Council Turns Its Back on Seniors, Stonewalls the Public

Based on insights from a concerned El Cerrito resident

Last night, April 7, 2026, the El Cerrito City Council held a study session on the senior exemption tied to Measure C. What unfolded was not a meaningful effort to support seniors, but a narrow discussion that raised more concerns than it resolved.

The Council directed staff and the city attorney to return with an ordinance that simplifies the current exemption language. Under the proposed revision, a senior would need to be at least 62 years old and have a household income of $55,181 or less, with the City responsible for processing applications.

At first glance, this may appear to be progress. It is not.

This exact structure has existed in El Cerrito for more than 25 years. It was used in both the Measure A Swim Center Tax and the Measure H Parks and Recreation Tax. According to the City’s own agenda materials, staff reviewed historical records and found no evidence that a single resident has ever successfully used this exemption. Not one application. Not one approval. Not in over two decades.

That is not a functioning exemption. That is a policy that exists on paper but fails in practice.

The contrast with other local exemptions is striking. The West Contra Costa Unified School District parcel tax exemption applies to homeowners age 65 and older without an income test or enrollment in a state program. Thousands of El Cerrito seniors rely on it. It is accessible, understandable, and actually used.

By comparison, the proposed Measure C exemption continues to rely on an income threshold that will exclude a significant portion of El Cerrito seniors, including many living on fixed incomes. The result is predictable: an exemption that appears supportive but is structurally out of reach.

The Council also acknowledged a critical constraint: any exemptions would need to remain narrow because of the potential revenue loss associated with the tax. In other words, the more meaningful and accessible the exemption becomes, the greater the impact on projected revenues—creating a built-in incentive to limit eligibility from the outset.

Equally concerning is what was not discussed.

The staff report relied on Census-based estimates to identify potentially eligible households. These are not precise counts. They are statistical estimates with margins of error that can span hundreds of households in either direction. Yet these figures are being used to inform policy decisions about eligibility and revenue impacts.

Even more troubling, the City paid a consultant to compile data that is publicly available through the United States Census Bureau. The issue is not the existence of data, but how it is being interpreted and applied in decision-making.

Despite these uncertainties, the Council showed no interest in holding a public forum on the exemption before ballots are distributed. Residents are expected to vote on Measure C without a transparent, community-based discussion about who actually qualifies for relief.

Ballots are expected to reach voters around May 4. The window for meaningful public engagement is closing rapidly, and the opportunity for residents to weigh in on a critical component of the measure is being bypassed.

The bottom line is clear. An exemption that has gone unused for more than 25 years is being repackaged and presented as a meaningful safeguard for seniors. The structure has not changed in any fundamental way, and there is no evidence to suggest the outcome will be different this time.

This is not a solution. It is a continuation of a system that does not work—now placed before voters without full transparency or public input.