Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates paid parental leave; staff to refine ordinance after council input
Summary
City administrators proposed six weeks of paid parental leave for city employees; councilmembers asked for clarifications on interaction with state disability (SDI)/FMLA, removal of unilateral termination language and possible expansion of weeks; staff will return with revised language.
City administrators proposed an ordinance to add paid parental leave (PPL) to the Carmel-by-the-Sea municipal code on June 3, seeking to codify a six-week paid leave benefit to support employee recruitment and retention.
City Administrator Chip and HR staff presented the proposal. Key features in the draft ordinance included a six-week paid parental leave period, eligibility after 12 months of employment, application to qualifying events (birth, adoption, foster placement), and a provision that PPL would be taken concurrently with Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) / California Family Rights Act (CFRA) protections. Staff estimated the cost of a single full-time employee's use at roughly $15,000 and said the city would be the only jurisdiction on the peninsula proposing this benefit at the time.
Council members raised several issues for revision before adoption: (1) the interaction with State Disability Insurance (SDI) and whether PPL should "top up" SDI or be reduced when SDI payments apply; (2) whether six weeks is sufficient or whether the city should align with longer state norms (several council members suggested eight to 12 weeks as preferable for some cases); and (3) language that allowed the city administrator to terminate the policy unilaterally was questioned and council asked to remove or modify that clause to require council approval for termination.
Staff said the ordinance would return in July with clarified language, options for coordination with SDI (to avoid unintended overpayment or underpayment), and with the city's HR team's recommended implementation details. Council did not adopt the ordinance at first reading; it directed staff to return with a revised draft that responds to council guidance.
