County should be more transparent on assessments
Every fall, property owners in Santa Clara County receive their annual property tax statement. The arrival of this document is highly anticipated by some (myself), and overwhelmingly dreaded by others. These statements list out various taxes and fees assessed on properties as separate line items, and then provide a grand total. My own bill this year is $14,429.
Payment of property taxes and the associated hit to the pocketbook is significantly larger than monthly utility bills. But in comparing the two, utility bills offer something that property tax statements do not: itemized, individual line item amounts that enable taxpayers to understand the specific costs. Assessments (typically in acronyms) such as county bonds, the PERS levy (a tax solely assessed for county employee pensions), city, school, community college and water district bonds are blank. The county’s omission of this information would be similar to receiving a restaurant bill at the end of your meal without an itemization of component costs, leaving you to blindly trust your food server or grab the menu and do the math on your own in order to verify the accuracy of your bill. Why must Santa Clara County taxpayers be put through such nonsense? Isn’t there a more transparent way to do this?
I’ve often wondered why our neighboring counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Cruz, San Francisco and San Mateo) share exactly how much each tax line item costs with their resident property owners, while Santa Clara County leaves property owners scratching their heads. Why is this pertinent data intentionally omitted?
When I contacted the county Tax Collector’s office to inquire about its methodology, I was informed “there was simply no room on the property tax statement to list the dollar amounts.” I countered by pointing out that the “amount” column was already there, and was simply left blank. After asking to speak with a manager, it was explained to me that county officials had discussed including this information, but ultimately chose to not to do so. I find it so disappointing that our county government chose to omit what neighboring counties willfully share with their constituents.
Why would county officials omit relevant financial data? Perhaps it is because government entities seek new tax increases in every election. The county alone has raised taxes six times since 2008, and if property owners knew exactly how much specific tax ballot measures would actually cost, then they may be less inclined to support new tax measures. For example, during a recent election, a campaign surrogate phoned me who was trying to assess my support for a bond measure, and falsely told me that the bond in question would not cost anything. Upon receiving my property tax statement, I discovered that I was assessed over $700 a year for my property (the bond passed, leaving me to “do the math” on my own because it had been omitted by the county). This led me to believe that the lack of transparency is not merely a casual omission, but rather a deliberate way, by design, to keep taxpayers in the dark.
The Mercury News has consistently advocated for transparency in bond measures, so that voters understand exactly how much they are projected to cost. Our county should be held to the same transparency standard with annual property tax statements. Residents would be better served by full transparency as this essential information allows residents to understand what they are already paying for when considering how to vote on additional new tax increases. We deserve better. Enough is enough with the annual charade. Residents of Santa Clara County deserve straightforward information now.