As Bay Area cities, counties and school districts struggle with painful budget cuts connected to the coronavirus economic downturn, many are considering asking voters in the Nov. 3 election to raise taxes.

The increases might be appropriate. What isn’t acceptable is ballot deception or fiscal recklessness. Voters deserve full transparency about the cost and context of tax increases they are being asked to pay.

Yet, too many local government leaders, their attorneys and taxpayer-funded campaign consultants continue to write ballot measures and voter material to tout the benefits while glossing over, or even hiding, the true costs.

It’s time for the deceit to stop.

As government officials prepare to submit to election officials measures for the upcoming ballot, they should commit to full transparency and fiscal responsibility. The goal should be helping voters make informed decisions — not manipulating them.

Here are some things we’ll be looking for — and voters should, too:

The ballot wording for Dublin school district’s Measure H, like other school bond measures, doesn’t mention the tax increase that would be required. 

Ballot wording — The 75-word summary that goes on the ballot is the first thing — and too often the only thing — voters read. It should include the amount and duration of the tax and clearly indicate whether it’s an extension of an existing levy or an increase. If the tax is permanent, that should be explicitly stated.

Bond measures — Bonds are a form of borrowing. Taxes to repay the debt are based on property values and the repayment period. The ballot wording for bond measures should include the number of years the taxes would last and the average annual cost to property owners.

The tax rate should be expressed per $100,000 of assessed value so property owners can easily estimate how much they would pay. Voters should be wary of attempts to make the tax look smaller by expressing it per $100 of assessed value, thereby forcing them to pull out calculators to figure their costs.

Where the money goes — Whether the money is going to, for example, salaries, roads or new classrooms, the ballot wording should clearly state how the taxes would be spent. Voters should be wary of poll-tested, political-consultant hype such as “providing 21st-century technology.” The ballot pamphlet mailed to voters should include a clear budget for how the money would be spent and/or a link to an expenditure plan online.

Sunsets — Generally, tax increases should not be permanent. Accountability is essential. Voters should get a periodic say on whether they think they’re getting their money’s worth. And, this year, tax increases to plug budget holes during an economic downturn should be temporary.

The ballot language of Berkeley Measure T1 explains how much it will cost taxpayers. 

Other taxes — The ballot material should clearly provide the details if a measure extends or increases an existing or similar tax. For example, if residents asked to approve a bond measure already pay to retire prior voter-approved bonds, the ballot material should include the amount and duration of the existing taxes for outstanding debt.

Fiscally prudent — When taxes are proposed to cover debt, that debt should be prudent. That means borrowing should only be for capital expenditures, not ongoing operations; the duration of the payback and the interest costs should be reasonable; and the payments should not be backloaded. In short, voters should not be asked to approve financial risks that wouldn’t be prudent for their own households.

Vote threshold — Let’s be transparent about the rules. With new legal issues surrounding whether a measure requires majority or two-thirds voter approval for passage, voters should be informed of the threshold from the onset. If there’s a legal issue, they should be told about it.

No publicly funded campaigns — Too many public agencies use taxpayer money to fund campaigns. They call those campaigns “informational,” but they walk right up to, and sometimes over, the legal line with mailers that tout the benefits of the measures. That must stop.

No one wants to draw a line in the sand. So let’s just say that these are some of the criteria we’ll be seriously considering — and voters should keep in mind — as we evaluate tax measures this upcoming election season.