Board holds statutorily required vacancy hearing; unions press county for higher take‑home pay and better health coverage

The Marin County Board of Supervisors held a statutorily required public hearing Wednesday under Assembly Bill 2561 to review vacancies, recruitment and retention efforts across county departments.

Human Resources Director Christina Kramer presented countywide staffing metrics and turnover data. The county reported roughly 2,369 regular employees and an overall turnover rate of 8.2% for 2024. Staff said the county received more than 9,600 job applications in 2024 and that the job‑opening to offer acceptance interval averaged about 73 days countywide; for law‑enforcement style positions in Probation the average time‑to‑hire rose to about 133 days because of enhanced background checks and training time.

Kramer and staff identified pockets of elevated vacancy rates and specifically provided the data required by the new statute for one bargaining unit exceeding the 20% threshold: the Teamsters‑represented probation workers (deputy probation officers and juvenile correctional officers), which showed a vacancy rate in the low‑to‑mid‑20% range during the review period. The county noted it had implemented a 5% equity adjustment in 2024, restructured some class progression timelines and undertaken outreach, training and recruitment efforts to stem vacancies.

Union leaders spoke at length to the board. Teamsters officials and probation staff said Marin’s total take‑home compensation is materially behind neighboring counties once required retirement contributions and employee health premiums are included. The Teamsters argued that Marin is roughly 11–15% behind on total take‑home pay when those elements are considered, and urged the county to prioritize benefit and wage changes; Teamsters also called for longevity pay and other retention tools used in other Bay Area jurisdictions. Deputy district attorneys described a loss of experienced trial attorneys and said heavy attrition has created casework and public‑safety risks. The Marin County Deputy Sheriffs Association described a similar pattern among deputy sheriffs, noting the county had invested in training only to lose personnel to better‑paying neighboring agencies.

County staff and labor representatives exchanged data points: county financial staff said the county’s standard practice is to compare base wages to market medians and that staff are working on a “total compensation” evaluation; union leaders countered that median-only comparisons and base‑wage analyses mask important take‑home differences in health premium costs and retirement contributions. Multiple union presentations included side‑by‑side examples showing wider gaps when total compensation is measured.

Supervisors and the county executive acknowledged the problem and directed staff to continue bargaining and to present follow‑up information, including a plain‑language summary of potential state and federal budget impacts on county funding and an updated analysis of take‑home compensation and possible targeted retention steps.

Ending — The board held the required hearing and received a series of union presentations and county responses. No legislative action or new compensation commitments were made during the hearing; county staff will continue negotiations and return with additional analyses and proposals.