Some Santa Clara residents got a huge surprise when they opened their property tax bills this fall. Though many of them expected to see the first round of payments for Measure I, the $400 million infrastructure bond that 69.41% of voters supported in November 2024, most of them didn’t expect the hit to be so big.
“I feel misled … We were definitely misled on what our annual fees were going to be to support this type of measure. I was definitely surprised,” said Santa Clara resident Sandy.
Surprised because the “estimated $19 per $100,000 of assessed value” mentioned in the official Measure I ballot question actually showed up as $28.70 per $100,000 of assessed value on this year’s property tax bill.
SPONSORED
The Weekly contacted the city to ask why residents were charged 51% more. The city’s response was that the information was right there for residents to read.
“The ballot question for Measure I stated that property owners would pay an average of approximately $19 per $100,000 of assessed value over the life of the bonds. The $19 per $100,000 of assessed value is not a cap,” said Santa Clara Public Information Officer Janine De la Vega in an email to The Weekly. “In the Complete Text of Measure I, the ballot language includes the Tax Rate Statement, which states:
“‘The best estimate of the highest tax rate that would be required to be levied to fund the bond issue, based on assessed valuations available at the time of filing this statement is $28.70 per $100,000 of assessed valuation of all property to be taxed. The best estimate of the first fiscal year in which the highest tax rate will apply is 2026.’
“Across the full repayment period, the average cost is still projected to align with the $19 per $100,000 estimate presented to voters.”
Hidden in the Fine Print
Therein lies the problem. The 78-word question that appeared on the ballot did not include the word “average.” It also did not state that the initial property tax that would be applied in 2025 would be higher than $19 per $100,000 of assessed value.
The longer, two-page impartial analysis written by Santa Clara City Attorney Glen Googins does include the word “average,” however, it fails to state that a higher tax would be paid initially. That city analysis included items one and three from the “Tax Rate Statement” titled “Exhibit A” in the city’s resolution calling for a ballot measure. However, Googins’ impartial analysis omitted item two of the exhibit, the one that stated that the “best estimate” of the highest tax rate for the first year would be $28.70, the rate actually applied to this year’s property tax.
Only voters willing to read the 25-page resolution would have found item two. Since these items were not numbered in Googins’ impartial analysis, as they were in the resolution, voters had no way of knowing there was a third item missing from the impartial analysis
When asked why item two was left out of the impartial analysis, Googins offered the following reply:
“By law, the Impartial Analysis for a ballot measure is supposed to summarize the effect of the measure on the existing law and how the measure will operate. By law, there is also a 500-word limit. Unfortunately, that means not every detail or financial projection can be covered. However, the summary as drafted was extensive and accurate, and there was no purpose or intent to exclude any material fact.It’s important to note, the projected highest rate of tax was included in the text of the measure itself.”
While the wording might have been there for residents to read, whether Santa Clara was upfront about what was happening is debatable. During the Sunnyvale City Council meeting on Sept. 9, 2025, a council member asked why Sunnyvale didn’t do something similar to what Santa Clara did to fund its infrastructure needs. Sunnyvale City Manager Tim Kirby was very blunt in his reply.
“I felt like their [Santa Clara’s] language was a little misleading. Their parcel number was lower than ours, even though the dollar amount was higher, because they were using an average number over the life of the bonds as opposed to the first number that was going to show up on somebody’s tax bill,” said Kirby. “Kent Steffens, my predecessor, and I had a conversation about that, and neither of us were comfortable taking that approach. We felt like, if it passed and actually showed up on the property tax bill, then residents would be very upset with us and that we would break that trust that we work hard to establish and maintain.”
Broken Trust and No Guarantees
Kirby is likely right that some trust is broken. In order for a homeowner to see the average $19 per $100,000 of assessed value in property tax estimated by Measure I, they would have to stay in their home for the next 30 years and make no improvements or changes to the property so that the property’s assessed value does not change drastically.
Even then, there’s no guarantee it works out. The city’s estimates are based on assumptions, specifically that the bonds will be sold at certain rates. The first round of bonds won’t be sold until February 2026 at the “prevailing market rate at the time of the sale.” And that’s just the first round of bonds. There’s a lot that can happen between now and 2030, when the city plans to issue its final round of bonds.
One finance professional The Weekly spoke to said that’s a lot to rely on, and they were quick to spot a potential “downside.”
“If interest rates rise, they’ll [the city will] pay more interest on later issuances. At the same time, property values and property sales will likely drop, which would hold back growth in assessed values in the roll,” they said. “That could increase the amount of interest to be paid over a relatively smaller assessed roll.”
If both of these things occur concurrently, residents would actually end up paying more per $100,000 of assessed value, possibly even more than the $28.70.
For Sandy, that’s a tough pill to swallow.
“I feel tricked. I feel that what was publicly said, and there were people that came through the neighborhood campaigning, and they were very clear that it was going to be approximately $19,” said Sandy. “I don’t remember them saying that it’s going to average, some years will be more and some years will be less. So, I do feel like there was a bit of false advertising in the way that they looked for support of this particular measure.”
SPONSORED
