There’s a version of the Measure H argument that goes: “They renewed the parcel tax with a 3% escalator. They’ve been raising it every year. Why ask for $540 more?”

It’s a fair-sounding question and it has a precise answer. The 3% escalator tracks inflation. The base rate hasn’t been structurally changed since 2012. The $540 increase is what fourteen years of compounding underfunding looks like when it lands on a single ballot measure.

The history of the RVSD parcel tax base rate

Here’s the actual sequence, from primary sources:

Year	Measure	What it did	Base rate after
1993	(first)	First formal RVSD parcel tax	$136
1997	renewal	Renewed	(renewal at then-current rate)
2005	renewal	Renewed at $254.49 with 4% escalator	$254.49
2012	Measure A	Renewed and added a $149 increase	$458.66 (jumped from $309.66)
2018	Measure E	Set new base of $621.66, effective July 1, 2020, with 3% escalators starting FY 2021-22	$621.66
2026	Measure H	Renews and adds $540 increase, flat per parcel	$1,282 (would jump from $742)

Sources: Ballotpedia for the 2012 Measure A and 2018 Measure E records, plus Patch’s contemporary reporting of the 2012 vote.^[1][2]

The pattern is clear. Voters periodically approve a structural base-rate increase — 1993 setting the original rate, 2012 adding $149, 2018 setting a new $621.66 base. Between structural increases, the escalator carries the rate forward at the rate of inflation.

The current $742 figure is the 2018 base of $621.66 compounded forward by six 3% escalators through fiscal year 2026-27.^[3] It’s the same purchasing power as the 2018 measure. It’s not a real-dollars increase; it’s an inflation tracker.

What “no real raise since 2012” means in practice

The 2012 measure took the RVSD parcel tax base from $309.66 to $458.66 — a $149 structural increase.^[4] The 2018 measure reset to $621.66 — but that wasn’t a $163 real increase; the 2012 measure’s 4% escalator over six years would have brought the prior rate to roughly $580 by 2018, so the actual real-dollar bump from 2018 was modest.

Effectively, the last meaningful real-dollar increase in the RVSD parcel tax base happened in 2012. Since then:

• Marin teacher salaries have risen substantially — Mill Valley, Kentfield, and Reed Union have all increased compensation to compete in a tight Bay Area labor market
• CalSTRS pension obligations for districts have climbed sharply (the district employer contribution rate went from 8.25% in 2014-15 to 19.1% in 2025-26)
• Special education mandates have expanded with no commensurate state funding
• Operating costs — utilities, maintenance, transportation, food service — have tracked or exceeded general inflation

A 3% annual escalator covers roughly the basic-CPI portion of these. It doesn’t cover the structural cost growth that’s faster than CPI — which is most of what schools spend money on.

The teachers-no-raise-this-year fact

The clearest evidence that the 3% escalator isn’t tracking real cost growth is this: RVSD teachers received no salary increase this year. Not even a cost-of-living adjustment.^[4]

Per Pete Santucci, the RVSD music teacher who signed the Argument in Favor of Measure H: “Teachers received no salary increase this year. Not even a cost-of-living increase. The staff cuts already in place put greater strain on the teachers, staff and administrators who are already among the lowest paid in Marin County.”^[5]

That’s not a campaign slogan. It’s the actual contract. Teachers agreed to it because the district couldn’t afford a raise — which is the same district that’s about to ask voters to approve $540 in new annual revenue per parcel. The lowest-paid teachers in the lowest-funded district in Marin took a real-terms pay cut to keep the schools running while voters decide.

Why renewal alone wouldn’t have worked

The opposition’s most respectable counter-proposal — Coalition of Sensible Taxpayers’ suggestion of a $149 increase, or one parent’s “in the $300s” framing^[4] — is essentially “renew with a small bump.”

A small bump locks RVSD into roughly 2012 purchasing power. Superintendent Tyler Graff’s response on the record was that a $149-style increase “wouldn’t resolve any of the district’s budget issues.”^[4] The math is straightforward:

• Current parcel-tax revenue: ~$4.8M per year (16.2% of $29.77M general-fund revenue)^[3]
• Measure H revenue at $1,282: ~$8.6M per year
• New revenue from the $540 increase: roughly $3.8M per year

That $3.8M is what closes the structural deficit, funds the no-raise-for-teachers backlog, and stops the district’s reserves from sliding below the 3% state minimum.^[6] A $149 increase would generate about $1M in new revenue. Tier 2 of the contingency plan ($1.04M in cuts including elementary PE and electives) triggers either way.

The interesting evidence here is what the district’s own polling found. Godbe Research tested smaller-increase variants in November 2025 and “those did not move the needle of favorability.”^[6] Voters who support Measure H aren’t going to support a $540 measure but reject a $300 measure. Voters who oppose it aren’t going to flip to Yes if the ask drops to $200. The dollar amount isn’t the binding constraint on the supermajority.

The trustee who voted against H thought $540 was too small

The strongest evidence that $540 is the modest end of the realistic range: trustee Anna Marsh dissented from placing Measure H on the ballot because she preferred a $600 increase that would “better meet the district’s urgent need to restore fiscal health.”^[4]

The board considered a range from roughly $300 to $750 (with public discussion centered around $350, $440, $540, and $600). They chose $540 as the compromise between an anti-tax watchdog at $149 and a sitting trustee at $600. It’s the median of the range trustees took seriously, not an outlier on the high end.

Our read

The $540 increase is what fourteen years of letting an inflation-tracker do all the work looks like when it finally lands on a ballot. It’s not the RVSD board pushing harder than it should. It’s the structural piece that should have been broken into smaller increments across multiple measures — and now has to happen at once because Measure E’s 2025 defeat used up that runway.

Bottom line: if the district is going to retain staff and avoid deeper cuts, approving Measure H is the stronger choice.

Sources

1. Ballotpedia: RVSD Measure A (June 2012) — confirms the 2012 measure raised the rate from $309.66 to $458.66 (a $149 structural increase) with a 4% escalator; corroborated by Patch (June 6, 2012).
2. Ballotpedia: RVSD Measure E (June 2018) — confirms the 2018 measure set a $621.66 base rate effective July 1, 2020 with 3% annual escalators beginning FY 2021-22.
3. RVSD 2025-26 Adopted Budget (BoardDocs PDF) — general-fund revenues ($29.77M), parcel-tax share (~16%), reserves projected below the 3% state minimum after 2028, ADA-to-enrollment ratios, and the ~$468K annual in-lieu transfer to Ross Valley Charter School.
4. Marin IJ (Feb 15, 2026): "Ross Valley sends parcel tax to June ballot" — board deliberation on the rate ($300–$750 range), Anna Marsh's $600 dissent, Graff's response to CST's $149 alternative ("wouldn't resolve any of the district's budget issues") and "June 2 is D Day" framing, and February 11 public-hearing testimony.
5. Marin IJ (Apr 14, 2026): "Ross Valley schools seek parcel tax renewal, increase" — the comprehensive pre-election piece, with the 959/995 LCFF ranking, the no-COLA teacher contract, Argument-in-Favor signer quotes (Bingea, Rosenthal, Gomez, Santucci), and Coalition of Sensible Taxpayers opposition (Willard, Aguilar) including the fungibility argument and the "come back in November" framing.
6. Marin IJ (Dec 21, 2025): "Ross Valley parcel tax skepticism persists" — Godbe Research polling (n=418): ~65% favorability, 73% approve of district management, lower-cost variants didn't move favorability; CFO Carson's reserves trajectory (7.3% → 5.9% → 4.2%, sub-3% thereafter) and ~$2.6–3M annual deficit spending.

← All posts