{"id":38283,"date":"2025-11-04T23:54:18","date_gmt":"2025-11-04T23:54:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/38283\/"},"modified":"2025-11-04T23:54:18","modified_gmt":"2025-11-04T23:54:18","slug":"santa-claras-measure-i-you-should-have-read-the-fine-print","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/38283\/","title":{"rendered":"Santa Clara\u2019s Measure I: You Should Have Read the Fine Print"},"content":{"rendered":"

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<\/a> that 69.41% of voters supported in November 2024,<\/a> most of them didn\u2019t expect the hit to be so big.<\/p>\n

\u201cI feel misled \u2026 We were definitely misled on what our annual fees were going to be to support this type of measure. I was definitely surprised,\u201d said Santa Clara resident Sandy.<\/p>\n

Surprised because the \u201cestimated $19 per $100,000 of assessed value\u201d mentioned in the official Measure I ballot question actually showed up as $28.70 per $100,000 of assessed value on this year\u2019s property tax bill.<\/p>\n

SPONSORED<\/p>\n

\"Sutter\"Sutter<\/a><\/p>\n

The Weekly contacted the city to ask why residents were charged 51% more. The city\u2019s response was that the information was right there for residents to read.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe ballot question for Measure I stated that property owners would pay an\u00a0average\u00a0of 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,\u201d said Santa Clara Public Information Officer Janine De la Vega in an email to The Weekly. \u201cIn the Complete Text of Measure I, the ballot language includes the Tax Rate Statement, which states:\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2018The 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.\u2019<\/p>\n

\u201cAcross the full repayment period, the average cost is still projected to align with the $19 per $100,000 estimate presented to voters.\u201d<\/p>\n

Hidden in the Fine Print<\/p>\n

Therein lies the problem. The 78-word question that appeared on the ballot did not include the word \u201caverage.\u201d 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.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The longer, two-page impartial analysis written by Santa Clara City Attorney Glen Googins does include the word \u201caverage,\u201d however, it fails to state that a higher tax would be paid initially. That city analysis included items one and three from the \u201cTax Rate Statement\u201d titled \u201cExhibit A\u201d in the city\u2019s resolution calling for a ballot measure. However, Googins\u2019 impartial analysis omitted item two of the exhibit, the one that stated that the \u201cbest estimate\u201d of the highest tax rate for the first year would be $28.70, the rate actually applied to this year\u2019s property tax.<\/p>\n

Only voters willing to read the 25-page resolution<\/a> would have found item two. Since these items were not numbered in Googins\u2019 impartial analysis, as they were in the resolution, voters had no way of knowing there was a third item missing from the impartial analysis\u00a0<\/p>\n

When asked why item two was left out of the impartial analysis, Googins offered the following reply:<\/p>\n

\u201cBy 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.\u00a0By 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\u2019s important to note, the projected highest rate of tax was included in the text of the measure itself.\u201d<\/p>\n

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\u2019t do something similar to what Santa Clara did to fund its infrastructure needs. Sunnyvale City Manager Tim Kirby was very blunt in his reply.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cI felt like their [Santa Clara\u2019s] 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\u2019s tax bill,\u201d said Kirby. \u201cKent 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

Broken Trust and No Guarantees\u00a0<\/p>\n

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\u2019s assessed value does not change drastically.<\/p>\n

Even then, there\u2019s no guarantee it works out. The city\u2019s estimates are based on assumptions, specifically that the bonds will be sold at certain rates. The first round of bonds won\u2019t be sold until February 2026 at the \u201cprevailing market rate at the time of the sale.\u201d And that\u2019s just the first round of bonds. There\u2019s a lot that can happen between now and 2030, when the city plans to issue its final round of bonds.\u00a0<\/p>\n

One finance professional The Weekly spoke to said that\u2019s a lot to rely on, and they were quick to spot a potential \u201cdownside.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIf interest rates rise, they\u2019ll [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,\u201d they said. \u201cThat could increase the amount of interest to be paid over a relatively smaller assessed roll.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

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.\u00a0<\/p>\n

For Sandy, that\u2019s a tough pill to swallow.<\/p>\n

\u201cI 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,\u201d said Sandy. \u201cI don\u2019t remember them saying that it\u2019s 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

SPONSORED<\/p>\n

\"SiliconValleyVoice_Ad2\"\"SiliconValleyVoice_Ad2\"<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Some Santa Clara residents got a huge surprise when they opened their property tax bills this fall. Though…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":38284,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[29],"tags":[26445,88,90,89,197,2921,2922],"class_list":["post-38283","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-san-jose","tag-measure-i","tag-san-jose","tag-san-jose-headlines","tag-san-jose-news","tag-santa-clara","tag-santa-clara-weekly","tag-silicon-valley-voice"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38283","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=38283"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38283\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/38284"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38283"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=38283"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=38283"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}