Camarillo City Council members have given themselves a 5 percent pay increase effective in January and an additional 5 percent raise in January 2014, while approving a budget with spending cuts and possible layoffs.
The five council members voted unanimously Wednesday night to raise their monthly stipend to $1,266 in 2013, up $60 from this year. It will go up to $1,329 per month in 2014.
Council members also have received 5 percent increases the past two years under an ordinance adopted in June 2010.
"It's just following procedure," Councilman Kevin Kildee said Thursday. "It's basically a cost-of-living increase. It's legally what we can do and what has been done in previous years."
At Wednesday's meeting, David Grau, chairman of the board of the Ventura County Taxpayers Association, accused the council of a lack of transparency, saying it buried the raise in its consent calendar, which normally is reserved for items requiring no discussion.
"When elected officials are able to give themselves a pay increase, we feel it should be discussed openly," he said Thursday. "We weren't objecting to the fact they were giving themselves a raise, just the way they were doing it."
Councilman Don Waunch, set to retire at the end of his current term after 12 years on the council, said the city wasn't hiding anything.
"There was plenty of notice out there that this was going on, so there was no issue with transparency," he said. The raise received initial approval at the council's June 13 meeting.
Kildee, who plans to run for a fifth term in November, said council members can spend up to 25 hours a week serving on various boards, helping constituents and attending council meetings.
"I don't do it for the money. I do it to give back to the community," he said.
Mayor Jan McDonald did not respond to calls seeking comment.
Also Wednesday, the council approved a balanced city budget for the next fiscal year that includes spending cuts and early retirement incentives for some employees.
Finance Director Ronnie Campbell said the budget ensures the city will maintain levels of service in 2012-13.
"The reduced spending plan was achieved by targeted a 6 percent reduction in all of our operating departments," he said in an email. "Additionally, we continue our soft hiring freeze and have eliminated several vacant positions through this budget process."
Campbell said the city must cut about seven positions because of the state abolition of redevelopment agencies. Whether employees will have to be laid off will depend on the success of the early-retirement incentives.
The budget allocates $16.7 million for public safety and emergency operations, $3.8 million for library operations and $1.3 million for community grants and cultural arts funding. About $6.4 million is earmarked for lighting, landscaping and street maintenance and $3.4 million for street improvements.
The city will have $26.3 million for capital improvement projects, $11 million for sewer improvements and $2.8 million for water repairs.
Camarillo Opens Spring Practice
Oxnard celebrates Bike to Work ...
Camarillo's postseason push
Boys Volleyball: Westlake 3, Saugus ...
Baseball: Agoura 2, Simi Valley ...
Springs fire reaches Hidden Valley
Camarillo fire burns into the ...
Camarillo Fire
Multicultural Day at Oxnard College
Hatching an emu
Ventura County's Most Wanted May 16th
Bald eaglets at Ojai-area lake
A look at park lands after the…
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
Comments » 65
jesocr writes:
What cost of living increase? Rubber stamping yourself a pay raise, bridge to nowhere maybe it's time for new blood on the City council.
REVTRUEGRIT writes:
"I dont do it for the money" Then give the money back,
This is sad!!!!
El_Maestro writes:
If they city is going to be laying off people, the council needs to lead by example and NOT raise their stipend even if it is only $60. Nobody cares if the council members may spend up to 25 hours a week attending meetings and serving on committees. The time required is part of the job and people run for office knowing that. This is a fine example of being out of touch with reality.
InsideEdge writes:
It doesn't get anymore corrupt than that!!!
beyondoxnard writes:
If they only get $1266 per month then they only make $15,192 a year. At that rate if the job was full time then they would only be making $30384 or 14.6/hr. Try living off that. Im a recent graduate, make around that amount, single and find it difficult to live off that. I know they probably have a separate part time or full time job that helps them out, but seriously they are investing probably 15-25 hours of their time/ week and its not like they are getting ridiculously paid well. I know people should do it to serve the community, but people have to eat too. I'm not saying that they should get paid Ed Sotelo money, no not even close but everyone needs a livable income.
fibus writes:
Oh yes it does. Come to Oxnard and see what corruption really means.
One wonders why the DA dropped the case?
Whattheheck writes:
On top of that monthly stipend does the council also receive the same cafeteria plan health care benefits that employees do? If so, that could be as much as $1,000 or even more they could pocked every month if they don't pay into the city health insurance. More info please!
cjr writes:
I would suggest that the "up to 25 hours per week" is a lawyer lie, intended to deliberately mislead without qualifying for the criminal definition of perjury. Notice that it says can spend up to 25 hours a week, attempting to lead one to believe that they do that every week which is completely false.
The money set up to reimburse part time council people was originally intended to reimburse them for the kind of out-of-pocket expenses that each person expends when they are part of the governing body of any organization. It was not meant to be a salary or an hourly compensation. The sense of entitlement that public "servants" get after a short time on the job is truly dumbfounding. Serve the people? Not hardly. Drain the public treasury for all I can is more the guiding principle that they seem to adopt.
nikkidog writes:
When was the last time Camarillo city employees saw a pay raise? Now some of them are facing layoff but the council gives its members a 5% cost of living increase, anyway. Coucil members don't get much but giving themselves a raise at this point in time is offensive.
surfer writes:
In addition to a $1,266 monthly cash compensation, elected council members (data as of 7/10) receive city paid health benefits up to $1,059 each month, they earn a retirement with CalPERS for which the city pays the council-members 7% contribution, they get a $200 a month car allowance .... totals about $31,300 a year - plus a pension when they "retire" leave office.
Public service
supercommuter writes:
Vote for more taxes anyone?
Whattheheck writes:
That's the info that was needed to fill out the story Surfer - thanks!
smithjc#403367 writes:
and that's why it wasn't in the star's article.
world's finest journalism. (okay, i really couldn't type that without a huge guffaw).
bnr-in-vta writes:
With all the talk about having to cut budgets and self imposed raises at a time when all cities are running out of money. You think these people would think twice about accepting these raises. I think this is the 2nd or 3rd time i have heard "Well we are just following proceduer" or "We are just trying to be competive with other agencies in other counties" or as for Oxnard's interm city manager "Well that is what the city manager should make" all the while the one on leave is still collecting 400k a year. For goodness sake people look at the writing on the wall. The cities are having budget issues. Be part of the solution and not the on going problem. No matter what your position.
smithjc#403367 writes:
hey kildee, just because it's "procedure" and "legally" what you can do doesn't make it right.
greaterthanroomtempIQ writes:
I don't think that the city council members should be giving themselves a pay raise (actually not one, but two) when they are cutting city budgets and laying off employees. Very self-serving...Who does that?
diditright writes:
If as Bob Kildee said ""I don't do it for the money. I do it to give back to the community," than why is he accepting the pay raise?
Only in government can you vote yourself a pay raise not only for the coming year 2013 but for 2014 as well. And then according to Don Waunch claim that "there was plenty of notice this was going on".
With this kind of leadership it is a good thing Waunch is retiring. Kildee since he is running again MUST NEED the money, despite what he claims about "not wanting it", otherwise why doesn't he give it back???
foggydoggy writes:
They need to rescind this decision. In the midst of high unemployment, and those who are employed being asked to take paycuts, furloughs, lay offs, along with several years of meager raises...if any at all, and skyrocketing out of pocket benefit cost increases, these raises ares truly offensive. Shame on the Camarillo City Council. I am finished voting for incumbents...both for City Council and within the OUHSD board.
Currybob75#773541 writes:
In response to beyondoxnard, learn the facts before commenting. The City Council is not a job. It is a part time elected position. Camarillo's part time employees don't get the benefits the Council gave itself. It was the same 5 councilmembers that granted themselves retirement and health benefits about 10 years ago at a cost of over $1200 a month each and this wasn't enough they also gave themselves 7% of salary in deferred compensation. Councilmember Waunch when defending his transparency failed to mention the city will pay for a portion of his health insurance for life! Where is the leadership in the city? The City Council gives itself and the City Manager a 5% raise while employees have received ZERO for 4 years. The Taxpayers Association is only half right, the City Council not only lacks transparency but is arrogant in granting itself and the City Manager raises while proposing layoffs.
Whattheheck writes:
Unfortunately, cities have a tendency to “forget” these things - as do councilmembers - when asked how much their TOTAL compensation is. First time I saw this TOTAL package ever referenced was in the Santa Paula Times. And speaking of Santa Paula, remember that its city manager Jaime Fontes was the only staff person that was not subjected to the 5 percent pay cut. Instead of cutting his salary, the council said Fontes wouldn't get his scheduled 5 percent pay increase for the year, an implied automatic raise that was not noted in his employment contract. FUNNY???
auret1#232805 writes:
This information is from the California Controller’s web site for the 5 council members of Camarillo.
Total Wages......Applicable.......Employees'.......Health
Subject to.......Defined Benefit..Share of.........Dental,
Medicare.........Pension..........Pension..........Vision
Box 5 of W-2.....Formula..........Contributions....
18,915...........2% @ 55..........1,268............6,917
18,808...........2% @ 55..........1,253............10,753
18,699...........2% @ 55..........376..............1,488
18,636...........2% @ 55..........1,258............1,488
17,028...........2% @ 55..........1,268............14,196
Trouble93012 writes:
"It's legally what we can do and what has been done in previous years."
Listen, Mr. Kildee, just because it's legal and what you've done in previous years doesn't mean that you should do it when the state and country as a whole is experiencing such significant economic crises. Sometimes it's better to show you empathize with your constituents by NOT voting yourselves raises. In fact, I think it's a conflict of interest for ANY city council to be allowed to vote themselves raises. Shame on you all!
Trouble93012 writes:
I agree, Foggy! I'm done voting for incumbents too. They become more interested in finding ways to enrich themselves while their constituents are practically begging for jobs and/or sustenance.
Trouble93012 writes:
I haven't followed this issue, so that's what happened? The DA dropped the case? Hahahahahaha! If there were ever any doubt that Oxnard is corrupt to its core, including the DA's office, this is proof.
fibus writes:
Yes the DA dropped the case but the IRS is investigating the sportspark deal.
The IRS has issued a deficiency determination of tax payment.
One can hope for more federal agency involvement than the IRS.
At the time I thought the tax was about three million. I wonder what the IRS believes it is due?
socallvr writes:
Just like Chief Justice Roberts referenced... Elections matter! If you don't like what these politicians are doing... Then VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE.....!!!! Which is exactly what Americans are going to do this November when we vote Obama out of office and send him back to Chicago!!!
CamarilloSnooze writes:
It seems that the council really stepped in it this time, hitting a raw nerve with a number of people. The City Council seems so out of touch with reality, giving themselves a raise while increasing user fees at the same time to the businesses of Camarillo. http://www.thecamarilloacorn.com/news...
Let’s recap the following questionable issues that the Camarillo City Council has been involved with:
The Bridge to Nowhere – a $23 million (plus interest) project that the city might be on the hook for if the developers walk:
http://www.vcstar.com/news/2012/jun/0...
(Even the Camarillo Whites had enough horse sense not to pull that Council load across the bridge.) And raising user fees on businesses makes Camarillo less friendly for those developers to attract businesses that will allow the payback to Camarillo for the bridge.
The $1 million “deal” at Dizdar park for the fire station. It’s been going on for years…and nothing…
http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/may/2...
http://www.vcstar.com/news/2007/oct/1...
The old library building – the “new” library is five years old and still the council can’t seem to figure out what to do with the old library building. And notice that the above article mentions the library having a budget of $3.8 million. That’s about $60 for every man woman and child in the city. The contract with library operator was supposed to around $2 million. $1.8 million is a lot of overhead to get to the current $3.8 million.
http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/oct/1...
Community Grants and cultural arts budget of $1.3 million in the 2012-13 year. Really? Cultural Arts in Camarillo? I think that the City Council just likes to be Santa Claus for their cronies. This is about last year’s fiesta:
http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/jun/2...
In March, the council doled out around 80 grand to various non-profits including Kildee’s wife making a pitch for a $1,600 sign for the Channel Island Studios. (more money down the tubes in old town) And Kildee voted on it. So much for having a conflict. And then there is the Camarillo Ranch. The red barn restoration alone cost the city $800,000, yet the Camarillo Ranch Foundation still doesn’t pay rent to the city for the use of the Ranch. http://www.vcstar.com/news/2009/jul/2...
Don is leaving the Council, Kevin needs to be retired too. And please, we don’t need Bill Little to replace either one of them. Let’s get someone that isn’t in the same clique as Mike, Charlotte and Jan.
REVTRUEGRIT writes:
Self -serving greed-they could care less about the people who do the work.The city council should take a pay cut!
Iamhandyhood writes:
I guess these council members don't want to be re-elected. Just like Obama!
diditright writes:
It really sounds as though the Camarillo City Council has taken "self enrichment" classes from the folks on the Oxnard City Council.
Currybob75#773541 writes:
I agree Bill Little isn't needed on the City Council. He or Jerry Bankston should be brought back as the City Manager. The current City Manager shows No leadership (see for yourself watch him at a City Council meeting)and hasn't accomplished anything for the City (how much are we paying him???) He took a 5% raise last year, what a waste!
ittplus77#773543 writes:
I hear the City Manager also has a 60 inch Big Screen TV in his office paid by our tax dollars. Who does that? This is outrageous! Where's the transparency? Can you recall the City Manager?
foggydoggy writes:
This self serving decision is in such poor taste...in light of the economy and employees in all fields receiving no raises, paying more for their benefits, and/or being given mandatory furloughs...amounting to more than a five percent per year pay CUT...all of which impacts their future benefits...this is offensive. With back to back five per cent raises, the council's stipend/salary/whatever they want to call it...will have increased ten percent. Offensive. As their terms expire, it is time the old timers be voted out...as far as i'm concerned trust in their judgment is gone. Unfortunately, i think morgan et al still have another two and half years to go...how convenient for them with this decision. tsk tsk
foggydoggy writes:
I'd have more respect for this self serving, out of touch with reality council if they'd have voted themselves a back-to-back two, three, or five per cent pay CUT and had their life time benefits reduced. This is just shameful. I can hear their justification now...'oh we haven't had a raise in years etc etc etc.' well welcome to reality. You haven't felt the pain when you've just reversed that trend. It should be a stipend, not a life time career with life time benefits!
foggydoggy writes:
At their next meeting, i want to see this council rescind altogether the first of these two back to back five percent raises and reduce the second to two percent.
REVTRUEGRIT writes:
Kildee also gets money from V.R.S.D. board.
greenstar writes:
What a slap in the face. The city has employees already slated for layoffs - not just positions but we are talking about actual employees, departments cutting budgets by 6% all across the board, and the council increased fees to citizens and businesses - but the council thinks its okay to give themselves a cost of living increase at a time like this. Goodness, we need better leadership than this.
If you didn't know, fees went up this week so that it costs over $300 for anyone wanting to start their own business from home. This is more than a 300% increase. And if a contractor wants to pull a permit planning charges $600 which doesn't even include the actual permit. That is over 17x the previous amount. So the council rather burden small businesses and contractors trying to make an honest living and penalize them for the budget shortfall. But the council is somewhat immune to this whole budget issue. This is a call for better leadership. Do they think they hide from public scrutiny and keep it on the down low. Well its about time they be held accountable.
diditright writes:
It is a shame that a recall effort would probably cost the city more than the raises the Council so generously gave themselves, otherwise I would like to see them all recalled and dismissed from office. I know for certain none will ever get my vote for any office. Just the thought of the council voting themselves a raise during these economic times for two additional years, really puts a question in my mind of their judgement and motives. And then for a member (Kildee) to say he does it to "give back to the community". I have actually hurt my self from laughing.
Sinitro writes:
WTH...
5% cost-of-living..
Ironic inflation for the CPI was significantly less..
Time for a recall..
outlier writes:
These 5 Council members don't have a clue. They have become so anti-business with all the business fee increases.
Just 9 months ago Morgan was saying that the City was "financially blessed"
http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/sep/2...
What happened Mike? You like to listen to yourself go on and on. Please explain how in nine short months everything has changed, except YOUR raise, of course.
A few months ago, the council would not allow chick-fil-A into the outlets. Instead, we still have an empty pad. It sends a message that even good national companies are not wanted by this City Council.
The City Manager needs to step up his game. The city staff is left to fend for themselves. And make no mistake - from what I have seen, the city staff is capable and does their jobs well for the citizens of Camarillo.
The city council AND city management needs to show some leadership, transparency and vision. The City council should roll back their salaries to 2008 levels as a token to the city employees that they get it and will suffer with them. The city manager and city department heads making over $120K should take at least 10% paycuts to help balance the city budget and lead by example. Roll back the business fee increases.
I have a feeling the council will blame the State for taking their redevelopment toy away, but the council has been so slow moving. They love their old town projects such as the fire station and the Cedar-Oak lot. But nothing ever seems to get completed. And now the bridge to nowhere.
The council needs new people on it. This year we get to select two seats. Let's get people that bring a fresh perspective and joy to the task of leading the city.
guy133 writes:
Nobody forced them to take the job. In fact, I bet they all spent money to run election campaigns.
Whattheheck writes:
A lottttttttt of money from VRSD… when is the Star going to investigate that agency? It's the only one in the county that doesn't have a directly elected board and there's BIGGGGGGG BUCKS involved.
foggydoggy writes:
What the dollar amount figures out to be is not the point. The point is the principle of the matter, along with their appallingly poor understanding of real life for the employed (and unemployed) in the community they govern. They should be ashamed. I know no one, other than already overpaid and overcompensated very high level and upper management government employees and politicians, that can expect to receive a ten percent raise in a 13 month period. Along with all their other goodies. Shame on them.
outlier writes:
Exactly foggydoggy!
And to clarify, the Council also voted themselves 5% raises in 2011 and 2012, so with these raises next year and in 2014, they will be making 21.5% more than they did in 2010.
arrowhead writes:
So besides Bill Little, who else is running in the fall for this City Council? This seems like a great opportunity for a new candidate to step up, canvas the streets, get a web site going, jump on Facebook, or even make a comment here in this thread.
I am not interested in voting for any of our current council members, and the only other name I am hearing is Bill Little. That's only due to the fact he was our City Manager for years and was mentioned here in the Star a few weeks ago when Don announced retirement.
If I was running I would be at tonight's Concert in the Park, as you know other members of the council will be there, talking to people and handing out flyers.
It's time to campaign people, get out there and let me know who you are and why I should vote for you. If you wait too long for this opportunity to pass, I fear you may have the same business savvy as our current Council members.
Fedora writes:
Give me a break people. We are talking about chump change. They do a great job and deserve a modest increase. If do not like it, move to Oxnard.
joe8o5 writes:
Stay tuned folks the city manager is due for an increase in July I have no doubt that he will take that without hesitation he could care less about the employees being laid off and the citizens welfare definitely not a leader.
joe8o5 writes:
yeah its not that much but should they be getting raises while people are being laid off? i don't think so and at least Oxnards council members are not laying off employes and giving themselves raises.....
diditright writes:
The underhanded pay raises the council voted for themselves IS like living in Oxnard.
As for the great job they have done, what have they done with the old library building? What has the council done about the high school question? We have seen no support from the council expressing the need for improvements to Cam High. How many private sector folks have gotten 5% raises in each of the last 2 years and have GUARANTEED 5% raises for the NEXT 2 years? As for the Outlets, you have a shopping center catering to discount shoppers, yet the council votes to discourage a low to moderately priced restaurant to opening at the mall and promote only "high end" restaurants coming to the mall. I don't think Maestro's steakhouse is going to offer "30% off" nights just to be at the Outlets.
And just think, Bob Kildee is taking the raise just so he can "give back to the community".
foggydoggy writes:
Fedora writes:
"Give me a break people. We are talking about chump change. They do a great job and deserve a modest increase. If do not like it, move to Oxnard."
As i said, the point isn't the dollar amount, it is the principle. Sorry that seems to have eluded you, Fedora. It is inappropriate for city council members to vote themselves two five per cent pay raises commencing over a 13 month period while employees have received meager raises for the last several years, and entire departments are told to cut their budgets by six per cent across the board, along with hiring freezes, lay offs, and huge increases in permit and other costs to the community. It's not okay because their base stipend is low... there are many, many other perks to the job! And if it's so undesirable and low paying, why are there council members that have campaigned to keep their positions for over 20 years? The monthly pay or stipend the five percent raises per year are based on is not relevant to the principle of the matter. Give every single employee a ten percent raise in pay over a 13 mmonth period...bumping up their lifetime retirement accordingly and see how that flys! They should not do for themselves what has been denied the community they govern, regardless of the base amount. Furthermore, if it's so low paying, i encourage any of them not to seek re-election when their terms expire. I wonder if the longtimers feel this will be forgotten in two years when they're up for re-election? Afterall, even they must know it's never good business to vote yourself a raise in an election year.
Want to participate in the conversation? Become a subscriber today. Subscribers can read and comment on any story, anytime. Non-subscribers will only be able to view comments on select stories.