Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consent Agenda topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public raises questions on consent calendar and emergency item; supervisors pull sheriff budget request for further review
Summary
Public commenters pressed the board about consent calendar procedures and an ongoing local emergency extension related to a January 2025 battery fire; supervisors pulled items 28 and 30 for separate consideration and returned item 30 for policy review on use of one‑time funds for ongoing retirement payouts.
Public concern over the County’s consent calendar format and several specific consent items dominated the March 24 public comment period at the Monterey County Board of Supervisors meeting.
Multiple speakers questioned the chair’s procedure for grouping dozens of consent items and asked that the board preserve the public’s ability to speak separately on each item. Lorna Moffett and Brian Rosen urged clarity on item 32, described on the agenda as a continuing proclamation of a local emergency linked to a January 2025 incident; county staff clarified the item is a required continuing action under code to maintain the existing emergency response every two months.
During the board’s consent calendar consideration the item list was reshuffled after supervisors exercised their right under procedure to pull items. Supervisor Alejo asked that items 25 and 28 be pulled for discussion; the board later pulled item 30 (a midyear budget adjustment for the sheriff’s office) for separate action.
Item 30 drew the sharpest attention. The proposal would increase sheriff’s office appropriations by $5,584,000, partially funded by a release from the county’s compensated‑absences designation. Board members expressed concern about using a one‑time fund designed for discrete retirement payouts as an ongoing revenue source for recurring payroll costs. "When that fund was created, it was with one-time dollars intended for one-time payouts, not for ongoing retirement payouts," Chair Askew said, and staff committed to reviewing financial policy and returning with clearer guidance.
The board substituted a motion to direct staff and the CAO to draft a revised policy governing the compensated‑absences designation and to report back; the board approved that substitute motion rather than immediately authorizing the requested transfer. Separately, supervisors moved to delay taking a final vote on a sole‑source alarm‑permit contract (consent item 28) so that the sheriff’s office could provide additional data about false‑alarm history and potential fee impacts.
What happens next: staff said they will review the compensated‑absences designation and return with a revised financial policy and clearer funding options. The actions do not adopt the sheriff’s requested budget increase today; they instead direct policy work to clarify how one‑time designations should be used.
Which board members: motions were introduced and seconded from the dais and the consent calendar passed with items 28 and 30 handled separately; the item 30 substitute motion to develop policy language passed. No vote counts were recorded in the public transcript beyond board agreement to move the matter forward for policy revision.
