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.
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.”
It’s not too late to take action and correct the problematic bond measure. Many residents believe the $43,987,500 allocated for Police Facilities will restore the police headquarters on The Alameda or the Northside Substation at Rivermark. In reality, most of the money will be used to build an indoor combat town that residents don’t need. The Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office already operates the Richey Training Center, which offers classrooms, a mat room, simulators, a computer lab, and scenario training facilities. All law enforcement agencies in the county—including Santa Clara’s police department—currently receive training support there, along with access to firearms and driver training centers. https://maps.app.goo.gl/9tXk22g6xXpn4YDB9
The vagueness of Measure I’s language in voter pamphlets should be a legitimate reason for residents to petition the Bond Compliance Oversight Committee to ensure no monies are approved for projects not overtly conveyed to residents. If you don’t speak up, you’ll be taxed for a police playhouse that no other city or agency in Santa Clara County has found a need or justification for. https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-a-f/city-clerk-s-office/election-information/november-5-2024-election/measure-i
Measure I’s vague language means your money could be spent on unnecessary projects, like a police playhouse. Speak up and urge the Bond Compliance Oversight Committee to ensure funds are only used for projects clearly promised to residents. If we don’t act, we risk paying for something our community doesn’t need.
Thank you for your informative article on Measure I. One would think that our city’s government would be fully forthcoming to its citizen-taxpayers and not place misleadingly incomplete/possibly inaccurate statements on their ballots. I would like to hear what City Manager, Jovan Grogan, and our City Council members (all of whom unanimously supported Measure I) have to say about all of this. For example, would they have included the “$28.70 per $100,000 of assessed value” figure, mentioned in your article, on the ballot if they had opposed Measure I (instead of enthusiastically supporting it as each of them did)?
Quite frankly, I am not particularly interested in hearing what a hired press flack has to say about this matter. For over 50 years the legendary Santa Clara City Managers, Don von Raesfeld and Jennifer Sparacino, did not need anyone to do their talking for them. How much money is she costing our city anyway?
The Council members, themselves, should talk to us about how this unprecedented, ginormous tax-borrow-and-spend boondoggle was sold to the voters. Oh! Wait a minute. Those members are currently working hard on: (1) obtaining an optimal profit from our stadium for our City during the World Cup next year; and (2) cutting the ballooning public employee payroll of our city which is strangling our city’s finances and which prompted the Council to push Measure I in the first place. (Not!!)
Perhaps, the many taxpayer/resident/citizens who have been blindsided by Measure I will attend the next meeting of the City Council and make Public Presentations to the Council members about this costly situation and how it must now finally at long last be resolved.
Sounds like the city council was duped again. The City Attorney Googins was not fully transparent and this is probably one of possibly many missteps that will be exposed. Let’s first remember that in this article talking about a break in public trust, remember that this is the same Gillmor that rants about public trust and the trust was broken by misleading city council let alone the voters. Gillmor led a lot of the Measure I efforts and got the POA/Fire unions involved because it was a perk for her bread and butter campaign boosters.
The truth is, that $186 Million went towards Police and Fire under the Gillmor-Watanabe $400 Million Bond Plan versus $175 Million to Police and Fire under the $598 million bond plan proposed by staff and most City Council members at the time. Gillmor, though, supported cutting street funding and other categories to give nearly half of the bond money which is 46% to police and fire.
The fact that the city council had to vote to put an infrastructure bond measure on the ballot is disgraceful. The disgraced former City Manager Deanna Santana refused to use any money from the federal government during the pandemic towards the city’s infrastructure or other needs and instead used towards the Police and Fire union salaries, bolstering the Gillmor political machine before the 2020 elections. Gillmor has been in office a very long time and in all those years she never delivered new facilities, never focused on the infrastructure of the city, instead created legal chaos with the 49ers, her council colleagues and destroyed the chamber of commerce all in acts of revenge. That one blogger says I am very critical of Mayor Gillmor and I and many others have reason to. The people of this city should know what their leaders do in public and in the shadows. Gillmor for years let things fall apart on purpose so then she can blame it on others like staff or city council members. Gillmor brings a stadium to Santa Clara to then complain about it and act like she is the hero taking on a big NFL franchise. Gillmor loses $6 million to a CVRA voting rights lawsuit then talks about fiscal responsibility when council spends $500k on a ballot measure she didn’t agree with.
The city council should have listened to the commenter here John Haggerty who appeared often at Council meetings. However, the city council did have to do something, yet it seems more and more the Gillmor led city for the last decade has eroded public trust more than anyone else on the city council ever could. The council was simply following the leader, a tyrannical one that uses mafia tactics to scare others into doing something that fits her ill will.
Lisa Gillmor, The Great Mayor of Transparency and Public Trust with Councilmember Watanabe wrote an Op-Ed on July 9th, 2024 in the bias blog that supports them that stated the following, “At today’s city council meeting, two critical items are on the agenda: a discussion of a Civil Grand Jury Report and $598 Million Infrastructure bond. Both of these issues have the opportunity to help restore public trust in Santa Clara City Hall or further erode it”. The irony is that Mayor Gillmor and former Councilmember Watanabe clearly are part of the erosion of public trust or whatever was left of it. When Gillmor had the majority from 2016-2020 they obliterated public trust behind their guise of transparency and public trust. That majority acted like heroes fighting their own government corruption deceiving residents. Their grand jury reports, their political assassination league and undermining city government are the true factors in that erosion of public trust in Santa Clara. Career political leaders like Mayor Gillmor who manipulate the process to take claim and be a savior to only have it all blow up in their face. Voters have not learned from these Gillmor missteps over generations and keep listening to her failed leadership. https://www.svvoice.com/mayor-and-ally-seemingly-dont-understand-city-managers-role/.