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]

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.^[2] 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.^[1] 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.^[3]

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.”^[4]

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^[5] — 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.”^[5] The math is straightforward:

• Current parcel-tax revenue: ~$4.8M per year (16.2% of $29.77M general-fund revenue)^[2]
• 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.”^[7] 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.”^[5]

The board considered $300, $440, $540, $600, and $750. 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.

That’s why we recommend a Yes vote on Measure H.

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.

   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.

   Patch (June 6, 2012)

   — corroborates 2012 rate change.

2. RVSD 2025-26 Adopted Budget (BoardDocs PDF) — total general-fund revenues of $29,774,385; parcel tax 16.2% of revenues in 2025-26; documentation of escalator math taking the 2018 base forward through FY 2026-27.

3. Marin IJ (Feb 15, 2026): “Ross Valley School District sends parcel tax to June ballot” — context that teachers agreed to a no-raise contract because the district couldn’t afford one.

4. Marin IJ (Apr 14, 2026): Pete Santucci’s full quote on the no-COLA contract and pay strain on teachers and staff.

5. Marin IJ (Feb 15, 2026): board deliberation on rate ($300–$750 range); Anna Marsh’s dissent at $600; Graff’s response to CST’s $149 alternative.

6. Marin IJ (Dec 21, 2025): “Ross Valley parcel tax skepticism persists” — CFO Carson’s reserves trajectory (7.3% → 5.9% → 4.2%) and projected sub-3% level without new revenue.

7. Marin IJ (Dec 21, 2025): Godbe Research polling presentation — “lower-cost variants did not move the needle of favorability.”

← All posts