Marin County Grand Jury
2023-2024
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (11)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
The 2024–2025 Grand Jury finds that all of Marin County’s public agencies satisfied their legal obligations to respond to reports from the 2023–2024 Grand Jury.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By September 30, 2024, The District Attorney’s Office should start providing the requested quarterly update and statistical report regarding its progress in reducing the backlog of criminal cases to the Board of Supervisors and the County Executive’s Office. ● The BOS stated that this recommendation required further analysis. The BOS agreed that quarterly reports are warranted and feasible in the future and that the organizational study referenced in the findings will provide insight as to when quarterly reporting will be feasible. The BOS further stated that they welcomed input from the District Attorney on how they can help facilitate the process. The BOS will continue to explore this issue with the District Attorney and will partner on a regular reporting process informed by evaluation of an organizational study anticipated to be completed this calendar year. ● The District Attorney stated that the recommendation has not yet been implemented but would be in the future. The District Attorney however, did not give a timeframe for completion. The District Attorney further stated that the office looked forward to reporting quarterly to the BOS once the independent consultant (65th North Group) completes an analysis of office operations and identifies appropriate data to be included in workload update reports.
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
By September 30, 2024, the Health and Human Services Department should commence open, public discussions with the Commission on Aging regarding the future status of the Office of Adult and Aging Services (AAS) and the funding of adult programs, including the cost analysis and rationale for not elevating the Office of Adult and Aging Services to a division-level department within the Health and Human Services Department ● The BOS responded that this recommendation had been implemented. The BOS further stated that on March 29, 2024, HHS provided a second presentation to the Commission on Aging to discuss the financial structure of the Aging and Adult Services Division within HHS. This presentation provided fiscal and service delivery data demonstrating the positive impact of all HHS divisions on the older adult population in Marin. ● The Marin County Commission on Aging (MCCOA), the Invited respondent, disagreed with the BOS updated response regarding public discussions of the financing and elevation of AAS to a divisional-level department within HHS. MCCOA responded that the discussions were delayed due to the departure of the Director of HHS and the hiring of the director of AAS. MCCOA asked that a new director of AAS not be hired until public discussions of the elevation of AAS to a divisional-level department had been done. This request did not receive a reply from HHS and a new director of AAS was hired. MCCOA also stated that the BOS had not documented nor proven that elevating AAS would cost $700,000 to $1,000,000 annually. A Free Public Education Includes School Supplies Released on April 19, 2024 California law is clear that school supplies are included in a free public education. Public schools throughout the state are required to provide, at no cost to students or their families, all the supplies, materials, and equipment necessary to fully participate at school. Nevertheless, at the outset of the school year, many schools in Marin County distribute school supply lists to students and their families. The Marin County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) conducted an investigation to determine the extent to which students and their families are requested to buy school supplies that schools are required to provide. While the use of supply lists varies throughout the school districts, the Grand Jury concluded that many schools asked, or suggested, that students or their families purchase supplies that schools are required to provide. In addition, teachers often use their personal funds to pay for supplies so their students can fully participate in school activities. Recommendations and Responses The Grand Jury made seven recommendations to, and required responses from the Marin County Office of Education (MCOE) and Superintendent of Schools (Superintendent), as well as each of the 16 school districts in the County (Bolinas-Stinson, Kentfield, Laguna Joint, Lagunitas, Larkspur-Corte Madera, Mill Valley, Miller Creek Elementary, Nicasio, Novato Unified, Reed Union, Ross, Ross Valley, San Rafael City, Sausalito Marin City, Shoreline Unified, and Tamalpais Union High School) The recommendations are listed below. Because of the large number (17) of required respondents, as well as the uniformity of the responses from all required respondents, the results are summarized in the narrative following the recommendations.
R3:
Marin public schools should not distribute school supply lists to students or their families. ● Fourteen of the sixteen school districts had already implemented this recommendation, as had the MCOE and the Superintendent. The Larkspur-Corte Madera School District stated they would implement the recommendation in the 2024–2025 school year, and San Rafael City School District stated that it would implement it by August 21, 2024.
R4:
Marin public schools should not distribute school supply lists that indicate the supplies are optional. ● Fourteen of the sixteen school districts had already implemented this recommendation, as had the MCOE and the Superintendent. The Larkspur-Corte Madera School District stated they would implement the recommendation in the 2024–2025 school year, and San Rafael City School District stated that it would implement it by August 21, 2024.
R5:
The superintendent of each school district should ensure that the schools in their districts are in compliance with California law with respect to school supplies. ● Fifteen of the sixteen school districts had already implemented this recommendation, as had the MCOE and the Superintendent. The Larkspur-Corte Madera School District stated they would implement the recommendation in the 2024–2025 school year.
R6:
If a Marin public school chooses to solicit donations of any kind from anyone, whether the solicitation is on paper, verbal, or electronic, such as a website or email, the school should make it clear that donations are not required but rather are entirely voluntary. ● All required respondents stated that they had implemented this recommendation.
R7:
Marin public schools should not put teachers in a position where they need to use their personal funds to provide supplies, materials, or equipment for students to fully participate at school. ● Fifteen of the sixteen school districts had already implemented this recommendation, as had the MCOE and the Superintendent. The San Rafael City School District stated they would implement the recommendation by August 21, 2024. With Power Comes Responsibility - Youths Under Age 16 Operating Class 2 E-Bikes: A Safety Risk Released April 26, 2024 Marin County roads, trails, and paths are enjoyed by many cyclists throughout the year. Over the past decade, the popularity of electric bicycles (e-bikes) has grown, with nationwide e-bike sales almost doubling between 2020 and 2021.3 E-bikes are now used by all types of bike riders in Marin, including commuters, mountain bikers who need a little help getting up steep trails, riders with disabilities or other physical limitations, casual adult riders, and children. Unfortunately, some riders under the age of 16 are not ready for the power of the e-bikes they are operating. Additionally, some young riders are operating e-bikes that have multiple power modes or aftermarket modifications that make them illegal. The rate of e-bike accidents in Marin among children aged 10-15 is far higher than it is with any other age groups. This has led bike advocacy groups, law enforcement, and public health officials to issue warnings and advisories to Marin families about the danger of e-bikes for children. The laws in California and in Marin do not closely regulate e-bike use. California designates three classes of legal e-bikes. All are limited to 750 watt electric motors. Class 1 and class 3 e- bikes only get electric assistance when the pedals are in use, with class 1 limited to 20 mph assisted speed, and class 3 limited to 28 mph assisted speed.4 Class 2 e-bikes offer pedal-assist electric power, up to 20 mph, and also have a throttle device which will power the bicycle to move even when the rider does not pedal at all. Many class 2 e-bikes can be easily modified to remove the throttle-assisted speed limit, so those e-bikes can travel much faster than 20 mph. These modified bikes no longer legally qualify as e-bikes. Several bills have been proposed in the California State Legislature to further regulate the use of e-bikes, especially among children under age 16. In addition, a few Marin municipalities have passed ordinances regarding e-bikes. The Marin Civil Grand Jury conducted an investigation to determine the extent of the problem when children under age 16 operate e-bikes in Marin, and to explore possible solutions. The Grand Jury concluded that children under age 16 who operate class 2 e-bikes in Marin pose a danger to themselves and others. The Grand Jury also concluded that the same dangers do not apply to youths riding class 1 e-bikes in Marin. Boudway, Ira, Bloomberg, “America’s Best-Selling Electric Vehicles Ride on Two Wheels,” January 21, 2022, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-21/u-s-e-bike-sales-outpaced-electric-cars-in-2021, subscription required (accessed 11/11/24). These e-bikes have a sensor to detect the rate of travel. If the bicycle is going 20 mph (class 1 or 2) or 28 mph (class 3), the electric motor is programmed to shut off. Like non-electric bicycles, e-bikes can all travel above those rates, such as when they are coasting downhill. Recommendations and Responses The Grand Jury made three recommendations to, and required responses from both the BOS and the 11 municipalities in Marin. An additional recommendation was made just to the BOS:
R8:
The Board of Supervisors require that the Marin Department of Information Services and Technology and the Department of Human Resources develop a plan for negotiating the inclusion of language that allows for managed service agreements in new Collective Bargaining agreements with MAPE and MCMEA that will start in July of 2025. ● The BOS stated this recommendation required further analysis. According to the BOS the recommendation could not be unilaterally implemented because it required the approval of both MAPE and MCMEA. The terms of their respective Collective Bargaining Agreements specifically limit contracting out of bargaining unit work. MAPE and MCMEA agreements are not open to bargaining and negotiation until the first half of 2025 and first half of 2026, respectively.
R9:
The Board of Supervisors requires that the Marin Department of Information Services and Technology update its Top 10 Cybersecurity Tips for Organizations at least once a year. ● The BOS stated that this recommendation would be implemented by October of 2024. A review of the County webpage, https://www.marincounty.gov/departments/it/cybersecurity/top-10-cybersecurity-tips- organizations confirmed that this has been accomplished.
R10:
The Board of Supervisors requires that the Marin Department of Information Services and Technology more directly promote, through the Marin Security and Privacy Council, its Top 10 Cybersecurity Tips for Organizations to all of Marin’s public agencies. ● The BOS stated the recommendation is already implemented. An Analysis of the Use and Oversight of County Purchase Cards Released on May 23, 2024 Large organizations like the County of Marin (the County) employ the use of business credit cards for specific purposes. These include the purchasing of goods and services in situations where the expense is a small dollar amount, out of the ordinary, needed under urgent circumstances (e.g. disasters, investigations, etc.), or where there are suppliers/vendors who cannot employ the usual purchase order and invoice payment system used for most of the procurement needs of the County. Within the County, business credit cards used by employees are known as Purchase Cards and CAL-Cards, and the terms are used on an interchangeable basis (CAL-Cards). CAL-Card purchases historically account for annual expenditures ranging from $2.9 million to $3.9 million. The majority of purchases under $5,000 are made with cards rather than purchase orders (PO’s). This report explored the use of CAL-Cards by the County. There are a large number of CAL- Cards in use in Marin compared to other counties of similar size. It is often not clear that cardholders are making purchases from suppliers with competitively bid best pricing. The Grand Jury found considerable variability in the oversight and processing of CAL-Card purchases. This is the result of a structure of joint management by Procurement within the Department of Public Works and the Department of Finance. The Grand Jury is recommending that the Department of Finance assume all administrative, oversight, audit, and training activities for CAL-Cards. Since CAL-Cards can be subject to misuse, the Grand Jury is recommending tighter approval controls and better training for department leaders and cardholders. The recommendations in this report are intended to standardize the use and oversight of the CAL-Card program in order to mitigate the possibility of misuse and financial risk. Recommendations and Responses The Grand Jury made a total of eight recommendations to, and required responses from the BOS:
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The Marin County Jail is dated and is held to standards in place in 1988 but does not meet modern-day standards for a county jail.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
To safeguard the lives of the general jail population, the Marin County Board of Supervisors should fund and direct the immediate removal of the ligature points in the Marin County Jail.
F2:
The complex inmate classification system and the increase in the AB 109 population have significantly reduced the available programming space at the Marin County Jail be- cause of the inability to mix various inmate classification groups both in and out of cells.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
In the study for a Marin Justice Center, the existing Marin County Jail should be used for incarcerated individuals with classifications that pose a significant security risk to Sheriff’s deputies, staff or other detainees. This would also allow for better access to programming spaces for this segment of the incarcerated population.
F3:
The Marin County Jail lacks the medical and mental health facilities needed to adequately address the significantly greater incidence of mental health and substance abuse conditions of the current inmate population.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Marin County Board of Supervisors should initiate a study to consider the creation of a Marin Justice Center, which would accommodate detainees charged with misdemeanors and low-level felonies. The Marin Justice Center might include mental health, medical, substance abuse, recreational, and programming facilities. Ideally, the Marin Justice Center could be located at or near the Civic Center.
F4:
The current inmate population requires additional programming space that is not available due to the physical limitations of the Marin County Jail.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Marin County Board of Supervisors should initiate a study to consider the creation of a Marin Justice Center, which would accommodate detainees charged with misdemeanors and low-level felonies. The Marin Justice Center might include mental health, medical, substance abuse, recreational, and programming facilities. Ideally, the Marin Justice Center could be located at or near the Civic Center.
R2:
In the study for a Marin Justice Center, the existing Marin County Jail should be used for incarcerated individuals with classifications that pose a significant security risk to Sheriff’s deputies, staff or other detainees. This would also allow for better access to programming spaces for this segment of the incarcerated population.
F5:
The Marin County Jail’s subterranean location precludes its expansion to build additional programming space and mental health and medical facilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Marin County Board of Supervisors should initiate a study to consider the creation of a Marin Justice Center, which would accommodate detainees charged with misdemeanors and low-level felonies. The Marin Justice Center might include mental health, medical, substance abuse, recreational, and programming facilities. Ideally, the Marin Justice Center could be located at or near the Civic Center.
F6:
The Marin County Juvenile Hall is a dated, prison-like facility that does not create the restorative justice atmosphere of a modern-day juvenile detention facility.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
The Marin County Board of Supervisors should include a small juvenile facility in its study for a Marin Justice Center campus. This would be a separate facility for juveniles, but with access to the food, recreational, medical, mental health, educational, and other facilities on the Marin Justice Center campus.
R5:
The Marin County Board of Supervisors should close the existing Juvenile Hall when the new juvenile facility is opened.
F7:
The small daily population of the Marin County Juvenile Hall does not justify the extraordinary expense of maintaining the existing facility.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
The Marin County Board of Supervisors should include a small juvenile facility in its study for a Marin Justice Center campus. This would be a separate facility for juveniles, but with access to the food, recreational, medical, mental health, educational, and other facilities on the Marin Justice Center campus.
R5:
The Marin County Board of Supervisors should close the existing Juvenile Hall when the new juvenile facility is opened.
F8:
The location of Juvenile Hall is virtually inaccessible to many of the parents and guardians of youths being held there because of the significant time and transportation problems it presents.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
The Marin County Board of Supervisors should include a small juvenile facility in its study for a Marin Justice Center campus. This would be a separate facility for juveniles, but with access to the food, recreational, medical, mental health, educational, and other facilities on the Marin Justice Center campus.
R5:
The Marin County Board of Supervisors should close the existing Juvenile Hall when the new juvenile facility is opened.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
Adults aged 60 and above are a large and expanding population in Marin and are at increasing risk of falling into homelessness.
F2:
The lack of a mandate for aging equity by the Marin County Board of Supervisors results in the County not prioritizing the needs of adults aged 60 and above who are homeless or at risk of falling into homelessness.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Marin County Board of Supervisors should create and issue a mandate for aging equity, similar to the vitally-important mandate for racial equity, thereby requiring the Area Agency on Aging, as well as other departments, to prioritize aging equity in any strategic plan.
F3:
The primary cause of homelessness in Marin is the lack of affordable housing.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Marin County Board of Supervisors should direct the Community Development Agency to promote affordable housing options, including shared housing and rent subsidies.
F4:
The County has not developed a long-range strategy to prevent adults aged 60 and above from falling into homelessness.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Marin County Board of Supervisors should direct the Office of the County Executive to develop and fund a strategic plan for homelessness prevention as recommended by the federal Department of Health and Human Services in its October 2023 report.
R8:
The Marin County Board of Supervisors should begin issuing quarterly public reports on the status of the strategic plan for homelessness prevention for older adults.
F5:
The lack of a systematic approach designed to prevent adults aged 60 and above from losing their housing results in these adults falling into homelessness.
F6:
The County lacks a strategic plan that identifies the county agency that is responsible for homelessness prevention for adults aged 60 and above.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Marin County Board of Supervisors should direct the Community Development Agency to be the lead county agency in addressing the steps and actions necessary to prevent adults aged 60 and above from falling into homelessness, including coordination with community-based and private organizations.
F7:
The County Area Agency on Aging is not appropriately positioned or resourced to meet its federal mandate to function as the leading planner, administrator, and funder of services across a broad spectrum of focus areas for adults aged 60 and above.
F8:
The County has not diligently pursued existing governmental and private funding opportunities designated for homelessness prevention programs and services for adults aged 60 and above.
F9:
The County has not undertaken a cost-benefit analysis to determine the relative cost of investing in measures to prevent homelessness versus investing in services for people who are already homeless.
F10:
The lack of a standardized assessment tool to identify, quantify, and characterize residents who are on the brink of homelessness prevents the County from providing them with urgently needed services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Marin County Board of Supervisors should direct the Community Development Agency to implement an assessment tool that is specific to adults aged 60 and above who are housed and on the brink of homelessness.
F11:
The County has failed to implement “Doorway,” a universal waitlist portal, to identify adults aged 60 and above in need of housing.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Marin County Board of Supervisors should direct the Community Development Agency to provide ongoing support to ensure full implementation of the “Doorway” universal waitlist portal.
F12:
The County has not implemented a system to match residents who have available rooms or housing units, including Accessory Dwelling Units, with adults aged 60 and above who need housing.
F13:
The County does not have an effective shallow rents program in place to prevent adults aged 60 and above from falling into homelessness.
F14:
The County has not effectively educated adults aged 60 and above about the programs, resources, and services available to address homelessness and homelessness prevention.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Marin County Board of Supervisors should direct the Public Communications Division to develop a public education and communication plan to educate older adult residents of Marin County about the programs, resources, and services available to address homelessness and homelessness prevention. The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2025:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Due to a lack of transparency concerning the details of the disbursement of Measure A funds, there is a public perception that there may be conflicts of interest in the way that the funds are being allocated.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should require that all future grant applications for $25,000 or more of Measure A funds include the following: (a) copies of all minutes, recordings and other documents of the grant application process which relate in any way to the selection of the property that is the subject of the grant application; (b) the identities of all parties who participated in the discussions, or decision making in the process leading to the grant application; (c) a specific and detailed report on the property’s agricultural economic viability, including but not limited to, the Initial Agriculture Management Plan specified in the deed of the Agricultural Conservation Easement between the easement holder and landowner; (d) a mandate that an annual report be submitted to Marin County Parks and the Measure A Community Oversight Committee outlining the property’s continued agricultural economic viability, including at a minimum, copies of all easement monitoring and reporting plans submitted to the easement holder and any revision made to a copy of the initial agricultural management plan; and (e) a disclosure of any family relationship between the property owner and the grant applicant’s governing body, any member of the Board of Directors of Marin Resource Conservation District or any member of the Measure A Community Oversight Committee.
F2:
The County of Marin has a stated and long-held interest in assuring that viable agricultural business activities exist, and continue to exist, on properties which are subject to Agricultural Conservation Easements obtained using Measure A funds.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should authorize, and require that the Measure A Community Oversight Committee undertake the following for all future Farmland Preservation Program grant applications and grants: (a) review all grant applications for conflicts of interest; (b) review all grant applications to ensure the economic viability of the proposed management plan; (c) review all grant applications to confirm the accuracy of the appraised value of the easement being granted; (d) require the grant applicant, as part of its required annual report, to include a review and analysis of the plans to keep the property in productive agricultural use and to deliver to the Measure A Oversight Committee a complete copy of that report within 30 days of its completion.
F3:
The Measure A Community Oversight Committee, established as part of the Measure A ballot initiative, is limited in its ability to conduct a thorough oversight of Measure A recipients.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should require the Measure A Community Oversight Committee to report its findings regarding any grant application to the Board of Supervisors prior to the Board of Supervisors’ decision on funding said application.
F4:
The County of Marin currently does not independently verify the accuracy of appraisals submitted with Farmland Preservation Program grant applications, the continued viability of the property as an agricultural operation, nor the identities of all parties participating in the funding decisions for these grants.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Board of Supervisors should deny any grant application where Farmland Preservation Program funds will be awarded to any person, or their family, who is serving as a member of the board of directors of the Marin Resource Conservation District or MALT, or a member of the Measure A Community Oversight Committee.
F5:
Individuals from a small group of West Marin farming families that are often beneficiaries of Measure A funds are consistently among the members of the Marin Resource Conservation District Board of Directors, creating a public perception of conflicts of interest in the disbursement of public funds.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Board of Supervisors should develop and implement an expanded outreach program aimed at increasing public awareness of the existence of openings on the Measure A Community Oversight Committee, and how to apply for these openings.
F6:
Membership on the Board of Directors of the Marin Resource Conservation District is limited by the absence of any meaningful outreach to the public when terms expire, or vacancies arise.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Board of Supervisors should require the Department of Finance to conduct an annual audit of all recipients of $100,000 or more of Farmland Preservation Program funds.
F7:
The difficulty in filling vacancies on the Measure A Community Oversight Committee is caused, at least in part, by the absence of any meaningful outreach to the public when such vacancies arise.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Marin Resource Conservation District should expand the number of its directors from five to seven.
F8:
Public confidence in the disbursement of Measure A funds is undermined by the failure of the Marin County Department of Finance to conduct annual audits of all recipients of Farmland Preservation Program funds.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Marin Resource Conservation District should develop and implement an expanded outreach program aimed at increasing public awareness of the existence of openings on its board of directors and the application process for those positions.
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Communication with parents and guardians regarding special education services and resources at every child’s development stage is critical to identifying whether children have learning differences.
F2:
Many school districts do not have sufficient information on their website to inform parents and guardians of their rights under federal and state laws to have their children assessed to determine whether they are entitled to special education services.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the following be undertaken by December 31, 2024:
Each school district should inform parents and guardians at least annually about special education services and resources available to their students, such as Matrix and the Special Education Local Plan Area.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the following be undertaken by December 31, 2024:
Each school district should develop and implement targeted communication strategies tailored to all parents and guardians regarding their student’s rights concerning learning differences.
F3:
Each school district should have information on its website describing the services available for students with learning differences.
F4:
The Special Education Information System is a valuable tool that, when used consistently, will increase the likelihood that students with learning differences will have their Individualized Education Programs effectively administered, thereby increasing the chances of success for those students.
F5:
Many school districts do not use the Special Education Information System to track whether the district has provided the service hours required by Individualized Education Programs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the following be undertaken by December 31, 2024:
Each school district should use the Special Education Information System service tracking module to track every student’s Individualized Education Programs allocated service hours and the hours provided to each student.
F6:
Data is not available electronically in Marin school districts to ascertain whether the districts are providing the service hours required by their students’ Individualized Education Programs.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the following be undertaken by December 31, 2024:
Each school district should use the Special Education Information System service tracking module to track every student’s Individualized Education Programs allocated service hours and the hours provided to each student.
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the following be undertaken by December 31, 2024:
The Marin County Office of Education should analyze each school district’s Individualized Education Programs compliance data and make the results available to the public in its annual report.
F7:
The co-teaching method can reduce the negative connotations of a special education class by including the resource specialist in the general education classroom to assist students with learning differences.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
A comprehensive countywide agency is necessary to effectively address the impacts of sea level rise in Marin County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors, in collaboration with Marin county cities, towns, Bel Marin Keys Community Services District and Marin Water should create a comprehensive countywide agency with authority to plan and implement adaptation efforts addressing the impacts of sea level rise in Marin County.
F2:
To be effective, a countywide agency created to address sea level rise in Marin County should include the County of Marin, all cities and towns, and appropriate special districts in Marin County as funding participants.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors, in collaboration with Marin county cities, towns, Bel Marin Keys Community Services District and Marin Water should create a comprehensive countywide agency with authority to plan and implement adaptation efforts addressing the impacts of sea level rise in Marin County.
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should actively enlist the participation and support of state and federal legislators toward the creation and funding of this comprehensive countywide agency.
F3:
The complete failure to create and implement effective countywide sea level rise adaptation projects in Marin County will result in significant damages and losses to commercial and residential properties as well as infrastructure, both public and private.
F4:
The 2034 deadline imposed by Sections 30985-30985.8 of the California Public Resources Code for each California county to submit its official sea level rise mitigation plan is “too little too late” for Marin county, and delaying action until then will expose coastal and Bay areas to unnecessary flooding risks, financial and other losses.
F5:
Under-represented populations reside in areas that are severely vulnerable to sea level rise because they are in low-lying ground.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should require the newly created countywide entity to create plans that recognize and address sea level rise exposure and the specific risks to the populations in the Canal District, Marin City, specific areas in Novato, and all low-lying geographic regions where lower income populations reside. The plan should identify and address the risks impacting those populations, which include: (a) risks of becoming stranded due to inaccessible roads; (b) lack of transportation if evacuations are called; (c) mold that may grow inside their homes; (d) exposure to infectious diseases due to contaminated standing water; (e) need to relocate temporarily or permanently as a result of floods; and (f) other community-specific risks identified in regional assessments.
F6:
Sea level rise plans to be developed by a countywide entity should include adaptation strategies that directly apply to under-represented communities in low-lying areas with great exposure to sea level rise, such as the Canal District, areas of Novato, and Marin City, among others.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should require the newly created countywide entity to create plans that recognize and address sea level rise exposure and the specific risks to the populations in the Canal District, Marin City, specific areas in Novato, and all low-lying geographic regions where lower income populations reside. The plan should identify and address the risks impacting those populations, which include: (a) risks of becoming stranded due to inaccessible roads; (b) lack of transportation if evacuations are called; (c) mold that may grow inside their homes; (d) exposure to infectious diseases due to contaminated standing water; (e) need to relocate temporarily or permanently as a result of floods; and (f) other community-specific risks identified in regional assessments.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The administration and oversight of the CAL-Card Program in the County of Marin is decentralized and jointly administered by two departments which results in an inconsistent and variable application of oversight and controls. This has led to a lack of clarity and accountability.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By December 31, 2024 the Board of Supervisors should direct the office of the County Executive Officer to transfer the responsibility for the operation, oversight, and training of the CAL-Card system in the County of Marin to the Department of Finance.
F2:
The integrity of the CAL-Card Program would be more adequately safeguarded if the Department of Finance is given complete authority and responsibility to administer all aspects of the CAL-Card Program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By December 31, 2024 the Board of Supervisors should direct the office of the Chief Executive Officer to provide the Department of Finance with the appropriate staffing levels and resources to fulfill the administrative responsibilities of Marin County’s CAL- Card system. By March 31, 2025, the Marin County Department of Finance should:
F3:
The Department of Finance does not currently have adequate resources to administer all aspects of the CAL-Card Program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Begin using the automated Human Resources system to document all initial and annual training, and attestation for the use of CAL-Cards.
F4:
Although the CAL-Card Policy Manual requires that no one person should perform more than one part of any purchasing transaction, there are violations of this policy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Set a timeline for the review and update of the CAL-Card Policy Manual.
F5:
The County of Marin’s initial and continuing training program for CAL-Card users and their supervisors is inadequate.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Create a method to ensure that a preferential governmental price is obtained when CAL- Cards are used for travel.
F6:
There is no structured process by which the County of Marin is guaranteed preferential government pricing when CAL-Cards are used.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Set up an audit system to monitor travel expenses and adherence to the County travel policy.
F7:
There is a lack of rigor in the County of Marin for retrieving and closing cards when there is a change in the job status of the cardholder.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Implement the “Notice of Non-Compliance”, currently being developed, to document, track, and remedy violations in CAL-Card processes.
F8:
There currently is no formal procedure to document and retain records concerning the training of CAL-Card Approving Officials or card users.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
In conjunction with the Department of Human Resources, set up an automatic notice to the appropriate person in the Department of Finance whenever a cardholder’s job status changes.
F9:
The County of Marin does not require that employees annually attest to having reviewed the rules of CAL-Card use and that they understand that violations of the policy can lead to disciplinary action.
F10:
The County of Marin does not exercise consistent oversight to assure that purchases are being made consistent with the CAL-Card Policy Manual and with existing contracts for competitively bid goods and services.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Contracts for Information Technology, Information Systems, and Cybersecurity services between third-party providers and Marin County governmental agencies should contain a Business Continuity clause, or other language, protecting that agency from a sudden cessation of services provided by the third-party provider.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Marin agencies should require a current (executed within the last five years), competitively-bid, written contract which includes business continuity language for any third-party Information Technology services they use.
F2:
Marin County municipalities should have current, written contracts with third-party providers of Information Technology, Information Systems, and Cybersecurity services, and should not continue to use those providers’ services without a current contract.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should authorize the creation of a new position within the Department of Information Services and Technology for the 2025-2026 fiscal year, with specific responsibilities to assist other County agencies in cybersecurity awareness, training, implementation, and monitoring of cybersecurity systems.
F3:
Membership in insurance risk pools provides the benefits of cybersecurity assessments and audits, which highlight cybersecurity deficiencies and make suggestions for improvement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should require that the Marin Department of Information Services and Technology evaluate the formation of a Cybersecurity Joint Powers Authority to raise overall cyber preparedness amongst its members, and for the purpose of acquiring and maintaining perimeter defense protection systems for preventing and eliminating ransomware and other more sophisticated cyberattacks.
F4:
Having a completed, adopted and regularly updated cybersecurity plan helps ensure that all staff within a government agency are working together to optimize that organization's cyber preparedness and security.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Board of Supervisors should create two new system-engineering positions to be filled by cybersecurity experts who would be responsible for conducting security risk assessments, providing recommendations and implementing cybersecurity solutions for public agencies in Marin, among their other tasks.
F5:
Joint Powers Authorities in Marin County exist to provide more efficient and cost-effective services to the people of Marin.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
If and when a Joint Powers Authority is created, one of these positions would serve as a County member of the new organization and a liaison with the Chief Information Security Officer.
F6:
The current County Collective Bargaining Agreements prevent the Marin County Department of Information Systems & Technology from unilaterally negotiating managed service agreements (outsourcing work to third parties).
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
All Marin municipalities should: a) take all steps necessary to acquire an appropriate .gov or .ca.gov domain; b) formulate and adopt a plan for rolling out a .gov or .ca.gov website and emails by the start of the 2025-2026 Fiscal Year.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R7:
The Board of Supervisors should require that the Marin Department of Information Services and Technology: a) develop a plan to redefine a secure network infrastructure of the MIDAS system which solely focuses on providing access to law enforcement, emergency response and justice systems, or other online County services, and exclude Internet Service Provider services; b) take all steps necessary to transition administration of MIDAS from Marin IT to The County of Marin Department of Information Services and Technology.
R8:
The Board of Supervisors require that the Marin Department of Information Services and Technology and the Department of Human Resources develop a plan for negotiating the inclusion of language that allows for managed service agreements in new Collective Bargaining Agreements with MAPE and MCMEA that will start in July of 2025.
R9:
The Board of Supervisors requires that the Marin Department of Information Services and Technology update its Top 10 Cybersecurity Tips for Organizations at least once a year.
R10:
The Board of Supervisors requires that the Marin Department of Information Services and Technology more directly promote, through the Marin Security and Privacy Council, its Top 10 Cybersecurity Tips for Organizations to all of Marin’s public agencies.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The increasing number of e-bike accidents involving youths under the age of 16 presents a public health and safety danger in Marin.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By December 31, 2024, the Board of Supervisors, and each municipality in Marin should take all steps necessary to adopt an ordinance with regard to class 2 e-bikes with, at minimum, the following provisions: (a) Only people aged 16 or older may operate class 2 e-bikes. (b) Operators of class 2 e-bikes must wear helmets. (c) All passengers on class 2 e-bikes must wear helmets.
F2:
The operation of class 2 e-bikes by operators under the age of 16 poses a significant risk to the safety of e-bike operators, other bike riders, passengers, and pedestrians on sidewalks, streets, multi-use paths, and trails in Marin.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By December 31, 2024, the County of Marin and each municipality in Marin should take all steps necessary to establish a joint task force or committee to investigate and consider coordination among the county and municipalities about adopting a county-wide uniform set of regulations regarding e-bike use within the County of Marin.
F3:
The emerging and increasing safety issues related to class 2 e-bike use by operators under the age of 16 has not been addressed by Marin County or the municipalities in a uniform manner.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Any task force or committee as described in Recommendation 2, above, should consider inviting representatives from Marin County schools, law enforcement, public health officials, and bicycle advocates to provide their input.
F4:
For all practical purposes, the state of California has abdicated its responsibility to regulate the use of class 2 e-bikes, leaving it up to the County of Marin and the Marin municipalities to create their own regulations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By December 31, 2024, the Board of Supervisors should explore options for additional funding for student and public education in Marin County about e-bike safety.
F5:
The funding to continue the e-bike specific safety and training program (E-bike Smart Marin) provided by the Marin County Bicycle Coalition is not sustainable without new sources of funding.
F6:
Marin County public schools are not currently able to implement additional bicycle safety training programs for students, beyond what has been offered by Safe Routes to Schools for many years.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Some Marin public schools do not comply with the “free public education” law because they ask students or their families to bring supplies to school.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
All Marin public schools should follow California’s “free public education” law.
F2:
Schools may not circumvent the “free public education” law by offering families any kind of waiver or exemption option.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Marin public schools should provide, at no cost to the student or their families, all the supplies, materials, and equipment necessary for students to fully participate at school.
F3:
Some Marin public schools distribute supply lists to families that indicate the family can seek a waiver or become exempt from bringing supplies in some specified way.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Marin public schools should not distribute school supply lists to students or their families.
F4:
Some Marin public schools distribute supply lists to families that are labeled “optional.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Marin public schools should not distribute school supply lists that indicate the supplies are optional.
F5:
Teachers often spend their personal funds to provide supplies, materials, or equipment for students.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The superintendent of each school district should ensure that the schools in their district are in compliance with California law with respect to school supplies.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R6:
If a Marin public school chooses to solicit donations of any kind from anyone, whether the solicitation is on paper, verbal, or electronic, such as a website or email, the school should make it clear that donations are not required but rather are entirely voluntary.
R7:
Marin public schools should not put teachers in a position where they need to use their personal funds to provide supplies, materials, or equipment for students to fully participate at school.
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
The 2023–2024 Grand Jury finds that all of Marin County’s public agencies satisfied their legal obligations to respond to reports from the 2022-2023 Grand Jury.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By November 1, 2023, the Marin County Board of Supervisors should request the Marin County Administrator to hire an independent consultant who reports to the County Administrator's Office to analyze operations of the District Attorney’s Office with the following objectives: reducing the overwhelming caseloads of deputy district attorneys, facilitating timely production of discovery materials, implementing early evaluation of cases to promote plea negotiations, improving office morale, and updating the case management system. ● The Board of Supervisors responded that this recommendation will be implemented.
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
By December 1, 2023, the District Attorney’s Office should hire two or more highly experienced former deputy district attorneys on short term (6 - 12 mos.) contracts whose sole responsibility would be to reduce the backlog of cases through plea negotiations, starting with the longest pending cases. ● The District Attorney responded that this recommendation has been implemented. ● The Board of Supervisors responded that this recommendation needs further analysis because there is approximately $750,000 available for short-term staffing in this year's budget.
R3:
Once the caseload has been significantly reduced, the District Attorney’s Office should hire experienced deputy district attorneys to maintain caseloads at a manageable level. ● The District Attorney responded that this recommendation has been implemented. ● The Board of Supervisors responded that this recommendation needs further analysis. The County Administrator's Office will continue to work with the District Attorney to review and budget for appropriate staffing levels with the goal of maintaining caseloads at a manageable level.
R4:
By December 1, 2023, the District Attorney’s Office should implement a new process to provide discovery materials (e.g., police report, defendant’s criminal history, and camera footage) to defense counsel within a reasonable time of arraignment. ● The District Attorney and the Board of Supervisors responded that this recommendation has been implemented.
R5:
By December 1, 2023, the District Attorney’s Office should institute a position, such as an expediter, that is primarily responsible for facilitating plea negotiations in misdemeanor cases. ● The District Attorney and the Board of Supervisors responded that this recommendation has been implemented.
R6:
By October 1, 2023, the District Attorney’s Office should hire paralegals to assist attorneys with discovery, witness coordination, and trial preparation. ● The District Attorney responded that this recommendation will be implemented. ● The Board of Supervisors responded that this recommendation needs further analysis based on the results of an independent review by an outside expert to examine this issue and provide recommendations.
R7:
By November 1, 2023, the District Attorney’s Office should commence providing a quarterly update and statistical report to the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator’s Office on its progress to reduce the backlog of criminal cases. ● The District Attorney and the Board of Supervisors responded that this recommendation will be implemented.
R8:
By October 1, 2023, people in custody who are awaiting trial should be granted more accommodations than inmates who have been convicted. Possible accommodations include, where appropriate, contact visits with family, utilization of technology (e.g., tablets) within their cells, and contact visits with defense counsel. ● The Board of Supervisors responded that this recommendation needs further analysis as this recommendation is within the purview of the Sheriff. ● The Marin County Sheriff responded that the County Jail does not have the space or adequate staffing to conduct these visits and ensure the safety of staff, incarcerated persons, and those visiting. The Coming Wave of Older Adults — Is Marin Prepared? Released on May 30, 2023 The 2022-2023 Grand Jury’s