The lack of new housing stock contributed significantly to rising Marin median housing prices, which increased by over $1 million in the eight-year period between 2013 to 2021 (from $966,000 to $1.91 million, a 98 percent increase).31 Over that same period, median household income in Marin only increased by 45 percent. In addition, housing costs impact affordable 30 “2023-2031 Housing Element,” Marin Countywide Plan, Table H-2,15: Housing Units by Type, Countywide, page 32, https://www.marincounty.gov/sites/g/files/fdkgoe241/files/2024-05/2023- 2031_marincountyhousingelement_chapter2.pdf, (accessed 5/14/25). 31 “2023-2031 Housing Element,” Marin Countywide Plan, Table H2.4, page 45.
The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing
Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 10 of 21
housing residents more than market-rate housing residents, since housing consumes a much higher percentage of the household budgets for the affordable group.32 The consequences of high housing costs are significant and impact Marin’s public-sector workforce. According to Marin public-sector leaders interviewed by the Grand Jury, 60 percent of public-sector workers (including teachers, police, and fire) do not live in Marin. These leaders indicate that the lack of local affordable housing is the primary reason why these workers are forced to live in other counties, which impacts employee job satisfaction and retention.33 More broadly, housing costs are the number one reason why people are leaving California.34 The Community’s Role in Housing Development
Marin has had the reputation of being anti-growth for a long time. Dating back to the 1960s, residents and local officials actively opposed large-scale housing projects to maintain local control, preserve the county's scenic landscapes, and protect its unique character.35 At the time, these pro-environmental values were widely celebrated in popular culture.36 Historically, the public hearing process has been a deterrent to building housing because the process discounts the value of objective information and technical expertise in favor of subjective opinions that prioritize speakers who are unrepresentative of the whole community and provide few mechanisms for addressing misinformation.37 Against this backdrop, the Grand Jury was surprised to repeatedly and consistently hear from local planning directors, developers, and other housing experts that community opposition is not currently the most significant impediment to the development or construction of housing.
In recent years, there has been a growing recognition across the country of the severe housing crisis.38 Much has been written about how the NIMBY tide is receding in California.39 This is 32 Examiner Staff, Low-wage Workers Might Make More in SF, but Housing Costs are Still out of Reach, San Francisco Examiner, February 10, 2015, https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/low-wage-workers-might-make-morein-sf-but-housing-costs-are-still-out-of/article_7415c2ac-3dc9-55dc-97d3-c48b52708f12.html, (accessed 5/14/25). 33 Confidential Interviews
34 Hans Johnson and Eric McGhee, “Who’s Leaving California and Who’s Moving In,” Public Policy Institute of California, https://www.ppic.org/blog/whos-leaving-california-and-whos-moving-in/, (accessed 5/14/25). 35 Among the most significant housing proposals blocked by local activists was the massive Marincello planned community in the Marin Headlands and expansions of 101 and Sir Francis Drake Blvd to prevent improved access to Western Marin, thwarting the development of significant housing there. This Small is Beautiful movement generally advocated for small, local control of decision making. See Mary Perot Nicols, “Buildings Are Judgement - II,” Ramparts, May 1975, p. 50.
36 See popular songs such as Joni Mitchell’s 1970 song “Big Yellow Taxi.” 37 Anika Singh Lemar, “The Public Hearing Process For New Housing is Broken. Here’s How to Fix it,” The Brookings Institute, May 4, 2022. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-public-hearing-process-for-new-housingis-broken-heres-how-to-fix-it/, (accessed 5/14/25). 38 Conor Dougherty, “Why Too Few Homes Get Built in the US,” The New York Times, Aug 22, 2024. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/22/briefing/us-housing-crisis.html, (accessed 5/14/25); Also, see Conor Dougherty, “America’s Affordable Housing Crisis,” The New York Times, March 27, 2024, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/27/briefing/affordable-housing-crisis.html, (accessed 5/14/25); And also, Lily Geismer, “America Needs a New Approach on Affordable Housing: History Offers a Guide,” AOL, March 25, 2024, https://www.aol.com/america-needs-approach-affordable-housing-150752019.html, (accessed 5/14/25). 39See, for example, Annie Lowrey “Four Years Among the NIMBYs,” The Atlantic, May 12, 2022, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/san-francisco-bureaucracy-housing-crisis/629719/, subscription required, (accessed 5/14/25).
The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing
Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 11 of 21
especially true in the Bay Area.40 While some Marin residents still express concerns about potential impacts on neighborhood character, infrastructure strain, and environmental considerations, this is somewhat balanced by YIMBYs (Yes in My Backyard) advocating for increased housing production to address affordability and availability issues. At some point, California residents who were concerned about growth went from being viewed as noble protectors of the environment to being criticized for perpetuating inequality.41 The Grand Jury determined through interviews that recent California legislation has reduced the ability of residents to significantly disrupt or influence most housing development projects. Since 2017, California lawmakers have passed over 100 pieces of legislation intended to combat the growing housing affordability and availability crises by shifting housing policy from the local level to the state. In confidential interviews, the Grand Jury heard from both developers and planning directors throughout Marin that new state laws significantly reduce the ability of local jurisdictions to deny housing projects that meet objective requirements, even if there is community opposition.
The Grand Jury determined through interviews that Marinites may now refrain from saying explicitly they are anti-growth, but they are still anxious about change and have legitimate concerns about how housing development may impact their communities. Traffic and emergency evacuation remain concerns for many Marin residents. While the state-led RHNA program limits local community discretion, the local jurisdictions still have an interest in being responsive to their constituents. Marin jurisdictions can encourage housing development, while at the same time making their communities feel heard and addressing their concerns by following a set of best practices.
When Should Community Engagement Occur?
Numerous housing leaders told the Grand Jury that the public often fails to understand that recent changes in California law have streamlined the planning process and prevent the use of subjective criteria as a basis for project denial. Repeatedly, the Grand Jury was told that jurisdictions should engage their communities proactively during the development of the Housing Element and the rezoning processes that increase site density – not merely reactively on a project-by-project basis. Under current state housing laws, community opposition occurring in response to a housing application may well be too late for the community to have significant input.42 Depending on the jurisdiction, there may not be a hearing or a requirement to obtain an 40 The San Francisco Chronicle has had a regular, dedicated section entitled “Bay Area Housing Crisis.” 41 Conor Cougherty, “Twilight of the NIMBY,” June 5, 2022; See Also, Sophia Bollag, “Gavin Newsom Ups Pressure on Cities to Build More Housing,” San Francisco Chronicle, May 22, 2022, https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/newsom-housing-17188515.php, (accessed 5/14/25). 42 Anika Singh Lemar, “The Public Hearing Process For New Housing is Broken. Here’s how to fix it,” The Brookings Institute, May 4, 2022, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-public-hearing-process-for-new-housingis-broken-heres-how-to-fix-it/, (accessed 5/14/25).
The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing
Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 12 of 21
environmental impact report (EIR) under CEQA.
43 In particular, if the project is eligible for
ministerial approval, there will be limited opportunities for community input.
Jurisdictions should take steps to ensure the community understands changes in California housing law that impact the community input process. If jurisdictions fail to keep their residents informed as developers accrue entitlements and building permits under the new state laws, there is the risk of backlash when the community becomes aware of a development only once construction has begun.
What Type of Engagement is Best?
Studies show that intentional and accessible engagement with the community leading up to the development of a Housing Element or housing up-zoning can help garner broad support for development.44 Marin housing leaders describe an array of best practices, including:
● Holding public forums about building ADUs, with staff participation from a multitude of agencies (planning, building, fire, water, and sanitary district). ● Engaging people where they already socialize, shop, and play, e.g., farmers markets, sporting events, music events, and parks.
● Using multiple means of communication, including a robust town website, postings on social media, and outreach to community newsletters published by residents. ● Putting a human face on the housing crisis. One jurisdiction created a video, highlighting people in the community who were on the verge of being unhoused.
Studies show that best practices include acknowledging that residents may have legitimate concerns about development, such as increased traffic, but planners should reorient the conversations away from what residents might lose from increased growth and, instead, focus on what they will gain.
45 The Grand Jury determined through interviews that planners could help connect the dots for residents so they understand that more housing means more vibrant towns in Marin with greater local amenities; and that more affordable housing could help alleviate the local shortages of workers in retail, homecare, and local government. For residents with climate change concerns, planners could emphasize that local housing development means local workers driving fewer miles across the county.
43 “California’s 2024 Housing Laws: What you Need to Know,” California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Holland and Knight Law Firm, https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2023/10/californias-2024-housinglaws-what-you-need-to-know (accessed 5/14/25).
44 Terner Center for Housing Innovation, “Lessons in Land Use Reform: Best Practices for Successful Upzoning,” page 3, UC Berkeley, December 1, 2019, https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wpcontent/uploads/pdfs/Lessons_in_Land_Use_Reform.pdf, (accessed 5/14/25). 45 “The Housing Hub - Housing and Traffic” Marin Environmental Housing Collaborative (MEHC), https://marinmehc.org/featured/housing-and-driving/, (accessed 5/14/25). See also, “the Housing Hub - Marin Needs Housing to Serve its Aging Population,” MEHC, https://marinmehc.org/featured/marin-needs-housing-to-serve-itsaging-population/, (accessed 5/14/25).
The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing
Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 13 of 21
Who Should Be Included in the “Community”?
Planners told the Grand Jury that when a broad spectrum of the community participates, they more easily acknowledge that the housing requirements are state-mandated. The jurisdictions should engage all potential stakeholders, including those who are unlikely to attend public meetings. Polls, surveys, and online comment tools can be effective to reach the broader community.46 Planners also should attempt to engage those outside of their jurisdictions. When planners hear only from existing residents, they may only capture the opinions of those with a bias toward the status quo. By broadening their engagement, planners could hear from those who do not live in the jurisdiction but hope eventually to do so.47 Streamlined Planning and Permitting for Multifamily and ADU Housing As part of its investigation, the Grand Jury interviewed planning directors from all of the Marin jurisdictions. These planning directors described a variety of processes in communicating with developers. Developers and their attorneys told the Grand Jury they receive a confusing array of planning information from planning staff, who often do not cite the governing laws that support their positions on new development projects. The developers and attorneys stated they experienced less push-back from the community where constraints on the decision-making board or council are transparent to the public. Interviewees described how substantial pressure is reduced on local decision-makers when the applicable law or rules are provided to the public and the public is informed about which laws or rules are not within the housing jurisdiction's authority to change.
The Grand Jury interviews indicate that Objective Design and Development Standards (ODDS), developed to support certain ministerial processes intended to reduce discretion in the development process, are not achieving their intended outcomes. State law defines objective standards as those that “involve no personal or subjective judgement by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant and public official prior to submission.”48 These standards were developed by consultants hired by the jurisdictions, and are hundreds of pages long, are highly complex, and can be internally inconsistent. Recent changes in state law (SB 35, SB 330, and AB 2011) “require that for certain types of housing and mixed-use projects, 46 Sarah Karlinsky, “Structured for Success: Reforming Housing Governance in California and the Bay Area,” page 48, SPUR, October 3, 2023, https://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/2024-01/SPUR_Structured_for_Success.pdf, (accessed 5/14/25).
47 Jerusalem Denasas, “Community Input is Bad, Actually,” The Atlantic,”(starting at paragraph 16), April 22, 2022 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/local-government-community-input-housing-publictransportation/629625/, subscription required, (accessed 5/14/25). 48 “California Code Title 7. Planning and Land Use, Division 1. Planning and Zoning, Section 65913.4, paragraph 5, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65913.4.&lawCode=GOV, (accessed 5/14/25).
The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing
Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 14 of 21
jurisdictions may only consider objective criteria, and only those that are in place at the time the project application is filed.”49
The Grand Jury determined through interviews that Marin jurisdictions created objective design standards that were purchased at significant expense from consultants and then customized for the jurisdiction in an attempt to improve consistency and predictability in the planning process and reduce subjective objections to projects. From interviews, the Grand Jury learned that the standards were developed with limited consultation with multifamily housing developers who bring their own previously developed housing designs to the project. Thus, the ODDS and the developer product are misaligned and vary across each jurisdiction, forcing developers to shop their housing designs to the jurisdiction with the best economic return and then obtain exception waivers to navigate the easiest and least expensive path to planning approval.
Under state law, Marin housing jurisdictions must provide developers with a clear, simplified process and a detailed reconciliation of planning fees for obtaining planning approval.50 Developers described some housing jurisdiction planning staff that are effective in providing upto-date process documentation and reconciliation of planning fees, while other communities were poorly organized, the planning approval process was difficult to navigate, and planning fees were unclear. By law, planning fees are not allowed to be a profit center for local communities, but developers describe some fees as arbitrary and not backed up by documentation. The Grand Jury determined through interviews that Marin planning jurisdictions are not consistently providing developers and the public with detailed reconciliation of project-level planning fees, expenses, and time expectations, and therefore, some housing developers are unclear if their housing applications are billed on a cost-neutral basis as required by state law.
Virtually every local housing jurisdiction has made some efforts to streamline the process to develop ADUs, which provide another pathway to support their housing goals. According to interviews with Marin housing professionals, some jurisdictions provide a streamlined ministerial process to approve ADUs, while other jurisdictions continue to have barriers to ADU development, either regarding process or fees. Some planning jurisdictions are not consistently providing informal and informational forums for the public who may be interested in exploring an ADU to help meet the County’s housing needs. The Grand Jury is concerned, based on interviews with housing planning staff, that the majority of ADUs are not being used to provide housing but are used by homeowners as an easy path to increase housing square footage.
The impact of inclusionary housing policies that require affordable housing to be included with market-rate housing was unclear based on the Grand Jury interviews. Some public and private housing professionals were very supportive of requiring low-income housing to be included in market-rate housing, while others believed that focused low-income housing development was a 49 “Objective Design and Development Standards Take On New Importance Under State Law,” paragraph 3, SMW Law, https://www.smwlaw.com/2025/01/29/objective-design-standards-take-on-new-importance-under-state-law/ (accessed 5/14/25).
50 “California Code Title 7. Planning and Land Use, Division 1. Planning and Zoning, Section 65583(a), paragraph five, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65583.&lawCode=GOV, (accessed 5/14/25).
The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing
Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 15 of 21
more successful strategy to achieve RHNA goals. Housing applications that set aside a portion (15-25 percent) of the development for affordable units are allowed under new state laws to access streamlined processes or higher density units or both.51 Increased Investment in Multifamily Affordable Housing
Most Housing Elements define multifamily housing as the major source of new housing for Marin. A current multifamily project, Oak Hill workforce housing, is projected to cost $118,000,000 for 135 units or $874,000/unit.52 The housing sector competes against other investment opportunities to attract financing and investment capital. Affordable housing must also compete for scarce tax incentives to attract capital to finance the project. Market-rate housing developers compete against non-housing investment opportunities and housing projects outside Marin. New housing projects must provide adequate profit to housing developers, capital providers, and labor in order to be built. Multiple factors impact housing costs, but current interest rates are a substantial impediment to housing investment. In the current housing cycle, interest rates have increased 2.35 percent compared to previous housing cycles, providing substantial barriers to project economic incentive.53 For existing Marin multifamily properties, the return on investment is significantly lower than in other parts of the country. In Marin, apartment cap rates (a measure of the return on investment) reached a median of 5.15 percent in 2024, rising from a median of 4.63 percent in 2023.54 In 2024, the average cap rate in the U.S. was 7 percent.55 Therefore, Marin multifamily housing remains a less profitable investment compared to the alternatives in other parts of the country.
The financing of affordable housing is fundamentally different from market-rate housing development. Almost half of Marin RHNA goals support affordable housing (less than 80 percent of median income), and 78 percent of rental housing units in San Rafael house lowerincome workers.56 Historically, the State of California financed its affordable housing investment through 400 California redevelopment agencies. The redevelopment agency program ended in 2011, but the legislature elected to advance the development of affordable housing by passing 51 The original density bonus law was originally enacted in 1979 (Gov. Code §§65915-65918), with a recent update being AB 1287, “AB1287:Density Bonus Law: Maximum Allowable Residential Density: Additional Density Bonus and Incentives or Concessions,” CALMATTERS, 10/11/23, https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202320240ab1287, (accessed 5/14/25). 52 Gaetan Lion, “The Unaffordable Oak Hill Project,” The Marin Post, March 24, 2025, https://marinpost.org/blog/2025/3/24/the-unaffordable-oak-hill-project, (accessed 5/14/25). 53 “30-Year Fixed Rate Mortgage Average in the United States,” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MORTGAGE30US, (accessed 5/14/25). 54 “Marin Apartment Investors Scoop Up Discounted Deals in 2024 Market,” Marin Apartment Investments, January 10, 2025, Ihttps://marinapartmentinvestments.com/marin-apartment-investors-scoop-up-discounted-deals-in-2024- market/, (accessed 5/14/25).
55 “U.S. Cap Rate Survey H1 2024,” CBRE, July 31, 2024, https://www.cbre.com/insights/reports/us-cap-ratesurvey-h1-2024, (accessed 5/14/25). 56 City of San Rafael Housing Element,” calculation from graph on page 3-23, San Rafael, February 12, 2024, https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/documents/city-of-san-rafael-housing-element-adopted-may-15-2023/, (accessed 5/14/25).
The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing
Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 16 of 21
over 100 pro-housing bills since 2017.57 Affordable housing developments in California now primarily take advantage of the Federal and State Government Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) programs. These competitively awarded tax credits take advantage of several tax provisions to provide subsidies of 9 percent of the cost of the new housing project. In 2024, California was only allocated $113,944,937 of tax credits to 55 projects, and demand for these credits far outstrips supply.58 The limited availability of LIHTC funds reduces the ability of housing jurisdictions to meet RHNA housing goals.
An additional obstacle to building affordable housing is labor costs. Labor costs can represent up to 40 percent of housing costs,59 and Marin housing costs reflect the fact that multifamily housing construction is very labor-intensive, and labor costs are very high in Marin compared to other parts of California and the United States.60 In California, affordable housing construction costs are 39 percent higher than market-rate housing. Prevailing wage laws have a substantial impact on increasing the cost of affordable housing. Marin housing jurisdictions should understand that the payment of prevailing wages may result in the failure to construct affordable housing units and meet RHNA goals.61
Bay Area housing leaders have analyzed progress toward meeting the 6th cycle goals and realize that additional sources of funding are required to meet these goals. One important alternative is passing a bond to support affordable housing, paid for by Bay Area residents’ taxes. A recent attempt to authorize a $20 billion bond62 to benefit Bay Area counties (Marin’s share would have been $700 million) was pulled from the November 2024 ballot due to a lack of confidence to meet the required two-thirds voting threshold standard.63 Marin housing jurisdictions could work with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to investigate whether a well-structured housing bond would be supported by Marin and Bay Area voters. 57 Terner Center for Housing Innovation, “Database of California Housing and Land Use Laws,” copyright 2025, https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/california-land-use-housing/, (accessed 5/14/25). 58 “California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, 2024 Annual Report,” page 8 (“2024 CTCAC Fast Facts”), California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/2024/2024-TCAC.pdf, (accessed 5/14/25).
59 “Labor vs. Material Cost in Construction: 6 Things to Keep in Mind,” paragraph 3, Bridgit, https://gobridgit.com/blog/labor-vs-material-cost-in-construction-6-things-to-keep-inmind/#:~:text=Labor%20costs%20represent%2020%25%20to,skilled%20professionals%20are%20required%E2%8 0percent8B, (accessed 5/14/25).
60 “Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2023, Construction Laborers,” Top paying metropolitan areas for Construction Laborers, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/may/oes472061.htm, (accessed 5/14/25).
61Jason M. Ward and Luke Schlake, “The High Cost of Producing Multifamily Housing in California,” Key Findings, page vi, RAND, April 2, 2025, https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA3743-1.html#documentdetails, (accessed 5/14/25). 62 “2024 Bay Area Affordable Housing Bond: Regional Funding for Local Solutions,” Metropolitan Transportation Commission, June 2024, https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-07/BAHFA_Bond_Report.pdf, (accessed 5/14/25).
63 Cole Reynolds, “$20 billion Bay Area Housing Bond Pulled from Ballot as Support Sputters,” NBC Bay Area, August 14, 2024, https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/bay-area-housing-bond-removed-ballot/3625577/, (accessed 5/14/25).
The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing
Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 17 of 21
Marin jurisdictions can ease the path for multifamily development by defining zoning districts where they want to encourage multifamily development and provide streamlined processes to support that development. San Rafael created a “Downtown Code” which encourages and supports a Multifamily Residential District to encourage this type of development.64 The Grand Jury determined through interviews that several Marin housing jurisdictions have an array of processes that proactively engage potential housing developers on opportunities to develop new multifamily housing in their district.
The Grand Jury investigation revealed that in many Marin jurisdictions, outside expertise is required to review multifamily housing applications since many staff planners lack the requisite experience in multifamily housing development. All jurisdictions rely on multifamily housing to meet their affordable housing goals and also support their market-rate housing goals. Planning Directors should ensure their staff or consulting staff have the necessary background to deal with complex multifamily projects. Housing development is a partnership between communities and housing developers, and housing planners need to approach the housing plan as a way to improve the ability of the community to thrive with new neighborhoods and new residents.
Improved Site Availability to Support New Housing
The Grand Jury determined through interviews that housing site availability has an important impact on the cost and ability to develop housing in Marin. Marin has long struggled with high housing costs. The limitations on land for development have hindered the construction of new homes.
All jurisdictions were required by RHNA to identify in their Housing Element sites that would support the development of new housing. Many of these sites have existing uses that often make modest or no contribution to housing.65 After the approval of the Housing Elements, the sites are rezoned by the jurisdiction to align with the housing plan. While this process, defined by state law, has made progress in providing developers with opportunities to contribute new housing, interviews indicate that many sites are not economically viable for the 6th cycle development.
The Grand Jury determined through interviews that steep hillside land and difficult environmental mitigation ensure that a substantial share of the sites that Marin communities make available are not economically viable. The Grand Jury investigation revealed that the key barrier to building new housing in Marin County was the economics of the housing development, and a central pillar of housing for developers was affordable access to high-quality housing sites.
High-quality sites are flat land not subject to flooding, close to public transportation and shopping, and that will provide the economic returns necessary to induce investment capital. 64 “San Rafael Zoning Ordinance Revisions and Downtown Code,” State of California, https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2019039167/5, August 17, 2021, (accessed 5/14/25). 65 “What is Infill Development,” Planetizen, https://www.planetizen.com/definition/infill-development, (accessed 5/14/25).
The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing
Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 18 of 21
Grand Jury interviews indicate that many sites currently being used for commercial and retail uses throughout Marin are often located on flat land near transportation and are not included in housing plans. These sites are opportunities for housing pursuant to the incentives in California Government Code section 65912.100, et seq., for the conversion of commercial properties to residential units. To get ahead of the future housing challenges, housing jurisdictions should proactively identify commercial office sites now that could be converted, and meet with the property owners to consider re-zoning the properties for residential uses.
The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing
Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 19 of 21
FINDINGS
F1. Because the California Department of Housing and Community Development provided the County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns with unrealistic housing goals for the 2023-2030 cycle, the County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns will not achieve their current cycle Housing Element goals.
F2. The ability of the County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns to comply with the current cycle California Regional Housing Needs Allocation housing goals is significantly impacted by the lack of economic returns associated with that development and, therefore, inhibits the construction of new housing in Marin County.
F3. Under current state law, the failure of the County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns to make adequate progress in achieving their California Regional Housing Needs Allocation goals could expose these jurisdictions to the potential of litigation, loss of permitting authority, financial penalties, court receivership, and streamlined ministerial approval processes which could substantially impact the ability of local housing jurisdictions to control the development of housing.
F4. The cost of housing in Marin County is unaffordable for most current and potential Marin County public-sector workers, which reduces the ability of the public-sector employers to attract and retain employees.
F5. The County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns do not consistently inform the public on how applicable state law is limiting or eliminating the discretion of the local decision makers to modify or decline housing projects, and therefore, the public often does not understand the range of options available to local housing decision makers.
F6. The County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns are not consistently providing developers and the public with detailed reconciliation of project level public accounting of the planning fees, expenses, and time expectations, and therefore, housing developers are not clear if their housing applications are billed on a cost-neutral basis as required by state law.
F7. The County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns are not consistently and proactively engaging the housing development community on the opportunities available in their communities to build new housing, and, therefore, housing developers may not be aware of the opportunities available to contribute to local housing development.
F8. Accessory Dwelling Units are an element to the success of each jurisdiction's Housing Element for the County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns, yet some jurisdictions fail to provide a ministerial path to Accessory Dwelling Unit construction.
F9. Multifamily housing is the most important element to fulfilling each jurisdiction’s Housing Element for the County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns, yet some jurisdictions fail to provide a ministerial path to multifamily construction.
The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing
Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 20 of 21
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Marin County Civil Grand Jury recommends:
R1. By January 1, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the City and Town Councils for the 11 Marin cities and towns should direct their housing planning officials to provide detailed quarterly updates to the community on the progress in executing their own specific Housing Element.
R2. By January 1, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the City and Town Councils for the 11 Marin cities and towns should direct their housing planning officials to engage with the public on a quarterly basis on how State housing laws constrain the jurisdiction's ability to approve or modify a housing project.
R3. By January 1, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the City and Town Councils for the 11 Marin cities and towns should direct their housing planning officials to proactively engage with potential developers to inform them of opportunities in their housing elements to support addressing the housing needs within Marin County.
R4. By January 1, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the City and Town Councils for the 11 Marin cities and towns should direct their housing planning officials to publish and regularly update a public accounting of the fees charged and expenses associated with each development project submitted to the jurisdiction’s planning and building activities.
R5. By January 1, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the City and Town Councils for the 11 Marin cities and towns should direct their housing planning officials to ensure their housing laws provide a ministerial path for the approval of Accessory Dwelling Units.
R6. By January 1, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the City and Town Councils for the 11 Marin cities and towns should direct their housing planning officials to ensure that local housing laws provide a ministerial path for the approval of multifamily housing in compliance with State housing law.
The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing
Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 21 of 21
REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code section 933.05, the Grand Jury requires responses from the following governing bodies:
From the following elected county officials within 90 days:
● Marin County Board of Supervisors (F1-F9, R1-R6)
● City Council: City of Belvedere (F1-F9, R1-R6)
● City Council: City of Larkspur (F1-F9, R1-R6)
● City Council: City of Mill Valley (F1-F9, R1-R6)
● City Council: City of Novato (F1-F9, R1-R6)
● City Council: City of San Rafael (F1-F9, R1-R6)
● City Council: City of Sausalito (F1-F9, R1-R6)
● Town Council: Town of Corte Madera (F1-F9, R1-R6)
● Town Council: Town of Fairfax (F1-F9, R1-R6)
● Town Council: Town of Ross (F1-F9, R1-R6)
● Town Council: Town of San Anselmo (F1-F9, R1-R6)
● Town Council: Town of Tiburon (F1-F9, R1-R6)
The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that the comment or response of the governing body must be conducted in accordance with Penal Code section 933 (c) and subject to the notice, agenda and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act.
Note: At the time this report was prepared information was available at the websites listed.
Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code Section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury. The California State Legislature has stated that it intends the provisions of Penal Code Section 929 prohibiting disclosure of witness identities to encourage full candor in testimony in Grand Jury investigations by protecting the privacy and confidentiality of those who participate in any Civil Grand Jury investigation.
____________________________________________________________________________________
FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
Council Meeting: _______________________
Disposition: ___________________________
Agenda Item No: 7.a
Meeting Date: September 2, 2025
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: Finance
Prepared by: Paul Navazio, Finance Director City Manager Approval: ______________ TOPIC: FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 UNAUDITED RESULTS AND BUDGET AMENDMENTS SUBJECT: YEAR-END BUDGET UPDATE AND RESOLUTIONS AUTHORIZING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2024- 25 FOR THE
PURPOSES OF CONFIRMING AUTHORIZED APPROPRIATIONS AND TRANSFERS AND AUTHORIZING AMENDMENTS TO THE FY 2025-26 BUDGET TO REFLECT CARRY-OVER OF AVAILABLE UNENCUMBERED FY 2024-25 APPROPRIATIONS FOR SPECIFIED PURPOSES, TOTALLING $14,262,684
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Accept the report presenting preliminary, Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-25 unaudited financial results for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025;
2) Adopt a resolution adopting amendments to the City of San Rafael budget for Fiscal Year 2024-25 for the purpose of confirming authorized appropriations and transfers (Attachment 1); and
3) Adopt a resolution authorizing amendments to the City of San Rafael budget for Fiscal Year 2025-26 to reflect carry-over of available unencumbered FY2024-25 appropriations for specified purposes totaling $14,262,684 (Attachment 2).
BACKGROUND:
This agenda item presents preliminary, unaudited, financial results for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025. Staff are actively in the process of completing the fiscal year-end accounting close and are reviewing revenue and expenditure activity within the General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, Capital Funds, and other restricted funds. This review has identified the need for additional year-end budget adjustments for which City Council approval is requested.
In addition, as part of the fiscal year-end process, staff have identified specific unencumbered FY 2024- 25 budget appropriations for which City Council action is requested to carry-over these appropriations, effectively amending the FY 2025-26 adopted budget. These unencumbered carry-over appropriations are limited to funding approved by the City Council in the prior fiscal year that are required to support planned projects or activities in the new fiscal year, and for which no purchase orders or contracts were executed before the end of the fiscal year to otherwise encumber these funds.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
ANALYSIS:
Preliminary (Unaudited) FY 2024-25 Revenue and Expenditure Results All Funds
Table 1 provides a summary of preliminary, unaudited FY 2024-25 revenue and expenditure results through the fourth quarter of the fiscal year, ending June 30, 2025. • All Funds revenues through June 30, 2025, were recorded at $187.21 million, which represents
95.7% of the amended budget of $195.60 million.
• All Funds expenditures and encumbrances for the same period were recorded at $200.63 million, or 86.3% of the amended FY 2024-25 budget of $232.46 million. • This agenda item includes a recommendation for the City Council to authorize the carry-over of available unencumbered FY 2024-25 appropriations totaling $14,262,684, effectively reappropriating these funds in FY 2025-26, for specified purposes.
Table 1: All Funds Revenue and Expenditure Results (through 6/30/25) (*) Note: Year-end expenditures include actual expenditures ($187,394,196) plus encumbrances ($13,230,936).
General Fund
Revenues: The original FY 2024-25 budget, adopted on June 17, 2024 (Resolution No. 15309), projected $103.79 million in revenues. Updated revenue projections through the third quarter (presented to the City Council on May 19, 2025) were $104.29 million.
• General Fund revenues (unaudited) through June 30, 2025, were recorded at $106.21 million, or
2.3% above the adopted budget.
• Year-end General Fund revenues results represent an increase of $2.42 million over the adopted budget, and $1.92 million over projections assumed in the development of the FY 2025-26 budget.
This result is attributable to relatively strong fourth quarter sales tax receipts, permit fee revenues, as well as continued favorable interest earnings.
All Funds
Adopted Budget
FY 2024-25
Amended
Budget
FY 2024-25
Unaudited YearEnd Results*
(as of 6/30/25)
% of Amended
FY2024-25
Budget
Revenues $ 177,317,039 $ 182,367,444 $ 174,529,544 95.7% Transfers in 13,211,806 13,228,386 12,676,477 95.8%
Total Resources $ 190,528,845 $ 195,595,830 $ 187,206,021 95.7% Expenditures $ 210,813,072 $ 219,232,828 $ 187,948,655 85.7% Transfers out 13,211,806 13,228,386 12,676,477 95.8%
Total Appropriations 210,813,072 $ $ 232,461,214 $ 200,625,132 86.3% SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
Expenditures: The FY 2024-25 adopted budget provided expenditure appropriations of $112.29 million.
The current amended FY 2024-25 General Fund budget stands at $112.86 million, reflecting supplemental appropriations for capital projects approved by the City Council, primarily matching funds for the Pickleweed Park Improvement Project grant.
• Expenditures and encumbrances through the fourth quarter of the fiscal year were recorded at $110.77 million, or 98.1% of the amended budget.
• Year-end General Fund expenditures are generally in line with expenditures assumed in the development of the FY 2025-26 budget, when accounting for the recommendation included in this agenda item requesting authorization to carry-over $1.40 million in unencumbered General Fund budget appropriations.
• Consistent with the Quarter 3 Budget Update presented to the City Council on May 19th, personnel expenditures ended the fiscal year almost exactly on budget. Non-personnel expenditures (supplies and services) contribute to the projected year-end expenditures coming in under budget.
Operating results: The preliminary, unaudited General Fund revenue and expenditure results combine to yield a net $4.56 million drawdown of fund balance as of June 30, 2025. This represents a decrease of $4.51 million compared to the amended budget, and $2.95 million compared to the year-end projections assumed in the development of the FY 2025-26 budget.
This result, though favorable, suggests that there will be significantly limited General Fund flexibility to address one-time needs on a going forward basis, when compared to year-end General Fund results over the last several fiscal years.
Table 2: FY 2024-25 General Fund Results (through 6/30/25) and Year-End Projections (*) Note: Year-end expenditures include actual expenditures ($110,553,601) plus encumbrances ($215,676).
General Fund
Adopted
Budget FY
2024-25
Amended Budget
FY 2024-25
Unaudited YearEnd Actuals Encumbrances Available
Personnel 70,910,871 70,796,229 70,824,866 28,637
Non-Personnel 41,195,500 42,068,614 39,728,735 215,676 (2,124,203) Totals 112,106,371 112,864,844 110,553,601 215,676 (2,095,567) General Fund Adopted Budget
FY 2024-25
Amended
Budget
FY 2024-25
Projected YearEnd Results
(as of 5/19/25)
Unaudited YearEnd Results*
(as of 6/30/25)
Revenues $ 101,282,204 $ 101,282,204 $ 102,382,517 $ 1,100,313 1.1% $ 104,246,481 $ 2,964,277 2.9% Transfers in 2,508,306 2,508,306 1,908,306 (600,000) -23.9% 1,959,434 (548,872) -21.9% Total Resources $ 103,790,510 $ 103,790,510 $ 104,290,823 $ 500,313 0.5% $ 106,205,915 $ 2,415,405 2.3% Expenditures $ 102,033,257 $ 102,606,344 $ 101,542,034 $ (1,064,310) -1.0% $ 100,510,777 $ (2,095,567) -2.0% Operating Transfer out 10,258,500 10,258,500 10,258,500 - 0.0% 10,258,500 - 0.0% Total Appropriations $ 112,291,757 $ 112,864,844 $ 111,800,534 $ (1,064,310) -0.9% $ 110,769,277 $ (2,095,567) -1.9% Net Result $ (8,501,247) $ (9,074,334) $ (7,509,711) $ 1,564,623 $ (4,563,362) $ 4,510,972 Variance Variance
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4
FY 2024-25 Year-End Budget Adjustments/Corrections – (Attachment 1) Staff are in the process of completing the accounting close for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025, and are reviewing the revenues and expenditure activity in the General Fund, Special Revenue funds, and other special purpose funds. This review has identified the need for additional budget adjustments for which City Council action is requested.
The purpose of these amendments is to formally authorize the appropriations supporting expenditures and transfers required in certain funds to fulfill their respective purposes and functions through June 30, 2025. City Council approval of the proposed resolution provides formal authority to incorporate adjustments as part of the final FY 2024-25 budget, summarized as follows:
Details of the proposed budget amendments are reflected in Attachment 1 to this report and described as follows:
Abandoned Vehicle Abatement (Fund 200)
Transfers-In
• Amendment to reflect the transfer of $11,000 from the Parking Fund (501) to cover the negative fund balance. Fund expenditures exceeding revenues have depleted available fund balance and require a supplemental year-end transfer from the Parking Fund.
Parking (Fund 501)
Transfers-Out:
• Amendment to reflect the transfer of $11,000 to the Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Fund (200) to cover negative fund balance. Fund expenditures exceeding revenues have depleted available fund balance within the Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Fund and require a supplemental yearend transfer from the Parking Fund.
Employee Benefits (Fund 604)
• Amendment to increase expenditure appropriations with the Employee Benefits Fund (6054) by $678,500 to unbudgeted expenditures, primarily attributable to payout of accrued leave balances for employees who separate from the City during FY 2024-25.
Revenues
Fund Amended Budget Resources Transfers-In Revised Budget 200 Abandoned Vehicle Abatement $ 179,067 $ 11,000 $ 190,067 Total Revenue Adjustments $ - $ 11,000
Expenditures
Fund Amended Budget Appropriations Transfers-Out Revised Budget 501 Parking Fund $ 4,982,073 $ 11,000 $ 4,993,073
604 Employee Benefits Fund 600,362 678,500 1,278,862
Total Expenditure Adjustments $ 678,500 $ 11,000
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 5
FY 2024-25 Unencumbered Carry-Over Requests - (Attachment 2) This staff report includes a recommended City Council action to approve a resolution authorizing reappropriation of $14,262,684 in funding included in the prior year budget for specific projects and expenditures for which no purchase order or contract was issued before the end of the 2024-25 fiscal year. As such, City Council action is requested to amend the FY 2025-26 budget (approved under Resolution No. 15422) to reflect re-appropriation of these funds for the purpose intended. Of this amount, $3,559,719 represents carry-over appropriations supporting operational projects and initiatives, and $10,702,965 represents carry-over appropriations supporting capital projects approved in the prior fiscal year. The requested FY 2024-25 Carry-Over appropriations are summarized in Exhibit A (Attachment 2).
FISCAL IMPACT:
The recommended year-end adjustments to the FY 2024-25 amended budget would authorize a transfer of $11,000 from the Parking Fund (501) to the Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Fund (604) to cover expenditures that otherwise would result in a negative ending fund balance within Fund 604.
The recommended amendments to the FY 2025-26 approved budget, representing a carry-over of available unencumbered budget appropriations (for specified purposes), would effectively increase FY 2025-26 budget appropriations by $14,262,684 across several funds. Of this amount, $3,559,719 represents carry-forward of operating budget appropriations, including $1,402,273 in General Fund appropriations, $53,000 in Library Special Assessment Fund (215) appropriations, $250,000 in Affordable Housing Trust Fund (243) appropriations, $1,425,000 in Encampment Reduction Fund (ERF3) Grant Fund (283) appropriations, and $429,446 in Technology Fund (601) appropriations.
A total of $10,702,965 in unencumbered appropriations supporting capital improvement projects budgeted in FY 2024-25 would amend the FY 2025-26 capital budget, including $100,000 within the Stormwater Fund (205), $6,700,000 within the Gas Tax (206) Fund, $1,800,720 within the Library Fund (214), $6,455 within the Measure A - Open Space Fund (241), $674,790 within the Capital Fund (401), and $1,421,000 within the Buildings Fund (603).
While the unencumbered carry-over appropriations supporting capital improvement projects budgeted in FY 2024-25 effectively augments the FY2025-26 capital budget appropriations of $15,958,204 adopted by the City Council on June 2, 2025, staff would note that since adoption of the FY2025-26 budget, the Federal Department of Transportation has rescinded $1,940,000 in grant funds that had been award to the City through the Neighborhood Access and Equity Program Grant, supporting the South Merrydale Road- Civic Center Connector Pathway Project.
OPTIONS:
The City Council has the following options to consider on this matter:
1. Adopt the resolutions.
2. Adopt the resolutions with modifications.
3. Direct staff to return with more information.
4. Take no action.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1) Accept the report presenting preliminary, Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-25 unaudited financial results for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025;
2) Adopt a resolution adopting amendments to the City of San Rafael budget for Fiscal Year 2024-25 for the purpose of confirming authorized appropriations and transfers (Attachment 1); and
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6
3) Adopt a resolution authorizing amendments to the City of San Rafael budget for Fiscal Year 2025- 26 to reflect carry-over of available unencumbered FY2024-25 appropriations for specified purposes totaling $14,262,684 (Attachment 2).
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution authorizing amendments to the FY 2024-25 budget
2. Resolution authorizing amendments to the FY 2025-26 budget to reflect carry-over of unencumbered FY 2024-25 budget appropriations, for specified purposes. a. Exhibit A – List of Unencumbered Carry-Over Appropriations Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. _________
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 FOR THE
PURPOSE OF CONFIRMING AUTHORIZED APPROPRIATIONS AND TRANSFERS WHEREAS, the City Council approved Resolution No. 15309 adopting the fiscal year (FY) 2024-25 budget; and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved other actions during the year to authorize spending; and
WHEREAS, as part of the fiscal year-end closing process, staff has reviewed and analyzed actual revenues, expenditures, and transfers through June 30, 2025, has identified a need for additional budget adjustments, and has submitted its analysis and recommendations in a report to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, after examination and due consideration, the City Council has accepted the same report and recommendations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the San Rafael City Council, that Resolution No. 15309 for fiscal year 2024-25 is further amended to authorize the following adjustments to resources and appropriations to selected funds:
I, LINDSAY LARA, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a special meeting of the Council of said City on Monday, the 2
nd day of September 2025 by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
__________________________
LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk
Attachment 2
RESOLUTION NO. _________
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025- 26 TO REFLECT CARRY-OVER OF AVAILABLE UNENCUMBERED FY2024-25 APPROPRIATIONS FOR SPECIFIED PURPOSES TOTALING $14,262,684 WHEREAS, the City Council approved Resolution No. 15422 adopting the fiscal year (FY) 2025-26 budget; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 15422 provided authorization to carry-over encumbered appropriations from FY 2024-25 and reappropriate these funds in FY 2025-26 to be used solely to pay for the remaining portion of commitments stemming from executed contracts and purchase orders, as of June 30, 2025; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 15422 further provided that authorization to carryover unencumbered FY 2024-25 appropriations supporting capital projects and onetime operational expenses for which contracts or purchase orders were not executed as of June 30, 2025, would be subject to future City Council action; and WHEREAS, as part of the fiscal year-end closing process, staff has reviewed and analyzed available unencumbered FY 2024-25 budget appropriations that were approved for specific capital projects and operational initiatives, and for which funding is needed to support these workplan activities within the current fiscal year, and has submitted its analysis and recommendations in a report to the City Council; and WHEREAS, after examination and due consideration, the City Council has accepted the same report and recommendations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the San Rafael City Council, that Resolution No. 15422 approving the citywide budget and Capital Improvement Budget for FY 2025-26 is hereby further amended to authorize the following supplemental budget appropriations totaling $14,262,684, representing carry-over of available unencumbered FY 2024-25 appropriations, requested for specific purposes (Exhibit A).
I, LINDSAY LARA, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a special meeting of the Council of said City on Monday, the 2
nd day of September 2025 by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
__________________________
LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk
Exhibit A
FY 2024-25
Unencumbered Carry-Over Appropriations
Amount
Fund Dept. Description Operating Capital Fund Totals
001 Clerk Stipends $ 30,000
DPW Miovision Contract 104,000
Non-Dept'l. Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Implementation 812,125 Community Well-Being and Inclusive Engagement
Initiatives
456,148
Sub-Total General Fund (001) - FY2025/26 (Fund #101)* $ 1,402,273 205 DPW Stormwater FY24-25 CIP Projects $ 100,000
Sub-Total Stormwater Fund (205) $ 100,000
206 DPW Streets/Roads FY24-25 CIP Projects $ 6,700,000
Sub-Total Gas Tax Fund (206) $ 6,700,000
214 Lib/Rec Pickleweed Branch Library Project $ 1,800,720 Sub-Total Library Fund (214) $ 1,800,720
215 Lib/Rec Pickleweed Library Project (Lockers) $ 53,000 Sub-Total Library Special Assessment Fund (215) $ 53,000 241 Lib/Rec Boyd Park Improvements $ 6,455
Sub-Total Measure A -Open Space Fund (241) $ 6,455
243 CEDD Marin Housing Authority 200,000
Outside Legal Counsel support 50,000
Sub-Total Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fund (243) $ 250,000 283 CM Encampment Resolution Fund (ERF-3) Grant 1,425,000 Sub-TotalGrant Fund (283) 1,425,000
401 DPW Capital Fund CIP Projects $ 674,790
Sub-Total Capital Fund (401) $ 674,790
601 DGS Enterprise Infrastructure/Software $ 124,315
Council Chamber Upgrades 221,131
UKG - Human Resources Management 84,000
Sub-Total Technology Fund (601) - FY2025/26 (Fund #612)* $ 429,446 603 DPW Building Fund Capital Projects $ 1,421,000
Sub-Total Building Fund (603) - FY2025/26 (Fund #611)* $ 1,421,000 $ 3,559,719 $ 10,702,965 $ 14,262,684
* Selected Funds have been assigned new Fund #'s for FY2025/26 due to Chart of Accounts update in new ERP Financial System