Clarity Needed on El Cerrito’s Pool Spending Influenced by a concerned resident of El Cerrito


Influenced by a concerned resident of El Cerrito

As the City Council prepares to review Item 9D during the June 17th meeting, questions continue to surface about the scope and cost of planned Swim Center improvements. A concerned citizen has raised several key issues that deserve clear, jargon-free explanations accessible to all members of the public.

In recent meetings, the public was presented with two potential approaches to addressing the aging Emery G. Weed, III Lap Pool: a minimal “replaster-only” option costing under $400,000, or a full rehabilitation projected at $3.5 million. Residents could reasonably expect a clear decision and a path forward based on those options.

Now, we suddenly see a projected cost of $970,000 for design-related services and preliminary work, more than double the amount discussed for the basic repair. According to the staff report for Item 9D, the City proposes awarding a $220,000 contract to Rogers Stringer & McClelland, Inc. (RSM) for design services. Still, the initial phase of work is estimated at nearly $1 million when including accessibility upgrades, electric vehicle infrastructure, and other elements.

This shift in cost raises several concerns:

  • How did the project escalate from $400,000 to $970,000 for preliminary work alone?
  • Has the City provided a clear explanation of the work included in each cost estimate?
  • Is the full cost of pool repairs and upgrades now included in long-term budget forecasts, or will it emerge later as another “unanticipated” expenditure?
  • Have any future pool costs been projected over the next ten years and integrated into financial planning?

It’s true that the pool produces revenue through classes, recreation programs, and rentals. However, despite multiple public requests, the City has repeatedly declined to provide a detailed cost analysis that compares revenue with actual expenses. Without transparency around variable costs—like lifeguards, chemicals, utilities, and maintenance—residents have no way to assess whether the facility operates sustainably or continues to drain general fund resources.

This lack of disclosure is especially troubling given that the Swim Center is a known cost center. While it serves a valued role, it also competes for funding with other vital needs: a functioning Senior Center, basic infrastructure repairs, and improvements to public spaces like the Ohlone Greenway.

Where is the community discussion about priorities? Where is the data that allows residents to make informed trade-offs?

In short, residents are simply asking for clarity, accountability, and accessible communication. When this item is discussed, we urge City leaders to:

  • Speak plainly and into the microphone (especially since the city’s audiovisual system continues to underperform).
  • Provide a transparent breakdown of pool revenues and expenses.
  • Clearly identify what is included in each cost estimate and what additional phases are expected.
  • Share how this project fits into the City’s larger financial strategy.

If El Cerrito hopes to restore trust in its financial governance, it starts with transparency and thoughtful public discourse. Let’s begin tomorrow.

essing the aging Emery G. Weed, III Lap Pool: a minimal “replaster-only” option costing under $400,000, or a full rehabilitation projected at $3.5 million. Residents could reasonably expect a clear decision and a path forward based on those options.

Now, suddenly, we see a $970,000 projected cost just for design-related services and preliminary work—more than double the amount discussed for the basic repair. According to the staff report for Item 9D, the City proposes awarding a $220,000 contract to Rogers Stringer & McClelland, Inc. (RSM) for design services. Still, the initial phase of work is estimated to be nearly $1 million, including accessibility upgrades, electric vehicle infrastructure, and other elements.

This shift in cost raises several concerns:

  • How did the project escalate from $400,000 or $3.5 million to $970,000 for preliminary work alone?
  • Has the City provided a clear explanation of the work included in each cost estimate?
  • Is the full cost of pool repairs and upgrades now included in long-term budget forecasts, or will it emerge later as another “unanticipated” expenditure?
  • Have any future pool costs been projected over the next ten years and integrated into financial planning?

It’s true that the pool produces revenue through classes, recreation programs, and rentals. However, despite multiple public requests, the City has repeatedly declined to provide a detailed cost analysis that compares revenue with actual expenses. Without transparency around variable costs—like lifeguards, chemicals, utilities, and maintenance—residents have no way to assess whether the facility operates sustainably or continues to drain general fund resources.

This lack of disclosure is especially troubling given that the Swim Center is a known cost center. While it serves a valued role, it also competes for funding with other vital needs, such as a functioning Senior Center, basic infrastructure repairs, and improvements to public spaces like the Ohlone Greenway.

Where is the community discussion about priorities? Where is the data that allows residents to make informed trade-offs?

In short, residents are simply asking for clarity, accountability, and accessible relevant information. When this item is discussed, we urge City leaders to:

  • Speak plainly and into the microphone (especially since the city’s audiovisual system continues to underperform).
  • Provide a transparent breakdown of pool revenues and expenses.
  • Clearly identify what is included in each cost estimate and what additional phases are expected.
  • Share how this project fits into the City’s larger financial strategy.

If El Cerrito hopes to restore trust in its financial governance, it starts with transparency and thoughtful public discourse. Let’s begin with Tuesday.

UP TO 80% OF CURBSIDE PARKING ON RICHMOND STREET TO BE REMOVED FOR BIKE LANES

The City of El Cerrito has released the updated Richmond Street Complete Street Project plan—dated Monday, June 9, 2025—and the implications for neighborhood parking are serious.

Under the proposed plan, 160 of the 247 current on-street parking spaces along Richmond Street will be permanently removed to make way for dedicated bike lanes. Only 88 spaces will remain across 8 blocks, leaving residents and their guests scrambling to find parking—not just on Richmond, but throughout adjacent residential streets.

What’s Changing?

Here’s a block-by-block breakdown of the proposed changes:

BlocksParking Before (West)Parking Before (East)Parking After (West)Parking After (East)Parking Reduction (%)
Hill St. to Blake St.221915063%
Blake St. to Potrero Ave.1190670%
Potrero Ave. to Gladys Ave.142031353%
Gladys Ave. to Donal Ave.17136467%
Donal Ave. to Manila Ave.13144663%
Manila Ave. to Schmidt Ln.19157565%
Schmidt Ln. to Portola Dr.132101264%
Portola Dr. to Moeser Ln.15120581%
Total124123355165% reduction

This isn’t just a shift in design—it’s a dramatic reduction in livability for the people who call Richmond Street home.

ACTION NEEDED NOW

The City Council will vote on the plan in July. The **next—and potentially last—chance to speak out is at the Council meeting on:

📅 Tuesday, June 17, 2025
🕕 6:00 PM (arrive by 5:45 PM to sign up)
📍 El Cerrito City Hall, 10890 San Pablo Avenue

🚨 Your voice matters. Whether you’ve spoken at Council meetings before or not, now is the time to show up. Prepared remarks (2–3 minutes) are recommended. The Richmond Street Neighbors Association will be there and can help coordinate if you’d like to attend with others.

El Cerrito residents deserve infrastructure improvements that serve everyone—not solutions that worsen parking shortages and force existing residents to bear the brunt of poor planning.

We urge you: show up, speak up, and stand up for your neighborhood.

See you June 17 at 6 PM. LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD.

El Cerrito’s FY 2025–26 Budget Reduces General Fund Reserves to Cover Operating Gap

At its June 17, 2025 meeting, the El Cerrito City Council is scheduled to adopt the FY 2025–26 budget. While the proposed budget is presented as balanced, it includes a planned $2.3 million reduction in the City’s unrestricted General Fund balance to close a projected operating shortfall—continuing a troubling trend of using one-time reserves to fund recurring expenses.

The planned drawdown is detailed in Agenda Item 9A of the June 17 City Council packet on page 295. Following last year’s $3.45 million in midyear appropriations and additional one-time costs, the City has now used $12.7 million—or 55%—of its unassigned reserves over the past two years.

This approach reflects a deeper and ongoing structural issue. Despite presenting a balanced budget each year, the City’s expenditures consistently exceed recurring revenues. Rather than aligning the budget structurally or adjusting service levels or revenues accordingly, the City backfills shortfalls with reserves—deferring necessary decisions until future budget cycles.

While the City’s financial policy calls for a minimum unrestricted General Fund reserve of 17% of operating expenditures, the long-range projections in the FY 2025–26 budget show that El Cerrito will fall well below that threshold by FY 2027–28. The data highlights how the City’s reserve levels drop steadily and are projected to fall below the 17% target starting in FY27–28, with further decline in the outyears—signaling mounting structural pressure with no clear long-term fix in place. Even under the best-case scenario presented in the financial forecast, the City expects to rely on unrestricted reserves through FY 2032–33—another seven years of reserve depletions instead of permanent solutions.

The Council already approved major midyear spending earlier this year to cover outstanding obligations and unfunded needs from the prior cycle. Now, instead of right-sizing the base budget, the City is doubling down on a strategy of absorbing cost pressures through temporary reserve usage—a method that leaves little room to maneuver if the economy slows or unexpected costs arise.

These are not one-time shocks. The spending pressures embedded in the FY 2025–26 budget are ongoing. Yet the solution being applied is temporary. As the staff report notes, the City is using one-time funds to support what are, in many cases, continuing service demands and cost obligations.

If adopted, the FY 2025–26 budget will mark the third consecutive year that El Cerrito has relied on the General Fund balance to prop up its operations—without implementing a long-term correction. And that reliance doesn’t end here. The City’s own projections show continued drawdowns for at least seven more years, signaling an unsustainable path that chips away at core reserves year after year while structural imbalances go unresolved.

The community deserves a more transparent discussion about trade-offs, priorities, and long-term strategies. A truly balanced budget isn’t just about plugging holes—it’s about ensuring the City can meet future obligations, maintain public trust, and deliver stable, quality services without burning through its financial safety net.

For those interested in the data, the proposed FY 2025–26 budget and reserve forecast can be found in Agenda Item 9A of the June 17, 2025, City Council packet.

What El Cerrito Isn’t Telling You

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

The Parcel Tax “Exemption” Is Not What It Seems

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

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

The City Has No Plan for the Current Library Site

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

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

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

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

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

A Call for Transparency and Civic Integrity

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

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

A Library for Her Résumé, Not for El Cerrito: Editorial

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

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

This isn’t policy. It’s politics.

And it’s personal.

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

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

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

But at what cost?

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

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

We don’t need a résumé builder.

We need responsible leadership.

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

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

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

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

El Cerrito’s Challenges: High Taxes and Economic Growth

El Cerrito stands at a pivotal juncture in its economic development. Despite its strategic location and vibrant community, the city struggles to attract and retain businesses. High tax rates and unfavorable comparisons to neighboring municipalities have created a challenging environment for economic growth.

The Tax Burden Pushing Businesses Away

El Cerrito’s tax structure places a heavy financial burden on businesses and homeowners, making it less attractive than neighboring cities. Several key taxes contribute to this issue:

  • Sales Tax: At 10.25%, El Cerrito has one of the highest sales tax rates in the region, making goods and services more expensive compared to nearby areas.
  • Real Property Transfer Tax: When properties change hands, sellers face a $12.00 per $1,000 city tax, on top of $1.10 per $1,000 from Contra Costa County—bringing the total to $13.10 per $1,000. This high cost discourages property sales and investment.
  • Parcel Taxes and Special Assessments: Property owners already pay a variety of local fees on top of standard property taxes, which fund city services, schools, and infrastructure projects.
  • Proposed $300 “Forever” Tax: In an effort to address budget shortfalls, City Manager Karen Pinkos, the City Manager is advocating for a new permanent tax of $300 per year per property. While intended to fund essential services, this ongoing financial obligation further increases the cost of living and doing business in El Cerrito.

With these cumulative tax burdens, many businesses and residents find it more cost-effective to invest in nearby cities with lower tax rates and fewer financial obstacles.

To reverse this trend, El Cerrito must take proactive steps to make itself more attractive to businesses and residents. Potential solutions include:

  • Tax Reform: Aligning tax rates with those of neighboring cities could level the playing field.
  • Incentives for Businesses: Offering tax breaks, grants, or subsidies for small businesses and startups could encourage investment.
  • Streamlined Regulations: Reducing bureaucratic red tape would make it easier for businesses to establish and grow.
  • Stronger Promotion of City Assets: El Cerrito boasts a great location, transit accessibility, and a tight-knit community—qualities that should be marketed effectively to attract investors.
  • Diversifying Revenue Streams: Reducing reliance on tax measures for public services by exploring alternative funding sources, such as public-private partnerships, grants, and economic development initiatives, can lessen the financial burden on residents and businesses.

The Economic Benefits of Attracting New Businesses

Bringing new businesses into El Cerrito doesn’t just enhance the local economy; it also generates additional revenue for the city. Here’s how:

  • Job Creation: New businesses create employment opportunities, leading to increased household incomes and spending power within the community. This, in turn, stimulates demand for local goods and services.
  • Expanded Tax Base: A thriving business environment broadens the city’s tax base. Increased business activity leads to higher sales tax revenues and property values, providing the city with more resources to fund public services without overburdening existing taxpayers.
  • Local Multiplier Effect: Money spent at local businesses tends to recirculate within the community. For instance, local businesses often source goods and services from other local enterprises, amplifying the economic impact.

El Cerrito has the potential to be a thriving hub for businesses and residents, but without strategic adjustments, it risks falling behind. By addressing tax disparities, implementing targeted incentives, and diversifying revenue streams, the city can create a more welcoming environment that fosters growth and long-term prosperity.

The question remains: Will El Cerrito take action to become competitive, or will it continue to lose out to its more business-friendly neighbors? The future of the city’s economic development depends on the choices made today.

El Cerrito’s Misguided Development Gamble

El Cerrito’s City Council is pursuing a plan to relocate the public library into a high-density development at the Plaza BART Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) site. They claim it’s about modernizing services. In reality, it’s about propping up their speculative “urban village” vision—an idea that casts the library not as a civic resource, but as an anchor tenant to help their developer partner fill apartments and improve rental absorption rates.

The proposal mimics past financial maneuvers. The Municipal Finance Authority will be used again, and the tax structure follows the parcel tax model in Measure H. But there’s a critical difference this time: the City has no real jurisdiction over library operations. That falls squarely with Contra Costa County.

The Facts:

Contra Costa County is solely responsible for all library staffing, programming, collections, and services. El Cerrito is not a library operator—it is a landlord. Full stop. The only role El Cerrito plays is providing the library facility and funding janitorial, security, and maintenance services. Any “needs assessment” is a pretext for justifying a real estate deal. The City lacks the qualifications, experience, and authority to determine library programmatic needs.

So why is El Cerrito pushing so hard for this move?

The answer is simple: the library relocation isn’t about serving residents—it’s about salvaging a development concept that hasn’t met its economic targets. By inserting the library into the TOD as a commercial amenity, the City hopes to attract tenants and financial partners to an otherwise sluggish project. It’s the civic equivalent of placing a Barnes & Noble at the heart of a shopping center to drive foot traffic.

But what do we give up?

We already have a functioning library site. El Cerrito owns both the building and the land. It’s within walking distance for students at Fairmont Elementary—just 20 yards away. There’s ample parking, year-round access, and strong community familiarity. The existing site could be rebuilt into a new 12,000 sq. ft., architecturally significant, two-story civic landmark for the same cost per square foot as the TOD plan—around $1,000 per sq. ft.

This option:

Avoids the construction risks, security concerns, and parking headaches of embedding the library in a six-story apartment complex. Preserves taxpayer dollars by eliminating the need to sell, lease, or finance yet another site. Ensures access and visibility for students and families who rely on the current location for learning and literacy. Retains a civic anchor in a known and respected space without politicizing it as part of a speculative redevelopment.

The truth buried in the ballot materials—Special Tax documents, Measures A and H, and the official financial statements—confirms the City is following a familiar pattern: framing public needs to serve private ambitions.

Let’s start a movement: Leave the Library Where It Belongs.

Rebuild and reimagine the El Cerrito Library as a standalone civic asset—not a bargaining chip in the City’s real estate strategy. Our community deserves transparency, stewardship, and a library that serves residents—not developers.

Additional Resources:

🔗 Measure H Template – Official Statement

🔗 [June 2025-26 Contra Costa County Library Budget]

🔗 [Library Lease Terms – El Cerrito Branch] (reference internal lease language re: city responsibilities)

El Cerrito’s Financial Reckoning: A Call for Long-Term Responsibility

A recent public comment submitted by a concerned El Cerrito resident—featured on page 735 of the June 3, 2025, City Council agenda packet—highlights urgent and deeply troubling issues regarding the city’s financial practices. The letter, written by Janos Szlatenyi, outlines not only a critique of the city’s current fiscal approach but also a clear warning: without immediate and strategic reform, El Cerrito risks financial collapse.

While the Council has expressed commitment to financial health, the ongoing reliance on reserve funds without a credible plan for replenishment undermines that message. Even more alarming, motions that would allow civic recommendations to be publicly discussed are routinely dismissed without a second. This signals a troubling disregard for public input and weakens democratic deliberation.

CalPERS and Compounding Liabilities

Szlatenyi’s comment draws attention to the city’s pension liabilities and the flawed assumptions underpinning long-term projections. The CalPERS presentation to Council revealed that the city is depending on overly optimistic yield assumptions—approximately 9.5%—while more realistic long-term discount rates are likely to settle closer to 3.6–4%. If the market experiences a correction of just 15–20%, combined with a modest economic downturn, El Cerrito could face insolvency in as little as four to five years.

This risk is most acute over the next 24–36 months, during which time financial pressures, taxation fatigue, and economic stagnation may converge. With such a rigid cost structure and limited ability to react within one budgeting cycle, the city is exceptionally vulnerable.

Surface Solutions vs. Structural Change

The letter makes it clear: service studies and new tax proposals are distractions—not solutions. They consume time and resources without addressing the city’s underlying fiscal imbalances. Instead, the focus must shift to structural reform.

Two key recommendations stand out:

Develop a Long-Term Financial Plan: One that rebuilds reserves, addresses unfunded liabilities, and creates a savings buffer large enough to absorb multi-year downturns. This plan should target unrestricted fund reserves in line with Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) best practices—between 20% and 200% of operating expenses, depending on foreseeable needs. Suspend New Spending Until Stability Is Achieved: The city must avoid initiating any cyclical or optional spending until it consistently achieves 5–7% annual structural savings over at least five years.

A City on the Brink

El Cerrito cannot afford to defer hard decisions any longer. Unless unrealistic financial promises stop and meaningful reforms begin, the city will be forced to make devastating cuts to services, staff, or both—this time under the duress of crisis, not preparation.

The letter closes with a stark reminder: debating aesthetic projects or minor policies is futile on a sinking ship. It’s time to patch the holes—not punch new ones.

City leaders should take this public comment seriously. Its inclusion in the public record—on page 735 of the June 3, 2025 City Council agenda packet—should not be seen as a formality, but as a civic warning. One grounded in research, responsibility, and genuine concern for the city’s future.

📄 View the full agenda packet here

The rainy days are coming. The question now is whether El Cerrito’s leadership will act before the storm becomes a flood.

El Cerrito’s “Library Project”: A Gift to the City, a Burden to the Taxpayer

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

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

Let’s be clear:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

🌐 One Rule for the City Manager, Another for Everyone Else 🌐

In El Cerrito, we see a troubling example of how power can become concentrated in the hands of a few—an oligarchy. When decisions are made behind closed doors, transparency is ignored, and public input is dismissed, it’s the residents who suffer. The council has allowed city leadership to repeatedly ignore public engagement, preferring decisions made without the voices of the community. Instead of transparency and accountability, we see a small group making choices that impact the entire city.

Oligarchy thrives when a few maintain control while the public is left in the dark. But in a true democracy, the people’s voices must guide decisions. El Cerrito deserves better—residents deserve transparency, accountability, and a city council that genuinely listens.

🔎 It’s time to demand open governance and end the oligarchy. #TransparencyMatters #ElCerrito #PublicEngagement #GoodGovernance

This blog was influenced by separate comments from two engaged El Cerrito residents.

El Cerrito’s Pension Decisions: Leadership Gains, Residents Pay the Price

At a time when El Cerrito residents are being asked to tighten their belts, the previous City Council quietly approved a deal that most public employees—and taxpayers—would find outrageous. The deal granted the City Manager, Karen Pinkos, a private pension boost and special perks that reveal a disturbing pattern of governance. Let’s break it down.

The Backstory: A Crisis, Sacrifices, and the City Manager’s Role

Back in 2013, during a deep financial crisis, El Cerrito asked its employees to make significant sacrifices. One of the most consequential was giving up the Employee Paid Member Contribution (EPMC) to CalPERS—a policy where the City paid a portion of each employee’s pension contribution, and that amount counted as pensionable compensation, increasing retirement benefits for life.

Recognizing the severity of the city’s fiscal situation, workers agreed to eliminate EPMC. The City’s lead negotiator in securing this concession? Karen Pinkos, now the City Manager.

Fast Forward: A Self-Serving Deal

Today, El Cerrito remains on shaky financial ground. Pension liabilities continue to rise. Reserves are dwindling. The city’s bond rating lingers at a concerning BBB, reflecting ongoing worries about liquidity, long-term obligations, and fiscal duress.

Yet amid this instability the previous city council quietly quietly negotiated a reinstatement of the city manager’s own EPMC—just for herself. This sweetheart deal boosts her pension by an estimated $30,000 annually for life. Thirty. Thousand. Dollars. Per. Year.

But that’s not all. Pinkos also retains:

  • A $450 monthly car allowance.
  • A higher PERS tier than most employees, even though the city forced others into a lower tier during the lean years.

The same leader who once demanded sacrifice from workers has now reversed course—negotiating a lucrative private pension arrangement and retaining benefits most employees had to forfeit.

Hidden in Plain Sight

This wasn’t a public, transparent discussion. The reinstatement of EPMC was buried in contract language, downplayed, and quietly approved by the previous City Council. Residents, already concerned about the city’s finances, were kept in the dark. You can find her current employment agreement here: City Manager Contract – October 2023 Amendment (PDF)

The Bigger Picture: Don’t Be Fooled

While some point to El Cerrito’s removal from the State Auditor’s “high-risk” designation as evidence of improvement, this is misleading. The city continues to rely solely on reserves to balance its midyear budget, a tactic that masks structural imbalances rather than solves them.

The City’s bond rating remains at BBB, far from an endorsement of fiscal health. These ratings reflect long-term financial risks that El Cerrito’s leadership seems unwilling—or unable—to address.

Why This Matters

Leadership should model the values it expects from others: fairness, transparency, and shared sacrifice. The City Manager, in particular, holds a fiscal responsibility to ensure long-term stability. In El Cerrito, residents and employees have stepped up, sacrificing benefits and enduring reduced services. Yet, behind the scenes, the City Manager has quietly secured personal benefits that will burden taxpayers for decades.

This isn’t just a financial issue—it’s a matter of trust, ethics, and governance.

What You Can Do: Hold Leadership Accountable

El Cerrito residents must demand transparency, accountability, and fiscal responsibility. Here’s how:

Closing Thought: It’s Time for Real Leadership

El Cerrito’s financial challenges won’t be solved with sweetheart deals and hidden perks. They require a leadership team willing to share in the sacrifices they expect of employees and residents. Transparency, fairness, and fiscal discipline must be more than buzzwords—they must guide the city’s decisions moving forward.

El Cerrito deserves better. And it’s up to its residents to require it.

El Cerrito’s Use of Reserves Amidst Rising Expenses

Have you seen the agenda packet for Tuesday’s city council meeting? El Cerrito’s proposed budget for FY 2025-26 raises significant concerns about fiscal sustainability, particularly in its handling of unrestricted General Fund reserves and a growing budget gap.

According to the latest budget report, the City projects General Fund expenditures totaling $53.76 million, setting a clear benchmark for reserves based on City policy:

  • Recommended Unrestricted General Fund reserve: 17%, or $9.14 million
  • EDRF (Economic Development Reserve Fund): 13%, or $6.99 million

On paper, these policies are designed to protect the City’s financial health by ensuring reserves can buffer against emergencies or revenue shortfalls. However, reality tells a different story.

Currently, the EDRF holds approximately $9 million—well above the 13% minimum. The Council’s proposal? Withdraw $2 million from the EDRF, reducing it to the bare minimum of roughly $7 million, to cover a variety of one-time expenses.

At the same time, the City Manager’s proposed FY 2025-26 budget projects a deficit of nearly $5 million ($69.5 million in revenues versus $74.8 million in expenditures). That’s a significant gap, and the reliance on reserves to cover operating or one-time expenses is a troubling signal.

Key Takeaways:

  • Use of reserves weakens long-term stability: Drawing down reserves—especially to fund non-recurring expenses—undermines the City’s financial safety net. If an unexpected crisis arises or revenues underperform, the City may lack the reserves needed to weather the storm. Notably, the City now holds reserves painfully close to the minimum recommended 17% in the unrestricted General Fund.
  • Expenses are outpacing revenues: With a $5 million deficit projected for FY 2025-26, the City is spending more than it brings in. Rather than addressing this imbalance through structural reforms or revenue enhancements, the proposal leans heavily on reserves.
  • Minimum reserves aren’t a spending account: While policies set a minimum reserve level, these figures represent a floor, not a target for routine drawdowns. Reducing reserves to the minimum should be a last resort, not a budget-balancing tool.
  • One-time expenses deserve one-time funding sources: If the City must cover one-time expenses, it should prioritize one-time revenue sources or make cuts elsewhere. Using reserves intended for long-term stability erodes fiscal discipline.
  • Transparency and accountability matter: Residents deserve clear explanations of how and why reserves are used. Depleting reserves without a solid plan to restore them risks undermining community trust.

El Cerrito is not merely at a crossroads—the City has been traveling this path for years. Without federal ARPA funds and the Real Property Transfer Tax from 2018, insolvency would have been a likely outcome. The reliance on one-time revenues and dwindling reserves has become a pattern, not an exception.

Call to Action:

It’s time for El Cerrito’s residents to demand accountability and fiscal discipline from City leadership. Attend council meetings, ask questions, and push for a budget that prioritizes long-term sustainability over short-term fixes. Your voice is essential to ensuring that El Cerrito’s future is secure, transparent, and financially sound.

The High Cost of Inadequate Analysis: NHA’s Failure on El Cerrito’s Pension Liability

El Cerrito’s financial health is under increasing scrutiny, and rightly so. Residents deserve clear, actionable insights into the city’s long-term obligations, especially when it comes to pension liabilities. Unfortunately, the city’s decision to pay NHA Advisors over $100,000 for financial consulting services has left more questions than answers.

🔍 Where Did the Money Go?

According to the city’s own records, NHA’s work for El Cerrito between 2020 and 2023 covered a variety of services, but the pension-specific consulting totaled only about $18,000:

  • $7,500 for an early pension consulting engagement (2021),
  • $6,643.75 for 2022-23 pension consulting,
  • $4,518.75 for 2023-24 pension consulting.

That’s less than 20% of the total $103,747.92 paid to NHA. The remainder of the expenses—over $85,000—was allocated to other types of work, including general financial consulting, meetings, document reviews, and most notably, library-related consulting.

More importantly City records indicate NHA did not conduct pension analysis in 2024 or 2025 so how could they be subject matter experts on El Cerrito’s ballooning pension liability?

🚨 The Bulk of the Work: TRANS Fees

And the most significant slice of NHA’s consulting pie? You guessed it: TRANS fees—short-term municipal borrowing used to cover cash flow gaps when revenues lag behind expenses. In El Cerrito’s case, a staggering $35,000 was paid for Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes (TRANs) services.

Here’s the catch: TRANs are essentially municipal payday loans. Cities—and other government entities like school districts—resort to them when reserves are low or even negative. That was exactly the situation in El Cerrito during this period. The city’s reserves were not just low—they were negative. NHA wasn’t providing forward-thinking strategies to address long-term fiscal health; it was facilitating quick-fix borrowing that covered up more profound financial instability.

📚 Library Consulting Costs

Nearly $13,000 of the NHA contract was directed to library projects:

  • CD Plaza Library work: $1,300
  • Financial Library Consulting: $2,175
  • Library Measure Financial Analysis: $8,287.50
  • New Library Financial Consulting: $325

While libraries are valuable community assets, these expenditures are not directly tied to the urgent issue of pension liability—a problem with far-reaching fiscal implications. Spending tens of thousands on unrelated projects while providing only limited analysis of the city’s pension obligations is a misalignment of priorities.

🏛️ What Was Missing?

NHA’s pension explanations failed to deliver clear, digestible insights for decision-makers and residents. Instead of breaking down the city’s pension liabilities in a way that could guide long-term financial planning, the consulting reports remained vague, contributing to an incomplete understanding of the city’s fiscal future.

Here’s the problem:

  • The presentation lacked actionable strategies to mitigate growing pension costs.
  • It failed to explain the long-term impacts of the city’s liabilities on residents and services.
  • It distracted attention with unrelated projects, muddying the city’s financial narrative.

📊 The Breakdown

🚨 Why This Matters

El Cerrito is at a financial crossroads. Rising pension liabilities are threatening essential services and putting taxpayers at risk. Yet, the city has spent over $100,000 on consulting that delivered little in the way of substantive analysis or actionable solutions. Meanwhile, unrelated consulting, including library projects and an overemphasis on short-term borrowing through TRANs, consumed precious resources.

💬 The Call to Action

Residents should demand greater transparency and accountability from both consultants and city leadership. We need:

  • Clear, specific financial analyses of pension liabilities.
  • Actionable recommendations to stabilize and reduce long-term costs.
  • Transparency in how consulting dollars are spent, ensuring public funds are used wisely.

Our financial future depends on it.

#ElCerritoDeservesBetter #FiscalTransparency #PublicFinance #PensionLiability #MunicipalFinance

The Real Problem: Expenses Outpacing Revenue

One Next Door writer made a good point: The core financial challenge facing the City of El Cerrito is not incremental Section 115 investment strategies or portfolio decisions—it is the fundamental and ongoing imbalance between rising expenses and flat revenue. This structural issue is the root cause of the city’s mounting fiscal stress and long-term vulnerability.

Public agencies, particularly those delivering essential services like police, fire, and infrastructure, inevitably face growing costs. Compensation, pensions, healthcare benefits, and operational expenses steadily increase over time, driven by inflation, market demands, and evolving service expectations. However, when revenues—whether from taxes, fees, or other sources—fail to grow at a similar rate, the resulting gap becomes increasingly unsustainable.

In El Cerrito’s case, the trajectory has been clear for years: rising labor costs and pension obligations far outpacing revenue growth. Yet the city has made no real adjustments to confront this reality. Instead, financial maneuvers like the Section 115 Trust have been emphasized—moves that, while notable, pale in comparison to the structural imbalance driving the city’s fiscal decline.

Even optimistic returns from the Section 115 Trust would yield only marginal gains, insufficient to meaningfully address the city’s $89 million Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL), let alone close the widening gap created by rising expenses. Continued reliance on CalPERS and outside assumptions, without building robust internal contingency plans, leaves El Cerrito vulnerable to sudden financial shocks. If CalPERS misses its assumptions or the discount rate drops, liabilities increase dramatically with no buffer to absorb the impact.

Responsibility for confronting this imbalance lies first with the City Council, which holds the authority—and the obligation—to ensure long-term fiscal stability. The council has failed to make decisive adjustments despite years of warnings, and its refusal to entertain even basic reforms has allowed the problem to fester. The City Manager, along with highly compensated consultants, bears secondary responsibility for failing to present or push forward viable solutions. However, residents also play a role; engagement, pressure, and informed participation are critical to driving necessary change.

Without aligning expenses with revenue, no financial maneuver—no matter how cleverly packaged—will deliver sustainable solutions. The reality is stark: El Cerrito must either make hard adjustments or continue down an unsustainable path that threatens services, stability, and community trust.

Call to Action:

Residents are urged to attend City Council meetings, submit public comments, and demand comprehensive plans that address the structural deficit. The city’s financial health depends on public engagement and council accountability.

El Cerrito’s Pension Burden: Rankings Reveal Troubling Financial Trends #4

California municipalities are ranked each year based on key fiscal indicators—including net worth, pension costs, and pension obligations. These rankings, which compare cities statewide, offer insight into local governments’ fiscal health and future sustainability. For El Cerrito, the trend is clear: while the city has improved its relative standing, the underlying numbers still reflect a heavy pension burden and fiscal strain.

Ranking Breakdown

YearNet Worth (X/L)Pension Costs (U/L)Pension Obligations (R/L)Total Cities Ranked
2022431 of 457439 of 457443 of 457457
2023368 of 420414 of 420414 of 420420
2024184 of 211207 of 211208 of 211211

What Do These Rankings Mean?

  • Net Worth Rank: El Cerrito has moved from near the bottom of the list in 2022 (#431 of 457) to the mid-range in 2024 (#184 of 211). While that may seem like progress, it reflects the shrinking number of cities included in the ranking rather than a significant improvement in fiscal health.
  • Pension Costs and Obligations: El Cerrito continues to rank near the bottom in both pension costs and long-term obligations. In 2024, the city ranked 207th and 208th out of 211 cities—placing it in the bottom 2%. These high costs crowd out resources for basic services and infrastructure investments.

Misleading Messaging from the City’s Advisors

During a recent presentation, NHA Advisors, the city’s paid financial consultants, claimed that the situation was primarily caused by CalPERS failing to meet investment targets—and that “every city is in the same position” as El Cerrito holding about $70 million in UAL. While this is true for all California cities, including those with several hundred thousand residents, this is simply not true for cities like El Cerrito.

Most cities do not face the same level of pension distress. The data clearly shows that El Cerrito is an outlier, not the norm. This pattern of downplaying or deflecting fiscal problems prevents real solutions from emerging.

Why This Matters

High pension costs and obligations significantly limit El Cerrito’s ability to meet current and future needs. Each year, a growing portion of the budget is absorbed by retirement benefits, leaving less funding for parks, streets, housing, and public safety. Without long-term planning and honest financial assessments, residents will continue to bear the consequences of past inaction.

Call to Action

The City Council must take ownership of this issue—not defer blame or rely solely on consultants. Solutions begin with:

  • Including all known liabilities in the adopted budget
  • Adopting a pension sustainability strategy
  • Providing the public with clear, transparent fiscal updates

If you’re concerned about the direction of El Cerrito’s finances, please contact your City Council members and ask them to prioritize long-term financial health:

Let’s ensure future budgets reflect both fiscal reality and community priorities.

Source: https://californiapolicycenter.org/fiscal-health-dashboard/#el-cerrito

El Cerrito’s $89M Pension Crisis: Misplaced Blame on CalPERS #3

During the May 20, 2025 presentation to the El Cerrito City Council, NHA Advisors—serving as the city’s financial advisor—essentially blamed CalPERS for El Cerrito’s $89 million Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL), citing underperformance in investment returns.

But that explanation doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

Other cities relying on CalPERS are not facing pension liabilities near this magnitude. In fact, many neighboring cities with similar populations and economic challenges are in far better shape. The real issue isn’t CalPERS—it’s El Cerrito’s staffing and financial strategy decisions.

How El Cerrito Compares

CityPopulationUAL (Approx.)Maintains Own Fire?Maintains Own Police?
El Cerrito25,000$89 millionYesYes
Hercules26,000$63 millionNo (contracts with ConFire)Yes
San Pablo31,000$47 millionNoYes
Albany20,000$40 millionNo (contracts with ConFire)Yes

The data reveals a pattern: cities contracting out fire services—particularly with Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (ConFire)—have significantly lower UALs. El Cerrito, by contrast, retains both fire and police services internally, and 63% of its total UAL is tied to these two departments.

Missed Financial Opportunity

NHA also noted that El Cerrito created a Section 115 Pension Trust several years ago to set aside funds for future pension obligations. While well-intentioned, the city’s choice of a highly conservative investment strategy for this trust has sharply limited its returns.

Had the city instead sent the initial $1.4 million contribution directly to CalPERS, it would have realized roughly double the investment return over the same period. This is because CalPERS’ pooled investments, though not risk-free, generally offer more substantial long-term returns than low-risk money market or bond-focused strategies. Moreover, CalPERS charges 6.8% on the outstanding debt, so it would benefit the City to reduce the debt in the most effective way.

To make matters worse, nearly all other cities using a Section 115 Trust are in surplus positions. Because they don’t need to draw down funds immediately, they can afford to invest more aggressively—often outperforming even CalPERS. El Cerrito’s shortfall and delayed contributions prevent it from accessing these higher-yield strategies, effectively turning a valuable tool into a missed opportunity.

Conclusion: A Structural Problem, Not Just a Market One

Blaming CalPERS obscures the city’s responsibility for its financial posture. Structural choices drive El Cerrito’s pension crisis:

  • Maintaining high-cost public safety departments internally
  • Electing a conservative investment posture while underfunded
  • Delaying meaningful pension reform or regional collaboration

Until these issues are addressed, residents will shoulder the burden—whether through higher taxes, service cuts, or financial instability. The time for honest, data-driven planning is long overdue.

Correction for Accuracy:

San Pablo also contracts with Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (Con Fire) for its fire services. However, Albany does not contract with Con Fire, as Albany is located in Alameda County.

The Comfort of Consultants

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

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

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

A System That Reinforces the Status Quo

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

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

The Data Tells a Different Story

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

Source: https://californiapolicycenter.org/fiscal-health-dashboard/#el-cerrito

Pension Costs vs. General Fund Reserve Ratio (2024)

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

Net Worth vs. General Fund Reserve Ratio (2024)

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

The Section 115 Misdirection

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

Conclusion: Stop Paying for Permission

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

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

El Cerrito’s Fire Station Density: A Critical Analysis

Fire protection is one of the most visible and vital services cities provide regarding public safety. But how many fire stations are enough—and at what cost?

Let’s examine El Cerrito’s performance in terms of fire station density, risk exposure, and financial sustainability compared to other Contra Costa County cities.

More Fire Stations per Square Mile than Any Other City

El Cerrito and Kensington have three fire stations serving a combined area of 4.2 square miles, resulting in approximately 1.4 square miles per station—the most concentrated fire coverage in Contra Costa County. This high density of fire stations is complemented by a robust leadership structure, including four battalion chiefs, which is notable given the city’s size.

Battalion Chief Staffing Across Contra Costa County

The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (Con Fire) oversees 26 fire stations across four battalions, managed by 10 battalion chiefs. This structure averages to about 2.5 battalion chiefs per battalion. In contrast, El Cerrito’s four battalion chiefs for three stations indicate a higher leadership-to-station ratio.

Other cities in the county, such as San Pablo and Pleasant Hill, typically operate with fewer battalion chiefs, often sharing resources through mutual aid agreements. For instance, the Richmond Fire Department supervises eight companies with a single battalion chief per shift.

Notably, one of El Cerrito’s battalion chiefs is assigned solely to Training. While training is important, it typically does not require a high-ranking, high-salaried staff person to manage it full-time—particularly in a city of this size. Other cities coordinate training through shared services, rotating command staff, or specialized support roles that don’t carry the same cost burden.

Financial Implications

El Cerrito’s four battalion chiefs collectively cost approximately $2 million annually. This expenditure is significant when compared to the city’s overall fire department budget and raises questions about financial sustainability, especially in light of pension liabilities and structural deficits.

In comparison, the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District’s general fund budget for the fiscal year 2023-2024 is $219.3 million. While this larger budget supports a broader area and more extensive services, the per capita and per station expenditures may offer insights into potential efficiencies.

Given the high density of fire stations and the substantial investment in leadership, El Cerrito may benefit from evaluating its fire department structure. Potential considerations include:

  • Resource Allocation: Assessing whether the current number of battalion chiefs aligns with operational needs.
  • Regional Collaboration: Exploring partnerships with neighboring cities to share leadership roles and reduce costs.
  • Operational Efficiency: Analyzing call volumes and response times to determine if resources are optimally deployed.

Engaging in a community dialogue about these considerations can help ensure that El Cerrito maintains effective fire protection services while also addressing financial sustainability.

Time for a Community Conversation

The question isn’t whether El Cerrito needs fire protection—it does. The question is whether the current configuration reflects the most innovative use of resources, particularly given the city’s:

  • Structural deficit
  • Unfunded pension liabilities
  • Competing infrastructure needs

Would regional collaboration, station reallocation, or a right-sized leadership model provide equivalent safety at a lower cost?

Residents deserve transparency, data, and discussion. When it comes to public safety and public dollars, effectiveness and efficiency matter.

Here is a comparative chart of Contra Costa County cities, detailing their area in square miles, number of fire stations, and the area covered per fire station:

City/TownArea (sq mi)Fire StationsArea per Station (sq mi)
El Cerrito/Kensington4.5731.52
San Pablo2.612.6
Pleasant Hill7.123.55
Clayton3.813.8
Richmond30.174.3
San Ramon18.644.65
Walnut Creek19.844.95
Pinole5.315.3
Hercules6.016.0
Danville18.036.0
Orinda12.826.4
Martinez13.126.55
Lafayette15.427.7
Pittsburg17.028.5
Moraga9.419.4
Alamo9.719.7
Concord30.556.1
Antioch29.039.67
Brentwood14.0114.0
Oakley15.0115.0

Note: The number of fire stations is based on available data and may vary over time.

This chart illustrates that the combined El Cerrito/Kensington area has the highest densities of fire stations relative to its area, with approximately 1.52 square miles per station. In contrast, cities like Oakley and Brentwood have larger areas per station, at 15.0 and 14.0 square miles, respectively.

Expose Budgeting Tactics in El Cerrito: A Call for Reform – Microblog

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

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

Let’s be clear about the numbers.

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

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

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

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

That’s not budgeting. That’s brinkmanship.

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

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

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

Call to Action: Demand Transparency in Budgeting

El Cerrito deserves an honest budget.

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

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

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

Contact the El Cerrito City Council Today:

El Cerrito Bond Ratings: A Decade of Decline

Understanding Municipal Bond Ratings

Municipal bond ratings assess a city’s creditworthiness and directly affect the interest rates it pays when borrowing. Agencies like S&P Global Ratings and Moody’s issue these grades, with higher ratings signaling strong financial health. A downgrade not only reflects concern—it costs cities more to borrow and weakens their financial position over time.

El Cerrito’s Financial Context

El Cerrito’s finances have been under scrutiny for more than a decade, and the city’s bond rating has steadily declined over that period.

In 2018, Karen Pinkos became City Manager. At that time, El Cerrito held an A- bond rating from S&P—a solid, investment-grade level. However, in the years following her appointment, the city’s finances worsened significantly:

  • The city overspent
  • Reserves were depleted.
  • Long-term obligations remained underfunded.

Despite voters approving multiple tax increases, including a real property transfer tax (Measure V in 2018) and a recreation tax (2019), the city failed to demonstrate sustained financial discipline.

By 2020, the senior center had permanently closed, other services were cut, and the city was downgraded to BBB-, just one step above junk bond status.

📉 Bond Rating Deterioration Timeline

YearRatingNotes
2013A+Downgraded from AA-
2018A-Pinkos becomes City Manager
2019BBBContinued structural imbalance despite new tax revenue
2020BBB-Services cut, senior center closed
2023BBBSlight improvement; still below 2018 level

Source: S&P Global Ratings

📄 State Auditor’s Oversight and Misunderstood “Recovery”

In March 2021, the California State Auditor listed El Cerrito among California’s top 10 most fiscally at-risk cities, flagging excessive spending and the city’s unwillingness to address deficits. This designation placed El Cerrito in the bottom ~2.5% of California’s 400+ cities.

In 2024, El Cerrito was removed from the high-risk list. However, this does not indicate financial strength—only that the city is no longer among the worst 10–15 performers. Removal from the list should be seen as a minimum threshold achievement, not a signal of long-term sustainability or fiscal health.

The Disconnect Between Taxes and Services

Since 2010, voters have supported a series of tax increases intended to maintain and improve services:

  • Measure R (2010 & 2014) – Sales taxes
  • Measure V (2018) – Real property transfer tax
  • Recreation Tax (2019)
  • Measure G (2024)
  • (2026)– A planned (“forever”) tax

Despite these efforts, essential services have been reduced. The senior center remains closed. Road conditions and amenities like the Ohlone Greenway show limited improvement. Residents are paying more and receiving less.

Why It Matters

A declining bond rating reflects deeper issues: weak internal controls, deferred maintenance, lack of long-term planning, and reactive budgeting. While the 2023 upgrade to BBB was a step forward, the city remains two full notches below where it stood in 2018.

Unless El Cerrito aligns its spending with sustainable priorities and enforces financial accountability, residents risk further tax increases without meaningful service delivery.

Are Bike Lanes Necessary on Richmond Street? Exploring Alternatives

The Richmond Street Complete Streets Project is moving forward under the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) oversight, which issued the regional Request for Proposals (RFP 23-3) to deliver bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements across Contra Costa County. This initiative is funded through the federal Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program, which supports local safety projects aimed at reducing transportation-related deaths and injuries—particularly in historically underserved communities.

CCTA, as the SS4A grant recipient, entered into cooperative agreements with local agencies, including the City of El Cerrito, each of which was responsible for implementing safety improvements in its jurisdiction. For El Cerrito, that means reimagining Richmond Street, a two-lane corridor stretching from Fairmount Avenue to the northern city limits. This road serves schools, churches, civic buildings, and a senior housing complex—and it’s now the focus of a planning effort that could reshape how residents move through their neighborhoods.

What’s Actually Being Planned?

The winning proposal from CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, supported by subconsultants Fehr & Peers and Orion Engineers, outlines a plan that includes:

  • Roadway safety audits
  • Traffic calming measures
  • Sidewalk and curb ramp upgrades
  • Bicycle infrastructure “if feasible”
  • Environmental reviews and stormwater design
  • Limited community outreach

The stated goal is to improve safety and accessibility for all users—pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers—while aligning with El Cerrito’s Complete Streets Policy and Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.

However, much of the project’s public discussion has focused on bike lanes, even though the RFP only calls for “recommendations for separated bicycle facilities if feasible.” That phrasing matters: it signals that bike lanes are not required—and should only be added if they’re a good fit for the community, street layout, and budget.

Are Bike Lanes Required?

Despite what some may assume, bike lanes are not legally required on Richmond Street. El Cerrito’s policy frameworks encourage safer multimodal infrastructure, but they stop short of mandating bike lanes on every corridor—especially when design constraints, parking needs, or adjacent alternatives exist.

Richmond Street is already a constrained corridor with limited space, no existing bike lanes, and heavy usage from school traffic, seniors, and neighborhood events. Adding Class II (striped) or Class IV (protected) bike lanes would likely require removing on-street parking or narrowing travel lanes—decisions with serious implications for safety, accessibility, and livability.

Do We Even Need Bike Lanes on Richmond?

There’s an existing alternative that few are talking about: the Ohlone Greenway.

This paved multi-use trail, just a few blocks west of Richmond Street, runs parallel to the corridor and was purpose-built for pedestrian and bicycle use—with almost no vehicle traffic. The only exceptions are the rare presence of city or police vehicles performing official duties. The Greenway connects residents to schools, BART stations, parks, and neighborhoods across El Cerrito. In many ways, it already fulfills the function bike lanes on Richmond would serve.

The Greenway does have issues: uneven pavement, root damage, and poor drainage have made sections of it difficult to use—especially for seniors, children, and people with mobility challenges. But these are maintenance problems, not justification to duplicate infrastructure on a nearby street with tighter physical and functional constraints.

Rather than impose expensive and potentially disruptive bike lanes on Richmond Street, El Cerrito should prioritize repairing and enhancing the Ohlone Greenway—an existing, safe corridor with no cars and clear regional utility.

What Will Bike Lanes Cost?

This remains unclear. The consultant proposal does not provide a separate cost estimate for adding bike lanes to Richmond Street. However, associated tasks—like striping, curb and ramp upgrades, traffic signal adjustments, and stormwater infrastructure—can significantly increase both upfront and long-term costs.

More importantly, any infrastructure added under a federal grant will eventually fall under the City’s responsibility to maintain. That means ongoing sweeping of bike lanes, upkeep of signage, and regular repairs. If costly modifications are installed and underused, the financial burden falls back on local taxpayers.

A transparent design process should offer the public clear choices, such as:

  1. No bike lanes (focus on pedestrian and traffic calming improvements)
  2. Shared-lane markings (“sharrows”) as a low-impact alternative
  3. Full bike lanes, with line-item costs and trade-offs

Who’s Actually Biking Here?

To date, no recent usage study has been provided for Richmond Street. The City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and earlier corridor studies are several years old and focused on other areas, such as San Pablo Avenue and South El Cerrito.

The consultant team mentions using travel data from local schools, but there’s no plan—yet—for updated counts of cyclists or pedestrians on Richmond itself. Without this data, it’s difficult to make the case that bike lanes are either necessary or a top priority.

If public dollars are to be spent wisely, real usage data must drive design—not assumptions.

When Will Residents Have a Voice?

Public input is expected to be limited. The consultant’s proposal includes just one open house, a handful of stakeholder interviews, and an online survey.

But Richmond Street is not just another road—it’s a key connector for seniors, school families, churchgoers, and pedestrians. Its design must reflect their lived realities—not just a grant writer’s checklist. Meaningful engagement should include multilingual materials, outreach at school sites and senior facilities, and open acknowledgment of competing needs.

What Comes Next?

With the contract awarded and design work underway, El Cerrito residents still have time to ask important questions:

  • What is the cost of each proposed improvement—especially bike lanes?
  • Who will maintain any new infrastructure when federal funding runs out?
  • Are there real usage numbers for bicycles on Richmond Street?
  • Why duplicate infrastructure when the Ohlone Greenway already exists nearby?
  • Will removing parking harm safety or accessibility for seniors and students?

Infrastructure decisions have lasting consequences. While grants like SS4A offer much-needed funding, they should be used thoughtfully, not automatically. If El Cerrito wants a street that works for all, it must start by listening to the people who use it—and by investing where the need is real.

Contact the El Cerrito City Council and Share Your Concerns:

  • 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 — cityclerk@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us