May 13, 2026

How Marin's last three failed parcel taxes came back — and why RVSD can't follow that script

The “come back in November with a smaller ask” framing — voiced by ballot-argument signer A. Sean Aguilar and reinforced by the Coalition of Sensible Taxpayers — is grounded in something real.^[1] Marin school districts have actually done that, three times, in the past decade. Two of those recoveries are widely cited as models of how a board should respond to a tax-measure defeat.

So why isn’t Measure H following the same playbook? Because the script doesn’t fit.

The three Marin recoveries

Per the Marin County Office of Education’s parcel-tax election history:^[2]

Kentfield SD: November 2016 → March 2018

November 2016: asked for $1,600 per parcel + 5% annual escalator. Got 57.7% Yes — short of 66.67%.
March 2018: came back with $1,498 per parcel + 3% annual escalator. Passed at 68.5%.

Lesson: trim the rate, trim the escalator, return in 16 months. Roughly 6% lower base, and dropped the escalator from 5% to 3%.

Tamalpais Union HSD: March 2020 → November 2020

March 2020: asked for $645 per parcel. Got 63.7% Yes — short of 66.67%.
November 2020: came back with $469 per parcel (roughly 27% lower). Passed at 73.6%.

Lesson: drop the ask sharply, return in eight months on a higher-turnout general-election ballot.

Novato USD: March 2020 → March 2023

March 2020: asked for $376 per parcel. Got 55.4% Yes — short of 66.67%.
March 2023: came back with $251 per parcel (renewal-only, no increase). Passed at 83.3%.

Lesson: drop the ask to a renewal-only, return three years later. NUSD didn’t try to recover the structural increase — they just preserved the existing revenue base.

Three structural features made each recovery possible:

1. Time. Kentfield had 16 months. TamUnion had 8 months on a higher-turnout ballot. Novato took 3 years. Each district had multiple statewide election cycles before its existing parcel tax expired or its budget cratered.

2. A trimmed ask that still made fiscal sense. Kentfield’s $1,498 was about 94% of what voters had rejected. TamUnion’s $469 was about 73%. Novato’s $251 was a renewal-only that preserved (rather than expanded) existing revenue. Each district’s actual budget hole could be addressed by the trimmed measure.

3. No structural deficit at the contingency-plan stage. None of the three districts had a Marin County Office of Education-supervised contingency plan documenting closures and receivership at a specific date. They had budget pressure, but not the kind of plan that’s been formally filed with the county.

RVSD doesn’t have any of those three things.

Why Measure H breaks the trim-and-retry template

1. The calendar. The existing RVSD parcel tax expires June 30, 2028. Per RVSD’s parcel-tax page, June 2 and November 3, 2026 are “the only statewide election opportunities for renewal or adjustment” before the existing tax expires.^[3]

That’s two ballot windows total, not 16 months between bites or three years between cycles. If Measure H fails on June 2, the November 3 backup is the last shot — and a No on both forces the district to operate FY 2028-29 with no parcel-tax revenue at all, triggering the contingency plan’s Tier 3 cuts.

The Kentfield-style “16 months, trim 6%” path doesn’t exist for RVSD. There aren’t 16 months. The trim-and-retry strategy depends on having time. RVSD doesn’t.

2. A trimmed ask wouldn’t address the deficit. Per Superintendent Tyler Graff, the Coalition of Sensible Taxpayers’ suggested $149 increase “wouldn’t resolve any of the district’s budget issues.”^[4] The math:

RVSD deficit-spent ~$2.6M in FY 2024-25
Projected to deficit-spend ~$3M in FY 2025-26
Reserves at 7.3%, projected to fall below the 3% state minimum without new revenue^[5]

A $149 increase generates roughly $1M per year in new revenue against a $3M+ structural deficit. The arithmetic doesn’t work. The Kentfield 2018 recovery was structurally sound because Kentfield’s actual budget hole could be filled by the $1,498 figure. RVSD’s hole can’t be filled by $149.

3. The Godbe poll specifically tested this. Lower-cost variants of Measure H were among the questions Godbe tested in November 2025. Per the public reporting: “those did not move the needle of favorability.”^[6] The trim-and-retry strategy that worked for Kentfield in 2018 wouldn’t have worked for RVSD in 2026 on the actual polling data. Voters who oppose Measure H aren’t going to flip to Yes on a smaller version; voters who support it would have supported either version.

What “come back in November” actually means

If Measure H fails on June 2, the November 3, 2026 ballot is RVSD’s last realistic statewide election window before the existing tax expires. That’s the “come back in November” Aguilar’s argument refers to.

But “come back” with what? Three options:

Same ask as June. Polling suggests this might pick up a few points from higher general-election turnout, but the Measure E experience (special election to general primary, similar polling) doesn’t strongly support a 4-point bump from turnout alone.
Trimmed ask. Per the polling, this doesn’t unlock the supermajority. Per the math, it doesn’t close the structural deficit.
Renewal-only. This preserves the existing $742, which is the same purchasing power voters approved in 2018 — and still leaves a $3M+ annual deficit unaddressed. The district stops the bleeding but doesn’t recover.

None of these is a clean “come back in November and pass” path. The Kentfield, TamUnion, and Novato successes happened because each district had a trimmed ask that both improved Yes vote share and solved the budget problem. RVSD’s structural deficit doesn’t allow both.

What this means for your vote

The recovery-pattern argument is what makes “come back in November” sound respectable. The actual recoveries don’t generalize to RVSD’s situation. RVSD has less time, a larger deficit, and polling that says smaller-ask variants don’t move support.

The choice on June 2 is closer to “Measure H or Tier 2 cuts in 2027-28” than “Measure H or a better measure in November.” November is at most a backstop. It isn’t a better path.

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

Sources

← All posts