attachment a q1: how often do participants visit parks q2

Attachment A

Q1: How Often Do Participants Visit Parks

• Almost half (47%) of survey respondents visit Marin County parks and open spaces

weekly.

• Over one fourth visit daily (27%), and about the same percentage visit monthly or less

(Monthly: 16%, one to three times per year: 9% and Never: 1%).

• This indicates that most survey respondents visit the parks and open space relatively

often.

Q2: Favorite Reasons For Participants to Visit

• The three most popular reasons that the survey respondents visit our parks and open

space are to walk, hike, or run (25%), enjoy nature (21%), and enjoy time with family and

friends (14%).

• This is followed by dog walking (9%), biking (8%), picnicking (6%), water access (5%),

attending programs (3%), using a playground (3%), or something other than activities

listed on the survey (3%).

• Some of the activities within the “other” category that respondents wrote in include,

birding, recreational sports (i.e., disc golf, pickleball, etc.), fishing, photography or art,

education, and meditation or alone time.

• And, 2% or fewer respondents reported that team sports (2%), skateboarding (1%), or

horseback riding (1%) were their favorite reason for visiting the parks and preserves.

Q3: Ways Participants Receive Information About Marin County Parks

• Over a quarter of respondents talk to family, friends, and neighbors (29%) or use the

Marin County Parks website (27%) to get information about parks and open space.

• A few respondents reported using newspapers (13%) or Marin County Parks social

media (12%) while includes Facebook, NextDoor, Twitter, and Instagram.

• Slightly more (19%) indicated that they receive information in a way that was not listed

on the survey. These included, Marin County Parks E-News, searching on the internet,

community partners, generally knowing the area well or in person observation, books,

signs, and talking to Marin County Parks staff.

• Some respondents also reported that they do not receive information about Marin

County parks and open space at all.

Q4: Funding Category Importance & Q5: Funding Category Future Level of Support (by

category)

County parks maintenance and improvement

• Over half (59%) of respondents reported that County parks maintenance and

improvement funding is very important and over a quarter (32%) reported it is important.

• Few respondents indicated that is funding category is somewhat important (7%), not

important (1%), or not important at all (1%).

• Nearly half (48%) reported that they prefer this category receive the same level of

funding it is currently receiving and, slightly fewer (42%) indicated that more funding is

preferred.

Open space road and trail maintenance and improvement

• Over half (59%) of respondents reported that open space and trail maintenance and

improvement funding is very important and over a quarter (31%) reported it is important.

• Few respondents indicated that is funding category is somewhat important (8%), not


• When asked about their opinions about the level of funding/support this category should

receive, nearly half (46%) of respondents preferred the same level of funding, while a

similar percentage (43%) preferred more funding.

• Few respondents indicated that this category should receive less funding (5%) or they

were unsure (6%).

Wildfire prevention

• Over three quarters (78%) of respondents reported that wildfire prevention is very

important.

• Less than a quarter reported that this category is important (15%), somewhat important

(5%), not important (1%) or not important at all (1%).

• Nearly three quarters (70%) of respondents reported that wildfire prevention should

receive more funding than it currently does.

• Almost one quarter indicated that the same level of funding is preferred, and few said

that it should receive less funding (3%) or they were unsure how much funding it should

receive (5%).

Biodiversity protection

• Almost half (49%) of respondents reported that biodiversity protection is very important,

over a quarter (30%) said that it is important, and less than a quarter indicated that they

thought this category is somewhat important (15%), not important (4%), or not at all

important (2%).

• Nearly half (42%) reported that biodiversity protection should receive the same level of

funding, slightly fewer (36%) said that it should receive more funding.

• Less than a quarter thought this category should get less support (13%) or we unsure

(9%).

Wetland restoration and sea-level rise adaptation

• Over half (52%) of respondents reported that wetland restoration and sea-level rise

adaptation is very important and over a quarter (28%) said it is important.

• Less than a quarter thought that this category is somewhat important (13%), not


• Nearly half (44%) would prefer that this category receive more funding, over a quarter

(37%) indicated that they prefer the same level of funding it is currently getting, and few

respondents reported that they were unsure (8%)or thought that it should receive less

funding (11%).

Visitor services and programming

• One third (33%) of respondents reported that visitor services and programming is

important and about the same percentage (32%) indicated that this category is

somewhat important.

• Less than a quarter (16%) reported that it is very important, not important (14%), or not

important at all (5%).

• Over half (51%) of survey respondents indicated that visitor services and programming

should receive the same level of funding that it currently does.

• Over a quarter (27%) said that this category should get less funding and Few said that it

should receive more funding (11%) or they were unsure (11%).

Science and research

• About a third (32%) of respondents report that science and research is important, slightly

fewer (29%) say that it is somewhat important, and one quarter (25%) think that it is very

important.

• Fewer than a quarter of respondents report that science and research is not important

(10%) or not important at all (4%).

• Nealy half (48%) of respondents report that this category should receive the same level

of funding as it does currently.

• Less than one quarter indicated that science and research should receive less funding

(21%), more funding (19%), or they are unsure (12%), respectively.

Land acquisition

• Nearly on third (31%) of respondents think that land acquisition is very important, while

slightly fewer (29%) report that it is important.

• Less than a quarter (24%) report that it is somewhat important, and few report that it is

not important (9%) or not at all important (7%).

• Over one third say that land acquisition should continue to receive its current level of

funding, and over a quarter (27%) report that they would prefer this category to receive

more funding.

• Less than one quarter think that it should get less funding (24%) or they are unsure

about the level of support it should receive.

Farmland preservation

• An equal number of respondents, 26% respectively, reported that farmland preservation

is important or somewhat important.

• Nearly a quarter (22%), reported that this category is very important.

• Few respondents said that farmland preservation is not important (14%) or not at all

important (12%).

• Over a third of respondents reported that farmland preservation should receive the same

level of funding as is currently allocated.

• Slightly fewer (34%) would prefer it to receive less funding, and even fewer report a

preference for more funding (14%) or are unsure (13%).

Grants to support parks in Marin cities and towns

• Over one third (35%) of respondents reported that grants to support parks in Marin cities

and towns is very important and a similar amount (32%) reported that it is important.

• Less than one quarter said that this category is somewhat important (22%), not

important (7%), or not at all important (4%).

• Almost half (44%) of respondents reported that this category should continue to receive

the same level of funding and over a third (29%) say that it should receive more funding.

• Fewer than one quarter think that it should receive less funding (16%) or are not sure

how much funding it should get (11%).

Q6: Future Extension Length

• Over half (53%) of respondents indicated that they would prefer a future Measure A

sales tax to be extended 9 years, which is the same as the current measure.

• Over a quarter (33%) preferred that there be no end date on a measure extension

unless changed by voters and less than a quarter (14%) reported that a longer, 20-year

extension would be preferred.

Q7: Allocation Revisions

• The over three quarters (78%) of respondents reported that Marin County Parks should

provide periodic opportunities to revise Measure A funding allocation percentage every

five years.

• Less than a quarter (17%) were unsure if this should occur, while few (5%) indicated that

they would not prefer this opportunity.

Q8: Top 10 Zip Codes

1. San Rafael

2. Novato

3. Mill Valley

4. Greenbrae

5. San Anselmo

6. Fairfax

7. Belvedere-Tiburon

8. Corte Madera

9. Sausalito

10. Larkspur

Q9: Anything to Add

• Appreciation of County Parks and Parks Team

• Support for continuing and increasing focus on fire prevention and vegetation

management

• Support for new pickle ball courts funded by Measure A and adding additional pickle ball

courts.

• Concern about the farmland preservation program, whether program could be altered to

fund additional types of projects

• Concern about the long-term cost of acquiring more land for parks and open space and

the costs of managing additional lands

• Support for projects that increase bicycle accessible trails

• Support for efforts to make more facilities accessible to dog walking

• Support for enforcing rules especially related to dog and bike violations

Q11: Age

o Over half (55%) of respondents were over 60 years of age.

o About a quarter (22%) were between 50 and 59.

o Folks younger than 49 represented the remaining quarter of respondents (40-49 13%, 30-

39: 7%, 20-29: 2%, & Under 18: 1%).

Q12: Gender

• Over half (59%) of respondents identify as female, while over a third (36%) identify as

male, and few (4%) would rather keep this information private.

• Few respondents identify as non-binary (1%) and less than 1% of respondents report

their gender identity as transgender or any combination of the provided gender options

(i.e., transgender/male).

Q13: Race

• Over three quarters (79%) of respondents report their racial identity as white/Caucasian.

10% or less identify as Asian/Asian American (4%), Latinx (3%), or prefer to keep this

information private (10%).

• Less than 1% of respondents reported their racial identity as American Indian /Alaska

Native, Middle Eastern, Black /African American, Native Hawaiian /Other Pacific

Islander, or something other than the provided options.

• Some of the racial identities that respondents wrote in include, Jewish, Ashkenazi,

Hispanic, Mexican American, South Asian, and mixed race.

o These identities that respondents provided will also be used to update this

question in the future to ensure that more of our visitors are represented.

Q14: School-Age Children

• Over three quarters (75%) of respondents reported that they do not live with school

aged children, while the remaining 25% do.

• This result could be related to fact that most respondents are beyond child rearing

age and may not be representative of the population in Marin or folks that visit Marin

County parks and open Space.

Attachment B Office Hour Notes

Name Date of Meeting

Areas of Interest, Support Concerns

Sam Dolcini, Farm Bureau

8/9/2021 Increase funding for agricultural preservation. Don’t limit RCD stewardship funding to parcels with easements.

Ralph Grossi 8/10/2021 Supports agricultural preservation and enhancement of multiple environmental and social benefits. Don’t limit RCD stewardship funding to parcels with easements. Maintain the 20% allocation to agricultural with greater flexibility to achieve multiple benefits.

Heather Abrams, TCSD

8/13/2021 Supports keeping City and Town Park funding the same or increasing.

Morgan Patton, West Marin EAC

8/13/2021 Supports continued or increased funding for equity focused programing, provide transportation and bilingual nature programs and connection to local tribes.

Ensure protection of farmland preservation easements from development.

Madeline Hope, West Marin Community Services

8/18/2021 Strongly supportive of community grant program and sees opportunities to coordinate West Marin communities to share park resources and programs. Suggested a learn-to-swim program for all residents- high drowning rate among West Marin families.

Transportation is the greatest barrier to sharing youth activities across West Marin park providers.

Sybil Boutilier, Age Friendly Sausalito

8/18/2021 Seniors in Sausalito and Marin City love the community grant trips. Urged more staff capacity to lead environmental education walks for seniors, and park infrastructure (benches, shade, restrooms, etc.) that accommodate


seniors. Parks provide excellent social environments.

Dave Cort, San Geronimo Valley Community Center

8/18/2021 Loves community grant program and urged more funding for it. Praised parks leadership working with local school to create skate park facility. The population of seniors in the valley has grown rapidly. Hopes the golf course facility will be dedicated long-term to local community services.

Transportation is the greatest barrier to sharing youth activities across West Marin park providers.

Jon Pittman 8/19/2021 Supports increased funding for Open Space Rangers and increased patrols on District Trails.

Vernon Huffman and Chris Borjian, A4B

8/23/2021 Supports increased funding for Open Space trail access for bikes. Ensure adequate funding for fuels reduction.

Concerned about farmland preservation funds not providing public access.

Mimi Willard, Paul Premo, Lucy Dilworth, Kingston Cole; COST

8/24/2021 CO$T believes that any renewal of Measure A must reallocate priorities to substantially increase funding for wildfire fuel reduction in Parks and Open Space. Wildfire fuel reduction funding must be a specifically designated percentage of the sales tax measure receipts and not co-mingled nor conflated with biodiversity, native species restoration or park maintenance.

CO$T strongly urges eliminating Measure A spending on MALT, agricultural/ farmland grants and reducing or eliminating the allocation of sales tax funding to acquiring additional Open Space land. The allocations set 9 years ago for the original Measure A sales tax are now outdated owing to the heightened awareness in Marin of climate change and the resultant need to change our priorities.

Thane Kreiner, Ralph Grossi, MALT

8/25/2021 Support for sustaining farmland protection and broadening types of projects funded by the program to land stewardship, climate change mitigation or adaptation, and supporting equity in access to farmland.


Maureen Gaffney, Tom Boss, Warren Wells; MCBC

8/26/2021 Support for trail and access improvements in Park and Open Space lands as well as improvement to multiuse paths and bike park.

Concern that farmland program funded easements should provide public access or be reduced.

Jonathan Braun, Ann Thomas, Steve Petterle, David Hansen, Don Dickenson, Bill Long; MOST

8/26/2021 Support for continuance of existing measure. Support for acquisition program and continuing to have a reserve for acquisition. Support for allowing capital improvements or repairs to acquired properties with acquisition fund.

Dan Smiley 8/27/2021 Support for parks and a special interest in keeping night skies dark – Dan is an amateur astronomer.

Is less supportive of agricultural preservation than he was in the past, because he feels that the land is unlikely to be developed.

Joyce Clements 9/1/2021 Supports improvements to Lagoon Park and adjacent facilities, water access at Bucks Landing and Pickle Ball striping on courts throughout county. Also continued focus on fire prevention especially at Heron Hill.

Jon Lenz, Marin County Office of Education

9/1/2021 Supportive of parks work and identified several intersections with MCOE equity and student wellness planning to guide future partnerships.

Sara Robinson, County Age Forward Coordinator

9/1/2021 Supportive of Inclusive Access Plan work in parks, and our community grants to organizations serving seniors -going a long way to meeting countywide age-friendly objectives. Asked for help identifying bench designs for a senior-friendly Marin City walking route.

Andrew Ward, YMCA

9/2/2021 Supportive of work around enhancing access for underserved groups to parks, providing transportation to


parks, partnerships and water safety programs.

Jonathan Logan, MCF

9/2/2021 Supportive of work to make parks and preserve access more equitable. Supports acquisition and development of community parks in urban/ lower income neighborhoods. Supports continuation of community grant program.

Concern that farmland program should address the need for affordable housing for farm workers and easements should allow the development of affordable farm worker housing.

David Lewis, UC Cooperative Extension

9/7/2021 Supportive of farmland program and diversifying the types of projects funded by the program to stewardship, carbon farming and other activities that align with the program goals.

Terri Thomas 9/8/2021 Supportive of parks and open space funding – especially holistic planning and projects to protect biodiversity and adapt to climate change. Also supports open space code enforcement and using prescribed fire.

Concerned that farmland program should be able to fund riparian restoration and carbon sequestration in addition to easements.

Sierra Club Conservation Committee: Jinesse Reynolds Susan Hopp Pam Meigs Mickey Allison Chance Cutrano Judy Schriebman Judy Rogers Barbara Bogard Laura Chariton Aurora Mahassine Paul da Silva Max Perry

9/8/2021 Supportive of acquisition funds. Supportive of deepening partnership with indigenous community groups/ tribes. Supportive of enforcement and protection of natural resources. Supportive of work at the civic center lagoon to improve water quality.

Concern that farmland program could support agricultural practices that cause environmental harm. Desire to utilize farmland program to support regenerative agriculture.


Jason Symkowick, San Rafael City Schools

9/8/2021 Approach to student wellness is offering any student anything they need. Creating wellness hubs with every type of wellness support possible (mental health, addiction services, physical therapy, etc.) Would love for parks to become a partner once up and running in a few months. Schools have wellness coordinators parks can directly partner with.

Marin Conservation League Parks and Open Space Committee: Nona Dennis and 34 others

9/9/2021 Strong support for extending existing measure without changes to the ordinance or expenditure plan. Interest in biodiversity protection, vegetation, trail and other facilities maintenance and acquisitions among others.

Marin Resource Conservation District: Nancy Scolari

9/9/2021 Support for farmland program, especially stewardship funding that has allowed the RCD to leverage significant funding from other sources to implement restoration and carbon farming projects.

Ishwara Ryaru, Marin County Office of Education/California Collaborative for Educational Access

9/9/2021 Parks can play a role in student wellness under the “multi-tiered system of support” model where any type of support a student needs is given to them- emphasized parks as part of larger wholistic system of support for students. Encourages parks to become a part of ecosystem of student support when equity and wellness programs are up and running in a few months.


Chambers of Commerce Economic Vitality Committee

9/14/2021 Parks drive people to live and work in Marin. Encouraged parks to communicate more about our work with businesses- feel business owners don’t know enough about the work of parks. Use parks to provide social connection between seniors and young adults. Love the community grant program- also encourage other types of affinity programs to get working people outside.

Greatest impact to businesses is current labor shortage. Transportation for workforce traveling from out of county is an issue, along with housing. Lack of team sports facilities compared to other counties (attractive to 20-30 year olds). Seniors seeking more pickleball facilities.

Marin Audubon Society: Barbara Salzman and others

9/15/2021 Supportive of Measure A funded work, especially biodiversity protection/ enhancement and acquisitions.

Concern around farmland program and whether agricultural uses supported by that program might be harmful to the environment.

Marin Association of Realtors: Romeo Arrietta

9/15/2021 Supportive of funding for county parks, local parks and fuels reduction.

Friends of Corte Madera Creek: Sandy Guldman and others

9/16/2021 Supportive of measure, support for improvements to watersheds and trails. Supportive of extension of existing expenditure plan.

Concern that slightly less should be dedicated to agriculture.

Margo Wixsom 9/21/2021 Very supportive of supportive funding for county and local parks

Opposed to any money going to ag preservation- 1) enough ag land has been preserved, 2) concerns about giving farm owners public funds/equity/transparency, 3) against a parks tax that includes an ag component

Marie Simms, Umoja Unity Project

9/21/2021 Parks staff are very welcoming and accommodating, values the flexibility of community grant program to meet community needs, community grant program changed the lives of families dealing with domestic abuse


by creating lasting weekly use of parks by families.

Gio Miramontes 9/22/2021 City and town money important for replacing loved local facilities like fitness stations along Jean Starkweather trail.

Transportation is a root problem. Prioritize making under-represented people feel welcome in parks and use communications they use.

Buffy McQuillen; FIGR

9/22/2021 MCP seen as a good partner, and many opportunities to work together. Recommends co-developing an agreement for exploring project ideas beyond CEQA, based on Point Reyes General Agreement model. Encouraged communication about department work and emerging projects. Stressed government to government relationship. Opportunity to offer park passes to TANF recipients similar to Sonoma program.

Katie Cobb VanHusen; Novato Unified School District

9/22/2021 Parks and park programming are key to children recovering from COVID trauma. Parks are a great place to come together and heal.

Hard to bus children places now so bringing joyful outdoor programming to schools is critical for student wellness and outdoor access. Remind families that going outdoors is a safe place to be during COVID.

Stephanie McNally, Canal Alliance and Voces en Canal

9/22/2021 Feels parks are an important issue for Voces in Canal and would welcome partnership on policy, grant, and project ideas.

Sally Gale, Marin RCD board member

9/27/2021 Support for continuing or increasing RCD funding, has leveraged significant outside funding to meet climate goals and improve environment.

Paul Austin, Play Marin

9/28/2021 Current Measure A investments in Marin City are important- Rocky Graham maintenance, community

More money for both renovation of existing recreation facilities and park programming in Marin City- disparities a product of


grants, CSD funding. Staff to coach on where to go outdoors, and staff for programming are important resources.

racist policies. Top needs: community center and pool; ballfields; pond with connection to community. Transportation is always the limiting factor to accessing outdoor programs. More opportunities for people of color to mix with people of color from other parts of the county/state.

Lisa, Andy, and Camille- Bridging the Gap

9/28/2021 Parks are important places for kids from different cohorts to mix together.

Transportation and stipends are barriers for High School students enjoying outdoor activities. Marin City rec facilities are behind other communities- fund renovation of existing facilities like the rec center, and a pool. Invite Parks to host programs at the public housing park.

Grecia Pacheco, Rising Environmental Youth Leaders

9/28/2021 REYL has conducted surveys showing young people just want to be outdoors right now. Instructors/guides are critical to bring park facilities alive for young people.

Regular shuttles to parks needed so people can form their own ongoing relationships to park spaces. More parks needed in Canal.

Maite Duran, Alcohol Justice

9/28/2021 Clients asking for in-person support (ex: parents needing mental health coaching) and they are seeking outdoor spaces to accommodate. Maite receives lots of input after outings to specific parks- welcomes us to reach out. Asked for coaching on what locations to bring clients to.

Reservation system at Muir Woods made it harder for residents to visit that site. Community garden spaces needed to complement nutrition education programming.

Vinh Luu, Marin Asian Advocacy Project

9/29/2021 Community grant program is great- has led to ongoing use of parks by Vietnamese families. Parks does a good job of making people feel welcome.

Bilingual Vietnamese rangers, or a program that pays bilingual Vietnamese for part time work, is necessary to create connections between parks and community- help people access resources. A free park pass program for low-income residents is needed.


Jerry Meral 10/1/2021 Support for the Parks and Open Space use of funds under the Measure. Support for increasing funding for the RCD for restoration work to 10%.

Would like to see the Farmland Preservation funding for agricultural easements decreased to 10%.

Barry Spitz 10/8/2021 Support for parks and open space and especially for the acquisition of new open space parcels.

Would like the Farmland Preservation component eliminated from the measure.

Attachment C: Comments Received via Measure A Changes Feedback Form

Name Topic Comments Additional Comments

Wildfire Prevention I want one-third of ALL future Parks sales tax revenue to be spent exclusively on wildfire fuel reduction and I want a STOP to diverting "Parks" sales tax dollars to private farm owners. Otherwise, I will vote NO on renewing the current 1/4 cent sales tax measure in the June 2022 election.

I want one-third of ALL future Parks sales tax revenue to be spent exclusively on wildfire fuel reduction and I want a STOP to diverting "Parks" sales tax dollars to private farm owners. Otherwise, I will vote NO on renewing the current 1/4 cent sales tax measure in the June 2022 election.

AJ Ireland Grants for Farmland/Agriculture The funding for agricultural land should be cut entirely. Why should public funds be used to support private businesses? The public cannot access or use the land so why should our tax funds go towards it?

Albert Straus Wildfire Prevention Biodiversity Protection Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

December 3, 2021

Dear Marin County Board of Supervisors & Marin County Parks -

I am a lifelong resident of Marin County and grew up on my family’s dairy farm in Marshall. I disagree with reducing Measure A agricultural funding from 20% to 10% that ultimately would eliminate farmland protection through agricultural conservation easements. As someone who has spent his life farming on local land here, I highly recommend that we consider increasing Measure A funding to 50% because we still need to protect 46,000 acres of farmland which is a vastly greater need than open space.

As a long-term strategy, I believe a better use of public money is to preserve agricultural lands by investing in agricultural easements and conservation practices that mitigate climate change and enhance biodiversity. By grazing livestock, ranchers are mitigating wildfires. This grazing practice has been extremely effective and can be extended to parklands at no or minimal cost to taxpayers (as proposed to Marin Parks and Open Space in July 2021).

Scientists have published extensive studies in support of livestock farming as a primary solution to reversing climate change. Livestock grazing has been shown to benefit California’s grasslands by reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire and maintaining habitat for native plants and animals. Grazing promotes soil health by restoring its carbon content, capturing carbon dioxide from the air through photosynthesis. It has been described as the most effective mechanism known to humankind in addressing global warming. (sources: Drawdown Solution #19: Managed Grazing/Rodale Institute).

Small farms have been especially hard hit by the collapse of farms across the country, which is why we need to remain committed to supporting farms in Marin County. When my father started farming in Marin County in 1941, there were approximately 200 dairy farms. When I became partners with my father on our farm in 1977, there were 64 dairy farms, and today, there are 20 dairy farms, of which 85 percent are certified organic.

We need to do everything we can to protect this region, farmland, our local foodshed, the livelihood of our farmers, and others who live and work in rural Marin. Organic farms offer farmers and others who work in agricultural jobs a living wage. Sustainable organic farming practices prioritize the health of farming for generations to come by demonstrating regenerative practices such as carbon farming, carbon sequestration, improved biodiversity, organized land management with

livestock grazing, etc., while providing high-quality organic food locally and regionally to our community.

The regional benefits of well-managed agricultural land must be considered in the proposed reallocation of funding. The California Rangeland Trust published research calculating the value and return on investment (ROI) of conservation easements on rangelands throughout the state. This research found that working rangelands produce “an abundance of ecosystem services” that are typically not factored into assessments of benefits to society at large. These benefits include: o Carbon sequestrationo Watershed and riparian zone protectiono Erosion preventiono Nutrient cyclingo Pollinationo Biological control of insect pests and invasive plantso Reduction of fire-prone fuel sourceso Preservation of wildlife corridorso Habitat diversityo Aesthetics (i.e., views capes)

It was stated that the rationale for moving 10% of Measure A allocation out of agricultural land protection and stewardship is to increase funding for wildfire risk reduction. This proposed reallocation of funding ignores some crucial facts such as healthy land management is vital for regional fire protection. Well-managed rangelands reduce fire risk by diminishing fuel loads through livestock grazing and by promoting wet, green, healthy riparian zones that can act to slow a wildfire’s progress.

In Marin County, protected farmland (54,000+ acres) encompasses nearly three times as much land (19,000 acres) as that protected by the county as parks and open spaces. In March 2020, Marin County passed Measure C to “fund proactive, state-of-the-art wildfire prevention and preparedness efforts.” Measure C, supported by 70.8% of Marin County voters and approved for 10 years, provides more than $19 million annually for the sole purpose of preventing and mitigating wildfires in Marin County.

Measure A, in contrast, is designed to “protect the parks, open spaces, and farmland that make Marin an extraordinary place to live, work, and play.” With Measure C monies devoted to wildfire protection, we don’t need Measure A funds to duplicate these efforts and divert funds from Measure A’s core goals.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Albert Straus Organic Dairy Farmer, Straus Dairy Farm in Marshall, California

Alex Easton-Brown

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Measure A created a slush fund for the benefit of a handful of property owners with no oversight or even ground rules.

Alison Quoyeser

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Measure A funds, taxpayer dollars, should not go to private individuals whose land the public cannot access. Measure A funds should be used exclusively for our public parks and open spaces.

Alison Sentie Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Measure A funds, taxpayer dollars, should not go to private individuals whose land the public cannot access. Measure A funds should exclusively be used for our public parks and open spaces.

Alyce Bender Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Measure A funds, taxpayer dollars, should not go to private individuals who's land the public cannot access. Measure A funds should exclusively be used for our public parks and open spaces.

Amy Allen Parks Maintenance and Improvements Wildfire Prevention Biodiversity Protection Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

Please do not use the funds to support private cows in Pt Reyes or buying more MALT lands. Use the funds to protect wildlife and improve the water and air quality of our parks. Also, important to control wildfires.

Andre Demian Wildfire Prevention Wetland Restoration and Sea Level Rise Adaptation

NO $ for private farmlands with taxpayer $$! The crime of San Geronimo Golf course theft remains a disgrace!

Andrea Glass Parks Maintenance and Improvements Wildfire Prevention Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

I am only for Measure A if none of the money is given to MALT or ranching at PRNS. Monies should not be diverted to these groups to promote Big Ag here in West Marin where I live in Inverness. I hike the trails by the seashore all the time and see the devastation caused by overgrazing and smell the toxic stench of cow manure. I will vote against this Measure if any money is allocated to agriculture and ranching in my/our national park here in Pt Reyes where I live!

Ranching here ar PRNS needs to be phased out NOW! It does not belong in a national seashore owned by the public--we have to be right to declare what's wanted by the public and 93% of us voted in the Parks Survey to do away with ranching and its terrible carbon footprint during this time of drastic climate upheaval! The people have spoken and when the Parks sent out their survey before the unwanted ROD decision was made 93% of the public indicated that it is time for the ranchers who were paid off generously to leave--our souls and water are in crisis conditions here due to cattle grazing--the allocated funds for Measure A should go towards cleaning up the degraded lands and water and no more to ranching and Big Ag supported by MALT!

Andrew Giacomini

Parks Maintenance and Improvements Trail Maintenance and Improvements Wildfire Prevention Wetland Restoration and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Grants for Parks in Cities, Towns, and Special Districts Biodiversity Protection Science and Research Visitor Services and Programming Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

Here is how Marin County Parks describes Measure A: “Measure A protects the parks, open spaces and farmlands that make Marin an extraordinary place to live, work and play.” That is exactly right, and I do not support the proposal to change the allocation to reduce the important investment in our critical farmland resources. That allocation has been vital to further our common goal of preserving a thriving and inclusive agricultural community in Marin, which benefits all of us in so many ways. As my friend Steve Kinsey has said, keeping active agriculture so close to an urban setting is tough. And once it is gone it never comes back.

We have all worked together to help preserve agriculture in Marin and that effort reaps many benefits for all of us, including proving a vibrant local food shed for everyone with important jobs for so many people in our community, while also preserving open space forever and maintaining and restoring vital watershed and habitat for local wildlife.

The funding provided by the existing allocation of Measure A has been a critical part of this work. And this is no time to change it. All of those funds are matched at least one to one with Federal, state and donor funds and often more than that, so this is an extremely efficient and leveraged investment.

Despite all of our work, people are still ranching and farming on the edge. And the draught and climate change are only making matters worse. This is not the time to pull back from the important Measure A funding for ag. It is instead the time to double down on our support.

Farmland preservation and land stewardship contribute significantly to biodiversity, fighting climate change, protecting and improving streams and waterways and preventing wildfires, all of which were considered to be important to those who responded to the survey. By continuing our existing support for land stewardship, we get all of those things plus the important contribution of open space and local food, which we all enjoy.

And I want to point out that we have 100,000 acres of ag land in Marin as compared to 17,000 acres of park land. So, our biodiversity, conservation, fire protection and land stewardship efforts on farmland have a much larger impact as compared to those on parkland alone.

I am disappointed with the proposal to significantly defund ag in Marin and we hope you the Commission and the Board of Supervisors will reject the suggested reallocation. I do support opening the aperture so that Measure A funds may be used more broadly to support land stewardship as well as land acquisition. But to reduce funding by 50% presents a

significant risk to ag and we should not take that risk. We have come too far, and we cannot afford to take that risk.

Andy Morse Money should be spent on parklands, rather on private farming expenses.

Money should be spent on public parklands, not private farming expenses.

Anne Kehoe Grants for Farmland/Agriculture There is a need for 20% funding to go to Ag grants.

Anne Libbin Parks Maintenance and Improvements Wildfire Prevention Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

I am concerned about the lack of flexibility that is introduced by setting aside a fixed 30% of the park maintenance and management funds for wildfire risk reduction. How much of current $7.3 M maintenance and management is being used for activities which would be considered wildfire risk reduction (e.g., weed removal, fire road maintenance)? What wildfire risk reduction activities would be added under the new allocation, and what non-fire park maintenance and management activities would be reduced with the $1 M reduction in the proposed allocation? Why is additional designated funding needed from Measure A, given the other funding ($2.3 M from the state this year for Marin County, as well as the $19.6 M from Measure C this year) for wildfire risk reduction?

I also believe there needs to be further reduction in funding for agriculture, and further requirements that the funding serve public interests, rather than supporting private landowners. Given the need for additional housing in the County, there should be no further expenditure of public funds to block development on private agricultural land. Conservation easements should include conditions for public access, and/or habitat enhancement, such as wildlife corridors connecting public lands. Water quality protection is a legal and regulatory requirement for all landowners. If ranching or farming operations are not complying, then enforcement, rather than public subsidy, is the appropriate response. If there is to be public funding for water quality protection, it should go first to non-commercial, low-income landowners (for example, in San Geronimo area), rather than being designated for agriculture.

The Resource Conservation District funding should remain. The reduction in the allocation for agriculture should enable additional funding for parks and open space acquisition and capital improvements. Publicly funded community gardens should be on publicly owned land, which could be acquired from agricultural land or other appropriate locations.

Anne Scanlan-Rohrer

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Measure A funds, taxpayer dollars, should not go to private individuals whose land the public cannot access. Measure A funds should exclusively be used for our public parks and open spaces

Barbara Boucke

Biodiversity Protection Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

To the Marin County Board of Supervisors: I urge you to continue the overall 20% allocation currently being provided by Measure A funds directed to farmland preservation and stewardship programs. Going forward, an increase in stewardship funding, overseen by MALT, within the 20% allocation, will only enhance Marin's leadership in farmland protection. To date, MALT has protected over half of Marin County's agricultural lands (including wetlands, grasslands, wildlife habitat, etc.)

Maintaining working farmlands forestalls the increasing pressure to develop 60-acre hobby ranchettes! Marin County voters passed Measure C in March 2020 -- devoted to wildfire risk reduction -- that produces almost $20 million annually to protect our parks and open spaces. Please let Measure C do its job and let an extended Measure A continue to provide outstanding agricultural conservation and stewardship programs benefiting all in Marin County and beyond!

Barbara Salzman

Parks Maintenance and Improvements Wetland Restoration and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Grants for Parks in Cities, Towns, and Special Districts Biodiversity Protection acquisition of open space lands

Parks improvements and maintenance percentage should be increased so that it can cover wildfire prevention activities when needed and science and research and other needed Acquisition is essential for maintaining biodiversity, intact native habitats that are dependably protected,

Barbara Wing Parks Maintenance and Improvements Trail Maintenance and Improvements Wildfire Prevention Wetland Restoration and Sea Level Rise Adaptation

We feel, in our family that it is imperative to restore, maintain, and educate the Marin public about the importance of land stewardship and how viable our open spaces, whether used for agriculture or recreation, to respect and preserve the land not only for our current and future generations, but to protect and preserve the balance for wildlife, including both flora and fauna of our rural landscapes.

Bear McGuinness

Parks Maintenance and Improvements Trail Maintenance and Improvements Wetland Restoration and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Science and Research Visitor Services and Programming Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

The money that we are paying in taxes to care for public land should NOT be going to MALT or any private landowners. Our public lands are already threatened by invasive plants, erosion, nitrogen runoff and fecal contamination from ranches, irresponsible visitors, and more? Let the money go toward caring for the park. We need more and better trail maintenance, education programs including signs, habitat restoration, beach cleanups. We need to treat public land and habitat with the love and respect they deserve. Stop talking about the threat of climate change and biodiversity loss and do more to protect us all.

Ben Arons Parks Maintenance and Improvements Trail Maintenance and Improvements Wildfire Prevention Wetland Restoration and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Grants for Parks in Cities, Towns, and Special Districts Biodiversity Protection Science and Research Visitor Services and Programming Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

Tax dollars should go to public lands not private Fire basement should be number one in the mines and hearts of Palmer in the presidents

Beverly Alexander

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Ag it's not necessarily the best way to protect land. In terms of climate change, protecting wildlands and restoring land to its original condition is much more beneficial than raising methane producing animals.

Beverly Rodgers

Wildfire Prevention Wildfires are the major threat to our lives in the county - all monies should be spent on containing them, not on other issues - and CERTAINLY NOT ON AGRICULTURE LANDS AND FARM PRESERVATION.

Bill Paisley Parks Maintenance and Improvements Trail Maintenance and Improvements Wildfire Prevention Grants for Parks in Cities, Towns, and Special Districts Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

I demand that one-third of ALL future Parks sales tax revenue be spent exclusively on wildfire fuel reduction and to STOP diverting "Parks" sales tax dollars to private farm owners. Otherwise, I will be prepared to vote NO on renewing the current 1/4 cent sales tax measure in the June 20, 2022.

Brad Keyes Grants for Farmland/Agriculture I don't really even understand why we need a new survey after we already completed the first survey. The public clearly expressed our opposition to funding MALT and any agricultural stewardship or ranching interests.

Once again, I want to express my firm opposition to any Measure A funds going to private ranching interests.

I will strongly campaign against any measure that does so, and if Director Korten includes money for ag in this ordinance, and it loses, I will call for his resignation. He should know better than to be in bed with corrupt organizations like MALT.

I am not supportive of any of my tax money going to agriculture or ranching or MALT or Marin RCD or for carbon sequestration or regenerative farming or any funding of "research" on private ranches.

Brian Hunt Grants for Farmland/Agriculture. Biodiversity Protection

No Measure A funds should be allocated to agricultural stewardship or private ranching. No public monies AT ALL should go to “agricultural” lands, or beef ranches or farms or dairies. This sentiment applies to all MALT business beneficiaries as well

Bruce Helmberger

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture I will be voting against this measure if any of the funds are used for the support of agriculture.

Bruce Vogen Wildfire Prevention I'm in favor of CO$T's position on Measure A Renewal: CO$T calls for any Measure A renewal measure to set a specific annual acreage target for fire fuel reduction AND set aside at least 33% of the sales tax dollars for wildfire fuel reduction. This new, specifically dedicated percentage could be readily achieved by reallocating funds from the following programs: • 20% would come from eliminating farmland preservation spending (primarily Marin Agricultural Land Trust, “MALT”) which receives 20% of current sales tax dollars • 6% would come from half of the 13% of current sales tax dollars dedicated to land acquisition • 7% would come from half of the 14% of funding that now goes to the broad category of vegetation management

I will vote no on Measure A renewal if CO$T goals are not reflected in the measure.

Bryna Holland Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Please remove funding for MALT easements and instead invest the funds in the beautiful Marin parks that are used by Marin citizens. Thank you for your service to the community.

Carol Denney Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Measure A funds should be used for parks and open spaces for the public to enjoy, not for private farms and ranches the public cannot set foot upon. Please listen to the people not the profiteers.

Carsten Andersen

Parks Maintenance and Improvements Wildfire Prevention Grants for Parks in Cities, Towns, and Special Districts Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

I think measure A should eliminate any AG purchase money. There county is in excellent shape but needs a lot more funds allocated to fire prevention. The county looks after 19,000 acres or so, but only effectively maintains about 1,000. There rest is a serious fire hazard. Look around McNears park as an example. Tons of flammable tree debris everywhere from eucalyptus trees!

Charles Dilworth

Wildfire Prevention Proactive wildfire prevention is far and away the best use of Measure A funds.

Charles Gay Grants for Parks in Cities, Towns, and Special Districts

NO on supporting private agriculture/farming/ranching.

Charlotte Hill Grants for Farmland/Agriculture 20% of 'Measure A' tax money, about $26 million to date, has gone to buy easements from private commercial ranchers. Measure A funds, taxpayer dollars, should not go to private individuals who's land the public cannot access. Measure A funds should exclusively be used for our public parks and open spaces.

Chiz Keyes Grants for Farmland/Agriculture No Measure A money for agricultural stewardship! Dr. Martin Griffin wrote an article in the IJ that explained that the inclusion of allocations to MALT threaten this measure. The article explained that MALT allocated $100,000 toward the renewal effort, and it described how Director Korten needed those funds and thus continues to include allocations for MALT - hidden in a lie of a "competitive grant program" - in this ballot measure.

The IJ revealed that MALT had done a corrupt deal with the Dolcini family. Parks Director Korten demanded that money be returned concerning the deal. MALT's explanation for returning this money on the heels of firing Jeff Stump was inadequate. That anyone believes that MALT just happened to have found that they did not disclose a lower appraisal when they had a policy to seek higher appraisals just a year earlier is a joke. Then, in an act that seems almost Trumpian, MALT sued the county to hide documents about what really happened with that Dolcini deal.

I agree with Dr. Griffin that inclusion of any money to this sickening organization will sink this measure.

Please remove allocations to private agriculture. If private ag and MALT want money and truly believe that the public supports it, let them issue their own ballot measure.

Chris Carpenter

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture I'm opposed to measure A as long as it provides funding for private agricultural concerns. Even though I live in Petaluma, I have financially supported parks and land trusts based in Marin. I have since reassessed my support in light of the misguided decisions made by the NPS and MALT.

Claire Halenbeck

Wildfire Prevention Wetland Restoration and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Grants for Parks in Cities, Towns, and Special Districts Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

Please eliminate the grants to acquire more agricultural easements in favor of fire protection and better maintenance and grants for the taxpayers that pay for this important tax. No more $$ to private landowners.

MALT has protected enough agricultural lands.

Cliff Waldeck Wildfire Prevention Hi Max--I understand the need for further fire prevention/protection in Marin thus the overwhelming support in the poll for such services. Two questions....1) I don't recall in the poll any mention of the recent MWPA parcel tax that was passed for similar services. Perhaps, if people were more aware of the MWPA measure, the numbers may not have been as high for fire prevention/protection in the poll? 2) How would the fire monies in Measure A complement and work with the monies in the MWPA measure?

Unless a compelling case can be made for the fire prevention/protection component, I'd like to see the Agricultural Stewardship component be at 20%, that puts skin in the game for all residents who may have a publicly accessible project or initiative they'd like to receive part of their funding from Measure A.

Clifford Pastor Grants for Farmland/Agriculture I do not want any of my taxpayer dollars to support any activities on private farmland/private Agriculture.

Our monies should be put to better use for parks.

COREY RAFFEL

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture 20% of 'Measure A' tax money, about $26 million to date, has gone to buy easements from private commercial ranchers.

Measure A funds, taxpayer dollars, should not go to private individuals who's land the public cannot access. Measure A funds should exclusively be used for our public parks and open spaces.

Courtenay Sly Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Public tax dollars in discussion with 2022 Measure A must be used for maintaining and promoting public access to open space and public lands, period.

These public access open spaces are important habitat for wildlife. It is our job to protect this open space for all to enjoy.

Curt Howell Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Taxpayer dollars should go to fund projects that support the greater good not individuals who exclude the public from access. Keep the tax expand the access. Eliminate the glut and we will keep spending dollars in your county.

Cynthia Abbott

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture The County of Marin needs to stop funneling taxpayer money to influential families in the form of agricultural easements, especially for ranches and dairies. We need less of that and more land for public use, public access and more actual environmental preservation. If it's not for public use or wildlife protections then the county park is not doing the service it states, Preservation & Recreation. Preservation of public lands only, please.

Dan Boley Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Measure A funds, taxpayer dollars, should not go to private individuals who's land the public cannot access. Measure A funds should exclusively be used for our public parks and open spaces.

Daniel Dietrich Grants for Farmland/Agriculture I will not support any Measure A plan that includes any funds that are given to private individuals. I will support a plan where 100% of the money goes to public parks and open space.

The fact that our tax dollars were used to enrich the board of directors at MALT and their families is abhorrent.

Daniel Harker Grants for Farmland/Agriculture 100% of the Measure A funds should go to public parks and open spaces.

Daria McKnight

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Measure A funds, taxpayer dollars, should not go to private individuals who's land the public cannot access. Measure A funds should exclusively be used for our public parks and open spaces.

David Lukas Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Please use these funds to protect and acquire open spaces that are open and accessible to the public rather than paying for easements on private lands that are closed to the public.

I am no longer a Marin resident, but I spent many years living in the county and leading countless nature walks and classes on Open Space properties. I have seen firsthand the tremendous value of helping people experience open spaces and natural areas. These are experiences that change and enrich people's lives, and this is one of the highest values that Marin County can protect for its citizens.

David Schnapf Parks Maintenance and Improvements Trail Maintenance and Improvements Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

Two- and one-half years ago I wrote a letter that was published in the Marin IJ about how the Marin County Parks has grossly neglected trail maintenance at Ring Mtn while giving millions to MALT. My letter was in response to an IJ article stating that nearly half of the Measure A money has been spent on agriculture while about 2% has been spent on park maintenance. I recently visited Ring Mtn and, apart from some new signage, trail conditions in highly sensitive and unique wildflower areas remain deplorable and haven't changed one iota. Yet millions more have gone to agriculture. STOP THE GIVEAWAY!!! Let agriculture stand or fall without massive infusions of public tax money. Maybe it’s time to realize that subsidized agriculture is a huge waste of taxpayer money. This is true even without the corruption that has been exposed at MALT.

I will NOT vote for any measure that continues to give taxpayer money directly or indirectly to agriculture. I voted for it last time because I thought it would bring better trail maintenance, but it turns out that claim was fraudulent.

Davis Everett Grants for Farmland/Agriculture I am against this measure if any money is dedicated to private agriculture.

Debbie Fier Grants for Farmland/Agriculture These funds should go to projects that are fully open to the public, NOT private individuals. I am speaking as a resident of West Marin. thank you!

DEBBIE MERRILL

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Public funds, voted to be used for public lands, should not be going to private individuals, especially when these individuals have land that cannot be used by the public. This is a blatant misuse of funds. Marin does not need another debacle like what is happening at OUR National Park, Pt Reyes Seashore.

Deborah Moskowitz

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Measure A tax funds should be used exclusively for maintaining and supporting public lands. Do not use these funds for subsidizing private farms and ranches.

Sales taxes are regressive and have a greater impact on lower income families. It is especially unfair to deliver sales tax monies to some of the wealthiest landowners in Marin County.

Den Fleming Parks Maintenance and Improvements Trail Maintenance and Improvements

Less money for agriculture and more for trails and parks

Diana Hagan Grants for Farmland/Agriculture I want to see Measure A retain agricultural funding at its current 20% level. The support Measure A can provide to help keep agricultural land in operation as working farmland in perpetuity is important to protect our local foodshed and safeguard wildlife habitat. MALT helps to support well-managed agricultural land and provides crucial best practices to assist in stewarding the land. We must not let this measure pass without the much-needed funding component.

Well-stewarded agricultural land does help to the efforts to protect against fire risk. Livestock grazing and healthy riparian zones can act to slow a wildfire's progress.

Diane Gentile Grants for Farmland/Agriculture I strongly feel it is in the public's best interest to allocate Measure A funds for parks and open spaces for the public to enjoy, not for the farms and ranches to profit personally while barring public access.

Don Busby Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Measure A funds, taxpayer dollars, should not go to private individuals who's land the public cannot access. Measure A funds should exclusively be used for our public parks and open spaces.

Donna Liberatore

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Measure A funds should be used for parks and open spaces for the public to enjoy, not for private farms and ranches the public cannot set foot upon.

Doug Kelly Wildfire Prevention Please increase the funding for wildfire prevention and at this time let's not do any more Grant Funding for Farmland/Agriculture

Douglas Scherf

Wildfire Prevention 50% of the proceeds should be devoted to wildfire prevention.

Eileen Mahoney

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture None of this money should go to private individuals or private property. It should only be used for land accessible to the public.

Elizabeth Dodge

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Marin County Measure A funds - NONE should go to “agricultural” lands, or beef ranches or farms or dairies. Zero dollars. And none to MALT businesses. I will vote against this measure if any money is allocated to agriculture.

Eric Neuner Grants for Farmland/Agriculture "Every day in the United States, 2,000 acres of productive agricultural land are developed and converted to non-agricultural use, according to the American Farmland Trust. MALT protects Marin County land while supporting local food sustainability FOREVER. It shows the world what's possible when deeply caring people work together to build the future, we all want to see. In the past nine years, MALT has amplified $13,260,407 in Measure A funding by raising an additional $14,973,477 in matching funds from private and public sources. Clearly, there is a lot of public interest in supporting MALT. Let's continue to invest in this inspiring model because it amplifies the very best of Marin County." - Eric Neuner, Land Steward, Organic Farmer and ESPGBoard Member

Everet Regal Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Measure A funds, taxpayer dollars, should not go to private individuals who's land the public cannot access. Measure A funds should exclusively be used for our public parks and open spaces.

Expanding farmland in Point Reyes, CA, taking away natural habitat that negatively and directly effects wildlife and the natural ecosystem of that area is an abomination. I've traveled from New York State, multiple times, just to spend a week exploring and enjoying this unique area. This unique area should be supported and protected 100% as a forever wild preserve. The political decisions are completely wrong and misguided.

Ford Greene Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Measure A funds should be used for parks and open spaces for the public to enjoy, not for private farms and ranches the public cannot set foot upon.

Frederick Carss

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Measure A funds from taxpayer dollars should not go to private individuals who's land the public cannot access. Measure A funds should exclusively be used for our public parks and open spaces. As such, I believe that subsidies should absolutely not be used buy easements from private commercial ranchers or support commercial ranching in any way.

Fritz Dern Parks Maintenance and Improvements Trail Maintenance and Improvements Wildfire Prevention Wetland Restoration and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Grants for Parks in Cities, Towns, and Special Districts Biodiversity Protection Science and Research Visitor Services and Programming Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

Less of Measure A money should be spent on signage and more on actions that improve upon and increase parkland and potential parkland. Keep third party organization like MALT accountable for money they use to meet these goals.

Gayle Cerri Wildfire Prevention Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

Please remove all funding for private land from Measure A. I am happy to support all other portions of this measure but will vote against it if you continue to include any funding (including wildfire prevention) on private land or for private enterprise. Please stop funneling my hard-earned taxpayer money to private enterprises, particularly families in the form of agricultural easements, especially for ranches and dairies. We need more actual environmental preservation. Rewild the land and work to prevent wildfires on public lands, not private lands.

I also find it disingenuous that there is yet another survey in an open format. It seems as if people in charge did not like the results of the first survey, so they are hoping for a different response. Especially since the follow-up survey is in a format that is less quantifiable. The people of Marin have spoken- no more funneling money to the few cattle and dairy ranches. It has to stop now.

Geoffrey Brooks

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture I'm writing to express my strong believe that taxpayer funding should not be distributed to private landowners, particularly if the land in question will not be accessible to the public. (And, of course, there are questions about the sustainability impact of these ventures as well.)

While a removal of this type of funding may be painful in the near term, the longer they persist the more difficult they are to stop in the future.

Gerald Toriumi

Parks Maintenance and Improvements Trail Maintenance and Improvements Wildfire Prevention Wetland Restoration and Sea Level Rise Adaptation

Eliminate funding for Marin land trust open space preservation easement. We have enough open space; we need wildfire prevention.

Designate separate trails for bicycles, from horse & hiking, enforced by rangers to include confiscation of bikes when caught on wrong trail !!!!

Greg von Buchau

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture No more grants for farmland. Time to stop subsidizing the MALT special interests.

Gregory Hendricker

Grants for Parks in Cities, Towns, and Special Districts

Measure A funds should not go to private individuals. Public land should remain public. Measure A funds should exclusively be used for the betterment of public parks and open spaces.

hank perry Parks Maintenance and Improvements Wetland Restoration and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Biodiversity Protection Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

I am against allowing Ranching in Pt Reyes National Seashore. PRNS has been established as a National park and this use is inconsistent with the overall goals of the Park Service. The compromise does not serve the majority of visitors. The cattle usage of federal land is environmentally a disaster, creating erosion, increased bacteria levels in dwindling water, and contributing the demise of a native species (elk). This use should cease immediately.

Pt Reyes was established to be a National Park, and not to be a dairy farmers freeload off the taxpayer. The small percentage of dairy products which are produced don't even hit the local markets - and hit higher priced markets overseas, so the "table to farm" myth has only been created to serve these small number of tenants (yes, tenants) who benefit at a greater extent than the taxpayers who pay for this National Park to exist. As a visitor, if this problem is not corrected, I will not have reason to visit Marin any longer to see this nugget of wildlife in a metropolitan area.

Hayley Crews Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Measure A funds, taxpayer dollars, should not go to private individuals who's land the public cannot access. Measure A funds should exclusively be used for our public parks and open spaces.

Hilary Hyde Wildfire Prevention Wetland Restoration and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

We have enough farmland/too much methane. We must do more to prevent fire and sea level rise.

ilene gudelsky Grants for Farmland/Agriculture I am opposed to further grants to farmland agriculture as the land has already been preserved and the priority should be the care of the parks. Therefore, if measure A includes funding for MALT I will be opposed and encourage others to also vote against it

I lived in Marin for 30 years and now live in Sonoma but frequent the parks in Marin both as hiker and equestrian.

Jack Gescheidt

Wildfire Prevention Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

re. Wildfire Prevention: Too many trees and forests are being cut down because of exaggerated and unscientific fear of wildland fires and W.U.I. fires. INSTEAD OF CUTTING DOWN GREEN TREES — or ANY trees over 100 feet from houses and structures — funding should be directed at programs to harden houses, make them "Ignition Resistant." Some of this is covered in the NFPA's "Fire wise" program which teaches people that trees, forests, vegetation over 100 feet from houses SHOULD NOT BE CUT DOWN. Instead, clear dead brush, etc., ONLY.

ZERO dollars of Measure A funds should go to "agricultural" lands -- primarily the misleading cattle (beef & dairy) industry terms these private businesses use to hide their seeking public funds assistance. Cut it out. E.g., MALT should get ZERO dollars. Ranches should get ZERO Marin County (or state or Federal) dollars. That clear enough?

James Holmes

Wildfire Prevention 1. I support the draft plans reduction in funding for farmlandprograms.

2. I also question whether the draft's provision for "stewardshipgrants" will result in significant projects with meaningful orlasting benefits.

3. To avoid the problems with MALT, the measure shouldpreclude grants funneled through organizations controlled bypast or potential grant recipients or their affiliates.

James McLachlan

Parks Maintenance and Improvements Trail Maintenance and Improvements Wetland Restoration and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Grants for Parks in Cities, Towns, and Special Districts Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

Funds raised from communal taxes should be applied to projects that benefit and are accessible by the taxpayer population. Funds should not go towards Farmland/Agriculture - these parties receive sufficient other subsidies, and furthersubsidy simply allows them to continue degrading theenvironment at the expense and peril of the community ofMarin. Any payments to farmers should come with thestipulation that their land be opened to community access.

Jami Ellermann

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture I will not support any measure that uses ANY money for agricultural easements or for land acquisition. We are fortunate to live in a County that is already abundant with dedicated open space, now we must maintain what we already have with funds dedicated to maintenance and wildfire prevention.

Jamie Murphy Grants for Farmland/Agriculture As a frequent visitor to Marin parkland, I must express my disapproval to any proposal that uses tax money to pay private ranchers/farmers for easements on property when the public is prevented from access to the ranchers' land.

Jan O'Brien Biodiversity Protection Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

I think Measure A funds should be used for parks and open spaces for the public to enjoy, not for private farms and ranches unless they add trails for the public.

Janice Kehoe Grants for Farmland/Agriculture We need the 20% for Ag grants.

Jason Heirtzler

Parks Maintenance and Improvements Grants for Parks in Cities, Towns, and Special Districts Biodiversity Protection

I would like to request that public money for measure "A" for land easements from commercial ranchers means that the public can use the land to appreciate nature in a respectful way. If we buy access to the land but cannot enjoy it, we are not getting full benefit. Thank you.

Jeff Miller Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Measure A funds should exclusively be used for public parks and publicly owned open spaces. Taxpayer money should not go to private individual ranchers or farmers for land the public cannot access.

Jenna Peterson

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture I do not want any of my taxpayer dollars to support any activities on private farmland/private Agriculture.

I will vote against this measure if any money is allocated to agriculture.

Jennifer Grobart

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture I have lived here in San Anselmo since I was 2; my folks moved here in 1982, and I am almost 42. I was a strong supporter of MALT for many years, but NO LONGER. That organization betrayed our trust and has shown itself to be dirty. If any Measure A funds are allocated to MALT (or the Marin RCD) through a "competitive grant program," I will vote against this measure. I love our parks and open space. I was raised at the base of Loma Alta, and the rolling hills and dried grasses of Marin are my home. But I do not like that this measure includes allocations to ranchers. It is sickening. NO MEASURE A MONEY FOR "FARMLAND/AGRICULTURE." I will work to sink this measure if there is.

Jennifer Hadley

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Tax Dollars should not be used to pay individuals/ranchers for land that the public will have no access to. These funds should be used strictly to fund public lands and parks.

Jill Lervold Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Measure A funds should exclusively be used for our public parks and open spaces. Measure A funds, taxpayer dollars, should not go to private individuals who's land the public cannot access.

Joanna Koziara

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture taxpayer dollars, should not go to private individuals who's land the public cannot access. Measure A funds should exclusively be used for our public parks and open spaces.

Thanks

Jocelyn Cacciatore

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture No public funds are to go to private farms or ranches! The public has NO ACCESS so why they should be giving money to rich landowners that are doing what they do to the land? I will do whatever I can to kill Measure A if ANY more money goes to FPP or MALT and its corrupt organization. MALT should have NO PLACE in our public funds. RCD should NOT have a BOARD of RANCHERS that funnel money to their family and friends. THERE IS NO OVERSIGHT.

Marin is already 50% AG and the folks that own that land are wealthy enough! Measure A is for PUBLIC SPACES AND OPEN SPACES WITH PUBLIC ACCESS. And Please stop with all the unnecessary signage all over the place. My tax dollars should be going to making more public spaces more accessible to all including handicapped folks. More trails that are wheelchair friendly would be a good start.

Jocelyn Knight Grants for Farmland/Agriculture No more Public Funds to go to private ranches and farms where there is no Public Access!! Livestock operations are extractive and degrade all natural habitats. Cattle are an unsustainable Commodity that is destroying the planet's ecosystems.

I will fiercely fight ANY funds toward the FPP, and the RCD attached to Open Space and Parks Measure A. RCD has a Board made of ranchers and farmers who funnel money to their friends and family who are ranchers and farmers. This is an abuse of public funds. Increasing RCD % still gives $ to Ranchers.

Jody Brazil Grants for Farmland/Agriculture I support continuing the 20% allocation for farmland protection and stewardship.

Once Marin's beautiful and critical climate beneficial farmland is lost it will be lost forever.

Jon d'Alessio Grants for Farmland/Agriculture I support the efforts to protect and preserve farmland by buying easements.

Jon Spear Grants for Farmland/Agriculture All money for "agricultural stewardship" must be eliminated (not just reduced) from Measure A. The audacious inclusion of "carbon farming" grants shows that the proponents depend on the ignorance and scientific illiteracy of the citizenry. Carbon farming (sometimes referred to as "regenerative grazing") is well understood to be a scam by anyone proficient at grade school level arithmetic. Carbon sequestration on commercial ranches is especially unfeasible in the western half of the United States, due to the lack of rain for six months out of each year.

Please cut all proposed funds that are to be allocated to agribusiness, which already receives inordinate amounts of federal aid in the form of farm subsidies and price supports. Corrupt industry organizations like MALT already wield far too much political power in Marin County. Please don't use Measure A funds for "agricultural stewardship." I do NOT want any more of my tax dollars to increase profits of commercial ranching.

Jonathan Huyer

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Measure A funds, taxpayer dollars, should not go to private individuals whose land the public cannot access. Measure A funds should exclusively be used for our public parks and open spaces.

Joseph Jasper Parks Maintenance and Improvements Biodiversity Protection

Tens of millions of taxpayer dollars are spent to acquire and maintain lands in Pt. Reyes National Seashore. Leased farm and range lands for private businesses should not benefit from taxpayer dollars. The park needs to remain accessible throughout to visitors and wildlife. Progress should be toward reducing the impact of ranches. No increase of access for visitors and wildlife should be granted.

Joyce Griffin Parks Maintenance and Improvements Trail Maintenance and Improvements Wildfire Prevention Wetland Restoration and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Biodiversity Protection Science and Research Visitor Services and Programming

Exclude MALT in all forms. Corrupt MALT needs to be deleted from receiving any Measure A funds.

MALT has proven to be corrupt; do not give them any more $$ support.

Judy Schriebman

Wildfire Prevention Wetland Restoration and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Biodiversity Protection Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Native American Tribe Consultation

Too much is going toward wildfires. This was certainly on the public's mind, but we have already voted for and funded a lot of money for the new Wildfire agency, so this is NOT where I want to measure a funds going. This funding is necessary for long range planning and thinking. Restoration is critical, whether on public or private lands; often you need both in order to do an effective restoration, so don't divide this. We need to think wholistically. Protection of biodiverse lands is critical and cheaper than any restoration so this should be primary. I am especially concerned that "vegetation management" which often means clear cutting and tree removal, has been implanted in the public's mind vs establishing health trees, which infiltrate the water into the ground. Riparian areas MUST be protected and enhanced everywhere for fish and other wildlife, as that increases biodiversity. So, more money to RCD for this purpose of restoration, less emphasis on vegetation management white person style--this is where the Native tribes have TEK that can help and where we should be thoughtfully working with them on this, or in whatever way they feel is best, since we took these lands from them. An ongoing respectful dialog is necessary.

Protection of our open space lands by enforcing the rules, such as no bike riding on single track trails, is not addressed anywhere. It's bad enough that money has to be spent fixing up fire roads gouged by bikers riding in the mud and that illegal trails continue to be built. A bike licensing program MUST be started as more and more people are using these lands for this purpose AND it is a safety and wildlife protection hazard that will only continue without licensing, enforcement and significant fines. Work with MMWD on this as land borders are not obvious in the public's mind, especially not visitors from other areas.

Jules Evens Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Measure A funds should be used for parks and open spaces for the public to enjoy, NOT for private farms and ranches to which the public has no access. The Measure is unambiguous in its intent to provide for public use, not for private profit.

Julia Ries Grants for Parks in Cities, Towns, and Special Districts Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

We feel in our family that it is imperative that grants and funds continue to stay at the level they are or increased to provide the funding needed to prevent, protect, and maintain wildlife, wetland, and parks.

JULIE KRACHMAN


Point Reyes Park is a national treasure, and the Tule Elk need to be preserved. My tax dollars should NOT be going to ranchers!!!

Julie Smith Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Measure A funds, taxpayer dollars, should not go to private individuals who's land the public cannot access. Measure A funds should exclusively be used for our public parks and open spaces

Julie Taber Grants for Farmland/Agriculture These funds should not go to anyone who's land cannot be accessed by the public. Thank you.

Jyoti Elias Parks Maintenance and Improvements Trail Maintenance and Improvements Wildfire Prevention Wetland Restoration and Sea Level Rise Adaptation

These topics are extremely prescient for Marin county residents.

Karen Kieckhefer


KARIN ORELIND

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture I do not want any of my taxpayer dollars to support any activities on private farmland/private Agriculture

Karla Stine Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Stop funding private ranches

Karthik Subramaniam


Kathy Raffel Parks Maintenance and Improvements Trail Maintenance and Improvements Biodiversity Protection Visitor Services and Programming

All grants should support the acquisition and maintenance of lands that can be accessed and enjoyed by the public. Protecting biodiversity and a healthy environment should also receive priority.

keli hendricks Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Measure A funds should be used for our parks and open spaces and not private land the public cannot access.

Kelli Petersen Grants for Farmland/Agriculture I do not want any of my taxpayer dollars to go to private farmland/agriculture. I will vote against Measure A if any of the taxpayer money is allocated to farmland/agriculture.

Kenda Francis Grants for Farmland/Agriculture I will vote against Measure A if ANY money is allocated to agriculture. I do not want any of my taxpayer money used to support any activities on private farmland/private Agriculture. I want 100% of this measure to be spent on public spaces, not private.

Kenneth Bouley

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture In my opinion, it is well past time the County of Marin stopped funneling taxpayer money to influential families in the form of agricultural easements, especially for ranches and dairies. We need less of that, more actual environmental preservation. I also don't buy all the unproven and overly optimistic "regenerative" and "carbon farming" greenwashing. 10% to ag is still too much. And MALT and RCD is the same thing, a different channel to get our money to the same people.

I am concerned that there is a follow-up survey, but this survey will not result in any quantifiable data, like the first survey did. It really seems like someone didn't like the first answer, so is trying again.

Kenneth Gibson

Wetland Restoration and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Biodiversity Protection Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

It strikes me as absurd to subsidize farming and agriculture in Marin County or anywhere in our state. We are impacted here by climate change and drought. Our focus here should be on rebuilding native forest to foster natural carbon capture and minimize seasonal irrigation or water use for large animal husbandry, growing hay or other water intensive agriculture. We should seek to foster biodiversity and protection of native and neighboring species most likely to be viable as our climate changes. At the same time this will mitigate the forces of climate change. Invasive cattle should be removed from coastal areas in particular to help restore native wetlands and mitigate the effects of sea level rise. Intensive deposition of cattle feces and urine and intestinal gases into our water land and air is increasingly harmful at this time.

Let Marin help preserve the planet.

Kingston Cole Grants for Farmland/Agriculture This category must be abolished. Simply put, it allows a transfer of public funds to private landowners without any type of accountability. There is no true "competitive bid process." MALT is the lone recipient. Enough is enough with these shenanigans.

Take from MALT, et.al., and give to bona fide wildfire prevention. The latter is the most important category from the last survey of over2000 people.

Kirk Casey Parks Maintenance and Improvements Trail Maintenance and Improvements Wildfire Prevention Wetland Restoration and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Grants for Parks in Cities, Towns, and Special Districts Biodiversity Protection Science and Research Visitor Services and Programming Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

Vote not please

Kirstin Asher Parks Maintenance and Improvements Trail Maintenance and Improvements Wildfire Prevention Wetland Restoration and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Grants for Parks in Cities, Towns, and Special Districts Biodiversity Protection Science and Research Visitor Services and Programming Dog parks that are grassy not full of bark and that are friendly to both small and large dogs. Specifically in Fairfax and San Geronimo so commuters don’t clog up Drake to get to San Anselmo and Larkspur dog parks.

We usually support MALT. Keeping ranches in business rather than their owners selling to developers is crucial in Marin, especially with ABAG at everyone's door these days. Plus having an agriculturally viable Landscape and farming community is incredibly important to this area - look at what happened to the South Bay when all the farms were sold off to silicon Valley companies. Yet MALT, sadly, is showing their corruption. Remove your support of them until investigations prove otherwise.

Kris Cedar Trail Maintenance and Improvements Wildfire Prevention Wetland Restoration and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Biodiversity Protection Science and Research

No money should go to animal agriculture! We need to move away from funding environmentally damaging businesses like beef, dairy and other animal agriculture businesses.

Please use the Measure A money for everything, NATURE!

Ladi Asgill Biodiversity Protection Science and Research Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

Measure A funding should be focused on an integrated approach that includes support for agriculture, open space and biodiversity.

Lana Richards Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Please restore Measure A funding allocations for agriculture to 20%. We should think holistically about how we protect land in Marin, and agriculture is a key piece of the puzzle. Reducing funding would reduce sustainable agriculture in the region which is a precious resource we can't afford to lose.

Laura Cunningham

Parks Maintenance and Improvements Trail Maintenance and Improvements Wildfire Prevention Wetland Restoration and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Biodiversity Protection Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

I am a regular visitor to Marin County, have relatives who live in Marin County, and enjoy hiking in trails, open spaces, parks, and preserves. I also regularly visit Point Reyes National Seashore. I do not support rampant livestock grazing on the Seashore or other open spaces, which pollute water supplies and the Ocean, and damage sensitive grasslands and wildlife species. I do not want Measure A funds subsidized livestock operators. I would rather have these funds go to public open space trails, protection of native vegetation and wildlife. Programs of brush cutting, invasive plant removal, and prescribed fire can reduce fire fuels. Seek input from Tribal groups looking to undertake cultural #goodfire burning Traditional Ecological Knowledge projects.

The era of cows versus condos is over in Marin County. People want public open spaces that are accessible without barbed-wire fences and cow manure.

Laura Effel Parks Maintenance and Improvements Trail Maintenance and Improvements Wildfire Prevention Wetland Restoration and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Grants for Parks in Cities, Towns, and Special Districts Biodiversity Protection Science and Research Visitor Services and Programming Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

No funds for MALT. Apply to wildfire instead. Wildfire prevention should be at least one third of the budget. Grants for farmland should be eliminated.

Laura Miller Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Measure A funds should not be spent to subsidize commercial agriculture / farmland. These businesses directly harm the lands Measure A is designed to protect.

Measure A funds should be spent on all other topics mentioned, that serve the lands being protected, and educating the folks visit. Add docent programs in heavily visited areas, to help protect lands / support education on how to do so, such as Duxbury Reef / Agate Beach.

Laura Phillips Parks Maintenance and Improvements Trail Maintenance and Improvements Wildfire Prevention Wetland Restoration and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Biodiversity Protection Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

I do not want ANY money from measure A to go toward grants for farmland or agriculture!

This money should go toward Parks, Biodiversity protection, park maintenance, restoration, but NOT toward farmland and agriculture!

Laurence Minikes

Wetland Restoration and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

In addition to my earlier comments to the Commission and Staff, West Marin is the legacy of each of our current generation. The decisions we make will reverberate for decades to come. now more than ever, In light of climate change, land preservation which includes the application of restorative, carbon sequestering techniques among our greatest rather than somehow falling to this community's apparent bottom priority. Regardless of the opposition to continuing much needed farmland and agriculture financial support, at the end of the day every resident, every community and local organization has a shared vested interest in supporting this measure. However, you decide as a commission, we are all going to win by supporting renewal of this critical measure. Please continue your efforts in fighting the good fight, as a dear departed mentor used to repeatedly say to me. Thank you, Larry Minikes, MCL

Today, one unfortunate outcome is that wetlands and sea level rise took a back seat to West Marin preservation. Speaking personally, being my first year as a kayaker, I am spending considerable time out of Buck's Landing. This has resulted in developing a far deeper appreciation for our incredible wetlands and wildlife preserve out of the Gallinas Creek area and its many tributaries, the importance of keeping not just this but our entire shoreline vibrant and healthy. I can attest this past weekend at low tide I witnessed an incredible variety of bird species in the thousands, stretching off into the distance feeding off the exposed mudflats and seagrass areas. I can only describe it as something akin to being at the Galapagos. (And I am not even a birder, just an observer.) Again, through the climate change and sea level rise lens, we do know with certainty conditions are going to continue to deteriorate in the coming decade. Please make sure we are looking ahead to properly allocate appropriate funds toward this unfolding crisis over these next ten years. Please take the long view. Thank you.

Linda Rames Visitor Services and Programming Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

Unless Measure A removes all monies slated to be distributed to farms and ranches is removed, I will vote against the measure, and I will actively work to see it defeated. Giving public money to private business which the public cannot access is wrong and must stop.

Lisa Poncia Measure A My husband Loren and I own Stemple Creek Ranch. Sixteen years ago, Loren and I set out to figure out a way that we could continue his family's 4 generation legacy of agriculture in Marin County. Luckily for us, there was a family ranch that we were able to rent from Loren's parents to start our business on. His parents had sold a MALT easement years earlier, and I am quite confident that the ranch would not have still been in the family if it wasn't for MALT. Once we got our business underway, Loren and his parents were able to sell another MALT easement on another family property. This second MALT easement allowed them to pay estate taxes and settle up with other family members to again, allow the ranch to stay in the family. We were also able to invest in land and purchase the ranch next door from the Burbank family. The Burbank family had owned their ranch for 150 years but were no longer in productive agriculture. The Burbank family had also been able to keep the ranch in their family because of an earlier MALT easement. Loren and I, through Stemple Creek Ranch, have now fixed up the Burbank Ranch to make it an educational space where we host people year-round to learn about regenerative agriculture, carbon farming, Marin County agriculture, and also engage in agritourism. We now sell grass-fed, grass-finished products to some of the best restaurants in California, to many locally owned grocery stores and butcher shops, and directly to consumers at our Marin County farmer's market and from our website. None of this would have been possible without MALT. None of this would have been possible without Marin County's long-standing support of local agriculture. Loren's father Al was a founding board member of MALT over 40 years ago, Loren was a board member of MALT, and I am a current board member of MALT. To say that preserving and creating a thriving agricultural community is in our blood is the understatement of the day. This is the work that we do every single day of our lives, and we are proud to do it. MALT and Marin County's dedication to farmland preservation and a robust and healthy agriculture community is a model that is admired around the country. Without Marin County's and MALT's dedication, agriculture in Marin County would be nowhere near where it is today. The legacy of this important work and the future of agriculture in Marin is what is at stake in the proposal to reallocate Measure A funds.

The passage of Measure A was a crucial step in supporting local agriculture, but the work is not done. While MALT has been wildly successful, half of the productive land of Marin County is still vulnerable to subdivision. Measure A is crucial to allow MALT to continue this important work. Using private support to match public funds, farmland preservation not only assures the continuation of an important local economy and local food security but delivers a wide range of other benefits - including fire protection, wildlife habitat, climate resilience, and the open spaces we all cherish. Reversing Marin County's long-standing dedication to local agriculture is a mistake. On behalf of the agriculturalists in Marin County of yesterday, today, and tomorrow, and on behalf of all of the people who eat and support our foodshed, please maintain the existing 20% allocation to farmland preservation. Thank you, Lisa Poncia Co-Owner and General Manager, Stemple Creek Ranch

Lisa Stanziano

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture I support funding of Measure A EXCEPT for grants for "agricultural stewardship" in public parks. I do NOT support funding private ranching or dairy operations within a public park. Private commercial operations have no place in a park (especially a national park), which unlike BLM property and other designated public lands, must receive full protection of natural resources and wildlife diversity. NO funding must go to private ranches from this measure. Please remove language for funding for private ranching/dairy operations.

lonna richmond

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture I would like to see my money go to preserving the environment, not paying for ranching and dairy businesses to destroy the thing we're trying to save. to hear that ranching promotes habitat and protects the environment is a bunch of hogwash. just take a look at PRNS. those cows just shit all over and create pollution of the land, air, and water. I can't see why ranching and dairy businesses within our national seashore (PRNS) deserve any more money from this measure A. first off, these people were paid well when they sold their land to NPS and now refuse to leave.... besides the fact that they get the sweetest deal on rent, grazing rights, and get a lot if not most of the maintenance paid by NPS. these squatters need to go and not get another penny of our tax money or donations from you.

Lorelei Dacus Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Funds should go to the parks, not private land holders

Lu Morano Parks Maintenance and Improvements Trail Maintenance and Improvements Wildfire Prevention Wetland Restoration and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Grants for Parks in Cities, Towns, and Special Districts Biodiversity Protection Science and Research Visitor Services and Programming Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

Extremely concerned about those cows poisoning PRNS. Ranchers don't seem to realize that the current situation is the antithesis of keeping a healthy earth. It seems the Park Service has been working for the cattle industry; this is egregious. No more money for ranches! They have been seriously overpaid for 50 years and have not kept their agreements to move out since then, having been paid generously for their land.

Grrr.

Lucy Dilworth Wildfire Prevention We must have at least 33% of Measure A funds going to reduce fire fuel in our parks an open space. We are all in danger if we do not take care of this long-neglected problem. One-third of all Measure A funds should be spent on fire fuel reduction. We are sitting on a powder keg. Other interests such as MALT can seek support from other sources.

Lulu Taylor Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Stop funding rancher! Funding for park and other recreational lands that can be used by the public should be the priority. Funding ranchers is a waste of public money. Stop the welfare to ranchers.

If funding for ranchers is included in a measure, I will actively be campaigning against this measure. Fund parks not ranchers.

Lynne Heinrich

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Allocations for farmland protection should not be decreased! These grants assist with fire mitigation, local food, view sheds and open space/access to important lands. DO NOT REDUCE THESE ALLOCATIONS PLEASE! It is short-sighted.

If expansion of the farmland allocation purpose could be for purchase as well as easements, this could help W Marin significantly with worker housing.

Marc McCurry Parks Maintenance and Improvements Trail Maintenance and Improvements Wildfire Prevention Wetland Restoration and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Grants for Parks in Cities, Towns, and Special Districts Biodiversity Protection Science and Research Visitor Services and Programming Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

There should be no Measure A funds used to fund private individuals or to provide any type of financial or other benefit to private individuals. These programs destroy public resources/wildlife habitat. All Measure A funds should be used for projects that protect all aspects of nature for the enjoyment of the public.

Marcia Barinaga

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture I am writing to urge the County Supervisors to keep agricultural funding in Measure A at the current level of 20%. Forty years ago, the Marin Agricultural Land Trust was founded, based on a revolutionary idea at the time, to purchase permanent conservation easements on agricultural land to keep it in productive agriculture and protect it from environmentally damaging development. Since that beginning 40 years ago, MALT has accomplished the protection of more than half of the agricultural land in Marin County. MALT’s program of purchasing easements, and then overseeing stewardship of those protected lands, has fostered a local agricultural economy and thriving local foodshed supplying the greater San Francisco Bay Area. Our local sustainable foodshed is an essential part of the reduction of our county’s carbon footprint in multiple ways; through the reduced travel-distance of food from farm to market, and through the carbon-farming practices pioneered on MALT-protected ranches which convert livestock operations from net carbon-producers to important carbon-sinks. The creek-conservation requirements in MALT easements provide crucial watershed and riparian zone protection. The contiguous nature of protected lands protect essential wildlife corridors in West Marin. And the scenic values of MALT-protected Marin farmland are known to all who visit West Marin. MALT’s protection and stewardship of West Marin ranchlands provide multiple other important ecosystem services to our region, erosion prevention, nutrient cycling, pollination, biological control of insect pests and invasive plants, and habitat diversity. The stated reason for moving 10% of Measure A funds out of agricultural land protection and stewardship is to increase funding for wildfire risk reduction. But well-stewarded agricultural land is crucial for regional fire protection. Livestock diminish fuel-loads on rangeland and minimize the growth of woody scrub that presents a greater fire risk. Well-stewarded ranchland enhances green riparian zones that slow the progress of wildfires. Measure A money spent to conserve and steward agricultural land IS money spend on wildfire risk reduction. MALT protection is forever. These lands are protected from environmentally damaging development in perpetuity. This mean’s MALT’s job is also one that never ends, and funds are needed to maintain the stewardship of these protected lands. What’s more, nearly half of Marin County’s agricultural land is still at risk of falling out of agriculture and succumbing to damaging development. Ranching and farming are difficult livelihoods with small profit-

margins. Marin County agriculturalists may be perceived as “wealthy” because they own valuable land. But the only way to realize that wealth is to sell, develop or subdivide the land. Those who come to MALT to sell easements do so because they need money to sustain their agricultural operations. If MALT does not have the funds to buy these easements and protect and steward these lands, they will be sold and fall out of agriculture. The 20%of Measure A funds that have been allocated to MALT in the past decade has constituted a productive collaboration between the taxpayers of Marin County and MALT. In the past nine years, MALT has leveraged $13,260,407 in Measure A funding with an additional $14,973,477 in matching funds from private and public sources. I urge you to maintain the allocation of 20% of Measure A funds to agricultural protection and stewardship and continue this impactful collaboration.

Margaret Bannan

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture No farmland preservation. 0%. Ag is already the most subsidized industry in the U.S.

Margo Wixsom

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Dear Marin County Parks, Many Marin voters are feeling burned by the last Measure A that channeled $60 million to private ranchers in the last measure. Please remove ALL funding form private landowners from our PUBLIC PARKS funds request. This new survey and draft of Measure A is doomed for failure if you continue to allocate public funds to private landowners with any type of obfuscating language like "fire prevention" and "grants.”. I can definitely support community gardens on public lands or communal neighborhood lands. But zero support for this if it allows one dollar to go to private ranchers. Reallocating the 20% from farmlands - which DO NIT NEED TO BE PRESERVED IN MARIN due to the fact that over 50% of the county lands are ALREADY commercial ranch/farmlands. Those lands already have generous county and state tax breaks. I cannot support a measure that gives ANY funding to private ranchers. I was told that the 20% from the last Measure A was $60 million giveaway to ranchers. So, if you are reducing agricultural land supplements to 10% and $30 million dollars, I will be a strong opponent of this measure. I would like you to give me the actual dollar amount from the last Measure A that went to private ranchers and the proposed 10% total dollar amount for the proposed Measure A. You need to write a SEPARATE measure fir “agricultural stewardship.” And NOT slip in private funding under the guise of a public parks bill. Please do NOT set up our parks bond measure for failure like this. It is defrauding the public to call this or promote it as public parks measure with ANY private funding slipped in under “friendly” terms like community gardens, fire management, climate mediation. It is simply fraud. I hope that you can see this. It is not an argument - it is simply the facts. Calling this public park measure with even 10% private funding is disingenuous.

Marin RCD has posted on its website that Marin County has already promised funding from Measure A to private ranch projects fir "matching grants." Simply fraudulent to ask for public parks funding that already promised funding to private ranchers. PLEASE do not turn voters like me who strongly support public parks funding by corrupting it with private land improvements and allocations. You are using photos of kids in community programs (100%support) and families using parks (100% support) - these images promote PUBLIC PARKS. What you are hiding is the $20 million giveaway to private ranchers couched in a public parks bill. This will lead to 100% failure of this measure. It will be heartbreaking for me to use my time and talents fighting a disingenuous "public parks" measure by exposing to our community the millions allocated to private ranchers who are already millionaires and own 50% of Marin County. Please put me in a position to work to support this measure by taking our agricultural subsidies to private landowners. I want to support funding for PUBLIC PARKS. STOP wasting your time and our dollars hiding private funding in a public parks bill.

Mari Robinson Parks Maintenance and Improvements Trail Maintenance and Improvements Wildfire Prevention

There's no question that wildfire prevention is a top priority for Marin and that a significant amount of Measure A funding going to Parks and Open Space maintenance should focus on clearing dead, dry and other fire prone vegetation. Thank you for the work you are doing to keep our parks and open spaces safe for visitor use via regular parks and trail maintenance but please do not divert your focus from assuring that parks and open spaces are not at high risk of fire. We are at risk for sea level rise, yet fire risk is what is a clear and present danger. Thank you.

Mark Burton Grants for Farmland/Agriculture I will not vote for a measure that gives more money to these ranchers who will not disclose their records and have been self-dealing for years.

Mark Walsh Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Why was this second survey necessary, Mr. Korten? Didn't like the results of the first one? With the vast majority of Marin public respondents saying stop giving our taxpayer monies to private ranchers. Are you planning a third survey if this one doesn't pan out in favor of the private company ranchers? There are already protections in place to protect Marin open space. If more is needed, then legislate it with the involvement of the public. If you want to do something for Marin open space, let the ranchers' fate be driven by burgeoning public market demands that private ag business not get anymore handouts, and that dairy and beef factory operations are less and less a part of American diet; that these companies destroy land, water, habitat, and air and people are fed up with that; and that there are other models these businesses can transition to -- just like millions of other Americans have transitioned from dying industries. Why should we subsidize a private rancher industry bent on proven immediate and long-term harmful impacts to soil, water, air, and habitat? Stop the slick sleight-of-hand moves to continue an 1840s picture of these very-much 2020s private ag, dairy, and beef factory operations. Why the hell should taxpayer monies go to private businesses that slop at the trough of public subsidies crying hardship, while being some of the richest and most powerful people in the County?? Get real. Stop with the trick moves already.

If you're going to do surveys that directly affect taxpayers' monies to Marin government and the Parks, then make more of an effort to publicize such surveys, and not manipulate conduct of surveys and surveys' results to fit a pre-planned outcome. Meaning, stop trying to funnel taxpayer monies to rich, privileged, special-interest, private-business ranchers in the County -- especially those on Point Reyes National Seashore, who already get taxpayer subsidies, despite those ranchers having received ~$440M in the 1960-1970s to vacate their questionably-gotten land holdings, and using those hundreds of millions of dollars to purchase other private ranching operations lands across Marin and Sonoma counties. Don't play the Marin public for fools. Stop any taxpayer monies going to MALT -- one of the most corrupt, shady, self-dealing, private business, rancher-enrichment scams in the United States. Your association with MALT puts Parks and the BOS in very literal shit company. Do something to help people and habitat. The ranchers destroy benefits for both. They don't need nor deserve taxpayer monies/subsidies funneled through a corrupt money-laundering grift group.

Mary Buttaro Parks Maintenance and Improvements Trail Maintenance and Improvements Wildfire Prevention Wetland Restoration and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Grants for Parks in Cities, Towns, and Special Districts Biodiversity Protection

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture is last on my list. I have supported MALT for years but withdrew from Ag preservation a couple of years ago.

Mary Sackett Grants for Parks in Cities, Towns, and Special Districts

I would like to see a higher percentage of grants for parks in cities and towns in underserved areas. There is plenty of research showing the benefits of parks within walking distance of homes. Unfortunately, the Canal has Pickleweed and a dilapidated pathway along the Bay. I would like to see a higher percentage of funding go into these communities.

Matt Ball Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Measure A funds, taxpayer dollars, should not go to private individuals who's land the public cannot access. Measure A funds should exclusively be used for our public parks and open spaces.

Matt Barnes Grants for Farmland/Agriculture No money for agricultural stewardship (MALT, Marin RCD). I will vote no on this ballot measure if any money goes to private ranching interests.

Matt Maguire Grants for Farmland/Agriculture As a former Marin resident and a current user of Marin parks, I think it is disingenuous for the County Parks Department to try to - again - slip funding that goes to Marin Agricultural Land Trust and ranchers and farmers into the Measure A sales tax renewal. Malt has been exposed as a slush fund for its board members and a small community of ag producers at the expense of taxpayers. When voters were offered the chance to support such efforts in the past, they were rejected. They will reject them again, if they are aware that that's where a substantial part of the tax funds go. So, it's incumbent on the county and the parks department to be totally honest about what the measure does and who benefits. Awareness of the giveaways from the pasty measure is rapidly growing, and people are mad as hell about it. I will continue to make sure my Marin friends and family are aware of this, and to reject the renewal if there is ANY money going to MALT or the ag community through any RCD or other grant vehicle.

The above concerns have been brought to the Parks Department and the Board of Supervisor's attention recently by a number of people, but I am not aware of any honest response to this yet. The public needs to see and hear from the county that they are going to drop the MALT/ag grants and funding from the measure soon, or else the word will continue to spread about the deception. This will kill the measure. Those of us who love, and support parks and open space will be mightily displeased if this is what happens, and it would be a shame that all the effort, time and money that is being expended to try to pass the measure will be wasted.

Melissa Daniels

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture As a third-generation rancher, it is critical to preserve our farmland for the continuation of agriculture so that we may continue providing food to our communities. Keeping 20% is important for the future of conservation and our next generation of farmers and ranchers. In addition to land conservation, grazing open lands is HUGE for wildfire prevention.

Melissa Keyes Grants for Farmland/Agriculture NO NO NO $ FOR AGRICULTURE OR FARMLAND! You will lose this ballot measure if you include money for "agricultural stewardship" against the clearest wishes of 2,700 respondents. DO NOT PUT OUR PARKS AT RISK!

Melvyn Wright Grants for Farmland/Agriculture As a frequent recreational user of Marin Park Lands and Open Space and a long time (2 decades) habitat restoration volunteer, I strongly support the renewal of Measure A beyond the present expiration date. I do have one major reservation regarding the allocation of funds to private lands. The 14.8 million dollars that's gone to MALT seems more than exorbitant to me, especially since some of the recipients are (or were) MALT Board members. it's not clear to me what the public gets out of this. I would prefer more funds going towards habitat restoration, trail improvements and maintenance, as well as some projects directed towards the indigenous peoples that were the lands ancient inhabitants. I also support a reduction or elimination of funds allocated to agricultural stewardship or private ranching.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this process.

Michael Straus

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture The preservation of agricultural lands has been, and remains, critically important for all of us who love Marin County. These ag lands provide multiple benefits, ranging from fire prevention and wildlife habitat & corridors to the resilience of local food systems and tremendous economic benefits. In 2002 upon hearing that she had a terminal brain tumor, my mother confided three things: I've lived a good life; I would have loved to see my grandchildren grow up; and ... I still have $60 million to raise for MALT. Mom was a visionary and a pragmatist and knew that preserving Marin ag was step one. That work isn't complete, and measure A is an important part of this effort.

Michelle Simonson

Parks Maintenance and Improvements Trail Maintenance and Improvements Wildfire Prevention Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

I'm on the trails of Marin every single day and I also frequent the parks with my nanny charges. I'm glad to see that there is support for continuing to use measure a funds for maintaining the trails and parks. I would also love to see more sustainable agriculture and less cattle farming. I'm not saying to illuminate it, but there's an awful lot of beautiful land out there and I think it could be more fairly distributed with more for open spaces, Elk and regenerative agriculture. Thank you!

I'm grateful for everyone who helps keep Marin beautiful!

Mimi Willard Grants for Farmland/Agriculture DEFUND Farmland/ag. It is an egregious giveaway of public Parks tax money to private land holders.

Reallocate all ag money to wildfire fuel reduction

Miriam Straus Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Hi, I’m Miriam Straus, I own a ranch in Marshall, and I support continuing the 20% allocation for farmland protection and stewardship.

Mitzi Cook Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Measure A funds, taxpayer dollars, should not go to private individuals (such as ranchers) whose land the public cannot

access. Measure A funds should exclusively be used for our public parks and open spaces.

Moira Sullivan Biodiversity Protection Hi - longtime resident of Sonoma who spends a lot of time (and money) in Marin and at Pt Reyes/Pt Reyes Station. I am a scientist with the State of CA and deeply concerned about the threat to biodiversity at Pt Reyes from the ranching. I have looked at the water quality studies and am beyond appalled at the bacteriological contamination of the creeks, and marine ecosystems, etc. Much of Sonoma County is ag/ranching. These highly polluting ranches at Pt Reyes can be moved well away from the coast; there is plenty of land in western Sonoma for 5,000 cows. We must restore the local flora and fauna at PRNS and give nature a real chance here. The ecosystems at Pt Reyes are so degraded. As you're well aware, 80% of species, globally, are imperiled or extinct and we are in an accelerated period of extinction. We must do all we can to not further contribute to this catastrophe. It's 2021 and we KNOW better. The park reports confirmed that the ecosystems at Pt Reyes would be more healthful and improved were the cows removed. Please - let's remove the elk fences and return this land to what it was prior to the ranches being there - and revel in the return of native species and restored ecosystems. Thank you kindly.

Nancy Geller Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Measure A funds, taxpayer dollars, should not go to private individuals who's land the public cannot access. Measure A funds should exclusively be used for our public parks and open spaces.

Nancy Graalman

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Measure A funds should be used for parks and open spaces for the public to enjoy, not for private farms and ranches the public cannot set foot upon

It's impossible to fathom how just a few private ranchers -- and the politicians who benefit from their donation largesse -- continue to hold dominance over the lands that are held in the Public Trust, and that should be treasured for their irreplaceable ecological and cultural values. It is a fallacy that the easements granted to and controlled by the ranchers are managed for any other reason than to maximize their profits. At the end of the day, the "lucky" few want only to feed at the "public trough" and to flout expectations for public access and concern for the land.

Nancy Jones Wildfire Prevention My opinion is that more money must be allocated to clear more brush that leads to horrific wildfires. Nancy Jones

Nathaniel McKitterick

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture I oppose the continued use of public funds to purchase farm/ranch easements that do not allow or account for public access. Critical easements have already been obtained, and the continued aggressive use of zoning rules to preclude development should be the primary method to preclude development on these lands. MALT has proven that is able to raise private funds to continue its efforts.

I would prefer measure A funds go to purchase lands and easements that allow for public access.

Neil Rudolph Wildfire Prevention Biodiversity Protection Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

The Measure A Farmland Protection Program in concert with the work MALT does with their farmer and rancher partners has accomplished a great deal of good for both biodiversity and fire protection. Keeping farm and ranch land in the hands of generational local land stewards has been very good for the environment and the local economy. These families have not only expanded Marin's local food economy, but they have expanded the diversity of vegetation, birds and animals on their lands and protected many miles of creeks and wetlands.

These ranches are protecting more land from fire than the Park Service has achieved in fire protection in the Pt Reyes National Sea Shore.

Noah Reiter Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Measure A funds, taxpayer dollars, should not go to private individuals who's land the public cannot access. Measure A funds should exclusively be used for our public parks and open spaces.

Owen Bissell Parks Maintenance and Improvements Trail Maintenance and Improvements Grants for Parks in Cities, Towns, and Special Districts Biodiversity Protection Visitor Services and Programming Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

Measure A funds, taxpayer dollars, should not go to private individuals who's land the public cannot access. Measure A funds should exclusively be used for our public parks and open spaces.

Pamela Ross Grants for Parks in Cities, Towns, and Special Districts

I do not want any of my taxes to pay for grants to private farmland or private agriculture.

I am an 18-year resident and homeowner in Point Reyes.

Patricia Carelli Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Public land is for the public - not private businesses. Adamantly object to animal or crop farms on public land!

Patricia Ravasio

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Hello Parks and Rec! Unless you make public access and park improvements part of the agricultural easements program, I and many others will campaign vigorously to make sure Marin votes against extending this tax. Ranchers that get easement money should provide something for the people, such as access, trails, camping, water access for elk, etc. We also want complete transparency in your dealings. This is public money. You owe the public openness, honesty and less conflict of interest. It's getting embarrassing. Change course or we'll stop you in your tracks.

Patrick Coughlin


Paul Dreyfuss Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Measure A funds, taxpayer dollars, should not go to private individuals who's land the public cannot access. Measure A funds should exclusively be used for our public parks and open spaces.

Paula Spencer

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Measure A funds, taxpayer dollars, should not go to private individuals whose land the public cannot access. Measure A funds should exclusively be used for our public parks and open spaces. And all lands that Measure A has provided funds for should be well-maintained, with the well-being of native species and the environment taking priority. Thank you for your consideration.

Pepi Ross Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Please reserve public parks for public use. Please do not grant private parties exclusive use of any publicly owned land.

Peter Albers Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Measure A funds, taxpayer dollars, should not go to private individuals who's land the public cannot access. Measure A funds should exclusively be used for our public parks and open spaces.

Peter Collins Grants for Farmland/Agriculture MALT has squandered millions of taxpayer dollars buying easements from families of board members. If the Measure A renewal includes funds for MALT, I won't vote for it. We need a full investigation of insider dealing, with prosecutions if warranted. Board members who took money for easements should return the money.

Since sales taxes hit the poor hardest, the tax should only be extended if the revenues are used to benefit working families.

Peter Fugazzotto

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture As a 40 year plus resident of Marin, I appreciate the effort to renew Measure A since it provides broad benefits to the county. I encourage you to return the agricultural proportion of the funding to 20%. Agriculture is food, jobs, and community, and the protection of these lands is critical for the long-term preservation of natural resources and efforts to fight climate change. I also think that a good portion of those funds should be spent in grants towards agricultural conservation easements. The permanent protection of these lands for agricultural use has a far-reaching public benefit. Without conservation easements that require agricultural use, these properties could be turned into private estates that no longer have any public benefit.

Peter Sidell Parks Maintenance and Improvements Trail Maintenance and Improvements Wildfire Prevention Wetland Restoration and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Grants for Parks in Cities, Towns, and Special Districts Biodiversity Protection Science and Research Visitor Services and Programming

Use the funds to preserve a wilderness region.

Peter Smith Grants for Farmland/Agriculture I oppose any more grants of any sort to MALTED ranches because the process has been misused to enrich certain family businesses, including many members of the board of directors as reported in the Pacific Sun and elsewhere.

Why are you conducting a second survey? Did not like the results of the first one? This survey is not even quantifiable. Why are you asking for names and phone numbers, etc.? Surveys should be anonymous.

R Adler Parks Maintenance and Improvements Wildfire Prevention Wetland Restoration and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Biodiversity Protection Visitor Services and Programming

As population explodes in California citizens need to expand and develop sites to preserve its wildlife population. At its best our parks and reserves only prolong the inevitable loss of wildlife due to overpopulation, loss of essential habitat, contamination and global warming: all this said may happen to our human population.

Rachel Rachel Grants for Farmland/Agriculture This funding has been abused and should not continue. The ranchers are wealthy and public welfare in the form of this funding must end. If any funding is included for ranch land, restrictions must be strengthened (no row crops and easements must be legally solid forever).

Stop funding ranchers

Ralph Grossi Grants for Farmland/Agriculture It is very important that sufficient funds for easement acquisition be maintained in Measure A renewal. A great deal of land is still at risk in Marin County. Please maintain the full 20% allocation to farmland/agriculture. This is not the time to scale back this 5-decade effort to preserve and enhance our local food system.

Rebecca Suggs

Parks Maintenance and Improvements Wildfire Prevention

I am reinforcing the proposal to increase emphasis on fire fuel reduction in parks and open space. Recent years’ wildfire increases in Northern California make it apparent how critical it is for Marin to clear undergrowth and maintain a rigorous vegetation management plan wherever we can. So much of our county is blessed with parks and open space that spending time and money to make sure they are contributing to our resilience and resistance to wildfire is effort well spent.

Richard Cerri Wildfire Prevention Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

Please remove any funds for private farmland/agriculture from Measure A. My tax money should not be used to continue to subsidize private enterprise, especially ones that contribute to polluting our air and water.

richard vacha Parks Maintenance and Improvements Wetland Restoration and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Biodiversity Protection

Take care of the land. The people (visitors) can work it out from there, on their own.

Rick Lafranchi Grants for Farmland/Agriculture As a native of West Marin, I've watched first-hand the benefit our community has realized from MALT. In Nicasio alone between 1960 and 1080, 9 ranches were split up. Since the founding of MALT in 1980 not a single West Marin Ranch has been split up. Had the earlier trend continued, today there would be little or no agriculture in West Marin. The recent bad press MALT has received is for the most part fake news. Marty Griffin couldn't be more wrong as is Barry Spitz. The Pacific Sun and Bohemian articles are again not based on facts, but opinion designed to create controversy.

The typical ranch family is large. Only 1 or 2 members typically can stay on the land. The rest move on to other careers while still sharing ownership of the property. At some point they need their money. Here's where MALT has helped so many families keep their ranches. When they sell an easement to MALT, they are selling an asset. They could realize far more money by selling the whole property or splitting it up into non ag viable 60-acre parcels. Lastly look at the property that's MALTed versus publicly owned. For the most part brush has taken over the public lands creating huge wildfire potentials whereas the MALTed properties are grazed with very limited brush. MALT has made West Marin a California treasure. Please maintain the 20% of the tax under Measure A. Allow MALT to continue its mission. Future generations will thank you.

Rita Schoch Grants for Parks in Cities, Towns, and Special Districts

I believe the 10% taken from agricultural stewardship should be split 50-50 between the County and the local Cities & Special Districts. Most of the small cities have limited general funds for parks improvement projects, and what little money there is made more challenging with the increased construction costs.

Robert Gwaltney

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Please preserve Pt. Reyes!

Robert Johnston

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Please zero this out. It is unnecessary. These lands are protected with ag zoning. It is inequitable, as sales taxes are regressive. It is very unpopular, in spite of this redundant survey, set up to allow the ranchers to try to get more of their friends to respond. Max and BOS, pls listen to the people. Please zero out the Farmland program. 1. Sales taxes are regressive, meaning lower-income persons pay a higher percent of their income to this tax than do other people. The impacts (expenditures) are also regressive, that is, benefitting middle- and upper-income people more than lower-income ones. Low-income people hike less frequently than other people and they tend to not own real property to protect with better fire prevention and sea level rise adaptation. Grants for farmland programs are very regressive, in that they benefit the top few percent of households by income, large landowners. 2. Carbon farming and ranching is not a significant program for sequestering carbon, in that the initial compost is expensive to create and spread and the carbon take-up by those soils diminishes rapidly. It is not sustainable, according to recent papers. Also, the rapid rotation grazing generally in use is not rapid enough, meaning that damage to soils and plants continues. 3. Other types of environmental restoration credited to ranching are fictitious or are basic good land management actions that the public should require of ranchers, not pay them to undertake. Such as fencing, creekbank restoration, rotational grazing, composting, erosion control and repair, etc. I feel strongly about this, and I know a lot of people who also do. We all intend to actively oppose Measure A if the ag subsidies are not removed entirely. I greatly respect Supervisor Rodoni, but he is not objective about ag due to personal relationships.

Increase ag zoning to 120 or 240 ac. How we perceive agriculture has changed dramatically since Measure A was first approved. We now understand the enormous pollution from crops and grazing runoff better. These are the most important sources of pollution to surface waters in California, the U.S., and the world. We also have recently figured out that grazing is the largest land use in the world and one of the most destructive in terms of water quality, habitat loss, and greenhouse gas emissions. The "30 X 30" global program, now adopted by the U.S. and California (protect 30% of land resources by 2030) is aimed primarily at restoring commercial grazing lands back to native grasslands in most countries, because of how widespread grazing is. In other words, we need to stop pretending that we can make minor changes to grazing when we actually need to eliminate large areas of it. At this time, it seems that we need to stop investing public funds into grazing lands, regulate them more strictly, and restore some of them to native grasses with sparse grazing by elk, cattle, and deer. And use occasional control burns to clear brush, as was done for thousands of years in a sustainable fashion by our predecessors. If this requires that we allow estate residences to be built on large parcels (240-acres and larger), to free these lands from financial pressures, then that is preferable to continued commercial grazing. That is why I don't support Farmland subsidies anymore.

robert miltner Wildfire Prevention Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

Ref measure A: NO money for MALT. Spend it on wildfire prevention.

Robert Raven Parks Maintenance and Improvements Trail Maintenance and Improvements Wildfire Prevention Biodiversity Protection Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Land Acquisition is cut?

Grants should not go to wealthy ranches. Grants should purchase environmentally important land, and should allow public access, trails. Maintenance and Wildfire Prevention should not be logging or grazing. Coast Miwok and Ecologists should sign off on any proposed projects. I don't like that land acquisition was cut in half, it should remain 20%. Wildfire prevention could be lowered to 20% and focused near homes. Ranches that accept tax dollars should allow public access on easement. Reduce grazing and raise fees on all public lands in Marin and at PRNS.

Protect wildlife and trees, and not private ranching! Don't use any toxic pesticides or fertilizers! Finish Bay Trail and Ridge Trail! Prevent pollution! Go electric! Ranches damage Marin ecosystems. Stop subsidizing ranching in Marin!

robert spiers Grants for Parks in Cities, Towns, and Special Districts

this money should not go to private individuals. It should go to public lands and parks. Why would a private individual deserve this money over the tax paying public Thanks you Bob Spiers

Robi Aragon Grants for Farmland/Agriculture I am disappointed that this category is being cut. We need a better balance between agricultural programs & the parks. Preserving the ability of how we get our food vs commercial farming & trucking across the country is necessary to allow local food sources to be viable. Putting some of that money to what consists of "recreational" use does not bode well for a healthy future.

Robin Brennan

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Please eliminate agricultural funding from the tax. Restrictive building codes already ensure these farms will not become developed and if the current farmers want to sell then encourage minority farmers to come to Marin and enjoy our wonderful locale.

All funding for parks and open space maintenance.

Robin Mancoll Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Measure A funds, taxpayer dollars, should not go to private individuals whose land the public cannot access. Measure A funds should exclusively be used for our public parks and open spaces!!!!

Please use these funds exclusively for public parks and open spaces!!! As an annual visitor to Marin County, the reason we choose to spend our time there, is BECAUSE of your open spaces…. We love Marin and hope to continue to visit annually….

Rohit Menezes

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Measure A funds should not go to private individuals whose land the public cannot access. Measure A funds should exclusively be used for our public parks and open spaces.

Ruth Dundas Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Grants should NOT go to Private Individuals who do not allow public access to their land! Grants should ONLY be used to acquire land for the public to use!

S Dey Grants for Parks in Cities, Towns, and Special Districts

N/A

Sarah Killingsworth

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture NO Measure A funds should go to agricultural stewardship or private ranching - there are important projects to improve access and ecosystems in public spaces that would be a far better use of taxpayer dollars.

sarah miller Parks Maintenance and Improvements Wildfire Prevention Wetland Restoration and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Biodiversity Protection Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

Funds should be used for parks and open spaces, wildfire prevention and restoration. The public has no access to private ranches, and current ranching practices are contributors to greenhouse gases, poor water quality and loss of biodiversity.

Scott Webb Wildfire Prevention Wetland Restoration and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Biodiversity Protection Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

I am very concerned that my tax dollars would continue to be allocated toward subsidizing privatized ranching. Please reallocate these funds towards wildfire prevention, protecting biodiversity, and restoration projects in our public spaces. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Siobhan Duff I am strongly opposed to public tax dollars going to any aspect of private ranchers.

I am very strongly opposed to any public tax dollars being spent on any aspect of any private industry most especially ranchers/ranching. That is a huge misuse of taxpayer dollars.

Starr Porter Parks Maintenance and Improvements Trail Maintenance and Improvements Wildfire Prevention Wetland Restoration and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Grants for Parks in Cities, Towns, and Special Districts Biodiversity Protection Science and Research Visitor Services and Programming Grants for Farmland/Agriculture grants to acquire the Martha property in Tiburon

I would like to see a bond to acquire the Martha Property in Tiburon.

Stefanie Kraus

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Measure A funds, taxpayer dollars, should not go to private individuals whose land the public cannot access. Measure A funds should exclusively be used for our public parks and open spaces.

Stephanie Arnow

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Measure A funds, taxpayer dollars, should NOT go to private individuals' land that the public cannot access. (Come on!) Measure A funds should exclusively be used for our public parks and open spaces.

Stephen Nestel

Parks Maintenance and Improvements Trail Maintenance and Improvements Grants for Parks in Cities, Towns, and Special Districts

Marinwood CSD has not improved trail and park access, for mobility impaired persons, addressed erosion. The entire sum of Measure A funds has been spent on consultant fees with former local politicians. Despite requests for review by the county the expenditures were never examined.

Great parks need to be accessible by everyone. It is wrong to allow irresponsible use of Measure A funds.

Steve Tognini Parks Maintenance and Improvements Wildfire Prevention

We've witnessed a 20% loss of the world’s redwoods over the past two years. Federal, State and local agencies are taking assertive action to change forest structures to create forest resilience. More resources need to be directed to fire prevention. When our forests burn tremendous resources are both spent and lost. Fire prevention should come before maintenance.

Steven Ossi Grants for Farmland/Agriculture I am surprised that this poll even exists. After 2,700 respondents were clear that “Farmland Preservation” was “Not At All Important” and deserved “Less Funding” than any other expenditure category, it seems like you are shopping for better numbers. The 10% allocation to "agricultural stewardship" is in direct opposition to what the poll results showed. I OPPOSE IT, and I will vote against this measure if money is allocated to private ranchers. Two-thirds is not an easy number to achieve. Parks will lose, and I will demand Korten's resignation for not protecting our parks. If a single parks staff member loses his or her job, I will blame Korten. If the flow of money for fire fuel reduction is arrested, I will blame Korten. Decouple from MALT, private ranching and agriculture before it is too late. The money MALT gives you is the type of campaign funding with kickback that makes politics so dirty. Korten, do your job and protect our parks! If the pressure from MALT and the BoS is too strong, resign with your honor and decency! Please do the right thing.

Susan Fischer Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Marin County Measure A funds - NONE should go to “agricultural” lands, or beef ranches or farms or dairies. Money intended for parks, fire prevention, wetland restoration and biodiversity protection should actually go to these projects. Stop subsidizing ranching and dairies which are for profit businesses already subsidized by the federal government. And surely no money to MALT businesses given MALT'S questionable dealings. I may not be a Marin resident, but I frequent the area with friends and to visit friends and I spend money their when visiting. I will stop spending money in Marin if I am subsidizing Ag businesses instead of your parks.

Susan Goldthwaite

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture I am supporting Measure A. Reducing Farmland Preservation to 10% for Agricultural Stewardship makes absolutely no sense to me. We support the fine work that MALT is doing for our county.

I hope that we can persuade the Marin County commissioners to restore Measure A.... agricultural funding to its current 20% level and to include land acquisition as well as land stewardship.

Susan Ives Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Marin has higher needs than funding improvements on private ranch lands. I oppose investing additional millions of public dollars in private agricultural projects. Regenerative ranching and carbon capture are not proven to mitigate the multiple impacts of cattle--from polluting streams to destroying plants and wildlife habitat. As proposed, 10 percent of Measure A funds are intended to benefit a privileged few, not the public. Fire prevention; acquisition and maintenance of parks and public lands for Marin communities; the restoration and preservation of County lands are what's needed and what the public has prioritized. The County needs to respond to the public's wishes, not those of the special interests.

Susan Ristow Wildfire Prevention Wetland Restoration and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Biodiversity Protection Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Land Acquisition

Wildfire prevention is funded through Measure C with $19million plus per year for 10 years as well as other funding mechanisms Land Acquisition: in order to restore wetlands and protect biodiverse habitats you often have to acquire them. Why isn't Land Acquisition an option on this survey? Farmland/Agriculture: not appropriate to fund private enterprise through a measure dealing with parks and open space for the benefit of the public not individual landowners

Appreciate the work done to collect public opinions but, as per above comments, Land Acquisition, which is a necessary ingredient in many of the stated goals, is not included in this survey. Why?

Suzanne Sadowsky

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Staff housing

Farms should not be funded with Measure A funds. Measure A funds could be used for affordable workforce housing for parks staff.

Tanya Eckert Grasser


I read your survey results and saw the articles in the Marin IJ that are demanding wildfire fuel load prevention be included in the 2022 Measure A renewal. I don't understand the point of that, given that we now have the Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority, which was created after voters approved Measure C in March 2020. MWPA is all about wildfire prevention and preparedness efforts. This seems redundant. Or will Measure A cover different types of fire prevention? I also read about groups like COST Marin threatening to withhold Measure A support if it contains any allocation for farmland preservation. I don't agree with this because the public benefits a lot from continued agriculture in West Marin -- it minimizes land lost to residential development, allows farmers and ranchers to care for the land, and more. I hope you will keep that funding in the measure.

How many people completed the survey? I didn't see that number in the results document. I didn't do the survey because I didn't know about it. I follow MC Parks on Facebook, but it was barely mentioned there. However, I do appreciate this feedback form. Can you put me on an email list to receive Measure A updates? Thank you!

Tim Kehoe Grants for Farmland/Agriculture I would like to see the 20% for Ag grants, with the uncertainty of Agriculture in the National Park we need to keep the 20% intact.

Tina Flynn Grants for Parks in Cities, Towns, and Special Districts

Measure A funds, taxpayer dollars, should not go to private individuals who's land the public cannot access. Measure A funds should exclusively be used for our public parks and open spaces. I had the pleasure of visiting Point Reyes and saw the bountiful wildlife. Please do not use this public land for private ranchers or farmers. There were enough already there that I saw during my visit. Please do not kill off any of the living creatures here, save them for our children and their children to visit and see. We all need to co-exist.

TJ Williams Parks Maintenance and Improvements Trail Maintenance and Improvements Wildfire Prevention Recreation

Please increase recreation for all types at our parks. More pump tracks, skate parks, and anything for my sons (and I) to do. Hiking is great but the youth in our community need to be included in planning.

Todd Steiner Wetland Restoration and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Biodiversity Protection Grants for Farmland/Agriculture

More funds should go in favor or preference to biodiversity protection, wetland restoration and sea level rising. Nome should go for grants for Farmland/Agriculture.

No funds should go to lands that are not open to the public.

Tom Fair Wildfire Prevention State and local governments have been inexplicably laggard in budgeting for wildfire protection. BOS: show some testosterone and intelligent leadership here. Lead, do not follow. It is totally wrong to use these funds to subsidize private interests unless we are guaranteed that the funds are applied expeditiously to fire prevention.

Further, I have observed Ms. Willard's and COST's conduct for years. I believe that they are either completely correct or virtually completely correct in all conduct that I have seen.

Tom Peterson Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Measure A funds, taxpayer dollars, should not go to private individuals who's land the public cannot access. Measure A funds should be used exclusively for our public parks and open spaces

Tristan Brenner

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture I support the continual use of Measure A funds for farmland acquisition and agricultural lands conservation and stewardship. MALTed farms are required to remain as working farms. In a region where wealthy individuals can afford astounding prices, large ranches are at risk of becoming weekend estates. Our food security, connection with the land, stewardship of wildlife habitat and intergenerational knowledge is at great risk if the funding is taken away. A diversified economy that supports the descendants of the early community members is important to this community. Conservation easement have been proven to protect numerous ecosystem services and MALT has a record of holding accountable the landowners to BMP surrounding conservation. Minimizing habitat fragmentation and wildfire risk are but a few. I support maintaining the current level of 20% for farmland preservation and/or supporting farmland stewardship

Vincent DeLeon

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture I do not like that 20% of 'Measure A' tax money has gone to buy easements from private commercial ranchers. Measure A funds, taxpayer dollars, should not go to private individuals whose land the public cannot access. Measure A funds should exclusively be used for our public parks and open spaces.

No further agricultural development on Point Reyes!

Vivien Straus Grants for Farmland/Agriculture My name is Vivien Straus. I grew up on and now own and manage Straus Home Ranch in Marshall. My mother, Ellen Straus, was one of the co-founders of MALT, and I recently joined the MALT board. I believe retaining that 20% allocation of Measure A funds is critical. For both easements and stewardship. Once farmland is lost, it is lost forever. We don’t get to look back and say, “Oh, we should have protected that.” Ranchers come to MALT for varied reasons, but essentially it is always financial. Ranchers, unable to get MALT funds for easements, will look elsewhere to find the monies they need. And the properties will, most likely, no longer be farms. Why is farmland protection and stewardship important? Each year, MALT protects approximately 3,000 acres of farmland. Those ranchers go on to work with NRCS and Marin RCD and MALT to fence off streams, repair riparian habitat, compost the fields to sequester carbon. Ranchers today are rotationally grazing their lands, thereby increasing pasture and taking better care of the land. I hear great concern about wildfires. Grazing keeps the grass short and the fuel for fires low. Approximately 50,000 acres are still unprotected. There are 7,000 acres in the pipeline at MALT, waiting for easements. Why here in Marin? Reducing Measure A for farmland protection funding slashes in half the very essence of what makes Marin world-renowned. MALT is the pioneer and leader in agricultural protection in the United States, and Marin is known for its cutting-edge farming methods, while cultivating and supporting well-known artisanal companies that could only have succeeded in this supportive environment. And all of it began with a MALT easement. We have a way to feed ourselves and our community, reduce our carbon footprint through local production, and continue to support a thriving local economy. When we lose land, we lose Marin, and we lose our history, our heart, and our legacy. In a time where leadership on climate and land issues is so urgent, please retain farmland protection and stewardship. Thank you.

Wendy Dreskin

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture I do not want any of my taxes to support any private agriculture or private ranching. Using open space areas like Mt. Burdell for grazing greatly detracts from the visitor experience. Problems include manure, erosion, “hoof holes" that make it easy to trip and eating wildflowers I would like to get to see. Ranching is not environmentally friendly and should not be supported with tax dollars. I will not vote to any measure that includes funding for private ranching or agriculture.

Will Parrinello Grants for Farmland/Agriculture I do not want any of my taxpayer dollars to support any activities on private farmland/private agriculture. I will vote against this measure if any money is allocated to agriculture.

A majority of Marin county and San Francisco Bay Area residents agree with my comments so why don't you respect the wishes of residents and constituents.

William Dreskin

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture I do not want my taxpayer dollars to support any private ranching or agriculture. I will not vote for a measure that supports this. Ranchers are not an asset to our community, and they are already wealthy and don't need community support. I do support our parks and open space and would otherwise be happy to vote for a funding measure for trail improvements, biodiversity protection, etc..

William Klancnik

Grants for Parks in Cities, Towns, and Special Districts

The grants should only go to public lands that are accessible to everyone, and not to private folks or to lands that are not accessible by the public

William Teufel MD


As a 20-year resident of west Marin and supporter of MALT, please spend less money on Ag. land and more money on decreasing wildfire risks on public land. There is too much Broom in many areas and the Ag folks seem to have access to adequate funding to "preserve' our west Marin "farms"

Woody Elliott Grants for Farmland/Agriculture The number of agricultural parcels and their acreage that would still benefit from agricultural / conservation easements and their total costs should be made available to inform an annual allocation of Measure A funds.

Ysabel de la Rosa

Grants for Farmland/Agriculture Grant money should go to public lands for preservation of important species and access to nature by people in order to learn and experience. There is no justifiable reason for these grants to go to individuals who can already afford to purchase land on their own. Please protect our wildlife and its environment. Thank you!

ORDINANCE NO. 3586 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF MARIN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

IMPOSING A ONE-QUARTER OF ONE PERCENT RETAIL TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX TO BE ADMINISTERED BY THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

FOR PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND FARMLAND PRESERVATION

THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF MARIN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. TITLE. This Ordinance shall be known as the Marin Parks, Open Space, and Farmland Preservation Transactions and Use Tax Ordinance. The County of Marin hereinafter shall be called "County." This Ordinance shall be applicable in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County.

SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE; OPERATIVE DATE; ADMINISTRATION. A. This Ordinance shall become effective upon its approval by a two-thirds majority of

the electors voting on the measure.

B. This Ordinance shall become operative on April 1, 2013 ("Operative Date"); provided,however, that the Marin Parks, Open Space, and Farmland PreservationExpenditure Plan ("Expenditure Plan"), attached hereto as Exhibit "A," shall becomeoperative on the effective date of this Ordinance.

C. Prior to January 1, 2013, the Marin County Open Space District ("District") shall enterinto an agreement with the· County for the administration of Open Space programfunding sections .of the Expenditure Plan.

SECTION 3. PURPOSE. This Ordinance is adopted to achieve the following, among other purposes, and directs that the provisi_ons hereof be interpreted in order to accomplish those purposes:

A. To impose a retail transactions and use tax in accordance with the provisions of Part1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and TaxationCode and Section 7285.5 of Part 1. 7 of Division 2 which authorizes the County toadopt this tax Ordinance which shall be operative if two-thirds of the electors votingon the measure vote to approve the imposition of the tax at an election called for thatpurpose.

B. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax Ordinance that incorporates provisionsidentical to those of the Sales and Use Tax Law of the State of California insofar asthose provisions are not inconsistent with the requirements and limitations containedin Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

C. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax Ordinance that imposes a tax and providesa measure therefor that can be administered and collected by the State Board ofEqualization in a manner that adapts itself as fully as practicable to, and requires theleast possible deviation from, the existing statutory and administrative proceduresfollowed by the State, Board of Equalization in administering and collecting theCalifornia State Sales and Use Taxes.

Ordinance No. 3586 Page 1 of 10

Attachment D

D. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax Ordinance that can be administered in amanner that will be, to the greatest degree possible, consistent with the provisions ofPart 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, minimize the cost ofcollecting the transactions and use taxes, and at the same time, minimize the burdenof record keeping upon persons subject- to taxation under the provisions of thisOrdinance.

SECTION 4. EXPENDITURE PLAN; LIMITATION OF EXPENDITURES;FISCAL OVERSIGHT. Pursuant to the requirements of Government Code §50075.1, (1) the Expenditure Plan constitutes the statement of the specific purposes for which the revenue generated by this Ordinance may be expended, (2) the expenditure of the revenue generated by this Ordinance shall be restricted to the purposes stated in Exhibit "A," (3) the revenue generated by this Ordinance shall be deposited into the "Parks, Open Space, and Farmland Preservation Special Tax Account," and (4) the County Department of Finance shall prepare and file with the Board of Supervisors reports meeting the requirements of Government Code §50075.3.

SECTION 5. CONTRACT WITH STATE. Prior to the Operative Date, the County shall contract with the State Board of Equalization to perform all functions incident to the administration and operation of this transactions and use tax Ordinance; provided, that if the County shall not have contracted with the State Board of Equalization prior to the Operative Date, it shall nevertheless so contract and in such a case the operative date shall be the first day of the first calendar quarter following the execution of such a contract.

SECTION 6. TRANSACTIONS TAX RATE.

For the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail, a tax. is hereby imposed upon all retailers in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County at the rate of one quarter of one per cent (0.25%) of the gross receipts of any retailer from the sale of all tangible personal property sold at retail in said territory on and after the operative date of this Ordinance.

SECTION 7. PLACE OF SALE.

For the purposes of this Ordinance, all retail sales are consummated at the place of business of the retailer unless the tangible personal property sold is delivered by the retailer or his agent to an out-of-state destination or to a common carrier for delivery to an out-of-state destination. The gross receipts from such sales shall include delivery charges, when such charges are subject to the state sales and use tax, regardless of the place to which delivery is made. In the event a retailer has no permanent place of business in the State or has more than one place of business, the place or places at which the retail sales are consummated shall be determined under rules and regulations to be prescribed and adopted by the State Board of Equalization.

SECTION 8. USE TAX RATE.

An excise tax is hereby imposed on the storage, use or other consumption in the County of tangible personal property purchased from any retailer on and after the operative date of this Ordinance for storage, use or other consumption in said territory at the rate of one quarter of one percent (0.25%) of the sales price of the property. The sales price shall include delivery charges when such charges are subject to state sales or use tax regardless of the place to which delivery is made.

SECTION 9. ADOPTION OF PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW. Except as otherwise provided in this Ordinance and except insofar as they are inconsistent with the provisions of Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, all of the provisions of Part 1 (commencing with Section 6001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code are hereby adopted and made a part of this Ordinance as though fully set forth herein.


SECTION 10. LIMITATIONS ON ADOPTION OF STATE LAW AND COLLECTION OF USE TAXES.

In adopting the provisions of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code: A. Wherever the State of California is named or referred to as the taxing agency, the

name of this County shall be substituted therefore. However, the substitution shallnot be made when:1. The word "State" is used as a part of the title of the State Cqntroller, State

Treasurer, State Board of Control, State Board of Equalization, State Treasury,or the Constitution of the State of California;

2. The result of that substitution would require action to be taken by or against thisCounty or any agency, officer, or employee thereof rather than by or against theState Board of Equalization, in performing the functions incident to theadministration or operation of this Ordinance.

3. In those sections, including, but not necessarily limited to sections referring to theexterior boundaries of the State of California, where the result of the substitutionwould be to:a. Provide an exemption from this tax with respect to certain sales, storage, use

or other consumption of tangible personal property which would not otherwisebe exempt from this tax while such sales, storage, use or other consumption ·remain subject to tax by the State under the provisions of Part 1 of Division 2of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or;

b. Impose this tax with respect to certain sales, storage, use or otherconsumption of tangible personal property which would not be subject to taxby the state under the said provision of that code.

4. In Sections 6701, 6702 (except in the last sentence thereof), 6711, 6715, 6737,6797 or 6828 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.a. The word "County" shall be substituted for the word "State" in the phrase

"retailer engaged in business in this State" in Section 6203 and in thedefinition of that phrase in Section 6203.

SECTION 11. PERMIT NOT REQUIRED.

If a seller's permit has been issued to a retailer under Section 6067 of the Revenue and . Taxation Code, an additional transactor's permit shall not be required by this Ordinance.

SECTION 12. EXEMPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS.

A. There shall be excluded from the measure of the transactions tax and the use tax theamount of any sales tax or use tax imposed by the State of California or by any city,city and county, or county pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales andUse Tax Law or the amount of any state-administered transactions or use tax.

8. There are exempted from the computation of the amount of transactions tax thegross receipts from:1. Sales of tangible personal property, other than fuel or petroleum products, to

operators of aircraft to be used or consumed principally outside the County inwhich the sale is made and directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft ascommon carriers of persons or property under the authority of the laws of thisState, the United States, or any foreign government.

2. Sales of property to be used outside the County which is shipped to a pointoutside the County, pursuant to the contract of sale, by delivery to such point bythe retailer or his agent, or by delivery by the retailer to a carrier for shipment to aconsignee at such point. For the purposes of this paragraph, delivery to a pointoutside the County shall be satisfied:


a. With respect to vehicles (other· than commercial vehicles) subject toregistration pursuant to Chapter 1 ( commencing with Section 4000) ofDivision 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance with Section21411 of the Public Utilities Code, and undocumented vessels registeredunder Division 3.5 ( commencing with Section 9840) of the Vehicle Code byregistration to an out-of-County address and by a declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the buyer, stating that such address is, in fact, his or her principal place of residence; and

b. With respect to commercial vehicles, by registration to a place of businessout-of-County and declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the buyer,that the vehicle will be operated from that address.

3. The sale of tangible personal property if the seller is obligated to furnish theproperty for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the operativedate of this Ordinance.

4. A lease of tangible personal property which is a continuing sale of such property,for any period of time for which the lessor is obligated to lease the property for anamount fixed by the lease prior to the operative date of this Ordinance.

5. For the purposes of subparagraphs (3) and (4) of this section, the sale or lease oftangible personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to acontract or lease for any period of time for which any party to the contract orlease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice,whether or not such right is exercised.

C. There are exempted from the use tax imposed by this Ordinance, the storage, use orother consumption in this County of tangible personal property:1. The gross receipts from the sale of which have been subject to a transactions tax

under any state-administered transactions and use tax Ordinance.2. Other than fuel or petroleum products purchased by operators of aircraft and

used or consumed by such operators directly and exclusively in the use of suchaircraft as common carriers of persons or property for hire or compensationunder a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued pursuant to thelaws of this State, the United States, or any foreign government. This exemptionis in addition to the exemptions provided in Sections 6366 and 6366.1 of theRevenue and Taxation Code of the State of California.

3. If the purchaser is obligated to purchase the property for a fixed price pursuant toa contract entered into prior to the operative date of this Ordinance.

4. If the possession of, or the exercise of any right or power over, the tangiblepersonal property arises under a lease which is a continuing purchase of suchproperty for any period of time for which the lessee is obligated to lease theproperty for an amount fixed by a lease prior to the operative date of thisOrdinance.

5. For the purposes of subparagraphs 3. and 4. of this section, storage, use, orother consumption, or possession of, or exercise of any right or power over,tangible personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to acontract or lease for any period of time for which any party to the contract orlease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice,whether or not such right is exercised.

6. Except as provided in subparagraph 7, a retailer engaged in business in theCounty shall not be required to collect use tax from the purchaser of tangiblepersonal property, unless the retailer ships or delivers the property into theCounty or participates within the County in making the sale of the property,


including, but not limited to, soliciting or receiving the order, either directly or indirectly, at a place of business of the retailer in the County or through any representative, agent, canvasser, solicitor, subsidiary, or person in the County under the authority of the retailer.

7. "A retailer engaged in business in the County" shall also include any retailer ofany of the following: vehicles subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1( commencing with Section 4000) of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraftlicensed in compliance with Section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code, orundocumented vessels registered under Division 3. 5 ( commencing with Section9840) of the Vehicle Code. That retailer shall be required to collect use tax fromany purchaser who registers or licenses the vehicle, vessel, or aircraft at anaddress in the County.

D. Any person subject to use tax under this Ordinance may credit against that tax anytransactions tax or reimbursement for transactions tax paid to a County imposing, orretailer liable for a transactions tax pursuant _to Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenueand Taxation Code with respect to the sale to the person of the property the storage,use or other consumption of which is subject to the use tax.

SECTION 13. USE OF PROCEEDS.

The proceeds of the taxes imposed by this ordinance shall be used solely for the projects and purpose set forth in the Expenditure Plan attached as "Exhibit A" and for the administration thereof.

SECTION 14. AMENDMENTS.

All amendments subsequent to the effective date of this Ordinance to Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code relating to sales and use taxes an·d which are not inconsistent with Part 1.6 and Part 1. 7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, and all amendments to Part 1.6 and Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Cod_e, shall automatically become a part of this Ordinance, provided however, that no such amendment shall operate so as to affect the rate of tax imposed by this Ordinance.

SECTION 15. ENJOINING COLLECTION FORBIDDEN.

No injunction or writ of mandate or other legal or equitable process shall issue in any suit, action or proceeding in any court against the State or the County, or against any officer of the State or the County, to prevent or enjoin the collection under this Ordinance, or Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, of any tax or any amount of tax required to be collected.

SECTION 16. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

_SECTION 17. PUBLICATION.

Within thirty (30) days of its passage, this ordinance shall be published with the names of the supervisors voting for• and against the same in the MARIN INDEPENDENT JOURNAL,_ a newspaper of general circulation published in the County of Marin.

SECTION 18. TERMINATION DATE. The authority to levy the tax imposed by this Ordinance shall expire nine years from the operative date of this Ordinance.


PASSED ANO ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Marin held on this 7th day of August, 2012, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ATTEST:

SUPERVISORS

NONE

NONE

Katie Rice, Susan L. Adams, Judy Arnold, Kathrin Sears, Steve Kinsey

PRESIDENT, BOARD OF SUPE�SORS


Exhibit A

PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND FARMLAND PRESERVATION EXPENDITURE PLAN

A. SummaryIt is proposed that the voters in Marin County be presented in November 2012, the opportunityto vote to support the preservation of Marin County parks, open space preserves, and farmland.The Parks, Open Space, and Farmland Preservation one-fourth-cent (1 /4 cent) sales tax("Measure") is estimated, at current collection levels, to generate approximately $10,000,000per year. This level of revenue may change during the life of the Measure due to the variabilityin annual receipts. All revenue projections described below are approximate and will be subjectto changes in annual receipts.

This Expenditure Plan ("Plan") outlines three programs for spending the sales tax proceeds. In Part B of the Plan, each program is described by its funding allocation, and types of projects and activities that the funding - would support. Part C of the Plan contains administrative provisions, including a Community Oversight Committee and public process for determining annual expenditures.

B. Program Descriptions1. Parks and Open Space Program (65%)

The purpose of this Program is to protect or restore natural resources, maintain existingcounty parks and open space preserves, and preserve natural lands. Sixty five percent(65%) of revenues generated annually by this Measure shall be made available for thefollowing uses.

a. Protect or Restore Natural Resources and Maintain Existing County Parks andOpen Space Preserves.The purpose of this element is to protect or restore natural resources, andmaintain our existing county parks and open space preserves. Eighty percent(80%) of the Parks and Open Space Program's annual amount shall be used forthe following purposes.

i. Protect and restore wetlands along Marin's coastline and bay shoreline toprotect wildlife habitat, including habitat for shorebirds, waterfowl, andendangered wildlife such as the California clapper rail and salt marshharvest mouse.

ii. Protect water quality and fish habitat by reducing erosion andsedimentation, and/ or engaging in restoration projects in streams andcreeks within county parks and preserves including, but not limited to,Coyote Creek, Miller Creek, Lagunitas Creek, Corte Madera Creek, RushCreek, Novato Creek, and Las Gallinas Creek.

iii. Reduce the risk of wildfire, enhance biodiversity, and control populationsof invasive, non-native weeds in communities throughout Marin in closeconsultation with city, town, and county fire districts and agencies, inaccordance with the Marin County Parks Vegetation and BiodiversityManagement Plan.

iv. Repair, maintain, and/or replace deteriorating facilities and infrastructurein open space preserves that orient and inform visitors, enable publicaccess, protect natural resources, enhance safety, and prevent slopeinstability and flooding affecting downstream areas. Facilities andinfrastructure include, but are not limited to, signs, gates, fences, flood


prevention and drainage improvements, slope stability improvements, . culverts, retaining walls, and bridges.

v. Repair, maintain, and/or replace deteriorating recreation facilities andinfrastructure in county parks and on county regional pathways. Facilitiesand infrastructure include, but are not limited to, children's playgrounds,bathrooms, water fountains, water lines, picnic areas and tables, theswimming pool at McNear's Beach Park, signs, sea walls, kayak andcanoe launches, fishing piers, paved multiuse pathways such as MillValley/Sausalito bike path and Corte Madera Creek bike path, tenniscourts, basketball courts, the skate park at John F. Mcinnis Park,landscape plantings, parking lots, irrigation systems, and ball fields.

vi. Implement trail projects to protect water quality, sensitive habitats andnatural areas (including habitat for rare and endangered species); reduceerosion; avoid unstable slopes; improve trail safety and sustainability;improve trail enjoyment and recreation opportunities; and reducemaintenance costs, in accordance with the Marin County Parks Road andTrail Management Plan. Project types may include, but are not limited to,rerouting existing trails; decommissioning ( closing) unauthorized andredundant trails with concurrent habitat restoration; converting redundantor unnecessary fire roads to trails (in consultation with Marin fireagencies); building new or modifying existing trails when necessary toimprove trail safety and/or achieve connections to other trails ordestrnations; and entering into arrangements with private land owners foressential trail connections.

vii. Augment current visitor services for parks and open space preserves -via rangers, programming, and partnerships - to protect naturalresources; support visitor safety and enjoyment; and supportvolunteerism and environmental education.

b. Preserve Natural LandsThe purpose of this element is to enable fulfillment of the Marin County ParksStrategic Plan goals related to the permanent preservation of land for public openspace, community separators, wildlife corridors, greenbelts, and habitat. Twentypercent (20%) of the Parks and Open Space Program's annual amount shall beused for the following purposes; however, the annual amount or its balance maybe accumulated, carried over, and accrued for expenditure in future years, not toexceed ten (10) years after the termination date of the sales tax increase.

i. Purchase land or conservation easements from willing sellers for thepurposes of permanently protecting and/or restoring natural areas,streams, bay lands, and native ecosystems with high natural resourcevalues.

ii. To the extent possible, these funds would be used to leverage matchingfunds from public and private partners.

2. Farmland Preservation Program (20%)The purpose of this Program is to protect Marin County farmland at risk of subdivisionand development and preserve Marin's working farms and ranches. Twenty percent(20%) of revenues generated annually by this Measure shall be made available for thefollowing uses.

a. Purchase perpetual agricultural conservation easements, and on land alreadyencumbered by agricultural conservation easements, purchase additional real


property interests, to protect and permanently preserve Marin County farms and ranches for productive agricultural use through voluntary transactions with landowners.

b. Provide matching grants to qualified organizations to support and facilitate thepurchase of perpetual agricultural conservation easements, and additional realproperty interests on land already encumbered by an agricultural conservationeasement, through voluntary transactions with landowners.

c. Provide matching grants to the Marin Resource Conservation District for thepurpose of assisting ranchers and farmers in enhancing the agricultural andnatural resource values on easement-protected properties. Grants for thispurpose shall not exceed five percent (5%) of the Farmland PreservationProgram's annual amount.

d. Provide matching grants to the entities holding easements acquired with programfunds, for the purpose of monitoring and enforcing such easements. Grants forthis purpose shall not exceed five percent (5%) of the Farmland PreservationProgram's annual amount.

3. City, Town, and Applicable Special District Program (15%)The purpose of this Program is to assist Marin's municipalities and applicable specialdistricts in managing their parks, open space preserves, recreation programs, andvegetation to promote biodiversity and reduce wildfire risk. Fifteen percent (15%) of therevenues generated annually by this Measure shall be made available for the followinguses.

a. Provide grants to cities, towns, and applicable special districts (special districtsthat provide for parks, open space and/or recreation in unincorporated areas), tomaintain, restore, and/or renovate existing parks, preserves, and recreationalfacilities; to construct new parks and recreational facilities or acquire parklands;or to engage in vegetation management to reduce wildfire risk, promotebiodiversity, or control invasive non-native weeds on private, municipal, or districtlands.

b. Funds shall be available through a grant allocation process that will be designedin concert with the cities, towns, and applicable special districts. The grantallocation process, but not the individual projects, shall be subject to approval bythe Marin County Board of Supervisors. This program is expected to generateover $13,500,000 over the life of the Measure. This program's annual amount, orits balance, may be accumulated, carried over, and accrued for expenditure infuture years, not to exceed ten (10) years after the termination date of the salestax increase.

C. Administrative Provisions1. Community Oversight Committee

a.· A Community Oversight Committee shall be created by the Marin County Boardof Supervisors within six months of the effective date of the ordinance levying thesales tax increase. The responsibilities of this committee shall be to review Plan expenditures on an annual basis to ensure they conform with the Plan, and oversee an annual audit and prepare an annual report describing how funds were spent.

b. Members of the committee shall be appointed by the Board. The role of thecommittee shall be to advise the Board and staff on these matters. Thecommittee shall report to the Director and General Manager of Marin CountyParks.


c. Members of the Community Oversight Committee shall be county residents whoare neither elected officials of any government, nor employees from any agencyor organization that either oversees or benefits from the proceeds of the salestax. The committee shall consist of seven at-large members.

d. The Board shall approve bylaws related to the conduct of. committee meetingsand business.

e. Meetings of the committee shall be open to the public and shall be held incompliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, California's open meeting law.

f. The committee shall dissolve after all revenue collected from this Measure isexpended and a final report is submitted.

2. Implementation RequirementsImplementation of the plan shall be guided by the following procedures to ensure thatthe revenue generated by the Measure is spent in the most efficient and effectivemanner possible, consistent with serving the public interest in Marin County, and thedesires of the voters of Marin County.

a. The Marin County Parks and Open Space Commission shall conduct a publicmeeting annually to gain public input on selection of projects to expend the salestax revenues, as part of County's annual budget development process.

b. The County of Marin is charged with the fiduciary duty to administer sales taxproceeds· in accordance with applicable laws. Disbursement of funds as grantsshall be subject to terms and conditions that may include, but are not limited to,the County's right to 1) require grantees to enter into funding agreements withthe County; 2) require . matching funds; and 3) audit a grantee's use of taxproceeds.

c. Actual revenues generated by the Measure may be higher or lower thanestimates in this Plan due to variability in annual tax receipts. County shallannually estimate revenue from the Measure.

d. County may accumulate revenue over multiple years so that sufficient funding isavailable for larger and long-term projects. All interest income shall be used forthe purposes identified in this Plan, and shall accrue proportionately to theprograms identified in this Plan. Ten (10) years after the termination date of thesales tax increase, unused funds and accrued interest from the FarmlandPreservation Program and the City, Town, and Applicable Special DistrictProgram shall be available for any pu.rpose consistent with this· Plan, subject toapproval by the Board of Supervisors.

e. Sales tax proceeds are intended to augment annual County of Marin GeneralFund support for Marin County Parks. Any reduction in the annual net countycosts below the 2012-13 allocation to Marin County Parks from the General Fundwill be within the range of reductions being required from other county

f. departments.To enhance local workforce development and employment opportunities, andinvolve youth and young adults in caring for our natural resources, the county will

. reach out to local community based, not-for-profit, and/or for profit businesses and consider these entities for the provision of new contracted services funded by this measure.

g. No more than five percent (5%) of the Parks and Open Space Program's annualamount may be used for administrative expenses by the county.

foregoing instrument is do.

currect copy of the original on No more thah five percent (5%) of the Farmland Preservation Program's annualamount may be used for administrative expenses by the county.

in this office. i\/!l\TTHEVV H. HYMEL, Clerk

of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Marin State of California


Attachment E

ORDINANCE NO. ____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF MARIN, STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, RE-IMPLEMENTING A ONE-QUARTER OF ONE PERCENT TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX TO BE ADMINISTERED

BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX AND FEE ADMINISTRATION FOR PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND FARMLAND

PRESERVATION

THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF MARIN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. TITLE This Ordinance shall be known as the Marin Parks, Open Space, and Farmland Preservation Transactions and Use Tax Ordinance. The County of Marin hereinafter shall be called "County." This Ordinance shall be applicable in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County.

SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE; OPERATIVE DATE; ADMINISTRATION

A. This Ordinance relates to the levying and collecting of the County transactions and use taxes and shall take effect immediately (“Effective Date”).

B. This Ordinance shall become operative on October 1, 2022 or the start of the earliest

quarter thereafter, on the first day of the first calendar quarter commencing more than 110 days after the adoption of this Ordinance, consistent with California Department of Tax and Fee Administration requirements ("Operative Date"); provided, however, that the Marin Parks, Open Space, and Farmland Preservation Expenditure Plan ("Expenditure Plan"), attached hereto as Exhibit "A," shall commence on the effective date of this Ordinance.

C. Upon becoming operative, this Ordinance shall apply to any unspent fund balance

from Ordinance 3586, which became effective April 1, 2013. SECTION 3. PURPOSE This Ordinance is adopted to achieve the following, among other purposes, and directs that the provisions hereof be interpreted in order to accomplish those purposes:

A. To re-implement a retail transactions and use tax in accordance with the provisions

of Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and Section 7285.5 of Part 1.7 of Division 2, which authorizes the County to adopt this tax Ordinance which shall be Operative if a (2/3) majority of the electors voting on the measure vote to approve the imposition of the tax at an election called for that purpose.

B. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that incorporates provisions

identical to those of the Sales and Use Tax Law of the State of California insofar as those provisions are not inconsistent with the requirements and limitations contained in Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

C. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that re-implements a tax and

provides a measure therefor that can be administered and collected by the

Attachment E

California Department of Tax and Fee Administration in a manner that adapts itself as fully as practicable to, and requires the least possible deviation from, the existing statutory and administrative procedures followed by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration in administering and collecting the California State Sales and Use Taxes. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that can be administered in a manner that will be, to the greatest degree possible, consistent with the provisions of Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, minimize the cost of collecting the transactions and use taxes, and at the same time, minimize the burden of record-keeping upon persons subject to taxation under the provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 4. EXPENDITURE PLAN: LIMITATION OF EXPENDITURES; FISCAL OVERSIGHT

Pursuant to the requirements of Government Code §50075.1, (1) the Expenditure Plan constitutes the statement of the specific purposes for which the revenue generated by this Ordinance may be expended, (2) the expenditure of the revenue generated by this Ordinance shall be restricted to the purposes stated in Exhibit "A," (3) the revenue generated by this Ordinance shall be deposited into the "Parks, Open Space, and Farmland Preservation Special Tax Account," and (4) the County Department of Finance shall prepare and file with the Board of Supervisors reports meeting the requirements of Government Code §50075.3.

SECTION 5. CONTRACT WITH STATE Prior to the Operative date, the County shall contract with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to perform all functions incident to the administration and operation of this transactions and use tax ordinance; provided, that if the County shall not have contracted with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration prior to the Operative date, it shall nevertheless so contract and in such a case the Operative date shall be the first day of the first calendar quarter following the execution of such a contract.

SECTION 6. TRANSACTIONS TAX RATE For the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail, a tax is hereby re-implemented upon all retailers in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County at the rate of one-quarter of one percent (0.25%) of the gross receipts of any retailer from the sale of all tangible personal property sold at retail in said territory on and after the Operative Date of this Ordinance.

SECTION 7. PLACE OF SALE For the purposes of this Ordinance, all retail sales are consummated at the place of business of the retailer unless the tangible personal property sold is delivered by the retailer or his agent to an out-of-state destination or to a common carrier for delivery to an out-of-state destination. The gross receipts from such sales shall include delivery charges, when such charges are subject to the state sales and use tax, regardless of the place to which delivery is made. In the event a retailer has no permanent place of business in the State or has more than one place of business, the place or places at which the retail sales are consummated shall be determined under rules and regulations to be prescribed and adopted by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration.

Attachment E

SECTION 8. USE TAX RATE An excise tax is hereby re-implemented on the storage, use or other consumption in the County of tangible personal property purchased from any retailer on and after the Operative Date of this Ordinance for storage, use or other consumption in said territory at the rate of one quarter of one-percent (0.25%) of the sales price of the property. The sales price shall include delivery charges when such charges are subject to state sales or use tax regardless of the place to which delivery is made.

SECTION 9. ADOPTION OF PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW Except as otherwise provided in this Ordinance and except insofar as they are inconsistent with the provisions of Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, all of the provisions of Part 1 (commencing with Section 6001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code are hereby adopted and made a part of this Ordinance as though fully set forth herein. SECTION 10. LIMITATIONS ON ADOPTION OF STATE LAW AND COLLECTION OF USE

TAXES In adopting the provisions of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code:

A. Wherever the State of California is named or referred to as the taxing agency, the name of this County shall be substituted therefore. However, the substitution shall not be made when: 1. The word "State" is used as a part of the title of the State Controller, State

Treasurer, State Board of Control, State Board of Equalization, State Treasury, or the Constitution of the State of California;

2. The result of that substitution would require action to be taken by or against this County or any agency, officer, or employee thereof rather than by or against the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, in performing the functions incident to the administration or operation of this Ordinance.

3. In those sections, including, but not necessarily limited to sections referring to the exterior boundaries of the State of California, where the result of the substitution would be to: a. Provide an exemption from this tax with respect to certain sales, storage,

use or other consumption of tangible personal property which would not otherwise be exempt from this tax while such sales, storage, use or other consumption remain subject to tax by the State under the provisions of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or;

b. Impose this tax with respect to certain sales, storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property which would not be subject to tax by the state under the said provision of that code.

4. In Sections 6701, 6702 (except in the last sentence thereof), 6711, 6715, 6737, 6797 or 6828 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. a. The word "County" shall be substituted for the word "State" in the phrase

"retailer engaged in business in this State" in Section 6203 and in the definition of that phrase in Section 6203.

• “A retailer engaged in business in the County” shall also include any retailer that, in the preceding calendar year or the current calendar year, has total combined sales of tangible personal property in this state or for delivery in the State by the retailer and all persons related to the retailer that exceeds five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000). For purposes of this section, a

Attachment E

person is related to another person if both persons are related to each other pursuant to Section 267(b) of Title 26 of the United States Code and the regulations thereunder.

SECTION 11. PERMIT NOT REQUIRED If a seller's permit has been issued to a retailer under Section 6067 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, an additional transactor's permit shall not be required by this Ordinance.

SECTION 12. EXEMPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS A. There shall be excluded from the measure of the transactions tax and the use tax

the amount of any sales tax or use tax imposed by the State of California or by any city, city and county, or county pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law or the amount of any state-administered transactions or use tax.

B. There are exempted from the computation of the amount of transactions tax the gross receipts from: 1. Sales of tangible personal property, other than fuel or petroleum products, to

operators of aircraft to be used or consumed principally outside the County in which the sale is made and directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property under the authority of the laws of this State, the United States, or any foreign government.

2. Sales of property to be used outside the County which is shipped to a point outside the County, pursuant to the contract of sale, by delivery to such point by the retailer or his agent, or by delivery by the retailer to a carrier for shipment to a consignee at such point. For the purposes of this paragraph, delivery to a point outside the County shall be satisfied: a. With respect to vehicles (other than commercial vehicles) subject to

registration pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance with Section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code, and undocumented vessels registered under Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840) of the Vehicle Code by registration to an out-of-County address and by a declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the buyer, stating that such address is, in fact, his or her principal place of residence; and

b. With respect to commercial vehicles, by registration to a place of business out-of-County and declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the buyer, that the vehicle will be operated from that address.

3. The sale of tangible personal property if the seller is obligated to furnish the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the Operative Date of this Ordinance.

4. A lease of tangible personal property which is a continuing sale of such property, for any period of time for which the lessor is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by the lease prior to the Operative Date of this Ordinance.

5. For the purposes of subparagraphs (3) and (4) of this section, the sale or lease of tangible personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to a contract or lease for any period of time for which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised.

C. There are exempted from the use tax imposed by this Ordinance, the storage, use

Attachment E

or other consumption in this County of tangible personal property: 1. The gross receipts from the sale of which have been subject to a transactions

tax under any state-administered transactions and use tax ordinance. 2. Other than fuel or petroleum products purchased by operators of aircraft and

used or consumed by such operators directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property for hire or compensation under a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued pursuant to the laws of this State, the United States, or any foreign government. This exemption is in addition to the exemptions provided in Sections 6366 and 6366.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California.

3. If the purchaser is obligated to purchase the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the Operative Date of this Ordinance.

4. If the possession of, or the exercise of any right or power over, the tangible personal property arises under a lease which is a continuing purchase of such property for any period of time for which the lessee is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by a lease prior to the Operative Date of this Ordinance.

5. For the purposes of subparagraphs 3. and 4. of this section, storage, use, or other consumption, or possession of, or exercise of any right or power over, tangible personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to a contract or lease for any period of time for which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised.

6. Except as provided in subparagraph 7, a retailer engaged in business in the County shall not be required to collect use tax from the purchaser of tangible personal property, unless the retailer ships or delivers the property into the County or participates within the County in making the sale of the property, including, but not limited to, soliciting or receiving the order, either directly or indirectly, at a place of business of the retailer in the County or through any representative, agent, canvasser, solicitor, subsidiary, or person in the County under the authority of the retailer.

7. "A retailer engaged in business in the County" shall also include any retailer of any of the following: vehicles subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance with Section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code, or undocumented vessels registered under Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840) of the Vehicle Code. That retailer shall be required to collect use tax from any purchaser who registers or licenses the vehicle, vessel, or aircraft at an address in the County.

D. Any person subject to use tax under this Ordinance may credit against that tax any

transactions tax or reimbursement for transactions tax paid to a County imposing, or retailer liable for a transactions tax pursuant to Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code with respect to the sale to the person of the property the storage, use or other consumption of which is subject to the use tax.

SECTION 13. USE OF PROCEEDS The proceeds of the taxes imposed by this ordinance shall be used solely for the projects and purpose set forth in the Expenditure Plan attached as "Exhibit A" and for the administration

Attachment E

thereof.

SECTION 14. AMENDMENTS All amendments subsequent to the effective date of this Ordinance to Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code relating to sales and use taxes and which are not inconsistent with Part 1.6 and Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, and all amendments to Part 1.6 and Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, shall automatically become a part of this Ordinance, provided however, that no such amendment shall operate so as to affect the rate of tax imposed by this Ordinance.

SECTION 15. ENJOINING COLLECTION FORBIDDEN No injunction or writ of mandate or other legal or equitable process shall issue in any suit, action or proceeding in any court against the State or the County, or against any officer of the State or the County, to prevent or enjoin the collection under this Ordinance, or Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, of any tax or any amount of tax required to be collected.

SECTION 16. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

SECTION 17. PUBLICATION Within thirty (30) days of its passage, this ordinance shall be published with the names of the supervisors voting for and against the same in the MARIN INDEPENDENT JOURNAL, a newspaper of general circulation published in the County of Marin.

SECTION 18. TERMINATION DATE The authority to levy the tax re-implemented by this Ordinance shall expire nine years from the Operative Date of this Ordinance.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Marin held on this <DATE>, by the following vote:

AYES: SUPERVISORS NOES: ABSENT: PRESIDENT, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ATTEST: CLERK

Ordinance No. ___ Page 7 of 11

Exhibit A PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND FARMLAND PRESERVATION EXPENDITURE PLAN

A. Summary It is proposed that the voters in Marin County be presented at the June 7, 2022 Primary Election, the opportunity to vote to re-implement an existing tax that funds the preservation of Marin County parks, open space preserves, and farmland. The Parks, Open Space, and Farmland Preservation one-fourth cent (1/4 cent) sales tax ("Measure") is estimated, at current collection levels, to generate approximately $14,000,000 per year. This level of revenue may change during the life of the Measure due to the variability in annual receipts. All revenue projections described below are approximate and will be subject to changes in annual receipts.

This Expenditure Plan ("Plan") outlines three programs for spending the sales tax proceeds. In Part B of the Plan, each program is described by its funding allocation, and types of projects and activities that the funding would support. Part C of the Plan contains administrative provisions, including a Community Oversight Committee and public process for determining annual expenditures.

B. Program Descriptions

1. Parks and Open Space Program (75%) The purpose of this Program is to protect or restore natural resources, maintain existing county parks and open space preserves, and preserve natural lands. Seventy five percent (75%) of revenues generated annually by this Measure shall be made available for the following uses.

a. Protect or Restore Natural Resources and Maintain Existing County Parks and Open Space Preserves. The purpose of this element is to protect or restore natural resources and maintain our existing county parks and open space preserves. Sixty percent (60%) of the Parks and Open Space Program's annual amount shall be used for the following purposes. ·

i. Enhance biodiversity, and control populations of invasive, non-native weeds in communities throughout Marin.

ii. Repair, maintain, and/or replace deteriorating recreation facilities and infrastructure in county parks, on county regional pathways, and locally through partnerships. Facilities and infrastructure include, but are not limited to, children's playgrounds, bathrooms, water fountains, water lines, picnic areas and tables, the swimming pool at McNear's Beach Park, signs, sea walls, kayak and canoe launches, fishing piers, paved multiuse pathways such as Mill Valley/Sausalito bike path and Corte Madera Creek bike path, tennis courts, basketball courts, the skate park at John F. Mcinnis Park, landscape plantings, parking lots, irrigation systems, and ball fields.

iii. Implement trail projects to protect water quality, sensitive habitats and natural areas (including habitat for rare and endangered species); reduce erosion; avoid unstable slopes; improve trail safety and sustainability; improve trail enjoyment and recreation opportunities; and reduce maintenance costs, in accordance with the Marin County Parks


Road and Trail Management Plan. Project types may include, but are not limited to, rerouting existing trails; decommissioning (closing) unauthorized and redundant trails with concurrent habitat restoration; converting redundant or unnecessary fire roads to trails (in consultation with Marin fire agencies); building new or modifying existing trails when necessary to improve trail safety and/or achieve connections to other trails or destinations; and entering into arrangements with private landowners for essential trail connections.

iv. Protect and restore wetlands along Marin's coastline and bay shoreline to protect wildlife habitat, including habitat for shorebirds, waterfowl, and endangered wildlife such as the California clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse.

v. Protect water quality and fish habitat by reducing erosion and sedimentation, and/ or engaging in restoration projects in streams and creeks within county parks and preserves including, but not limited to, Coyote Creek, Miller Creek, Lagunitas Creek, Corte Madera Creek, Rush Creek, Novato Creek, and Las Gallinas Creek.

vi. Repair, maintain, and/or replace deteriorating facilities and infrastructure in open space preserves that orient and inform visitors, enable public access, protect natural resources, enhance safety, and prevent slope instability and flooding affecting downstream areas. Facilities and infrastructure include, but are not limited to, signs, gates, fences, flood prevention and drainage improvements, slope stability improvements, culverts, retaining walls, and bridges.

vii. Augment current visitor services for parks and open space preserves - via rangers, programming, and partnerships - to protect natural resources; support visitor safety and enjoyment; and support volunteerism and environmental education.

b. Reduce the Risk of Wildfire In County Parks and Open Space Preserves.

The purpose of this element is to reduce the risk of wildfire on and adjacent to county parks and open space preserves. Thirty percent (30%) of the Parks and Open Space Program's annual amount shall be used for the following purposes. ·

i. Reduce the risk of wildfire in county parks and open spaces adjacent to communities throughout Marin in close consultation with city, town, and county fire districts and agencies, and while protecting biodiversity and ecosystem services.

c. Preserve Natural Lands

The purpose of this element is to enable fulfillment of the Marin County Parks Strategic Plan goals related to the permanent preservation of land for public open space, community separators, wildlife corridors, greenbelts, and habitat. Ten percent (10%) of the Parks and Open Space Program's annual amount shall be used for the following purposes; however, the annual amount or its balance may be accumulated, carried over, and accrued for expenditure in future years, not to exceed ten (10) years after the termination date of the sales tax extension.

i. Acquire land or conservation easements from willing sellers through direct purchase or partnerships for the purposes of permanently


protecting and/or restoring natural areas, streams, bay lands, and native ecosystems with high natural resource values; or to improve access to parks and recreation facilities.

ii. Implement capital improvements on lands and conservation easements purchased under this program on or after April 1, 2013.

iii. To the extent possible, these funds would be used to leverage matching funds from public and private partners.

2. Farmland Preservation Program (10%)

The purpose of this Program is to protect, restore, and care for Marin County farmland to support ecosystem services, economic and climate resilience, and sustain Marin's working farms and ranches. Ten percent (10%) of revenues generated annually by this Measure shall be made available for the following uses.

a. Provide matching grants to qualified organizations to support and facilitate the purchase of perpetual agricultural conservation easements, and on land already encumbered by agricultural conservation easements, purchase additional real property interests, to protect and permanently preserve Marin County farms and ranches for productive agricultural use through voluntary transactions with landowners.

b. Provide matching grants to support sustainable and climate beneficial agricultural lands including carbon farming, environmental restoration, regenerative agriculture, water quality protection, public access, community gardens, and efforts to provide access to low-cost farmland and farming for low-income communities.

c. Provide matching grants to the Marin Resource Conservation District for the purpose of assisting ranchers and farmers in enhancing the agricultural and natural resource values. Grants for this purpose shall not exceed ten percent (10%) of the Farmland Preservation Program's annual amount.

d. Provide matching grants to the entities holding easements acquired with program funds, for the purpose of monitoring and enforcing such easements. Grants for this purpose shall not exceed five percent (5%) of the Farmland Preservation Program's annual amount.

3. City, Town, and Applicable Special District Program (15%) The purpose of this Program is to assist Marin's municipalities and applicable special districts in managing their parks, open space preserves, recreation programs, and vegetation to promote biodiversity and reduce wildfire risk. Fifteen percent (15%) of the revenues generated annually by this Measure shall be made available for the following uses.

a. Provide grants to cities, towns, and applicable special districts (special districts that provide for parks, open space and/or recreation in unincorporated areas), to maintain, restore, and/or renovate existing parks, preserves, and recreational facilities; to construct new parks and recreational facilities or acquire parklands; or to engage in vegetation management to reduce wildfire risk, promote biodiversity, or control invasive non-native weeds on private, municipal, or district lands.

b. Funds shall be available through a grant allocation process that will be designed in concert with the cities, towns, and applicable special districts. The grant allocation process, but not the individual projects, shall be subject to approval by the Marin County Board of Supervisors. This program is expected


to generate an additional $18,900,000 over the life of the Measure. This program's annual amount, or its balance, may be accumulated, carried over, and accrued for expenditure in future years, not to exceed ten (10) years after the termination date of the sales tax extension.

C. Administrative Provisions 1. Community Oversight Committee

a. The Community Oversight Committee formed by the Marin County Board of Supervisors within 6 months following the passage of Ordinance No. 3586 in 2012 shall be continued. The responsibilities of this committee shall continue to be to review Plan expenditures on an annual basis to ensure they conform with the Plan and oversee an annual audit and prepare an annual report describing how funds were spent.

b. Members of the committee shall be appointed by the Board. The role of the committee shall be to advise the Board and staff on these matters. The committee shall report to the Director and General Manager of Marin County Parks.

c. Members of the Community Oversight Committee shall be county residents who are neither elected officials of any government, nor employees from any agency or organization that either oversees or benefits from the proceeds of the sales tax. The committee shall consist of seven at-large members.

d. The committee shall continue to operate under existing bylaws approved by the Board of Supervisors related to the conduct of committee meetings and business, which may be updated by the Board of Supervisors.

e. Meetings of the committee shall be open to the public and shall be held in compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, California's open meeting law.

f. The committee shall dissolve after all revenue collected from this Measure is expended and a final report is submitted.

2. Re-implementation Requirements

Implementation of the plan shall be guided by the following procedures to ensure that the revenue generated by the Measure continues to be spent in the most efficient and effective manner possible, consistent with serving the public interest in Marin County, and the desires of the voters of Marin County.

a. The Marin County Parks and Open Space Commission shall conduct a public meeting annually to gain public input on selection of projects to expend the sales tax revenues, as part of County's annual budget development process.

b. In the year 2026 the Marin County Board of Supervisors shall conduct a public hearing and may choose to make changes to this Expenditure Plan to ensure park, open space, and farmland expenditures continue to meet the priorities of Marin County.

c. The County of Marin is charged with the fiduciary duty to administer sales tax proceeds in accordance with applicable laws. Disbursement of funds as grants shall be subject to terms and conditions that may include, but are not limited to, the County's right to 1) require grantees to enter into funding agreements with the County; 2) require matching funds; and 3) audit a grantee's use of tax proceeds.

d. Actual revenues generated by the Measure may be higher or lower than estimates in this Plan due to variability in annual tax receipts. County shall annually estimate revenue from the Measure.


e. County may accumulate revenue over multiple years so that sufficient funding is available for larger and long-term projects. All interest income shall be used for the purposes identified in this Plan and shall accrue proportionately to the programs identified in this Plan. Ten (10) years after the termination date of the sales tax re-implementation, unused funds and accrued interest from the Farmland Preservation Program and the City, Town, and Applicable Special District Program shall be available for any purpose consistent with this Plan, subject to approval by the Board of Supervisors.

f. Sales tax proceeds are intended to augment annual County of Marin General Fund support for Marin County Parks. Any reduction in the annual net county costs below the 2012-13 allocation to Marin County Parks from the General Fund will be within the range of reductions being required from other county departments. ·

g. To enhance local workforce development and employment opportunities, and involve youth and young adults in caring for our natural resources, the county will reach out to local community based, not-for-profit, and/or for-profit businesses and consider these entities for the provision of new contracted services funded by this measure.

h. No more than five percent (5%) of the Parks and Open Space Program's annual amount may be used for administrative expenses by the county.

i. No more than five percent (5%) of the Farmland Preservation Program's annual amount may be used for administrative expenses by the county.

attachment a q1: how often do participants visit parks q2

Documents