Marin supervisors might give up oversight of housing agency
Marin County supervisors could relinquish oversight of the Marin Housing Authority to an independent board or commission if they follow a consultant’s recommendation.
The county hired KPMG International Limited in 2024 to provide organizational assessments of the Marin Housing Authority, the Community Development Agency and the Department of Public Works. The contract is for up to $500,000, and the housing agency agreed to pay the county $125,000 to help cover the cost.
KPMG provided assessments of the planning and public works offices late last year. The evaluation of the housing agency was presented on Jan. 27.
The assessment included 12 recommendations to strengthen service delivery, efficiency and performance, and included a 23-month plan for implementing the changes. The KPMG team that presented the report focused on six of the recommendations. The most eye-catching was the suggestion for altering the agency’s governance structure.
“Our report includes options for consideration by MHA to more closely align its board structure to those of the peer housing authorities that we examined,” said Alex Rothman, KPMG’s project director.
Rothman said KPMG looked at 13 comparable California housing authorities and only four had structures similar to the one used in Marin. The Marin Housing Authority commission has seven members: the five county supervisors and two public housing tenants.
“The other nine public housing authorities,” Rothman said, “have introduced appointed commissioners who bring specialized experience in areas such as finance, legal affairs, real estate development or health and human service delivery.”
Rothman said appointees also could include resident commissioners who bring lived experience and insight into residents’ needs, as well as supervisors or other local elected officials “to maintain alignment with broader policy and budget priorities.”
“I think it’s a great idea,” said Damian Morgan, a former member of the Marin City Community Services District board. “Have the community vote for the people they want in there. It will be a fresh start.”
KPMG provided examples of six housing authorities in other counties, and in each case a majority of the commissioners was appointed by county supervisors or city council members.
“I certainly support a reorganization of the commission,” said Barbara Bogard of Mill Valley, who has supported efforts to revitalize Golden Gate Village, the public housing complex in Marin City. “I have never supported the supervisors being the supermajority on the commission. I think it’s a conflict of interest.”
The Marin Housing Authority, established in 1942, operates independently from county departments and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. It is funded primarily by federal programs and has an annual operating budget of approximately $88 million.
As for electing commission members, Bogard said, “Should it be a popularity contest? I don’t think so.”
Supervisor Mary Sackett said, “I really appreciate the governance discussion.” She said the supervisors might need to contact other housing authorities and conduct a workshop over the next 18 months to evaluate options for restructuring.
While KPMG recommended that county supervisors surrender direct oversight of the Marin Housing Authority, the firm also called for the county to provide the agency with more assistance. The report notes that the county is already providing the agency with legal and information technology support.
In 2024, online hackers stole $950,000 in Marin Housing Authority funds that were earmarked for the rehabilitation of Golden Gate Village. The money was part of $3 million the county loaned to the housing agency for the work at Golden Gate Village. Some of the agency’s email accounts were particularly vulnerable because they lacked “two-factor authentication,” a security procedure that combines two forms of identification to guard against unauthorized access.
“Building on this foundation, our report recommends that MHA and the county assess expanding this collaboration to include support related to procurement, human resources and capital planning,” Rothman said.
Similarly, another key KPMG recommendation is that the housing agency and the county collaborate to address the shortage of affordable housing.
The Marin Housing Authority is converting Golden Gate Village to a long-term, Section 8 project-based voucher program to generate the capital required for its rehabilitation. Five other Marin public housing sites, which house about 200 mostly older and disabled tenants, are also being converted to Section 8.
The conversions are expected to increase federal assistance from approximately $1,100 per residence per month to $2,500 — critical for sustaining operations and affordability.
Rothman said that after the conversions have been completed, “there is an opportunity for MHA to evaluate whether it should expand its role and scope of services to directly support the development of affordable housing through its nonprofit affiliates.”
He added that people interviewed for the report also “identified an opportunity for county leadership to attract affordable housing developers and development to the county by facilitating site identification, the entitlement process and the identification of funding options.”
“To quote one interviewee,” Rothman said, “affordable housing developers will come where they see the path of least resistance.”
Other KPMG recommendations included the potential adoption of artificial intelligence to reduce reliance on manual processes, improve efficiency and enhance accessibility for residents and landlords.