As residents learn more about El Cerrito’s plan to relocate its public library, troubling patterns continue to emerge—ones that echo a long history of misleading ballot language, murky financial practices, and vague development promises with no realistic funding plan. Here are three major concerns residents should understand:

The Parcel Tax “Exemption” Is Not What It Seems

The Citizen Initiative misleadingly claims that seniors will be “exempt” from the proposed parcel tax. That’s simply not true. There is no exemption that removes the tax from the secured property tax roll. The model follows the same structure as Measure H, which continues to generate $600,000 in annual tax revenue even though the associated $4.7 million bond was retired in 2009.

Instead of a true exemption, the City offers a limited “assistance” program. Seniors must first pay the tax, then apply for reimbursement—each year. The application requires submission of a Social Security benefit letter and proof that the applicant earns less than $2,300 per month (250% of the 2012 federal poverty line). Many seniors won’t qualify, and those who do face burdensome documentation and red tape. As of now, the City hasn’t even created an application form, making it clear that providing relief to vulnerable residents isn’t a priority.

The City Has No Plan for the Current Library Site

If the library is relocated to the Transit-Oriented Development site, the City has no concrete plan or allocated funding to repurpose the existing building or property. In reality, the City will likely abandon the site, then later cite legal obligations to sell it. Under regulations governing unused government property, vacant facilities often must be disposed of, with proceeds flowing into the General Fund—not back into community use or library services.

This approach represents a loss of a valuable civic asset. The current location is within walking distance of Fairmont Elementary, provides ample parking, and could be redeveloped into a modern 12,000 square foot library for the same construction cost per square foot as the TOD proposal—without the complications of housing density, limited access, and long-term risk.

The City Still Collects a Parcel Tax for a Bond That Was Paid Off in 2009

Even though Measure H bonds were retired over a decade ago, the City continues to collect $600,000 annually through the parcel tax. These funds are no longer used for debt service, but instead are redirected toward other purposes like maintaining the City pool—an allowable use under Measure A.

Meanwhile, the City has not fulfilled its responsibility to create or administer the senior assistance program it promised. The Municipal Financing Authority Trustee is not involved; this duty falls squarely on the City, which has quietly ignored its obligation while continuing to collect funds from seniors who may legally qualify for reimbursement but have no way to apply.

A Call for Transparency and Civic Integrity

This isn’t just about a library—it’s about public trust. El Cerrito must stop using misleading language to push initiatives that benefit development agendas more than residents. Property owners should not be locked into permanent taxes for temporary projects. Seniors shouldn’t be told they’re “exempt” from a tax they must first pay and then fight to recover. And the City must be honest about its lack of plans and financial resources when abandoning a civic property.

Let’s stop the shell game. Let’s invest in a purpose-built, stand-alone library on land we already own—keeping public assets in public hands, and putting community benefit first.

From the very beginning, the El Cerrito library project hasn’t been about books, learning, or community need. It’s been about speculative development and the City Manager’s résumé.

The proposed library—nestled into the ground floor of a six-story apartment complex across from BART—isn’t being driven by the needs of residents. It’s being designed to impress the City Manager’s peers in the International City/County Management Association (ICMA), the same national network to whom she awards contracts, takes speaking engagements, and travels the world with—often on the public dime.

This isn’t policy. It’s politics.

And it’s personal.

Residents have never asked for a library crammed into a condo beneath private housing, exposed to transit-related crime, or constructed with commercial-grade materials that degrade long before their time. The City refuses to release polling results on the project, likely because the numbers confirm what many already know: El Cerrito doesn’t want this. But rather than respect public sentiment, the City is pushing ahead—driven by ego and ambition, not data or demand.

This library isn’t about serving the public. It’s about serving one career.

It’s about a legacy project for the City Manager, who sees this as her signature accomplishment. A showpiece. Something to showcase at the next ICMA conference.

But at what cost?

100% of the cost will fall on parcel taxpayers. The library will be embedded in a building El Cerrito does not fully control. The City is ignoring more sustainable financing tools, like the Municipal Finance Authority, in favor of new taxes. And El Cerrito’s CalPERS unfunded liability continues to grow, likely to top $120 million soon.

This project is the local government equivalent of a stereo company betting on cassette tapes when CDs have already taken over. It’s outdated, out of touch, and entirely ego-driven.

We don’t need a résumé builder.

We need responsible leadership.

We need public servants who listen, not legacy-seekers who bulldoze.

The City’s credibility is already in question. Refusing to release polling data, ignoring the public’s concerns, and pushing a vanity project only further erodes trust.

If the City Manager wants a project to impress her colleagues, let it be one that solves real problems, aligns with resident priorities, and respects the financial burdens already shouldered by homeowners. A true legacy isn’t built in concrete and glass—it’s built in community trust.

It’s time to hit pause on the ego, and listen to El Cerrito.

In El Cerrito, they’re calling it a library. But in truth, it’s a full-scale development project—wrapped in community language and funded entirely by parcel taxpayers.

The City of El Cerrito plans to build a new library, not as a standalone public building, but as the first-floor “condominium unit” in a six-story apartment complex across from the Plaza BART station. That’s right—this essential public service will be tucked inside a standard commercial retail construction project with all the limitations, risks, and long-term headaches that come with condo ownership. And while the structure may be owned by the City, it’s the taxpayers who are footing the entire bill—for both construction and maintenance.

Let’s be clear:

100% of the cost will be borne by El Cerrito parcel taxpayers. Not just to build it, but to staff it, operate it, and fix whatever goes wrong in a mixed-use commercial structure next to a major transportation hub.

This isn’t just about books and learning. It’s about a multi-million-dollar financial obligation that will live on your property tax bill for decades. The plan bypasses the City’s already-established El Cerrito Municipal Finance Authority—an entity with the authority to finance major projects without new taxes. Instead, the Council is charging full speed toward a new assessment district, knowing full well the cost is regressive, disproportionately burdens homeowners, and offers no meaningful relief for renters.

And if you’re wondering whether El Cerrito needs a new “community center,” we already have one. It’s called the El Cerrito Community Center, located on Moeser. So what is this new building really for? It’s a six-story development project with a public label and private consequences.

Meanwhile, the City’s unfunded pension liabilities continue to balloon. By the time this library is built, the City’s CalPERS obligations could easily top $120 million—an enormous financial weight in a city with declining reserves, downgraded bond ratings, and a history of fiscal mismanagement.

Here’s what residents deserve before even considering this project:

A detailed cost breakdown of construction, ongoing maintenance, and staffing. A clear explanation of ownership rights, responsibilities, and risks associated with condominium-style public infrastructure. Transparency around the Municipal Finance Authority and why that tool is being ignored. An independent legal review of whether a tax-funded project like this meets the requirements of Prop 39.

An honest assessment of long-term financial impacts on city operations, pension obligations, and service delivery.

The El Cerrito City Council may hope that calling this a “library” will inspire warm feelings and quick votes. But inspiration should never be a substitute for integrity, transparency, and fiscal responsibility.

If El Cerrito wants a library, let’s build one.

But let’s not do it on the backs of homeowners, through opaque deals and gimmicky development schemes.

In El Cerrito, consultants don’t just provide professional services—they provide reassurance. And for a city in financial distress, that comfort has become dangerously convenient.

At the May 20, 2025, City Council meeting, NHA Advisors—El Cerrito’s longtime financial consultants—blamed CalPERS investment performance for the city’s soaring $89 million pension liability. But that narrative ignores reality. Nearly every city in California is affected by CalPERS investment returns. Yet few cities of El Cerrito’s size carry a severe pension burden.

The real issue isn’t the pension system—it’s El Cerrito’s choices. And the consultants who validate them.

A System That Reinforces the Status Quo

Consultants like NHA Advisors rely on small cities like El Cerrito for revenue. These cities often lack in-house financial capacity, making them easy long-term clients. But retaining the client often means reinforcing the client’s worldview. In El Cerrito’s case, that means avoiding tough truths about staffing models, spending priorities, and governance habits.

Rather than advise meaningful reform, consultants deliver affirming reports. They soften findings, minimize urgency, and present a picture of “strategic progress”—all while the city’s finances deteriorate in plain sight. In short, they have no credibility. The NHA presentation was akin to having your spouse provide an alibi.

The Data Tells a Different Story

Two graphs from 2024 show just how far El Cerrito has veered from sound financial management:

El Cerrito is a stark outlier—saddled with high pension costs and among the lowest General Fund reserve ratios in the state. Compare this with a city of similar size and population, Hercules, which maintains moderate pension costs and a much healthier reserve position. The trendline is clear: higher reserves are associated with more manageable pension costs. El Cerrito breaks this trend in the worst way possible.

Net Worth vs. General Fund Reserve Ratio (2024)

Here, El Cerrito again appears in the bottom left—low reserves, negative net worth. This is not a technicality. It is a financial red flag. And yet, NHA and other city paid consultants continue describing El Cerrito’s fiscal posture as “strategic” and “resilient.”

The Section 115 Misdirection

One of the city’s supposed bright spots—the creation of a Section 115 Pension Trust—has also been mishandled. El Cerrito deposited $1.4 million into the trust but chose a highly conservative investment strategy. The result? The return was roughly half of what CalPERS would have generated. Most other cities using Section 115 funds are in surplus positions and invest more aggressively. El Cerrito is not in that category. Yet again, consultants downplay the consequence.

Conclusion: Stop Paying for Permission

El Cerrito’s consultants keep the city comfortable. They allow it to believe that nothing drastic needs to change. That higher taxes, vague plans, and polished slide decks will eventually solve deep structural problems. But the graphs, the rankings, the outcomes—they all say otherwise.

Until El Cerrito stops paying for affirmation and starts demanding accountability, the city will remain stuck. And its residents will keep footing the bill.

El Cerrito residents deserve a transparent and responsible budgeting process—but we’re getting sleight of hand instead.

During the cityCouncil meeting today, City Manager Karen Pinkos continued to present an operating budget that deliberately excluded known expenses. These aren’t surprises. They’re foreseeable needs—yet they’re left out of the formal budget and funded later using unrestricted reserves. That’s not sound financial planning. It’s a tactic that undermines transparency and accountability.

Let’s be clear about the numbers.

The city often touts its 17% reserve level as a sign of stability. But that figure is misleading. It includes:

• A $1.4 million Section 115 trust, which is restricted and conservatively invested
• A $9 million Emergency Disaster Relief Fund (EDRF), approved by the City Council in August 2023, was set aside specifically to cover approximately three months of citywide payroll in the event of a natural disaster or economic emergency.

These funds were never intended to cover gaps caused by poor budget planning. When these restricted amounts are removed, the city has just over $11 million in true unrestricted reserves—barely above the Government Finance Officers Association’s (GFOA) minimum recommendation for a town our size.

The deeper concern is the excluded costs are known. Rather than include them in the adopted budget—where they can be weighed against other priorities—the City Manager rolls over much of the previous year’s budget and brings these “must-have” items to Council after the budget is approved. This practice forces Councilmembers into a bind: approve additional spending later or appear to withhold critical services—a no win situation.

That’s not budgeting. That’s brinkmanship.

The City Manager is one of the city’s highest-paid employees. She is responsible for setting priorities and presenting a realistic, comprehensive budget—not relying on reserves to fund known obligations and pressuring the Council to act.

The issue isn’t whether the pool or the fire needs are needed. Both are needed. However, the real problem is that the City manager didn’t do their job. She should have considered these items and presented them in the adopted budget instead of presenting a “balanced” budget. That’s a disingenuous way to govern.

Second, the item should have appeared earlier in the budget. There was no public comment because everyone was asleep. This approach to addressing important issues should not be taken.

Call to Action: Demand Transparency in Budgeting

El Cerrito deserves an honest budget.

The City Council must direct the City Manager to include all known expenses in the original proposed budget—not defer them for mid-year additions funded by reserves. This practice distorts the true cost of city operations, obscures priorities, and puts undue pressure on Council to approve rushed, after-the-fact expenditures.

We urge the Council to take leadership now. Direct the City Manager to present a complete, transparent, and prioritized budget that reflects the city’s real needs up front.

✅ No more piecemeal funding
✅ No more budget sleight of hand
✅ No more misuse of the description of emergency and Section 115 as if they are available for budget overruns.

Contact the El Cerrito City Council Today:

• 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