The case for No on Measure H
We're voting Yes, but we don't think the opposition's arguments are dishonest or frivolous. Here they are in their strongest form, mostly in opponents' own words and framing.
Marin is staring down a "tax tsunami"
The most common argument against Measure H isn't really about Measure H — it's about cumulative load. Mimi Willard, president of the Coalition of Sensible Taxpayers (CO$T), has argued that Marin voters face up to 18 local tax measures in 2026, including:[1]
- SMART (Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit) sales tax renewal
- Marin Healthcare District parcel tax
- A countywide childcare tax
- Tamalpais Union High School District renewal
- Fairfax Measure J (sales tax extension and increase)
- Multiple municipal-services parcel taxes
Their argument: even if each individual measure is defensible, voters approving every single one means several thousand dollars in new annual local tax burden for the typical household. That cumulative effect is real, and it isn't on any single measure's ballot language.
The increase is bigger than the one voters rejected
In May 2025, Measure E asked to replace the flat parcel tax with a rate of 52¢ per building square foot on improved parcels, plus $95 per unimproved parcel.[4] It got 62% of the vote — short of the 66.67% supermajority needed.[2]
"The objections we heard most frequently from district residents were along the lines of 'RVSD's tax increase this time is even bigger than when I voted No last May.' Are they not listening?"
— Mimi Willard, Coalition of Sensible Taxpayers, to the Marin Independent Journal[2]
The opposition reads the 2025 result as a clear signal that the community can't absorb a large increase. Measure H asks for $540 — meaningfully more than what voters rejected, even if structured differently. To opponents, this looks like the district pressing harder rather than meeting voters partway.
Opponents say the district could ask for less
The board considered increases of $350, $540, $600, and $750 before settling on $540.[3] CO$T suggested $149 was the right number; one parent at the public hearing argued for an increase "in the $300s" as the level "more likely to attract no organized opposition."
The opposition's frame: a $300 increase wouldn't fix every budget problem, but it would almost certainly pass and would buy time for an honest conversation about operating economies. A $540 increase that fails leaves the district worse off than a $300 increase that passes.
"Come back in November"
Several Measure H opponents — including Yes-leaning longtime supporters — have asked the district not to abandon the parcel tax effort, but to scale back and try again in November with a more moderate proposal that includes operating economies. From the ballot argument against Measure H:
"I've proudly supported the Ross Valley School District for over 25 years as a parent, coach, and volunteer. However, with Marin taxpayers facing growing financial pressure and frequent new tax funding requests throughout the region, Measure H feels like more than the Ross Valley community can reasonably absorb at this time. Come back to us in November with a balanced proposal of operating economies and a more moderate tax increase."
— A. Sean Aguilar, real estate asset manager and ballot-argument signatory[2]
Smaller threads
- Declining enrollment. RVSD enrollment has trended down for years. Some opponents argue the budget should follow enrollment downward rather than asking taxpayers to cover the per-pupil shortfall.
- Pension and salary structure. Even though Measure H prohibits its funds being used for administrator salaries or pensions, opponents note that existing funds backfill those line items, and they want to see structural pay-and-benefits reform before more tax revenue is approved.
- 10-year term with 3% COLA. Opponents prefer shorter terms or smaller escalators that force more frequent voter check-ins.
Who is making this case
Signatories of the official ballot argument against Measure H
- A. Sean Aguilar — Real estate asset manager; longtime RVSD parent and volunteer
- Denyce Volger-Codoni — Retired vice president, Marsh McLennan Insurance
- Jeff Wells — San Anselmo resident
- Richard Barham — 25-year San Anselmo resident
- George Jackson — School fundraiser
Organizational opposition
- Coalition of Sensible Taxpayers (CO$T) — Mimi Willard, president
Why we still come down on Yes
The strongest opposition argument — "scale back, come back in November" — depends on a real possibility of a passable second try. We're not sure that bet is safe. The current parcel tax expires June 30, 2028; there are only two regularly scheduled statewide election windows between now and then (June and November 2026), and the political appetite for school taxes does not get easier as fiscal stress accumulates.
The "tax tsunami" argument is honest, but it cuts both ways: many of the other 2026 measures are also responses to long-running underfunding. We don't get to vote them all down without consequences. If we have to pick where to hold the line, school operations — which directly determine class sizes, teacher pay, and whether neighborhood schools stay open — are the wrong place.
Finally, "come back with operating economies" assumes there are large operating economies to find. According to the district's own budget advisory committees, the easy cuts have already been made; further cuts mean closures.
We respect the No argument. We just think the cost of being wrong about it is higher than the cost of being wrong about a Yes.