|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The San Mateo County assessor’s office announced July 6 that the assessed value of San Mateo County climbed to a record $357.6 billion, or 4.85% more than last year’s assessed value. That’s roughly in line with last year’s growth rate.
Menlo Park had the second-highest growth rate of any city in the county at 6.96%, while Woodside and Atherton were also higher than the county growth rate of 6.91%, at 6.71% and 6.91%, respectively, according to numbers released by the office of San Mateo Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder Mark Church. Redwood City saw one of the lower rates of growth in the county, at 3.59%.
The assessment roll serves as the foundation for local property tax revenues, which fund public services. The total net assessed value includes all real, business and personal property as of Jan. 1, of this year.
“Every increase in assessed value translates into resources that directly benefit residents,” Church said in a press release. “Property taxes support the schools our children attend, the public safety services our communities rely upon, and the infrastructure that sustains our quality of life.”
According to the county’s report, approximately 1% of the assessment roll supports the property tax base that funds public services, amounting to $3.58 billion in revenue. Approximately 51% of revenue, or about $1.8 billion, is allocated to schools, 25% to the county, 16% to cities, 7% to special districts, and 1% to former redevelopment agencies.
The growth rate for the past two years has been more modest than that from 2013 to 2024, and it reached a high of 8.34% in 2022.
“The Assessment Roll reflects the health of the County’s overall property tax base, not the tax bill of any one homeowner,” said Church over email. “Every property has its own assessment history, and California law provides important taxpayer protections.”
Sources of tax roll growth
Despite a year characterized by “economic crosscurrents,” San Mateo County posted its 16th consecutive year of assessment roll growth.
Of the $16.8 billion increase from last year’s assessment roll, 61% was driven by new construction. In 2025, the county tracked 4 million square feet of major development projects — those over 80,000 square feet. Development activity was led by life science and office projects, including the 200,000-square-foot lab and office space at 200 Twin Dolphin Drive in Redwood City and the mixed-use office and residential space at Elco Yards in Redwood City.
Residential properties were another key source of growth for the county. While high mortgage rates have discouraged home selling, the county has seen residential property values increase due to “another Bay Area cycle of wealth creation tied to artificial intelligence, advanced technology, and related equity markets,” the press release said.
Home value appreciations, however, are tempered by Proposition 13. Under the proposition, approved by voters in 1978, a property’s assessed value generally cannot increase by more than 2% per year or the rate of inflation, whichever is lower, unless the property is reassessed because of new construction or a change in ownership. Proposition 8, also approved by voters in 1978, allows county assessors to temporarily reduce a property’s assessed value when its market value falls below its assessed value under Proposition 13. This reduces the amount of taxes a property owner is required to pay.
Of the 7,400 properties evaluated by the assessor’s office last year for potential value declines, 6,572 qualified for a reduction because their assessed value exceeded their market value. These lower valuations result in a $3.5 billion temporary reduction in value, according to the county’s report.
In Menlo Park, 220 residential properties lost a combined $96 million in temporary value. Due to the decrease, Menlo Park lost $437,000 from its share of the 1% property tax. In Redwood City, 516 properties saw a $154 million in temporary value reductions, for a $299,000 loss.
“The Assessment Roll is essentially a snapshot of economic activity over time,” Church said in an email. “We’ll be watching several key factors, including interest rates, inflation, housing affordability, property sales, new construction, commercial real estate, and business investment.”
51% to Schools. No wonder Seniors will become homeless, when more than half of their Property taxes must pay for expensive school bonds that finance new capital improvement projects but spread the cost over up to 40 years with expensive interest. In my School District they never pay them off before taking out new bonds for more projects, and we’re now paying for 3 Stacked Bonds on one single line of our tax bills.
You are not mad enough. They spend the 51% of your property tax on schools and then whine that it’s not enough so the bonds stack up on your property tax bill with no regard for Prop 13. Just say NO to all bonds. If a project is important enough, they should budget it out of the already excessive taxes they collect.