Marin County Grand Jury
2024-2025
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 (38)
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.
Quick View
Full Details →
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
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The City of Novato is facing an ongoing structural financial deficit.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By December 31, 2023, design and begin implementation of a plan to address Novato’s ongoing structural financial deficit. This plan should include resources, staff, and systems necessary to institute strong financial controls to improve its financial condition and to enable timely independent financial audits.
F2:
The City Council has not adequately pursued options for ongoing sources of revenue, including increasing its local sales tax.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By October 1, 2023, begin strategic planning to increase the City’s sales tax.
F3:
The City’s financial deficits have resulted in reductions in City staff, and difficulties in hiring and retaining employees.
F4:
The City’s financial deficits have resulted in a reduction of City services.
F5:
The City’s financial deficit will significantly increase once new labor contracts go into effect.
F6:
The City’s Finance Department’s inadequate staffing resulted in insufficient financial controls, incomplete records, and a loss of financial accountability.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By December 31, 2023, design and begin implementation of a plan to address Novato’s ongoing structural financial deficit. This plan should include resources, staff, and systems necessary to institute strong financial controls to improve its financial condition and to enable timely independent financial audits.
F7:
The City lacks comprehensive and functional records management systems.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By December 31, 2023, develop a schedule to install and maintain comprehensive records management systems for all City operations by June 30, 2025.
F8:
The City lacks a plan to optimize revenue from its existing properties, including the sale of City owned properties. The City owns many properties that are vacant or in disrepair, and others where ongoing expenses exceed income.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By December 31, 2023, initiate a comprehensive inventory and review of the City’s entire portfolio of properties to identify opportunities for more cost-effective use of each holding. The assessment, including recommendations and timelines for implementation, should be completed no later than May 1, 2024.
F9:
The City has not provided sufficient financial and operational oversight of the Marin Valley Mobile Country Club. The property operates at a substantial deficit, has ongoing deferred maintenance, and presents increasing administrative and financial burdens on the City.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By December 31, 2023, implement a plan to address the operational and financial condition of the MVMCC, including an evaluation of options for rent increases.
F10:
The City’s Finance Advisory Commission has the responsibility, but lacks the authority, to effectively oversee the City’s financial condition and operations.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
By December 31, 2023, the City Council, in consultation with the Finance Advisory Commission, should consider creating and funding a new position of an independent internal auditor with the authority to investigate and report on City operations.
R3:
By December 31, 2023, require the Finance Advisory Commission to issue quarterly financial reports on the City’s financial condition and require that the reports be discussed at City Council meetings.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
PG&E's electric transmission infrastructure is fragile, unable to reliably deliver electricity due to climate change events, and older electrical infrastructure, etc. A result of these events is that outages are increasing in number, frequency, and duration.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By December 31, 2023, the Board of Supervisors should vote on funding a study to determine the viability of microgrids, and how they could be installed in Marin County.
F2:
Marin County has developed strong emergency action plans that allow a unified response to outages with a range of resources for the community. However, the level of responsiveness for solutions to outages is not adequate. There is a clear need to build electric resiliency in Marin in order to reduce outages, and emergencies stemming from them.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By December 31, 2024, the Board of Supervisors will have committed to installing microgrids, in coordination with local leadership. Two sites should be chosen as pilot programs. The Grand Jury recommends Marin City and West Marin as the sites because they include underserved communities. Also, West Marin is a remote location that would benefit from reliable energy via alternative sources.
F3:
Microgrids are an energy source that, although costly, can provide backup power in the event of brownouts or blackouts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By September 30, 2024, the Board of Supervisors will update the County Strategic Plan to include microgrids and enlist public support for the project.
F4:
Initial establishment of microgrids will provide Marin County with islands of resilient power during times of emergency (earthquakes, extreme heat emergencies for example). As additional microgrids are built, these islands merge together creating ever larger areas of self-sufficient power and resilient power storage and distribution for Marin residents and businesses.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By September 30, 2024, the Board of Supervisors will engage with County Planning to develop permitting and construction guidelines to accelerate the development of microgrids.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R5:
By December 30, 2024, the Board of Supervisors will investigate and identify public and private funding sources for the proposed microgrid(s).
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
Marin has siloed and fragmented aging services that are not well integrated among County departments, thus creating confusion for older residents and family members.
F2:
Marin is not prepared to adequately serve the coming wave of Older Adults.
F3:
Today, finding the resources that an Older Adult or caregiver needs requires navigating a maze of options. There is a compelling need for a seamless and unified “doorway” or portal for older residents and family members to navigate to and access County services and referrals to Community Based Organizations for Older Adults.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By December 31, 2023, the Board of Supervisors should direct HHS or AAS - as appropriate - to begin the design of a multilingual electronic “doorway” or portal for older residents and family members through which to access information regarding County services from a single point of entry, with initial design, operational goals and a preliminary budget defined.
F4:
Based on the percentage of the HHS budget allocated for Aging and Adult Services, and its placement within the HHS hierarchy, the well-being of Older Adults is not reflected as a County priority.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By December 31, 2023, the Board of Supervisors should elevate the Office of Adult and Aging Services (AAS) to a division-level department within the Health and Human Services Department. The lead executive within AAS should be on a peer level with other directors within HHS as part of the HHS Executive team.
F5:
There are not sufficient low and moderate income housing options for the Older Adult population, and current options do not fully address needs that range from low-income, and independent living to full dementia and Alzheimer’s 24x7 care assistance.
F6:
Marin relies heavily on Community Based Organizations. Additional County funding is needed by essential Community Based Organizations that partner with the County to do the necessary work for the Older Adults in Marin.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By December 31, 2023, the Board of Supervisors should direct HHS or AAS - to create an ombudsman position within AAS to assist CBOs and non-profits which provide aging services (e.g., West Marin Senior Services, Vivalon, etc.) in submitting funding and/or services requests.
F7:
With its current reporting relationship, Aging and Adult Services is not part of the HHS Executive Team. Thus, Aging and Adult Services does not have the opportunity to participate in cross-functional, and cross-departmental County teams ensuring that the needs of older residents are considered in all County projects, including those outside HHS.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By December 31, 2023, the Board of Supervisors should elevate the Office of Adult and Aging Services (AAS) to a division-level department within the Health and Human Services Department. The lead executive within AAS should be on a peer level with other directors within HHS as part of the HHS Executive team.
F8:
In nearly all of the other Bay Area counties, the aging services departments report to the highest-ranking or second highest ranking leader in the organization, which is recognized as a critical member of their cross functional executive teams.
F9:
With the projected increase of Marin’s non-English speaking populations, the County needs to ensure that all of its residents have access to services and information in the language they speak. As was seen during the pandemic, the ability to communicate in one’s native language ensures that essential information is accurately communicated to the residents in need of services and information.
F10:
Collaborative planning and adequate funding of limited aging services resources within the county is needed to preserve important healthcare options.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
By November 30, 2023, the Board of Supervisors should finish reviewing and then formally approve the IAS Study accepted at the February 7, 2023 Board of Supervisors meeting.
R3:
During the FY25 budget preparation cycle, the Board of Supervisors should direct AAS and HHS to prepare a larger AAS FY25 budget consistent with the IAS Study so as to be ready for implementation during the FY25 budget year.
F11:
Additional resources are needed for West Marin and other isolated areas to address transportation, food delivery, medical services, and making wellness checks and contact with isolated residents.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
By December 31, 2023, the Board of Supervisors should direct HHS or AAS - as appropriate - to begin the design of a comprehensive database-driven communication system. This should enable Older Adult County residents and/or family members to register and opt-in to receive information on aging services, and receive calls or texts as needed for natural disaster notification, wellness checks, etc.
R7:
By December 31, 2023, the Board of Supervisors should direct HHS or AAS - as appropriate - to fund a “travel stipend” based on the mileage to/from San Rafael County offices to client location based on the applicable IRS mileage rate for IHSS caregivers providing services in rural areas.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
There is a substantial backlog of criminal cases pending in Marin County.
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.
F2:
Victims of crimes and people charged with crimes in Marin are waiting an unreasonable length of time for cases to be resolved - in many cases more than a year.
Related Recommendations (1)
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.
F3:
The District Attorney’s Office is primarily responsible for the delays in resolving criminal cases in Marin.
Related Recommendations (1)
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.
F4:
The District Attorney’s Office lacks the internal organizational structure and operations to facilitate the efficient processing and resolution of criminal cases.
Related Recommendations (1)
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.
F5:
Deputy district attorneys are unable to consistently carry out their legal duties due to overwhelming caseloads.
Related Recommendations (1)
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.
F6:
The caseloads must be reduced to manageable levels to stem the departures of attorneys from the office and to facilitate recruiting efforts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By October 1, 2023, the District Attorney’s Office should hire paralegals to assist attorneys with discovery, witness coordination, and trial preparation.
F7:
The District Attorney’s Office needs additional experienced deputy district attorneys to facilitate the processing and resolution of criminal cases.
Related Recommendations (1)
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.
F8:
The District Attorney’s Office does not consistently provide discovery materials (e.g., police report, defendant’s criminal history, camera footage) to defense counsel in a timely manner, thereby significantly delaying the resolution of cases.
Related Recommendations (1)
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.
F9:
People in custody awaiting trial are treated the same as convicted inmates and are subjected to unduly restrictive conditions in the county jail.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
By August 1, 2022, the of Schools and all Marin
R2:
On or before January 1, efficiency measures, including necessary to bring about an
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
Marin County lacks sufficient affordable and workforce housing.
F2:
Increasingly, individuals who work in Marin County cannot afford to live in the county, many of whom must commute from outside the county.
F3:
Recent California laws provide new incentives for local governments to collaborate in developing affordable housing.
F4:
The Regional Housing Needs Allocation allotments are widely viewed as unachievable for the county and many Marin municipalities.
F5:
Failure to achieve Regional Housing Needs Allocation allotments will trigger loss of local control over housing development.
F6:
There is new and increasing support and willingness to cooperate among elected officials for building affordable housing in Marin.
F7:
A countywide approach to housing development would enhance Marin’s ability to meet affordable and workforce housing needs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
No later than December 31, 2022, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and Marin’s city and town councils should jointly create a regional authority, or empower an existing authority such as the Transportation Authority of Marin, to coordinate affordable and workforce housing policy on a countywide basis.
F8:
Large affordable housing developments in Marin require subsidies to be financially feasible.
F9:
Organizations with expertise and access to subsidies and other funding sources are successfully building new affordable and workforce housing developments in Marin.
F10:
A countywide approach to housing development would enhance Marin’s ability to secure funding for affordable and workforce housing. See Appendix A, p.4.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
No later than December 31, 2022, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and Marin’s city and town councils should jointly create a regional authority, or empower an existing authority such as the Transportation Authority of Marin, to coordinate affordable and workforce housing policy on a countywide basis.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
Evaluate and Monitor the Cumulative Impacts of Planning and Development. • Evaluate and monitor the countywide cumulative impacts of planning and development on: Executive Committee Item 5 May 10, 2006 o Housing needs o Economic vitality o Social equity o Traffic congestion o The environment • Conduct an analysis of the countywide cumulative impacts of commercial buildout on housing, transportation, and the public infrastructure. • Identify indicators and benchmarks to track cumulative land use decisions, and • Evaluate carrying capacity and ultimate buildout to achieve a reduced ecological footprint in Marin.
R3:
Sharing of Ideas, Information, Resources, and Best Approaches for Marin • Review model ordinances and programs. • Encourage consistent standards and regulations where feasible and desired. • Promote more efficient resource use to reduce Marin's ecological footprint, and • Establish a system for the prioritization and ranking of issues.
R4:
Pursue funding opportunities for planning efforts on topics of mutual interest Next Steps The draft statement of purpose will be revised based on comments received at the Executive Committee meetings and will be taken to the May 25, 2006 TAM Board for comments and input. Staff is in the process of reviewing the existing CWPA JPA to determine its status. Pending this outcome and input received from the TAM Board, the Committee Chair and CDA staff may need to either modify or potentially dissolve the JPA document to reflect the new form and function of the CCPC. This outcome will be brought to TAM for consideration at the September 2006 TAM Board meeting. The first meeting of the CCPC is preliminarily scheduled for fall 2006. Recommendation: Staff recommends:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The Marin County Sheriff is an elected official and is not subject to necessary and effective county government and community oversight.
F2:
There is a long history of distrust between many residents of Marin City and the Marin County Sheriff’s Office.
F3:
The Marin County Sheriff’s Office has not adequately acknowledged community issues or concerns even when they are voiced directly to the Sheriff’s Office.
F4:
Marin County residents do not currently have an effective forum to express concerns about the Marin County Sheriff’s Office.
F5:
Due to the Marin County Sheriff’s Office field training program and short assignments, there is limited opportunity to build good community relationships between Marin City residents and Marin County sheriff’s deputies.
F6:
The Marin County Sheriff’s Office has failed to provide adequate community outreach after significant events that affect Marin City.
F7:
Implementing a community policing model for Marin City would improve relations between its residents and the Marin County Sheriff’s Office.
F8:
The Sheriff’s proposed working group presented to the Marin County Board of Supervisors on February 1, 2022 would not provide effective oversight of the Marin County Sheriff’s Office.
F9:
A citizens’ sheriff oversight board, enacted pursuant to Assembly Bill 1185, could provide effective oversight of the Marin County Sheriff’s Office.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By December 31, 2022, the Marin County Board of Supervisors should enact a county ordinance, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1185, creating a sheriff oversight board. The oversight board should be provided with subpoena power and subject to the Brown Act.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
The prospect of Marin Municipal Water District’s reservoirs running dry within a year shows that the District has fallen short in its efforts to ensure a long-term resilient supply of water for its customers. The District and its ratepayers are vulnerable to the increasing likelihood of water shortfalls.
F2:
Due to a failure to fully develop and act on long-term water resilience plans, Marin Municipal Water District left itself with only the expensive Richmond Bridge pipeline 41 U.S. Congress, “H.R. 3684 - Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,” 117th Congress (2021-2022). https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684/text option for responding to the drought emergency, which could have preempted pursuit of other means of establishing long-term water resilience.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By December 31, 2022, Marin Municipal Water District should develop and act on a detailed long-term roadmap to resilience by identifying and prioritizing sources of additional supply.
F3:
Marin Municipal Water District has not adequately addressed climate change in developing its long-term water supply plans to date. Relying on historical data to predict future rainfall is not sufficient given ongoing and future changes in the climate.
F4:
Even with ongoing successful conservation efforts, Marin Municipal Water District will need additional sources of water and storage capacity to provide a long-term reliable water supply for its ratepayers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By September 30, 2022, the Marin Municipal Water District should commit to securing 10,000 to 15,000 AF per year of additional water supply before 2035.
F5:
Marin Municipal Water District has been slow to adopt proven Advanced Metering Infrastructure technology, which could enhance conservation by providing the District and its customers with real time data on water use and repairable leaks.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By December 31, 2022, the Marin Municipal Water District should commit to completing a District-wide installation of Advanced Metering Infrastructure by the end of 2024.
F6:
Marin Municipal Water District could enhance its water resilience by constructing an East Bay pipeline for importing additional water. This option would also enable MMWD to participate in a regional desalination project and add storage capacity in the Los Vaqueros Reservoir.
F7:
Marin Municipal Water District could improve its water supply resilience by restructuring its relationship with the Sonoma County Water Agency in order to increase imports and potentially develop additional storage capacity.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By December 31, 2022, Marin Municipal Water District should adopt a near-term plan for increasing Russian River imports and expanding the District’s relationship with the Sonoma County Water Agency.
F8:
Drought-proof supplies of water will become increasingly important in the coming years, with climate change-induced droughts expected to become more frequent and severe.
F9:
Marin Municipal Water District has failed to place sufficient priority on development of drought-proof sources of water, such as recycling programs and regional desalination projects.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
In its resilience roadmap, Marin Municipal Water District should prioritize the development of drought-proof sources of water, including direct potable reuse and regional desalination.
F10:
The use of direct potable reuse presents a reliable, drought-proof, and cost-effective option for securing a substantial volume of additional potable water from within the Marin Municipal Water District.
F11:
The use of direct potable reuse is a potentially more efficient and impactful use of wastewater, as compared to recycling that wastewater for non-potable use in a “purple pipe” system.
F12:
Desalination is a feasible, drought-proof option for producing additional water for the Marin Municipal Water District.
F13:
Marin Municipal Water District participation in a large-scale regional desalination project is likely the most feasible desalination option that could provide an additional drought- proof source of water.
F14:
The measures needed to secure long-term water resilience will require additional funding and higher water rates for Marin Municipal Water District’s ratepayers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By December 31, 2022, Marin Municipal Water District should develop a long-term plan for financing the prioritized resilience options and communicate this information to ratepayers.
F15:
Marin Municipal Water District would improve its chances of receiving federal and state water resilience grant money by participating in regional partnerships.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
In its resilience roadmap, Marin Municipal Water District should include strategies for collaborating with other Bay Area water districts to enhance its competitiveness in seeking federal and state grants.
F16:
Marin Municipal Water District could significantly enhance water supply resilience and improve risk management during droughts, earthquakes, and other natural disasters by increasing its participation in regional partnerships with other water agencies.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
With the building sector accounting for approximately 34 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Marin County, it will be necessary to substantially reduce emissions from that sector if the county and its cities and towns are to meet their 2030 greenhouse gas reduction goals.
F2:
Reducing or eliminating natural gas as a fuel source in buildings will dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from Marin County’s building sector.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
On or before January 1, 2023, Marin County and each of its cities and towns that have not already done so should adopt a reach code banning natural gas connections in newly constructed buildings.
R2:
On or before January 1, 2023, Marin County and each of its cities and towns that have not already done so should adopt a reach code requiring energy efficiency measures in connection with renovations of existing residential buildings. The reach code should specify the size of the renovation that will trigger the requirement and provide flexibility by allowing the applicant to choose from a list of energy efficiency measures, including electrification of gas appliances.
F3:
The use of natural gas in buildings gives rise to health and safety risks, including adverse health effects attributed to exposure to natural gas, and safety risks posed by pipeline leaks, ruptures, and explosions. These health and safety risks serve as additional reasons to eliminate natural gas as a fuel source in new and existing buildings.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
On or before January 1, 2023, Marin County and each of its cities and towns that have not already done so should adopt a reach code banning natural gas connections in newly constructed buildings.
R2:
On or before January 1, 2023, Marin County and each of its cities and towns that have not already done so should adopt a reach code requiring energy efficiency measures in connection with renovations of existing residential buildings. The reach code should specify the size of the renovation that will trigger the requirement and provide flexibility by allowing the applicant to choose from a list of energy efficiency measures, including electrification of gas appliances.
F4:
The timely reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from Marin County’s building sector will require in-depth, comprehensive, and coordinated planning. A countywide planning process, coordinated by Marin Climate and Energy Partnership or the county’s Sustainability Team, would be an effective and efficient means of sustaining focus and leveraging the resources needed for developing a Countywide Building Electrification Plan.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Marin County and each of its cities and towns, collaborating through the Marin Climate and Energy Partnership or otherwise, should develop a comprehensive Countywide Building Electrification Plan to be completed on or before January 1, 2024. The Plan should identify those strategies, programs, and concrete actions necessary to bring about an equitable, prompt, and material acceleration of building electrification throughout the county.
F5:
Underserved communities and lower income households have greater vulnerability to rising energy costs and will likely require extra financial support to mitigate those costs and reduce household greenhouse gas emissions through measures that require significant up-front investment.
F6:
The timely electrification of existing buildings will likely require one or more mandatory measures, supported where necessary by financial subsidies and rebates.
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Excellent collaboration between Marin County Public Health officers and Marin’s public school administrators during the COVID-19 pandemic produced science-based and demonstrably workable guidelines for reopening Marin County’s public schools safely early in the 2020-21 school year.
F2:
Since experts agree that in-person classroom instruction is best for students, putting students first by keeping schools open as much as possible should be an imperative for all of Marin’s educators.
F3:
Because labor negotiations over resuming in-person classroom instruction added to the complexity and delays in public school reopenings, Marin’s public school districts would benefit by developing standard practices and models for resolving staff concerns.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By August 1, 2022, the Marin County Superintendent of Schools and all Marin public school districts should also call on the Lost Learning Task Force, as a second but vital priority, to develop and recommend protocols and policies for minimizing the length of emergency school closures during future disruptions.
F4:
Marin’s public schools would benefit from studying the private and public schools that demonstrated an ability to fully reopen early in the 2020-21 school year while complying with Marin’s public health requirements.
F5:
As a consequence of significant differences in the amount of in-person instruction time offered by Marin County’s 18 public school districts during the 2020-21 school year, Marin’s public school students experienced wide disparities in educational instruction.
F6:
A shortage of in-person instruction during the 2020-21 school year slowed measurable learning progress for many Marin public school students, resulting in deficits that should be addressed over the long-term with a concerted recovery program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By August 1, 2022, the Marin County Superintendent of Schools and all Marin public school districts should convene a countywide Lost Learning Task Force to rapidly 21 House Committee on Education and Labor, “Fact Sheet, Learning Recovery Act of 2021,” accessed March 8, 2022. https://edlabor.house.gov/imo/media/doc/2021-01-28%20Learning%20Recovery%20Act%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf develop lost learning recovery models that are available for implementation by all of Marin’s public school districts.
F7:
Slow in-person school reopenings undermined confidence in public schools and contributed to an enrollment decline, potentially weakening long-term financial support for Marin’s districts that rely on attendance for state funding.
F8:
The Marin County Superintendent of Schools and Office of Education are best positioned to take a leadership role in enabling school districts to coordinate and implement a focused pandemic recovery plan that addresses students’ academic, social, and emotional needs.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
The 2021–2022 Grand Jury found that Marin’s public agencies satisfied their legal obligations to respond to grand jury reports.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R3:
Firearm Safety in Marin Against a backdrop of proliferating gun sales at the national and local levels, a trend that only accelerated during the Covid pandemic, the jury addressed a range of gun safety issues. All respondents reacted favorably to the jury’s recommendations to increase education, make gun locks more readily available, and commit to a countywide buyback program sponsored by the Marin County District Attorney. The DA’s Office indicated that the gun buyback program will be implemented once Covid protocols are eased. Additionally, the DA’s Office and local community leaders partnered in planning a yearlong gun safety and awareness campaign.
R4:
Mental Health Challenges in Our Schools The Grand Jury made recommendations for improvements in programs to mitigate the mental health crisis in Marin’s schools where many students are experiencing increased anxiety and a sense of hopelessness. The jury recommended that the schools begin implementing elements of the County’s suicide prevention plan. Measures have been taken to improve program collaboration and access to mental health services throughout Marin County schools.
R5:
Climate Change The County and most of Marin’s municipalities rejected a Grand Jury recommendation to establish a multi-jurisdictional task force charged with developing a comprehensive strategy for mitigating and adapting to climate change. A jury recommendation to reorganize and add climate change adaptation to the mission of the County’s flood control agency was also rejected. Instead, local agencies opted to continue relying on established strategies, including updating their respective climate action plans for 2030 and 2045.
R6:
A Comprehensive List of Marin’s Public Agencies Marin County has more than 150 local government agencies. Several Marin County Civil Grand Juries have recommended the development and maintenance of a single comprehensive list. As this has never been fully implemented, the 2019-2020 Grand Jury developed the list along with a proposed methodology to maintain it. The list was issued on June 30, 2020, but a recommendation that the list be maintained and regularly updated by either the County Clerk or the County’s Department of Finance was rejected.
R7:
Cyberattacks Following security breaches and subsequent Grand Jury recommendations, Marin’s county and municipal governments strengthened their cybersecurity policies and systems. Marin’s local governments now publicly report breaches and share best practices with one another. In July 2020, the County also committed to installing new hardware that provides a menu of enhanced security features that can be requested and implemented by each municipality.
R8:
Web Transparency of Agency Compensation Practices Despite the State’s legal requirements and two prior Grand Jury reports (2015-2016, 2016-2017) that recommended Marin public agencies make compensation for their elected officials and employees fully transparent on their websites, the Grand Jury found that many jurisdictions had failed to do so. Following recommendations by the 2019- 2020 Grand Jury, a sample audit by the jury indicated that agencies had successfully updated their websites to report the required information properly.
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
TheMarinCountyDe- civil grand juries have recom- partmentofFinanceandthe mended the development of a CountyClerkshouldadoptthe comprehensive list of all of these newlydevelopedpublicagency agencies. Several incomplete listcontainedinthisreportand lists exist, but grand jury recom- mendations for a single compre- implementaplantomaintain hensive listhave never been fully andupdateitatleastannually. PhotoCredit:iStockPhoto One-Year Update on the Issues Covered by the 2018–2019 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Reports Each year, the Marin County andfromitsstationsanddevelop helpfundandtrainthese Civil Grand Jury investigates lo- atransfersystembetweenits officers. cal government operations and LarkspurstationandtheLarkspur Government issues reports recommending ferryterminal. Accountability areas for improvement. Pub- VapingDangers TheMarinTele- lication of these reports often TheMarinCountyOfficeof communications results in widespread media EducationandMarinschools Agency,anout- coverage, but the public rarely launchednumerouseducational learns whether the agencies im- datedindependent eventsforstudents,severalschools plement the jury’s recommenda- agency,announced installedvapingdetectorsinbath- tions. Key outcomes include the thatitwilldissolve,and rooms,andseveralmunicipalities following: itsessentialfunctionswillbe bannedtheretailsaleofvaping PhotoCredit:iStockPhoto transferredtotheMarinGeneral Wildfires productsandflavoredtobacco. ServicesAuthority,savingunnec- Anewjointpowersauthority, SchoolResourceOfficers VocationalEducation essaryexpense. theMarinWildfireProtection Careertechnicaleducation Anumberofschoolscommit- Authority,officiallycommenced PublicAgencyTransparency programshavebeenenhancedin tedtoincreasetheiruseofon- operationsonJuly1,2020. Governmenttransparency Marin,withbetterpromotionof campusschoolresourceofficers. SMARTTrain Twograntstotalingmorethan concernsraisedinthe2018–2019 vocationalopportunities,better Sonoma-MarinAreaRapid $1.2millionwereobtainedbythe GrandJury’sreportSpecialDis- trainingofacademiccounselors, Transithasmademodestprogress MarinCountyOfficeofEduca- trictsTransparencyUpdatewere andmoresupportprovidedto onrecommendationstodevelop tion,theMarinCountySheriff, notfullyaddressedbyagency Marin’sschoolsbytheMarin plansforgettingpassengersto andSanRafaelCitySchoolsto responses. CountyOfficeofEducation. • 0202-9102 YRUJDNARGLIVICYTNUOCNIRAM 6 MARINCOUNTYCIVILGRANDJURYFINALREPORTSUMMARIES Climate Change: How Will Marin Adapt? Our planet is warming, glaciers and ice sheets are melting, sea levels are rising, we are witnessing more extreme weather events and wildfires, and ecosystems are being altered. The future pace of climate change is uncertain, but the trends are ominous. In Marin, a modest 10-inch sea level rise could reach 700 buildings and 8 miles of roads along the bay, and a 60-inch rise, combined with a 100-year storm surge, could inundate 12,000 buildings and 130 miles of roads. Efforts to address climate change fall into two categories: “Mitigation” measures reduce greenhouse gas emissions to slow climate change, while “adaptation” measures such as seawalls guard against the consequences of climate change. Significant mitigation work has been done in Marin, but plans for adapting to climate change have taken a back seat and have focused almost exclusively on sea level rise. Are Marin’s county, city, and town governments doing enough to adapt to climate change? That is the question at the heart of this report. PhotoCredit:MarinCountyCivilGrandJury RECOMMENDATIONS shouldformanewofficewithin Climate&EnergyPartnership, andWaterConservationDistrict countygovernmentdevotedto shoulddeclareitssupportfor tofocusoncoastalandbayside
R2:
Thelinktopublicpay.ca.gov tionpolicieswithregardtoelected onactualcompensationpaidto officials. shouldbemadeconspicuouson officials,includinginformation electedofficialswasalsomissing,
R3:
MarinCountyshouldoffer investigation did not attempt to R6.Localgovernmentsshould tocollaboratetodevelopbest R9.Localgovernmentsshould assess the cybersecurity posture adoptapolicytoreporttofed- practicesforcybersecurityin completeananalysisofthe of other Marin agencies, but erallawenforcementanycyber- Marin’scitiesandtowns. the Grand Jury recommends securityintrusionthatresultsin feasibilityofcontractingwitha that all of them undertake a R4.Thecountyboardofsuper- financialfraudorunauthorized cybersecurityexperttobeavail- comprehensive review of their visorsandthecityandtown disclosureofinformationand abletocitiesandtownsona cybersecurity practices, if they councilsshouldrequesttheir makethatintrusionpublic. sharedbasis. have not done so already. MARINCOUNTYCIVILGRANDJURYFINALREPORTSUMMARIES 5 • 0202-9102 YRUJDNARGLIVICYTNUOCNIRAM Finally—A Comprehensive List of Marin’s Public Agencies Marin County has an aston- implemented. Consequently, the ishing 152 local government 2019–2020 Marin County Civil agencies, including towns, cities, Grand Jury has developed such school districts, and a host of a list together with a proposed special districts such as com- method for maintaining it. Pub- munity service agencies, joint lic access to this information is powers authorities, and agencies important to enable taxpayers to providing fire, sanitary, water, understand and track the agen- recreation, lighting, and other cies they fund. public services. It is hard for tax- payers to track all of them. That RECOMMENDATION is why several Marin County
R4:
Agenciesshouldincludea sitesforcompliancewithallthe easilyandquicklyratherthanhav- annuallypostadetailedreporton linkontheirboardorcouncil recommendationsmadeto the ingtodigthroughmeetingminutes thecompensationoftheirelected webpagesthatleadsdirectlyto listedagencies. orpolicymanualsthatmayormay officials. • 0202-9102 YRUJDNARGLIVICYTNUOCNIRAM 4 MARINCOUNTYCIVILGRANDJURYFINALREPORTSUMMARIES Cyberattacks:AGrowingThreattoMarinGovernment Local governments are targets of opportunity for cybercriminals. Hackers seek unauthorized access to computer networks so they can install ransomware, steal personal information, benefit from fraudulent payments, and disrupt government operations. As our government agencies become more reliant on online systems and remote work capabilities, cybersecurity awareness and best practices are increasingly critical. Unbeknownst to the public, the Marin County government and most of Marin’s municipalities have suffered financial frauds or debilitating network breaches in recent years. The county lost almost $250,000 in a wire fraud scheme in 2018. More than half of Marin’s 11 cities and towns—Corte Madera, Fairfax, Larkspur, Novato, Sausalito, and Tiburon—have fallen victim to PhotoCredit:iStockPhoto successful breaches, and these RECOMMENDATIONS managersreport,atleastan- R7.Localgovernmentsshould are just the ones disclosed to the Marin County Civil Grand Jury. R1.MarinCountyshouldcreate nually,ontheircybersecurity implement:mandatoryuser Our government leaders anongoingprogramtoshare profileandanymeasuresbeing training,emailflaggingandfil- have not disclosed most usereducationinformation, takentoimproveit. tering,passwordmanagement, of these incidents to other othercybersecuritypractices, andbackup.
R5:
Localgovernmentsshould Marin agencies or the public, andupdateswithcitiesand conveneperiodicdiscussions, leaving us underinformed and towns. R8.Localgovernmentsshould atleastannually,inapublicfo- underprepared. completeananalysisofthe The Grand Jury focused its R2.MarinCountyshould rum,regardingtheimportance feasibilityofimplementing investigation on the security completeaplanforenhancing ofgoodcybersecuritypractices theremainderofthepractices of the computer systems MIDAStoimprovecybersecu- forourgovernment,residents, describedintheBestPractices used by Marin’s county and rityforitsusers. andotherorganizations. municipal governments. This sectionofthisreport.
R6:
Agenciesshouldpublishan eachwebsite. aboutwages,healthandretire- difficulttofind,orinsufficient.In annualreportdetailingthecom- mentbenefits,andreimbursement manycases,itwasdifficulttofind R3.Agenciesshouldmodify pensationactuallypaidtotheir policies.Thereisawidevariance informationaboutcompensa- theirexistingpublicpay.ca.gov electedofficialsfortheprevious incompensationpoliciesandthe tionpoliciesforelectedofficials. linkssothattheyprovideadi- calendaryearonline. totalamountsandbenefitspaidto Incontrast,theMarinMunicipal rectlinktotheircurrentcom-
R7:
Agenciesnotauditedinthis electedofficials.Thepublicshould WaterDistrict(MMWD)andthe pensationdataonthestatesite. reportshouldreviewtheirweb- beabletoaccessthisinformation NorthMarinWaterDistricteach
R8:
Local governments should leaving us underinformed and towns. at least annually, in a public fo- underprepared. complete an analysis of the
R9:
Local governments should adopt a policy to report to fed- assess the cybersecurity posture practices for cybersecurity in complete an analysis of the eral law enforcement any cyber- of other Marin agencies, but Marin's cities and towns. feasibility of contracting with a the Grand Jury recommends security intrusion that results in that all of them undertake a cybersecurity expert to be avail- financial fraud or unauthorized
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
No single agency or jurisdiction is taking responsibility and authority for building infrastructure for safe evacuation routes across jurisdictions in Marin County.
F2:
There is confusion in the county as to who has ultimate responsibility and authority for ensuring that Marin has safe evacuation routes.
F3:
Marin County Board of Supervisors and town and city councils have the responsibility for safe evacuation routing, and they have not sufficiently considered evacuation as a criterion when approving improvements to roads and traffic infrastructure in their jurisdictions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Within 180 days of the date of this report, the governing boards of the County of Marin and its cities and towns should direct their respective planning and public works departments to include evacuation needs among their criteria for evaluating and recommending public works projects.
F4:
County and municipal administrators, public works, and traffic engineers have not adequately considered mass evacuation as a criterion for planning and funding traffic infrastructure improvements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Within 180 days of the date of this report, the governing boards of the County of Marin and its cities and towns should direct their respective planning and public works departments to include evacuation needs among their criteria for evaluating and recommending public works projects.
F5:
Most Marin jurisdictions have not yet included urgently needed evacuation plans in their general plans as required by state law and as recommended by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
In calendar year 2021, the County of Marin and its cities and towns should update the safety elements of their general plans to include evacuation planning.
F6:
As Marin’s designated “congestion management agency,” the Transportation Authority of Marin, is best positioned to coordinate and support the funding of public works projects for improving evacuation routes, including cross-jurisdictional evacuation routes.
F7:
Contrary to its previous responses to the Grand Jury, the Transportation Authority of Marin is not precluded or constrained from incorporating evacuation planning needs as a criterion in its infrastructure projects.
F8:
The Transportation Authority of Marin’s decision-making process is inadequate unless it includes evacuation as a criterion when funding improvements.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
Within 180 days of the date of this report, the governing boards of the County of Marin and its cities and towns should adopt resolutions calling on the Transportation Authority of Marin to include evacuation needs among the criteria it considers when planning and funding public works projects.
R4:
Within 120 days of the date of this report, the Transportation Authority of Marin should establish a criterion requiring that evacuation impacts be examined and stated when planning and funding infrastructure projects.
F9:
The Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority’s Advisory/Technical Committee would benefit from having the expertise of the Transportation Authority of Marin to advise on evacuation infrastructure needs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Within 120 days of the date of this report, the Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority should invite a Transportation Authority of Marin representative to become an at-large, nonvoting member of its Advisory/Technical Committee to support program development, funding, and implementation of improvements in evacuation routes.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
A comprehensive public awareness campaign that reaches all Marin residents would be effective in reducing the risk from unsafely handled and stored guns.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Marin County district attorney should begin work, within six months from the date of this report, on a comprehensive, multimedia (including social media) public awareness campaign that includes information regarding the safe handling and storage of firearms, and the availability of gun violence restraining orders.
F2:
Marin residents should be reminded that firearms stored unsafely increase the potential for accidental injury or death.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Each town, city, police authority, as well as the sheriff, should, at least annually, beginning in fiscal year 2020–21, send reminders to its residents regarding the need for safe handling and storage of firearms, and this reminder should be posted on official websites and social media platforms.
F3:
Firearms that are not stored in a gun safe pose an unacceptable risk of being stolen or used in crime.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Each town, city, police authority, as well as the sheriff should, within six months of the date of this report, offer free gun locks and publicize a procedure for residents to turn in unwanted weapons. This message should also be posted on official websites and social media platforms.
F4:
Marin residents should be reminded that a gun in a home increases the risk of suicide for all members of the household.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Marin County district attorney should work with other law enforcement agencies to continue to offer gun buyback programs, funded by public donations or grants.
F5:
Gun buyback programs reduce the availability of lethal weapons to suicidal individuals, the risk of accidental injury or death, and the possibility that a gun will be stolen.
F6:
Gun violence restraining orders can play an important role in keeping guns away from those who should not have them.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Many mental health issues result from social and cultural factors that lie outside the schools, but affect the ability of students to learn and schools to teach. This is a complex problem that the community must help address.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Health and Human Services and the Marin County Office of Education should direct the Marin Schools Wellness Collaborative to begin implementation of Strategy 6 of the Suicide Prevention Strategic Plan in the fall of 2020.
F2:
Strategy 6 of the Marin County Suicide Prevention Strategic Plan, which includes a promise of support by the county and designates the Marin Schools Wellness Collaborative with responsibility for leading its implementation, presents an especially appropriate opportunity for addressing mental health needs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
When funding becomes available, Marin County Office of Education should employ a full- time licensed therapist whose job is to help coordinate wellness services in the schools. Responsibilities would include finding and supervising interns.
F3:
To help provide therapeutic counselors at affordable costs, most districts need assistance from licensed therapists who have the time and skills to recruit, train, and supervise interns from local graduate school programs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
As soon as possible, Marin County Office of Education should designate staff to connect the schools with community agencies that can provide them with mental health services.
F4:
Most districts need staffing help to identify, arrange, and maintain relationships with community mental health resources.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Marin County Office of Education should expand teacher and staff training and parent education around mental health issues.
F5:
The Grand Jury recognizes that the COVID-19 pandemic has severely strained resources at all levels of government. However, the mental health concerns for students will remain. It is appropriate to expand teacher and staff training and parent education even while funding is sought for more costly programs.
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Climate change mitigation efforts by Marin governments have been notably effective in meeting their goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The board of supervisors, in collaboration with the municipalities and other agencies affected by climate change, should convene a multi-jurisdictional task force (referred to in this report as the Marin Climate Adaptation Task Force) charged with developing a single, comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional adaptation strategy for all of Marin.
F2:
Adaptation planning is essential to protect local public utility and transportation infrastructure as well as private property interests, and to enable Marin’s citizens to maintain their current standards of living.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The board of supervisors should form a new office within county government (referred to in this report as the Office of Sustainability and Resilience) devoted to climate change mitigation and adaptation and reporting to the county administrator’s office or the board of supervisors.
F3:
With the BayWAVE and C-SMART initial vulnerability assessments completed, the county is now well-positioned to focus on adaptation planning and policies related to sea level rise.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The board of supervisors should direct the formation and staffing, preferably in the new Office of Sustainability and Resilience, of a centralized grant-seeking function related to climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts for county government.
F4:
The existing adaptation efforts across the county pay insufficient attention to the other potential effects of climate change, including impacts on public health, ecosystems, and social equity.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Each member of the Marin Climate & Energy Partnership, should declare its support for broadening the partnership’s mission and increasing its funding as necessary to enable it to support overall climate change planning efforts, including both mitigation and adaptation in cities, towns, and other member agencies throughout the county.
F5:
There are insufficient staff and financial resources devoted to climate change adaptation efforts across county government as well as in the cities, towns, and other agencies, and many of the existing efforts are highly dependent on grant funding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The board of supervisors should commission a feasibility study concerning the reorganization of Marin’s Flood Control and Water Conservation District. This multi- jurisdictional study should analyze broadening the district’s mission to include coastal and bayside sea level rise adaptation across the county as well as revising its governing membership to include representatives of the county and all Marin cities and towns. If the board of supervisors supports the formation of the Marin Climate Adaptation Task Force as recommended in this report, the responsibility for this study could be referred to the task force for consideration at the appropriate time.
F6:
Within the county government, there is no single coordinating body focused on climate change, which could impede the ability to unify county efforts around a common strategy and plan.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Each city and town, if it does not have a full-time sustainability coordinator (or similar position), should appoint a committee or commission charged with monitoring and reporting on its climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts.
F7:
Cross-jurisdictional collaboration and coordination will be required for successful adaptation efforts, but Marin lacks any overarching organizational or governance structure to facilitate this.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
With the active follow-up provided by Marin’s 2019–2020 Civil Grand Jury, Marin’s public agencies generally did a good job of satisfying their legal obligations to respond to grand jury reports.
F2:
Where the 2019–2020 Civil Grand Jury followed up with agencies to obtain additional information regarding actions taken to implement specific recommendations contained in reports issued by the 2018–2019 Grand Jury, those agencies were generally cooperative and forthcoming. Responses No responses to this report are requested or required. The report is issued in the interest of transparency, accountability, and responsiveness of local governments. Note: At the time this report was prepared information was available at the websites listed. Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code Section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury. The California State Legislature has stated that it intends the provisions of Penal Code Section 929 prohibiting disclosure of witness identities to encourage full candor in testimony in Grand Jury investigations by protecting the privacy and confidentiality of those who participate in any Civil Grand Jury investigation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
SMART: Getting to the Station SMART train’s ultimate success may very well turn on the availability of convenient options for getting to and from the train station using so-called first mile/last mile options. In SMART: First 2 Marin County Civil Grand Jury, Wildfire Preparedness: A New Approach, April 25, 2019, https://www.marincounty.org/depts/gj/reports-and-responses/reports-responses/2018-19/wildfire-preparedness-a- new-approach. Marin Wildfire Prevention Agency accessed April 15, 2020, https://www.marinwildfire.org. Mile/Last Mile Options, the 2018–2019 Grand Jury recommended establishing a free shuttle between the ferry terminal and the new Larkspur SMART station that was opened in December 2019.4 The report recommended a joint feasibility study of an autonomous shuttle by SMART, the Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM), and Marin Transit. The report also recommended expansion of the Marin Connect Shuttle service beyond northern San Rafael. Responses were required from SMART, Marin Transit, and TAM. To date, SMART has not established the recommended free shuttle to serve its Larkspur station and the ferry terminal. However, TAM is using a portion of a Federal Highway Administration grant to study the Larkspur SMART ferry terminal connection. Both the City of Larkspur and Golden Gate Transit will be involved in that study. In February 2020, Marin Transit expanded its shuttle service beyond Terra Linda to cover more areas of San Rafael and Santa Venetia. SMART has developed additional first mile/last mile options, including Lyft discounts, a pilot program for electric bikes, and special ticket packages for its riders. The defeat of a proposed SMART tax extension in the March 2020 election will likely hurt SMART’s ability to further enhance first mile/last mile services. Measure I would have extended the ¼ percent sales tax that funds SMART for an additional 30 years and given it additional financial flexibility to support additional first mile/last mile programs. A $7 million cut in the 2020-2021 SMART budget together with service reductions and a drop in ridership as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic will hurt SMART’s ability to contribute to enhancement of first mile/last mile options.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R3:
Vaping: A Danger to Our Children The 2018–2019 Grand Jury published a report entitled Vaping: An Under-the-Radar Epidemic.5 The report recommended that the Marin County Office of Education (“MCOE”) and all school districts increase initiatives to provide students, parents, and the community with more information and support on vaping prevention and cessation. Additionally, the Grand Jury recommended the installation of vaping detectors in school bathrooms and other areas where vaping frequently occurs. The report called for all municipalities that have not banned the sale of flavored tobacco to do so within the subsequent year. Fairfax and Novato were asked to amend flavor bans in their tobacco ordinances to include menthol-flavored tobacco products. The Grand Jury also urged cities and towns to coordinate with the county sheriff to enforce sales bans of flavored tobacco products in retail stores. Shortly after the report was issued, news of multiple deaths across the nation surfaced, reportedly caused by Vitamin E and other substances added to vaping cartridges. This added impetus to local agency responses to the jury report. Marin County Civil Grand Jury, SMART: First Mile/Last Mile Options, May 9, 2019, https://www.marincounty.org/depts/gj/reports-and-responses/reports-responses/2018-19/smart-first-mile-last-mile- options. Marin County Civil Grand Jury, Vaping: An Under-the-Radar Epidemic, May 16, 2019, https://www.marincounty.org/depts/gj/reports-and-responses/reports-responses/2018-19/vaping-an-under-the-radar- epidemic. In responding to the jury report, the Marin County Office of Education said it had already prepared a detailed plan to step up its prevention programs to counter the vaping epidemic. By November 23, 2019, MCOE had made 18 vaping information presentations to more than 1,400 people. MCOE reported 17 school site coordinators, representing each of the high schools in Marin and four targeted middle schools, had been trained. Prior to publication of the report, MCOE coordinated a funding request from the California Department of Education’s new program: Tobacco Use Prevention Education Youth Engagement to Address Tobacco Related Disparities. This new funding stream is focused on underserved populations. The grants provide the following annual funding for three years: $224,000 to Tamalpais Union High School District, $130,000 to Novato Unified School District, and $105,000 to Ross Valley School District, which serves San Anselmo and Fairfax. Vaping detectors were installed in three high schools in the Tamalpais Union High School District. Their effectiveness will be evaluated by educators across Marin to determine whether vaping detectors should be used in other schools. Some school districts declined to install detectors for cost reasons, and one because of concerns about its impact on the culture of trust in the district. Municipalities revisited their respective tobacco ordinances. Fairfax updated its ordinance to include a ban on menthol-flavored tobacco products. The Novato City Council has directed its staff to draft an amendment to its tobacco ordinance to include a ban on menthol flavors. San Rafael, San Anselmo, Corte Madera, Larkspur, and Tiburon adopted bans on sales of flavored tobacco products. Law enforcement agencies across Marin recommitted to the enforcement of tobacco regulations. The Marin County Sheriff’s Office and the Marin County Health and Human Services Department stated that they will continue to conduct decoy operations on tobacco retailers to enforce bans on illegal tobacco sales.
R4:
Improving School Safety with More School Resource Officers School resource officers (SROs) are police officers with special training who are positioned on school campuses to foster good relations between law enforcement and students while also serving as a deterrent to campus violence. A number of Marin schools have SROs at their schools on a full- or part-time basis, but not all do. In School Resource Officers Revisited, the 2018–2019 Grand Jury recommended that Marin’s municipalities, law enforcement agencies, and school districts give higher priority to the funding of school resource officers and programs.6 The Grand Jury also recommended that the agencies explore cost sharing and new funding sources such as grants, bond issues, and special taxes. The responses to the report underscore the broad support that this program has garnered. Most of the school districts favored having more SRO positions, additional training, and opportunities for the SROs to communicate and share their expertise and experiences. Marin County Civil Grand Jury, School Resource Officers Revisited, May 30, 2019, https://www.marincounty.org/depts/gj/reports-and-responses/reports-responses/2018-19/school-resource-officers- revisited. Separate from the jury report, the Marin County Office of Education and the Marin County Sheriff’s Office received a $627,000 three-year grant in December 2019 from the California Department of Justice Tobacco Grant Program for a school resource officer to serve in Marin’s unincorporated areas. The San Rafael City Schools also received a $570,000 three-year grant for one additional SRO. Additionally, the Mill Valley Police Department converted a detective position into a full-time SRO position. The Central Marin Police Authority responded to the Grand Jury report by pointing out that a school resource officer for the Larkspur-Corte Madera School District has been funded at least through 2038 as a result of a ballot initiative passed in 2009.
R5:
Abolishing Marin’s Outdated Telecommunications Agency The Marin Telecommunications Agency (MTA) is a joint powers authority formed in 1998. It administers the Comcast, AT&T, and Horizon Cable franchises and was charged initially with developing telecommunications policy in Marin County related to cable and broadband. In addition, it has financial responsibility for the Community Media Center of Marin, which provides public access video services, including coverage of public meetings of local agencies. This 2018–2019 Grand Jury report, Marin’s Telecommunications Disconnect, questioned whether MTA is needed at all. The report recommended that the agency be dissolved and its responsibilities be either terminated or moved to the Marin General Services Authority, which already runs similar administrative programs for the county, cities, and towns.7 The Grand Jury also pointed out that MTA’s responsibility has been largely restricted to the collection and disbursement of franchise fees levied on cable television bills, and that it had abandoned its mission to provide strategic leadership on telecommunications issues. The report requested responses from MTA, the Marin County Board of Supervisors, and nine Marin cities that are members of MTA. MTA and all of its members rejected the report’s recommendations. MTA explained that it had already reduced its executive director position from an 80 percent role to 50 percent, eliminated another position, and combined two other roles into one to reduce its operating expenses. On February 20, 2020, less than eight months after rejecting the recommendations of the Grand Jury, the MTA board voted unanimously to commence a process to dissolve the agency and transfer its responsibilities to the Marin General Services Authority, effective July 1, 2020. Completion of this process is contingent on approval by all members of MTA.
R6:
Public Transparency of Marin’s Local Agencies As noted in the 2018–2019 report entitled Special Districts Transparency Update, the Grand Jury has made repeated recommendations to the Marin County Board of Supervisors that it 7 Marin County Civil Grand Jury, Marin’s Telecommunications Disconnect, June 13, 2019, https://www.marincounty.org/depts/gj/reports-and-responses/reports-responses/2018-19/marins- telecommunications-disconnect. publish and maintain a comprehensive list of all of Marin’s public agencies.8 This has never been completed. In discussions with public officials, the Grand Jury found there is uncertainty about the exact number of public agencies in Marin, which makes it difficult for the public to know what they all do and whether they are necessary. Three prior grand jury reports recommended the creation of such an agency list. All reports noted that this list would improve transparency and give citizens easier access to important information about their local governments. These reports included: ■ What Are Special Districts and Why Do They Matter? May 20, 2014 ■ 2015-2016 Web Transparency Report Card: Bringing Marin County’s Local Governments to Light, March 10, 2016 ■ Special Districts Transparency Update, June 20, 2019 In its response to the 2019 report, the board of supervisors said it had implemented the recommendation for “each entity under the board of supervisors” but that excludes agencies such as school districts, water districts, sanitary districts, and similar “independent” agencies. The 2019–2020 Grand Jury determined that this remains a serious deficiency. Accordingly, on June 30, 2020, the Grand Jury published a separate report entitled Finally—A Comprehensive List of Marin’s Public Agencies.9 The 2016 Grand Jury report recommended that all Marin special districts and joint powers authorities update their websites to provide information about the annual compensation of directors, officers, and employees. This concern about access to compensation information was reiterated in the 2019 Grand Jury report. The 2019–2020 Grand Jury agrees that this remains an area where public transparency is lacking, and it was not satisfied with the response of Marin’s local agencies to this recommendation. Accordingly, in April 2020, the 2019–2020 Grand Jury published a separate investigative report entitled Follow-Up Report on Web Transparency of Agency Compensation Practices.10
R7:
Improving Career Technical Education Opportunities in Marin’s High Schools Most Marin parents expect that their children will graduate from college. High schools have mirrored these expectations by stressing the importance of higher education for all students. As a consequence, vocational training, now part of what is called career technical education (CTE), 8 Marin County Civil Grand Jury, Special Districts Transparency Update, June 20, 2019, https://www.marincounty.org/depts/gj/reports-and-responses/reports-responses/2018-19/special-districts- transparency-update. Marin County Civil Grand Jury, Finally—A Comprehensive List of Marin’s Public Agencies, June 30, 2020, https://www.marincounty.org/depts/gj/reports-and-responses/reports-responses/2019-20/finally-a-comprehensive- list-of-marins-public-agencies. Marin County Civil Grand Jury, Follow-Up Report on Web Transparency of Agency Compensation Practices, April 28, 2020, https://www.marincounty.org/depts/gj/reports-and-responses/reports-responses/2019-20/followup- report-on-web-transparency-of-agency-compensation-practices. has not been promoted sufficiently to accommodate students who desire and can benefit from such programs. The 2018–2019 Grand Jury called attention to this shortcoming in its report The Status of Career Technical Education in Marin County.11 The report included several recommendations designed to improve awareness of and the resources available for CTE programs, including a career night for parents and students and training for school counselors. The report also recommended that the Marin County Office of Education form a working group with members of the business community to create and promote these programs. The county office of education and the four districts having high schools (Novato, San Rafael, Tamalpais Union, and Shoreline) were required to respond to the report’s recommendations. The county office of education responded favorably to all of the recommendations, indicating that all of them had been or would be implemented. It has a School to Career Partnership board consisting of 28 community leaders, including Marin’s largest employers, to “support career exploration programs and work-based learning experiences for students that teach the skills needed for success in the workplace.”12 Marin’s office of education also has an internship coordinator to help students locate internship and volunteer opportunities. All four school districts are also implementing the report’s recommendations. They reported working closely with the office of education’s School to Career Partnership program. Each of the schools also provides some form of career night or career fair to expose students and parents to vocational careers. In their efforts to educate counselors, students, and parents about career technical education options, school districts all reported using an online “CTE Toolkit” developed by the county’s office of education. Tamalpais Union High School District enables incoming students to take an online skills inventory and provides a career technical education workshop for parents of new students. Older students are given access to a career exploration tool, which allows results to be shared with parents. Shoreline Unified School District promotes career technical education opportunities starting in K-8 schools, with open houses and other promotional events. In addition to local counselors sharing vocational educational information, the district has had representatives of Santa Rosa Junior College present information to students and parents. The San Rafael High School District has started two new programs, North Bay Builders Association and Classic Car Restoration, to focus not just on skills development, but also on education about specific vocational career opportunities. At the end of the building program, for example, students can participate in a two-week on-the-job internship. The county office of 11 Marin County Civil Grand Jury, The Status of Career Technical Education in Marin County, June 27, 2019, https://www.marincounty.org/depts/gj/reports-and-responses/reports-responses/2018-19/the-status-of-career- technical-education-in-marin-county. Marin County Office of Education, Responses to the 2018–2019 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Report on The Status of Career Technical Education in Marin County, September 10, 2019, p. 4, https://www.marincounty.org/- /media/files/departments/gj/reports-responses/2018-19/responses/the-status-of-career-technical-education-in- marin/cte--mcoe.pdf?la=en. education and San Rafael schools collaborated on and were awarded two grants: K-12 Strong Work Force and CTE Incentive Grants, both of which will support expansion of existing career technical educational programs and the development of new offerings. San Rafael also created a districtwide CTE Advisory Committee to promote and further develop career technical education offerings. San Rafael’s course offerings currently include engineering, media, information and technology, business, automotive, construction, and digital audio. In the Novato Unified School District, all ninth-grade students participate in a college and career readiness course, which includes career exploration materials. Novato has revised this course to add the ability to share results with family and peers. After the Grand Jury issued its report, academic counselors and middle-school deans in Novato received in-depth training focused on college and career readiness and career technical education. The Grand Jury is also aware that the College of Marin launched a year-long newspaper, radio, and social media campaign in fall 2019 to educate the community on available career technical education options. The college involves its students in performing public outreach efforts to community groups and schools regarding vocational programs.
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
Currently, there is no reliable, comprehensive, and regularly updated list of public agencies in Marin County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
During fiscal year 2020–2021, the Marin County Department of Finance and the County Clerk should adopt the newly developed public agency list contained in this report and implement a plan for one of them to maintain and update it at least annually using a method similar to that described in this report.
F2:
There are multiple, publicly available lists of public agencies that can, with minimal effort, be combined into a single, comprehensive list that can be updated periodically. 8 “Local Government Financial Data,” California State Controller's Office, accessed April 15, 2020, https://bythenumbers.sco.ca.gov. 9 “Special Districts in Marin,” accessed April 15, 2020, https://www.marincounty.org/depts/df/special-districts. 10 “Statement of Facts - Roster of Public Agency - Marin County Filings,” Marin County, accessed April 15, 2020, https://www.marincounty.org/-/media/files/departments/ar/county-clerk/roster_of_public_agencies.pdf?la=en. 11 “Local Agencies,” Marin Local Agency Formation Commission, accessed April 15, 2020, https://www.marinlafco.org/local-government-agencies-in-marin-county.
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The Marin County government has a well-developed approach to cybersecurity in general, and a robust architecture and strategy for avoiding breaches.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Within 120 days of the date of this report, the Marin County Information Services and Technology Department should create an ongoing program to share user education information, other cybersecurity practices, and updates with cities and towns.
F2:
The Marin County government has substantial cybersecurity expertise and, as the host and manager of the MIDAS system, is well positioned to assist the cities and towns in developing a common set of best practices regarding cybersecurity.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Within 120 days of the date of this report, the Marin County Information Services and Technology Department should complete a plan for enhancing MIDAS to improve cybersecurity for its users.
F3:
Transparency is lacking regarding cybersecurity because past breaches have not been publicly disclosed, and city and town councils have not facilitated public discussion of cybersecurity issues.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Within 120 days of the date of this report, the Marin County Information Services and Technology Department should offer to collaborate with the cities and towns, through the Marin Managers Association or another channel, to develop best practices for cybersecurity in Marin’s cities and towns.
F4:
Most elected officials in Marin’s cities and towns are not sufficiently engaged in ensuring robust cybersecurity policies and procedures are in place.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Starting in fiscal year 2020–2021, the county board of supervisors and the city and town councils should request their managers report, at least annually, regarding their cybersecurity profile and any measures being taken to improve it.
F5:
County and municipal officials and managers have been generally unaware of breaches that have occurred outside their own agencies in Marin and therefore have not felt the need to collaborate on measures to improve cybersecurity.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Starting in fiscal year 2020–2021, the county, cities, and towns should convene periodic discussions, at least annually, in a public forum such as a board or council meeting, regarding the importance of good cybersecurity practices for our government, residents, and other organizations.
F6:
Municipalities have been lax in following FBI guidance that cybersecurity breaches be reported to federal law enforcement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The county and each city and town should adopt a policy to report to federal law enforcement any cybersecurity intrusion that results in financial fraud or unauthorized disclosure of information and make that intrusion public.
F7:
Marin’s cities and towns have not made a concerted effort to standardize around a common set of best practices with respect to cybersecurity.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Within 180 days of the date of this report, cities and towns should implement the first four practices described in the Best Practices section of this report, regarding mandatory user training, email flagging and filtering, password management, and backup.
F8:
The Marin County Council of Mayors & Councilmembers has not made cybersecurity a priority, which has minimized the awareness and engagement of elected officials in cybersecurity matters.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
In fiscal year 2020–2021, cities and towns should complete an analysis of the feasibility of implementing the remainder of the practices described in the Best Practices section of this report.
F9:
The Marin Managers Association has not done enough to facilitate the sharing of cybersecurity information and resources among its members.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
In fiscal year 2020–2021, cities and towns should, through the Marin Managers Association, complete an analysis of the feasibility of contracting with a cybersecurity expert to be available to cities and towns on a shared basis, in order to raise the overall level of cybersecurity in Marin’s cities and towns.
F10:
Various low-cost best practices exist that could, if implemented, significantly improve the cybersecurity posture of Marin’s cities and towns.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Many Marin public agencies fail to include on their websites either a link to the publicpay.ca.gov site showing compensation for their elected officials, officers, and employees, or a table showing such data. The Grand Jury determined that these agencies fail to comply with the requirements of Government Code Section 53908.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
To comply with the intent of Government Code Section 53908, no later than 90 days after the date of this report, agencies should include on their websites a link to the publicpay.ca.gov site showing compensation of their elected officials, officers, and employees using the formatted URL examples that are shown in Appendix A.
F2:
Any link to compensation data on an agency’s website that takes more than five minutes or three clicks from the home page to locate, does not reasonably satisfy the intent of the Government Code that the information be easily located and “conspicuous” on the agency’s website.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
No later than 90 days after the date of this report, agencies should modify the location of their existing publicpay.ca.gov links to satisfy the requirement of Government Code Section 53908 that their link be “conspicuous.” Conspicuous locations for agencies are suggested in Table 2.
F3:
Any link to publicpay.ca.gov on an agency’s website that fails to go directly to the agency’s current compensation data on that website does not satisfy the intent of the Government Code that information be easily located.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
No later than 90 days after the date of this report, agencies should modify their existing publicpay.ca.gov links so that they provide a direct link to their current compensation data on the state site. To eliminate the need for annual updates, the URL used for the link should exclude any parameter specifying a year. Formatted URL examples are shown on Appendix A.
F4:
Regarding compensation policies for elected officials, many public agencies do not provide the public with easy access to information regarding salary, meeting fees or stipends (including compensation for serving as liaison to other advisory committees, councils and forums), reimbursements, health and retirement benefits, and other benefits such as equipment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
No later than 90 days after the date of this report, in addition to any other compensation links, agencies should include a link on their board or council web pages that leads directly to their “Elected Officials” page on the publicpay.ca.gov site, conforming to the format suggested on Appendix A.
F5:
Regarding detailed disclosure of total compensation paid, most public agencies do not break out all components of compensation paid to their elected officials, including salary, meeting fees or stipends (including compensation for serving as liaison to other advisory committees, councils and forums), reimbursements, health and retirement benefits, and other benefits such as equipment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
No later than 120 days after the date of this report, agencies should include on their board or council web pages a comprehensive description of their policies regarding all compensation paid to elected officials specifying, at a minimum, salary, meeting fees or stipends (including compensation for serving as liaison to other advisory committees, councils and forums), reimbursements, health and retirement benefits, and other benefits such as equipment.
F6:
By comparison to other public agencies, Marin Municipal Water District annually publishes an exemplary report on its website of total compensation paid to its elected officials for salary, meeting fees or stipends (including compensation for serving as liaison to other advisory committees), councils and forums, reimbursements, health and retirement benefits, and other benefits such as equipment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
No later than 120 days after the date of this report, agencies should adopt a practice to compile and publish each year an annual report detailing the compensation actually paid to their elected officials for the previous calendar year. Compensation disclosures should include, at a minimum, salary, meeting fees or stipends (including compensation for serving as liaison to other advisory committees, councils and forums), reimbursements, health and retirement benefits, and other benefits such as equipment. A link to this report should be posted on the agency’s board or council web page.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R7:
No later than 90 days after the date of this report, agencies not audited in this report should review their websites for compliance with the legal requirements and higher public transparency standards recommended in Recommendations R1–R6 of this report and ensure that their websites include links to the publicpay.ca.gov site as shown in Appendix A.
Additional Recommendations
15
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Create a comprehensive, up to receive emergency alerts. for a mass evacuation in personal Education countywide vegetation manage- Programs to educate the public vehicles. Public transit is a R4. Adopt and deliver a compre- ment plan that includes vegetation for wildfire are not well known neglected piece of evacuation hensive education program fo- along evacuation routes, a cam- and are offered infrequently. preparedness. Inertia and cused on action for all residents paign to mobilize public partici- Alerts complacency have prevented a of Marin on a regular schedule pation, and low-income subsidies. The two crucial emergency proactive and nimble response to by a team of expert trainers.
R2:
Hire at least 30 new civilian alert systems in the county, wildfire dangers. R5. Promote the creation of vegetation inspectors and at least Alert Marin and Nixle, as opt-in The Grand Jury proposes Firewise Communities in every eight fire/fuels crews focused on systems, warn only those who neighborhood by all local juris- the creation of a joint powers fuel reduction in the high risk have registered. dictions. authority to coordinate a areas of the county, including fed- Evacuations comprehensive, consistent Recommendations eral, state and local public lands. continued on Marin’s topography creates approach to pre-ignition 9102 • 9102-8102 YRUJ DNARG LIVIC YTNUOC NIRAM 4 MARIN COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUMMARIES SMART: First Mile/Last Mile Options Recommendations continued from
R3:
The Marin County Office of District to establish teen nicotine that enables them to develop Education should partner with cessation programs. 1. Help provide a safe learning positive working relationships high school coaches and the R8. All law enforcement agencies environment for students. with students, school staff, Marin County Athletic League, should coordinate the enforce- 2. Counsel, educate, and build law enforcement, other first educate them on the dangers of ment of sales bans on flavored relationships with students. responders, and community vaping, and develop a program tobacco. groups. Because of this, their SRO Revisited continued on MARIN COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUMMARIES 7 9102 REBOTCO • 9102-8102 YRUJ DNARG LIVIC YTNUOC NIRAM SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS SRO Revisited continued from REVISITED 3. Enforce laws. Although SROs are sworn law enforcement officers, they do not enforce school policies or maintain discipline. Instead, they focus on building strong, approachable relationships with students and staff, and on identifying and preventing inappropriate behavior on school grounds and throughout the community. School safety is a concern for every community in Marin. In preparing this report, the Marin County Civil Grand Jury consistently heard positive comments about the importance of SROs in maintaining school safety. The Grand Jury also learned that resources to help provide safety at schools differ significantly throughout the county. Only a few school districts have full-time SROs. (Novato police photo) Others are served by the single RECOMMENDATIONS positions. their city councils and law SRO employed by the Sheriff’s enforcement agencies to employ Office, who covers 34 schools R1. SRO programs in Marin R5. The City of San Rafael and maintain a sufficient with over 9,200 students, County should be retained should have at least one throughout a 521 square mile or expanded where they now additional full-time SRO. number of SROs. territory. Disturbingly, some exist. SRO programs should R6. Mill Valley should employ R10. School districts and schools have no assigned SRO be established to cover those a full-time SRO who regularly municipalities should explore coverage. school districts where they do visits its schools rather than funding sources such as grants, Funding SROs to serve at not exist. simply assigning an officer to be bond issues, special taxes, and schools in Marin County is a R2. Municipalities, school on call for its schools. other sources. sound investment because it districts, and law enforcement R7. All SROs should complete R11. School districts and prevents crime and teaches agencies in Marin County SRO Police Officer Standards of municipalities should consider students to trust and work with should make SRO programs a Training by July 1, 2020. sharing the costs and services of law enforcement officers and high budgetary priority. R8. Law enforcement agencies SRO programs. other authority figures. It also
R4:
Upon completion of the mous shuttle for connection new options for first and last mile
R5:
Promote the creation of vegetation inspectors and at least Alert Marin and Nixle, as opt-in Firewise Communities in every The Grand Jury proposes eight fire/fuels crews focused on neighborhood by all local juris- systems, warn only those who the creation of a joint powers fuel reduction in the high risk dictions. have registered. authority to coordinate a areas of the county, including fed- Recommendations Evacuations comprehensive, consistent eral, state and local public lands. continued on approach to pre-ignition Marin's topography creates MARIN COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUMMARIES SMART: First Mile/Last Mile Options Recommendations continued from -
R6:
Employ individuals with all pending and future traffic/ skills in public speaking, teach- road projects along major escape ing, curriculum design, graphics, routes. web design, advertising, com-
R7:
Collect Marin residents’ Radio Authority communica- information and add it to Alert tions system without further Marin and Nixle databases to delay. make them opt-out systems. R14. The Transportation Au-
R8:
Expand the use of sirens with thority of Marin must convene Long Range Acoustic Devices. all stakeholders no later than December 31, 2019, to address Evacuations congestion on escape routes in
R9:
Research, develop, and pub- an evacuation. lish plans for the mass movement Umbrella Entity of populations along designated
R10:
Give the highest priority to brella organization for wildfire mitigating known choke points planning and preparedness and to maximizing the capacity (vegetation management, public of existing evacuation routes. education, alerts, and evacua-
R11:
Incorporate and prioritize tion), funded by a ¼ cent sales Photo Credit: Marin County Civil Grand Jury plans for mass evacuations in tax. Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit Measure Q, the voter initiative RESPONSE FROM MARIN AGENCIES (SMART) has been operational that established a sales tax to fund The Marin cities, towns, fire ■ Alert and warning en- since August 2017, providing SMART operations, requires agencies and County are ad- hancements passenger rail service between SMART to publish a strategic dressing this recommendation ■ Pursuit of grant funds for the Sonoma County Airport plan update every five years. With with a working group to explore countywide efforts, as well Station and downtown San Rafael. previous plans published in 2009 the creation of a countywide as grant funding to assist Expansion of service to Larkspur and 2014, the next update is due Landing is scheduled for late 2019. in 2019. SMART management has wildfire prevention program seniors, financially disad- One of the objectives of SMART assured the Grand Jury that the governed by a countywide joint vantaged and those with power authority. The program access and functional needs is to provide a transit alternative 2019 update is under development scope for ongoing, locally-con- with preparedness mea- between Sonoma and Marin. and scheduled to be released in the trolled, countywide wildfire pre- sures. SMART’s success will, in part, fall of 2019. depend on the convenience of east- All possibilities to enhance vention program would include This program would require and improve first and last mile west and north-south connectivity the following: new, ongoing funding. We are connections should be examined, to/from the stations, often referred currently exploring a potential ■ Fire fuel reduction and including expansion of Marin to as “first mile - last mile.” countywide parcel tax measure vegetation management Connect to include additional areas in March 2020. Based on our The Marin County Civil Grand ■ Defensible-space home feedback from Marin fire- Jury issued two earlier reports on outside of the North San Rafael evaluations and education responsible agencies, we believe SMART operations. The current pilot zone. The feasibility of using autonomous shuttles should be ■ Evacuation planning and that a parcel tax is the appropri- Grand Jury report focuses on considered since the technology is neighborhood preparedness ate funding mechanism. connectivity to SMART stations located in Marin County. SMART continued on MARIN COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUMMARIES 5 9102 REBOTCO • 9102-8102 YRUJ DNARG LIVIC YTNUOC NIRAM VAPING: An Under-the-Radar Epidemic Marin County has a youth health crisis—vaping. Vaping among our seventh, ninth, and 11th graders more than doubled in two years, with 47% of 11th graders admitting to having vaped. The numbers may actually be higher, as teens notoriously under-report. Vaping is inhaling aerosols created when fluids in electronic smoking devices (e-cigarettes and similar products) are heated. Most vaping products contain highly addictive nicotine. Vaping can cause irreparable damage to vapers’ health and subject them to lifelong problems. Vaping liquids come in adolescent-appealing flavors. Vaping products are gateway drugs and young vapers frequently move on to smoking cigarettes. Local school officials have called vaping their number one problem. Billion-dollar corporations have expressly designed, flavored, and marketed their products to hook adolescents. A single vaping cartridge contains as much nicotine as a pack of cigarettes. To combat vaping, a four- pronged approach is needed: ■ Limit the availability of flavored tobacco. VAPING continued on Photo Credit: iStockPhoto SMART continued from RECOMMENDATIONS Connect beyond northern San the station and the Larkspur available and is currently deployed Rafael no later than the first ferry terminal should be estab- in a number of pilot projects. R1. Transportation Authority of quarter of 2020. lished. Given that SMART has been Marin and Marin Transit should operational for less than two years, conduct surveys and pertinent R3. SMART should complete R5. SMART, Transportation they and their partner transit research, using the criteria of and publish its feasibility study Authority of Marin and Marin agencies have done a commendable convenience, cost, and accessi- by July 2019 on the east-west Transit should prepare a joint job in developing numerous modes bility to determine optimal “first track connecting to an Amtrak feasibility study for the possible for traveling to and from SMART mile - last mile” connections to station in the East Bay. implementation of an autono- stations. The expectation is that SMART stations.
R12:
Educate, prepare, and drill munity organization, commu- for evacuations in all communi- nity relations, and diplomacy to ties. educate the public.
R13:
Fully integrate public tran- Alerts sit into the Marin Emergency
R14:
The Transportation Au- thority of Marin must convene
R15:
Establish in the form of a evacuation routes. Joint Powers Authority an um-
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Marin County high schools’ focus on preparing students to go to college poorly serves approximately half of the students who will not complete post-high-school formal training within six years of graduation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
During the 2019-2020 school year and annually thereafter, a career night should be offered at each high school for all students and parents featuring various CTE options as well as the more traditional offerings.
F2:
Much of the career information presented to parents and students concerns opportunities for continued education in colleges and universities with little emphasis on available CTE opportunities, leaving workforce bound students and their parents unaware of the possibilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Throughout the 2019-2020 school year and annually thereafter, parents should be made aware of the income potential and career security enjoyed by people in the trades.
F3:
In each high school, counselors, except where there is a specialized counselor, generally do not have an in-depth knowledge of available CTE opportunities, limiting their ability to serve workforce bound students.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
In the 2019-2020 school year and periodically thereafter, all high school counselors should receive in depth training in the available CTE opportunities to enable them to effectively counsel all students.
F4:
A lack of physical resources and coordinated programs for CTE programs in the county disadvantages students who want to pursue non-academically oriented careers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Marin County Office of Education should establish a working group by December 31, 2019, to collaborate with local employers and other entities to create post high school career pathways.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
A complete list of special districts, JPAs and CSAs in Marin County is not available. Inconsistent partial lists are published by Marin LAFCO, the County Clerk, the County Finance Office, and the California State Controller; therefore, the public is unable to find critical information from one source.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Marin County Board of Supervisors should create and publish a comprehensive online "digital directory" of all the County of Marin's dependent and independent special districts, CSAs and JPAs, with links to their websites, no later than December 31, 2019.
F2:
Without a full list, it is difficult to determine how many special districts exist and how much taxpayer money is expended by them.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors, the County Director of Finance, and the County Clerk should determine how the list will be compiled, who will be responsible for maintaining it, what formats it will have, and how it will be published.
F3:
Information about total board compensation, including salaries, benefits, and allowances, and how it is calculated is not consistently reported and made easily available for comparison among all special districts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The list should contain the data items delineated above in the Recommended Elements for the Special District List section of this report.
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Neither the County nor any of its agencies is providing strategic leadership or advice for telecommunications services such as broadband internet access or 5G, leaving Marin poorly served.
F2:
Each municipality has been obliged to negotiate separately with 5G and fiber to the home telecom providers, so the potential benefits of aggregation have been lost and some communities remain unserved or underserved.
F3:
The MTA has chosen to abandon its policy making and coordinating mission, so the MTA serves no strategic or advisory function to the county.
F4:
Currently, the main function of the MTA which is to collect and distribute cable franchise and PEG fees to its members, could be efficiently performed by the MGSA.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The MTA’s franchise fee collection and disbursement responsibilities should be moved to the MGSA.
F5:
CMCM is a nonprofit tax-exempt corporation which is governed by its own board so it could operate without MTA oversight.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
MTA’s responsibilities for CMCM should be terminated.
F6:
The MTA has applied for few of the available Federal or CPUC grants, and it has missed opportunities to access existing fiber networks, all of which has caused Marin County to fall behind the levels of telecom service provided to other areas in California.
F7:
The MTA’s income is declining and may be eliminated altogether; as a result, the MTA will have no function and is likely to disband or it will need to be funded by its constituent municipalities or from some other source.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The MTA should be dissolved.
F8:
The county could benefit from strategic guidance and leadership in technical, business and regulatory matters regarding telecommunications for its businesses and residents.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By December 31, 2019, the Board of Supervisors should appoint a citizen’s advisory committee that will provide advice and information on telecommunications services and policy. The Grand Jury recommends that citizens with telecommunications expertise be appointed to the committee.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
School Resource Officers promote strong collaborative relationships between schools and law enforcement that benefits the entire community. School districts and municipalities that have SRO programs praise them highly.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
SRO programs in Marin County should be retained or expanded where they now exist. SRO programs should be established to cover those school districts where they do not exist.
F2:
SRO programs are wise investments that help provide safe learning environments for students, reduce crime, and build strong relationships with students, parents, and school staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Municipalities, school districts, and law enforcement agencies in Marin County should make SRO programs a high budgetary priority.
F3:
Assigning officers to be dedicated, full-time SROs for longer terms isn’t always a high priority or financially feasible but can be a wise investment that yields substantial benefits to students, schools, and their communities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
To insure continuity, each SRO should be assigned to serve for at least a four-year term.
F4:
Continuity is essential for SRO programs to thrive. When SROs serve for limited or uncertain terms, their effectiveness can decrease.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Marin County Sheriff’s Office should have two additional full-time SRO positions.
F5:
The Sheriff Department’s has one SRO to cover all the county’s unincorporated areas and assists any school or SRO in the county that requests help, which is insufficient.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The City of San Rafael should have at least one additional full-time SRO.
F6:
The City of San Rafael has one SRO for over 7300 students, which is insufficient.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Mill Valley should employ a full-time SRO who regularly visits its schools rather than simply assigning an officer to be on call for its schools.
F7:
Mill Valley does not have a full time SRO to regularly visit its schools, which limits its SRO’s ability to build relationships with students and school staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
All SROs should complete SRO POST training by July 1, 2020.
F8:
Training for SROs in Marin County is inconsistent. The role of an SRO significantly differs from that of a patrol officer and requires specialized training.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Law enforcement agencies should fund additional training for SROs that will help them keep up with and handle their responsibilities.
F9:
Officers serve as SROs for terms varying from three to five years. Three-year assignments are barely adequate, and four to five-year terms are preferable.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
School districts should take the lead in working with their city councils and law enforcement agencies to employ and maintain a sufficient number of SROs.
F10:
With the exception of Central Marin Police Authority, most communities fund SRO programs on a year to year basis. Other communities lack reliable sources of funding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
School districts and municipalities should explore funding sources such as grants, bond issues, special taxes, and other sources.
F11:
With the exception of Novato, the costs of the SRO programs are financed by the local police budgets or the Sheriff’s budget with no financial contribution by the school districts. The districts’ participation in SRO funding is lacking.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
School districts and municipalities should consider sharing the costs and services of SRO programs.
F12:
Collaboration between the SROs improves their effectiveness, but they do not meet regularly or frequently to exchange ideas and information. MCOE’s School / Law Enforcement Partnership (SLEP) partially fills that deficiency, but additional organization is needed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
County law enforcement agencies should provide the time and facilities for the SROs to meet regularly to exchange information, ideas, and discuss new trends by October 1, 2019.
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
Most vaping products are nicotine delivery systems that are designed to appeal to youngsters, are highly addictive, and may cause life-long health problems.
F2:
Student vaping in Marin County is an epidemic that is increasing and reaching younger students including those in middle schools.
F3:
The Marin County Office of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services are leading diligent efforts to curb youthful vaping, but the public does not fully understand that vaping is an epidemic and the health damage it causes.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The County of Marin Department of Health and Human Services, the Marin County Office of Education and all school districts should increase initiatives to provide students, parents, and the community with more information and support on vaping prevention and cessation. Initiatives should include digital and social media content, including materials for middle and high schools.
R2:
Marin County Office of Education should create and make available resources for students, parents, teachers, and the community stressing the dangers of vaping and where cessation assistance can be obtained.
F4:
Many students in schools in Marin County are not aware that vaping products contain nicotine, that it is highly addictive, and can severely damage their health.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The County of Marin Department of Health and Human Services, the Marin County Office of Education and all school districts should increase initiatives to provide students, parents, and the community with more information and support on vaping prevention and cessation. Initiatives should include digital and social media content, including materials for middle and high schools.
R2:
Marin County Office of Education should create and make available resources for students, parents, teachers, and the community stressing the dangers of vaping and where cessation assistance can be obtained.
F5:
Many parents don’t know about vaping. They can’t recognize vaping devices, are not aware that their children are vaping, and may not know the severe damage to health vaping can inflict.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The County of Marin Department of Health and Human Services, the Marin County Office of Education and all school districts should increase initiatives to provide students, parents, and the community with more information and support on vaping prevention and cessation. Initiatives should include digital and social media content, including materials for middle and high schools.
R2:
Marin County Office of Education should create and make available resources for students, parents, teachers, and the community stressing the dangers of vaping and where cessation assistance can be obtained.
F6:
Vaping cartridges can be refilled with substances including cannabis extracts that are several times stronger than the marijuana smoked by previous generations.
F7:
Peer pressure leads many adolescents to take up and continue using vaping products. Peer to peer programs and coaches effectively help students deal with peer pressure.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Marin County Office of Education should partner with high school coaches and the Marin County Athletic League, educate them on the dangers of vaping, and develop a program to stress those dangers to the members of their teams.
F8:
All government bodies in Marin County do not ban the sale of flavored tobacco. To be effective, a ban must be county-wide and be vigorously enforced.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
All municipalities in the county that have not banned the sale of flavored tobacco products should do so within the next year.
R8:
All law enforcement agencies should coordinate the enforcement of sales bans on flavored tobacco.
F9:
Adolescents who want to stop vaping face unique problems that make it extremely difficult for them to quit. To date, no cessation programs that address their special needs exist in Marin County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The County of Marin Department of Health and Human Services should work with the local medical community, including Kaiser Permanente, Sutter Healthcare and the Marin Healthcare District to establish teen nicotine cessation programs.
F10:
Vaping aerosols are odorless, smokeless, and hard to detect. However, commercial devices to detect vaping aerosol are available and can be installed in school areas where vaping commonly occurs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Each school district should install vaping detectors in school bathrooms and other areas where vaping frequently occurs.
F11:
Mentholated tobacco products are damaging to health, but not all flavored tobacco ordinances in the County ban them.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Novato and Fairfax should amend their tobacco ordinances to include menthol flavored tobacco products.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
An important key to the success of SMART will be the availability of economical, fast and convenient transit connectivity to and from the stations since many passengers do not live or work in areas close to these stops.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Transportation Authority of Marin and Marin Transit should conduct surveys and pertinent research, using the criteria of convenience, cost, and accessibility to determine optimal “first mile - last mile” connections to SMART stations.
F2:
There are numerous transportation modes to connect with SMART stations. These include: walking, biking, electric bikes and scooters, cars, ride sharing, Lyft, Uber, traditional taxis, group vans, standard sized as well as smaller buses, including shuttles such as Marin Connect, which can be called as needed. In the future, autonomous shuttles and other vehicles will be an option.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Marin Transit should expand the usage of Marin Connect beyond northern San Rafael no later than the first quarter of 2020.
F3:
Transportation Authority of Marin in conjunction with Marin Transit, are the agencies charged with fostering public transit connectivity with SMART in Marin.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
SMART should complete and publish its feasibility study by July 2019 on the east-west track connecting to an Amtrak station in the East Bay.
F4:
Comprehensive surveys of customer riding patterns are extremely useful to the determination of which modes to focus on and put resources into, but the ultimate determination will be driven by customer preferences over the next few years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Upon completion of the SMART station in Larkspur, there needs to be a free passenger shuttle between the station and the Larkspur ferry terminal.
F5:
The distance between the SMART Larkspur terminal and the ferry terminal may act as a barrier that could adversely impact SMART ridership since currently there are no known plans for public transit between the two terminals.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
SMART, Transportation Authority of Marin and Marin Transit should prepare a joint feasibility study for the possible implementation of an autonomous shuttle for connection from the Larkspur SMART station to the Larkspur Ferry.
F6:
The SMART plan calls for limited parking for passengers at the Larkspur station. This could be an obstacle to SMART ridership northbound.
F7:
There are railroad tracks owned by SMART going east out of southern Novato currently used only for freight. An engineering study is currently underway, due late spring of 2019, to determine the feasibility of extending SMART to Amtrak in the East Bay. COMMENDATION In its first year, SMART and the other transit agencies have done a commendable job in developing first and last mile connections to SMART stations. This report attempts to provide a comprehensive guide to the various connection options. To further encourage ridership on SMART, it also makes recommendations to enhance the effectiveness of the connections.
Findings & Recommendations
22 findings
F1:
Existing vegetation management codes are both inconsistent and inconsistently enforced.
F2:
There are not enough trained vegetation inspectors or fuel reduction crews.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Hire at least 30 new civilian vegetation inspectors and at least eight fire/fuels crews focused on fuel reduction in the high risk areas of the county, including federal, state and local public lands.
F3:
Current vegetation enforcement procedures are slow, difficult and expensive.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Develop and implement a fast, streamlined procedure to enforce vegetation citations. RECOMMENDATIONS — Education
F4:
Government agencies and safety authorities cannot currently manage vegetation on public lands.
F5:
All property owners are responsible for vegetation management on their property, yet they are not sufficiently educated about vegetation management and many do not have the physical and financial resources to create defensible space. FINDINGS — Education of the Public
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Create a comprehensive, countywide vegetation management plan that includes vegetation along evacuation routes, a campaign to mobilize public participation, and low- income subsidies.
F6:
Wildfire preparedness education is inconsistent and fails to reach most citizens, especially parents of young children.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Adopt and deliver a comprehensive education program focused on action for all residents of Marin on a regular schedule by a team of expert trainers.
F7:
The most effective method of education is person to person in neighborhoods.
F8:
Although Marin has 30 plus Firewise neighborhoods, the most in California, they only cover a small percentage of population and land.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Promote the creation of Firewise Communities in every neighborhood by all local jurisdictions.
F9:
Sufficient public funds have not been provided to sustain comprehensive wildfire preparedness education.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Create a comprehensive, countywide vegetation management plan that includes vegetation along evacuation routes, a campaign to mobilize public participation, and low- income subsidies.
F10:
Educating the public requires a different set of skills than firefighters usually have. FINDINGS — Alerts
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Employ individuals with skills in public speaking, teaching, curriculum design, graphics, web design, advertising, community organization, community relations, and diplomacy to educate the public. RECOMMENDATIONS — Alerts
F11:
Any hesitation to use the WEA system can be deadly even if its alerts might reach people outside of its intended target zone.
F12:
Alert Marin sends the most accurately targeted warnings to endangered populations, but it reaches too few residents because it is not well publicized. Both Alert Marin and Nixle require opt-in registration, a serious design flaw.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Collect Marin residents’ information and add it to Alert Marin and Nixle databases to make them opt-out systems.
F13:
Sirens could be a useful and reliable warning system if their numbers and locations were increased to broaden their reach and if they were enhanced with a customized message through LRAD. FINDINGS — Evacuations
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Expand the use of sirens with LRADs. RECOMMENDATIONS — Evacuations
F14:
In the WUI and in many town centers, infrastructure and roads are inadequate for mass evacuations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
Educate, prepare, and drill for evacuations in all communities.
F15:
Evacuation routes are dangerously overgrown with vegetation and many evacuation routes are too narrow to allow safe passage in an emergency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
Educate, prepare, and drill for evacuations in all communities.
F16:
Emergency planners often do not publicize evacuation routes due to their mistrust of the public.
F17:
Town councils, planners, and public works officials have not addressed traffic choke points and, in some instances, they have created obstacles to traffic flow by the installation of concrete medians, bumpouts, curbs, speed bumps, and lane reductions.
Related Recommendations (2)
R10:
Give the highest priority to mitigating known choke points and to maximizing the capacity of existing evacuation routes.
R14:
The Transportation Authority of Marin must convene all stakeholders no later than December 31, 2019, to address congestion on escape routes in an evacuation. RECOMMENDATIONS — Umbrella Entity
F18:
No studies have been performed to determine how long it would take to evacuate entire communities via existing evacuation corridors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Research, develop, and publish plans for the mass movement of populations along designated evacuation routes.
F19:
The implementation of traffic-light sequencing and coordination to allow mass egress, and the conversion of two-way roads into one-way evacuation routes to ease traffic congestion, are dangerously delayed and years away from being implemented.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
Incorporate and prioritize plans for mass evacuations in all pending and future traffic/road projects along major escape routes.
F20:
Public transit is a neglected asset of emergency response preparedness: all operators except one transit agency are left out of the command structure and none is integrated into the emergency radio communication system MERA.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
Fully integrate public transit into the MERA communications system without further delay.
F21:
A bureaucratic culture of complacency and inertia exists in Marin. Government often fails to act quickly to repair known gaps in emergency preparedness, to think flexibly, and to prioritize safety in its planning and policies. FINDINGS — Umbrella
Related Recommendations (1)
R15:
Establish in the form of a Joint Powers Authority an umbrella organization for wildfire planning and preparedness (vegetation management, public education, alerts, and evacuation), funded by a ¼ cent sales tax.
F22:
No countywide comprehensive, coordinated policies have been made and no funds have been allocated to prepare for wildfires.
Related Recommendations (1)
R15:
Establish in the form of a Joint Powers Authority an umbrella organization for wildfire planning and preparedness (vegetation management, public education, alerts, and evacuation), funded by a ¼ cent sales tax.