative detail. It is not.

Under California’s public meeting laws, the designation of a special meeting changes how the public can participate.

At a regular council meeting, residents have the opportunity to speak on items that are not on the agenda during general public comment. This allows community members to raise concerns, discuss emerging issues, or address matters the council has not yet placed on an agenda.

At a special meeting, that opportunity disappears.

Public comment is limited strictly to items listed on the agenda. If a topic is not on the agenda, residents cannot speak about it.

Why This Matters Now

This procedural shift is occurring at the same time that many residents have been showing up to speak about the proposed library project and the potential long-term parcel tax tied to it.

At recent meetings, residents have voiced strong concerns about the size of the project, the long-term cost to taxpayers, and the city’s financial priorities.

Not all of that feedback has been supportive.

By labeling otherwise routine meetings as special meetings, the city effectively eliminates general public comment. That means residents cannot raise concerns about the library unless the council itself chooses to place the topic on the agenda.

That may be technically allowed.

But it raises an important question about intent.

The Hanna Gardens Justification Doesn’t Hold Up

Some have suggested that the meetings were designated as special meetings because they were held at Hanna Gardens, rather than the council chambers.

That explanation simply does not hold up.

Changing the location of a meeting is not a legitimate reason to convert a regular council meeting into a special meeting. Cities frequently hold meetings in different locations when needed, and doing so does not require limiting public participation.

The Brown Act was designed to expand public access, not restrict it.

Using the special meeting designation under these circumstances appears less about logistics and more about controlling the scope of public comment.

When Process Is Used to Control the Conversation

Public comment is not just a procedural formality. It is one of the few opportunities residents have to speak directly to their elected officials in a public forum.

When procedural tools are used in ways that limit that opportunity—especially during a contentious public discussion—it sends the wrong message.

It suggests that the goal is not to hear from the community, but to manage or suppress criticism.

Whether that was the intention or not, the perception matters.

A Better Path Forward

If the city intends to conduct business at its normal meeting time, those meetings should be scheduled as regular council meetings, with full opportunities for public comment.

Residents should not lose their ability to speak simply because a meeting is held at Hanna Gardens instead of the council chambers.

Open government requires more than simply meeting the minimum technical requirements of the rules. It requires a genuine commitment to transparency, participation, and public trust.

El Cerrito residents deserve nothing less.

When a “Special Meeting” Isn’t Really Special

What changed?
Recent El Cerrito City Council meetings were held at the normal time, but labeled Special Meetings.

Why does that matter?

Regular Meeting
• Residents can speak on any city issue during general public comment

Special Meeting
• Residents can speak only on items listed on the agenda

Result:
Community members who want to speak about the library proposal or other concerns may not be allowed to comment unless the council places it on the agenda.

Holding the meeting at Hanna Gardens is not a legitimate reason to eliminate general public comment.

Public meetings should expand participation — not limit it.

A Timeline of Leadership and Key Controversies

Karen Pinkos became City Manager of El Cerrito in 2018, assuming responsibility as the city’s chief administrative officer. In this role, the city manager oversees financial management, city staff, operational performance, and the major initiatives brought before the City Council.

Since that time, El Cerrito has faced a series of fiscal warnings, controversies, and leadership questions that continue to shape the city’s direction today.

Residents have repeatedly been told the city is doing well. But when the events of the past several years are placed on a timeline, a different pattern begins to emerge.

Timeline of Key Events

2018

Karen Pinkos appointed City Manager

Pinkos becomes the chief executive responsible for overseeing city operations, financial management, and policy implementation for the City of El Cerrito.

2019–2020

Early warnings about financial management

Before the State Auditor’s intervention, two letters of concern were sent to the city warning about financial management issues and operational inefficiencies. These warnings signaled that the city needed to address structural problems in its finances and operations but the city manager ignored those warnings.

2021

California State Auditor places El Cerrito on the Local Government High-Risk List

The State Auditor issued a report identifying El Cerrito as a high-risk local government due to fiscal distress and operational concerns. The report cited issues including structural budget challenges and weaknesses in financial oversight. At that time, the city had a negative general fund balance and the city was getting the equivalent of municipal payday loans, the city manager’s first public comment was, “We don’t have to do anything.” And guess what – she didn’t do anything. Business as usual.

2021

$544,000 sexual harassment settlement

The city paid $544,000 to settle a sexual harassment claim brought by a former employee. For a small city facing fiscal challenges, the settlement represented a significant cost and raised questions about workplace oversight and management practices.

2022–Present

Repeated reliance on reserves

During the COVID pandemic, the federal government allocated over $6 million in funding through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). At that time, the Real Property Transfer Tax was generating nearly $4 million per year. As a result, the city’s negative fund balance was finally in the black. Despite warnings from the State Auditor, the city continued to rely on reserve funds to balance its budgets. Financial experts, including the GFOA, generally consider the persistent use of reserves for operating costs as an indication of structural imbalance, rather than a sustainable financial strategy.

2024

Profane remarks captured on a hot microphone

During a public meeting, Karen Pinkos was recorded making profane remarks on a live microphone. At the following meeting, she claimed that everyone misinterpreted her comments, stating that the remarks were not directed at anyone. However, many attendees and listeners heard her mention the employee’s name clearly. This incident raised concerns among residents about professionalism and the tone of leadership from the city’s top administrative official.

2025

Claims of non-involvement in the library tax initiative

As debate intensified over a proposed library tax and redevelopment project, Pinkos stated publicly that she was not involved in the library tax or library initiative. Because the city manager typically oversees major initiatives brought to the council, the statement raised questions about accountability and oversight.

The city hosted meetings and more importantly, paid advocacy groups to gauge the efficacy of thr library tax

2023–Present

Rising costs but declining services

City spending has increased significantly over the past several years, yet many residents report that services have not improved—and in some cases have declined. During council discussions, Pinkos stated that budget reductions would require service cuts, though residents note that higher spending has not produced better services. Nearby cities of similar size have been able to balance their budgets without these disruptions.

What the Timeline Shows

When viewed individually, each of these events might appear isolated. Taken together, however, they raise broader questions about leadership, accountability, and financial stewardship.

El Cerrito residents have experienced state financial warnings, a costly legal settlement, continued use of reserves to balance budgets, declining confidence in city transparency, a major tax proposal tied to development, and controversies surrounding leadership conduct.

Despite these challenges, residents continue to hear messaging that the city is doing well.

The Question Facing El Cerrito

The State Auditor’s intervention in 2021 should have been a turning point. Instead, the city continues to face financial pressures, declining services, and growing skepticism from residents.

El Cerrito deserves leadership that confronts problems directly, addresses structural financial issues, and restores trust through transparency and accountability. Until that happens, residents will continue to ask whether City Hall is focused on solving the city’s problems—or simply managing the narrative.

——-

Timeline: Karen Pinkos and the Direction of El Cerrito

2018

Karen Pinkos appointed City Manager

Becomes the chief administrative officer responsible for city operations, finances, and staff oversight.

⬇️

2019–2020

Early financial warnings issued

Two letters of concern warn the city about financial management issues and operational inefficiencies.

⬇️

2021

California State Auditor places El Cerrito on High-Risk List

The city is formally identified as fiscally distressed with operational challenges.

⬇️

2021

$544,000 sexual harassment settlement paid

The city pays a large settlement to a former employee, raising concerns about workplace oversight.

⬇️

2022–present

Ongoing reliance on reserves

City budgets repeatedly rely on reserve funds to balance operations, a warning sign of structural financial imbalance.

⬇️

2024

Profane remarks captured on hot microphone

City manager recorded making inappropriate remarks during a public meeting.

⬇️

2025

Claims of non-involvement in library tax initiative

Pinkos states she was not involved in the library tax proposal, despite her role overseeing major city initiatives.

⬇️

2023–Present

Rising costs but stagnant services

City spending increases while many residents report services declining or not improving.

El Cerrito residents are once again being asked to consider a major public investment: a proposed $37 million library project.

Supporters describe it as an investment in the future. But many residents are asking a more basic question:

Is this really the city’s most urgent priority right now?

When you step back and look at the broader picture of city services and infrastructure, the answer becomes less clear.

A Senior Center That Closed Its Doors

After a series of broken promises regarding the Senior Center, El Cerrito’s Senior Center was shuttered. For many older residents, the center had been an important gathering place — offering meals, activities, and connection for a population that often faces isolation.

At a time when the city frequently highlights the importance of serving seniors, the closure raised difficult questions about priorities and resources.

Public Safety Facilities That Need Attention

At the same time, the city has acknowledged that police and fire operations need a modern public safety building.

Public safety facilities are not glamorous projects. They do not come with ribbon-cutting celebrations or glossy campaign websites. But they are critical infrastructure, the kind of investment most cities treat as foundational.

A city that struggles to house its police and fire operations in modern, resilient facilities has to think carefully about where limited dollars should go. Arguably, safety facilities should have been priority.

Already Five Community Spaces

Supporters of the new library often frame the project as if El Cerrito lacks community gathering spaces. But in reality, the city already maintains multiple community facilities, including:

• The El Cerrito Community Center
• The El Cerrito Swim Center
• The Arlington Clubhouse
• Hana Gardens

If the new library is built as currently proposed with meeting rooms, gathering areas, and event spaces, it would effectively become a fifth community center.

That raises an important question:

Is adding another large community facility the most pressing need facing the city today?

The Cost Residents Are Being Asked to Carry

The proposed library project carries an estimated cost of about $37 million.

To fund it, the city is asking residents to approve a new parcel tax that could remain in place for decades.

Parcel taxes apply equally to every property owner, regardless of property value, meaning many residents will feel the impact for years to come.

And once enacted, parcel taxes in El Cerrito rarely disappear. In practice, they are often renewed before voters ever experience the sunset.

The Real Question for Voters

This debate is not about whether libraries are valuable.

They are.

Libraries provide education, connection, and community resources that matter deeply to many residents.

The real question is how a city sets its priorities when resources are limited.

Should the next major investment be:

• A new public safety facility
• Restoring services for seniors
• Maintaining roads, infrastructure, and core services
• Or building a new $37 million library complex?

Reasonable people may come to different conclusions. But voters deserve to consider the full picture before deciding.

Because public spending is always about choices.

And those choices reveal what a city values most.

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

Inspired by a recent social media post

A city council member recently reported via social media that El Cerrito is growing—and that this growth supports the need for a new library. But when you step back and look at the actual numbers, that claim deserves a closer look. In 1960, El Cerrito’s population was 25,437. In 2020, it was 25,962. That’s an increase of just 525 people over 60 years—roughly 2.1% total growth, or about 0.03% per year. Even with recent estimates around 26,400, the long-term trend remains essentially flat. That’s not meaningful growth—it’s stability. And stability matters, because building long-term infrastructure based on a growth narrative that doesn’t exist is how cities get into financial trouble. This isn’t about whether libraries are valuable. They are. This is about whether the scale of investment being proposed matches reality.

Across California and the country, how people use libraries has fundamentally shifted. In-person visits have been declining for years. National data shows that physical library visits dropped sharply even before the pandemic and remain significantly below pre-2020 levels today. Visits per user have fallen dramatically over the past decade. Major cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco have seen steep declines in foot traffic. Even today, in-person visits are still roughly 30–35% below pre-pandemic levels in many systems. Here in California, the shift is just as clear. Libraries are seeing millions of digital visits alongside fewer physical ones, reflecting how services have moved online. This doesn’t mean libraries are obsolete—it means they are evolving. People are still using libraries, just not in the same way and not always in the same buildings.

Nearby communities are facing the same realities, but many are choosing a different path. Instead of building entirely new libraries with long-term tax commitments, they are renovating existing facilities, modernizing interiors and technology, and expanding programming instead of square footage. Communities like Richmond, Kensington within the Contra Costa County Library system, and Antioch have all invested in upgrades and refurbishments rather than massive new builds. Renovation costs significantly less, adapts existing assets to modern needs, and allows flexibility as usage patterns continue to evolve. It’s a strategy grounded in reality, not assumptions.

If El Cerrito were growing rapidly, the case for a new facility might look different. But we’re not. If library foot traffic were surging, that might justify expansion. But it isn’t. So we have to ask the most important question: what problem are we actually trying to solve? Is it lack of access when we already have a library funded through the county? Is it outdated space, which can be addressed through renovation? Is it programming needs, which require investment in people, not just buildings? Or is it something else entirely?

This moment calls for discipline, not assumptions. Libraries still matter, but the model is changing toward digital access, flexible spaces, and community-centered programming. El Cerrito has an opportunity to follow that evolution. Renovate what we have, improve what we deliver, and align investments with actual usage. Because the goal isn’t to build the biggest building. It’s to deliver the best service. And those are not the same thing.

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.