El Cerrito residents are being asked to approve another permanent tax — again. This time it’s wrapped in the language of libraries and community investment. But the real driver isn’t a building. It’s a budget that is being steadily consumed by pension costs, City leadership has failed to confront.

El Cerrito residents are being told the City needs another permanent tax — this time framed around the library. But this is not really about books, buildings, or community space.

It is about a cost structure that City leadership has refused to fix.

For FY 2024–25, El Cerrito adopted a General Fund operating budget of approximately $52.3 million. Before a single service is delivered, a massive portion of that budget is already spoken for.

FACT BOX: EL CERRITO PENSION COSTS & BUDGET IMPACT

FY 2024–25 – Minimum Required Pension Payments

• Baseline annual CalPERS pension costs: $8.56 million 

  – Normal cost for current employees plus required pension components embedded in CalPERS rates 

• Required annual UAL payment: $6.9 million 

  – Mandatory annual payment toward the unfunded actuarial liability 

• Total minimum annual pension payments: $15.46 million 

What Percentage of the Operating Budget Is This?

• General Fund operating budget: $52.3 million 

• Annual pension payments: $15.46 million 

Pension costs consume approximately 29.6% of the General Fund operating budget.

In plain terms: nearly 3 out of every 10 operating dollars go to pensions before paying for police, fire, street maintenance, parks, libraries, planning, or basic customer service. And it’s the real reason why there’s no senior center.

These Costs Are Additive — and Mandatory

The City will pay at least $8.56 million every year in baseline pension costs. In addition, it must make a required $6.9 million annual UAL payment.

These are not alternative costs. They are cumulative. And they must be paid every year.

Prepaying the UAL may reduce interest costs, but it does not eliminate future pension obligations. Unless staffing levels change, these costs continue to grow automatically.

This is not a revenue problem. It is a cost-structure problem.
Instead of fixing what’s broken, the City keeps raising taxes—making El Cerrito less affordable for the people who already live here and less attractive to anyone considering buying a home, especially when entry costs like the Real Property Transfer Tax keep climbing.

When nearly 30% of the operating budget is locked into pensions:

• Flexibility disappears 

• Services erode 

• Maintenance is deferred 

• Taxes become the default solution 

Raising taxes without fixing the cost structure only pushes the bill onto residents.

This Is Why They’re Pushing Another Forever Tax

This tax push is not really about the library. The library can be improved for a fraction of the proposed tax measure through renovation, phased upgrades, or targeted capital investment. That option exists. It always has.

But modest library improvements do not solve a structural operating gap.

A permanent tax that can be increased at any time does solve their structural problem.

When pension costs consume nearly one-third of the operating budget — and staffing levels remain untouched — City leadership is left with a choice:

• Fix the cost structure, or 

• Close the gap on residents’ backs 

They have chosen the second.

Using the library as emotional cover to pass a forever tax is not leadership. It is avoidance.

Similar to previous taxes, they entice us with promises of desired projects such as a library, a senior center, reduced crime, and fire prevention, but in the end we receive none of what was promised. The money goes to cover pension costs.

El Cerrito Has Real Options — But Leadership Must Choose Them

Option 1: Rightsize Staffing Levels 

Staffing levels, compensation, and classifications drive pension costs. If the City wants long-term stability, staffing must align with service demand, peer cities, and what residents can afford.

Option 2: Use the Improved Bond Rating Responsibly 

The City’s improved bond rating can buy time — but only if paired with permanent cost corrections. Bonding cannot replace discipline.

The Bottom Line

• This tax is not about books. 
• It is not about buildings. 
• It is about closing budget gaps on your back.

CALL TO ACTION

Residents should contact City Council and the City Manager and ask:

1. Why are nearly 30% of General Fund operating dollars committed to pension payments?

2. What staffing changes are planned to slow future pension growth?

3. Why is a permanent tax being proposed instead of structural reform?

CITY CONTACT INFORMATION

City Manager’s Office 

citymanager@el-cerrito.org | (510) 215-4300 

City Council 

Mayor Gabe Quinto – gquinto@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us 

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

Mayor Pro Tem  Rebecca Saltzman – rsaltzman@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us 

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

Councilmember Carolyn Wysinger – cwysinger@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us 

Budgets reflect priorities. If residents do not demand better, the answer will always the same: pay more taxes, get less.

Pensions vs Core City Services

This chart shows how much of El Cerrito’s FY 2024–pension obligations consume 25 General Fund before services are delivered.

Library Myth vs Budget Reality

MYTH: The City needs a permanent tax to fund a better library.

REALITY: The library can be improved for a fraction of the proposed tax through renovation, phased upgrades, or targeted capital investment.

MYTH: This tax is about community amenities.

REALITY: The tax provides permanent revenue to backfill operating budget gaps caused by pension costs consuming nearly 30% of the General Fund.

This is not a revenue problem. It is a cost-structure

Instead of fixing what’s broken, the City keeps raising taxes—making El Cerrito less affordable for the people who already live here and less attractive to anyone considering buying a home, especially when entry costs like the Real Property Transfer Tax keep climbing.

Tomorrow, January 20, the City Council will accept certification of the Citizens Initiative Petition for the El Cerrito Library Initiative and, in the same meeting, present a Library Facility Update.

That alone should give residents pause.

As you’re pausing, consider this: None of those discussions change the core reality.

This initiative creates a permanent parcel tax—a forever tax—one that the City Council can raise without property owners consent.

An Interesting Scenario, Indeed

Isn’t this an interesting scenario?

We are having a public meeting about the library—its condition, its future, and multiple possible options—while City Council members and the City Manager have said all along that they are not involved in the initiative.

And yet:

• The City is presenting cost ranges
• The City is outlining scenarios
• The City is recommending the next steps
• The City is proposing a future Library Task Force

All while a tax initiative tied to that same library is already qualified for the ballot.

If City leadership truly has no role in the initiative, why is the City now shaping the conversation around costs, options, and process for the very project the initiative is designed to fund?

That contradiction matters.

The Process Is Flexible. The Tax Is Not.

Staff is recommending a community-based process, including the appointment of a Library Task Force as early as spring 2026, to discuss options and refine cost estimates.

But none of those discussions change the core reality.

This initiative creates a permanent parcel tax—a forever tax—one that the City Council can raise.

If the initiative passes in June, the tax begins in December—well before a library could be designed, permitted, funded, or built under any of the scenarios being discussed.

Residents will start paying while the City is still talking.

Follow the Money

We also know what happens when revenue reaches City Hall.

Once collected, money enters the City’s broader fiscal system—subject to competing priorities, budget pressures, and internal tradeoffs. In the absence of enforceable guardrails, as we have seen before, funds are not immune from being blended into the same financial structure as other revenues.

Promises made before the money arrives are easy. Accountability after the fact is much harder.

That is why the order of decisions matters.

Call to Action: Questions Residents Should Be Asking

Whether you choose to speak at tomorrow night’s meeting, submit written comments, or simply observe, residents should pause and ask themselves a few fundamental questions:

• Will any of the library options being discussed actually change the tax initiative already headed to the ballot?
• If so, how—specifically and in writing?
• If not, why is public participation being framed as meaningful when the most consequential decision—the tax itself—has already been locked in?
• Why should residents trust assurances from leaders who have repeatedly distorted facts, withheld underlying assumptions, and misled the very people they are supposed to serve?
• Am I comfortable approving a permanent parcel tax that begins collecting in December, months before a library could realistically be built under any scenario?
• If costs rise, timelines slip, or priorities change, who ultimately bears the risk: the City or residents?

These are not questions about whether libraries matter. There are questions about governance, credibility, and accountability.

Once a forever tax is in place, the leverage shifts permanently to property owners.

And when trust is demanded instead of earned, Napoleon is always right.

---

Share This With Your Community

If you found this analysis helpful, please share it on social media and send it to friends, neighbors, and family who live in El Cerrito.

These decisions affect every household in the city—and informed conversations only happen when information is shared.

Only after meaningful opposition emerged did El Cerrito finally release updated cost estimates for a new library. Now that the numbers are public, the headline is unmistakable:

The Plaza Station Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) library is now estimated to cost $37 million.

That figure, provided by consultant Griffin Structures, will be presented to the City Council on January 20. It represents a 75% increase from the $21 million estimate shared with Council in 2023, and far exceeds the $28 million figure circulated as recently as August 2025.

But the price increase has another consequence that has received far less attention — it dramatically increases the likelihood that the original 17-cent-per-square-foot parcel tax would need to rise – almost immediately.

A Higher Project Cost Means a Higher Tax Burden

The 17-cent parcel tax was framed around much lower project assumptions. A library now estimated at $37 million — with unresolved financing, leasing, and construction risks — almost certainly cannot be delivered under the original tax structure.

That matters because City Council has the authority to increase that parcel tax once approved.

In other words, while voters may be presented with a 17-cent figure at the ballot, the underlying cost escalation means that rate is unlikely to hold over time. The larger the project, the greater the pressure to raise the tax — without returning to voters for approval.

This is not speculation. It is a direct function of how parcel taxes and escalating capital costs work.

The Estimates — Released Late, Still Incomplete

According to the newly released staff report, Griffin Structures evaluated five options:

• $10 million — renovate the existing 6,500-square-foot library
• $29 million — rebuild and expand the existing library to 13,000 square feet
• $29 million — renovate an existing building into a 20,000-square-foot library
• $37 million — build a 20,000-square-foot library within the Plaza Station TOD
• $43 million — build a new standalone 20,000-square-foot library on a new site

These numbers arrived only after public skepticism intensified — and even now, they are presented without full disclosure of assumptions, contingencies, or downside scenarios.

Parking, Assumptions, and What’s Left Out

Parking alone introduces millions in cost variation:

• $6.4 million for a parking structure at the current library site
• $4.7 million at a new standalone site
• No dedicated parking assumed for the Plaza TOD option

Excluding parking lowers the headline price — but it does not eliminate the cost. It simply shifts it to residents, surrounding streets, and future policy decisions.

Again, assumptions matter. And assumptions have consequences.

And staff are recommending creating a task force to review options. Which one might wonder, shouldn’t this have been done in 2017, immediately after the measure B bond failed?

Transparency Before Taxes Rise

City staff will present the report at the January 20 City Council meeting. The agenda packet is now public. But key questions remain unanswered:

• How sensitive is the project to further cost escalation?
• What happens if grant funding is delayed or denied?
• How much flexibility does Council have to raise the parcel tax — and under what conditions?
• What protections exist for residents once the tax is approved?

When a project’s price tag grows by 75%, the risk to taxpayers grows with it — especially when elected officials retain the authority to increase the tax rate after the fact.

Residents are not being unreasonable by asking for clarity. They are being prudent.

Before any tax measure moves forward, voters deserve to understand not just the initial number on the ballot, but the real financial exposure that comes with it — and who controls that exposure once the election is over.

At the Tuesday, January 20, 2026 City Council meeting, expect a fair amount of congratulating.

There will likely be high-fives, back-patting, and reassuring statements about progress — particularly around the City’s summary of the 2025 National Community Survey (NCS), which shows an increase in overall confidence in City government.

According to the City’s published highlights, the percentage of residents expressing confidence rose from roughly 44 percent in 2022 to about 49 percent in 2025.

That improvement is worth acknowledging.

What’s harder to applaud is what hasn’t been shared — and what the City’s own chart quietly reveals.

What Residents Were Shown — and What They Weren’t

The City released a summary emphasizing improved confidence and satisfaction. What it did not release is the entire 2025 NCS report, including the full set of detailed tables that allow residents to understand how different aspects of community life are actually performing.

That distinction matters.

The chart summarizing Facets of Community Livability: Quality shows a clear pattern. Residents rate tangible services and physical amenities relatively well:

• Parks and Recreation (78%)
• Natural Environment (76%)
• Utilities (76%)
• Safety (74%)
• Mobility (70%)

These are areas where outcomes are visible and experienced directly.

But ratings fall sharply when the focus shifts from services to connection, participation, and economic conditions.

Inclusivity, Engagement — and the Economy — Tell a Different Story

At the bottom of the chart sit two of the most consequential indicators of community health:

• Economy: 50%
• Inclusivity and Engagement: 49%

These are not peripheral measures. They speak directly to whether residents feel economically secure, included in decision-making, and meaningfully connected to their community.

A 50 percent rating on the economy suggests residents are deeply split on whether El Cerrito is providing the conditions for stability and opportunity. A sub-50 percent rating on inclusivity and engagement signals that many residents do not feel seen, heard, or involved — regardless of how well parks or utilities perform.

Those numbers deserve more attention than they are receiving.

Confidence Up Does Not Equal Inclusion Achieved

A 55 percent confidence rating still means nearly half of residents are unconvinced, uncertain, or dissatisfied. That is not a mandate. It is a caution flag.

Confidence can rise temporarily based on tone, messaging, or selective framing. Inclusivity and engagement, by contrast, are built over time through openness, transparency, and a willingness to share the full picture — especially when results are mixed.

When only the strongest scores are summarized and the lowest-rated areas are downplayed, it reinforces the sense that participation is managed rather than invited.

The Irony Is Hard to Miss

If inclusivity and engagement were truly improving, then full disclosure should be easy.

Instead, residents are once again presented with highlights without context — celebration without scrutiny. That approach undercuts the very outcomes the City says it wants to improve.

You cannot strengthen engagement by withholding information that would allow residents to engage meaningfully.

The Fix Is Simple — and Still Available

El Cerrito does not need spin. It needs sunlight.

If the City wants to turn rising confidence into genuine inclusivity, engagement, and economic credibility, the next step is obvious.

Call to Action:
Release the entire 2025 National Community Survey report — including all detailed tables — so residents can see the full picture for themselves.

Engagement grows when information is shared, not curated.

Reposting with correction: A concerned citizen reported an error. The city’s attorney did not write the initiative. As required by law, he wrote the initiative summary for the ballot. See correctiuon below:

Reportedly, Karen Pinkos, City Manager of El Cerrito, characterized statements that she was involved in the library tax as “a lie.”

That framing relies on a narrow legal distinction that may be defensible on paper—but it collapses under ethical scrutiny and lived experience.

The issue is not whether the City Manager is legally permitted to advocate for a ballot measure. The issue is whether city leadership can credibly deny involvement in a project and funding strategy that the city has actively advanced, financially supported, and structured to begin collecting revenue long before a library is ever built.

The Money Comes First — Long Before the Library

Under the current proposal, the city is positioned to receive upwards of $15 million in tax revenue before the library project actually begins—if it begins at all.

That fact alone raises a fundamental governance question:

• No final design
• No guaranteed construction timeline
• No secured build sequence
• And multiple unresolved alternatives still under discussion

How can residents be asked to prepay tens of millions of dollars for a facility that has:

When money flows years ahead of delivery, accountability must be airtight. Instead, it is being blurred.

A Track Record That Makes This Riskier

This concern is compounded by something residents already know from experience: El Cerrito has a documented track record of depositing tax-generated revenues into the General Fund without separately tracking them by purpose.

That means:

• Funds approved by voters for specific reasons are often not siloed
• Once deposited, they become functionally indistinguishable from other revenues
• Oversight relies on trust rather than transparent accounting

In that context, assurances that “the money is for the library” are not enough.

If $15+ million is collected years in advance, placed into the General Fund, and not individually tracked, residents are being asked to rely almost entirely on institutional goodwill rather than an enforceable structure.

That is not a theoretical concern. It is a governance risk grounded in precedent.

Denying Involvement Doesn’t Eliminate Responsibility

Against this backdrop, denying involvement in either the project or the tax becomes more than semantics—it becomes avoidance.

The city manager has:

• Commissioned library studies and alternatives
• Paid consultants to develop scenarios
• Integrated the library into redevelopment planning
• Issued a $350,000 loan to the developer tied to the broader plan
• Advanced a tax that begins collecting far in advance of construction

Those actions require staff leadership, executive oversight, and managerial coordination.

Calling claims of involvement “a lie” depends on redefining involvement so narrowly that it excludes everything residents can plainly see.

Equally important, the city’s attorney, who sits beside the city manager at every council meeting, Sky Woodruff, as required by law, wrote the summary of the initiative for the ballot. The city’s attorney rewrote it after Attorney Jason Bezis wrote him a letter saying there were seven false or misleading statements in the ballot measure summary.

That may be legally convenient.
It is not ethically persuasive.

Why This Distinction Fails the Public Test

Residents are not alleging election law violations. They are asking a simpler, more reasonable question:

Who owns the decision to ask the public for money now, without guarantees later—and without dedicated tracking once it’s collected?

Legal distinctions do not answer that question.
Ethical leadership does.

That leadership would sound like:

• Yes, the city has advanced this project
• Yes, the tax and the project are linked
• Yes, the money comes in well before construction
• Yes, our current accounting practices raise legitimate concerns
• And here is how we will protect the public interest

Instead, residents are being told that their understanding is false.

This Is How Trust Erodes

Trust is not lost because people oppose a library.
It is lost when:

• Large sums are collected long before outcomes are certain
• Funds are not transparently tracked
• Leadership denies visible involvement
• And legitimate concerns are dismissed as lies

This is not about legality.
It is about honesty, stewardship, and respect for the public’s intelligence.

When tens of millions of dollars are at stake—and when history suggests those dollars will be absorbed into the General Fund—splitting legal hairs is not leadership.

It is precisely the moment when ethical clarity matters most.

Reportedly, Karen Pinkos, City Manager of El Cerrito, characterized statements that she was involved in the library tax as “a lie.”

That framing relies on a narrow legal distinction that may be defensible on paper—but it collapses under ethical scrutiny and lived experience.

The issue is not whether the City Manager is legally permitted to advocate for a ballot measure. The issue is whether city leadership can credibly deny involvement in a project and funding strategy that the city has actively advanced, financially supported, and structured to begin collecting revenue long before a library is ever built.

The Money Comes First — Long Before the Library

Under the current proposal, the city is positioned to receive upwards of $15 million in tax revenue before the library project actually begins—if it begins at all.

That fact alone raises a fundamental governance question:

• No final design
• No guaranteed construction timeline
• No secured build sequence
• And multiple unresolved alternatives still under discussion

How can residents be asked to prepay tens of millions of dollars for a facility that has:

When money flows years ahead of delivery, accountability must be airtight. Instead, it is being blurred.

A Track Record That Makes This Riskier

This concern is compounded by something residents already know from experience: El Cerrito has a documented track record of depositing tax-generated revenues into the General Fund without separately tracking them by purpose.

That means:

• Funds approved by voters for specific reasons are often not siloed
• Once deposited, they become functionally indistinguishable from other revenues
• Oversight relies on trust rather than transparent accounting

In that context, assurances that “the money is for the library” are not enough.

If $15+ million is collected years in advance, placed into the General Fund, and not individually tracked, residents are being asked to rely almost entirely on institutional goodwill rather than an enforceable structure.

That is not a theoretical concern. It is a governance risk grounded in precedent.

Denying Involvement Doesn’t Eliminate Responsibility

Against this backdrop, denying involvement in either the project or the tax becomes more than semantics—it becomes avoidance.

The city manager has:

• Commissioned library studies and alternatives
• Paid consultants to develop scenarios
• Integrated the library into redevelopment planning
• Issued a $350,000 loan to the developer tied to the broader plan
• Advanced a tax that begins collecting far in advance of construction

Those actions require staff leadership, executive oversight, and managerial coordination.

Calling claims of involvement “a lie” depends on redefining involvement so narrowly that it excludes everything residents can plainly see.

Equally important, the city’s attorney who sits beside the city manager in every council meeting; Sky Woodruff wrote the tax initiative.

That may be legally convenient.
It is not ethically persuasive.

Why This Distinction Fails the Public Test

Residents are not alleging election law violations. They are asking a simpler, more reasonable question:

Who owns the decision to ask the public for money now, without guarantees later—and without dedicated tracking once it’s collected?

Legal distinctions do not answer that question.
Ethical leadership does.

That leadership would sound like:

• Yes, the city has advanced this project
• Yes, the tax and the project are linked
• Yes, the money comes in well before construction
• Yes, our current accounting practices raise legitimate concerns
• And here is how we will protect the public interest

Instead, residents are being told that their understanding is false.

This Is How Trust Erodes

Trust is not lost because people oppose a library.
It is lost when:

• Large sums are collected long before outcomes are certain
• Funds are not transparently tracked
• Leadership denies visible involvement
• And legitimate concerns are dismissed as lies

This is not about legality.
It is about honesty, stewardship, and respect for the public’s intelligence.

When tens of millions of dollars are at stake—and when history suggests those dollars will be absorbed into the General Fund—splitting legal hairs is not leadership.

It is precisely the moment when ethical clarity matters most.

El Cerrito has qualified a ballot measure proposing a 17-cent-per-square-foot tax, yet has not publicly released an analysis explaining why that specific rate is necessary, how it was calculated, or how it aligns with project scope, alternatives, and realistic timelines.

That absence is no longer theoretical. It is now part of the public record.

What the Public Record Shows

During the City Council retreat, concerns were raised through public comment and written submissions entered into the record about the lack of foundational information supporting the proposed tax.

These comments did not argue against libraries or public investment. They focused on process—specifically, whether voters have been given enough information to evaluate a permanent tax responsibly.

The concerns raised were consistent and narrowly framed, calling for:

• Comparative cost estimates for library alternatives
• Greater clarity regarding a parking strategy and mitigation measures
• A realistic development timeline for the El Cerrito Plaza BART site

These were not abstract objections. They were requests for basic decision-making information that typically precedes ballot qualification.

Development Context Remains Unsettled

Uncertainty surrounding the broader Plaza BART development was also acknowledged.

At present, only one building—the 70-unit affordable housing project at 515 Richmond Street—has secured funding through the State of California’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program. That project was approved earlier than the rest of the development, in April 2023, and construction has begun.

No other buildings at the site have confirmed funding to date. As a result, the overall buildout schedule, sequencing, and parking impacts remain unresolved, even as the City advances a tax tied to that broader context.

Library Alternatives: Information Is Coming—After Qualification

According to residents, a separate discussion during the retreat, City Manager Karen Pinkos stated that information on library alternatives will be presented at the January 20 City Council meeting. Assistant City Manager Will Provost explained that the consultant, Griffin Structures, developed five scenarios for a new library. Those scenarios are expected to be included in a council packet released January 15.

By then, the tax measure will already be qualified.

This sequencing means voters are being asked to evaluate a fixed tax rate before seeing:

• Side-by-side cost comparisons across alternatives
• Differences in scope, phasing, or timing
• How each option interacts with development and parking constraints

That limits meaningful public evaluation.

Parking Impacts: Analysis Underway, No Timeline

Parking remains one of the most significant unresolved issues.

When fully built, the Plaza BART development would eliminate 740 existing BART parking spaces and replace them with 743 new apartments. City staff have stated that a plan to modernize on-street parking is intended to address these impacts.

However, staff confirmed during the retreat that there is no timeline for when the public will see that plan.

In November 2024, the City approved a $220,000 contract with Dixon Resources to conduct a parking inventory using drones and license-plate readers, analyze the data, collaborate with staff, and manage public engagement. The contract specifies data collection across multiple weekday and weekend periods.

As of now, that analysis has not been released, and no dedicated library parking has been identified.

The June Special Election Decision

The City has chosen to place the measure on a June special election, rather than a regular November ballot.

A November election would have provided additional time to complete analysis, release comparative cost information, clarify parking impacts, and allow residents to evaluate library alternatives alongside clearer development timelines. It would also have reduced election costs by aligning with a regularly scheduled cycle.

Instead, the City is proceeding with a stand-alone election while acknowledging that key information is still forthcoming.

Special elections are not inherently inappropriate. But when combined with unfinished analysis and unresolved planning questions, the decision reasonably invites scrutiny about timing and preparedness.

Fact Box: What Is Known vs. What Is Pending

✔ What Is Known (On the Public Record)

• A 17-cent per square foot tax measure has been qualified for the ballot in El Cerrito.
• The City has not publicly released a rate study or analysis showing how the 17-cent figure was calculated.
• Public comment and written submissions at the City Council retreat requested additional data before voter consideration.
• Only one building at the Plaza BART site—the 70-unit project at 515 Richmond Street—has secured state funding.
• Construction has begun on that single-funded building; no other buildings have confirmed funding.
• Five library scenarios have been developed by Griffin Structures, per staff statements.
• A $220,000 parking study contract has been approved.
• Staff stated there is no timeline for release of a public parking plan.
• The measure is scheduled for a June special election.

⏳ What Is Pending (Not Yet Released)

• A public explanation of how the 17-cent tax rate was derived
• Side-by-side cost comparisons of library alternatives
• Identification of a preferred option and rationale
• A development timeline for unfunded portions of Plaza BART
• Release of parking inventory data and mitigation strategies
• Clarification of how tax proceeds would be handled if projects are delayed or re-sequenced

The Central Issue Raised at the Retreat: Process

This discussion is not about whether El Cerrito values its library. Past funding decisions and planning efforts make that clear. The issue raised through public retreat comments and written submissions is whether the process provides voters with enough information to make an informed decision about a permanent tax.

A measure has advanced without the City having publicly articulated:

• A documented rationale for the specific tax rate
• A clear comparison of alternatives
• Sequencing across library, parking, and development decisions
• Contingencies if assumptions change

Only after these concerns were formally entered into the record has additional information been scheduled for release.

That sequence does not resolve the concern. It explains it.

A Call to Action: Review the Record Before Voting

Between January 15 and January 20, new information will become public.

Residents should review the council packet carefully, examine cost assumptions, compare alternatives, and consider how unresolved parking and development issues intersect with the proposed tax.

Evaluating a ballot measure is not just about outcomes.
It is about whether the process supports an informed decision.

That is the question now before voters.

Each budget season over her tenure, the City Manager and Finance team repeat the same core message: delivering services = people. A reduction in staff will significantly impact service delivery. In El Cerrito, that statement has hardened into doctrine. It is no longer tested, benchmarked, or questioned—and that is precisely the problem.

It’s a crippling option of the status quo.

Cities of similar size across California deliver comparable or better services with significantly fewer staff. This is not ideological. It is structural. Yet El Cerrito continues to treat its current staffing model as untouchable rather than as a set of policy choices subject to review.

Headcount Is Not a Strategy at City Hall

Framing service delivery as a simple function of headcount shuts down real analysis. It avoids questions about organizational design, span of control, supervisory layering, overtime dependence, and productivity. High-performing public organizations do not assume every position must be refilled. They manage attrition deliberately, modernize structures, and right-size. El Cerrito does not.

Fire Command Staffing: An Outlier by Any Measure

One example illustrates the problem clearly: El Cerrito maintains four battalion chiefs—a command structure that is highly unusual for a city of this size. El Cerrito has a battalion chief responsible for training. No other Bay Area city utilizes a battalion chief for training. There are no comparable California cities of similar population with that level of fire command staffing. This is not about frontline response or firefighter safety. It is about management layers. As senior staff retire, El Cerrito has a clear opportunity to retire positions, not automatically backfill them. Doing so would preserve service while reducing long-term cost growth.

The Cost Reality Leadership Avoids

Eliminating those battalion chief positions would conservatively save approximately $2 million annually when salary, benefits, and overtime impacts are included. That figure does not account for downstream pension cost reductions. This is not theoretical. It is arithmetic. The upcoming service delivery study will almost certainly confirm what similar studies routinely find: excessive supervisory layers, outdated deployment assumptions, and opportunities to reorganize without degrading outcomes. The real question is not what the study will say. It is whether leadership is willing to act on it.

“We’re Not Hercules or San Pablo” Is an Explanation—Not a Plan

When revenue constraints are raised, leadership often responds with comparisons: we’re not Hercules with a major retail center; we’re not San Pablo with a casino. That may be true, but it is also incomplete. What’s missing is any serious strategy to attract new businesses that generate sales tax, property tax, and long-term economic activity. There is no articulated business attraction plan, no targeted land-use strategy, and no urgency around expanding the tax base. El Cerrito treats its revenue structure as fixed—then asks residents to compensate for that lack of ambition.

“Out of Our Control” Is a Convenient Narrative

Another consistent refrain from the City Manager and Finance Director is that major cost drivers are outside the city’s control, particularly pensions. It is true that El Cerrito relies on CalPERS to invest pension assets. What is not acknowledged is the more important fact: pension costs are high because staffing levels are high. Roughly 30% of the operating budget goes to pension costs. That is not a market accident. It is the predictable outcome of an oversized workforce, layered management, and overtime-heavy operations. The causal chain is straightforward: more staff leads to higher payroll, which leads to higher CalPERS contributions, which leads to higher fixed costs and less fiscal flexibility. Calling this out of our control avoids accountability for the decisions that created it.

The Parcel Tax Bet—and the Absence of a Plan B

This situation reveals an unsettling reality: city leadership seems to be relying almost entirely on a parcel tax set for 2026 to address a fundamental imbalance between revenue and expenses. This approach is not responsible financial management; it shifts the risk onto taxpayers. There is no apparent backup plan if the measure fails, nor is there a serious attempt to proactively restructure the organization. Instead, we hear repeated warnings that any cuts will severely impact services. This calls for a change in leadership.

Why This Requires a Change in Leadership

This pattern is why El Cerrito needs a change in leadership. When leaders default to excuses instead of solutions, reform stalls. When staffing is treated as untouchable, costs compound. When revenue growth is dismissed instead of pursued, taxpayers become the backstop for poor fiscal discipline. Residents should not be asked again to shoulder the burden of fiscal irresponsibility. Taxes should support efficient, well-managed services, not compensate for leadership unwilling to modernize operations, manage workforce size, or plan beyond the next ballot measure. Doing things the way they’ve always been done is no longer neutral. It is a choice. And unless that choice changes, the cost will continue to fall on the people least able to absorb it.

FACT BOX: What to Verify (Before Staff Says “That’s Not True”)

Staffing & Structure
Total FTEs per 1,000 residents compared to peer cities; fire command staffing ratios in California cities under approximately 30,000 population; battalion chief salary, benefits, and overtime impact.
Pensions
Percentage of operating budget spent on pensions; total payroll growth over the last decade; CalPERS employer contribution rate trends.
Service Delivery Study
Determine whether the scope includes management layers and the span of control, who decides which recommendations are adopted, and the implementation timeline.
Revenue Strategy
Existence of a business attraction plan; identification of underutilized parcels or corridors; entitlement timelines compared to peer cities.

Why? Because El Cerrito residents deserve better.

Repost: We’ve welcomed many new subscribers since yesterday, so we’re reposting this blog to make sure everyone has a chance to see it. Please share with other El Cerrito residents who may find it helpful.

---

This blog is heavily influenced by a recent social media post that was removed despite strong engagement.

A recent post by an engaged El Cerrito resident was removed from the neighborhood social media platform Next Door, even though it generated meaningful discussion and received many likes. The post raised questions about the proposed El Cerrito library project—specifically, whether there is a funded building at all.

The removal matters less than why the questions resonate. When discussion is curtailed, the responsibility to examine facts doesn’t disappear. It increases.

The Core Issue: There Is No Funding for the Building

The proposed library is planned for Parcel C West at El Cerrito Plaza. As of today, there is no secured funding for Parcel C West, no approved affordable housing project on Parcel C West, and without the housing project, there is no building in which the library can exist.

Despite this, residents are being asked to vote on a 17-cent-per-square-foot parcel tax on June 2, 2026. If approved, tax collection could begin as early as December 2026 and continue indefinitely.

No Plan B, No Second Vote

If voters approve the tax, collections may begin before construction is even possible, funds can legally be used for planning, consultants, and other city purposes, and voters do not get a second chance if the project stalls, changes or fails.

The Timeline That Isn’t Being Talked About

• June 2, 2026: Parcel tax vote.
• December 2026: Possible start of tax collection.
• December 2026: Next announcement of state grant awards.
• 2032 at the earliest: Possible construction start—if all funding aligns.

The Grant Dependency Problem

The library plan depends on winning a highly competitive state grant tied to affordable housing. These grants are oversubscribed, dependent on volatile revenue sources, and far from guaranteed.

Why This Should Give Voters Pause

All of this should give residents real pause before voting yes on a long-term parcel tax. Voters are not being asked to approve a finished plan. They are being asked to approve a revenue stream first, with no funded building, no secured grant, no clear construction timeline, and no contingency if the core assumptions fail.

Once the tax is approved, it can begin within months, continue for decades, and does not require the library to be built, nor does it require voter reauthorization if plans change.

Pausing is not opposition. Asking for clarity is not obstruction. Declining to prepay for a speculative project is a reasonable response when the risk is asymmetric and the consequences are permanent.

That alone should give people pause when they step into the voting booth on June 2, 2026.

Fact Box: What Voters Should Verify Before June 2, 2026

• Proposed Tax: 17 cents per square foot parcel tax
• Election Date: June 2, 2026
• Potential Tax Start: December 2026
• Tax Duration: Indefinite (30+ years)
• Library Location: Parcel C West (unfunded)
• Current Status of Parcel C West: No secured funding, no approved housing project
• Key Dependency: Competitive AHSC (Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities) state grant
• Next AHSC Award Announcement: December 2026
• Earliest Plausible Construction Start: 2032 (assuming funding is secured)

Risk Holder: Property owners (no second vote, no build requirement tied to tax

Last week, we told you about the unusually low sales price of the home on Arlington. After further research, we found that selling prices have been declining for some time.

There’s a quiet rewrite happening in how El Cerrito’s housing market is being described.

Recent narratives lean on selective late-year sales and citywide median prices to suggest stability. But medians obscure what actually matters to homeowners: what comparable homes sold for, on comparable streets, over time.

When you look at address-level outcomes by neighborhood — flats, mid-hill, and Arlington and above — a consistent pattern emerges:

Homes across El Cerrito sold for more earlier in 2025 than they did later in the year.

This isn’t conjecture. It’s what the sales tape shows. And it matters because market turns do not announce themselves. They appear first as reduced pricing power, not panic.

The Flats: Elm, Richmond, Liberty — Stress Shows Up Here First

The flatland neighborhoods — Elm Street, Richmond Street, Liberty Street, and nearby corridors — are historically El Cerrito’s most price-sensitive areas. That makes them the early warning system.

In early and mid-2025, comparable single-family homes in the flats were still clearing at relatively strong levels:

• Multiple sales in the high-$800Ks to mid-$900Ks, depending on size and condition
• Buyers still willing to stretch modestly, assuming appreciation and city stability would absorb today’s costs

By late 2025, that changed:

• Similar homes on the same streets selling in the low-$800Ks, $700Ks, and in some cases the $600Ks
• Condition mattered more, contingencies increased, and time on market lengthened

These were not distressed sales. They were ordinary transactions reflecting changed buyer behavior.

When flatland prices soften late in the year — after having sold higher just months earlier — it signals something important: buyers are no longer pricing in confidence by default.

Mid-Hill Neighborhoods: Mira Vista and Surrounding Streets

Moving up the hill, the same directional shift appears — even though absolute prices are higher.

During spring and summer 2025:

• Multiple mid-hill homes sold comfortably above $1.25M
• Several transactions crossed into the low-$1.3Ms, particularly for homes with usable layouts and updates

By late 2025:

• Strong prices still occurred, but only for homes with specific advantages
• Buyers stopped paying up simply because a home was “on the hill” or “in El Cerrito”

Homes without ideal layouts, recent upgrades, or compelling views faced sharper negotiations — even when similar homes had cleared higher earlier in the year.

This is not buyer disappearance. It is buyer selectivity replacing buyer urgency.

Arlington and Above: The Premium Tier Softened Too

The most revealing shift appears in and above Arlington Boulevard — long considered El Cerrito’s pricing anchor.

Earlier in 2025:

• Homes along Arlington and nearby premium corridors cleared well into the mid-$1.4M to $1.5M range

By November and December 2025:

• Comparable homes along the same corridor recorded sales materially lower
• In several cases, prices landed closer to the low-$1.1Ms

These were not distressed transactions. They were standard arms-length sales reflecting revised buyer expectations.

When premium neighborhoods lose pricing power after having sold higher earlier in the year, it signals that confidence erosion has moved uphill.

Why Late-Year Medians Are Masking the Trend

Citywide medians can move sideways — or even tick up — while real values quietly reset underneath.

In late 2025:

• Fewer homes sold overall
• The mix skewed toward smaller, flatter, or more compromised properties
• Premium homes sold only when pricing aligned tightly with buyer confidence

That combination can create the illusion of stability while pricing power narrows sharply.

Markets don’t collapse first. They tighten.

This Is Not a Crash — It’s a Confidence Shift

El Cerrito is not collapsing. But it is repricing risk, neighborhood by neighborhood.

Earlier in 2025, buyers assumed:

• Future appreciation would cover today’s stretch
• City decisions would not materially affect livability or taxes
• Time was on their side

By late 2025, those assumptions weakened.

When that happens, buyers don’t leave. They negotiate. And sellers feel it last.

Why This Matters for Homeowners

If you own in El Cerrito and plan to refinance, sell in the next few years, or rely on equity for retirement or long-term planning, you should understand this clearly:

Your home may have been worth more in April or June 2025 than it would have sold for in November or December — even if headlines say the market is fine.

Markets turn quietly. First through hesitation. Then through reduced pricing power. Then through values adjusting.

What buyers are really pricing is trust.

The Three Confidence Levers Driving Buyer Behavior

Tax Friction

Transaction costs that don’t improve the home but reduce affordability.

In El Cerrito:

• City Real Property Transfer Tax: $12 per $1,000 (1.2%)
• County Documentary Transfer Tax: $1.10 per $1,000

Buyers internalize these costs. The result is fewer moves, fewer stretch bids, and heightened sensitivity to signals that additional taxes may be coming.

Safety Confidence

Not just crime statistics — but responsiveness, enforcement, and leadership credibility.

When safety confidence weakens, hesitation shows up first in BART-adjacent and flatland neighborhoods, then moves uphill.

Fiscal Confidence

Belief that the city can manage long-term obligations without serial emergency measures.

Even with removal from the State Auditor’s high-risk designation in December 2024, confidence can erode if public messaging suggests:

• More taxes are inevitable
• Major commitments lack clear funding plans
• Financial trade-offs are not communicated transparently

When fiscal confidence weakens, the market narrows. Only the most desirable homes retain pricing power.

The Takeaway

Home values behave like a trust index.

When a city signals more taxes and less clarity, buyers stop paying premium prices — quietly at first, then unmistakably.

El Cerrito’s 2025 sales tell a consistent story across every tier: homes sold for more earlier in the year than later.

That is the signal.

Call to Action: Restore Confidence — and Home Values

If you own a home in El Cerrito, now is the moment to be clear with City leadership.

Tell the City Council:

• Protect homeowner equity — stop treating it as a fiscal backstop
• Restore fiscal clarity before proposing new taxes
• Address safety and quality-of-life concerns proactively
• Communicate financial trade-offs honestly and transparently

Homeowners did their part. We invested here. We pay the bills. We maintain the community.

Now City leadership needs to do theirs.

Shape up — or step aside.

Not because residents don’t value libraries, but because this City has not earned another blank check.

El Cerrito’s financial condition didn’t become fragile overnight — and it didn’t happen “to” the City. The California State Auditor found El Cerrito to be at high risk of financial instability due to continual overspending, poor budgeting, and the lack of a comprehensive recovery plan, noting that the City depleted its general fund reserves in FY 2016–17 and relied on short-term loans to keep operating.  After that, the city continued to overspend and continues to overspend.

Now, with a parcel tax campaign accelerating, residents are being asked — again — to trust the same leadership circle that presided over the years when reserves fell, warning signs were missed, and structural problems deepened.

Greg Lyman is central to this story. As the current Chair of the Committee for a Plaza Station Library he is a key figure during the years El Cerrito’s finances spiraled. At the same time, the committee’s FPPC filing lists Greg Lyman in the treasurer role and shows the filing digitally signed by him — the kind of detail that matters because it confirms he isn’t a bystander; he’s a responsible officer of the campaign.

This isn’t just about who holds what title. It’s about who is carrying the message and driving the strategy. Lyman has done that before — including during the State Auditor’s scrutiny. In a memo authored by Mayor Greg Lyman, he described the State Auditor’s team visiting El Cerrito after the City received a “high risk” rating. He wrote that the Auditor’s team spoke to the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Finance Director, department heads, and every councilmember, and that he “told El Cerrito’s story” about how the City got into trouble and what it planned to do next.

His own description of that history is revealing. In that same memo, Lyman stated reserves fluctuated for a decade and said the City’s reserves went from $3.4 million (2008) down to $1 million (2019), “primarily” because funds were pulled from reserves to plug budget gaps tied to ongoing policy decisions. In other words, the pattern was known and discussed, yet it was still normalized as the way El Cerrito kept going.

And here’s the part residents should not ignore: the current City Manager, Karen Pinkos, was not an outsider arriving after the damage was done. The City’s own profile notes she came to El Cerrito in 2001, served as Assistant City Manager, and was appointed City Manager in December 2018 — squarely within the era of “high risk” findings and the ongoing effort to stabilize finances.  Lyman’s memo also confirms City management was directly engaged in the Auditor’s review process.

It’s 2026, and the City is still not operating from strength. Even in recent budget documents, the City relied on appropriating $2,446,754 from the Unrestricted General Fund Balance to close gaps, and the City Manager explicitly reviews the mid-year update. Another City budget presentation states the City needed $1,000,000 in ongoing structural changes to “maintain reserve levels.” That is not what “earned trust” looks like. That is a City still leaning on reserves and still trying to outrun structural reality.

Meanwhile, the City is publicly circulating polling that points residents toward the same tax architecture the initiative uses. The City reports commissioning Godbe Research and notes that a survey found 61% of voters in favor of a parcel tax of $0.17 per square foot of building area for a new library. That matters because it shows how closely the political campaign’s design aligns with City Hall’s own messaging.

Now look at what the initiative actually does. The petition summary states that the measure would levy an annual parcel tax with an initial maximum of $0.17 per square foot of improvements (or $100 for a vacant parcel), authorize yearly adjustments, and allow the use of revenue for listed purposes, including paying debt service on bonds or other indebtedness. (Committee for A Plaza Station Library) It also defines the “Tax Administrator” as the Finance Director or another City official designated by the City Manager — a reminder that, even when marketed as “citizen-led,” implementation lives inside City government. (Committee for A Plaza Station Library)

So here is the bottom line: El Cerrito residents are being asked to sign up for another long-term obligation while the City is still stabilizing, still using reserves to bridge gaps, and still asking the public to trust leaders and insiders who already have had many chances to prove fiscal discipline.

Saying no is not anti-library. It is pro-accountability.

It is residents insisting on a basic standard: before you ask for more money, show that you can manage what you already have. Before you ask for a new tax, demonstrate sustained structural balance. Before you promise a beautiful public benefit, produce a complete plan that includes realistic costs, long-term operating impacts, and a credible path to protecting general fund reserves — not another campaign built on emotional framing and selective facts.

This measure is going to appear on the 2026 ballot, so residents should treat the next several months as the real decision window. Ask challenging questions now, while there is still time to shape what happens — or stop it.

Call to action
Email the City Council and the City Manager. Tell them: No new taxes in 2026 until El Cerrito demonstrates sustained fiscal stability without reserve dependence. Ask for a full public, written plan that includes total project cost, long-term operating cost, debt assumptions, reserve impacts, and what gets cut or deferred to pay for it.

• City Manager Karen Pinkos: kpinkos@elcerrito.gov (El Cerrito)
• City Clerk (for current council contact list/agendas): cityclerk@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
• City Council (verify current members/emails via City Clerk if seats have changed since prior cycles):
  Councilmember Carolyn Wysinger — cwysinger@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
  Mayor 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 (ECCRG)

Share this with neighbors — especially anyone who is tempted to sign a petition because it “sounds good.” El Cerrito isn’t voting on whether libraries matter. El Cerrito is voting on whether City Hall has earned the right to ask for more.

A resident-focused review of the Q1 General Fund Update presented November 18, 2025

El Cerrito residents deserve financial reporting that is timely, comparable, and designed for real oversight—especially in a city where taxes are already high, and the margin for error is shrinking. But the General Fund First Quarter Update presented on November 18, 2025, covers only the first quarter of the fiscal year, July 1 through September 30, 2025. That’s nearly seven weeks after the quarter ended—49 days late—meaning residents and Council are evaluating the City’s fiscal condition with information that is already outdated, while the City is well into the second quarter. When the City warns about reserves and long-term sustainability, a lag like that isn’t a minor inconvenience; it undermines meaningful oversight because the public is always looking in the rearview mirror.

The way the City frames the numbers makes the problem worse. The update repeatedly compares year-to-date revenues and spending to the full annual budget—for example, describing quarterly revenues and expenditures as a percentage of the year’s total budget. Staff also notes that revenues and expenditures are highly cyclical and timing can vary, but that is exactly why residents should be shown budget versus actual for the same period: year-to-date actuals compared to a year-to-date (phased) budget, with clear variances. That matching-principle approach is how you distinguish normal timing differences from real over-spending, under-performance, or emerging structural gaps. Without it, the public is left with percentages that sound precise but don’t tell you whether the City is tracking as expected for this point in the year or drifting off course.

This isn’t academic—it goes straight to reserves, which are the City’s safety net. The City’s minimum General Fund reserve policy is 17% of expenditures, and the City’s own table shows that the discretionary cushion above that minimum is only a few million dollars. In plain terms, the truly flexible cushion is not a massive pool of money; it is the portion most vulnerable to being chipped away through one-time appropriations from unassigned fund balance. Once that discretionary layer is reduced, the City has fewer options to absorb shocks without cutting services or turning to new taxes.

Which brings us to the second issue residents should connect directly to the quarterly update: Council spending approvals, and where the money comes from. In this agenda cycle, Council is asked to approve audio-visual upgrades for the Council Chambers funded by a one-time appropriation from unassigned balances, including a substantial amount from the General Fund unassigned balance. That is a direct draw on reserves—plain and simple. Other authorizations may be described as budgeted or offset by savings, but residents should not lump all spending items together; what matters is whether an action is truly funded within the operating budget or is paid for by draining the unassigned balance.

Since El Cerrito expects residents to accept premium taxation, residents should require premium governance in return: faster quarterly reporting while it still informs decisions; budget-versus-actual comparisons for the same period with clear variances; and plain-language explanations every time reserves are used. Trust doesn’t come from reassuring slides or percentages—it comes from timely information, apples-to-apples reporting, and honest reserve accounting.

What residents should ask for (and expect)

• Quarter updates are delivered quickly enough to influence decisions, not months after the fact.
• Budget vs. actual reporting for the same period (YTD actual vs. YTD budget) with clear variances.
• Clear identification of every action that uses reserves, including the exact fund source (e.g., unassigned General Fund balance).
• A simple reserve dashboard that distinguishes the policy minimum from the discretionary cushion.

Contact City leadership

City Manager: Karen Pinkos — kpinkos@elcerrito.gov

City Council:

• Carolyn Wysinger — cwysinger@elcerrito.gov

• Gabe Quinto — gquinto@elcerrito.gov

• Rebecca Saltzman — rsaltzman@elcerrito.gov

• Lisa Motoyama — lmotoyama@elcerrito.gov

• William Ktsanes — wktsanes@elcerrito.gov

City Clerk: cityclerk@elcerrito.gov | 510-215-4305