El Cerrito’s Tax Trail—and Why Voters Should Demand Accountability Before Approving Another $3 Million a Year

For more than a decade, El Cerrito has asked residents to dig deeper into their wallets—promising better services, improved facilities, and stronger community programs. The problem? Despite layer upon layer of new taxes, residents still can’t see where the money went—or what it achieved. Let’s take a look at the record.

A Decade of Promises and General Fund Deposits

2014 – Measure R (Sales Tax Renewal)
Marketed as a way to “protect and maintain city services,” this 1% sales tax was supposed to safeguard police, fire, and library programs. What voters didn’t realize was that Measure R was a general tax—meaning all the revenue flowed into the City’s General Fund, where it could be spent on anything.

2018 – Measure V (Real Property Transfer Tax)
This measure allowed the City to tax home sales up to 1.2%, supposedly to help pay for 911 response, parks, senior services, and youth programs. Once again, the money went straight into the General Fund, without any line-item tracking or transparency on how those dollars were actually used.

2019 – Measure H (Recreation Facilities Tax)
This extended the special tax, initially meant to support the Swim Center and other recreation programs. Voters were told the funds would maintain and improve recreation facilities. Yet in 2025, City staff reported that they had already used unrestricted reserves to fund pool repairs and were now proposing to use even more. If the City collects a dedicated tax for the pool, why are unrestricted General Fund dollars still being diverted to cover the exact costs? What happened to the pool money?

2024 – Measure G (Permanent 1% Sales Tax)
Instead of letting old taxes expire—or showing what they accomplished—the City made the temporary sales tax permanent. They promised to maintain services and prevent cuts, but no clear accountability report has followed.

The Same Pattern, Over and Over

El Cerrito repeatedly tells voters that new taxes will preserve essential services, maintain facilities, and improve the quality of life. Yet every major measure since 2014—sales taxes, the transfer tax, and even the “temporary” ones—have become permanent and gone into the General Fund. That means there’s no guaranteed spending on pools, parks, libraries, or seniors—just a broad pot of money that’s spent however City Hall decides. Meanwhile, the Swim Center needs significant repairs, the Senior Center was shuttered, and the City continues to draw down its reserves while asking for more.

The New “Library Initiative”: A Familiar Story

Now, El Cerrito is asking voters to approve yet another **parcel tax—roughly $3 million per year—**to “fund a new library.” But here’s the truth:

• The City has no finalized construction plan or guaranteed schedule.
• The developer lacks full financing for the El Cerrito Plaza project.
• The City plans to use taxpayer funds to issue bonds—effectively loaning money to the developer.
• There’s no assurance that the library will ever be built.
  In other words, El Cerrito is asking taxpayers to take on debt and risk before it has demonstrated any track record of fiscal follow-through.

Trust Is Earned Through Transparency

El Cerrito doesn’t have a revenue problem—it has an accountability problem. Residents have shown good faith again and again, approving taxes to invest in their community. But without clear accounting, those votes amount to blank checks. If the City truly wants trust, it should:

• Publish annual reports showing where every tax dollar was spent, measure by measure.
• Demonstrate measurable results—before proposing new revenue.
• Stop using unrestricted reserves to backfill restricted funds.
• Prioritize fixing what’s broken, not funding what’s unplanned.

The Bottom Line

Until El Cerrito proves it can responsibly manage the money it already has, voters should be cautious about giving City Hall another $3 million a year. Ask yourself:
Where did the pool money go?

What happened to the Senior Center?

And why is the City still draining reserves despite record tax collections?
El Cerrito doesn’t need another tax—it requires a precise accounting and planning.

Do not sign the library campaign and Vote NO on the Library Initiative. Demand transparency first.

Written by a group of concerned citizens

As concerned citizens of El Cerrito, we’ve followed the City’s plans for the El Cerrito Plaza Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) with great interest — and growing concern. This project was promoted as a showcase of smart growth, featuring dense housing near transit, new retail and public spaces, and a modern library at its heart. But as of November 7, 2025, the plan is years behind schedule. The library remains only a drawing on paper, and the City continues to downplay its own financial and operational involvement.

The City’s Strategic Plan clearly states that a new public library will be located on the ground floor of the Plaza development. Early materials described a six-phase project that would include six residential buildings, combining affordable and market-rate housing, ground-floor retail, and civic spaces, as well as a new library serving as the anchor amenity for the community. According to those same plans, Phase 1 — a 70-unit affordable housing building — was supposed to break ground in 2023 or 2024. The library would be included in Phase 6, the final stage of development.

Nearly two years after the first groundbreaking was expected, no construction has started. The City has celebrated a $39 million state grant and approved a $350,000 City loan to help launch the first phase of affordable housing. Yet the project remains in pre-development, with no building permits issued and no confirmed start date. Even the “late 2025” start once mentioned in City materials has quietly slipped. Every milestone that was supposed to occur before today has been missed. Despite these delays, there has been no comprehensive public update on the project’s financial impact, revised timeline, or the fate of the promised library.

The Plaza development is structured so that later phases depend on the completion and success of earlier ones. In a cooling housing market, developers often pause after the first affordable or mixed-income phases — meaning Phase 6 (the library) could be delayed for years, if not indefinitely. The initial affordable housing phases are expected to qualify for property-tax exemptions, providing minimal revenue to the City. If the market-rate phases stall, the City bears administrative and financial costs without the benefit of new tax income.

The City is not merely an observer. It has already provided a $350,000 loan and committed staff time and grant administration resources. These funds could be tied up for years if later phases are delayed or never built. Despite these investments, the City continues to act as though it’s simply “supporting” the project rather than funding and managing parts of it. Residents deserve accurate information about what has been spent, what has been delayed, and what financial risks exist.

We call on the City Council and City Manager to take the following steps: publish a revised phasing and finance schedule showing updated construction dates for all six phases, including when the library will actually be delivered; disclose all City financial contributions and liabilities, including loan terms, grant conditions, and repayment expectations; prepare a fiscal impact analysis comparing what happens if only the affordable housing phases move forward versus full build-out; and develop a stand-alone library plan, so the community is not forced to wait until the final development phase to see progress on a promised public facility.

This isn’t just about one project — it’s about credibility and fiscal responsibility. When the City commits taxpayer dollars, staff time, and long-term expectations to a private development, residents have a right to know the risks and the timeline. The Strategic Plan clearly promised a library “on the ground floor” of the new El Cerrito Plaza development. Two years later, there’s no foundation, no groundbreaking, and no revised schedule. It’s time for the City Manager to stop treating the Plaza TOD as someone else’s project. The City is financially invested — and so are we, the taxpayers. Until the City provides clear, transparent updates, we remain, respectfully but firmly, concerned citizens who expect accountability for promises made in our name.

🟦 El Cerrito Plaza TOD: Key Facts at a Glance

📍 Project Location: El Cerrito Plaza BART Station (Fairmount & San Pablo)
🏗️ Project Scope: Six-building Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) with affordable and market-rate housing, ground-floor retail, and a new public library.
📘 City’s Promise: The Strategic Plan states that the library will be located on the ground floor of the project.
📅 Original Timeline: Phase 1 (70 affordable units): Planned start 2023–24; Library (Phase 6): Final phase; As of Nov 7, 2025 → No construction has begun.
💰 Public Funds Committed: $39 million state grant for affordable housing; $350,000 City loan approved May 2025; Additional staff time and grant administration costs not publicly reported.
⚠️ Current Status: All major milestones delayed; No building permits or groundbreaking; No confirmed start date for any phase; Library phase several years away.
🏠 Housing Mix & Risk: Early phases: 100% affordable housing; Later phases: Market-rate housing (not yet funded); Affordable units typically exempt from property taxes, limiting revenue to the City.
📉 Fiscal Concerns: City has financial exposure through loans and grants; Project delays mean no new property-tax growth in the near term; Library funding tied to final phase, increasing risk of long delay.
🔍 What Citizens Are Asking For: 1) Transparent phasing and finance update; 2) Disclosure of City loans, grants, and risks; 3) Fiscal analysis for “affordable-only” vs. “full build-out” scenarios; 4) Independent plan to deliver the library.

Let’s talk about what no one at City Hall wants to admit — El Cerrito’s taxes are out of control.

Our sales tax rate is among the highest in the region, making even everyday purchases feel like a penalty for shopping locally. Residents are voting with their wallets — going elsewhere to buy groceries, clothes, or hardware. Others have simply given up shopping here altogether. Many now shop online and have their purchases shipped to friends or family members outside of El Cerrito just to avoid paying our inflated local tax rate.

Then there’s property tax — already one of the highest in Contra Costa County — combined with a real property transfer tax that adds thousands of dollars to the cost of buying or selling a home. Together, these taxes make it harder for new families and first-time buyers to move in and build their lives here.

In the unlikely event that the City could make the glorified strip mall at the Plaza TOD a reality, it would never be downtown because sales taxes are prohibitive.

As of the most recent U.S. Census and 2023 American Community Survey estimates, about 27% of El Cerrito’s population is age 60 or older — roughly 7,000 residents out of a total population of about 25,800.

Here’s how that breaks down:

• Ages 60–64: approximately 7%
• Ages 65 and older: approximately 20%

In other words, one in every four El Cerrito residents is now over 60, underscoring how rapidly the city’s population is aging — and why attracting younger families is critical to keeping the community vibrant and economically strong.

Instead of raising taxes to hide years of mismanagement, El Cerrito needs leaders who will focus on economic growth, accountability, and efficient use of resources. Prosperity doesn’t come from squeezing residents harder — it comes from making this city a place where people want to live, shop, and invest.

It’s time to elect leaders who understand that strong communities are built on smart strategy — not endless taxation.

If you agree share this blog post with neighbors and friends.

El Cerrito’s $53.8 million operating budget is being stretched thin by payroll and pension costs that far exceed those of neighboring cities. Each year, the city spends about $8.5 million on required pension contributions — nearly 16% of the total operating budget — while still carrying an unfunded pension liability of roughly $83 million. That means taxpayers are paying heavily for promises made long ago, with no clear plan to reduce those costs. This is not sustainable. And it’s not fair to residents who are being asked to pay more and get less.

Payroll Pressure and Pensions That Outpace the Region

The city’s workforce has become increasingly expensive — not because of front-line employees who keep services running, but because of a growing concentration of high-salaried management and supervisory positions. While essential city staff are stretched thin, top-level payroll and pension obligations continue to climb. To put that in perspective, El Cerrito spends more per capita on payroll than many peer cities of similar size, yet offers shorter public hours and fewer community programs. Pension contributions have grown faster than general revenues, crowding out funding for road repair, park maintenance, and library services. Each year the city taps into reserves to close the gap — a telltale sign of structural imbalance.

Too Many Chiefs, Too Little Efficiency

One of the most glaring examples lies in the Fire Department, which maintains four Battalion Chiefs — a structure more typical of larger regional fire districts serving populations two to three times El Cerrito’s size. By comparison, nearby agencies such as Kensington, Albany, and San Pablo rely on shared command structures through regional partnerships, delivering strong emergency response with fewer layers of management. These chiefs’ salaries, benefits, and pension liabilities represent a significant recurring expense. Reducing even one Battalion Chief position could save hundreds of thousands of dollars annually — funds that could instead support equipment upgrades, training, or community fire prevention programs.

City Management Should Model Fiscal Restraint

The City Manager’s Office is another area where the organizational chart has grown thicker without a corresponding increase in transparency or service delivery. The city currently employs a City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Executive Assistant, and additional administrative staff — while smaller or similarly sized cities manage to operate efficiently with fewer executive positions. Streamlining leadership doesn’t mean cutting effectiveness; it means aligning resources with outcomes. At a time when every dollar counts, management must lead by example. Fiscal discipline has to begin at the top — not by reducing library hours, deferring infrastructure, or charging residents more, but by rethinking whether every executive role is truly essential.

Accountability Is a Leadership Responsibility

If El Cerrito’s leaders are serious about long-term fiscal health, they must be willing to look inward. The city cannot continue to fund an oversized management structure while drawing down reserves and postponing capital investments. True accountability means evaluating every department — including leadership — for efficiency, necessity, and impact. Residents deserve to see that management is held to performance and productivity standards.

The Path Forward

The City Council must lead this conversation. That begins with a transparent, data-driven review of executive staffing, compensation, and pension exposure — not as a punitive exercise, but as a commitment to stewardship.

El Cerrito’s financial health depends on honest reflection and decisive action. Reducing administrative overhead, aligning leadership roles with service outcomes, and prioritizing community-facing services over bureaucracy are the building blocks of sustainable governance. Residents should expect — and demand — leadership that reflects those values.

Because fiscal responsibility is about trust.

In recent months, the City of El Cerrito has repeatedly claimed to be “neutral” on the proposed parcel tax to fund a new city library. Yet, by the City’s own account, it hired two consulting firms — Godbe Research and the Lew Edwards Group — to measure voter support and assess the feasibility of a potential ballot measure. That’s not neutrality; that’s groundwork for a campaign. The City even hosted a 2024 “workshop” that drew an overflow crowd—an event that appeared more like public outreach than an effort to rally support for the Plaza Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) library project.

The Fine Line Between Information and Advocacy

Under California law, a city may use public funds to gather information, study public opinion, and assess community priorities. That’s legitimate — and often necessary for good governance. But there’s a bright line the law draws: public funds may not be used to advocate for or promote a ballot measure.
California Government Code §54964 makes it clear: cities can inform but not influence. And the state Supreme Court reaffirmed this in Vargas v. City of Salinas (2009):

“A public entity may disseminate factual information about a ballot measure, but may not engage in campaign activity — that is, materials that unambiguously urge the electorate to vote one way or another.”
So, while a city can commission a public-opinion survey, the purpose and tone matter. If the work is designed to test ballot language, identify persuasive messages, or gauge which emotional appeals will generate support, it’s not research anymore — it’s campaigning, paid for by taxpayers.

Who the City Hired Tells the Story

The City’s choice of consultants speaks volumes.

• Godbe Research is widely known for conducting “feasibility surveys” that don’t just measure satisfaction or priorities — they test ballot language, tax thresholds, and voter receptiveness.
• The Lew Edwards Group is one of California’s top political communications firms — and their specialty is running pro-tax ballot campaigns for local governments once measures are ready for the ballot. Both firms have long track records of helping cities win tax elections. They’re not public-policy analysts. They’re campaign strategists. So when El Cerrito hired both firms using public dollars, it wasn’t merely “gauging satisfaction” — it was laying the groundwork for a ballot campaign while maintaining the appearance of neutrality.

The Survey Results — and the Messaging Shift

According to the City’s website, the Godbe survey found that 61% of El Cerrito voters would support a 17-cent-per-square-foot parcel tax to fund a new library. That finding is now being cited as evidence of public backing. But notice what happened: a poll intended to “assess satisfaction and funding options” became the foundation for a political talking point. That shift — from research to narrative — is precisely why California law limits how public agencies use taxpayer-funded surveys.

When the government pays for opinion polling and then uses those results to build momentum for a future ballot measure, it blurs the line between information and advocacy.

Transparency Isn’t Optional

Residents have a right to know how their money is being spent. If the City is hiring campaign consultants under the guise of research, that deserves scrutiny. El Cerrito should release:

• The contracts and invoices for Godbe Research and the Lew Edwards Group.
• The survey instrument — every question asked, in full.
• The scope of work — to determine whether ballot language or message testing was part of the assignment. If these documents show that public funds were used to shape voter sentiment rather than inform internal planning, the City may have violated the spirit — if not the letter — of the law.

A Better Way Forward

A truly neutral approach would look very different. If city leaders believe a new library is essential, they can:

• Present the financial realities plainly, alongside existing infrastructure needs.
• Let citizen groups and independent committees champion a tax measure — using private funds, not public resources.
• Maintain the City’s role as an information provider, not a campaign partner.
  Public trust depends on clear boundaries. When government agencies quietly hire political firms to “study” a tax that later appears on the ballot, residents see through the wordplay. They don’t see transparency — they see tactics.

What Residents Can Do

El Cerrito residents deserve a transparent process and honest communication about how public dollars are being used. If you share these concerns, here’s how to make your voice heard:

1. Contact the City Council and City Manager
   Email your questions and comments directly to El Cerrito’s elected officials and city leadership. Ask them to clarify:

• What was the scope and purpose of the Godbe Research and Lew Edwards Group contracts?
• Were public funds used to test ballot language or campaign messages?
• How is the City ensuring true neutrality around the proposed library tax?
  City Council Members
• 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
  City Leadership
• City Manager: cmottern@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us

2. Ask the City Clerk to Include Your Comments in the Public Record
   Send your written comments to the City Clerk and request that they be included in the next City Council meeting packet. This ensures your concerns are part of the official public record.
   📧 City Clerk: cityclerk@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
3. Share This Information With Your Neighbors and Friends
   Transparency starts with awareness. Share this post on community platforms and neighborhood groups. Encourage others to read the contracts, review the survey questions, and ask their own questions at City Council meetings.
   Public accountability begins with informed citizens. If the City’s actions are truly neutral, it should have no hesitation answering these questions openly and on the record. Let’s make sure transparency in El Cerrito isn’t just a talking point — it’s a practice.

---

The City of El Cerrito is pressing residents to approve a tax so they can secure a $21 million bond to construct a 20,000 sq ft library. But make no mistake: this bond is less about serving the public and more about benefiting the developer and bailing out the city for mismanagement and inflated staffing.

Outdated Studies, Dubious Promises

Officials claim this blueprint is the result of “years of careful study.” What they fail to disclose is that the last serious study was done in 2014—years before digital library use became the norm, before the pandemic, and before the city’s fiscal position deteriorated.

They also promise this plan will “save $10 million”, but they have not produced a single piece of documentation to back that up.

No Alternatives, No Transparency

Perhaps most troubling, the city has not offered residents a single alternative to meet library needs.

No serious evaluation has been presented on retrofitting the existing building, adding a second floor, adapting existing commercial spaces like Marshalls or other vacant retail properties, or pursuing smaller, more fiscally responsible designs. Nothing.

Instead, we are being presented with one expensive, developer-driven vision—take it or leave it.

How Much Will We Pay?

City officials like to say “it’s just a dollar.” In reality, every property owner will pay at least $300 per year, whether the library ever gets built or not. El Cerrito residents pay nearly $3 million per year – at least $75 million + over 30 years for the privilege of paying one dollar rent.

The reality is that El Cerrito could build, retrofit and move into the Barnes N Noble building for $75 million! Instead they’re pushing a ground floor space in an apartment building.

Meanwhile, El Cerrito carries over $80 million in unfunded pension liabilities, has a long history of chronic overspending, and only recently climbed out of the bottom 3% of all California cities on the State Auditor’s fiscal risk list. Despite City Hall’s rosy rhetoric, El Cerrito still ranks in the bottom 20% statewide in financial health.

A Ponzi Scam in Disguise

This bond isn’t really about libraries. It’s essentially a Ponzi scheme: new tax dollars are presented as an investment in the community, but the annual tax revenue is actually diverted into the general fund to cover existing budget deficits. The city conveniently fails to fulfill its promises. Each new measure is added on top of the previous ones, with no structural solutions in place — just new revenue streams to keep the excessive spending and structural inefficiencies running.

Staffing Levels: A Key Driver of Costs

El Cerrito’s staffing structure is significantly larger and more expensive than peer cities of similar size. This isn’t just about “overhead” — it’s a major driver of the city’s $80+ million unfunded pension liability. No other city of comparable population carries a pension burden anywhere near this magnitude.

📊 Fact Box: El Cerrito Staffing vs. Peer Cities

Category	El Cerrito	San Pablo	Albany	Hercules
Population	~25,000	~31,000	~20,000	~26,000
Fire Department	City-run with 4 Battalion Chiefs	Regional fire district (no city battalion chiefs)	City-run with 1 Battalion Chief	Regional fire district (no city battalion chiefs)
City Manager’s Office	City Manager + Assistant City Manager + Executive Assistant, plus staff	City Manager + Assistant City Manager + support staff	City Manager + Assistant to City Manager	City Manager + 1 Administrative Specialist
Unfunded Pension Liability	$80+ million — unprecedented for a city this size	Significantly lower	Significantly lower	Significantly lower

👉 Extra management layers and high fire command staffing have directly contributed to ongoing costs, especially the city’s unfunded pension liability, which burdens current and future budgets year after year.

Broken Oversight Promises: History Repeats

This pattern has played out repeatedly:

• Oversight committees are promised up front.
• Once measures pass, City Manager Karen Pinkos redirects the revenue into the general fund, where transparency evaporates.
• The City Council asks only softball questions, providing no meaningful check. She is never sent back to the drawing board — no matter how flimsy the plan.

A clear example is the pool parcel tax approved by voters in 2000 (Measure A). Residents have paid this tax for decades, yet the city has not set aside enough for maintenance, and now millions more are needed to keep the facility operational. The 2018 Property Transfer Tax followed a similar pattern: promised oversight never materialized, and service levels continued to decline.

A 20,000 sq ft Library in the Digital Era?

At a time when people increasingly access information online, a massive 20,000 sq ft library is financially irresponsible. Sure, neighboring cities have 20,000 ft²; however, those were built a long time ago, when that was more appropriate. However, there’s no longer a need for El Cerrito.

This is not about modernizing services — it’s about creating a permanent new revenue stream for a city that refuses to live within its means.

Follow the Money — Not the Marketing

They call it a library measure; it’s really a budget shell game.
They say “it’s only $1”; we pay $300 a year.
They promise oversight; the money disappears into the general fund.
They promise savings; they show no proof.

They promise transparency; they offer none.

The truth is simple: El Cerrito’s ongoing pension obligations and inflated staffing costs are driving the need for new revenue streams, and library bonds are just the latest tool to plug those gaps. Instead of restructuring spending and addressing the $80+ million pension liability, the city keeps returning to taxpayers for more.

This bond is not a public benefit. It’s a Ponzi scheme, using future tax revenue to patch over today’s budget problems. El Cerrito deserves better than developer giveaways, inflated staffing, skyrocketing pension liabilities, and a City Council that refuses to hold leadership accountable.

What Residents Can Do

El Cerrito’s finances won’t change unless we act. For too long, city leadership has made promises it hasn’t kept, redirected funds from their intended purposes, and expanded overhead while essential services stagnate. This library bond is simply the latest chapter in a long pattern of fiscal misdirection.

Here’s how residents can push back:

• Don’t sign the petition to place the library bond measure on the ballot.
• If it does appear on the ballot, vote NO.
• Reject any new tax or bond measure for this library until the city demonstrates transparency, explores alternatives, and gets its financial house in order.
• Support and elect new city leaders who are fiscally responsible, who prioritize core services, and who will hold the City Manager accountable instead of rubber-stamping whatever is put in front of them.

El Cerrito doesn’t need more taxes. It requires leaders who will spend wisely, address the $80+ million pension hole, and focus on basic services that residents actually rely on.

It’s time for a change.

El Cerrito has a long history of asking residents to approve new taxes with big promises — only to quietly reroute those funds into the general fund once the measure passes. The result? Broken commitments, deferred maintenance, and declining trust. Time after time, residents have voted in good faith, believing they were investing in specific services or facilities. Yet the outcomes tell a different story.

2008 – The Streets Tax That Paved the Way for Decline
In 2008, voters approved a tax to maintain and repair El Cerrito’s streets, sold as an investment in public safety and infrastructure. For years, the city touted an impressive pavement condition index (PCI) of 85 — among the best in the region. But recently, that number has dropped to 68, a steep decline signaling years of underinvestment and neglect. Where did the money go? Instead of being protected for street work, much of it was absorbed into the general fund, losing the accountability that residents were promised.

2018 – Measure V: The Real Property Transfer Tax That Delivered Real Disappointment
Measure V was framed as a way to fund community services, including programs for seniors. The tax brought in far more money than projected — a financial windfall. But instead of expanding services, the city reduced them and permanently shuttered the senior center. That’s not fiscal prudence; it’s fiscal bait-and-switch. The tax revenues became a flexible line item rather than a tool for community enrichment.

2019 – Measure H: The Recreation Tax That Left Residents Holding the Bag
Measure H was supposed to maintain the swim center and support local recreation. Yet today, the city is short several million dollars for basic swim center repairs. Community groups have been forced to fundraise on their own just to maintain functional facilities. Residents paid the tax; the city pocketed the funds; and the “recreation improvements” never fully materialized.

2024 – Measure G: A Safety Measure That Didn’t Secure Safety
The latest example, Measure G, relied on a fear-based campaign — warning that rejecting it would harm public safety. Voters approved it believing it would stabilize fire and police services. But soon after, the City Council publicly struggled to find money to replace a 15-year-old fire engine or update EMS equipment. The funding supposedly guaranteed for safety disappeared into the same opaque budget pool as before.

NOW – The Proposed Library Tax: Another Promise on Thin Ice
Now the city is asking for yet another tax — this time for a library tied to the delayed Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) project. The plan shifts risk away from developers and squarely onto taxpayers, with automatic annual increases tied to two separate indexes. The tax will even pay for expanded library hours at a time when library use is declining — and without dedicated parking. The library itself may be years, even decades, away. The project is already behind schedule, and library advocates have retracted several of their earlier claims about the proposal.

So, are you expecting this tax to actually produce a library any time soon? El Cerrito’s track record suggests otherwise.

Each time, the story repeats: a persuasive campaign, a narrowly targeted tax, and then the quiet transfer of funds into the general fund, where oversight fades. Residents deserve better — transparency, accountability, and results that match the promises.

It’s time for El Cerrito to stop using taxpayers’ trust as a blank check.

Influenced by a concerned citizen’s post.

Tuesday’s City Council meeting was yet another reminder of why El Cerrito residents struggle to trust city leadership. What was presented as a simple discussion about the pool turned into something far more revealing — and far more troubling.

Councilmember Rebecca Saltzman echoed a familiar refrain: we’d better do it now, because prices will only go up. It’s a convenient argument — and politically appealing — but dangerously incomplete. Prices continuously rise over time. The real question is whether the City has done its due diligence to ensure that what it’s buying is justified, efficient, and sustainable. In this case, it has not.

What Saltzman and others overlook is that prices don’t just rise — they increase significantly even triple when you skip the homework. When a city fails to conduct reasonable inquiry, verify assumptions, or scrutinize long-term financial impacts, taxpayers pay the price — again and again.
It’s the same “rush now, reconcile later” approach that sent BART to the fiscal cliff.

Decisions made under the guise of urgency may feel bold in the moment, but they’re almost always born from a failure to ask the right questions.

Bundling, Blurring, and Burying the Truth

Item 9B — “Swim Center Lap Pool Renovation Options” — should have been straightforward. Instead, it quietly bundled an entirely separate issue: the replacement of a fire truck.

That was not disclosed in the agenda title, nor communicated in advance to the public or the Council. Only during the meeting did staff reveal that both the pool and the fire vehicle would be discussed together, with overlapping funding considerations and unclear implications for the City’s already-strained reserves.

It’s not just poor communication; it’s poor governance. When leadership allows key spending decisions to be obscured by vague or misleading presentation, and under the guise of an emergency, it erodes the very trust that transparency is supposed to build.

Misleading Numbers and Misguided Confidence

Finance Manager Claire Coleman told the Council that the City meets its 17 percent fund-balance goal — but that statement only holds if you combine the emergency reserve with unrestricted funds.

The emergency reserve is not a piggy bank. It exists for earthquakes, fires, or natural disasters — not fiscal mismanagement. Counting it toward the City’s operating cushion is like claiming you’re financially secure because you haven’t yet touched your 401(k).
This accounting sleight of hand presents a rosy picture while ignoring the hard truth: El Cerrito continues to spend down reserves that it cannot afford to replace.

A Pattern, Not a Mistake

These lapses aren’t isolated. They are part of a pattern — one that prioritizes expedience over evidence. Each time the City rushes a decision without a clear, long-term plan, it reinforces a culture of reaction instead of reflection.
If El Cerrito wants residents to believe in its fiscal stewardship, its leaders must prove they are capable of discipline, not just decision-making. The public deserves a council that probes, questions, and demands comprehensive analysis — not one that defaults to fear of higher future costs as a justification for spending now.

The Bottom Line

El Cerrito’s leadership needs to remember: “We better do it now” is not a strategy. It’s an excuse.

Sound financial management means asking: what are the trade-offs? What are the long-term impacts? How will this affect reserves, debt, and future priorities?

Until those questions are answered — publicly and transparently — residents have every reason to remain skeptical.

It’s time for leadership that values accountability over urgency, prudence over panic, and truth over talking points.

Call to Action: Demand Accountability Before Another Dollar Is Spent

El Cerrito residents must insist on more than empty assurances and rushed votes. Before authorizing another withdrawal from the City’s reserves, the Council should be required to request a comprehensive fiscal impact analysis that details how each expenditure affects reserves over the next five years; a public justification for bundling unrelated items — like the pool renovation and fire truck purchase — into a single discussion; and a clear accounting of dedicated funds, such as the existing pool tax, to show exactly how those dollars have been used.

Email your Councilmembers. Attend the next meeting. Ask the hard questions. Because if city leadership won’t exercise due diligence on its own, it’s up to residents to demand it.

Transparency is not a courtesy — it’s a covenant between the government and the people it serves. Let’s hold El Cerrito accountable for it.

Borrowing for the future means paying for the past first.

El Cerrito’s Fiscal Snapshot
Bond Rating Update: Upgraded September 9, 2025

Outstanding Pension Liability: Over $80 million (CalPERS)

New Borrowing Planned: Library construction bond, Fall 2025

Untrstricted General Fund Reserves: Below the recommended GFOA target of 15% and City Policy of 17%

Risk: Rising long-term costs despite temporary credit improvement

On September 9, the City of El Cerrito announced its new bond rating — a moment the City Manager quickly highlighted as evidence of progress. But as October unfolds, the City is preparing to borrow money to build a new library while an $80-plus million pension liability looms in the background. That’s a problem we can’t afford to ignore.

During the last four years, the City has not demonstrated that a library is a true priority — yet now it is asking taxpayers to fund one so it can borrow money on behalf of the developer. The developer should be responsible for securing its own financing; it is, after all, their project.

Moreover, El Cerrito is not in a financial position to act as both the anchor tenant and the funding agent for the El Cerrito Plaza development — particularly not through another parcel tax. Residents should not be expected to shoulder long-term debt to subsidize a private development that has yet to prove its public benefit or fiscal sustainability.

There are far more pressing needs: addressing pension costs, rebuilding unrestricted reserves, replacing an aging fire engine, and ensuring police and fire personnel have the tools they need to keep residents safe. These are the investments that strengthen the city’s foundation and protect its future.

A bond rating is not a celebration; it’s a reflection of risk. It signals how investors view our city’s ability to repay debt — not how responsibly we manage the money we already have. The fact that El Cerrito must again rely on borrowing should raise serious questions about priorities and fiscal discipline.

If the City truly wants to demonstrate financial responsibility, it should be using its borrowing capacity to address its $80 million pension liability — not adding new debt for non-essential projects. Paying down long-term obligations would strengthen the city’s fiscal position, reduce future costs, and rebuild public confidence in how taxpayer dollars are managed.

The role of a city manager is not only to execute the council’s policies but also to uphold the public’s trust through proactive, transparent communication. Residents deserve to know how every major financial decision affects our city’s future. The bond rating may look good on paper, but fiscal health is more than a number — it’s about responsibility, sustainability, and honesty.

It’s time to ask: are we building a stronger community, or just a bigger balance sheet?
Residents are encouraged to write to the El Cerrito City Council and ask how borrowing for a new library addresses the city’s $80 million pension liability and long-term fiscal stability. True transparency requires explaining not only what the City plans to build, but also how it plans to pay for what it already owes.

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
📧 City Clerk (for public comment distribution) — cityclerk@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us

---