Marin County Grand Jury
2025-2026
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Due to the late filing of required financial reports by the Alto Sewer District, the Marin City Community Services District, and the Firehouse Community Park Agency, to both the Marin County Department of Finance and the California State Controller’s Office, the constituents of these agencies may not have access to important financial information, which allows them to make informed decisions regarding the effectiveness of those agencies in performing their duties and responsibilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By December 31, 2025, the following special districts and joint powers authority should take all necessary steps to ensure the completion of their delinquent audits in their respective mandated time frames: ● Firehouse Community Park Agency ● Alto Sewer District ● Marin City Community Services District
F2:
Because the Marin County Assessor-Recorder-Clerk’s Registry of Agencies does not include all of the information mandated by California Government Code section 53051, the public and relevant government agencies are not able to completely track and verify the details of these agencies. The absence of this information makes it difficult for the public to make informed decisions about how well those agencies are being run.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By December 31, 2025, the Marin County Board of Supervisors should ensure that the Marin County Department of Finance orders third-party audits for any special district or joint powers authority that has not completed its audit more than one year past its audit filing due date.
F3:
Due to the inaccuracies, outdated information, and errors on the Marin Local Agency Formation Commission website, the citizens who visit the site are not able to obtain timely, updated information regarding the public agencies that the Marin Local Agency Formation Commission serves.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By December 31, 2025, the Marin County Board of Supervisors should ensure that the Marin County Department of Finance secures the proper documentation for any special district or joint powers authority that has an alternative audit schedule.
F4:
Because the Department of Finance has failed to engage outside accounting firms for those Marin special districts and joint powers authorities that are delinquent in submitting audits, complete financial oversight of these special districts and joint powers authorities cannot be achieved.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By December 31, 2025, the Marin County Assessor-Recorder-County Clerk should add the following information to each special district and joint powers authority listed on its Registry of Public Agencies: ● The official mailing address of the governing body of the public agency ● The name and residence or business address of each member of the governing body of the public agency ● The name, title, and residence or business address of the chairperson, president, or other presiding officer, and clerk or secretary of the governing body of the public agency
F5:
Because the Marin Local Agency Formation Commission has not completed municipal service reviews for all of the Marin special districts and joint powers authorities every five years, as mandated by AB 2838, the public is not able to receive timely information about how those special districts and joint powers authorities are being run.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By December 31, 2025, the Marin County Assessor-Recorder-County Clerk should add hyperlinks to the websites of the special districts and joint power authorities listed on the Registry of Public Agencies and accurately update this Registry annually.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R6:
By December 31, 2025, the Marin County Local Agency Formation Commission should update its website with accurate information about the special districts and joint powers authorities for which it is responsible and continue to maintain the website with accurate information once it is updated.
R7:
By December 31, 2025, the Marin County Local Agency Formation Commission should take all necessary steps to complete a municipal service review for each special district and joint powers authority under its jurisdiction within the state-mandated, five-year timeframe.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Because the California Department of Housing and Community Development provided the County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns with unrealistic housing goals for the 2023-2030 cycle, the County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns will not achieve their current cycle Housing Element goals.
F2:
The ability of the County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns to comply with the current cycle California Regional Housing Needs Allocation housing goals is significantly impacted by the lack of economic returns associated with that development and, therefore, inhibits the construction of new housing in Marin County.
F3:
Under current state law, the failure of the County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns to make adequate progress in achieving their California Regional Housing Needs Allocation goals could expose these jurisdictions to the potential of litigation, loss of permitting authority, financial penalties, court receivership, and streamlined ministerial approval processes which could substantially impact the ability of local housing jurisdictions to control the development of housing.
F4:
The cost of housing in Marin County is unaffordable for most current and potential Marin County public-sector workers, which reduces the ability of the public-sector employers to attract and retain employees.
F5:
The County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns do not consistently inform the public on how applicable state law is limiting or eliminating the discretion of the local decision makers to modify or decline housing projects, and therefore, the public often does not understand the range of options available to local housing decision makers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By January 1, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the City and Town Councils for the 11 Marin cities and towns should direct their housing planning officials to engage with the public on a quarterly basis on how State housing laws constrain the jurisdiction's ability to approve or modify a housing project.
F6:
The County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns are not consistently providing developers and the public with detailed reconciliation of project level public accounting of the planning fees, expenses, and time expectations, and therefore, housing developers are not clear if their housing applications are billed on a cost-neutral basis as required by state law.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By January 1, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the City and Town Councils for the 11 Marin cities and towns should direct their housing planning officials to publish and regularly update a public accounting of the fees charged and expenses associated with each development project submitted to the jurisdiction’s planning and building activities.
F7:
The County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns are not consistently and proactively engaging the housing development community on the opportunities available in their communities to build new housing, and, therefore, housing developers may not be aware of the opportunities available to contribute to local housing development.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By January 1, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the City and Town Councils for the 11 Marin cities and towns should direct their housing planning officials to proactively engage with potential developers to inform them of opportunities in their housing elements to support addressing the housing needs within Marin County.
F8:
Accessory Dwelling Units are an element to the success of each jurisdiction's Housing Element for the County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns, yet some jurisdictions fail to provide a ministerial path to Accessory Dwelling Unit construction.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By January 1, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the City and Town Councils for the 11 Marin cities and towns should direct their housing planning officials to ensure their housing laws provide a ministerial path for the approval of Accessory Dwelling Units.
F9:
Multifamily housing is the most important element to fulfilling each jurisdiction’s Housing Element for the County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns, yet some jurisdictions fail to provide a ministerial path to multifamily construction.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By January 1, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the City and Town Councils for the 11 Marin cities and towns should direct their housing planning officials to ensure that local housing laws provide a ministerial path for the approval of multifamily housing in compliance with State housing law.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
By January 1, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the City and Town Councils for the 11 Marin cities and towns should direct their housing planning officials to provide detailed quarterly updates to the community on the progress in executing their own specific Housing Element.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The lack of coordination and limited communication within and among Marin County resources and departments (Marin County Health and Human Services, Marin County Probation, Marin County Sheriff’s Office, and nonprofits, including both those contracted with the County of Marin and independent agencies) hinders successful reentry employment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By December 31, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors should direct the office of the County Executive to create a formal coordination plan between the Jail Reentry Team, Marin County Probation Department, Marin County Department of Health and Human Services, and community resources that offer post-incarceration employment assistance.
F2:
A lack of engagement between the County of Marin and local employers on the benefits of hiring the previously incarcerated results in fewer job prospects.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By December 31, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors should allocate to a specific County agency or department the responsibility to oversee a centralized clearinghouse for post-incarceration employment services.
F3:
Failure to track post-incarceration employment and its relationship to recidivism in Marin County has limited the ability for County agencies and/or departments to assess the effectiveness of their initiatives and spending, and impedes efforts to determine whether job support efforts are successful.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By December 31, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors should ensure that a mechanism exists by which data is collected, tracked, and analyzed to be used to evaluate the efficacy of post-incarceration employment services.
F4:
When Marin County and non-profit employment counselors do not connect with the incarcerated before they are released, there are lost opportunities to provide job counseling that could reduce the chance of returning to jail.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By December 31, 2026, the Marin County Sheriff should implement a formal system by which incarcerated persons can meet with an Employment Development Coordinator prior to release.
F5:
The Marin County Sheriff’s Office Custody Manual (Policy 1005) section on Education, Vocation, and Rehabilitation is outdated and, as a result, gives a false impression that training can be made available that does not exist in the Marin County Jail.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By January 1, 2026, the Marin County Sheriff’s Custody Manual should be updated to reflect current educational and vocational training that could be made available to the incarcerated.
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
Despite the laudable efforts of the municipalities, the County, and Marin Climate and Energy Partnership, Marin is not on track to reach the 2030 CAP Goal over the next five years, without significant reductions in burning fossil fuels in vehicles, homes, and buildings.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By December 31, 2025, the Marin County Board of Supervisors should form either a new agency or a department that will function on a countywide basis to direct and coordinate, among other issues, climate action planning and tracking, and enhance public awareness of the 2030 CAP Goal and the ways to reach the goal. The new agency or department formed by the Marin County Board of Supervisors will be responsible for promoting, implementing, and maintaining all climate-related initiatives that impact the County.
F2:
To achieve the 2030 CAP Goal, the programs and strategies discussed in this report (e.g., EV Strategy, Electrification Roadmap, etc.) require stronger countywide coordination, better public education, and more dedicated resources.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By April 1, 2026, the new agency or department will present to the Marin County Board of Supervisors its strategic plan to achieve the 2030 CAP Goal for the entire county.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R3:
By July 1, 2026, the new agency or department formed by the Marin County Board of Supervisors should publish an annual GHG Inventory using the most current and reliable emissions data. The inventory should state the total GHG emissions in all sectors countywide, and be posted on the Marin County website.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Inconsistent use of available security-related resources and the lack of enforcement of smartphone restrictions contributed to a failure to prevent physical injury of students leading up to, and during, a 2024 fight at Sinaloa Middle school.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Require consultation with North Bay Security Group and/or Novato Police Department School Resource Officer when there are threats of violence, disruption, or safety breaches. The Novato Unified School District Board of Trustees should direct the Novato Unified School District’s leadership to implement the following by January 1, 2026:
F2:
Inconsistent application of the Novato Unified School District’s Discipline Matrix resulted in an initial recommendation for harsher discipline than required for some students involved in a 2024 fight at Sinaloa Middle school.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Implement a plan to conduct annual training for all teachers and administrators, and track this training with documentation available for performance improvement, to ensure understanding of the Discipline Matrix and student conduct policies and consequences.
F3:
A lack of familiarity with the Novato Unified School District’s Discipline Matrix and other conduct policies among staff of Novato Unified School District’s high schools resulted in the belief by nearly a third of staff that the rules around hurting other people (for example, bullying, hitting, and pushing) are not clear.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Implement a procedure to annually assess adherence to Novato Unified School District behavior policies and consequences. The Novato Unified School District Board of Trustees should implement the following by January 1, 2026:
F4:
The lack of a publicized process by the Novato Unified School District Board of Trustees for follow-up after members of the public comment during Novato Unified School Board of Trustees meetings has resulted in the perception that these comments are not considered.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Add a process for public comment follow-up to the Novato Unified School District Board of Trustees Governance Manual.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R5:
Publicize the process for following up on public comments at every Novato Unified School District Board of Trustees meeting.
R6:
At each Novato Unified School District Board of Trustees meeting, summarize actions on behalf of public commenters from the prior meetings (within the boundaries of applicable law and privacy requirements).