Before voters renewed Measure A—which funds the maintenance and acquisition of county parks, open space preserves, and protected farmland—the county spent a lot of time rethinking how to allocate the revenue it generates. Now, just four years later, the Marin County Civil Grand Jury wants to rethink it again.
In a new report, the jury suggested that voters be given a chance to weigh in separately on spending for parks and spending for agriculture. Instead of one tax measure, voters would consider two.
The report suggests that, with much of Marin’s agricultural land already protected, the need for further conservation easements might be fading and voters may no longer be eager to help fund them. Conservation easements now protect about half of all privately owned agricultural land in the county, or nearly 59,000 acres.
Meanwhile, Marin County Parks’ priorities have shifted from land acquisition and expansion toward stewardship, maintenance, and wildfire resilience.
“If Marin residents desire to spend public money on conservation and stewardship programs on private agricultural land, that is a legitimate policy choice,” the report states. “But this choice can and should face the same test of voter approval that our schools, transportation systems, and other public services are routinely subject to. It should not be embedded within a popular parks measure without separate consideration.”
Measure A imposes a quarter-cent sales tax that generated about $17.7 million in revenue last year, according to the report. Voters approved the measure by roughly 75 percent in both 2012 and 2022, and some version of it will go before them again in 2031.
Sixty-five percent of Measure A funds support Marin County Parks, 15 percent are divided among local park districts, and 20 percent support sustainable agriculture.
Of that 20 percent, half is used to purchase conservation easements, 30 percent to promote sustainable food systems through small grants, and 20 percent to fund programs carried out by the Marin Resource Conservation District, which supports carbon farming and stream conservation projects on public and private lands.
The conservation easements, which are brokered by the Marin Agricultural Land Trust, keep ranchlands in agricultural production in perpetuity. Measure A funds cover half the cost of each county-approved easement and MALT raises the other half through private donations.
In 2022, the county conducted broad public outreach to solicit ideas for how Measure A money should be allocated. A public debate unfolded, with critics arguing that it was inappropriate to subsidize the operation of private agriculture operations with taxpayer money. Concerns were also raised about the appearance of conflicts of interest because MALT board members were eligible to sell easements on their own ranches.
Before putting the measure to voters the second time, the county restructured the way it allocates the agriculture money. In 2012, nearly all was devoted to acquiring easements. In 2022, that portion was cut in half, and allocations for the R.C.D.’s conservation projects grew from 5 percent to 20 percent. The remainder of the funds were allocated to a new small grants program called FARE, which supports food, agriculture and resilient ecosystems projects.
Lily Verdone, MALT’s executive director, is confident that voters would once again give Measure A an enthusiastic endorsement without significant changes to its structure. “We appreciate the grand jury’s work, but we disagree with the recommendation to hold separate votes,” she said. “Working lands protection is natural lands protection. A protected ranch is doing the same job as a protected preserve: storing carbon, sustaining wildlife corridors, buffering wildfire, and safeguarding water quality.”
The jury says the funding structure established by Measure A is unusual, arguing that it’s standard procedure to separate parks and open space funding from funding for sustainable agriculture programs. But Ms. Verdone pointed out that Sonoma County has had the same sort of structure in place for 35 years and Santa Cruz has a similar model. “Marin is not an outlier for combining parks and agriculture funding,” she said. “It’s part of a well-established, successful California and national pattern for conservation and climate funding.”
Andy Naja-Riese, director of the Agricultural Institute of Marin, said there are tremendous benefits to conservation easement programs on private lands. Farmers, he said, are implementing practices that reduce wildfire risk, improve soil health, promote climate resiliency, and strengthen water quality.
“Well-run agricultural programs, including ranches and dairy operations, are part of a thriving local ecosystem,” he said. “It makes total sense to have one ballot measure that would include sustainable agriculture as part of parks and open space.”
The grand jury report also recommends giving Marin County Parks more flexibility to administer the funds without being hemmed in by formulas that require allocating a specific amount of money to each of the county’s 19 cities, towns, and special districts. “While the local projects this money supports provide public benefits, the structure of splitting resources into small slices of funds may prevent Marin County Parks from pursuing larger countywide objectives that could benefit multiple communities,” it states. “Future versions of Measure A could eliminate the 15 percent earmark, which would provide parks with greater discretion to allocate funding based on professional judgement and local needs.”
Chris Chamberlain, director of the parks department, said he was still reviewing the report and declined to comment on the grand jury’s recommendations.
Robert Steinberg, a Marshall resident and two-term member of the Measure A oversight committee, said the jury missed an opportunity to address what he considers a structural conflict of interest in the administration of Measure A.
He believes the measure gives too much authority to the parks department, which both benefits from the funding and has administrative authority over how and when the oversight committee meets. It also has two seats on the committee.
“The core problem is a classic one in governance: The entity being watched has meaningful control over the watchdog,” Mr. Steinberg said.