New Senior Exemption Concerns

The library at 6510 Stockton Ave.

The library tax ballot question drafted by the city for the June 2 ballot highlights the promise of “senior exemptions” to the tax despite warnings that obtaining an exemption as described in the citizens’ initiative would involve applying for a program that leads to having a lien placed on one’s home.

Question That Will Be on June 2 Ballot

Here is the city-drafted final language for the library tax question.

MEASURE C

City of El Cerrito

Majority Required to pass

Shall the measure to fund planning/construction/furnishing a new El Cerrito library, including a new building, and the City’s library operating costs for ten years after completing construction, by authorizing an annual parcel tax of up to $0.17 per square foot of improvements ($100 per vacant parcel), subject to annual inflation adjustments, generating approximately $3,100,000 annually, expiring 30 years after the initial issuance of bonds, with independent audits/citizen oversight and senior exemptions, be adopted?

(Bold type on “senior exemptions” will not appear as part of the ballot question.)

Ballot arguments for and against the measure are still being written.

Study Session on Senior Exemption Set for April 7

On March 3, the city responded to concerns about the initiative’s stated senior exemption by scheduling a City Council study session on the matter for Tuesday, April 7. While the city clerk has stated repeatedly that the library tax language can’t be modified and must be placed on the ballot “as is,” City Attorney Sky Woodruff told the council on March 3 it can “state its intent” regarding the senior exemption in the future.

Pre-Election Demand to Enforce ‘Plain Language’

Meanwhile, three El Cerrito residents wrote to Woodruff and the City Council with an “urgent pre-election demand to commit to enforcing the plain language of the senior exemption in the library parcel tax initiative.”

In a letter dated March 5, residents Joe Gavazza, Bill Barish, and Darby Falkenstine wrote:

“The Initiative's Senior Exemption (proposed Municipal Code §4.58.030(C)(3)) is written in crystal-clear, unambiguous language:

“shall be exempt from the Special Tax ‘if one of the owners qualifies for participation in either or both ‘the Gonzales-Deukmejian-Petris Senior Citizen Property Tax Assistance Law...’ or ‘the Senior Citizen Property Tax Postponement Law.”

Their letter is quoted below.

“This ties eligibility explicitly to participation in two named state programs, not to some flexible local criteria, income tables, or administrative discretion. One program (the HRA) has been “unfunded and inactive” since 2009 (with no applications accepted for over 15 years), and the other has strict, state-determined thresholds (e.g., ~$55,181 income cap for 2025-26, equity requirements, state approval via Controller/Franchise Tax Board).

“Yet, your February 19, 2026 §9212 report already plants the seeds for unilateral changes, claiming ‘discretion’ because applications “may require' proof” of state participation, and citing broad “implement or administer” powers (§4.58.100) or “clarify vagueness” authority (§4.58.090). These interpretations are not neutral. They signal intent to decouple the exemption from the state programs post-election, effectively rewriting who qualifies via resolution or administrative fiat."

‘Unacceptable Pre-Election Maneuvering’

“This is unacceptable pre-election maneuvering,” the letter continues.

“1. It risks misleading voters. The ballot materials, arguments (due March 18 and 23, 2026), and impartial analysis must present the measure “as written,” not as the City hopes to reinterpret it later. Any suggestion of “flexibility” on the senior exemption could inflate perceived benefits, constituting an improper promotion of the measure or failure to provide a “true and impartial” summary (Elections Code §§ 9203, 9212).”

“2. It violates voter intent and Prop 218 principles. The Initiative is a “citizens' petition.” As such, voters will approve (or reject) the “exact text” before them. Post-election substantive changes to exemptions (altering tax burdens) require voter re-approval under Article XIII C. Preemptively claiming amendment power erodes trust and invites post-passage litigation.”

“3. It undermines the measure's campaign promises. Supporters have marketed this as broad “senior relief.” If the City plans to rigidly enforce the narrow, state-dependent criteria - or worse, quietly expand/restrict it - the public deserves full disclosure now, not after votes are cast.”

“Demand: Before or at next week's discussion on the exemption, the City must publicly commit in a formal resolution, updated §9212 clarification, or written statement distributed to Council, posted online, and shared with ballot argument submitters that:

·         “The Senior Exemption will be enforced exactly as written: limited to owners who "qualify for and participate in" one of the two named state programs, with proof of state approval required where applicable.

·         “No post-election “interpretations,” resolutions, or administrative changes will alter, expand, or substitute the qualifying criteria without a new vote of the people.

·         “The impartial analysis and any City communications will reflect this plain-language commitment, without hedging or "discretion" caveats that could mislead voters.

“Failure to provide this commitment will fuel:

-          “Strong "No" ballot arguments highlighting the exemption's narrowness and City's planned "flexibility" as deceptive.

-          “Vigorous opposition campaign efforts emphasizing bait-and-switch risks.

-          “Potential pre-election legal action (e.g., writ of mandate to compel accurate impartial analysis) or post-election challenges if passed under false pretenses.

-          “Public exposure of this as an attempt to secure voter approval now and rewrite later.

‘Voters Deserve Honesty’

“The voters deserve honesty before June 2. Please provide the requested commitment in writing by March 15, 2026, or explain in detail why the City intends to deviate from the Initiative's explicit text.

“We, and many residents, are watching closely,” the letter concluded.

City Attorney’s Response

On March 16, City Attorney Woodruff replied in writing to Gavazza, Barish, and Falkenstine.

“As you are likely aware, at its meeting on March 3, the City Council directed staff to schedule a study session regarding the exemptions in the El Cerrito Library Initiative ordinance. That study session will occur at Council’s April 7 regular meeting.”

“The staff report for the study session will provide Council and the public with information about the exemptions as written and related provisions of the ordinance that would be enacted by voters, if approved.”

More Senior Exemption Details

The library tax initiative describes a two-part process to apply for a senior exemption. Before applying to the city for an exemption, the homeowner must qualify for one of two state programs.

In telephone interviews on Feb. 9, state officials gave specifics about the two programs.

“Unfunded and Unavailable”

The first state program is “unfunded” and “unavailable,” an analyst with the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) said on Feb. 9. This program, the Gonzales-Deukmejian-Petris Senior Citizens Property Tax Assistance Law, has not been funded since 2008, according to Cristina Perfino, an FTB analyst.

Program That Involves a Lien on Property

Qualifying for the second program, which has an income limit of about $55,000 along with other requirements, would require that the applicant apply for the Senior Citizen Tax Postponement Law, according to Ou, an analyst for the State Controller’s Office, which oversees the program.

This program pays property taxes directly on behalf of qualifying homeowners. If a property owner applies and is accepted, a lien would be placed on the applicant’s property, according to the analyst. It’s not possible to confirm that a property owner qualifies unless they file an application for the tax postponement program, he said.

No Current Exemptions from Measure H Tax

Greg Lyman, a former City Council member and principal author of the tax, wrote in an email on Feb. 10 that the language for the senior citizen exemption language is similar to that used in other El Cerrito taxes, including a 2019 extension of Measure H, the Parks and Recreation facilities ballot measure.

Finance Director Crystal Reams, who also serves as the city’s Tax Administrator, said in an email on Feb. 10 that there are currently no qualified exemptions to Measure H.