Pacific Grove City Council
July 15, 2026

14 | Page Non-Represented Management and Confidential Group Compensation and Benefits Plan (amended 7/1/2026)
right to return to employment in a former position or a right to employment in a former position, or a right to employment in any other position within the City by reason of their employment status:
• Deputy City Clerk (Confidential, Non-exempt)
• Management Analyst (Confidential, Exempt)
• Police Commander, Administrative and Operations (Sworn and Exempt) • Program Manager, Senior (Exempt)
No statement, whether oral or written, or conduct may change such status, except a formal resolution of the Council resolved at a duly held meeting adopting a change of the terms of this Plan. Apart from the Council at a duly noticed meeting no person employed by the City has the authority to modify the at-will or general service status of such of Non-Represented Management and Confidential Group employees. The City Manager has discretion to include additional positions to this list.

5.9.1. Severance Option
Such at-will or general service employees shall be entitled to a severance option to receive one week of severance pay for each full year of completed service with the City for up to a maximum of four weeks if involuntarily terminated by the City following completion and execution of the City severance agreement. The amount of each week of severance pay shall be equivalent to the total salary for one week plus the pro rata share of the amount the City would have paid towards health benefits for that week.

Employees terminated for illegal activities, gross malfeasance or dereliction of duties or absence from employment without a good cause are not eligible for this severance option.

5.10. Discipline
The City will generally follow progressive discipline guidelines as outlined in the Pacific Grove Municipal Code Section 4.20.410 Discipline of officers and employees and the APPM; however, nothing in Section 4.20.410 modifies the at-will nature of the employment status for employees in this Non-Represented Management and Confidential Group.

6. Continuing Education and Professional Development

6.1. Tuition Reimbursement
The City shall reimburse eligible tuition expenses up to $3,000 per fiscal year. Courses must be work-related and be pre-approved by the City Manager prior to enrolling. Classes must be taken during the employee’s off-duty hours for which the employee is not receiving any form of compensation from the City. Employees must obtain a grade B or better for reimbursement.

Upon successful completion of the course, the employee shall submit a request for reimbursement to the City Manager, with a grade record (or other suitable certification), and proof of payment.

The tuition reimbursement program may be suspended at any time with or without notice pending City finances. However, reimbursement requests for courses pre-approved and inprocess will be honored.

7. Term
The term of this Plan shall commence July 1, 2021 and shall continue in force until amended.

PGCC 7-15-26

Agenda No. 9 G

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Leticia Livian, Human Resources Director
MEETING DATE: July 15, 2026
SUBJECT: Agreement with Bob Murray & Associates for Executive Recruitment Services CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize an agreement with Bob Murray and Associates for executive recruitment services, in an amount not to exceed $38,500;

1. 2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

DISCUSSION
The City Manager tendered his resignation on June 2026, creating the need to initiate a recruitment for the next City Manager.

In 2023, when the City last conducted a City Manager recruitment, the City Council established a subcommittee to review proposals from executive recruitment firms. The subcommittee conducted a thorough review of eight California public agency recruitment firms. Following that review, Bob Murray & Associates was selected based on several factors, including:

Overall value;
Responsiveness to the Request for Proposals, including addressing all required elements; Experience, qualifications, and demonstrated track record; Recruitment approach, timeline, and schedule;
Placement guarantee;
Advertising and networking strategy;
Commitment to diversity in the recruitment process; and Candidate screening and interview process.

Bob Murray & Associates is located near Sacramento and has a strong reputation in public sector executive recruitment. Since 2024, the firm has facilitated more than 30 successful City Manager placements in California. The recruitment would be led by Gary Phillips, President of Bob Murray & Associates, who would serve as the City’s primary contact.

Because the City recently worked with Bob Murray & Associates on its prior City Manager recruitment, the firm has an existing understanding of the City’s organizational structure, community priorities, governance environment, and the qualities needed in a successful City Manager for Pacific Grove. The PGCC 7-15-26

governance environment, and the qualities needed in a successful City Manager for Pacific Grove. The City Council, in partnership with City Human Resources, will coordinate the recruitment efforts and work with Bob Murray & Associates throughout the process to support a thoughtful, organized, and timely recruitment.

This prior experience provides value to the City by reducing the time needed to orient the recruitment firm to the organization and allowing the process to move forward more efficiently and strategically.

Rather than beginning the recruitment process from the ground up, Bob Murray & Associates can build upon its prior knowledge of the City, while also updating the candidate profile to reflect the City Council’s current priorities, organizational needs, and community expectations.

This familiarity is especially valuable given the importance of maintaining continuity during a leadership transition. A recruitment firm that already understands the City’s culture, challenges, and expectations is better positioned to assist the City Council and Human Resources in developing a focused recruitment strategy, identifying qualified candidates, and communicating the opportunity effectively to prospective applicants. The recruitment process will include meetings with the City Council and key staff to refine the candidate profile, confirm recruitment priorities, and establish a timeline that supports the City’s operational needs.

The all-inclusive professional services flat fee for conducting the City Manager recruitment is $35,000.

Services provided for this fee consist of all steps outlined in Bob Murray & Associate’s proposal (proposal), including design and distribution of the recruitment brochure, advertising, marketing and promotion, administrative support, public records research, comprehensive background reporting on the final candidates, postage, technology, and three days of on-site meetings. Optional services are available for additional fees as outlined in the proposal if requested.

The City’s standard Professional Services Agreement will be used for this engagement.

OPTIONS

1. Take no action

2. Provide alternative direction to staff
FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The expenditure is not to exceed $38,500 ($35,000 plus a 10% contingency) in FY 2026/2027.

Sufficient funds are available in the City Manager's budget for the funding of this expenditure.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.

Attachments
Agreement
PGCC 7-15-26

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
This PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (“PSA”) FOR NON-CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS (“Agreement”) is made and effective as of July 15, 2026, between the City of Pacific Grove (“City”), a municipal corporation and Bob Murray and Associates, a corporation (“CONSULTANT”). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:

1. TERM
This Agreement shall commence on July 16, 2026 and shall remain and continue in effect until the tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2027, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.

2. SCOPE OF WORK
CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and services (“Services”) described and set forth in Exhibit A, Scope of Services, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full.

CONSULTANT shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A. To the extent that Exhibit A is a proposal from CONSULTANT, such proposal is incorporated only for the description of the Scope of Services and no other terms and conditions from any such proposal shall apply to this Agreement unless specifically agreed to in writing.

3. PERFORMANCE
CONSULTANT shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of their ability, experience, and talent, perform all Services described herein. CONSULTANT shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of CONSULTANT hereunder in meeting their obligations under this Agreement.

CONSULTANT is bound by the contents of City’s Request for Proposal on file hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit D, and the contents of the proposal submitted by CONSULTANT, available on file at the City Clerk’s Office, hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit E. In the event of conflict, the requirements of City’s Request for Proposals and this Agreementshall take precedence over those contained in CONSULTANT’s proposals.

4. CITY MANAGEMENT
The City Manager, or their designee, shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the administration of this Agreement, review and approval of all products submitted by CONSULTANT, but not including the authority to enlarge the Scope of Work or change the compensation due to CONSULTANT. The City Manager shall be authorized to act on City’s behalf and to execute all necessary documents that enlarge the Scope of Work or change CONSULTANT’s compensation, subject to Section 6 hereof.

PGCC 7-15-26

4929-1331-4490, v. 1

5. PAYMENT
a. The City agrees to pay CONSULTANT monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the Payment Schedule as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. This amount shall not exceed $38,500 for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. b. The City Manager’s contract authority is limited to $39,999.99, which includes all costs.

Contracts, including any contract amendments that exceed the total threshold, require City Council approval. Any contracts, including contract amendments that exceed the total threshold, which do not have City Council approval, shall be void. c. CONSULTANT shall not be compensated for any Services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement that are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City Manager or the City Council. CONSULTANT shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by City Manager and CONSULTANT at the time City’s written authorization is given to CONSULTANT for the performance ofsaid services. d. CONSULTANT shall submit invoices monthly for actual Services performed. Invoices shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, or as soon thereafter as practical, for Services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non-disputed fees. If the City disputes any of CONSULTANT’s fees it shall give written notice to CONSULTANT within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. Any final payment under this Agreement shall be made within forty-five (45) days of receipt of an invoice therefore.

6. INSPECTION
City shall at all times have the right to inspect the work and materials. CONSULTANT shall furnish all reasonable aid and assistance required by City for the proper examination of the work and all parts thereof. Such inspection shall not relieve CONSULTANT from any obligation to perform said work strictly in accordance with the specifications or any modifications thereof and in compliance with the law.

7. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE a. The City may at any time, for any reason, without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon CONSULTANT at least thirty (30) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, CONSULTANT shall immediately cease all Services under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement.

PGCC 7-15-26

4929-1331-4490, v. 1
b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to CONSULTANT the actual value of the Services performed up to the time of termination, provided that the Services performed are of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, CONSULTANT will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 6.

8. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT
a. CONSULTANT’s failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that CONSULTANT is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating CONSULTANT for any Services performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the CONSULTANT. If such failure by the CONSULTANT to make progress in the performance of Services hereunder arises out of causes beyond the CONSULTANT’s control, and without fault or negligence of the CONSULTANT, itshall not be considered a default.
b. If the City Manager or designee determines CONSULTANT is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, they shall cause to be served upon CONSULTANT a written notice of the default. The CONSULTANT shall have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event CONSULTANT fails to cure its default within such period of time or fails to present City with a written plan for the cure of the default, City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement.

9. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
a. CONSULTANT shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts, and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall maintain adequate records of Services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of Services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. CONSULTANT shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records; shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records; shall permit City to make transcripts or copies therefrom as necessary; and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to this Agreement. If there is a substantial billing deviation adverse to City, then the cost of an audit shall be borne by CONSULTANT. Such records, together with supporting documents,shall be maintained for a period of five (5) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the Services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of City and may be used, reused, or otherwise disposed of by City PGCC 7-15-26

4929-1331-4490, v. 1
without the permission of CONSULTANT. With respect to computer files, CONSULTANT shall make available to City, at CONSULTANT’s office and upon reasonable written request by City, the necessary computersoftware and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring, copying and/or printing computer files. CONSULTANT hereby grants to City all right, title, and interest, including any copyright, in and to the documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared by CONSULTANT in the course of providing the Services under this Agreement.

10. RECORD AUDIT
In accordance with Government Code, Section 8546.7, for expenditures of greater than $10,000, records of both City and CONSULTANT shall be subject to examination and audit by the Auditor General for a period of three (3) years after final payment.

11. INDEMNIFICATION AND DEFENSE
Indemnity
To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall indemnify and hold harmless City and any and all of its officers, employees and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including legal counsel’s fees and costs, caused in whole or in part by the negligent or wrongful act, error or omission of CONSULTANT, its officers, agents, employees or subconsultants (or any City or individual that CONSULTANT shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT’s duty to indemnify and hold harmless City shall not extend to the City’s sole or active negligence.

Duty to defend
In the event City, its officers, employees, agents and/or volunteers are made a party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial proceeding arising from the performance of the Services encompassed by this Agreement, and upon demand by City, CONSULTANT shall defend City at CONSULTANT’s cost or at City’s option, to reimburse City for its costs of defense, including reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the defense of such matters to the extent the matters arise from, relate to or are caused by CONSULTANT’s negligent acts, errors or omissions. Payment by City is not a condition precedent to enforcement of this indemnity. In the event of any dispute between CONSULTANT and City, as to whether liability arises from the sole or active negligence of the City or its officers, employees, or agents, CONSULTANT will be obligated to pay for City’s defense until such time as a final judgment has been entered adjudicating the City as solely or actively negligent. CONSULTANT will not be entitled in the absence of such a determination to any reimbursement of defense costs including but not limited to attorney’s fees, expert fees and costs of litigation.

12. INSURANCE
CONSULTANT shall maintain prior to the beginning of and for the duration of this Agreement insurance coverage asspecified in Exhibit C attached to and part of this Agreement.

PGCC 7-15-26

4929-1331-4490, v. 1

13. INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT
a. CONSULTANT is and shall at all times remain as to City a wholly independent consultant and/or independent contractor. The personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of CONSULTANT shall at all times be under CONSULTANT’s exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, or agents shall have control over the conduct of CONSULTANT or any of CONSULTANT’s officers, employees, or agents, except as set forth in this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officers, employees, or agents of City. CONSULTANT shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner.
b. No employee benefits shall be available to CONSULTANT in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to CONSULTANT as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to CONSULTANT for performing Services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to CONSULTANT for injury or sickness arising out of performing Services hereunder.

14. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES
CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of State and Federal laws and regulations that in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its Services pursuant to this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall at all times observe and comply with all such laws and regulations. City, and its officers, employees, and agents shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the CONSULTANT to comply with this Section.

15. UNDUE INFLUENCE
CONSULTANT declares and warrants that no undue influence or pressure was used against or in concert with any officer, employee or agent of City in connection with the award, terms or implementation of this Agreement, including any method of coercion, confidential financial arrangement, or financial inducement. No officer, employee or agent of City has or will receive compensation, directly or indirectly, from CONSULTANT, or from any officer, employee or agent of CONSULTANT, in connection with the award of this Agreement or any Services to be performed as a result of this Agreement. Violation of this Section shall be a material breach of this Agreement entitling City to any and all remedies at law or in equity.

16. NO BENEFIT TO ARISE TO CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
No officer, employee of City, or their designees or agents, and no public official who exercises authority over or responsibilities with respect to the Services performed under the Agreement during their tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in any agreement or sub-agreement, or the proceeds thereof, for work to be performed in connection with the Services performed under this Agreement.

17. RELEASE OF INFORMATION/CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
PGCC 7-15-26

4929-1331-4490, v. 1
a. All information gained by CONSULTANT in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by CONSULTANT without City’s prior written authorization. CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents, or subconsultants, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories, or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered “voluntary” provided CONSULTANT gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
b. CONSULTANT shall promptly notify CITY should CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents, or subconsultants be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions, or other discovery request (“Discovery”), court order, or subpoena from any person or party regarding this Agreement and the work performed there under or with respect to any project or property located within the City, unless City is a party to any lawsuit, arbitration, or administrative proceeding connected to such Discovery, or unless CONSULTANT is prohibited by law from informing City of such Discovery. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent CONSULTANT and/or be present at any deposition, hearing, or similar proceeding as allowed by law. Unless City is a party to the lawsuit, arbitration, or administrative proceeding and is adverse to CONSULTANT in such proceeding, CONSULTANT agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by CONSULTANT. However, City’s right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response.
c. If City determines CONTRACTOR comes within the definition of Contractor under the Political Reform Act (Government Code §87100 et seq.), CONTRACTOR shall complete and file and shall require any other person doing Work under this Agreement to complete and file a “Statement of Economic Interest” with CITY disclosing CONTRACTOR’s and/or such other person’s financial interests.

18. DISCRIMINATION
CONSULTANT agrees that in the performance of this Agreement, neither CONSULTANT nor any person acting on CONSULTANT’s behalf shall discriminate against any person on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity, gender expression, military or veteran status or age.

19. NOTICES
Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, which provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, by first class mail, addressed to the address of the party asset forth below or at any other address asthat partymay PGCC 7-15-26

4929-1331-4490, v. 1
later designate by notice, or by email address:

To City: Nick Smith, Mayor
[email protected]
City of Pacific Grove
300 Forest Avenue Pacific Grove, CA 93950
Attention: City Clerk
To CONSULTANT: Gary Phillips, Executive Vice President
[email protected]
Bob Murray & Associates
1544 Eureka Road, Suite 280
Roseville, CA 95661
Notice is effective on the date of personal service, or 5 days following deposit in a United States mailbox, or date of postmark. The parties may agree to service by email.

20. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES
Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to create, and the parties do not intend to create, any rights in third parties.

21. ASSIGNMENT
CONSULTANT shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of CITY. Because of the personal nature of the Servicesto be rendered pursuant to this Agreement, only CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described in this Agreement. CONSULTANT may use assistants, under their directsupervision, to perform some of the Services under this Agreement.

22. LICENSES
At all times during the term of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the Services described in this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall obtain a valid City Business License and shall maintain said Business License for the term of this Agreement and any extensions.

23. GOVERNING LAW
City and CONSULTANT understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties, and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in Monterey County, or federal district court with jurisdiction over City.

CONSULTANT agrees not to commence or prosecute any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement other than in the aforementioned courts and irrevocably consents to the exclusive personal jurisdiction and venue of the aforementioned courts.

PGCC 7-15-26

4929-1331-4490, v. 1

24. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to their obligations described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations, and statements, oral or written and pertaining to the subject of this Agreement or with respect to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party’s own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. No amendment shall be valid unless in writing, executed by both parties.

25. DISPUTE RESOLUTION; ATTORNEY’S FEES
CONSULTANT shall continue to perform under this Agreement during any dispute.

CONSULTANT and City hereby agree to make good faith efforts to resolve disputes as quickly as possible. In the event any dispute arising from or related to this Agreement results in litigation or arbitration, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all reasonable costs incurred, including court costs, attorney fees, expenses for expert witnesses (whether or not called to testify), expenses for accountants or appraisers (whether or not called to testify), and other related expenses. Recovery of these expenses shall be as additional costs awarded to the prevailing party, and shall not require initiation of a separate legal proceeding.

26. WORK SCHEDULED/TIME OF COMPLETION
City and CONSULTANT agree that time is of the essence in this Agreement.

27. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT
The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of CONSULTANT warrants and represents that they have the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the CONSULTANT and have the authority to bind CONSULTANT to the performance of its obligations hereunder.

28. INTERPRETATION OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of this Agreement and the Provisions of any exhibit or other attachment to this Agreement, the provisions of this Agreement shall prevail and control.

29. SEVERABILITY
If any term of this Agreement is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction or arbitrator the remainder of this Agreement shall remain in effect.

PGCC 7-15-26

4929-1331-4490, v. 1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written.

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE CONSULTANT
By: By:

Leticia Livian, Human Resources Director Gary Phillips, Executive Vice President Bob Murray & Associates
Date: Date:

By: By:

Nick Smith, Mayor Fred Marsh, City Administrative
Services Depart.

Date: Date:

Approved As to Form:

Alex Lorca, City Attorney
Date:

Attachments:

Exhibit A Consultant’s Proposal

PGCC 7-15-26

A Proposal to Conduct an Executive Recruitment
for the Position of

CITY MANAGER
on behalf of the
1544 Eureka Road, Suite 180
Roseville, CA 95661
(916) 784-9080
(916) 784-1985 fax
Exhibit A
PGCC 7-15-26

June 26, 2026
Mayor Nick Smith and Members of the City Council
City of Pacific Grove
300 Forest Ave.

Pacific Grove, CA 93950
Submitted via email to: [email protected]

Dear Mayor Smith and Members of the City Council:

Bob Murray & Associates is pleased to submit a proposal to conduct the City Manager recruitment for the City of Pacific Grove. The following details our unique qualifications and describes our systematic—yet flexible—method of identifying, recruiting, and screening outstanding candidates on your behalf. Bob Murray & Associates is proud to offer straightforward, all-in pricing, eliminating surprises and making the experience simple and stress-free. This proposal includes information on our proven process, a timeline, and a guarantee.

As the premier public sector executive search firm specializing in positions that report directly to elected boards/councils, we understand the unique dynamics, high expectations, and political acumen required of leaders in these critical roles. We don’t just fill positions—we ensure the candidates we present to City of Pacific Grove are wellaligned with your organization’s goals, values, and culture. Our team is composed of experienced executive recruiters and former public-sector executives—professionals who are passionate about public service and attuned to current trends in government leadership. With over 34 years of experience and a network of more than 40,000 professionals and organizations, we’ve built a strong reputation for delivering exceptional candidates and achieving repeat success with our clients.

Bob Murray & Associates recognizes that we work at the pleasure of the City Council and our job is to facilitate the Council in finding the City’s next City Manager. Our best practice is to establish a strong partnership with the Council, to ensure the placement of a City Manager who is ideally suited to its needs. In developing this collaborative approach, we will seek the opportunity to meet with the council members individually to discuss their expectations for the City’s new City Manager. The feedback received from the council members will be essential in providing guidance when recruiting and screening candidates for the position.

Current and recent recruitments we have completed similar in scope to your upcoming search include the following including over 40 City & County Management recruitments over the last 3 years:

PGCC 7-15-26

2026
Sonoma, CA (City Manager) – current
Lemon Grove, CA (City Manager) – current
South Lake Tahoe, CA (City Manager) – current
Lake Forest, CA (Assistant City Manager) -current
Arvin, CA (City Manager) – current
Marin County, CA (County Executive Officer)
Marin County, CA (Assistant County Executive Officer)
Lawndale, CA (City Manager)
Manhattan Beach, CA (Deputy City Manager)
Marina, CA (City Manager)
Pacifica, CA (City Manager)
Sausalito, CA (City Manager)
Concord, CA (City Manager)
Santa Rosa, CA (City Manager)
Monterey, CA (City Manager)
Eugene, OR (City Manager)
Cathedral City, CA (City Manager)
Hanford, CA (City Manager)

2025
Hayward, CA (City Manager)
Apple Valley, CA (Town Manager)
Davis, CA (City Manager)
Hanford, CA (City Manager)
Live Oak, CA (City Manager)
Oakdale, CA (City Manager)
Fowler, CA (City Manager)
Louisville, CO (City Manager)
Healdsburg, CA (Assistant City Manager)
2024
Vernon, CA (City Administrator)
Folsom, CA (City Manager)
Murrieta, CA (City Manager)
Aliso Viejo, CA (City Manager)
Manhattan Beach, CA (City Manager)
Emeryville, CA (City Manager)
Reno, NV (City Manager)
Clovis, CA (City Manager)
Clayton, CA (City Manager)
Vancouver, WA (City Manager)
Orinda, CA (City Manager)
PGCC 7-15-26

Pinole, CA (City Manager)
Novato, CA (City Manager)
Saratoga, CA (City Manager)
Sparks, NV (City Manager)
Salinas, CA (City Manager)
We work as a team on every search at Bob Murray & Associates. Your Project Lead would be Gary Phillips, who would not only direct and supervise the project team from beginning to end but also serve as the Recruiter for the project as well.

To learn first-hand about the quality of our services and why the majority of our engagements come from repeat and referred clients, we invite you to contact the references listed on page 14 of the attached proposal.

We look forward to your favorable consideration of our qualifications. Please do not hesitate to contact us at (916) 784-9080 with any questions.

Sincerely,
Valerie Gaeta Phillips
President, Bob Murray & Associates
PGCC 7-15-26

TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE RECRUITMENT PROCESS ........................................................................2 STEP 1 DEVELOP THE CANDIDATE PROFILE........................................................ 2 STEP 2 DESIGN/DISTRIBUTE BROCHURE AND ADVERTISEMENTS ........................ 3 Reaching Diverse Candidates...................................................................... 4 STEP 3 RECRUIT CANDIDATES ............................................................................ 4 STEP 4 SCREEN CANDIDATES............................................................................. 5 STEP 5 CONDUCT PRELIMINARY INTERVIEWS...................................................... 5 STEP 6 SEARCH PUBLIC RECORDS...................................................................... 5 STEP 7 MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 5 STEP 8 FACILITATE FINAL INTERVIEWS ................................................................ 6 STEP 9 CONDUCT BACKGROUND AND REFERENCE CHECKS ............................. 6 STEP 10 ASSIST IN NEGOTIATIONS..................................................................... 7 COMPLETE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANCE ................................................7 COSTS AND GUARANTEE ..............................................................................8 PROFESSIONAL FEE AND EXPENSES ................................................................... 8 Optional Services ........................................................................................... 8 GUARANTEE....................................................................................................... 9 RECRUITMENT SCHEDULE .......................................................................... 10 FIRM PROFILE ................................................................................................ 11 REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 14

PGCC 7-15-26

Bob Murray & Associates Proposal for the City of Pacific Grove Page 2

THE RECRUITMENT PROCESS
Bob Murray & Associates’ recruiters are specialists in finding positive placements and providing security and fairness to candidates and clients while ensuring the integrity of the search process. Outlined below are the steps in our proven recruitment process, refined through our 34+ years of experience in executive recruiting.

STEP 1 DEVELOP THE CANDIDATE PROFILE
Our understanding of the City of Pacific Grove’s needs will be key to a successful search.

Gary Phillips will meet virtually with the City and key stakeholders to learn as much as possible about the ideal candidate for the City Manager position. Key stakeholders often include:
• Council/Board Members – up to seven virtual one-on-one meetings with the Recruiter
• Internal Stakeholders (e.g. Department Heads) – up to two virtual group meetings with the Recruiter
• External Stakeholders (e.g. Chamber of Commerce, Community Groups) – one virtual one-on-one or group meeting with the Recruiter
Internal and External Stakeholders

We find that many of our clients value a recruitment process that opens the opportunity for employees, community members, business leaders, and organization representatives to provide input regarding the ideal candidate. Our recruiters are skilled in virtually facilitating group staff meetings, forums for the business community, and/or town hall meetings that provide for equitable involvement from a variety of constituencies.

If the City of Pacific Grove desires, we will work with the City to create a customized virtual community and/or staff input process. Please note: Virtual facilitation of stakeholder meetings is included in the professional fee. On-site Recruiter facilitation is available for an additional fee – please refer to “Costs and Guarantee” on page 7 for pricing information.

Online Stakeholder Surveys

Sometimes clients are seeking input from a wider range of stakeholders—such as community members, business leaders, and organization representatives—online surveys are ideal to solicit input regarding qualities of the ideal candidate. Our experienced recruiters excel at crafting targeted, thoughtful, open-ended questions and can design a customized survey, providing a link for easy sharing on your website.

After closing, your dedicated Recruitment Coordinator will send you the survey PGCC 7-15-26

Bob Murray & Associates Proposal for the City of Pacific Grove Page 3 response data for your review and analysis. This proposal includes one Online Survey.

Additional Online Surveys are available under Optional Services (please refer to page 7).

We want to become familiar with the values and culture of the organization, as well as to understand the current and future issues, challenges, and opportunities in the City of Pacific Grove.

Mr. Phillips will review and help define the City’s wish-list regarding the ideal candidate’s personality, management style, knowledge, skills, and abilities and will work with the City to identify expectations regarding education and experience. The City and Mr.

Phillips will discuss compensation, benefits, and other key information necessary to ensure that outstanding candidates are attracted to this opportunity. The profile we develop together at this stage will drive subsequent recruitment efforts.

STEP 2 DESIGN/DISTRIBUTE BROCHURE AND ADVERTISEMENTS
Mr. Phillips and your dedicated Recruitment Coordinator will use the candidate profile developed with the City of Pacific Grove to create a professional recruitment brochure, with the assistance of our professional graphic designer. The four-page, full-color brochure will describe the community, organization, position, ideal candidate, and compensation and will include pictures provided by the City of Pacific Grove that you feel best represent your organization and your community.

Upon your approval, Mr. Phillips will send the brochure by email (and postal mail if desired) to a targeted audience, personally inviting potential candidates to apply for the City Manager position. We will also place the recruitment brochure on our website, which attracts over 11,000 unique hits weekly and is a trusted resource for candidates seeking executive and professional positions. Two sample brochures are included in this proposal package for your reference.

Mr. Phillips will also design an effective advertising campaign appropriate for the City Manager recruitment. Our broadest outreach comes through our active social media involvement on LinkedIn as well as our monthly newsletter where upcoming and current positions are featured. Sources such as Western City Magazine, PublicCEO, and the Careers in Government website will be used to reach an extensive local government audience, while position-specific postings will be chosen to attract candidates who have built their careers in and are committed to the City Manager field.

Suggested City Manager-specific advertising sources for the City of Pacific Grove’s search include but are not limited to:

League of California Cities – Western City Magazine
League of Women in Government
PGCC 7-15-26

Bob Murray & Associates Proposal for the City of Pacific Grove Page 4 Engaging Local Government Leaders
International Network of Asian Pacific Islander Public Administrators Local Government Hispanic Network
National Forum for Black Public Administrators
Bob Murray & Associates does not typically place ads with job aggregators or general job posting sites such as CareerBuilder, Monster, or Indeed, as we have found that the broad reach of these sites does not necessarily lead to quality candidates for executive and professional positions.

Reaching Diverse Candidates
Bob Murray & Associates, a woman- and minority-owned business, is proud of its commitment to attracting and placing diverse candidates. Nearly 50% of our last 100 placements were women; Hispanic placements 25%; African American placements 13%; Asian placements 21%; and Native American placements at 1%. Not only do we place advertisements with websites designed to attract minority and female candidates, but our President, Valerie Phillips, is a member herself of many diversity-focused organizations including the Local Government Hispanic Network, the League of Women in Government, the Professional Women’s Network, Mexican Professionals, and Women Leading Government. She networks frequently with fellow members to gain insight into which potential candidates are leaders in their field.

Mr. Phillips will seek to reach candidates in communities and organizations with demographic profiles and populations served like that of the City of Pacific Grove, to maximize the potential for individuals from a wide variety of backgrounds, cultures, and life experiences to be considered for the City Manager position.

STEP 3 RECRUIT CANDIDATES
The strongest candidates are often those who are successful and content in their current positions and need to be sold on a new opportunity. Our extensive network of contacts, developed through over 2,100 successful placements, is a primary source for identifying and obtaining referrals for these candidates. Our in-house database of 40,000 current and former executive and professional candidates is a valuable resource that can only be built over time—time that we have invested into perfecting our process for finding the right candidates for our clients. Our aggressive outreach efforts are focused on phone calls to personally invite potential applicants, answer questions, and allay any reservations, and these efforts are essential to the success of the City Manager recruitment.

PGCC 7-15-26

Bob Murray & Associates Proposal for the City of Pacific Grove Page 5 STEP 4 SCREEN CANDIDATES

Following the closing date for the recruitment, Mr. Phillips will screen all resumes we have received, using the criteria established in the candidate profile as a basis upon which to narrow the field of candidates. Internal candidates receive sensitive consideration, and Mr. Phillips will discuss with the City how the City of Pacific Grove wishes to proceed with these candidates.

STEP 5 CONDUCT PRELIMINARY INTERVIEWS
Mr. Phillips will personally interview the top 10 to 15 candidates from the resume screening, with the goal of determining which candidates have the greatest potential to succeed in your organization. To reduce travel-related expenses to our clients and increase efficiency in the search process, these interviews are typically conducted via Zoom, Teams, or other convenient videoconferencing applications. However, because Ms. Beers is local to the area, she will conduct in-person interviews with select candidates from the local region when appropriate, allowing for additional flexibility and a more personalized assessment of those applicants.

STEP 6 SEARCH PUBLIC RECORDS
Under the direction of Mr. Phillips, your dedicated Recruitment Coordinator will conduct a review of published print and online articles for each recommended candidate. Sources include Lexis-Nexis™, Google, publicly available social media activity and professional profiles, and outreach through our established network of contacts within the industry. The purpose of this process is to identify information that may warrant additional inquiry, provide a more complete understanding of each candidate’s professional reputation and public presence, and uncover any potential concerns that could impact their suitability for the position. Any findings that require clarification or further investigation will be thoroughly explored before finalist recommendations are presented to the City of Pacific Grove.

STEP 7 MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our findings during the preliminary interview process, Mr. Phillips will meet with the City virtually or on site to share the complete applicant list and recommend a limited number of candidates for further consideration. Mr. Phillips will make specific recommendations and will help facilitate discussions regarding the candidate pool, but the final determination of interviewees will be up to you.

We typically recommend 6-8 candidates that we feel best match your expectations and prepare a detailed report on each candidate. This virtual “Recommended Finalist” eBook is provided to each member of the decision-making body and includes:

PGCC 7-15-26

Bob Murray & Associates Proposal for the City of Pacific Grove Page 6 Candidate list with Recommended Finalists identified in Group 1 and Group 2 (primary and secondary recommendations), as well as Internal candidates Summary of experience and education for each Recommended Finalist candidate
Complete cover letter and resume for each Recommended Finalist candidate List of Other Applicants (those who did not meet minimum qualifications or were otherwise unsuitable, based on our screening process)
Bob Murray & Associates maintains all search records for a period of seven (7) years following each recruitment, and we are happy to forward cover letters and resumes for each applicant by postal mail or email as soon as the recruitment closes to new applications.

STEP 8 FACILITATE PANEL INTERVIEWS
Our years of experience will be invaluable as we help you develop an interview process that objectively assesses the qualifications of each candidate. We will work with the City of Pacific Grove to craft and implement an interview approach that fits your needs. This may include panel and/or individual interviews by the City; key stakeholders, community/employee interview panels; writing and presentation samples; meet-andgreets; or other specialized process elements Mr. Phillips help the City of Pacific Grove to design.

Mr. Phillips will be present on-site during the panel interviews to facilitate as necessary during the process and to guide discussion to consensus regarding final candidates.

Bound interview books will be provided for each interview panel member containing:

Recruitment brochure with candidate profile
Interview schedule
Suggested interview questions
Experience summary, cover letter, resume, and rating form for each candidate
Ranking forms for use during the panel interview process We will work closely with your staff to coordinate and schedule interviews. Our goal is to ensure that each candidate has a positive experience, as the way the entire process is conducted will influence the final candidates’ perception of your organization.

STEP 9 CONDUCT BACKGROUND AND REFERENCE CHECKS
Mr. Phillips and your Recruitment Coordinator will conduct detailed reference checks for up to two (2) final candidates. To gain an accurate and honest appraisal of the candidates’ strengths and weaknesses, we will talk candidly with people who have direct knowledge of their work and management style. In addition to gaining a 360-degree PGCC 7-15-26

Bob Murray & Associates Proposal for the City of Pacific Grove Page 7 view of candidates from the perspective of their supervisors, subordinates and peers for the past several years, we will make a point of speaking confidentially to individuals who may have further insight into a candidate’s abilities but who may not be on their preferred list of contacts.

Your Recruitment Coordinator will work with the two (2) final candidates and our professional backgrounding firm, HireRight, to conduct credit, civil litigation, criminal, and motor vehicle record checks and verify candidates’ degrees.

STEP 10 ASSIST IN NEGOTIATIONS
We recognize the critical importance of successful negotiations and can serve as your representative during this process. Mr. Phillips knows what other organizations have done to put deals together with great candidates and what the current market is like for City Manager positions in organizations like the City of Pacific Grove’s. Your Recruiters will be available to advise you regarding current approaches to difficult issues, such as housing and relocation. We will represent your interests and advise the chosen candidate and you regarding salary, benefits, and employment agreements, with the goal of putting together a deal that results in the appointment of your chosen candidate.

With our proven experience and vested interest in a positive outcome, we can turn a very difficult aspect of recruitment into one that is straightforward and agreeable for all parties involved.

COMPLETE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANCE
We receive many unsolicited testimonials each year from clients and candidates alike noting our prompt, considerate, accurate, and professional service during the search process. Throughout the recruitment, in time intervals that suit the City of Pacific Grove, we will provide you with updates on the status of the search and attend to all administrative details on your behalf.

Candidates receive immediate acknowledgement of their applications, as well as personal phone calls and/or emails (as appropriate) advising them of their status at each critical point in the recruitment. Candidates who receive preliminary or final interviews and are not chosen to move forward in the interview process will receive personal calls from Mr. Phillips on behalf of the City of Pacific Grove.

It is our internal company standard that all inquiries from clients and candidates receive a response within the same business day whenever possible, and certainly within 24 hours if the inquiry is received during the work week. Mr. Phillips will be available to the City of Pacific Grove by office phone, cell phone, and email at any time to ensure a smooth and stress-free recruitment process.

PGCC 7-15-26

Bob Murray & Associates Proposal for the City of Pacific Grove Page 8

COSTS AND GUARANTEE

PROFESSIONAL FEE AND EXPENSES
The all-inclusive professional services fee for conducting the City Manager recruitment on behalf of the City of Pacific Grove is $35,000. Services provided for in this fee consist of all steps outlined in this proposal, including design and distribution of the recruitment brochure, advertising, marketing and promotion, administrative support, public records research, comprehensive background reporting on the final candidates, postage, technology, and three days of on-site meetings. This proposal is valid for 60 days from the date of the proposal.

Optional Services are listed below and are in addition to the professional services fee.

Expense reimbursement for Consultant travel related to additional on-site meeting days is billed at the actual rate (airfare/mileage, lodging) and is the responsibility of the City of Pacific Grove.

The professional fee does not limit the amount of time invested by Bob Murray & Associates in promoting a successful outcome for this project. In fact, our mission for this project is to ensure we assist in identifying the right candidate for the City of Pacific Grove. Therefore, Mr. Phillips will contact the City at the first anniversary of the placement to confirm an effective transition has occurred.

Optional Services
Additional virtual stakeholder meetings: $250/meeting
Additional on-site meeting days: $1,500/day/Consultant, plus travel expenses Online Surveys: $500/each (includes preparing recommended questions, preparing and sharing the survey link, closing the survey, and sending the survey response data for your review and analysis
Additional background checks: $300/candidate
Additional reference checks: $500/candidate
Additional hires: $9,000/candidate
PGCC 7-15-26

Bob Murray & Associates Proposal for the City of Pacific Grove Page 9

GUARANTEE
In the event a candidate recommended by our firm resigns or is terminated within the first 12 months of employment, Bob Murray & Associates will provide the City of Pacific Grove with professional services to secure a replacement. Services will be provided at no cost, aside from the following reimbursable expenses incurred on the City of Pacific Grove’s behalf during the new search:

Brochure design and distribution ($695 reprint only, $1,275 edit/reflow/reprint)(if needed)
Advertising actual costs (estimated at $2,975)
Public records search for all new candidates ($500)
Background Checks ($300/candidate)
Reference Checks ($500/candidate)
Consultant travel reimbursement (if travel is needed)
Plus any applicable Optional Services, if desired
In the event that a placement is not made from the initial recruitment, Bob Murray & Associates will provide professional services to conduct one additional recruitment.

Services will be provided at no cost. However, the City of Pacific Grove will be responsible for the reimbursable expenses as noted above.

We are confident in our ability to recruit outstanding candidates and do not expect the City to find it necessary to exercise this provision of our proposal.

PGCC 7-15-26

Bob Murray & Associates Proposal for the City of Pacific Grove Page 10

RECRUITMENT SCHEDULE
We are prepared to start work on this assignment upon receipt of a signed professional services agreement or other written, authorized notification. A full search can be completed in 12-13 weeks from the date of initial meetings with our client.

The final recruitment schedule will be determined in collaboration with City of Pacific Grove. A typical timeline of tasks and events is included here for reference, however we can often expedite certain elements of the process in order to complete the search in 12 to 13 weeks.

PGCC 7-15-26

Bob Murray & Associates Proposal for the City of Pacific Grove Page 11

FIRM PROFILE

OUR STAFF
Bob Murray & Associates is a small firm focusing exclusively on executive search services. We have a team of sixteen (16):

Valerie Gaeta Phillips, President and Owner
Gary Phillips, Executive Vice President
Yasmin Beers, Vice President & Senior Executive Recruiter Adele Fresé, Senior Executive Recruiter
Stacy Stevenson, Senior Executive Recruiter
Jon Lewis, Senior Executive Recruiter
Jeff Mori, Executive Recruiter
Michael Ishii, Executive Recruiter
Ian Schmutzler, Executive Recruiter
Troy Brown, Executive Recruiter, Career Coach
Stephanie Dietz, Career Coach
Melanie Richardson, Career Coach
Kathy Lolas, Executive Recruitment Coordinator and Operations Manager Grace Owens, Senior Recruitment Coordinator
Steph Souza, Recruitment Coordinator
Alexandria Huesca, Recruitment Support
Please see your lead recruiter’s biography below:

GARY PHILLIPS, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND RECRUITER
Since joining Bob Murray & Associates, Mr. Phillips has completed over 125 searches for executives and professionals in a wide variety of fields including animal services, city and general management, planning, legal counsel, cyber security, and human resources. Gary’s clients have ranged from municipal government to non-profit and private sector organizations, and he has sourced outstanding candidates for positions from the level of division managers up to City Managers, Executive Directors, and General Managers.

Gary started his career with a New York-based Fortune 100 company and quickly became a Senior Manager, building and running a large customer service organization that eventually expanded to 13 countries in Europe. He proceeded to hold senior leadership positions in several Fortune 500 companies, with noted successes such as building an organization from two to 250 employees worldwide and growing a company from 800 to 1200 employees.

PGCC 7-15-26

Bob Murray & Associates Proposal for the City of Pacific Grove Page 12 As part of an executive acquisition and recruiting team, Gary helped build a start-up enterprise software company in San Francisco, recruiting top-notch talent and building a world-class organization. He has maintained customer relationships in the public sector and the private sector, including medical and financial institutions. He prides himself on finding key talent and offering the best customer service to his clients.

Mr. Phillips, along with Ms. Gaeta-Phillips, is involved in his community as a soccer coach, as an organizer of fundraisers for Autism Speaks and the UC Davis M.I.N.D.

Institute, and as a sponsor of the Northern California Special Olympics. Mr. Phillips received his Associate of Science degree and completed additional coursework at Rochester Institute of Technology, NY.

PGCC 7-15-26

Bob Murray & Associates Proposal for the City of Pacific Grove Page 13

CORPORATION

Bob Murray & Associates was founded in May 2000 and operated under the corporation name MBN Services, Inc. until June 2014; our new corporation name is GVP Ventures, Inc., incorporated in California in 2014. Contact information for the corporation and the firm is as follows:

GVP Ventures, Inc. OR Bob Murray & Associates
1544 Eureka Road, Ste. 180
Roseville, CA 95661
(916) 784-9080
[email protected]
Our corporation and firm are financially sound (and have been so since 2000), with documentation from our accountant available to your organization prior to final execution of a professional service agreement. We have never been involved in any litigation, aside from our personnel serving as expert witnesses when called to do so.

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
Our firm, represented by either our President or our Executive Vice President, are involved in the following organizations to remain engaged with current and future issues relevant to the work we conduct on behalf of clients like City of Pacific Grove:

California Special Districts Association
California City Management Foundation (CCMF)
Engaging Local Government Leaders (ELGL)
International City/County Management Association (ICMA) International Network of Asian Public Administrators (I-NAPA) League of California Cities
League of Women in Government
Municipal Management Association of Northern California (MMANC) Municipal Management Association of Southern California (MMASC) National Forum for Black Public Administrators (NFBPA)
Members of our leadership team not only attend events sponsored by these associations but are also frequently called upon to serve as panel members and to provide specialized lectures regarding industry-specific issues. Recent and upcoming speaking engagements and trainings provided by our staff include:
“Role of the Chief” class, annually presented by Jon Lewis on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association;
MMANC and MMASC annual mock interviews;
Annual League of California Cities Booth; and
Annual League of California Cities City Manager’s Conference (City Manager hosted event).

PGCC 7-15-26

Bob Murray & Associates Proposal for the City of Pacific Grove Page 14

REFERENCES
Clients and candidates are the best testament to our ability to conduct quality searches.

Clients for whom Bob Murray & Associates has recently conducted similar searches are listed below:

CLIENT: City of Ventura, CA
POSITION: City Manager
POSITION: Assistant City Manager
POSITION: City Attorney
REFERENCE: Mr. Joe Schroeder, Former Mayor
(949) 584-6478
CLIENT: City of Monterey, CA
POSITION: City Manager
REFERENCE: Mayor Tyller Williamson,
(831) 760-5173
CLIENT: City of Folsom, CA
POSITION: City Manager
REFERENCE: MS. Allsion Garcia, Human Resources Director (916) 461-6050

We appreciate the City of Pacific Grove’s consideration of our proposal and look forward to working with you.

PGCC 7-15-26

Agenda No. 9 H

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Nick Smith, Mayor
MEETING DATE: July 15, 2026
SUBJECT: Appointment of City Council Subcommittee to Serve as Advisors through the Process of Hiring an Interim City Manager and a Permanent Replacement CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Create a City Council Subcommittee to advise in the selection of an Interim City Manager and the process to select a permanent City Manager, comprising of Mayor Nick Smith and Council Member Cynthia Garfield, to dissolve once a permanent City Manager has been selected,

1. 2. Take alternative action.

DISCUSSION
Following the announcement of the departure of the current City Manager, the City Council will be launching a recruitment for a new City Manager. While the recruitment is underway, there will be a need for City Council feedback on recruitment materials and process clarifications. Also, an interim City Manager needs to be identified to fill the role until the permanent City Manager is onboarded. To facilitate the process to identify and bring forward an interim city manager candidate for City Council approval on an upcoming City Council Agenda, it is recommended that a City Council subcommittee be established.

I am recommending that the subcommittee be established to include two members: Mayor Smith and Council Member Garfield.

OPTIONS
Do not appoint a City Council subcommittee.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no financial impact resulting from this item.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.

PGCC 7-15-26

Agenda No. 9 I

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Casey J. Day, Chief of Police
MEETING DATE: July 15, 2026
SUBJECT: One-Year Extension Agreement for the Mark43 Records Management System.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Approve and authorize the Chief of Police to execute a one-year extension agreement with Mark43 for continued use of the Police Department’s Records Management System (RMS) in an amount not to exceed approximately $41,404.00.

1. 2. Take other action.

DISCUSSION

BACKGROUND
The Pacific Grove Police Department currently utilizes Mark43 as its Records Management System (RMS), which serves as the Department’s primary platform for the creation, management, retention, and reporting of law enforcement records and operational data. The system supports daily police operations, mandated reporting requirements, records management functions, and information-sharing responsibilities.

The Department’s current five-year agreement with Mark43 is scheduled to expire. Staff is recommending a one-year extension to maintain uninterrupted access to this critical public safety system while allowing sufficient time to evaluate available RMS solutions and determine the most appropriate long-term technology platform for the Department and the City.

DISCUSSION
The Records Management System is a critical operational system for the Police Department. Any transition to a new RMS provider requires extensive planning, including system implementation, data migration, employee training, system configuration, hardware and software considerations, and evaluation of potential impacts to daily operations.

A short-term extension of the existing agreement allows the Department to maintain operational continuity while conducting a comprehensive review of available RMS platforms. This approach provides the opportunity to evaluate long-term options based on functionality, cost, integration PGCC 7-15-26

provides the opportunity to evaluate long-term options based on functionality, cost, integration capabilities, sustainability, and the operational needs of the Department without creating unnecessary disruption or avoidable transition expenses.

Approving the one-year extension does not commit the City to a long-term agreement with Mark43.

Instead, it provides a responsible transition period during which the Department can complete its evaluation and return with future recommendations regarding the City’s long-term RMS needs.

OPTIONS
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The cost of the one-year extension is approximately $41,404.00 and is included within the Police Department’s adopted operating budget for the current fiscal year. Approval of this extension does not require additional appropriations or funding beyond amounts already approved by the City Council.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Infrastructure
Attachments
OriginalContract2021
2026OrderForm
PGCC 7-15-26

PGCC 7-15-26

PGCC 7-15-26

PGCC 7-15-26

PGCC 7-15-26

PGCC 7-15-26

PGCC 7-15-26

PGCC 7-15-26

PGCC 7-15-26

PGCC 7-15-26

PGCC 7-15-26

PGCC 7-15-26

PGCC 7-15-26

PGCC 7-15-26

PGCC 7-15-26

PGCC 7-15-26

PGCC 7-15-26

PGCC 7-15-26

PGCC 7-15-26

PGCC 7-15-26

PGCC 7-15-26

PGCC 7-15-26

PGCC 7-15-26

PGCC 7-15-26

PGCC 7-15-26

PGCC 7-15-26

PGCC 7-15-26

PGCC 7-15-26

PGCC 7-15-26

PGCC 7-15-26

PGCC 7-15-26

PGCC 7-15-26

PGCC 7-15-26

PGCC 7-15-26

1 ORDER FORM
Mark43, Inc. Quote Number: Q-02227.1
8 West 40th Street, 2nd Floor Offer Valid Through: July 30, 2026 New York, NY 10018 Sales Contact: Kyle Sebestyen
[email protected]
Bill to:

Subscriber Name: City of Pacific Grove Start Date: June 28, 2026 Address: 300 Forest Avenue
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
End Date: June 27, 2027
Billing Frequency: Annual Billing Contact: Accounts Payable Payment Terms: Net 30 Billing Contact
Email:
[email protected]
Purchase Order. Is a purchase order required by Subscriber to purchase? Yes _____ No ______ SaaS Services. Product descriptions for the Services noted below are set forth at https://mark43.com/Mark43-ProductCatalogue:

Year 1 SaaS and Recurring Services Qty (if applicable) Price to Subscriber ANA 1: Analytics BI Suite Viewer Not to Exceed 10 license(s) $1,320.00 ANA 2: Analytics BI Suite Explorer Not to Exceed 3 license(s) $1,584.00 RMS 1: RMS Core Not to Exceed 22 total sworn $20,328.00 RMS 2: RMS Case Management Module Not to Exceed 22 total sworn $2,904.00 RMS 3: RMS Property and Evidence Management Module Not to Exceed 22 total sworn $2,904.00 MOB 1 RMS: OnScene Mobile Application for RMS Not to Exceed 22 total sworn $0.00 RMS 7: RMS Fillable PDFs Not to Exceed 1 instance(s) $5,390.00 RMS 8: RMS QuickCrash Reporting Not to Exceed 22 total sworn $0.00 RMS 4: RMS Warrants Module Not to Exceed 22 total sworn $6,974.00 Subtotal $41,404.00
Renewal Term and Pricing. Unless Subscriber provides 60 days’ notice of termination prior to the End Date, the SaaS Services will auto-renew for a 5 year term at an increase of 10% year over year for each year of the renewal term. Additional increases may be applied at any time during the Term if required quantities increase.

Invoicing and Payment. Subscription Fees are payable upfront annually. Mark43 will issue the first invoice on or after the effective date of this Order Form and each subsequent invoice (if any) on or after the anniversary thereof. Subscriber shall pay all invoices to Mark43’s nominated bank account within thirty (30) days of the date of the invoice.

Payment Schedule Due Date Amount Due
Year 1 Payment(s) June 28, 2026 $41,404.00
PGCC 7-15-26

2 Total $41,404.00
This Order Form is entered into in accordance with and it incorporates the terms of the Software License and Services Agreement and any attached schedules (the “SLSA” or “Agreement”). Except as otherwise provided in this Order Form, previously executed Order Form(s) remain in effect. This Order Form does not incorporate any other terms, whether oral or written, and whether contained in a purchase order or otherwise and, for the avoidance of doubt, prevails over any terms contained therein. By signing below, the parties agree to be bound by the terms of this Order Form. Each party represents and warrants that this Order Form is executed by a duly authorized legal representative of such party.

This Order Form may be executed in counterparts (including electronic copies) each of which will be deemed an original, with all counterparts constituting one agreement.

Mark43, Inc. Subscriber
Name: Name:

Title: Title:

Signature: Signature:

Date: Date:

PGCC 7-15-26

Agenda No. 13 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Alex Lorca
MEETING DATE: July 15, 2026
SUBJECT: POA Grievance Appeal Hearing
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Hold a public hearing for a grievance submitted by the Pacific Grove Police Officer's Association.

1. 2. Adjorn to Closed Session to deliberate, then come back to open session to announce decision.

DISCUSSION
Recently, the Policy Officer's Association (POA) filed an appeal of the City Manager's decision; see attached. Subsequently, City staff filed a response to the appeal; also attached.

In accordance with the process set forth in Article 7 of the July 1, 2024 – June 30, 2027 (attached), Police Officers’ Association (POA) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), an appeal hearing before the Council will be held for a grievance submitted by the POA.

This hearing is the final step of the informal and formal grievance process as outlined in Article 7 of the POA MOU. The City Council decision is final.

Procedurally, the following will take place regarding the appeal:

1. The Mayor will open the hearing.

2. The POA will present its appeal.

3. The City will present its response.

4. The Council will ask questions of the POA and City Staff.

5. The Council will adjourn to closed session to deliberate.

6. The Council will return to open session to take its vote on the appeal.

OPTIONS

1. Uphold the decision of the grievance by the City Manager.

2. Don't uphold the decision of the grievance by the City Manager.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

PGCC 7-15-26

No fiscal impact.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.

Attachments
POA Appeal
Staff Response
POA MOU Article 7
PGCC 7-15-26

PGCC 7-15-26

PGCC 7-15-26

PGCC 7-15-26

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
1 City Response to POA Appeal
13434761.2 PA028-001
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
A Professional Law Corporation
5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310
Fresno, California 93704
Che I. Johnson, Bar No. 252112
[email protected]

LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE
A Professional Law Corporation
5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310
Fresno, California 93704
Telephone: 559.256.7800
Facsimile: 559.449.4535
Attorneys for Respondent CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Pacific Grove Police Officers’
Association,
Appellee,
v.

City of Pacific Grove,
Respondent.

Case No.: N/A
CITY’S RESPONSE TO GRIEVANCE
APPEAL
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:

The Pacific Grove Police Officers’ Association (“Association”, “POA”, or “Union”) has appealed the City Manager’s denial of its grievance concerning the timing of implementation of employee step increases under Article 16.3 of the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”). The Association requests that the City Council overturn the prior grievance decisions and determine that employee step increases must be implemented on an employee’s anniversary date rather than during the next administratively feasible payroll cycle.

For the reasons discussed below, the appeal should be denied.

I. THE GRIEVANCE IS UNTIMELY AND IMPROPERLY ATTEMPTS TO

RELITIGATE A PRIOR GRIEVANCE DECISION
The grievance should be denied as untimely for two independent procedural reasons.

First, as previously determined by the Chief of Police and City Manager, the grievance challenges a longstanding City practice that was known, or reasonably should have been known, PGCC 7-15-26

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
2 City Response to POA Appeal
13434761.2 PA028-001
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
A Professional Law Corporation
5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310
Fresno, California 93704
to the Association well before the filing of this grievance. Article 7.3(a) requires that grievances be filed within fourteen (14) days of the action causing the grievance or the date the action reasonably could have been expected to be known to the grievant. The challenged payroll administration practice has existed for many years and was known to bargaining unit members and Association representatives long before this grievance was filed.

Second, and more importantly, the issues raised in this grievance were previously raised by Sergeant Paul Nagamine in an earlier grievance (on or about 1/12/26) concerning the implementation of step increases under Article 16.3. (Attached as Exhibit A is a copy of Nagamine’s original 1/12/26 grievance.) That grievance challenged the same City practice that is challenged here—namely, the City’s implementation of step increases through the next administratively feasible payroll cycle rather than on an employee’s anniversary date. However, the original grievance was filed four months prior to the current grievance, which was filed on 5/16/26.

The City Manager denied Sergeant Nagamine’s grievance and expressly rejected the argument that Article 16.3 requires immediate implementation of a step increase on the employee’s anniversary date. (Attached as Exhibit B is a copy of City Manager’s Decision on 4/9/26.) Under Article 7.6 of the MOU, a grievant who is dissatisfied with the City Manager’s decision may request a hearing before the City Council, but the request must be made within fourteen (14) days of the City Manager’s decision. Therefore, the Union was required to file their appeal to the City Council on or about 4/23/26.

No timely appeal was filed to the City Council regarding the City Manager’s first denial of Sergeant Nagamine’s grievance. As a result, the grievance process concluded and the City Manager’s decision became final.

Rather than pursuing the contractual appeal process available under Article 7.6, the Association subsequently filed a new grievance advancing substantially the same claims, challenging the same payroll administration practice, seeking essentially the same relief, and relying upon the same interpretation of Article 16.3.
///
PGCC 7-15-26

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
3 City Response to POA Appeal
13434761.2 PA028-001
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
A Professional Law Corporation
5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310
Fresno, California 93704
The grievance procedure does not permit a party to circumvent contractual appeal deadlines by filing a new grievance raising issues that were already presented and decided in a prior grievance. Allowing such a practice would render the grievance timelines meaningless and would permit perpetual re-litigation of matters that have already proceeded through the contractual grievance process.

The Association’s current grievance is therefore not only untimely under Article 7.3(a), but also constitutes an improper attempt to restart contractual time limits after failing to timely appeal the prior grievance decision concerning the same dispute.

For these procedural reasons alone, the appeal should be denied.

II. THE ASSOCIATION’S INTERPRETATION IS NOT ADMINISTRATIVELY OR

LEGALLY FEASIBLE
Even if the grievance was timely, the Association’s interpretation would create substantial payroll administration and legal compliance issues that are neither contemplated nor addressed by Article 16.3.

The City’s payroll system is designed to process compensation changes through payrollcycle effective dates. It is not designed to automatically recalculate compensation based upon employee anniversary dates occurring in the middle of a payroll cycle.

Implementing the Association’s interpretation would require extensive manual calculations and adjustments, including:
 Manual calculation of compensation earned before and after an anniversary date occurring within the same payroll period;
 Manual recalculation of Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) overtime obligations where overtime hours occur both before and after a mid-pay-period step increase;  Manual recalculation of specialty assignment pays, educational incentive pay, POST pay, shift differential pay, longevity pay, and other compensation elements calculated as a percentage of base salary;
 Manual calculation and reporting of pensionable compensation to CalPERS for payroll periods containing multiple rates of pay;
 Manual review and adjustment of payroll tax withholdings and related federal and state reporting obligations;
///
PGCC 7-15-26

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
4 City Response to POA Appeal
13434761.2 PA028-001
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
A Professional Law Corporation
5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310
Fresno, California 93704
 Manual reconciliation of overtime, premium pays, and regular compensation to ensure compliance with the FLSA and California wage-and-hour laws; and  Ongoing payroll audits and corrections necessary to ensure compliance with state and federal payroll reporting requirements.

Nothing in Article 16.3 suggests that the parties intended to require individualized midpay-period payroll calculations or to fundamentally alter the City’s payroll administration system.

The Association’s proposed interpretation would impose substantial administrative burdens, increase the risk of payroll errors, create compliance concerns, and require manual calculations for matters that the City’s payroll system was never designed to perform.

The Council should be hesitant to adopt an interpretation that would require the City to undertake significant new payroll obligations absent clear contractual language requiring that result.

III. LONGSTANDING AND UNDISPUTED CITYWIDE PAST PRACTICE SUPPORTS THE CITY’S INTERPRETATION
Even if Article 16.3 was considered ambiguous, the City’s interpretation is strongly supported by longstanding and undisputed past practice.

For many years, compensation changes triggered by employee-specific events—including step increases, classification changes, and similar personnel actions—have been processed and implemented through the next administratively feasible payroll cycle. This has been a consistent citywide payroll administration practice.

Importantly, this practice is not unique to employees represented by the Association. The same payroll implementation methodology has been applied throughout the City to employees represented by other bargaining units as well as to unrepresented employees. The practice reflects a neutral and uniform payroll administration procedure rather than a unit-specific interpretation adopted solely for the Police Officers’ Association.

The Association does not dispute the existence of this practice. Rather, it argues that the practice is inconsistent with Article 16.3.
///
PGCC 7-15-26

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
5 City Response to POA Appeal
13434761.2 PA028-001
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
A Professional Law Corporation
5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310
Fresno, California 93704
However, the Public Employment Relations Board (“PERB”) has repeatedly recognized that established past practice may be considered when interpreting disputed contractual language and determining the parties’ mutual understanding of contract provisions. See, e.g., Kern County Hospital Authority (2022) PERB Dec. No. 2847-M; County of Merced (2020) PERB Decision No. 2740-M.

Where parties have consistently administered a contractual provision in a particular manner over an extended period of time, PERB recognizes that such conduct may provide persuasive evidence of the parties’ shared understanding of how the agreement operates in practice.

The relevance of past practice is particularly compelling here because the challenged payroll administration practice was not merely known to the Association in the abstract. The practice has been applied repeatedly to members of the bargaining unit, including employees who have served as Association officers, bargaining team members, and representatives. Those individuals personally received step increases and other compensation changes that were processed through the next administratively feasible payroll cycle consistent with the City’s longstanding payroll practices.

Several current and former Association officers and bargaining representatives personally received step increases administered in this manner without objection for years.

Despite years of direct experience with this practice, the Association did not file grievances challenging the implementation methodology, seek negotiations regarding payroll processing of anniversary-based step increases, propose contract language requiring mid-payperiod implementation, or otherwise contend that the City’s administration of Article 16.3 violated the MOU.

The absence of any challenge over many years is significant. It demonstrates not only that the practice was known to the Association, but also that the parties operated under a common understanding regarding how Article 16.3 would be administered in conjunction with the City’s payroll processes.
///
PGCC 7-15-26

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
6 City Response to POA Appeal
13434761.2 PA028-001
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
A Professional Law Corporation
5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310
Fresno, California 93704
The Association’s current interpretation would require the Council to disregard a longstanding and undisputed citywide practice, reject the parties’ historical administration of the provision, and adopt an interpretation that has never previously been applied during the administration of Article 16.3 or its predecessor provisions.

The existence of this longstanding, undisputed, and citywide practice strongly supports the City’s interpretation that Article 16.3 establishes the date of eligibility for a step increase while payroll implementation occurs through the City’s regular payroll administration process. It also confirms that the Association was aware, or reasonably should have been aware, of the challenged practice long before the filing of this grievance.

Accordingly, even if the Council were to conclude that Article 16.3 is not explicit regarding implementation timing, the parties’ established past practice provides substantial evidence supporting the City’s interpretation and constitutes an independent basis for denying the grievance.

IV. ARTICLE 16.3 ESTABLISHES ELIGIBILITY, NOT AN IMMEDIATE

IMPLEMENTATION DATE
Even if the grievance were timely and no past practice existed, the plain language of Article 16.3 supports the City’s interpretation.

Article 16.3(b) states:
“Employees are eligible for a step increase on their anniversary date or on the anniversary of their new classification date following completion of 2,080 hours of paid service, whichever is longer.”
The operative word negotiated and agreed to by the parties is “eligible.” Eligibility identifies when an employee qualifies for a benefit. It does not prescribe the mechanics, timing, or payroll procedures by which that benefit must be implemented.

The phrase “on their anniversary date” identifies when eligibility occurs. It answers the question of when an employee becomes qualified for advancement to the next salary step. It does not state that the increase shall be implemented, processed, paid, or reflected in compensation on that same date.

PGCC 7-15-26

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
7 City Response to POA Appeal
13434761.2 PA028-001
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
A Professional Law Corporation
5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310
Fresno, California 93704
Had the parties intended to require implementation on the anniversary date itself, they could have negotiated language expressly stating that the increase “shall be effective,” “shall be implemented,” or “shall be paid” on that date. They did not do so.

The Association’s interpretation requires the Council to read language into Article 16.3 that the parties never negotiated.

V. THE STRUCTURE OF THE MOU SUPPORTS THE CITY’S INTERPRETATION The Association argues that other provisions of the MOU demonstrate that compensation changes may be tied to payroll implementation dates.

The City agrees—and that fact supports the City’s position.

Elsewhere in the MOU, the parties expressly tied compensation changes to specific payroll periods. For example, Articles 16.1, 16.2, and 9.1(e) contain language making compensation changes effective in designated pay periods. These provisions demonstrate that the parties knew that the City’s practice was to implement to effect whole payroll periods. What is also notable is that the provisions regarding 16.1 and 16.2 are speaking to future calendar years.

Accordingly it would be appropriate to state the first full pay period in a month because the parties did not have calendar pay periods printed as far out as two years in advance. As such the use of this language only indicates that the parties did not know the date the pay periods started.

Moreover, the MOU provisions identified by the Association involve compensation changes that occur and are applied uniformly to all employees in the bargaining unit at the same time. Step increases are different. They are individualized personnel actions dependent upon service requirements, performance considerations, anniversary dates, and payroll administration.

Finally, these provisions are also entirely different from the language in 16.3 because none of the MOU sections cited by the POA contain the language which is truly operative, that the employee is “eligible” for increases during any of these dates.

The absence of implementation language in Article 16.3 cannot reasonably be transformed into a requirement that payroll changes occur immediately upon an anniversary date regardless of where that date falls within a payroll cycle.
///
PGCC 7-15-26

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
8 City Response to POA Appeal
13434761.2 PA028-001
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
A Professional Law Corporation
5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310
Fresno, California 93704
VI. THE CITY IS NOT ADDING TERMS TO THE AGREEMENT
The Association argues that references to payroll processing and administrative feasibility improperly add terms to the MOU.

The City respectfully disagrees.

The City is not asserting payroll administration as an additional contractual requirement.

Rather, payroll processing is the mechanism by which compensation changes are implemented after eligibility has been established.

Every wage adjustment requires administrative processing. Recognizing that payroll changes must be processed does not add language to the MOU any more than recognizing that timecards must be processed before employees receive paychecks.

In reality, it is the Association’s interpretation that requires language to be added to Article 16.3. The Association asks the Council to read the provision as though it states:
“Employees shall receive and have implemented a step increase effective immediately on their anniversary date regardless of payroll cycle timing.” No such language appears in the MOU.

VII. ARTICLE 6 DOES NOT SUPPORT THE APPEAL
The Association also relies upon Article 6, which prohibits unilateral changes to the MOU. The City has not modified Article 16.3, altered compensation, changed the salary schedule, revised eligibility requirements, or imposed any new condition of employment. The City has consistently administered Article 16.3 in accordance with its understanding of the negotiated language and longstanding citywide payroll administration practices. A disagreement regarding contract interpretation does not establish a unilateral modification of the agreement.

Accordingly, Article 6 provides no basis for sustaining the grievance.

VIII. CONCLUSION
The grievance should be denied because:

1. It was not filed within the time limits established by Article 7 of the MOU; ///
///
PGCC 7-15-26

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
9 City Response to POA Appeal
13434761.2 PA028-001
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
A Professional Law Corporation
5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310
Fresno, California 93704

2. The Association’s interpretation would require substantial manual payroll calculations, CalPERS reporting adjustments, FLSA overtime recalculations, and other compliance measures not contemplated by Article 16.3;

3. The City’s interpretation is supported by a longstanding, undisputed, and citywide past practice of implementing compensation changes through the next payroll cycle, a practice that PERB recognizes as relevant when interpreting disputed contractual language;

4. Several current and former Association officers and bargaining representatives personally received compensation changes processed under this practice without objection, further confirming the parties’ longstanding understanding of the provision;

5. Article 16.3 establishes when an employee becomes eligible for a step increase but does not require immediate implementation on the anniversary date itself;

6. The structure of the MOU demonstrates that the parties knew how to specify payroll implementation dates when they intended to do so and chose not to do so in Article 16.3;

7. The Association’s interpretation would require the Council to add language not found in Article 16.3;

8. The City has not modified the MOU or violated Article 6; and

9. The decisions of the Chief of Police and City Manager should be upheld.

For all of these reasons, the City requests that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the prior grievance decisions.

Dated: June 25, 2026
By:

Respectfully submitted,

LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE
Che I. Johnson
Attorneys for Respondent CITY OF

PACIFIC GROVE
PGCC 7-15-26

Exhibit A
PGCC 7-15-26

PACIFIC GROVE POLICE DEPARTMENT
A: 580 PINE AVENUE, PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950 • (831) 648-3143 [email protected] "OUR COMMUNITY, YOUR POLICE"
TO: Sergeant Paul Nagamine
FROM: Chief of Police
Date: January 20, 2026
SUBJECT: Formal Grievance
Sergeant Nagamine,
On today's date we met in my office and discussed the attached grievance. We have discussed past practice and the City's administrative function for payroll and step increases. As indicated below, our discussion did not satisfy your grievance as there currently is a difference of opinion and interpretation in regard to Article 7, of the Pacific Grove Police Officers Association Memorandum of Understanding. Per your request, your grievance will be escalated to the Office of the City Manager for review and response.
yo
Casey l ay
Chief of Police
City of Pacific Grove
( ) My grievance has been satisfied with the Chief of Police My grievance has not been satisfied with the Chief of Police and I request further review and response rom the ffice of the City Manager.

Paul Nagamie, Sergeant
Pacific Grove Police Depart
t c)A.,_ 6 6 LN-P S
I, (Casey Day, Chief of Police) have forwarded this form and attached grievance to the City Manager/HR on January 20th 2026. (C250)
Chief of Police CASEY DAY Commander BRIAN ANDERSON Commander DAWN DELFINO PGCC 7-15-26

PACIFIC GROVE POLICE DEPARTMENT
A. 580 PINE AVENUE, PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950 r (831) 648-3143 [email protected] "OUR COMMUNITY, YOUR POLICE"
TO: Sergeant Paul Nagamine
FROM: Dawn Delfino, Patrol Commander
Date: January 12th 2026
SUBJECT: Formal Grievance
Sgt. Nagamine,
On today's date we met in my office and discussed the attached grievance. As I explained, the procedure utilized for step increases by the City has been a past practice. As indicated below, our discussion did not satisfy your grievance and pursuant to Article 7, of the Pacific Grove Police Officers Association Memorandum of Understanding, and per your request, your grievance is being escalated to the Office of the Chief of Police for review and response.

Thank you,
t ot.„--7.1_„r_-T:

Dawn Delfino, Commander
Pacific Grove Police Department
( ) My grievance has been satisfied with my immediate supervisor. ( ‘41/Iy grievance has not been satisfied with my immediate supervisor and I request review and response from the Office of the Chief of Police.

Paul Nagamine, Sergeant
Pacific Grove Police Department
I, (Commander Dawn Delfino), fo arded this form and the attached grievance to the Office of the Chief of Police on January 13th 2026. (
Chief of Police CASEY DAY Commander BRIAN ANDERSON Commander DAWN DELFINO PGCC 7-15-26

Commander Dawn Delfino,
This letter serves as a formal grievance regarding the Human Resources Department's refusal to grant my contractual step increase in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

MOU Section 16.3 — Step Increases states in relevant part:

16.3(a) Step increases must be based upon performance and goal achievements, not solely longevity, and are based uppn the employee's most recent performance evaluation.

16.3(b) Employees are eligible for a step increase on their anniversary date or the anniversary of their new classification date following completion of 2,080 hours of paid service, whichever is longer. Time spent on legally protected leaves of absence such as FMLA or CFRA count toward step increase eligibility.

I have met all eligibility requirements outlined in Section 16.3, including completion of the required 2,080 hours of paid service and receipt of a qualifying performance evaluation. Despite this, Human Resources has stated that step increases are not granted until the next pay period following an employee's anniversary date.

The MOU does not contain any language authorizing the delay of a step increase beyond the employee's eligibility date. The practice cited by Human Resources constitutes an unwritten policy that conflicts with the clear and unambiguous language of the MOU. Eligibility "on the anniversary date" means the increase is effective on that date, not at a later pay period chosen for administrative convenience.

By delaying the step increase, the City is in violation of the MOU and is improperly withholding earned compensation.

Requested Remedy:

1. Immediate implementation of my step increase effective on my anniversary date, as required by MOU Section 16.3.

2. Full retroactive compensation for all wages and benefits lost as a result of the delayed step increase.

3. Confirmation that future step increases will be applied in compliance with the MOU.

I respectfully request a written response within the timelines outlined in the grievance procedure.

I remain willing to meet and discuss this matter in good faith to resolve the issue promptly.

Sincerely,
Paul Nagamine
Sergeant
Pacific Grove Police Department
Employee ID #2233
PGCC 7-15-26

Exhibit B
PGCC 7-15-26

Phone (831) 648-3106 ▫ Fax (831) 657-9361 ▫ www.cityofpacificgrove.org

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue ▫ Pacific Grove, California
TO: Paul Nagamine, Sergeant
FROM: Matt Mogensen, City Manager
DATE: April 14, 2026
SUBJECT: Formal Grievance
Sergeant Nagamine,
This letter responds to the grievance submitted by you regarding the timing of the implementation of your step increase under Section 16.3 of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

After reviewing the matter, including discussing it with you, I am denying the grievance.

While the grievance asserts that the step increase must be implemented immediately upon the anniversary date, the MOU does not contain language requiring immediate implementation of a salary adjustment.

Rather, Section 16.3 provides that:
• Step increases must be based on performance and goal achievement, as reflected in the most recent performance evaluation; and
• Employees are eligible for a step increase on their anniversary date (or classification anniversary) following completion of 2,080 hours of paid service.

The operative language establishes eligibility for a step increase, not an automatic or immediate payroll implementation on that exact date. Nothing in Section 16.3 mandates that the increase be processed or reflected in pay on the anniversary date itself, nor does it prohibit administrative processing timelines necessary to implement such increases. Consistent with longstanding practice, step increases are implemented in the next administratively feasible pay period following confirmation of eligibility and completion of necessary payroll processing. This practice does not conflict with the MOU and does not result in a loss of compensation where the increase is applied in accordance with standard payroll procedures. This has been the consistent practice of the City for over a decade.

Because the MOU does not require immediate implementation on the anniversary date, and because the City’s practice is consistent with the agreement, there has been no violation of the MOU.

Accordingly, the grievance is denied in its entirety.

PGCC 7-15-26

Please let me know if you would like to meet to discuss this matter further.

Sincerely,
Matt Mogensen
City Manager
City of Pacific Grove
PGCC 7-15-26

3 respect to any subject fully covered by this MOU. No changes to the provisions of this MOU may be undertaken without the prior written consent of both parties to this Agreement, except as otherwise indicated herein.

ARTICLE 7. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE

7.1 Definitions
(a) “Grievant” means an employee(s) filing a grievance. (b) “Grievance” is a dispute arising from the application or interpretation of a specific article of this Memorandum of Understanding. “Grievance” is also a dispute arising from an action not covered by the Memorandum of Understanding, but which affects a term and condition of employment as defined in the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act. Provided, the “grievance” does not include disputes regarding management rights, i.e., the merits, necessity, or organization of any service or activity provided by the City, as set out in the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act and as more particularly described in City’s employeremployee organization relations resolution (no. 5249). The City may raise the issue of whether a matter constitutes a grievance during any stage of the grievance process.

Employee discipline is processed in accordance with Policy 1021- Personnel Complaints and is not subject to the grievance procedure.
(c) “Immediate Supervisor” is the employee directly supervising the grievant or in his or her absence his or her designee.
(d) “Day” is a calendar day.

7.2 Informal Step
Before filing a grievance, the grievant shall discuss the matter with his or her immediate supervisor.

7.3 Step One
(a) If the grievant is not satisfied with the response at the informal step, the grievant shall submit the grievance in writing to his or her immediate supervisor within 14 days of the action causing the grievance or of the date the action reasonably could have been expected to be known to the grievant.
(b) Within 14 days of filing of the grievance, the immediate supervisor shall respond in writing to the grievance.

7.4 Step Two
(a) If the grievant is not satisfied with the Step One response, the grievant may bring the grievance to the Chief of Police within 14 days of receipt of the Step One response. (b) The Chief of Police shall respond to the grievance in writing within 14 days of receipt of the grievance at Step Two.

PGCC 7-15-26

4 7.5 Step Three
(a) If the grievant is not satisfied with the Step Two response, the grievant may bring the grievance to the City Manager within 14 days of receiving the Step Two response. (b) The City Manager shall respond to the grievance in writing within 14 days of receipt of the grievance at Step Three.

7.6 City Council

1. If the grievant is not satisfied with the opinion rendered by the City Manager, they may request a hearing before the City Council. The request must be made within 14 days of the opinion rendered by the City Manager. That hearing shall be held as promptly as possible and in any event no more than 30 calendar days from the date of receipt of the request for hearing. The City Council decision is final.

7.7 Release Time
The grievant shall be entitled to release from duty without loss of pay for the hearing of grievance. Other employees may be released from duty without loss of pay to serve as representatives or witnesses. Such releases are subject to the staffing and operational needs of the Department.

7.8 No Discrimination
There shall be no restraint, interference, coercion, discrimination, or reprisal against any employee for exercising any rights under the grievance procedure.

7.9 Representation
(a) The employee may be represented by the Association at any step of the grievance. (b) An employee is also entitled to represent him/herself individually at any step of the grievance procedure.
(c) A grievant may not change his or her designation of representative organization, during the processing of a grievance except by mutual agreement of the parties.

7.10 Grievance Withdrawal
By mutual agreement of both parties the grievant and their representative may withdraw the grievance at any stage of the grievance procedure by giving written notice to the City representative who last acted on the grievance.

7.11 Waiver of Steps
By mutual written consent of both parties any step of the grievance procedure may be waived.

7.12 Reopener
The City and the Association agree to reopen negotiations on the narrow and specific issue of whether, or to what extent, to revise Article 7 Grievance Procedure of the MOU. The parties shall commence the meet and confer process as soon as reasonably possible following the first PGCC 7-15-26