Marin County Grand Jury • 2024-2025

Spending Public Money to Preserve Marin’s Agricultural Heritage: Is Anyone Watching?

Published: June 10, 2024 24 pages
Ver PDF original

Findings and 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 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.

Conclusions 1