City attorney outlines options to clarify senior and income exemptions in proposed library parcel tax

City Attorney Skye Woodruff told the City Council Tuesday that Measure C’s ordinance includes a senior exemption framed by two state programs and that council has authority to clarify implementation by resolution.

Woodruff said one of the state programs cited in the ordinance (the senior property tax assistance program referred to in the measure) is not currently funded by the state, and that the city’s interpretation historically has been to treat eligibility as meeting the state criteria rather than requiring actual program participation. "The city will treat an applicant as qualifying for an exemption if they meet the criteria set out in the state law," Woodruff said, noting the council may adopt clarifying resolutions and additional exemptions so long as they do not frustrate the measure’s primary purpose: financing a new library and paying for 10 years of library operations.

Woodruff presented consultant scenario estimates (she cautioned the consultant’s demographic tables impose limits and the figures are upper‑bound estimates): an age‑only exemption using a 60+ band would make up to about 3,271 households theoretically eligible and could reduce first‑year revenue by roughly $1,000,000 under the 'maximum‑uptake' assumption; an income‑only exemption at household income <$50,000 would be about 673 households and roughly $222,000 of lost revenue; a combined age (65+) and income (<$50,000) scenario identified 881 households and an estimated revenue impact of about $291,000. Woodruff emphasized the consultant could not fully cross‑tabulate age and income for owner‑occupied households, so these numbers represent scenario bounds rather than precise counts.

Council members pressed staff on administrative burden, whether the program should use household income rather than individual income, and whether criteria like the 40% equity or reverse‑mortgage restrictions (which appear in the state postponement program) should apply to a local exemption. Multiple council members said those postponement‑program conditions were not necessary for a locally administered exemption and asked staff to remove the 40% equity and reverse‑mortgage language when drafting a local interpretation.

City Manager Karen Pecos and other staff said the exemption is not automatic: residents must apply annually and the city would process claims; staff noted city technology could host an application form and that administrative workload will depend on program uptake. Council members also asked staff to clarify that the city's implementation would rely on city verification rather than enrollment in an unfunded state program.

Public speakers raised transparency concerns about project costs, grant pursuit and the consultant data. Several residents urged clearer voter guidance and a public forum; others suggested graduated or partial exemptions to temper revenue impacts.

Council consensus: staff and the city attorney were directed to draft a resolution that clarifies how the existing exemption will be implemented (using age, disability and household‑income criteria) and to return that language for council review ahead of the ballot. The resolution would remove the 40% equity and reverse‑mortgage elements tied to the state postponement program and would make clear that city staff will apply the eligibility criteria locally rather than requiring participation in an unfunded state program.

Next steps: staff will prepare draft resolution language and return it to council for formal consideration.