Eight Noteworthy 13 September 2011 City Council Agenda Items

ABSTRACT: Eight Noteworthy 13 September 2011 City Council Agenda Items, namely Announcements from Closed Session regarding labor negotiations with the Carmel-by-the-Sea Police Officers Association and LIUNA/UPEC Local 792 and Conference with legal counsel regarding The Flanders Foundation, a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation, Petitioner v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Respondents – Monterey County
Superior Court Case No. M99437/State of California Court of Appeals, Sixth District, Civil Case No. H035818 and Report from the ad hoc CalPERS Committee, a Resolution entering into an employment agreement with Jason Stilwell for the position of City Administrator, a Resolution approving an agreement for relocation expenses for the City Administrator in the amount of $15,000, a Resolution ratifying a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and General Employees Association - LIUNA/UPEC Local 792, AFL-CIO, an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Design Review and Use Permit applications for a new restaurant located on the northeast corner of Mission Street and Seventh Avenue in the Carmel Plaza and a Report concerning the provision of Fire Service, are presented. Excerpts from Agenda Item Summaries and Staff Reports are provided; the text of the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT between the City and Jason Stilwell and the PROVISION OF FIRE SERVICE Report are embedded.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
4:30 p.m., Open Session

Live & Archived Video Streaming

City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues

II. Roll Call

V. Announcements from Closed Session, from City Council Members and the City Administrator.

A. Announcements from Closed Session.

1. Labor Negotiations – Gov’t. Code Section 54957.6(a) Meet and confer with the Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Meyers-Milias Brown Act representative, Interim City Administrator Goss, to give direction regarding labor negotiations with the Carmel-by-the-Sea Police Officers Association and LIUNA/UPEC Local 792.

2. Existing Litigation - Government Code Section 54956.9(a) - Conference with legal counsel regarding The Flanders Foundation, a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation, Petitioner v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Respondents – Monterey County Superior Court Case No. M99437/State of California Court of Appeals, Sixth District, Civil Case No. H035818.

C. Announcements from City Administrator.

1. Report from the ad hoc CalPERS Committee.

VII. Consent Calendar
These matters include routine financial and administrative actions, which are usually approved by a single majority vote. Individual items may be removed from Consent by a member of the Council or the public for discussion and action.

E. Consideration of a Resolution entering into an employment agreement with Jason Stilwell for the position of City Administrator.

Description: City Administrator Jason Stilwell will assume his new job on Wednesday, September 28, 2011. This Resolution authorizes the Mayor to execute the Agreement, attached as Exhibit “A”. This contract was negotiated and unanimously approved by Council in Closed Session.

Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT between City and Jason Stilwell City Administrator

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT between CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA & JASON STILWELL CITY ADMINISTRATOR

F. Consideration of a Resolution approving an agreement for relocation expenses for the City Administrator in the amount of $15,000.

Description: Newly appointed City Administrator Jason Stilwell and his family will relocate from Santa Barbara to the Monterey Peninsula as he assumes his new post later this month. As part of his agreement with the City, on or about September 28, 2011, the City will pay a $15,000 single, lump-sum payment to cover the costs of certain expenses
related to Stilwell’s relocation. These expenses include: the packing and shipping of the family’s household belongings; temporary housing for the family as they transition to permanent housing; and house-hunting expenses and all incidentals.

Overall Cost: $15,000 to be paid from Account #01-67110 (Pre-Employment)

Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

Important Considerations: The Relocation Agreement stipulates that Stilwell must remain in the City’s employ for a minimum of one year. Should this not occur, he would be responsible for reimbursing the City the money (or a portion of the money) received from this Agreement.

G. Consideration of a Resolution ratifying a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and General Employees Association -LIUNA/UPEC Local 792, AFL-CIO.

Description: Understanding the fiscal challenges confronting the City, LIUNA/UPEC, which represents the City General Employees, has agreed to a one-year MOU which will provide a net savings to the City, and those savings will grow going forward. The City Council’s chief objective, taking steps to control its retirement expense, is met in this MOU.

Term: One year, July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012

Compensation: 0%

Pension: All new employees will be hired under the California Public Employees Retirement System (Cal PERS) 2% @ 60, highest three consecutive years, retirement plan, rather than 2% @ 55, highest one year.

Other Fringe Benefits:
Medical Plan: Permits an employee covered by another agency’s health plan to “opt out” of the City’s Medical Plan, resulting in a savings to the City.
Deferred Compensation Plan: Treats LIUNA employees consistently with other City employees by providing that the City will contribute $25/month to their deferred compensation plan (457).
Insurance Review: Agree that the parties will continue to identify more affordable dental and vision plans within the existing premium.
Harassment Policy: The City agrees to “meet and consult” with LIUNA on any revisions to the City’s Harassment Policy before any changes are presented to the City Council.

Overall Cost: There is an estimated savings of $13,628.

Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

Important Considerations: After meeting and conferring with the City’s negotiating team, the Association has ratified the new terms and conditions of employment as itemized above to be incorporated into a new one-year MOU.

VIII. Public Hearings
If you challenge the nature of the proposed action in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.

A. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Design Review and Use Permit applications for a new restaurant located on the northeast corner of Mission Street and Seventh Avenue in the Carmel Plaza. The project applicant is David Fink.

Note: The appellant is John Goss, Interim City Administrator

Description: The applicant is proposing to open a new restaurant that specializes in hamburgers, but also offers a variety of other dishes. The proposal includes 66 interior seats and 13 exterior seats. The project site is located on the northeast corner of Mission Street and Seventh Avenue in the Carmel Plaza, which is in the Central Commercial District.

Staff Recommendation: Determine whether the Planning Commission’s decision was appropriate.

Important Considerations: Full-line restaurants are considered a Conditional Use in the Central Commercial District. According to CMC Section 17.68, full line restaurants provide “a full line of prepared food and drinks using nondisposable plates, glasses and utensils for immediate consumption on the site. These restaurants provide table service to patrons of all ages who pay after eating. Takeout service may be provided.”

Decision Record: The Planning Commission approved this project on August 10, 2011. An appeal was filed on August 22, 2011.

In summary, the Council should discuss the following questions:
• Is it appropriate to allow customers to pay for their orders prior to being seated?
• Does the proposal qualify as a fast food restaurant?
• Is it appropriate to allow customers to order from a menu board rather than while seated at a table or counter?

Options: The Council could consider the following options:
• Uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.
• Revise the Planning Commission’s decision.
• Overturn the Planning Commission’s decision.
• Remand the project back to the Commission with instructions.
• Continue consideration of this appeal with a request for additional information.

Appeal Letter

To: Sean Conroy, Planning Manager
From: John Goss, Interim City Administrator
Subject: Appeal of a Recent Decision of the Planning Commission
Date: August 22, 2011

Section 2.08.070 (D) of the Municipal Code provides that the City Administrator may appeal any decision of any commission appointed by the City Council, following the procedures in the Code established for other appeals. Based on this authority, this will appeal a decision of the Planning Commission (4-0-1), dated August 10, 2011, approving an application from Mr. David Fink for Design Review and a Use Permit for a new restaurant and exterior alterations of an existing building located in the Central Commercial District in Carmel Plaza.

The reason for the appeal of this Planning Commission decision is not because of any major concerns with this project, but to give the City Council an opportunity to review the City’s policy on fast food restaurants as it applies to this unique proposal. This could include leaving the Planning Commission decision stand, or reversing or revising that decision.

cc: Mayor McCloud and City Council
City Attorney Freeman

XI. Orders of Council

A. Consideration of a Report concerning the provision of Fire Service.

Description: On April 28, 2011, a Town Hall Workshop was held in the City Council Chambers to hear a report entitled, “Fire Service Alternatives,” by former Public Safety Director George Rawson. At that workshop, presentations also were made by Andrew Miller, Fire Chief of Monterey, Pacific Grove and Carmel, and Cal Fire Unit Chief Rick Hutchinson. There also were several question-and-answer periods during the meeting. While this was not a formal City Council meeting, the general consensus of the Workshop was that the matter should be brought back to the City Council to provide direction for “next steps.”

Overall Costs:
City Funds: Potentially to be determined as a result of “next steps.”

Staff Recommendations:
It is recommended that a fire unit (engine) be maintained 24/7 at the Carmel-by-the-Sea Fire Station staffed by a minimum of three career fire fighters/EMTs and that the City retain ownership of its buildings, engines, vehicles and other equipment. It is also recommended the City should not select a stand-alone fire department option and that Carmel Fire be fully merged with Monterey Fire.

Important Considerations: The April 28, 2011 Workshop focused on two options of providing fire service in Carmel: Integrating the Carmel Fire Department with the Monterey Fire Department; or contracting for services from Cal Fire. During the discussion other alternatives were discussed, including the current contract with the City of Monterey to provide so-called “headquarters services,” receiving similar “headquarters services” from Cal Fire, and maintaining an independent Carmel Fire Department.

The fire service issue has been considered by the City for several years. Several other alternatives have been implemented or considered that are no longer viable options for the City. This report contains recommendations for the City’s next steps in providing fire services.

Decision Record: The initial agreement with the City of Monterey for interim fire services began on December 15, 2008 (as approved by Resolution 2008-89) and has been renewed ever since (Resolution 2009-47 and 2010-4). On December 7, 2010, Council approved extending the shared fire services agreement with the City of Monterey through January 31, 2011. This agreement has now been extended through December 2011 by mutual consent of the City Administrators of both cities.

PROVISION OF FIRE SERVICE September 2011

PROVISION OF FIRE SERVICE REPORT

RECOMMENDATION No. 1.
IT IS RECOMMENDED that a fire unit (engine) be maintained 24/7 at the Carmel-by-the-Sea Fire Station.

RECOMMENDATION No. 2
IT IS RECOMMENDED, that regardless of the fire service option selected by the City Council, a minimum of three career fire fighters/EMTs be available for emergency response 24/7.

RECOMMENDATION No. 3
IT IS RECOMMENDED that, regardless of the fire service option selected by the City Council, the City retain ownership of its buildings, engines, vehicles and other equipment.

RECOMMENDATION No. 4
IT IS RECOMMENDED that the City should not select a stand-alone fire department option.

RECOMMENDATION No. 5
IT IS RECOMMENDED that Carmel Fire be fully merged with Monterey Fire.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
As the report suggests, there are several reasons to support Recommendation No. 5. These include:

• Monterey is already satisfactorily overseeing and administering Carmel Fire and its staff, apparatus and equipment operating as part of a five-station system. CRFA medic fire fighters have informally been integrated into this operation. In many respects an operational merger with Monterey already has been achieved.

• The current provision and level of service with the City of Monterey, administering a nearly integrated fire service model, is well received in the community, with no complaints received from the citizens.

• Where other agencies have merged with Monterey Fire, satisfaction has been expressed with the service provided.

• A number of successes in Monterey’s oversight of Carmel Fire have been achieved related to inoperable fire hydrants, the fire station remodel and seismic retrofit, reducing fire load at Mission Trails Park, replacing outmoded fire apparatus with new vehicles, and obtaining several grants to obtain up-to-date emergency equipment and tools.

• There will be a cost savings by avoiding the MOU obligation to the Carmel fire fighters.

• Through the integration of Monterey and Carmel operations, Carmel policies have been modified to reduce overtime expense.

• Monterey fire fighters have already become familiar with Carmel, often providing backfill staffing for the Carmel station and providing a backup engine when the Carmel engine is out on a call or as “second in” in connection with a call for service.

• Support by the Carmel, Monterey and CRFA fire fighters has been expressed for the merger. The support of the affected employees has been critical in the success of other fire services mergers.

• The potential for future cooperation and shared services with Pacific Grove and Monterey would be enhanced.

• Potential cost avoidance of an estimated $400,000 by avoiding the expense of replacing the 1988 reserve engine.

• The uncertainty of Cal Fire’s long-term costs (duty week reduction, unfunded retiree medical expense, 3% @ 55 pension plan for new hires)

• Even with the diligent efforts of Cal Fire there is a concern over Carmel fire fighters temporarily being relocated out of the area due to station assignment transfer, or during a major state-wide fire emergency since the initial drawdown of firefighting personnel would be from Cal Fire personnel.

If the City Council accepts these recommendations, staff will work with Monterey and the City Attorney to develop an agreement for review and possible adoption at the Council’s October meeting. This could be achieved by modifying the current Monterey contract. This will include developing the MOU with the local chapter of IAFF which will be the basis for the agreement.