Measure G for Novato Schools: The Case For, The Case Against, and the Questions Nobody's Answering

NUSD Measure G: Neutral Voter Analysis

Overview

Measure G asks voters in the Novato Unified School District (NUSD) whether to approve a new supplemental parcel tax of $249 per parcel per year for eight years, running from July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2034. This is not a renewal of an expiring tax. It is an additional levy on top of the existing $251 annual Measure A parcel tax, which voters renewed in March 2023 with 83.3 percent approval and which runs through June 30, 2031. If Measure G passes, a non-exempt property owner in the district will pay a combined $500 per year in NUSD parcel taxes alone, before accounting for bond repayment associated with the $222 million Measure C school bond approved in 2016. One community analysis places the combined annual NUSD property tax burden at roughly $1,458 per parcel for the 2025-26 tax year. The district estimates Measure G would generate approximately $4 million annually, though actual revenue varies with the number of exempted parcels.[1][2][3][4]

The measure requires a two-thirds supermajority to pass. That threshold distinguishes Measure G from the concurrent SMART District Measure B on the same June 2, 2026 ballot, which is structured as a citizen initiative subject to simple majority. Measure G follows the standard special-tax pathway under California Government Code and Education Code for school district parcel taxes, and its passage requires the same two-thirds voter approval that has governed California school parcel taxes since Proposition 13.[2]

The measure explicitly states it does not alter or replace Measure A and that both can be levied simultaneously. Stated uses cover core academic instruction in math, science, reading, and writing; attracting and retaining qualified teachers and counselors; school safety and maintenance; student mental health support; music and arts programs; and academic and career counseling. Administrative salaries are explicitly prohibited as a use of proceeds. The Board of Trustees retains sole discretion over which specific programs and schools receive funds in any given year, within those stated purposes.[4]

What strengthens the case for Measure G

Fiscal pressure on NUSD is real and documented. The district relies on the state's Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) for over 85 percent of its operating revenue and is the lowest-funded district per pupil in Marin County, receiving approximately 20 percent less per student than the California state average. The Board cut $4.5 million from its budget in November 2025 for the 2026-27 school year and has carried out several prior rounds of reductions affecting programs and staffing. Those numbers are consistent with a broader California pattern: K-12 enrollment has declined for eight consecutive years statewide, putting structural downward pressure on LCFF allocations to districts with shrinking student populations. Supporters argue that failure of the measure would trigger at least $4 million in further ongoing cuts, potentially including academic and athletic program reductions and layoffs.[5][4]

The new exemption framework is more protective than prior practice. The district has formalized its exemption administration under Board Policy 3471, adopting four exhibits governing senior, SSI, SSDI, and contiguous-parcel exemptions, along with a new termination instrument. Measure A's 2023 text already established the basic exemption categories, and Measure G carries them forward. The new exhibits codify a beneficial-ownership pathway for trust-held properties, which is a critical clarification in Marin County where revocable living trusts are common, and formalize intake through a named coordinator rather than ad hoc submission. Seniors who already hold exemptions under Measure A carry those forward to Measure G without reapplication, subject to continuing eligibility verification.[3][4]

The oversight infrastructure is active and reporting. The Independent Citizens' Oversight Committee has accepted annual reports for 2023-24 (January 14, 2025), 2024-25 (December 16, 2025), and placed a 2022-2025 cumulative report on the May 5, 2026 Board agenda. Committee membership was refreshed in both March and November 2025. Measure G requires the district to maintain a dedicated revenue account, spend proceeds only on stated purposes, and deliver the first new oversight report no later than December 31, 2027.[6][4]

Local parcel tax revenue cannot be taken by the state. Unlike LCFF funding, proceeds from Measure G would be locally controlled and shielded from state capture or redirection. Supporters argue that this distinction matters given Sacramento's ongoing structural budget pressures and the district's near-total dependence on LCFF.[7][4]

What weakens the case for Measure G

The stacked tax burden is the core voter concern. Opponents note that Novato property owners facing Measure A ($251), Measure G if it passes ($249), and the 2016 bond levy ($960.36 for 2025-26) carry a combined NUSD-specific annual obligation of roughly $1,458 per parcel. That charge falls equally on every taxable parcel regardless of assessed value or owner income, except for those who qualify for exemptions. Because parcel taxes are regressive by design, the flat rate disproportionately burdens lower-income property owners and landlords who may pass costs to tenants. The $249 rate is not the highest new school parcel tax on the June 2026 Marin ballot, but Novato's cumulative bond-plus-parcel-tax load is already substantial.[1][2][7]

No long-term structural plan has been publicly articulated alongside the measure. Opponents and community observers make the same central demand: NUSD has not released a voter-facing long-range plan addressing declining enrollment, campus utilization, possible school consolidation, expanded TK-8 conversion, administrative cost structure, or surplus-property strategies. The district formed a Surplus Properties Advisory Committee under California Education Code section 17389, with a November 2024 application deadline and a planned multi-session process through early 2025, but public-facing outputs from that work have not been widely reported. Measure G is an eight-year measure, and critics argue that approving additional revenue without a concurrent structural commitment buys time without resolving the underlying fiscal architecture.[8][1]

There is no escalator, but also no performance floor. The $249 rate is fixed for all eight years with no cost-of-living adjustment. Supporters present that as a taxpayer protection; opponents note the same fixed-rate design was applied to the predecessor 2009 parcel tax, which eroded substantially in real purchasing power over time. More importantly, the ballot text includes no program enrollment thresholds, administrative cost ratios, or any other performance standard. The Board retains sole discretion over annual spending allocations within the stated purposes, and the Oversight Committee reviews and reports but holds no veto authority and cannot condition the release of funds.[6][4]

The termination mechanism changes the revenue picture in ways voters should understand. The new Exhibit 3471(4) termination form closes a real gap in prior practice: under Measure A's looser administration, exemptions frequently persisted on the tax roll after a qualifying senior died, sold the property, or changed principal residence, because no systematic removal mechanism existed. The practical consequence is that the district's realized annual revenue under Measure G will be higher and more stable over time than comparable projections under old practices, because the taxable parcel base will be better maintained as long-held exemptions are removed promptly. Voters should understand that the headline $4 million annual projection is more likely to be achieved under the new administrative framework and that the effective tax base will grow modestly over the measure's term without any change to the exemption categories or the headline rate.[4]

Major unresolved issues

The absence of a structural reform plan is not a procedural objection; it is substantive. NUSD faces two simultaneous pressures that Measure G neither resolves nor requires the Board to address. The first is chronic state underfunding driven by Proposition 13 and LCFF architecture, which no local parcel tax can fix, only temporarily offset. The second is enrollment decline, which reduces LCFF allocations regardless of local cost controls. In a district where roughly 80 percent of spending is personnel, a smaller student population should eventually produce a smaller program footprint and a smaller campus footprint. Measure G adds $4 million per year without requiring or even encouraging the Board to accelerate those structural decisions. Prior school-closure deliberations were ultimately halted by community opposition, and the Facilities Advisory Committee process that began in 2016 has not produced a completed consolidation plan.[8][1][4]

The consulting contract and campaign sequence deserve notice. The Board approved a consulting agreement with Props and Measures Strategies and Communications in September 2025 for parcel tax measure preparation and outreach. The Board then adopted Resolution No. 19-2025/2026 calling the Measure G election at a Special Meeting on February 24, 2026. The exemption policy exhibits under Board Policy 3471, marked with a Last Revised Date of June 11, 2024, were placed on the May 6, 2025 Board agenda, meaning the administrative exemption framework was being formalized before the consulting contract and before the election was formally called. That sequence reflects careful staff-level planning, but it also means voters are being asked to approve a tax whose administrative architecture was designed in parallel with the campaign. Whether the Oversight Committee had independent input into that design process is not publicly documented.

The Oversight Committee's role is attestation, not enforcement. The committee's charter under Measure G mirrors its Measure A structure: it receives annual reports, reviews expenditures against stated purposes, and reports its findings to the Board. It does not have independent authority to audit exemption administration, verify the accuracy of the parcel-level exemption roll, require corrective action, condition the release of funds on performance metrics, or refer findings to external authorities. Voters who view the committee as a meaningful check should understand that its function is review and disclosure, not enforcement. That distinction grows more consequential the longer the tax term runs.[6]

Neutral voter framing

A yes vote approves an additional $249 annual parcel tax on top of the existing $251 Measure A levy, generating approximately $4 million per year for eight years to fund core instruction, teacher and counselor retention, school safety and maintenance, student mental health, arts programs, and counseling, with senior (65+), SSI, and SSDI exemptions and annual oversight reporting. Supporters argue the district faces documented ongoing cuts driven by state underfunding, that local parcel tax revenue is shielded from state capture, and that failure of the measure would trigger at least $4 million in further program reductions including potential layoffs.[2][7][4]

A no vote leaves Measure A in place and requires the district to absorb the $4 million gap through cuts, structural changes, or some combination. Opponents argue that a second flat parcel tax without a concurrent structural reform plan does not address declining enrollment, campus consolidation, surplus property monetization, or administrative cost efficiency, and that voters should expect a transparent long-term fiscal strategy before approving a stacked tax commitment running through 2034.[1][4][8]

The central policy question is not simply whether NUSD needs more money. The district's fiscal position is documented and the pressure is real. The harder question is whether a regressive flat tax with no performance benchmarks and no accompanying structural commitment is the right instrument at this moment, or whether voters should demand a credible long-term plan first and authorize the revenue to fund it second.[7][4][1]

This analysis is based on the full text of Measure G as posted by the Marin County Elections Division, the Measure A 2023 ballot resolution, NUSD board policy and financial materials, the Ballotpedia entry for Measure G, Local News Matters coverage of Marin County's June 2026 ballot measures, and community-level analysis published on r/Marin. No campaign organizations were used as sources.

By Marc Hunter Lewis, Community Policy Advocate and Candidate for Marin County Supervisor District 5

Sources

1. Marin County Elections Division. Measure G — Full Text (June 2, 2026 ballot).[2]

2. Ballotpedia. Novato Unified School District, California, Measure G, Parcel Tax Measure (June 2026).[9]

3. Ballotpedia. Novato Unified School District, California, Measure A, Parcel Tax Renewal Measure (March 2023).[3]

4. Marin County Elections. Measure A — 2023 Ballot Resolution (PDF).[4]

5. Novato Unified School District. Parcel Tax Oversight Committee.[6]

6. Novato Unified School District. Facilities Advisory Committee.[8]

7. Local News Matters. Tax measures on ballots across Marin County show diverse tax approaches.[2]

8. San Marin High School Pony Express. Measure G sparks questions over financial stability in Novato schools.[10]

9. r/Marin. No on Novato Measure G: funding without a long-term plan isn't enough.[1]