El Cerrito residents are not asking for perfection. They are asking for complete, clear, timely information so they can understand what is happening, weigh tradeoffs, and participate in good faith.

Right now, El Cerrito’s own survey data shows a credibility gap that City leadership should treat as an operational risk, not a public relations problem.

The trust gap is measurable in El Cerrito

El Cerrito’s 2022 National Community Survey (representative sample of 463 residents; collected Nov 30, 2022–Jan 11, 2023) reports percent positive for key governance behaviors:

• Being honest: 52%
• Being open and transparent to the public: 48%
• Informing residents about issues facing the community: 40%

Stop calling these numbers good: 40% is an F, and 52% is not passing either

If this were a school test, 40% would be an F. Period.

And 52% is not a passing grade either.

More importantly, resident trust scores do not top out at 100% in real life. There is almost always a segment that is neutral, skeptical, or dissatisfied, no matter what. If we accept that 85–90% positive is about as good as it gets, then these numbers are not OK. They are underperforming.

Using 90% as a practical ceiling, here is what El Cerrito’s 2022 results look like:

• Informing residents (40%) = 44% of the ceiling → F
• Open and transparent (48%) = 53% of the ceiling → F
• Being honest (52%) = 58% of the ceiling → still failing

Why being honest can look better than it is

Many uninformed residents can’t detect misstatements and omissions. But in El Cerrito, more and more residents are becoming informed—paying closer attention to City performance, finances, and how decisions are communicated. As that awareness grows, misstatements and omissions become easier to spot, less tolerated, and far more damaging to trust.

So communications can sound honest, professional, and reassuring while still leaving out significant facts that would change how people interpret the message, such as:

• risks and uncertainty
• true timelines and decision gates
• what is contingent (funding, approvals, market conditions)
• long-term operating costs (not just construction costs)
• alternatives that were evaluated and rejected

This is why the 40% score for informing residents is the most revealing metric. When people do not feel informed, they cannot accurately judge honesty.

If surveyed today, these scores could be lower

Since 2022, many El Cerrito residents have become more engaged and more informed, especially around the City’s biggest topics: budget and reserves, development and TOD, ballot measures, staffing and service levels.

In that environment, omissions become easier to spot and less tolerated. If the City communicated in the same way today, it is reasonable to expect the honesty, transparency, and informed-residents scores could come in lower than the late-2022 baseline.

The City is also participating in the National Community Survey again in 2025, which will provide updated resident feedback.

What transparent leadership looks like in El Cerrito

Honesty is not only the absence of lies. It is the absence of strategic omission.

If El Cerrito wants higher cooperation, leadership needs a repeatable standard for every major topic (budget and reserves, development and TOD, library measure, public safety staffing, capital projects):

The Four-Part Truth Template

1. What we know
2. What we do not know yet
3. What we are assuming and why
4. What would change our plan

This turns trust from a personality trait into a system.

A practical transparency plan City Council and staff can implement now

1) Monthly one-page What’s Going On report

Same sections every month:

• General Fund snapshot and reserve trend (vs policy target)
• what is one-time vs ongoing
• top risks and mitigations
• upcoming decisions and what public input can still change

2) Publish the decision record, not just the decision

For each major vote, post a short memo capturing:

• alternatives considered
• tradeoffs discussed
• fiscal and staffing impacts
• triggers that would cause a pause, reset, or redesign

3) Make timelines honest about money timing

Residents deserve clarity on:

• when costs hit
• when taxes or fees start (if applicable)
• when benefits actually start
• what changes if funding does not materialize

4) Treat the trust metrics like operational KPIs

If informing residents is at 40%, do not manage that like a branding problem. Manage it like a performance gap that affects everything downstream: cooperation, turnout, meeting temperature, and future revenue asks.

Contact El Cerrito leadership

City Manager

• Karen Pinkos: kpinkos@elcerrito.gov | 510-215-4301

City Council

• Gabe Quinto, Mayor: gquinto@elcerrito.gov
• Rebecca Saltzman, Mayor Pro Tem: rsaltzman@elcerrito.gov
• Lisa Motoyama, Councilmember: lmotoyama@elcerrito.gov
• William Ktsanes, Councilmember: wktsanes@elcerrito.gov
• Carolyn Wysinger, Councilmember: cwysinger@elcerrito.gov

City Council main line

• 510-215-4305

For years, residents along Richmond Street have been told that proposed bike lanes and street changes are about safety, sustainability, and access.

The public record tells a different story.

When you read the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) grant applications tied to the El Cerrito Plaza Transit-Oriented Development (TOD), it becomes clear that Richmond Street was not chosen because it rose to the top of a neighborhood safety analysis. It was selected because it helped the City meet grant-scoring requirements.

Richmond Street wasn’t planned for.
It was planned through.

This Was a Grant Strategy—Not a Neighborhood Safety Plan

The AHSC program, administered through the Strategic Growth Council, awards tens of millions of dollars to projects that demonstrate reductions in vehicle miles traveled and carbon emissions. In that system, bicycle infrastructure is one of the most cost-effective ways to score points.

So the City assembled a package that fit the rubric.

In the Round 9 application materials, the City explicitly references a Class IV protected bikeway on Richmond Street as part of the sustainability strategy. The bike lane is not framed as a resident-driven improvement. It appears as a grant component—one element in a bundle designed to increase competitiveness.

This is not how organic transportation planning works. This is how grant-chasing works.

Bike Advocacy Was Elevated—Residents Were Not

The grant narrative repeatedly highlights partnerships with bicycle advocacy organizations, most notably with Bike East Bay, which is described as an essential partner.

El Cerrito’s internal champion of this approach is City Councilmember Rebecca Saltzman, a well-known bicycle advocate. Her alignment with regional bike advocacy groups is not incidental; it is embedded in the political and administrative structure that supported these changes.

What is missing from the record is equal weight given to the residents who live on Richmond Street—the people who lose parking, access, and neighborhood stability as a result of these decisions.

When the City describes “stakeholder coordination,” it is clear who counted as stakeholders—and who did not.

The Library Was the Prize—Richmond Street Was the Price

Here is the key fact residents should not overlook:

The proposed library is planned for Parcel C West, and by the City’s own admission, the formal application process for that structure has not yet begun.

Yet Richmond Street is being permanently altered now.

Why?

Because those changes help the City claim a multimodal, low-carbon development package that strengthens its case for state funding—funding needed to make an oversized, expensive “trophy” library appear viable on paper.

Richmond Street residents were asked to absorb the impacts so the City could improve its grant narrative for a project elsewhere.

That is not planning in the public interest. That is instrumentalizing a neighborhood to subsidize a political priority.

The City Manager Is Culpable—This Was Orchestrated

This outcome did not happen by accident, and it did not occur solely because a few councilmembers favor bike infrastructure.

The City Manager is culpable in this scheme because the City Manager:

• Directs the City’s grant strategy – especially in opting not to apply for them
• Oversees consultant work and narrative framing
• Coordinates interdepartmental alignment around scoring priorities
• Brings Council pre-packaged recommendations framed as the “only viable option”

That is not neutral administration. That is active orchestration.

When residents are told “the funding depends on it,” that is not a fact—it is a choice that leadership made and then presented as inevitable.

FACT BOX: What the Record Shows

What residents were told:

• Bike lanes improve safety and sustainability
• Changes reflect best practices and community input
• The project benefits everyone

What the applications show:

• Richmond Street bike infrastructure was used to score grant points
• Bike advocacy organizations were elevated as essential partners
• The library project drove the need for a grant-friendly package

What’s missing

• A transparent safety needs assessment for Richmond Street
• Meaningful resident-led decision-making
• Alternatives that did not sacrifice a single neighborhood

If a Project Requires Sacrificing a Neighborhood, It Isn’t Ready

El Cerrito residents are not anti-bike.
They are not anti-housing.
They are not anti-library.

But they are entitled to honesty.

If the City cannot pursue a library and TOD without using Richmond Street residents as collateral damage to meet grant requirements, then the project is not grounded in community priorities. It is grounded in scoring mechanics and political ambition.

And once streets are changed, neighborhoods do not get them back.

Call to Action: Demand Accountability

Residents should demand answers—now, not after the next grant cycle:

• Why was Richmond Street selected over other corridors?
• What data justified this choice?
• What alternatives were considered and rejected?
• Why is the City moving ahead when the library process has not formally begun?
• Who approved this tradeoff, and under what authority?

Contact City Leadership and Demand Transparency

City Manager
📧 citymanager@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us

Mayor Carolyn Wysinger
📧 cwysinger@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us

Mayor Pro Tem Gabe Quinto
📧 gquinto@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us

Councilmember Lisa Motoyama
📧 lmotoyama@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us

Councilmember Rebecca Saltzman
📧 rsaltzman@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us

Councilmember William Ktsanes
📧 wktsanes@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us

Final Thought: No More Blank Checks

El Cerrito is already being asked to vote on another tax in 2026.

After watching how Richmond Street was used—not protected, not prioritized, but spent—residents should be clear-eyed.

This City does not have a funding problem.
It has a leadership and trust problem.

And until City Hall stops treating neighborhoods as grant-application tools, the answer to another blank check should be no.

By a Concerned El Cerrito Resident

El Cerrito’s library matters. That is not in dispute.

What is in dispute is whether residents are being given the full context before being asked to approve a long-term tax for a dramatically expanded library facility tied to a complex and uncertain development plan.

A recent article by Bay Area News Group reporter Katie Lauer describes El Cerrito’s library as bustling, overflowing, and seismically unsafe — a compelling narrative that strongly implies urgency and inevitability. It is an engaging story. It is also incomplete.

Library Usage Is Declining — Including in the Bay Area

Across California, the Bay Area, and Contra Costa County, traditional library usage has been declining for years. This is not conjecture; it is documented in annual county library reports and statewide data.

Physical circulation is down. In-person visits are flat or declining. Digital usage continues to rise — e-books, audiobooks, databases, and remote services now account for a growing share of library engagement.

Contra Costa County Library, which operates El Cerrito’s branch as part of a 26-library regional system, follows this same pattern. Usage has not disappeared — but it has shifted.

Yet readers would not know this from the article. Instead, crowded story times and peak-hour activity are presented as proof that El Cerrito needs three times the space, rather than prompting a more relevant question: what kind of space does a modern library actually need in 2026 and beyond?

Crowded Does Not Mean Undersized

The El Cerrito library is capped at 46 hours per week because of its size. When access is constrained, demand concentrates. That makes facilities feel crowded — especially during popular programming.

Crowding alone does not justify a 20,000-square-foot replacement facility with decades of fixed operating and maintenance costs. It justifies asking harder questions:
• Could scheduling address peak congestion?
• Could flexible, multi-use space meet real demand?
• Could modernization outperform expansion?

Those questions were not explored.

On Seismic Safety: Context Matters

The article repeatedly emphasizes that the existing library is “seismically unsafe,” implying a unique and urgent risk. That framing lacks essential context.

El Cerrito sits directly on the Hayward Fault. As a result, most dwellings and commercial structures in the city are seismically vulnerable, particularly those built before modern seismic codes were adopted.

California does not require older buildings to meet current seismic standards unless they undergo major renovation. “Seismically safe” is therefore not a binary condition — it is a regulatory threshold tied to building codes, not a guarantee of performance during a major earthquake.

If seismic vulnerability alone were sufficient justification for wholesale replacement, much of El Cerrito’s housing stock — including homes, apartments, and small businesses — would require immediate reconstruction.

Seismic risk is real. But using it selectively to advance one project, without acknowledging its citywide prevalence, distorts the discussion.

The Downsides Still Deserve Equal Coverage

The proposed library plan carries real risks that received limited scrutiny:
• A parcel tax that begins years before construction
• A library site tied to a 10-year BART development window
• No guaranteed parking
• Reduced flexibility if usage trends continue downward
• A city with well-documented fiscal challenges asking voters to commit first and evaluate later

None of these concerns are anti-library. They are pro-transparency.

Journalism Should Inform — Not Persuade by Omission

Ms. Lauer is not a campaign volunteer. She is a journalist.

Balanced reporting requires more than vivid anecdotes and optimistic projections. It requires context — especially when residents are being asked to commit to a long-term tax.

A fuller conversation would ask:
• How has library usage changed over the last decade?
• How are peer cities modernizing without massive expansion?
• What happens if the BART timeline slips?
• Why are alternatives framed as infeasible without rigorous evaluation?

Until those questions are addressed, the public record remains incomplete.

If You Care About This Issue, Speak Up

Residents who believe the library debate deserves fuller coverage can respectfully ask for it.

📧 Katie Lauer, Bay Area News Group
klauer@bayareanewsgroup.com

#katielauer

Libraries matter.
So does fiscal realism.
So does context.

El Cerrito deserves all three.

Residents do not pay taxes for a subpar City Hall . Taxpayers pay for services we can access and rely on: permits and plan checks that move on time, inspections that get scheduled, code enforcement follow-up, timely answers from the clerk and the front counter, and a City Hall that is available when people need to get things done.

El Cerrito has been clear about how it operates. The issue is whether the City’s availability matches the level of service residents are funding.

Full-time in El Cerrito is 37.5 hours

El Cerrito’s Personnel Rules define regular full-time as employees who work a minimum of 37.5 hours per week.

That is a legitimate policy choice. But it also means the City’s baseline capacity is smaller than what many residents assume when they hear full-time.

Winter break: City Hall closes for most of the stretch before Christmas and New Year’s

The City’s posted administrative holiday schedule lists a December Winter Holiday Closure from Friday December 19 through Friday, January 2, 2026, with City Hall reopening Monday, January 5, 2026.

When City Hall is closed, residents lose service days on the calendar. That has real consequences: fewer days to resolve time-sensitive issues, fewer counter hours, fewer opportunities to get a live answer, and more delays that spill into January.

How El Cerrito’s closure compares to neighbors

Nearby cities also close for the holidays, but not all do it the same way:

• Pinole: City Hall and Community Services facilities closed to the public Dec 24 – Jan 2, reopening Jan 5, 2026.
• San Pablo: non-emergency City offices closed Dec 24, 2025 – Jan 4, 2026, reopening Jan 5, 2026.
• Albany: City offices closed Dec 25, 2025 and Jan 1, 2026.

This is not about whether anyone deserves time off. People do. It is about the combined service impact when a shorter baseline workweek and a long winter shutdown stack together.

Fact Box: El Cerrito workweek + winter closure vs. neighbors

Item	Details
El Cerrito baseline	Full-time is 37.5 hours per week.
El Cerrito winter closure	Dec 22, 2025 – Jan 2, 2026 | Reopens Jan 5, 2026.
Pinole winter closure	Dec 24, 2025 – Jan 2, 2026 | Reopens Jan 5, 2026.
San Pablo winter closure	Dec 24, 2025 – Jan 4, 2026 | Reopens Jan 5, 2026.
Albany winter closures	Dec 25, 2025 and Jan 1, 2026.
Why it matters	Taxes fund services. Fewer open days means less access and more delay for routine City business.

And it affects public access to City Council, too

Residents reasonably expect the first City Council meeting of the year to occur on the first Tuesday. Yet the adopted 2026 City Council meeting schedule does not include a Council meeting on Tuesday, January 6, 2026. The first January meeting shown is Tuesday, January 20, 2026.

Whether by design or because the holiday closure limits the ability to post required public notice, the practical effect is the same: residents lose the first early-January chance to show up, speak, and be heard. Residents are robbed, once again, of access and urgency at the exact moment the year should be getting started.

Call to action

If this bothers you, do something with it this week:

• Email City leadership and ask for service standards that match what we pay for: City Manager Karen Pinkos (kpinkos@elcerrito.gov) and the City Manager’s Office (citymanager@elcerrito.gov).
• Email the full City Council and request action, not explanations: Carolyn Wysinger (cwysinger@elcerrito.gov), Mayor Gabe Quinto (gquinto@elcerrito.gov), Councilmember Lisa Motoyama (lmotoyama@elcerrito.gov), Mayor Pro Tem Rebecca (rsaltzman@elcerrito.gov), Councilmember William Ktsanes (wktsanes@elcerrito.gov).
• Ask for a simple service-access plan for the December to January period: what is closed, what is open, what is staffed, and what residents should expect.
• Share this with neighbors. Service expectations only change when residents insist they should.

At the El Cerrito City Council meeting on Tuesday, December 16, 2025, regional and state elected officials joined Gabe Quinto as he was selected as mayor for next year. Attorney General Rob Bonta administered the oath, underscoring Quinto’s rising profile and the political attention El Cerrito continues to draw.

But as the congratulations rolled in, it became clear the night wasn’t just about leadership. It was also about messaging—specifically, the library tax measure expected to qualify for the 2026 ballot.

Former Mayor Greg Lyman, who serves as treasurer of the Committee for a Plaza Station Library, congratulated Quinto and Councilmember Rebecca Saltzman and said he looked forward to their support to move the library forward. County Supervisor John Gioia echoed the praise, noting he hopes voters recognize Quinto has taken on extra responsibility and extra work by serving as president of Cal Cities and as El Cerrito mayor. Gioia added that he is looking forward to the library.

Quinto also mentioned the library proposal several times—both directly and through personal story—reinforcing what many residents should pay attention to now: the library tax campaign is already underway in tone, alliances, and public narrative.

The City has repeatedly positioned itself as impartial and not involved in the library initiative. Residents should hold that claim up against what they’re seeing in real time: a ballot measure being normalized through official platforms, celebrated through coordinated remarks, and framed as inevitable. Impartiality isn’t a label—it’s a standard of conduct, and the public deserves clarity about where City Hall actually stands.

Why residents should not accept the framing

Supporters keep presenting this as a library measure. That framing is emotionally effective—but it is incomplete.

This is not simply a vote to build a library. It is permission for the City of El Cerrito to levy a long-term parcel tax and then decide how to deploy that revenue within a broader development strategy—even if a library is delayed, reshaped, or never built as residents imagine it today.

If you’re a voter, that distinction matters. Because once a tax is approved, the city has the revenue stream. The public is left negotiating details after the fact—often when leverage is gone and the we already passed it argument becomes the default response to legitimate questions.

The Plaza Station Library connection is the point

The library concept being promoted is not happening in a vacuum. It is tied to the Plaza Station development vision. That is why the same voices keep repeating the same phrase: move the library forward.

That language sounds like progress. But residents should ask: forward into what, exactly? A tax measure can move forward faster than a building. A narrative can move forward faster than accountability.

When civic leaders speak as if the library is inevitable, they compress uncertainty into certainty. That’s how communities end up paying now for promises that may not materialize for years—if at all.

The latchkey story: heartfelt, real—and out of date as a policy argument

Quinto shared a personal memory that landed with many people:

Let the real truth come out starting in 2026, Quinto said. The library is where I was as a latchkey child until 3:30 every day when my mom could pick me up.

Many of us recognize that era. For kids growing up in the 50s and 60s, the library truly was a safe landing place after school—an informal community hub in a different time.

But El Cerrito is not living in that time anymore.

But the term latchkey itself is a reminder: the social and family structures that made libraries the default after-school shelter have shifted. Today, kids’ afternoons are shaped by aftercare programs, transportation realities, digital life, school policies, safety expectations, and entirely different community patterns. A story from the 1960s can be meaningful without being a blueprint for fiscal policy in 2025.

Nostalgia is not a plan. And personal memories—no matter how sincere—should never replace a clear explanation of outcomes, timelines, cost controls, and accountability.

What residents should demand before 2026

If city leaders and outside electeds want voters to approve a new long-term tax, residents deserve more than applause lines and soft endorsements. Before any ballot is finalized, El Cerrito should be pressed to provide:

• A clear timeline that matches real-world project sequencing, not best-case projections
• A plain explanation of what is guaranteed if the tax passes—and what is not
• Transparent cost estimates, escalation risks, and what happens if funds fall short
• Accountability mechanisms with real enforcement, not just symbolic oversight language
• A clear description of how the tax revenue could be used if the library is delayed or the development changes

The bottom line

Tuesday night made something clear: the 2026 library tax measure is being positioned as a feel-good inevitability, reinforced by political validation and familiar storytelling.

But residents should not confuse a ceremonial moment with a sound financial plan.

El Cerrito voters deserve straight answers, not just inspiring memories. What worked in the 50s and 60s no longer serves us well in 2025—and the city should not ask residents to fund the future using arguments anchored in the past.

El Cerrito stands out among its neighboring cities for its unusually high concentration of fire services, considering its population and geographic size. More than five years ago, the California State Auditor recommended that the city conduct a staffing analysis to determine the appropriate levels for each classification. While El Cerrito is finally conducting a staffing study, it comes five years later than recommended, and its scope and depth remain unclear.

Residents still don’t know whether the study will lead to any actionable recommendations—and if it does, they will likely be implemented incrementally, resulting in no meaningful reductions or additional years of delay in achieving cost savings.

As the data show, El Cerrito’s staffing levels appear to be significantly inflated compared to those of its neighbors, raising legitimate questions about the efficiency of its resource allocation and the burden on taxpayers. Overstaffing not only creates upward pressure on expenses, but it also significantly increases the city’s CalPERS retirement costs, further inflating the unfunded liability.

That liability now exceeds $80 million, and pension costs alone consume nearly 20% of the city’s budget—about $9 million annually. The city’s four Battalion Chiefs are among the most expensive positions in local government, and they do not contribute to front-line staffing. No other city of comparable size in Northern California employs more than one Battalion Chief, making El Cerrito an outlier.

These upper-management positions add heavily to the city’s long-term pension liability while diverting resources that could fund critical community services—such as restoring operations at the Senior Center, expanding library hours, or improving infrastructure maintenance.

With a population of roughly 26,000 served by three fire stations, El Cerrito 4.66 square miles, averages just 8,700 residents per station—far fewer than most of its peers. By comparison:

• Lafayette: 8,349 residents per station (3 stations, population 25,048, covering 15.20 sq. mi.)
• Martinez: 12,132 residents per station (3 stations, population 36,395, covering 12.47 sq. mi.)
• Richmond: 16,105 residents per station (7 stations, population 112,735)
• Berkeley: 16,745 residents per station (7 stations, population 117,214)
• Pleasant Hill: 16,901 residents per station (2 stations, population 33,802)

Despite covering only 4.66 square miles, El Cerrito maintains a far higher ratio of fire resources per capita than much larger cities such as Antioch (29,274 residents per station) or Concord (40,772 residents per station).

To ensure taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently and responsibly, El Cerrito must commission an independent, comprehensive staffing analysis—one that evaluates the appropriate levels for fire services and other departments and includes clear, actionable recommendations. Such a study would provide the data needed to align staffing with community needs, reduce unnecessary expenses, and begin addressing the city’s escalating pension burden.

Fiscal sustainability requires courage, transparency, and a willingness to make data-driven decisions—not merely maintaining the status quo at the expense of taxpayers.

Residents should urge the City Council to make the full staffing study public once completed and to commit to implementing its recommendations—not shelving them. Meaningful reform begins with transparency, accountability, and a shared commitment to using our limited resources wisely.

#ElCerrito #FireDepartment #TaxDollars #PublicSafety #StaffingAnalysis #PensionLiability #FiscalResponsibility #LocalGovernment #Accountability

El Cerrito residents deserve a public safety strategy that matches the realities on the ground. Yet at a recent meeting, the Chief of Police proudly highlighted the additional revenue the department generated from citations — while saying nothing about the rise in property crime across our neighborhoods. That contrast tells you everything.
When leadership celebrates ticket revenue but stays silent on crime trends, it raises a fundamental question: City Manager — what exactly is our patrol strategy?

Because patrol isn’t about “visibility” or driving around aimlessly. It isn’t about writing tickets to parked cars or padding the city’s general fund with citation dollars. Patrol is your frontline operational strategy — the engine that drives safety, trust, and accountability. But too often, cities (ours included) still treat it like random circulation rather than intentional deployment.
Here’s what residents should expect — and what every city manager should be demanding.

1. Clear Zones Aligned to Actual Risk

Patrol zones shouldn’t be based on outdated maps, officer habits, or convenience. They should reflect calls for service, real-time crime trends, hot-spot activity, and community expectations. When property crimes rise, but deployment doesn’t shift, that’s not a resource issue — it’s a strategy issue.

2. Purposeful Time Allocation

How much of patrol time is spent on proactive engagement versus reactive response? If the answer is “it depends,” or if no one can clearly break it down, El Cerrito has a problem. Patrol time should be planned and monitored, not guessed.

3. Defined Outcomes — Not Activities

Patrol is not just writing citations, hunting for expired tags, or driving in circles. Patrol is reducing response times, preventing repeat calls, creating predictable and reliable presence, building trust block by block, and identifying problems before they escalate. If leadership talks more about tickets than outcomes, the priorities are upside down.

4. Field Supervision With Intent

Sergeants should actively manage deployments, monitor gaps, and coach officers to carry out a strategic plan — not just run paperwork and shift schedules. Supervision sets the tone and the culture.

5. Analysts Providing Real-Time Insight

Patrol strategy should evolve daily based on data, not wait for a monthly report that tells us what already went wrong. Without real-time analysis, you’re not doing strategic policing — you’re doing post-incident accounting.

The Single Most Important Question

Suppose El Cerrito wants safer neighborhoods and a more confident community. In that case, leadership must begin by asking the Police Chief one simple, revealing question: “What is our patrol strategy — and how do we know it’s working?” Because when patrol is intentional, aligned, and zone-based, you get more than visibility. You get impact.

Right now, residents aren’t seeing impact — they’re seeing rising property crime and a department touting ticket revenue. The City Manager owes the community more than that.

Speak Up. The next chance is Monday, December 16, at 6:00 PM at City Hall — and if you want to hear directly from the City Manager, attend the State of the City presentation at 5:00 PM the same evening. Your voice matters, and public safety deserves real accountability.

For nearly twenty years, El Cerrito residents have shouldered the consequences of City Hall’s fiscal negligence. The City’s pension costs now exceed $8.5 million every year—roughly 16 percent of the city’s entire General Fund budget. Those costs keep rising, even as service levels fall, and public safety concerns grow.

This didn’t happen by chance. It’s the result of long-standing patterns of mismanagement—decisions made by both elected and appointed leaders that expanded payroll, increased pension obligations, and routinely allowed expenses to exceed revenues year after year.

A History of Warnings—and Inaction

El Cerrito’s fiscal troubles began in earnest during the 2008 recession, when cities across California took aggressive steps to reduce costs, renegotiate contracts, and build long-term financial resilience. El Cerrito did the opposite.

While other municipalities restructured debt, cut nonessential spending, and rebuilt reserves, El Cerrito continued to expand payroll, add positions, and defer necessary reforms. Temporary revenues masked structural problems, and repeated internal warnings about unsustainable spending were ignored.

By 2018, the California State Auditor had taken formal notice—designating El Cerrito a “going concern” because its ability to continue operating independently was in serious doubt. That designation was reaffirmed multiple times between 2018 and 2021, as the Auditor cited the same pattern of declining reserves, mounting debt, and ballooning pension costs.

In 2020, the Auditor ranked El Cerrito in the bottom 3 percent of all California cities for fiscal health—one of the least financially responsible municipalities among more than 400 statewide. The report described “severe fiscal distress,” pointing to shrinking reserves and overreliance on one-time fixes.

Still, City Hall did not act decisively. Budgets continued to draw on reserves to stay balanced. Payroll and pension obligations kept rising. And temporary grant funding or deferred payments were touted as signs of recovery.

Although El Cerrito has since moved out of the bottom 3 percent, it remains ranked among the worst-run cities in California, burdened by the same structural weaknesses that prompted the Auditor’s intervention.

During the pandemic, $6.1 million ARPA funding and the $3+ million of real property transfer tax provided El Cerrito with sorely needed influx of revenue which led to the increase in reserves. However, the city will not get more ARPA funding, and the real property transfer tax has been absorbed into the General fund rather than its intended purposes and the city continues to drain reserves.

Leadership at the Helm

Accountability starts at the top. The following City Managers presided over El Cerrito’s a decline:

• Scott Hanin, City Manager until 2018
• Karen Pinkos, Assistant City Manager under Hanin and current City Manager (2018 – present)

Scott Hanin retired in 2018 with a substantial public pension, funded by the same taxpayers now paying more for fewer services. His departure coincided with the City’s worsening fiscal outlook and the State Auditor’s “going concern” classification.

His successor, Karen Pinkos, has continued that pattern. After stepping into the top post, she negotiated a pension formula and compensation package more favorable than those offered to other employees, ensuring long-term benefits at taxpayer expense.

Her five-year employment contract, approved by the City Council and later extended, included no performance-based evaluation clause, meaning she would not normally be held accountable for measurable fiscal outcomes. However the city council has the power to implement such requirements.

Her package includes:

• A base salary exceeding $230,000 per year, with automatic cost-of-living increases
• Extended her contract for five additional years
• Full CalPERS pension participation at the highest available tier
• Deferred-compensation contributions and executive-leave cash-outs
• Vehicle allowance and professional-association stipends

The Council approved this arrangement without linking pay to performance or financial reform.

The Current Narrative vs. Reality

City Hall now insists that El Cerrito is “fiscally healthy”—pointing to an improved bond rating as proof of progress. But an upgraded credit score doesn’t erase the facts. The City still relies on reserves every year to balance its budget, a clear sign of structural imbalance. Those reserves are finite, steadily shrinking, and unsupported by any long-term capital plan.

At the same time, the City continues to over-tax residents under the guise of earmarking funds for specific purposes. Yet prominent examples—like the Pool Tax and the Real Property Transfer Tax—show a pattern of broken promises. The funds have not been used as initially pledged, and neither tax has been subject to a public audit or independent oversight, even though El Cerrito now carries at least 10 separate taxes on its books.

Fiscal health requires integrity—not just new taxes and a higher bond rating.

Meanwhile, El Cerrito faces an unfunded pension liability of more than $80 million—a burden City Hall continues to ignore in public discussions. There is no transparent repayment plan, no honest accounting of its long-term impact, and no credible strategy to stop the debt from growing.

To make matters worse, the City bundles all of its general fund reserves together and presents the combined total as evidence of fiscal strength. That practice masks the weakness of individual funds, particularly unrestricted reserves and misleads residents about the City’s actual financial position.

Claiming fiscal health while relying on savings and creative accounting to stay afloat isn’t management—it’s manipulation. And manipulation doesn’t pay the bills.

 Officials Who Approved the Budgets and Contracts

To understand how the crisis deepened, here’s a breakdown of City Council members by period of service—and the one leader who tried to do better.

Note: Former Mayor and longtime Councilmember Janet Abelson, who passed away in 2024, served during much of this period. Her decades of civic involvement are recognized, but her leadership choices—particularly around fiscal management—remain central to understanding the City’s ongoing instability.

2008 – 2012 | Post-Recession Expansion

• Janet Abelson
• Letitia Moore
• Bill Jones III
• Sandi Potter
• Ann Cheng
• Greg Lyman

➡️ Context: After the 2008 recession, most cities tightened their belts. El Cerrito expanded payroll, added management layers, and ignored sustainability.

2012 – 2016 | Mounting Costs and Growing Liabilities

• Janet Abelson
• Greg Lyman
• Mark Friedman
• Jan Bridges
• Rebecca Benassini

➡️ Context: Pension and benefit costs ballooned, but spending continued unchecked, draining reserves further.

2016 – 2020 | State Auditor Intervention and Denial

• Janet Abelson
• Greg Lyman
• Gabe Quinto
• Paul Fadelli
• Rochelle Pardue-Okimoto

➡️ Context: When the State Auditor declared El Cerrito a fiscal “going concern,” most of the Council and City Manager downplayed the warning.
Councilmember Rochelle Pardue-Okimoto was the only member who demonstrated true fiscal responsibility, questioning spending, demanding transparency, and calling for oversight when others refused to act.

2020 – 2022 | Public Awareness, Minimal Reform

• Lisa Motoyama
• Tessa Rudnick
• Gabe Quinto
• Paul Fadelli
• Janet Abelson

➡️ Context: Despite the Auditor’s findings and public frustration, reforms were superficial. Payroll and pension costs continued to rise, while essential services lagged.

2022 – Present | Continuing the Pattern

• Lisa Motoyama
• Tessa Rudnick
• Gabe Quinto
• Rebecca Saltzman (elected 2022)
• Carolyn Wysinger (elected 2022)

➡️ Context: Despite claims of “fiscal health,” El Cerrito continues to rely on reserves to balance its budget and has no transparent plan to address its $80+ million pension liability.

Of all these councils, Rochelle Pardue-Okimoto stood alone in advocating fiscal discipline and transparency. Her leadership showed what responsible governance could have looked like—had others followed her example.

The Cost of Inaction

Even more troubling, overtime pay begins after 37.5 hours—not 40, as in neighboring Albany. This means taxpayers shoulder overtime costs sooner and more often, inflating payroll expenses by hundreds of thousands of dollars annually.

While most residents work 40 hours a week or more to make ends meet, El Cerrito City Hall operates just 37.5 hours per week, closing every other Friday.

Despite shorter hours and higher expenses, service quality continues to erode. Nearby cities—Albany, San Pablo, and Hercules—maintain more substantial reserves and deliver better results.

The Path Forward

Now, newly elected officials like Rebecca Saltzman (2024) have shown little appetite for reform. Despite years of warnings and growing frustration, City Hall continues to ignore fiscal fundamentals.

El Cerrito needs leaders who face facts, respect data, and put residents first. The next generation must be fiscally responsible, transparent, and willing to rebuild reserves, reduce liabilities, and restore public trust.

Our future depends on it.
It’s time to stop mortgaging tomorrow to pay for yesterday’s mistakes.

📊 The Numbers Behind the Crisis

Category	Amount / Statistic	Notes
Annual Pension Cost	$8.5 million	≈ 16 % of General Fund spending
Total Payroll (FY 2023)	$51.2 million	Management, Police, Fire, Public Works
State Auditor “Going Concern” Alerts	2018 – 2021	Repeated warnings were ignored by leadership
Fiscal Health Ranking (2020)	Bottom 3 % statewide	Among California’s least responsible cities
Current Status (2024)	No longer the bottom 3 %, but still among the worst-run	Structural imbalances persist
Unfunded Pension Liability	≈ $80 million	No clear plan for repayment
Karen Pinkos Compensation	$230 K + perks	Five-year contract, no performance clause; currently serving
Overtime Threshold	El Cerrito: 37.5 hrs	Albany: 40 hrs – earlier overtime increases costs
City Hall Work Week	37.5 hrs (bi-weekly Friday closure)	Reduced hours vs. 40-hour standard
Crime Trend (2020 – 2024)	↑ Property and auto theft	Linked to reduced police staffing
Nearby City Comparison	Albany • San Pablo • Hercules	Lower payrolls, healthier reserves

Call to Action – Demand Accountability

El Cerrito can’t fix what it refuses to face. Residents deserve transparency, fiscal honesty, and a plan that prioritizes stability over spin.

• Attend City Council meetings.
• Ask why the City still relies on reserves to balance its budget.
• Demand a plan to reduce the $80 million pension liability.
• Question why overtime starts after 37.5 hours — costing taxpayers more.
• Hold leaders accountable for self-serving contracts and fiscal mismanagement.
• Vote for representatives who will protect El Cerrito’s future — not their own comfort.

El Cerrito’s recovery begins with informed residents.

We can do better.

Shame on the Mayor for shirking their responsibilities

In municipal government, transparency and accountability start with something simple: who approves the expenses of the top executive. In nearly every California city, that responsibility rests squarely with the Mayor or City Council, not a subordinate employee. It’s a small but essential safeguard that ensures no one approves their own boss’s reimbursements or travel costs.

Recently, we conducted interviews with 10 California cities similar in size and structure to El Cerrito. Each confirmed the same policy:

The City Manager’s expense account must be reviewed and signed off by the Mayor or a designated member of the City Council.

This approach is standard across municipalities because it removes any appearance of conflict and preserves the integrity of financial oversight.

Yet in El Cerrito, the Assistant City Manager is reportedly the one who signs off on the City Manager’s expense reports. That’s a serious conflict of interest. Subordinates should never be responsible for approving expenses incurred by their supervisor — particularly when those expenses involve public funds.

Even more concerning is that Mayor Carolyn Wysinger has allowed this practice to continue. The responsibility for oversight of the City Manager lies with the Mayor and the City Council — not with staff. By failing to enforce basic accountability, the Mayor is shirking one of her most fundamental duties: ensuring the proper use of taxpayer dollars.

The issue isn’t about personalities or titles. It’s about checks and balances. A city that prides itself on fiscal responsibility should ensure that every transaction, from small reimbursements to large purchases, follows best practices for internal control.

When senior leaders can approve each other’s spending — or worse, their own — public confidence erodes. The correction is simple:

• City Council must adopt a clear policy requiring that the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem review and approve the City Manager’s expenses.
• The Finance Department can verify documentation but should never authorize payment.

El Cerrito deserves the same level of accountability practiced by its peers. Shame on the Mayor for failing to uphold it.

---

I Fact Box: How Other Cities Handle It

City	Population	Who Approves City Manager Expenses
Albany	20,000	Mayor
Emeryville	13,000	Mayor
San Pablo	32,000	Mayor or City Council Subcommittee
Lafayette	26,000	Mayor
Orinda	20,000	Mayor
Piedmont	12,000	Mayor
San Carlos	31,000	Mayor
Clayton	12,000	Mayor
Los Altos Hills	25,000	Mayor or Council Designee
Belmont	28,000	Mayor

In each of these cities, the City Manager’s expenses are reviewed by the Mayor or Council — not a subordinate.

---

Take Action

El Cerrito residents deserve the same accountability standards as their neighboring cities.
If you agree that the City Council — not staff — should review the City Manager’s expenses, contact your elected officials and ask them to adopt a transparent, conflict-free policy.

📧 Contact the El Cerrito City Council:

• Mayor Carolyn Wysinger — cwysinger@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
• Mayor Pro Tem Gabe Quinto — gquinto@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
• Councilmember Lisa Motoyama — lmotoyama@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
• Councilmember Rebecca Saltzman — rsaltzman@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
• Councilmember William Ktsanes — wktsanes@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us

In municipal government, transparency and accountability start with something simple: who approves the expenses of the top executive. In most California cities, that responsibility rests squarely with the Mayor or City Council, not a subordinate employee. It’s a small but essential safeguard that ensures no one approves their own boss’s reimbursements or travel costs.

Recently, we conducted interviews with 10 California cities similar in size and structure to El Cerrito. Each confirmed the same policy:

The City Manager’s expense account must be reviewed and signed off by the Mayor or a designated member of the City Council.

This approach is standard practice across municipalities because it removes any appearance of conflict and preserves the integrity of financial oversight.

Yet in El Cerrito, the Assistant City Manager is reportedly the one who signs off on the City Manager’s expense reports. That’s a serious conflict of interest. Subordinates should never be responsible for approving expenses incurred by their supervisor — particularly when those expenses involve public funds.

The issue isn’t about personalities or titles. It’s about checks and balances. A city that prides itself on fiscal responsibility should ensure that every transaction, from small reimbursements to large purchases, follows best practices for internal control.

When senior leaders can approve each other’s spending — or worse, their own — public confidence erodes. The correction is simple:

• City Council should adopt a clear policy stating that the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem reviews and approves the City Manager’s expenses.
• The Finance Department can verify compliance and documentation but should not authorize payment.

El Cerrito deserves the same level of accountability practiced by its peers. This isn’t about politics — it’s about public trust.

---

Fact Box: How Other Cities Handle It

City	Population	Who Approves City Manager Expenses
Albany	20,000	Mayor
Emeryville	13,000	Mayor
San Pablo	32,000	Mayor or City Council Subcommittee
Lafayette	26,000	Mayor
Orinda	20,000	Mayor
Piedmont	12,000	Mayor
San Carlos	31,000	Mayor
Clayton	12,000	Mayor
Los Altos Hills	25,000	Mayor or Council Designee
Belmont	28,000	Mayor

In each of these cities, the City Manager’s expenses are reviewed by the Mayor or Council — not a subordinate.

---

Take Action

El Cerrito residents deserve the same accountability standards as their neighboring cities.
If you agree that the City Council — not staff — should review the City Manager’s expenses, reach out to your elected officials and ask them to adopt a clear, transparent policy.

📧 Contact the El Cerrito City Council:

• Mayor Carolyn Wysinger — cwysinger@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
• Mayor Pro Tem Gabe Quinto — gquinto@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
• Councilmember Lisa Motoyama — lmotoyama@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
• Councilmember Rebecca Saltzman — rsaltzman@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
• Councilmember William Ktsanes — wktsanes@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us

The State of California’s Strategic Growth Council (SGC) has released staff recommendations for its latest round of affordable housing awards—funding essential for moving major transit-oriented development projects forward. El Cerrito Plaza’s Parcel C East did not receive an award, representing an early and important setback for the proposed Plaza Library, which is tied to Parcel C West.

The SGC’s full vote is scheduled for Wednesday, but staff recommendations usually indicate the final direction. And that direction underscores a deeper truth: the Plaza Library project faces real obstacles, long timelines, and substantial uncertainty.

A Competitive Funding Environment With Structural Challenges

Affordable housing projects in California rely on a complex stack of competitive funding sources:

• AHSC (Affordable Housing & Sustainable Communities) grants
• 4% tax credits
• 9% tax credits

Three Plaza-related projects are currently in play:

1. Parcel A South
2. Parcel C East
3. Parcel C West (affordable housing + proposed library)

Parcel A South appears to have secured key awards—pre-development fencing is already visible.

Parcel C East, however, just lost out on AHSC funds. And because El Cerrito is not categorized as a low-income area, its applications are at a competitive disadvantage compared with surrounding communities.

To date, there is no visible indication that funding has been secured—or even actively pursued—for Parcel C West, the parcel that includes the library. If Parcel C East later secures funding, it could reduce the odds for Parcel C West, as state agencies typically aim to spread resources across multiple projects and regions.

Complicating matters further, other major transit-oriented developments—such as the North Berkeley BART TOD—are competing for the same limited pool of grants.

In short, the Plaza Library parcel is in a competitive race with no clear path to the front.

Why This Is a Setback for the Library

Years ago, one of the City’s own consultants warned that the Plaza would face “significant issues beyond the city’s control.” Today, those issues are on full display.

Meanwhile, the regional market tells the same story: housing development across the Bay Area is slowing or stalling due to high construction costs, tightened financing, and economic uncertainty. Large, complex mixed-use projects tied to multiple funding streams are the most difficult to advance.

And yet:

**The proposed tax is guaranteed.

The library itself remains highly uncertain.**

Residents are being asked to approve 30 years of new taxing authority—starting immediately—despite the project having no building plans, no secured timeline, no environmental certainty, and no funding commitments from the State.

A Financial Reality Check: The True Cost of Affordable Housing

Examining other developments illustrates the scale of the challenge.

The Mayfair project in El Cerrito averaged $964,000 per affordable unit—nearly one million dollars per apartment under the current financing model.

This matters because it highlights the broader fiscal landscape:

El Cerrito can save—if spending is reprioritized around core service delivery.

But even with reprioritized spending, the library project is still dependent on competitive State funding that is not guaranteed and has not yet materialized.

The issue is not the City’s ability to save.
The issue is whether this particular project is realistically positioned to advance in the current competitive environment.

If the measure passes, taxpayers would authorize:

• Immediate tax collection
• 30 years of new taxing authority
• A library project with no secured funding timeline
• Potential multi-year delays due to competitive grants
• Escalating construction costs during those delays
• The possibility that the library may not move forward at all

Supporters often assume the project is shovel-ready. The State’s funding decisions reveal the opposite.

Equity Concerns: Who Would Bear the Cost?

Comparing this proposal to the WCCUSD parcel tax shows meaningful differences in taxpayer protections:

• WCCUSD offers a simple, accessible senior exemption.
• The proposed library tax has a senior exemption that is extremely difficult to qualify for.
• Disabled and low-income residents fare significantly better under the WCCUSD model.

As written, the library tax would fall disproportionately on seniors, disabled residents, and low-income homeowners—those least able to absorb long-term tax increases.

Bottom Line: A Setback That Should Influence the City’s Approach

The Strategic Growth Council’s decision represents a notable setback for the library project and should prompt serious reflection:

• Funding is not secured.
• Timelines are uncertain.
• Competing regional projects are stronger.
• Costs continue to rise.
• The project’s viability is tied to factors outside the City’s control.

What Taxpayers Are Being Asked to Commit To

With so many unknowns, the tax is the only certain component—and it begins immediately.

Call to Action: Ask El Cerrito to Return With an Affordable, Tax-Free Option

El Cerrito residents need a library plan that is financially responsible, transparent, and achievable without new taxes. The City can save—if it reprioritizes spending based on service delivery and core community needs—and does not need to pursue the most expensive and uncertain path.

Before asking residents to shoulder 30 years of new taxing authority, the City should return with an option that:

• Fits within existing resources
• Focuses on service delivery rather than costly, speculative development
• Reduces long-term financial risk to taxpayers
• Reflects realistic funding timelines
• Ensures equity for vulnerable residents

Now is the time for residents to speak up.

Tell the City Council you support a library plan that is achievable, affordable, and tax-free—not one that relies on decades of new taxes and uncertain promises.

Your voice matters.
Your participation matters.
El Cerrito deserves a responsible path forward.

____________________________________________________________________

A Routine Consent Calendar Item Revealed a Much Bigger Problem

On December 2, 2025, the El Cerrito City Council received two simple, unanimous recommendations from the Financial Advisory Board (FAB). These came from the October 28 meeting and were memorialized in the email included on page 28 of the agenda packet.

Chair David Carvel appeared remotely to address the recommendation.   There were no questions from the City Council.

The recommendations were not controversial. They were not costly. They were not political. They were standard elements of sound fiscal governance:

FAB Recommendation #1

Take action in the next budget cycle (FY 26/27–27/28) to meet the City’s 17% unassigned reserve target.
This is consistent with the City’s long-standing policy and the Comprehensive Financial Policies Council’s adopted policies.

FAB Recommendation #2

Before Council takes action on the forthcoming Service Delivery Study, allow FAB the opportunity to evaluate the recommendations and provide financial analysis.

This is precisely what FAB exists to do. The Municipal Code charges FAB with reviewing major expenditures, long-term financial planning, and revenue impacts. Asking to review a study about service delivery and potential savings is not only appropriate—it is expected.

Both recommendations passed unanimously. There was no opposition, no dissent, and no ambiguity.

And yet, when these recommendations reached the City Council, something very telling happened.

Council Could Have Pulled the Item for Discussion— They Didn’t

The FAB recommendations were placed on the Consent Calendar, meaning they were slated for a simple receive-and-file. Any councilmember could have pulled the item to discuss it.

None did.

Instead, during Council comments, Councilmember Lisa Motoyama took the now-predictable path: lecturing the Financial Advisory Board about how they need to do more. She requested specific recommendations on cuts.

This was not the first time. It is part of a pattern.
Instead of addressing the substance of the recommendations or giving guidance to staff, she often publicly reprimands volunteers who don’t have access to City data and only meet once a month – as decided by city staff.

Let’s be clear on the facts:

• FAB meets once per month.
• FAB does not supervise City staff.
• FAB has no direct access to internal operational data or systems.
• City staff report to the City Manager. The City Manager reports to the City Council.

If a councilmember wants a detailed financial analysis or operational evaluation, the process is simple:

Council directs the City Manager to provide the data.

Without that direction, FAB cannot produce the depth of analysis Councilmember Motoyama claims to want.

A Service Delivery Study Is Already Underway — So Why the Finger-Pointing?

The irony here is stark.

The City is already conducting a Service Delivery Study—the very study designed to identify savings, efficiency opportunities, and operational improvements. It is being led by consultants who do have access to staff, data, and systems.

Yet instead of:

• preparing for the recommendations, or
• directing the City Manager to empower FAB to engage meaningfully, or
• directing the Manager to make a recommendation on the necessary reductions without severely impacting service delivery

Councilmember Motoyama again chose performance over governance.

So, we are left with only two possible explanations:

1. She does not understand her authority as an elected official, including that

the City Manager reports to the City Council, not the reverse.

or

2. She understands her authority — but is unwilling to exercise it, particularly when it involves directing the City Manager to make the necessary cuts.

Neither explanation reflects well on her leadership.

When a council liaison routinely criticizes volunteers while failing to request the data needed for those volunteers to succeed, the issue is not FAB’s performance.
The issue is a refusal to lead.

FAB Did Its Job. Now It’s Time for the City Council to Do Theirs.

The December 2 recommendations were simple. Reasonable. Necessary.

• Stabilize reserves.
• Review the Service Delivery Study before taking action.
• Allow the City’s only fiscally qualified advisory board to do the job it was created to do.

Instead of supporting that work, the liaison chose to deflect responsibility and scold volunteers for failing to complete tasks the City has never empowered them to perform.

El Cerrito deserves a City Council that understands the basics of governance:

• If you want analysis, you authorize access to data.
• If you want recommendations, you empower your advisory bodies.
• If you want accountability, you direct the City Manager accordingly.

Councilmember Motoyama’s continued reliance on public lectures—rather than leadership—does not move the City forward. It simply erodes trust and avoids the responsibility voters entrusted to her.

The Bottom Line

The FAB recommendations should have been the least controversial part of the evening.
Instead, they exposed a deeper issue: a council liaison who places expectations on volunteers that the City has never enabled them to meet.

That is not governance.
That is not oversight.
And it is certainly not leadership.

El Cerrito deserves leaders who empower accountability, not ones who deflect it.  There’s an election in less than a year.  

Let’s vote for council members who understand good governance and are willing to work effectively in their role.

El Cerrito could have a modern library. But the Plaza library proposal is not the responsible path to get there. After months of shifting numbers, incomplete statements, and conflicting assumptions, one thing has become clear. This project is not financially sound, not transparent, and not in the long-term interest of residents. Voters should reject it.

Supporters of the measure are now saying the City would receive a 99-year lease for the Plaza site. Even with that detail included, the fundamental issue remains: El Cerrito would spend tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to construct a public building on land the City will never own. Ownership matters. It determines long-term control, cost, and community value. A lease—regardless of length—cannot provide the same protection or security as building on public land that the community already owns.

The financial inconsistency is impossible to ignore. The pro-Plaza campaign advertises a $28 million library but simultaneously claims the City will receive $2.7 million per year from Plaza redevelopment. Over 30 years, that revenue totals more than $81 million. If the project truly costs only $28 million, why is the city asking homeowners to pay triple the cost? The numbers simply do not add up.

Residents must also understand that the City Council has the authority to raise the parcel tax rate by up to 5 percent every single year. That means homeowners and renters could face escalating taxes year after year, with no guarantee of cost containment or long-term stability at the Plaza location.

Meanwhile, the City already owns a viable, centrally located site at Stockton Avenue. Rebuilding the library is a practical, cost-effective alternative that has been largely excluded from public discussion. A modernized facility at the existing site would cost less, even after accounting for design, construction, and temporary relocation. A short-term temporary library—estimated at $500,000 to $750,000—would ensure uninterrupted service. And at the end of the process, El Cerrito would have a library it wholly owns, on land it fully controls.

The Plaza proposal asks residents to shoulder a significant tax burden, accept unclear long-term risk, and invest in a building located on private property. That is neither transparent governance nor sound financial planning.

This measure is not the best path for El Cerrito. It prioritizes a location the City does not own, relies on inconsistent math, and exposes residents to rising taxes for decades. We can support a new library without accepting a flawed plan that fails to protect the community’s financial future.

For these reasons, residents should vote No.

You can read the pro-Plaza group’s statements here:
https://c4psl.org/