Click here for a complete list of our election recommendations.
The first thing voters should know about local bond measures on their ballots is that they are also property tax increases.
Each measure authorizes a local city or school district to borrow funds by issuing bonds — and the measure contains a new property tax to pay off those loans. That tax usually lasts for at least 30 years.
Unfortunately, most of the elected officials sponsoring these measures don’t want you to know that. That’s why the ballot wording emphasizes the good stuff the money will buy and hides the tax component.
While state law requires the agencies to specify the amount of the property tax increase, it doesn’t require them to call it what it is. Each election season, we marvel at the tortured syntax most cities and school districts employ to try to avoid using the word tax. (One school district was a refreshing exception this year.)
Eighteen South Bay and East Bay cities and school districts placed bond measures on the current ballots. We have evaluated eight of the largest proposals.
For all voters facing local bond measures, we encourage you not to stop with the wording on the ballot. And don’t just read the first part of the information in the official voter guide from the elections office.
BALLOT WORDING RATINGSThe Alameda County Grand Jury Association has rated the accuracy and fairness of the ballot wording for measures in that county. It’s instructional about what to look out for, even if you don’t live in Alameda County. To read their ratings, go to: https://bit.ly/ballotwording.
Be sure to look for the “tax rate statement.” In Contra Costa and Alameda counties, you’ll usually find it toward the beginning of the material for the ballot measure.
Santa Clara County election officials bury this critical statement behind all the legal text of the measure, making it harder to find. Keep flipping the pages until you find it.
The tax increases are usually expressed as an amount for every $100,000 of assessed value. The assessed value is not the same as the actual value of your property. You’ll find your assessed value on your property tax bill.
With that background, here are our evaluations and recommendations for the eight measures.
E – City of Sunnyvale ($290 million)
Property tax increase: $25 per $100,000 of assessed value for the first year, 2027. For a house with a city average assessed value of $885,000, that works out to $221. The tax rate would decline most years after that until the bonds are paid off in 2051.
What it buys: A new, modern, 120,000-square-foot, three-story, architecturally exciting library to replace the city’s 64-year-old facility.
Ballot language: Misleading. Never mentions the word tax.
Recommendation: Yes. The new library would be a huge community asset as part of modernizing the 26-acre Civic Center campus that also includes City Hall and the public safety headquarters.
I – City of Santa Clara ($400 million)
Property tax increase: Starting at $28 per $100,000 of assessed value in 2026 and declining for 33 years to $3.24 per $100,000 in 2059. For a house with a city median assessed value of $673,437, the starting tax is about $189.
What it buys: Includes $41 million for street improvements; $142 million for fire station replacements and renovations; $44 million for police facilities; $115 million for parks, library, senior center and aquatics facilities; $46 million for storm drain improvements; and $9 million for beautification and historic buildings.
Ballot language: Misleading. Never mentions the word tax. Moreover, the rate cited, $19 per $100,000, understates the cost because it fails to disclose that’s an average of the annual rates for the 33-year payment. The amount will be higher than that until 2041. And the average is deceptively low because of four years at the tail end, in 2056-2059, in which only small payments are planned.
Recommendation: Yes. The city faces a projected $8 million structural budget deficit for its general fund at the same time that it has racked up at least $600 million in infrastructure needs. City officials need to fix the structural imbalance and start budgeting for ongoing maintenance to avoid future taxes like this one. At the same time, the maintenance backlog must be addressed. This is an unfortunately necessary measure to pay for the budgetary sins of the past.
M – Fremont Unified school district ($919 million)
Property tax increase: $49 per $100,000 of assessed value annually. Combined with two prior voter-approved bond measures, the total tax for bond measures would reach $105 per $100,000 of assessed value. For a house with a district average assessed value of $819,774, that would total $861 annually. The tax would end in 2057. District property owners also currently pay a parcel tax of $73 annually to supplement district operations.
What it buys: The district’s top priorities are for new construction projects at Walters Middle School and at all six high schools in the district. The district also plans new kitchen facilities, elementary school improvements and solar panel installations.
Ballot language: Very misleading. Never mentions the word tax. The amount specified is “4.9¢/ $100 assessed value” — the only one of the eight measures to express the amount in cents. That’s intended to make the amount seem less and make it harder for homeowners to calculate the effect.
Recommendation: No. The district’s ballot language seems to be deliberately misleading, the worst of any of the bond measures we reviewed for this election. District officials should be fully transparent.
N – New Haven Unified School District ($272 million)
Property tax increase: $58 per $100,000 of assessed value annually. Combined with two prior voter-approved bond measures, the total tax bill for bonds would increase in 2026 to $198 per $100,000 of assessed value. For a house with a district average assessed value of $590,449 that would total $1,169 annually. The tax would end in 2058.
What it buys: The district’s 2021 facilities master plan followed by a 2023 update placed total improvements at more than $800 million, with about $215 million of that needed to be addressed immediately or soon. The biggest item, about $158 million, is a major remodel of the district’s only comprehensive high school, James Logan, built over five decades ago.
Ballot language: Misleading. Never mentions the word tax.
Recommendation: Yes. Our recommendation is with reservations. The resulting tax rates are relatively high, but the district has been measured and incremental in its past requests to voters. We are concerned that the district has experienced declining enrollment, roughly 12% since 2018, and did not update its projections before placing this measure on the ballot.
P – Pittsburg school district ($140 million)
Property tax increase: $60 per $100,000 of assessed value annually. Combined with five prior voter-approved bond measures, dating back to 2004, the total tax bill for school bonds would start in 2026 at $158 per $100,000 of assessed value. For a house with a district average assessed value of $325,783, that would total $515 annually. The combined tax rate would peak in 2044 at $185 per $100,000 of assessed value. The tax would end in 2058.
What it buys: The district’s 2021 facilities master plan identifies over $700 million in projects, including portable classroom replacements and campus and building improvements. Measure P bond money would help trim that list.
Ballot language: Very good. The district is a good model for transparency. The ballot wording clearly identifies that Measure P requires a tax increase and specifies the amount. The one thing missing is the year the tax would end. In addition, the tax rate statement in the voter guide explains the tax well and details the taxes remaining for past voter-approved bond measures so that taxpayers know the full cost.
Recommendation: Yes. Pittsburg is a so-called low-wealth district in which total property tax value per student is far less than most California school districts. It’s these sorts of districts that Proposition 2, the statewide school bond measure on the Nov. 8 ballot, should focus on helping, but doesn’t. So Pittsburg must go it alone. And unlike many other districts, it must plan for increasing enrollment. To its credit, district officials have been incremental in their requests to local taxpayers.
Q – San Lorenzo Unified School District ($195 million)
Property tax increase: $59 per $100,000 of assessed value annually. Combined with three prior voter-approved bond measures, the total tax bill for school bonds would peak in 2027 at $154 per $100,000 of assessed value. For a house with a district average assessed value of $447,781, that would total $690 annually. The tax would end in 2058. District property owners also currently pay a $99 annual parcel tax to supplement district operations.
What it buys: The district commissioned a facilities review in 2016 before seeking voter approval in 2018 for its last bond measure. The review identified $573 million in projects, of which about $130 million worth have been addressed, district officials say. Measure Q would address many of those projects.
Ballot language: Misleading. Never mentions the word tax.
Recommendation: No. The spending plan for the measure is based on a facilities review that was conducted eight years ago. Since the plan was prepared, the district has experienced a rapid decline in enrollment. Indeed, district enrollment for 2029 is projected to be 33% less than in 2019. But district officials are not considering any school closures. Before asking voters to further raise taxes to upgrade schools, district officials should present a plan that reflects today’s needs.
R – San Jose Unified School District ($1.15 billion)
Property tax increase: $59 per $100,000 of assessed value annually. Combined with two prior voter-approved bond measures, the total tax bill for school bonds would peak in 2029 at $120 per $100,000 of assessed value. For a house with a district average assessed value of $723,870, that would total $869 annually. The tax would end in 2055. District property owners also currently pay a $72 annual parcel tax to supplement district operations.
What it buys: A district facilities assessment identified over $1.4 billion in needed repairs and improvements across every school site. The district also plans to spend bond money on faculty and staff housing, for which a separate report estimated costs of up to $283 million. With nearly $2 billion in needs, nearly double the bond amount, what’s missing is prioritization of spending.
Related Articles
Editorial: In Berkeley, elect Ishii mayor for needed calm, respectful leadership
Editorial: Recall Alameda County DA Pamela Price. Here’s why.
Editorial: Antioch needs a mayor who won’t divide the city
Editorial: San Ramon voters should pick Armstrong for mayor, Shetty for council
Editorial: For Hayward City Council, keep Andrews, Zermeño, Goldstein, Bonilla
Ballot language: Misleading. Never mentions the word tax.
Recommendation: No. The school board placed this exceptionally large bond measure on the ballot in a meeting held on 24 hours’ notice. The measure lacks spending prioritization. The $283 million for housing is excessive, calling into question whether a school district should enter the development business. Finally, the district, which was the subject of a scathing grand jury report, needs to get its house in order, including improving online meeting access, before being entrusted with another $1.15 billion.
Z – Cupertino Union School District ($347 million)
Property tax increase: $16 per $100,000 of assessed value annually starting in 2028 and rising to $28 per $100,000 in 2040. The increase would be timed to the end of payments for two prior voter-approved bond measures. So the total tax bill would remain steady at about $38 per $100,000 until 2040, when it would drop to $28. For a house with a district median assessed value of about 1,061,883, that totals about $403 a year until 2040. The tax would end in 2056. (Most district property owners also pay for bonds issued by the Fremont Union High School District at a current rate of about $45 per $100,000 assessed value.)
What it buys: The district in 2020 prepared cost estimates for a facilities master plan that totaled $1.1 billion, with about $450 million of that being higher priority. Meanwhile, the district is experiencing rapid declining enrollment, projected at 26%-32% from 2018-30.
Ballot language: Misleading. Never mentions the word tax.
Recommendation: Yes. The district’s needs assessment from 2020 was thorough. And the district has since closed three schools because of the declining enrollment. But if Measure Z passes, school officials should evaluate whether more closures are needed before moving forward with construction plans.