Editorial: San Ramon Valley voters should reject school tax proposals

When school districts seek ballot approval for new property taxes, they should be transparent about the measures and encourage voter participation.

The San Ramon Valley Unified School District’s two measures on a special May 7 election ballot flunk both tests. Voters should reject Measure E, a replacement of an existing parcel tax with one that has new inflation adjustments, and Measure F, a separate new parcel tax.

These measures should have been placed on either the March primary or the November general election ballot. Calling a special election suppresses voter turnout.

To see this, consider that the last time the district sought voter approval for a parcel tax, in a May 2015 special election, voter turnout was 34%.

Compare that to the just-completed March primary in which voter turnout for the district’s two cities, Danville and San Ramon, was 39%. Or the November 2022 general election, in which turnout for the two cities was 61%. And, in that election, the San Ramon school board’s only competitive race drew 61% of registered voters.

In their explanation for the election timing, district officials claim, without supporting evidence, that “our community has preferred to consider these measures … separate from the partisan environment that can accompany presidential elections.”

While we’re sympathetic with the concern that many local races and measures can get lost in the flurry of focus on the top of the ballot, the solution is not to opt for depressed turnout. Rather, backers of the measure should actively campaign for it if they want voters to pass it.

And calling special elections for costly tax measures makes no sense while, over the past couple of decades, most local jurisdictions have moved their board elections to coincide with statewide and national elections to encourage greater voter participation.

Election timing aside, let’s look at the substance of the two measures.

Measure E would extend the district’s existing $144 parcel tax to help pay for district operations. The tax is due to expire in 2025. Measure E would extend it to 2034 — and would add, for the first time, annual inflation increases to it. In other words, this is not the same as the prior tax. Calling it a renewal is deceitful.

Yet, the measure’s grammatically convoluted ballot language says it would be “renewing its existing $144 annual parcel tax …  at the same rate.” The ballot language later references “annual adjustments” but fails to mention that those adjustments are new and are inflation increases. It’s the sort of deceptive wording that only a political consultant could love.

Measure F would add a completely new tax — also to help pay for district operations — of $98 per parcel. This tax would start July 1 and would last until 2033, a year earlier than the expiration of the Measure E tax. Unlike Measure E, Measure F does not contain an annual inflation increase.

Both taxes are piled on top of the district’s current supplemental property taxes to retire school construction bonds. Those taxes will last through 2031. For next year they are projected to be $68.24 for every $100,000 of assessed value.

So, for example, for a property with a district-average assessed value of $1.2 million, the annual bond payments work out to about $819. Add the Measure E and F parcel taxes, if they pass, and the supplement tax total for the school district would be about $1,061 next year.

There might be reasonable arguments for that level of special taxes. But voters deserve full transparency, and the district should not put its thumb on the scales by opting for a special, low-turnout election.

Voters should reject Measures E and F.