A proposal to raise the cost of most Cambridge resident parking permits to $75 from $25 was paused Monday by the City Council amid a misunderstanding that the change affects every senior.

The policy order led by councillor Patty Nolan included “a self-identified checkoff option” that would keep prices low for car owners who are in affordable housing, enrolled in programs such as food assistance or are low-income – meaning applicants could simply check a box without proof or being questioned. But a blanket exemption for seniors was to be eliminated in favor of the checkoff option, a function that was missed or misinterpreted by several public speakers and even at least one councillor.

“The elimination of the senior exemption is disrespectful to seniors and inconsiderate of the many challenges senior residents face today in the current economic climate,” one public speaker said. “Removing the senior parking fee exemption functions as a mobility tax on fixed-income residents with the least flexibility,” another said. “This is not about parking convenience. It is about whether Cambridge charges seniors to age in place.”

Councillor E. Denise Simmons also expressed outrage in proposing an amendment: to reverse the order and keep all seniors exempt from a price hike unless they specifically opted in to pay more. (Nolan’s order was introduced Feb. 9, but Simmons used her “charter right” to pause discussion for one regular meeting to write her proposed amendments.)

“We’re being asked to believe that a $75 fee would not be a burden on seniors in particular,” Simmons said. “Seventy-five dollars might be a heating bill. It might be a week of groceries. It might be a co-pay.” She blasted the policy order as resulting from the failure of trying to create a tiered pay structure: “We couldn’t build a system that protects the vulnerable, so we decided the vulnerable should go unprotected,” Simmons said, “and what’s worse, we’re being asked to remove this protection without even talking to our seniors.”

Program runs in the red

Fees were raised to $20 from $8 in 2011 with a built-in raise to $25 in 2013. There has been no increase in the past dozen years, the policy order notes.

The fees do not cover the annual administrative costs of issuing the permits, putting the program from $1.5 million to $2 million in the red, said Nolan and councillor Marc McGovern, a co-sponsor of the order.

“We are in a tough fiscal time right now. We keep talking about it, yet we are running a program that runs about a $2 million deficit – doesn’t even pay for itself,” McGovern said. “This isn’t about making money. This is about just covering costs, and that’s where the $75 comes from.”

That gap between what the program charges and what it costs means car owners are being subsidized “by low-income people in the city and other people in the city who don’t own cars,” Nolan said.

Co-sponsor councillor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler said the subsidy was the cost of a private parking space, which can be well over $1,000 annually. “There are lots of residents who don’t have a car who would like us to give them $1,000,” he said.

Income, not age

The checkoff box for a price exemption based on income made more sense than a blanket exemption by age, Sobrinho-Wheeler said, giving the example of the president of Harvard, whose age he put at 71. “We’re saying he shouldn’t have to pay $75 instead of instead of $25? Alan Garber, who’s making millions of dollars each year, should pay $75,” Sobrinho-Wheeler said.

But even McGovern acknowledged the order he co-sponsored could have been written more clearly, and when councillor Tim Flaherty proposed sending the matter to his own Transportation Committee, McGovern signaled support. Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui instead made a motion to table the order, which passed.

Nolan identified a bright side: Her order included one change to car permit rules that looks like it will be approved without controversy.

“We got no one saying we shouldn’t reduce the number of cars per individual from four to two,” Nolan said.