Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
El Cerrito council adopts FY2026–27 budget after weeks of debate on reserves and pensions
Summary
After extended public and council debate, El Cerrito adopted the FY2026–27 operating budget that staff says maintains reserves above 31% while funding internal service contributions and some one‑time capital needs; the vote was 4–1 with Councilmember Katsanis dissenting.
The El Cerrito City Council on June 16 adopted the fiscal year 2026–27 budget after a multi‑meeting review and extended debate over pensions, insurance costs and use of one‑time reserves.
Budget and Financial Services Manager Claire Coleman presented staff's recommended biennial budget and said the council was being asked to adopt the first year (FY26–27) formally. Coleman explained the staff's target‑based budgeting approach, which set department targets based on available resources and non‑discretionary costs and then asked departments to identify programs that could be sustained within those targets. "Target based budgeting is a shift from what many cities do," she said, describing the process to prioritize internal service fund contributions and to begin setting aside money for future equipment and infrastructure replacement.
Staff also flagged major upward cost pressures: insurance premiums that have risen by more than $2 million in recent years, increasing pension obligations with a projected peak around 2031–2032, and state unfunded mandates. Coleman called out large anticipated housing grants tied to the plaza transit‑oriented development that inflate the citywide budget in FY26–27 but are primarily pass‑through grant funds.
Councilmembers pressed staff on whether the city should accelerate discretionary prepayments to CalPERS via the Section 115 trust to reduce the unfunded actuarial liability (UAL). Staff and the city manager explained the tradeoffs: advanced discretionary pension payments can be vulnerable to market swings and would require cuts to services if funded now; staff cautioned that the amortization structure and market timing make large advance payments risky. "It ultimately comes down to a layered amortization schedule and market risk," the budget manager said.
Members disagreed over whether to prioritize larger Section 115 contributions. Councilmember Katsanis said she could not support the budget because she wanted more aggressive Section 115 funding and larger capital set‑asides. Mayor Kinto, Mayor Pro Tem Saltzman and others said the proposed plan preserves reserves (above the policy target), begins regular internal service contributions and maintains core services without deeper cuts to personnel or critical programs.
After public comment and deliberation the council adopted the budget by roll call (Mayor Kinto: yes; Mayor Pro Tem Saltzman: yes; Councilmember Katsanis: no; Councilmember Motoyama: yes; Councilmember Weisinger: yes). Staff noted that if the council chose not to adopt the budget by June 30 a special meeting would be required; staff also said it will finish the service‑delivery study and continue CIP prioritization and internal service fund policy work.
