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/

For decades, El Cerrito has responded to fiscal pressures with one familiar tool: more taxes. From parcel taxes and storm drain assessments to multiple sales tax hikes and the 1.2% real property transfer tax, voters have repeatedly been asked to approve new revenue streams to “preserve city services” and “prevent cuts.”

Yet today, service levels are declining, crime is increasing, and the city is signaling that additional taxes may be on the horizon.

A History of Rising Taxes — With Little to Show for It

The record is clear:

• Four separate sales tax measures since 2008 have brought El Cerrito’s local rate to 1%, and in 2024, that tax was made permanent.
• Layered parcel assessments for storm drains, landscaping, lighting, and parks continue indefinitely.
• A real property transfer tax was added in 2018, creating a major new revenue stream on home sales.
• Residents still pay an 8% Utility Users Tax on essential services like gas, water, and telecom.

Despite these layers of taxation, El Cerrito continues to struggle with basic service delivery. Streets and sidewalks remain in disrepair. The Swim Center requires major renovation. Library access is uncertain. The senior center remains closed. The city has no established service delivery standards — and police efforts have not kept pace with community safety needs.

Recent crime trends, including auto burglaries and theft, underscore that higher taxes haven’t translated into stronger public safety or better quality of life.

Time for Fiscal Responsibility

The city must learn to live within its means and focus on improving service delivery — not expanding bureaucracy or chasing new initiatives. Instead of continually turning to taxpayers for more, leaders should focus on:

• Getting spending under control
• Prioritizing core services over new programs
• Improving financial management and accountability
• Building trust through transparency and measurable results

Residents have shown extraordinary willingness to support the city financially. But after nearly a dozen tax increases, tax fatigue is real. It’s time for City Hall to demonstrate that it can manage existing resources effectively before asking for more.

---

📊 El Cerrito Tax Measures Since 1993

Year	Measure / Description	Type	Key Details
1993	Storm Drain Assessment	Property Assessment	Funds storm drain improvements; ongoing
1996	Landscape & Lighting Assessment District (LLAD)	Property Assessment	Supports landscaping and streetlights; ongoing
2000	Measure H	Parcel Tax	Parks & Recreation facilities improvement
2008	Measure A	Sales Tax (0.5%)	Street repair and improvement
2010	Measure R	Sales Tax (0.5%)	7-year general tax
2014	Measure R (Extension)	Sales Tax (1.0%)	12-year general tax, raised to 1%
2018	Measure V	Real Property Transfer Tax (1.2%)	Charter city conversion; major new revenue
2019	Measure H (Extension)	Parcel Tax	Extended parks tax indefinitely, no increase
2024	Measure G	Sales Tax (1.0%)	Reauthorized existing 1% tax permanently
2004	Utility Users Tax (Reaffirmed)	Utility Tax	8% on utilities including telecom, gas, water

---

🗣 Call to Action: Hold City Hall Accountable

El Cerrito residents have stepped up time and again to keep the city afloat. Now, City Hall must do the same. Before asking for another tax, city leaders should:

1. Show where the money goes. Publish clear, accessible reports on how each tax dollar is used.
2. Measure what matters. Establish service delivery standards and report progress publicly.
3. Rebuild public trust. Make transparency and fiscal discipline the priority — not an afterthought.

📩 Write to the City Council and ask them to focus on results — not new revenue.
Taxpayers have done their part. It’s time for the city to do theirs.

---

Published by the El Cerrito Committee for Responsible Government (ECCRG)
Working for transparency and accountability since 2020.

Neighbors, we need to pay attention to what’s happening with our roads.

The latest data from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission shows El Cerrito’s pavement condition has fallen sharply—from a PCI score of 83 in 2018 to 66 in 2024, and now 65 as of July 2025. That’s a 17-point drop in just a few years, taking us from Very Good to Fair. Our three-year average PCI is now 68, which is below the median in the Bay Area.

Here’s what makes this even more troubling: this decline happened despite Measure T, our dedicated roads tax. The city raised taxes specifically to maintain and improve our streets, yet our pavement condition continues to deteriorate.

The estimated cost to return our roads to their 2018 condition (PCI 83) is now between $13 million and $27 million, as deferred maintenance becomes more expensive with each passing year.

Source: MTC Pavement Condition Report 2024
https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-11/%20PCI_table_2024_data_11-10-2025.pdf

So the question is simple: Where is the money going?

How did our PCI fall below the regional median even though we have a dedicated tax?

Why are the city’s stated goals lower than our historical performance—and still not being met?

If you want answers, write to your council members directly and ask why our roads are deteriorating while we are paying more.

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

We deserve transparency. We deserve accountability. And we deserve safe, well-maintained roads.

One of our readers questioned our earlier statement that the proposed ballot measure does not mention the word “library.” After re-reviewing the filed Notice of Intent and ballot materials, we confirm that the measure does reference funding for a library. Our prior statement was incorrect.

We are issuing this correction because it is the right thing to do. Accuracy matters—especially when discussing long-term taxes that will affect every property owner in El Cerrito.

We also call on the City of El Cerrito to correct its own public statements. For months, City representatives have insisted they are “not involved” in this initiative while simultaneously promoting a library tax at public meetings and funding surveys related to the library. These surveys are more about efficacy, and the city has already loaned the developer large sums of taxpayers’ money.

Residents deserve complete transparency, not selective information.

Why We Still Oppose the Library Tax Initiative

Even with the word “library” included in the text, the larger concerns remain, including:

1. Once the tax is approved, the funds will flow into the General Fund.

El Cerrito has a long pattern of presenting taxes as dedicated to a purpose—only for the revenue to be deposited into the General Fund without meaningful tracking or oversight. This has occurred with the Real Property Transfer Tax, the Utility Users Tax, the Pool Tax, and the 2008 Streets Tax. Promises of reviews, audits, and accountability have repeatedly gone unfulfilled.
On paper, the library initiative states the funds are for a library. In practice, the City’s history shows that those funds will not be segregated, audited, or protected.

2. The City is only at “Stage 1” of its capital project pipeline—but the library is Stage 6.

Under the City’s own adopted roadmap, a new library is far down the priority list. If the tax passes in June, property owners will begin paying in July—immediately and indefinitely—regardless of whether the library moves forward, stalls for years, or is never built. Taxation starts on Day 1. The project is years from readiness.

Our Commitment to Accuracy

We corrected this because facts and transparency matter. We appreciate the reader who raised the question—it made this review possible. Residents deserve honesty, clarity, and accountability from every source, including us.

Supporters of a new tax to fund a future library have been quick to call their effort a “citizen initiative.” Legally, that’s correct — 10% of registered voters must sign a petition to qualify a measure for the ballot.

But let’s be honest about what actually happened:

Roughly 1,800 verified signatures — in a city of 18000 voters — does not represent a groundswell of civic engagement.

It represents the bare minimum needed to avoid the more challenging path: a City Council vote requiring at least 4 of 5 council members (66⅔%) to approve placing a special tax on the ballot.

And that’s the point.

This isn’t about citizen empowerment — it’s about political convenience

Greg Lyman — the author of the measure, former councilmember, and long-time Plaza Library promoter — clearly understands the math. He also understands that four City Council votes might not be guaranteed when the stakes involve a permanent tax without clear accountability.

So instead, the initiative route allows:

✔ A simple majority vote of the Council to send it to the ballot
✔ A special tax requiring only a simple majority of voters to pass

All while framing the campaign as “community-led.”
Smart politics? Sure.
Transparent democracy? Not so much.

How Small Is 1,780 Signatures?

El Cerrito has roughly 25,000 residents and 18,000 registered voters.

To qualify this measure, organizers only need about 1,780 valid signatures.

That means:

📌 Only ~7% of residents needed to sign
(1,780 ÷ 17800 ≈ 10%)

Put differently:
90% of the people who will be taxed did not sign the petition.

Yet this small percentage could trigger a forever tax that raises at least $2.7 million every year.

$2.7 Million a Year — Without Saying “Library” Even Once

Supporters call this a library tax. The campaign name includes the library. All messaging promotes the library.

But the initiative language itself:

Does not include the word “library.” Not even once.

Because without naming the purpose, the funding is unrestricted:

• Pensions
• Payroll
• Consultants
• Routine maintenance
• Budget holes

The money can be used in any way the city chooses
Even if no new library is ever built.

And the tax:

📌 Has no expiration date

It is forever.

What Residents Are Being Told vs. What’s Actually Written

Here’s the reality in one quick snapshot:

📌 FACT BOX

“Library Initiative” — What the Campaign Says vs. What the Measure Actually Does

Campaign Messaging	Actual Initiative Language
“This is a library tax.”	The word ‘library’ does not appear once.
“Funds will build a new library.”	Tax revenue can be spent on anything the City chooses.
“Community-driven initiative.”	Only ~10% of residents needed to sign to qualify.
“High level of community support.”	“This is about the Plaza Library.”
“This is about a Plaza Library.”	No site is required, no project is guaranteed.
“Investing in our future.”	Tax lasts forever, even with no library built.
“Urgent need.”	City has no project timeline, no cost cap.

Everyone Wants a Library — But We Deserve the Truth

El Cerrito deserves:

🔹 A real project
🔹 A clear location
🔹 Proper cost accountability
🔹 An end date when the purpose is complete
🔹 Funding tied to actual deliverables

Right now, residents are being asked to hand over a permanent revenue stream — with zero guarantees.

We’ve Been Through This Before

El Cerrito has a track record:

• New taxes are sold for specific community benefits
• Once passed, revenue sinks into the General Fund
• Promised improvements never fully materialize

Residents have every reason to approach this measure with eyes wide open.

The Bottom Line

The City didn’t want to risk needing a supermajority of the Council.

So they’re using a technical workaround to create a forever tax — marketed as a library, but not legally required to fund one.

A citizen initiative in legal form? Yes.
A citizen mandate? Absolutely not.

Make Your Voice Heard — This Is Our City

El Cerrito residents are smart. We read the fine print.
And we know when we’re being sold a feel-good story to cover a forever tax.

If the City and political insiders want $2.7 million a year indefinitely,
then they should be honest about what the money is for —
and guarantee it funds a real library.

Until that happens…

📣 Show up and speak up at City Council meetings
📣 Ask direct questions about where the money will actually go
📣 Demand transparency before any tax goes to the ballot
📣 Let leaders know we see through the smoke screen
📣 And if this measure reaches the ballot… Vote NO

Because we all support better services.
We all want a library that serves every part of our community.
But a perpetual blank check is not the way to get it.

El Cerrito deserves real accountability —
not another tax with no guarantees.

The city of El Cerrito is approaching a key moment: Gabe Quinto — now in his eleventh year on the City Council — has confirmed to Livable El Cerrito on October 31, 2025, that he plans to run for re-election in 2026. At the same time, he is slated to be selected as mayor in December 2025 and serve throughout 2026.
This blog takes a closer look at the promises and rhetoric he has advanced — and contrasts them with the public record and local commentary to date. If you’re a resident with an eye on accountability and outcomes, this is a meaningful conversation.
📧 Contact: gquinto@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us

His stated priorities and public narrative

According to his official bio:
Quinto was first elected in 2014; his current term ends in 2026.

He presents himself as a proponent of good governance, diversity, equity, and environmental stewardship.
He identifies publicly as El Cerrito’s first Filipino-American and LGBTQ Councilmember — and the city’s second Asian American elected official.

His stated priorities include “equity, fiscal responsibility, and public safety.”

In short, the public story is of a seasoned Councilmember who is a progressive voice committed to inclusion and responsible management.

Where the gaps between rhetoric and practice show up

1. Fiscal responsibility vs. budget management
   Quinto often speaks about fiscal responsibility, yet under his tenure, El Cerrito has repeatedly faced structural deficits, depleted reserves, and heavy dependence on new tax measures. The city’s reserve position remains fragile, and the so-called “balanced budget” masks mid-year asks and long-term liabilities, including a pension debt exceeding $80 million.
2. Equity and transparency vs. governance culture
   While Quinto’s messaging emphasizes inclusivity and transparency, city governance remains closed. The city reveals only years-required information and doesn’t allow remote comments, which impacts the elderly, mobility-challenged and those with children. El Cerrito is opaque and heavily staff-driven, with limited citizen oversight.
   During his last campaign, he claimed to be a college graduate but hadn’t graduated.
3. Service delivery vs. resident experience
   Despite claims of supporting community safety and strong city services, residents report slower response times, aging infrastructure, and declining service quality. Key community facilities — such as the senior center and library — remain unfunded or delayed, even as new taxes are discussed.

New Taxes Initiated While Quinto Was in Office
Since Gabe Quinto first took office in 2014, the city of El Cerrito has approved several significant revenue measures. These include:

• The real-estate transfer tax: according to the city’s official FAQ the rate is $12 for every $1,000 of the purchase price. Contra Costa Vote+3elcerrito.gov+3el-cerrito.org+3 The transfer tax is codified in the Municipal Code (Chapter 4.64) at that rate. elcerrito.gov+1
• Layered parcel assessments and special taxes tied to landscaping, lighting, storm‐drains and general services have continued — even those pitched initially as temporary. Local commentary notes “every major measure since 2014… has become permanent and gone into the General Fund.”
  These new and continuing tax burdens, enacted under an agenda of “maintaining services,” raise questions about what further tax expansions residents might be asked to support when existing taxes remain in place indefinitely.

Financial Difficulties: Auditor Report, Bond Ratings and Depleting Reserves
While the city has raised new taxes and extended others, the financial backdrop shows notable stresses. According to the California State Auditor, in its audit report of the town, the city’s fiscal year 2020-21 audited statements reported a general fund reserve of only $7.1 million — or 19 % of the city’s general fund expenditures — with general fund revenues exceeding expenditures by about $6 million. California State Auditor

 The auditor noted that the increase in revenue was primarily driven by an unexpectedly robust real estate market (real estate transfer tax revenue $4 million in FY 20-21, 53 % more than expected) — revenue the city may not reliably count on going forward. California State Auditor On the bond rating front, while the city recently secured an upgrade from S&P Global Ratings in September 2025 (from “BBB” to “A-” then “A+” on particular debt) the upgrade came amid commentary that underlying finances remain in the bottom 20 % of 400 + California cities — meaning roughly 80 + cities are in worse shape, leaving about 320 + cities in better fiscal condition.  Taken together, the tax increases, deferred infrastructure and service needs, pension liabilities and historic reserve depletion mean the city’s claim of “balanced budget” must be scrutinised in light of longer-term liability and sustainability questions.

What this means for 2026
With Quinto slated to serve as mayor throughout 2026, his leadership record will face unprecedented scrutiny.

• Visibility and accountability: Every policy decision will be seen as a reflection of his leadership.
• Fiscal transparency: Residents deserve clear reporting on reserves, liabilities, and performance measures.
• Community voice: True inclusivity means more than representation — it requires responsiveness and implementing public comment.
• Measurable impact: Voters should expect progress reports tied to outcomes, not slogans.

Questions for residents to ask

• How will Quinto define and measure “fiscal responsibility” going forward?
• What steps will he take to ensure open data and genuine budget transparency?
• How will he restore trust in city management and strengthen oversight?
• What’s the concrete plan for essential community services — not just long-term aspirations?

Final thoughts
After more than a decade on the Council, Gabe Quinto enters a defining chapter of his political career. This year offers him a critical opportunity to demonstrate whether his leadership can bridge the gap between promises and measurable progress. For residents and stakeholders, now is the time to engage, ask questions, and hold city leadership accountable.

We reviewed the new Master Fee Schedule. The Council quietly approved the changes after about a decade of no changes. They could have explained the changes, but it’s hard to explain why El Cerrito residents are paying some of the highest costs in the region for basic city services. But it’s not because our services are better. It’s because the City of El Cerrito has built a costly, inefficient staffing and overhead structure — and residents are footing the bill every day.

The City’s own Master Fee Schedule shows what it really costs them to complete routine work. These fees are not market prices — they reflect the internal payroll and overhead required to get the job done.

That means every fee — every permit, every inspection, every small interaction — is a window into how expensively the City operates.

El Cerrito Is an Outlier in Payroll Costs

Compared to nearby cities performing the same public functions:

City	Fully Burdened Staffing + Overhead	Cost Per Resident	Performance Notes
El Cerrito	Highest in region	$1,977	Lower pavement condition, slower capital progress
Albany	Lower payroll cost	$1,684	Smaller city, more efficient
Hercules	Lower payroll and contract service mix	$1,654	Similar population and size as EC
Pinole	Competitive cost structure	$1,772	More conservative service delivery

Using the City’s own cost model, several standard permits illustrate this pattern.

The Cost of Bureaucracy — A Few Examples

These fees reflect the cost to City staff to perform the work, not what the City chooses to charge.

Source: El Cerrito Master Fee Schedule — fully burdened labor rates

2025-26 Master Fee Schedule – U…

Service	El Cerrito Cost	If Albany Staff Did the Same Work	Difference
Tier 1 Project Review	$3,027	$2,573	Residents pay 18% more
Tier 1 Temporary Sign Permit	$122	$104	Residents pay 17% more
Building Re-Inspection	$254	$216	Residents pay 18% more
Rental Housing Inspection (single-family)	$334	$284	Residents pay 18% more

And these are just a few. There are hundreds of fees just like them.

The Core Problem

El Cerrito’s budget isn’t bloated because:

✗ Our services are larger
✗ We offer more programs
✗ Our infrastructure is world-class

The real reason:

Too many layers of staffing + too much overhead for the work performed.

And when those systems underperform — as we’ve seen with pool repair delays, lack of a library plan, and declining streets — residents pay again, this time through new taxes.

Residents Pay More — While Services Underperform

El Cerrito families are already hit with:

✔ Higher fees
✔ Higher taxes
✔ Slower project delivery
✔ Lower quality results

This isn’t sustainable.

We deserve a city government that:

• Delivers more per dollar
• Sets staff levels based on real need
• Stops charging residents for inefficiency

What Needs to Change

A citywide operational assessment is long overdue. Priorities must include:

1️⃣ Right-sizing staffing to what is necessary
2️⃣ Aligning labor cost to service delivery
3️⃣ Eliminating redundant administrative layers
4️⃣ Transparent performance reporting
5️⃣ Long-term financial accountability

El Cerrito’s future depends on it.

Residents Can Drive Accountability

Demand clarity. Demand performance. Demand value.

Our community deserves a city that is:

Efficient. Responsible. And working for the people who pay the bills — us.