What about the idea that one council member mentioned where the City sells of some 85 acre site it owns in East Ventura to use for funding of things, such as the purchase of the land for the Wright Library? That way the Wright Library could remain in the same location. That council member said the others on the council are trying to keep that land for "future development", while cutting current critical services. I agree with what he also said about it not being the Council's business to buy land with taxpayer dollars just so they can have some pet development issues to toy with. That land should be sold, and kept as farmland. This is prime example of why most members of the City Council need voting out! They cut critical services, such as Wright, while protecting their pet development goals.

Rob, I thought I made this really, really clear: The decision to shut down the library is the COUNTY'S to make. There is a gap of $650,000 they need to make up. The Council does not vote on this. There is a 5-member County Library Commission and Bill Fulton sits on it. His is only one vote. Then the Board of Supervisors makes the final decision.

Now the City of Ventura could step in and fund the $300,000 gap if they had the money immediately. Even if they could sell the land right away and use it to fund some things, the Wright will likely close in 2015 due to the lease issues.

This is a terrible time to sell real estate! It's complicated to explain, but if they hold onto it, change the entitlement and plan wisely they could sell it for much, much more than they could get for it now.

I'd like to see us follow Camarillo's lead and look at the state grants which provided 2/3 of the funding for that facility. There are other ideas. I'd love to see a new, fabulous facility in our Community Park!

Seemed to me there may be plenty of public support to try and do fundraising to keep Wright open for awhile. Not just Friends-of-Library fundraising, but as some discussed there may be an assessment or tax method. If the public was sure funds would be applied to the Ventura libraries in particular, there may be support for it, like there was in some other county cities for their own libraries. I agree with some speakers last night that the libraries should be considered mandatory, just like Police or Fire. I would rather cut them, than the libraries. But, this council is beholden to those Union contributions and political support. Rick Cole offered no ideas, that guy needs to get the boot. He only perks up when he hears development opportunities that will pad his resume for future career opportunities! If fundraising buys time to keep Wright open for a year or two, then that 85 acre City owned property can be sold down the road in better time. I watched the whole session last night, and it was evident that no one has definitely discussed aquiring the property from Ventura College. Just made it easier for Fulton to say "it is not a matter of IF Wright gets closed, just a matter of WHEN". The council member who thought about selling that land the City owns, at least had some ideas. That is the type of person that should be on our council, who can come up with ideas. Not just a bunch of pro-development hacks who feel entitled to cut libraries while never cutting back on developers or Police/Fire unions. I am not so excited as you about that big community park library coming at the expense of Wright.

I have no wish to see any library close, particularly one like this that is used by so many students!

But if the college is going to take it over anyway -- it's their land -- why not build a beautiful new facility like Camarillo's on land we own in the Community Park?

I can dream, anyway.

Rob, would you prefer the city sell the land it owns now on the east end for $5 million now, as that councilman suggested or later, if the entitlement changes, for $50 million? That's the issue here.

You say you are anti-development, but that is what brings revenue to the city and county --sales and property taxes. In lean times, we will have to accept cuts if we don't want to build and we don't want to raise taxes.

Just a short brief on this: If the City of Ventura wants to save some funds, and they can "save and rescue" those employees of the Wright Library and convert them to other city positions, then go ahead and terminate the Wright Library system. It it saves City funds, and those funds can be appropriated into other best-allocations, then trim the library.

Streamlining and accountability has to be done sometime. This Wright library building could be used for other services or for private business concerns.

Consolidate all the libraries in Ventura area into one. In the end, those vacant library buildings will certainly accrue property taxes, electric, water and other income to the city in some manner, and may also bring profits to any business that may use these buildings. Good luck! JK

Sorry...I did mean to say COUNTY OF...not CITY OF! Apoligies, again! But the subjecdt is the same, nevertheless. JK

Hidden agendas abound: the bottom line is that certain folks in our government want a Community Park cure-all center with the library, performing arts space & a senior center (the let's be better than Camarillo plan). They've wanted this for years. So how to raise awareness & funds?? Rip out the hearts of our literate community --threaten to close Wright. & as Bill "I-love-the-librarys" Fulton put it-- we can use FOL fundraising as a STOPGAP until the "other" facility is built. Bottom line, if they could use the FOL funds to start a building fund now, I bet the county would find the "stopgap" monies needed. Hidden agendas coming clear? One more point: A tax for libraries when we wouldn't pass a tax for resource officers? Let's teach our city how to budget & invest our monies first. Rumor has it that FOL have always come to the rescue--not the city.

I always thought of libraries as a form of socialism.

The free market provides bookstores with seating that I see many students working at. They also have coffee and other drinks.

Maybe install a coffee bar to make some more money.

JDW,

Do you really think the county library director is plotting with Community Park boosters to close Wright so another library can be built there?

She seemed very sincere in her presentation.

I hate to see Wright close, too. I just want to make sure we are being careful in our postings here.

They already have a leased coffee bar in the gorgeous Camarillo library. And I do not know for sure if the $$ was raised by grants...but the children's floor is real kid friendly, shelves kids' height, a magazine section (away from adults) for kids, a pirate ships where kids can play, a supervised state of the art homework center, murals celebrating kids literature and a puppet theater....not to mention the mission style furniture, cozy CLEAN nooks and a working fireplace on the second floor....
Gee, we can't even agree on a Walmart that generates tax revenue to help fund this type of thing. And oh yes, at 2 o'clock in the afternoon the parking lot was over half full....get a clue Ventura

Look at the Camarillo Library
Get a clue Ventura....

Marie, I am not against development, just for responsible development with neighborhood input. If you type "Jackie Griffin library" in Google or Yahoo search, you will see that she comes up as a former "embattled" director of the Berkeley library system, that resulted in her making lawsuits, etc. Then, our out-of-touch City Council hires her to run Ventura's Libraries at a higher salary than what Berkeley was paying her. Oh yes, I forgot, our City Council is so fiscally cautious. We could eliminate Jackie Griffin and her excessive salary and use those funds to keep Wright open. A disgraceful hire! Read up on her, totally unfit for being hired here!

Rob... once again .... Jackie Griffin is a COUNTY employee. The City Council did not hire her. The COUNTY did.

It is a COUNTY library leasing a building owned by Ventura College. It is the COUNTY'S decision to close the library.

In the past the city has been able to loosen up some funding to help out. But we need to cut $8 million out of the city's budget, so we can't scrape together the $300,000 it would cost to help the COUNTY keep Wright open another year.

Our city could withdraw from the County Library system and run its own like Oxnard does. But, again, that would take money we don't have.

Rob, I do appreciate your posts, though. And I realize that this is complicated.

Thanks for the clarification, Marie. However, the main point here is that a great many people, like myself, feel the libraries should be funded as a priority just like Fire and Police. Everyone understands it is a tough budgetary time. The issue is the Council's budgetary priorities. There are other items in the budget that cost more than keeping Wright Library open, that the Council favored instead. One example is how the Council has already spent our taxes on planning for developers and lost $10 million of our money in risky investments like WAMU and Lehman Bros. Other Cities in Ventura County did not engage is such risky expenditures.

I do not want to belabor the topic. But, to many of us, this library funding problem, and lack of creative ideas from Council members, is just a microcosm of a council out of touch with many citizens priorities. I am seeing a huge galvanization of upset people in my neighborhood. Like what happened in the recent National election, people are organizing and using the Internet to communicate. We are taking note of Council member's actions and there are lots of us looking forward to making some changes in future City Council elections!

One last point, even though that Jackie Griffin hire was done at a County level, Bill Fulton and other Council members should have noted her "embattled past" and raised the issue to the County. It seems an outsider like that should not have been brought in to our County to run the Libraries when she was having so many problems and having to get lawyers to defend her actions in Berkeley. To hire someone with a history like that, at an increase in salary, shows lack of hiring competence. Similar to how Rick Cole was hired. Citizens I know are fed up and are going to be voting for Council change in droves!

Rob:

You obviously are concerned about the City's fiscal situation. But anyone who comes in during act three of a play has some catching up to do.

As Marie emphasizes, the libraries in six of the ten Ventura County cities (and the rest of the unincorporated parts of the county) are run by the County. The City has taken an active role in supporting them, including allocating Federal low-income aid to fund our third library) as well as pitching in with City funds and assisting with private fundraising the last time the County Libraries faced a budget crisis.

But as an older, full-service city, Ventura has long tried to support a wider and better range of services than its tax base can adequately support. Digital critics usually attribute this to the stupidity of the City Council, but there are two flaws with this argument. First, most obviously, it is the voters who elect the City Council. Second, when ballot measures come to the ballot, the voters are pretty consistent: no to development, no to taxes and yes to services. This is pretty much the way most of California votes, which goes a long way to explaining why our State is broke.

Sometimes, of course, digital critics blame the staff, who are always overpaid and incompetent. Of course, that staff responded to my call for cutting spending when the economy started to slow last spring and managed to bring spending in $5 million below budget last fiscal year. And that staff is now working in teams with community leaders and Chamber of Commerce representatives to find ways to save another $5-8 million in savings next year.

Rob, I appreciate your posts as well. But remember, as Teddy Roosevelt famously said, it is not the critic who counts. Let's have your ideas and participation in solving a national, even global, problem that none of us caused.

Rick Cole
City Manager
City of Ventura

Rick Cole says:
"as well as pitching in with City funds ... the last time the County Libraries faced a budget crisis."

Can you tell us all exactly how much "City Funds" were contributed the last time the County Libraries faced a budget crisis?

Thanks, Rick and Rob.

Rob: a question for you. If the college is going to take over the property in 2015 and the library will have to move anyway, why wouldn't you be interested in moving toward a wonderful new library at the Community Park? Did you read what our blogger A Koch had to say about their new facility? It is fabulous.

You say you are unhappy with expenses for planning. Yet, bringing new places for people to live and new businesses into our community brings property and sales taxes and jobs. This is what pays for new libraries and other community services you value.

There is another, just-as-vocal contingent in Ventura who thinks we have not done enough building and developing. They believe we have chased businesses -- like Wal-Mart -- away which will bring in sales tax dollars.

What would you say to these folks? How would you make both sides happy? Is it possible? Do our city staff and Council need to balance both these competing interests?

And what would you trim out of the city's budget to equal $8 million? That's what they are facing now.

Marie, I do not think that increased development and resulting tax revenues to the City necessarily results in "new libraries and other community services I value". Quite often, new development just adds people, congestion and an increased demand for services that cancels out any benefits. I am unconvinced new development revenues will be put towards keeping Wright Library open. I would be more inclined to think this City Council would use those revenues to provide more incentives for more development, just continuing the over-development lifecycle.

I am not against Wal-Mart being placed in an already existing commercial area, like in the former K-Mart. I am already embarassed when friends come to visit me from other parts of SoCal and have to drive along the Victoria corridor to get to my house near the college. They have made comments about how Ventura is becoming just a bunch of chain strip malls, like anywhere else. I have to take them to downtown, midtown, or the Harbor areas to show there is still small-town seaside charm here. I believe maintaining that quality is key to tourism revenue. That also means protecting our ocean and hill views, so I support that cause of restricted building heights.

Most people I speak with agree that the rampant, excess development you see off Hwy101 in Oxnard is terrible. Yes, it adds tax revenue, but at what price? There is nothing there but sprawl and congestion, with nothing of cultural interest. Those tax revenues are then needed to fund services for all the new people, not to maintain or enhance current services. I am therefore skeptical new development will solve problems like keeping a neighborhood library like Wright open.

The current City Council has made those bad $10 million dollar investments in WaMu and Lehman Bros, provided large pay/benefit package increases to Police and Fire (which I know you were against), used taxpayer funds to provide sweetheart deals to developers, etc. So, they have helped cause this fiscal crisis that makes funding Wright so challenging at the moment. To keep Wright open, I think the private fundraising efforts discussed at the last Council meeting should be pursued, along with possible library-specific tax or assessments being proposed to the public. If that buys time to keep Wright open another couple years, I would then suggest selling that 85 acre parcel to keep it open longer or to enter discussions with the college about purchasing that property. I only heard Griffin and Council members "throwing in the towel" that Wright has to be closed at some point, while no one seemed to have clearly discussed purchasing the property with the College. I have heard from some people, albeit informally, that the college is not necessarily inflexible about exploring options to keep Wright open. This should be explored more fully, along with possible purchase of the property. For other revenue, cut the high salaries of Rick Cole, the City Attorney, and Ms. Griffin as a start. The State is cutting employee pay by 10%, look into maybe getting similar temporary cuts in those excessive benefits the City recently granted to Fire/Police personnel? I am also in favor of a temporary sales tax increase, if used specifically for libraries.

The view shared in my neighborhood is the Council has helped cause this budget shortfall by misguided fiscal decisions over the previous years, and now our neighborhood Library is having to be sacrificed for their incompetence and incentive-laden pro-developer initiatives. The good side of all this is the Council has galvanized the public, and we are very much communicating and organizing ourselves and our response to them will be demonstrated at future elections. We also know that Mr. Cole is "appointed", but we plan to determine just who appointed him and who is willing to make a change in his regard also!

Marie,

I think I need to remind you of our recent conversation about the pension giveaway recently made to City of Ventura firefighters. Your City Council decided to spend $1.2 million per year to fund an increase in pension benefits during a very tough economic cycle. Now the same politicians say they don't have enough money to fund the library. Is it now fair to suggest that the community cough up even more money to keep the libraries open so that firefighters can retire at up to 90% of pay? Connect the dots.

On a related note, did you catch the recent editorial in the Star by Dan Walters discussing the massive losses by the state pension funds? I have been warning you that the true cost of the $1.2 million giveaway is going to be much higher than advertised. The result will be even deeper cuts to public services and higher taxes on a public already struggling to keep their homes and pay their bills. Meanwhile, public employees are simultaneously beefing up their own benefits. That is just wrong.

Yes, yes, yes to a new city-owned library. I live in Ventura now but grew up in Camarillo for my first 18 years, and one of my first memories is of walking out of the small library on Ventura Boulevard in "Old Town" with a stack of books so big I could hardly carry them. I also have fond memories of the city library off of Carmen when they built the new improved facility there. Now, they've done it again: built a facility to match their community needs and aspirations. I've only driven by the new library on my way to my folks' house, but from the outside, it is one of the most beautiful buildings in Camarillo. As a retired educator on a fixed income, my mom frequents it regularly and raves about how beautiful it is and how many people use it. It is elegant, comfortable, classy and full of free resources. People are driving from other cities to use it.

After college I moved to Thousand Oaks and enjoyed their gorgeous city-owned library. Then we moved back over the hill to downtown Ventura. As a young mother on a very tight budget, I took my children to the EP Foster Library just blocks away, but soon I discovered Oxnard's new city-owned library, another beautiful example of a public facility. The atmosphere there was so different from Ventura's libraries. There were so many more books for the children, and it was much more pleasant than either Foster or Wright libraries, that it was worth the drive to a neighboring city.

Finally, Barnes and Noble came to Ventura and it has become the defacto library for many people. The parking lot is always filled, no matter what day of the week or how bad the economy. I think it's great to have a first-rate beautiful bookstore in town, but we also deserve to have a beautiful first-rate library like Camarillo, Oxnard and Thousand Oaks. There are not enough places at Barnes and Noble to settle down and read or study. Many people cannot afford to do more than browse there. If Camarillo, Thousand Oaks and Oxnard can build these amazing facilities, why can't we?

We have a well-run city -- Rick Cole and his staff are doing a great job -- and even though we are in a severe downturn we need to be far-sighted in planning for our future. The downturn will eventually be over and some opportunities will not come again. Libraries, like sports parks, add to the quality of life. Let's get creative with our resources and work hard to find matching grants (perhaps the new stimulus package would provide funds... and jobs!). We are living in the information age and full access to it for all of our citizens is paramount... and pleasing aesthetics would be a major bonus and point of pride. We need to bring Ventura into the 21st century like our neighboring cities.

To Bubba Kidd:

Are you also critical of Simi Valley for their recent pay increases for their police while at the same time they have cut services?

Bravo, Melissa! Extremely well said.

Rob, the fiscal challenges facing our city, county and state are directly tied to the down economy. You know that.

I think it's time we all shared the pain. Public employee unions should give a little, taxpayers should give a little and services will need to be cut.

I am also a very big proponent of public/private partnerships. I raise money for our school district through the Ventura Education Partnership (over $100,000 last year), am helping the private effort to beautify one of most underused parks through the Serra Cross Conservancy and sit on the board of a private group which manages a historic site the city has never had the budget to take care of.

If we all work together instead of just complaining, we can accomplish much more.

It is disgraceful that the City of Simi Valley gave a 7% pay increase to its police force while eliminating positions (including law enforcement positions), laying off other City employees, and cutting services to the public. The unemployment rate in California just hit 9.3% and we are in a foreclosure crisis, meanwhile Simi PD has received pay increases totaling 20.4% in just the past four years. It is unbelievable that the cities of Simi Valley and Ventura are granting lucrative pay and benefit increases to a select group of public employees during one of the worst economic downturns in a generation, and then slashing programs to the public to pay for them.

Even more amazing is that some folks have the gall to suggest that we should now volunteer to pay more taxes so that some public employees can retire at 90% of pay and receive six figure pensions as early as age 50. All of this while taxpayers are facing layoffs and watching their 401Ks plunge in value. This is the same reason why the state government is in such a fiscal mess.

Bubba, all city firefighters in the area get at least that retirement (based on years of service -- not all at 90%) and county firefighters get even more. I don't have a problem with this select group of individuals being well compensated. They risk their lives nearly every time they work. If you face down a wall of flames in a brush fire, you should get paid well.

But I also don't think it is out of line to suggest that public employee unions across the state make some concessions now.

What is far more obscene is the $18.4 billion in bonuses paid out to Wall Street executives this year while some were accepting federal bailouts.

Marie,

Are you serious that you support retiring at age 50 with a great defined benefit package?

What is the average pay for a Ventura City firefighter?

Let's be really clear:

The package offered to Ventura firefighters was 3 percent at 55, which allows a firefighter to retire at age 55 with a pension equal to 3 percent of his or her last year's pay multiplied by years of service. It is less than other surrounding cities and counties offer.

It was 2 percent at 50 years before.

I am also in favor of our public employee groups making some concessions now, however.

Marie,

If you are now in favor of public employees making concessions then why did you not complain in October when the City of Ventura was INCREASING pension benefits to firefighters by 50%? That is a huge increase in benefits. The city calculated the cost of this increased benefit at $1.2 million per year (though I believe that the actual cost will actually be substantially higher). And now just a few months later our local government leaders say that they don't have the $650,000 needed to continue to operate the H.P Wright Library. So how is it that we could afford a pension benefit increase just three months ago costing $1.2 million, but we suddenly don't have the funds to operate a local library? And how can you in good conscience now support increasing taxes on a public that is struggling in a rough economy given the facts that I just described?

When you say that public employee groups should make concessions, are you suggesting that the city should revoke the increase in pension benefits to firefighters (which is probably impossible at this point)? Or are you suggesting that other public employees (like librarians and city clerks) should take cuts in pay and benefits in order to now fund the promised pension increase for firefighters? Personally, I think it would only be fair for firefighters to put on the table concessions to keep the library open. Nobody else should have to pay for this.

On a final note, just because other cities and counties offer obnoxiously high pension benefits doesn't mean that it is reasonable or rational for our local cities to do the same. There was never any documented evidence that Ventura was having any problems in recruiting or retaining firefighters. On the contrary, the turnover rate has been quite low in spite of the fact that many other departments offered the higher benefit. And nobody has ever provided a rational explanation why any public employee should be entitled to receive a pension equal to 90% pay at age 50 or 55, especially when average Americans have to wait until age 67 to qualify for full social security benefits, and don't have retirement benefits that even come close to what is being offered in the public sector. Allowing public employees to retire early with bloated pension benefits has a massive cost that will have to be paid by future generations. And these massive pension guarantees are not fully funded and continue to consume larger and larger portions of city, county and state budgets. Since pension funds are invested in the stock market we can expect a massive increase in pension costs because of recent market declines. This will mean even more cuts in services to the public and more pressure to increase taxes.

Again, I completely disagree with your view that we should hike pay and benefits to public employees just because other departments do the same. This is how public employee unions have gamed the system. Just because one city is stupid enough to give away 90% pensions doesn't mean that we should do the same, since that type of mentality is how we got into this mess.

This is a tough one for me. One of my dearest friends is married to a Santa Barbara County firefighter. I know she sends him off to these wildfires knowing she may not see him again. These folks should be well compensated.

The negotiations were going on in July -- not October -- when I don't think any of us realized just how bad things would get. Did I blog on it back then? No.

But now, with things unraveling all over, I do think we should all pitch in and share the pain, whatever it takes. Reasonable people will hopefully make the right decisions regarding this matter.

Note: The $650,000 deficit is within the County Library System. It is their decision to close Wright.

Marie, don't forget that this is the same city that imposed the controversial 911 fee in order to fund public safety services. If the city didn't have enough resources to adequately fund public safety in the first place then why in the world are they simultaneously giving an increase in pension benefits to firefighters?

You also shouldn't let your judgment be clouded by the fact that you have a friend who is married to a firefighter. And it is also unfair to citizens to have their taxes increased and services cut to enrich a select few, even if it benefits people we know personally. I'm sure your friend's husband was already receiving great salary and benefits before the pension increase, so I don't see why it was so critical for the city to increase benefits further, especially during a bad economic cycle. And even though the debate over pension increases started last summer, the benefit was approved in October and by then we were already seeing a meltdown in the housing market and were in the middle of a near collapse of our financial systems. The city council should have understood that the drastic reduction in home values would also substantially drive down property tax revenues. Anybody who reads the papers could see this coming a mile away. But they did it anyway, and now they want to turn around and ask for tax increases to provide basic services that they can no longer afford.

This is a classic example of why our state is broke, and why many of our cities and counties are also in financial distress. The City of Vallejo also implemented massive increases in pay and benefits to public safety employees using the same reasoning, and now the city is bankrupt.

Let me ask you this Marie, is it worth giving your friend's husband a 50% increase in his pension if it has to be paid for by closing a local library? Should we be eliminating program that serve the homeless, the elderly and the disabled so that your friend's husband can retire at 90% of final salary instead of a mere 60% of final salary? Do you think that we should lay off librarians and clerks, or cut their hours and pay, and use the savings to fund increased retirement benefits for your friend's husband? Do you think that taxpayers who are facing layoffs, who are in danger of losing their homes, and who are losing their pension plans and healthcare benefits should cough up more tax dollars so that your friend's husband can enjoy a more lucrative retirement? You must believe these things because that is exactly what is happening.

Whooooa Bubba. My friend's husband works up in the County of Santa Barbara. I very clearly stated that. Their pensions are better than those of Ventura City Firefighters. So are the City of Oxnard's and they recently passed a sales tax measure.

You were asking why I didn't blog on it last summer and I was being honest about why I didn't. I wasn't sure how to clearly articulate how I felt back then. The vote was Aug. 4, not in October.

I believe I have also clearly stated that I now think we should all share the pain, including our public employee unions.

Marie,

Do you know the average pay for a firefighter, police officer, and a teacher in Ventura?

I don't have all those figures sitting here Brian. With some trouble I could ask and/or look them up. Do you have them for Simi?

Marie,

I don't know how to look them up. Simi Valley publishes it for schools. We use county firefighters but I don't see where that information is available. As far as the police goes I don't believe that is available online.

Sometimes the numbers reveal government employees aren't as well compensated as often is assumed, but the numbers speak for themselves.

Showed up a bit late in this conversation but had to add my 2 cents - the public employe pension thing has gotten out of hand - no doubt about it. Question is whether you think the issue is worth stopping all conversation over.

Brian,

I posted Simi PD salaries on your blog a few weeks back and the results were shocking. I can go look up the numbers again when I have a chance. Public safety employees are very highly compensated in this state, and in this county in particular. A very high percentage of firefighters and police officer earn well over $100,000 per year. The star did an article a while back that listed the highest compensated public employees in the county and at the top of the list was a whos-who of fire department employees, many of them making over $200,000 per year with overtime costs included. We are not talking about meagerly paid public servants. I personally know several local retired police and fire employees who draw six figure pensions.

Plus when you combine this with pensions and other benefits you are talking about compensation packages that are off the charts. Last I checked the Ventura County Sheriff's Department budgeted over $250,000 annually for each sworn deputy sheriff position to cover pay and benefits. I'll have to try and dig up some recent numbers, but I have no data on the City of Ventura. I'd love to see the info. I think that the public should know the facts before handing out ever increasing pay and benefit packages under the assumption that it is needed so that employees are "fairly compensated".

Here is some useful information I poached off of Brian's blog on pay for Simi PD(please forgive me for the cut and paste):

According to this job posting an officer with SVPD makes between $56,676 and $78,180 annally. Keep in mind that higher level positions pay more. For example, you can rise to become a sergeant, lieutenant, captain, etc. This is the compensation for a basic entry level position (no degree required). It also excludes any overtime compensation, which I imagine could be significant. If you work in the canine unit you get an extra $589 per month, detectives $100 per month, motors $100 per month, and if you are bilingual you get another $100 per month. The City also contributes $100 per month to your deferred compensation plan. If you have an Associates degree you get a 2.5% increase in salary, or if you have a Bachelors degree you get an additional 5%.

The posting also mentions that officers work a 4/10 schedule, which means they work 10 hours per day four days per week. As far as benefits are concerned, officers get a 3% at 55 retirement, which provides a maximum 90% of final year salary after 30 years of service. The City pays the full cost of the pension, with no employee contribution required. Officers also do not qualify for social security, but at the same time pay no social security taxes (who needs it when you get 90% pay at retirement, plus it also lets you pocket up to $6,324 per year that would normally be deducted in Social Security taxes). After 25 years employees also get lifetime medical coverage for themselves and one dependent.

Officers get 21 days of paid leave, which increases to 26 days after five years. Plus there are 11 paid holidays (paid out at 10 hours). The City contributes up to $1,526.66 per month for employee health insurance. Dental and vision insurance is provided for free, plus a $100,000 life insurance policy. Each officer gets a $1,600 annual uniform allowance, and a few other miscellaneous benefits.

So adding in the 7% pay raise a base level police officer can now earn up to $83,652 annually. If he works in the canine unit, has a bachelors degree, and is bilingual the base pay rises to $96,102. Add in a little overtime and it is no problem for a police officer to earn well into six figures. Of course, if that officer gets promoted to higher levels then compensation would rise accordingly. So it is easy to imagine that virtually all police officers will be promoted during the course of a 30 year career and retire with six figure pensions.

If you look at the City of Simi Valley fiscal year 2008-09 Budget it lists salary ranges for sworn positions as follows:

Police Officer Trainee: 49,649
Police Officer: 56,680 - 78,187
Police Sergeant: 74,131 - 102,148
Police Lieutenant: 98,724 - 127,160
Police Captain: 112,933 - 145,631
Chief of Police: 132,711 - 174,524

Keep in mind that these salaries are before the scheduled 7% increase. The police department has a personnel budget of $25,955,300, of which $14,115,500 is regular salaries. The overtime budget is $2,899,000. If you divide the overtime budget by the regular salaries budget overtime represents an incremental cost equivalent to 20% of regular salaries. So we can assume that, on average, police personnel earn about 20% of their annual salaries in additional overtime. So you can take the salaries above and increase them by 20%, plus the 7% increase to estimate what the average officer earns in annual compensation by pay grade. Which means that a police sergeant who is at the maximum pay scale, earning 20% in additional overtime pay, with a bachelors degree, plus adding in the new 7% pay increase should expect to earn around... $137,715!

Don't forget that the deluxe pension plan is also costing local taxpayers $4,457,500 per year, which represents the equivalent of 31.6% of salary. That means that it costs taxpayers $31,600 every year to just fund the pension plan for a police officer who has a base salary of $100,000 per year. Now with the steep losses in the stock market taxpayers should expect the cost of these pension benefits to rise dramatically in the next few years.

These salaries seem quite reasonable to me. The men and women who work as cops put their lives on the line every single day and deal with the worst that humanity has to offer. They protect our homes and businesses and streets and schools. Without them, we would have no civil society. (I do have some issues with the way overtime is paid out on such a regular basis, but such is the nature of emergency work... it cannot be completely anticipated).

If the pay and benefits of being a cop are so greatly exaggerated compared to jobs in the private sector how come so few of my high school students do not express the desire to join the force? Are they turning away potential applicants by the droves or are they boosting salaries and benefits just to attract competent, mentally sound employees?

The above should read: How come so few of my high school students express the desire to join the force? Sorry for the typo.

Melissa,

I agree with you that the figures don't look outrageous. That's why I think the salary information for public employees should be easy to find on the web.

Bubba,

Thanks for the information but what it doesn't present is the average pay. Teachers average pay for each school district are posted online. Do you think that information should be posted for firefighters and police officers too.

The total compensation package is hard to figure out when you point out that health care and pension benefits should be included too. For the record I ever said police pay was too high but I do believe that transparency usually increases trust from the public.

Bubba,
While these figures are certainly helpful in determining Simi Valley's compensation issues, I will remind you that this is a blog devoted to issues in the City of Ventura. So I hope anyone casually reading this understands that the above figures are for Simi Valley, which pays better than Ventura in all respects. And I agree with Melissa that they aren't out of line for people who we ask to take bullets for us.

I made a call and while I don't have figures in front of me yet, I can tell you this:

Simi Valley pays medical retirement benefits and Ventura doesn't. I am told Ventura is consistently one of the lower paying agencies in the tri counties. Ventura pays its police less than Oxnard, even below what a comparable sheriff's deputy could make.

But this is utterly beside the point, you can scream all you want about the $1million for our firefighters, but even if they had not done that, we would still be $12 million off from meeting expenses between now and '09-10. City services will be cut deeply. People will be laid off, parks could close, many things will be gone. It is serious. Other cities are facing the same dilemma: Santa Barbara is cutting $9 million.

The Wright library is just the tip of the iceberg.

Look, our city sales tax is still at the state minimum. It would be irresponsible not to at least ask the voters what they want to do.

I am done messing around here. I am being honest in what I have been told. I am advocating for a sales tax increase to be placed on the ballot. I would also like our employee unions to make some concessions.

Wright Library patrons: I am sorry. It won't be just the libraries which are closing.

The issue I have raised has been with excessive benefits, and with the practice of granting large pay increases during tough economic times when cutbacks are being made at the same time in other areas. One of the arguments being advanced for these high benefits, such as pension benefits equal to 90% of pay, is that public employees are poorly compensated, therefore the low pay is offset with generous benefits. But looking at these pay scales it is apparent that police officers are already very well paid. I don't know too many occupations where a person without a college degree can earn a six figure salary and have the type of benefits and job security that is offered to public safety employees.

Keep in mind that until recently most police officers and firefighters retired under 2% at 50 plans. I have yet to hear a rational argument that explains why the same occupation suddenly requires 50% higher pension benefits than prior generations of public servants. Why should any public employee be entitled to close to full pay at retirement? We have soldiers in our military who put their lives at risk, yet they don't draw six figure pensions at retirement.

And how does increasing pension benefits improve public safety or serve the public? It is simply a giveaway of tax dollars to politically connected public employee unions. The cost of benefits is so high that many departments now have open positions that they cannot afford to fill. So again, how is the public served by increasing pension benefits to existing employees when the result is less funds available to fully staff. It means less cops on the street and fewer firefighters on the job. Simi PD just increased salaries by 7%, but at the same time they announced that they now cannot fill several vacant positions.

These escalating costs also crowd out other programs. That means cuts to programs for the disabled, elderly, children, homeless, etc. It can also mean higher taxes on the public to fund benefit plans that are well beyond what is available to most Americans. How nice that you believe that these are reasonable costs, but if that is your belief then you should be willing to step forward and identify which programs to the public should be cut to pay for these benefits. This thread started with complaints that there wasn't available funds to keep a public library open. I'm pointing out why that money is no longer available. If you think that closing libraries is OK in order to jack up pension benefits to public employees then just say so, but don't pretend that increasing these costs has no affect on other programs. The City of Ventura committed $1.2 million in taxpayer money in perpetuity to fund these benefits. This money has to come from somewhere, so what programs should be cut to pay for these benefits?

Marie,

I am focusing on the Ventura issue. Specifically, why is the city council increasing the cost of public safety services during an economic downturn. If you are arguing that these employees are being underpaid then please show me some hard data that shows that rather than speculating that they are paid far less than other departments. All the information I have read shows that the department has had no problems with recruiting or retaining employees, which would be an indicator of whether compensation was reasonable. Just because other departments offer higher pay and benefits doesn't mean that the City of Ventura should be compelled to escalate salaries and benefits in response, especially if they can't afford it. If the department has no problems recruiting and retaining employees I would say there there is no problem with compensation. Besides, why should they participate in an unnecessary bidding war with other cities?

All you offer are vague references to unions making concessions. What concessions should they make? Are you suggesting that low paid clerks should make concessions so that firefighters can retire at 90% pay. Please be specific about what concession you would recommend. Shouldn't they have just held the line on expenses in the first place?

Bubba,

I will leave it to the unions to make up their own minds about what needs to be done. This fiscal crisis may be what remakes government.

In the mean time, it is what it is. Without the $1 million for our firefighters (who WERE having trouble recruiting, by the way) we are still $12 million in the hole. Santa Barbara is $9 million off, Thousand Oaks, $3.2 million off, Oxnard down $6.2 million in revenues (even with their sales tax increase).

I'm sure you can dredge up a controversial spending decision in nearly any city. The City of Oxnard is locked into subsidizing its Downtown theaters to the tune of $1.6 million a year for 25 years if they don't make a profit. They haven't yet. Now that they are building the other theaters in River Park, you can bet they won't.

Oxnard subsidizes theatres, builds over every square inch of land AND raises the sales tax. So far all you can complain about is that Ventura is compensating its HEROES too highly.

And, Bubba, your posts are too dang long. Nobody is reading all that. You can tell me I'm an idiot in half the amount of words. :-)

The fire department was having trouble recruiting? Please cite the information you have to reach that conclusion. I've seen no evidence of your claim.

Why is it that you just want to move on? Using the same reasoning then perhaps you shouldn't be complaining about banks who have received bailouts paying huge bonuses because, after all, "it is what it is". Why complain about the invasion of Iraq because, well, it's in the past so we should all just move on. You seem to have an interesting second set of standards when it comes to this issue.

According to your reasoning our local government can spend whatever money they want, whether they have it or not, and the taxpayers should just suck it up and pay more taxes if needed. Heck, we were already millions in the hole anyway, so what is an extra $1.2 million per year. Oops, I guess those stock market losses that hit the pension funds will cost a few million more than anticipated. Bad news again for taxpayers I guess.

And your classification of all firefighters as "HEROES" precludes having any type of rational conversation about compensation. Why not pay them all $1 million per year, after all, how can you put a price tag on putting your life on the line? Who cares what it costs, since taxpayers are, apparently, a bottomless well. Never mind that many of these taxpayers are losing their homes and delaying their own retirements. The greater good is having ordinary citizens kick in their fair share to pay for compensation packages to public employees who make far more money than the average citizen that they serve.

And are you seriously complaining about people contributing to your blog? I suppose if I sat around agreeing with you and giving you gushing praise then you would likely have no problem with the length of my posts. I guess it's easier to complain about the length of my comments then to actually attempt to give direct answers to direct questions. It is disappointing to witness you hide behind emotional arguments, like stating that our "HEROES" deserve to be "compensated fairly", regardless of the taxpayers ability to reasonably afford what you demand of them, or even providing a definition of what you mean by fair compensation. It seems that these public employees can demand whatever they want, and if we don't give it to them they are not being "fairly compensated". But I guess we can just "leave it up to the unions to make up their own minds what needs to be done". I predict that they will offer no concessions and recommend that we used a "balanced approach" of tax increases, followed by more tax increases. Problem solved.

Hey Marie, why don't you itemize for us all the tax increases that support in order to solve the local and state budget problems. In the past you supported a half-cent sales tax improve public safety funding. Now you are advocating another local sales tax dedicated to keeping our libraries open (now that we re-directed the existing money toward public safety pensions). You are also in support of the "balanced approach" to help balance the state budget, which includes a tripling of our vehicle license fee, taxing services like auto repairs, golf fees and legal services, and an additional one and one-half cent increase in the sales tax. You have also supported increasing the fees charged by local parking meters. Is there anything I'm missing?

Seems to me that your recipe for economic prosperity boils down to citizens paying more taxes and banning Walmart. But at least our heroic firefighters will have plenty of money to buy some of those nice home that will be going into foreclosure.

Bubba, I was kidding about the lengthy posts. You need to lighten up sometimes. We aren't that far apart here. I've said I think the unions need to rethink their positions in these difficult times. Perhaps an outside negotiator needs to be brought in. But what happens isn't my call to make.

I'm tired, so I'll just quote from the City Manager's blog, which explains it all very well, including the recruitment issues:

"...The reality is that Ventura residents expect first-class emergency response to medical emergencies, industrial accidents, toxic spills, natural disasters, and, yes, fires. Yet compared to the County (which serves Camarillo, Thousand Oaks and Simi Valley) we have long eaked out delivering that service with lower staffing levels; lesser equipment, stations and training facilities; and much lower pay and benefits (at one point, County fire captains were making $1000 a month more than our people, plus a significantly better pension.) Of course, as a result, our emergency protection costs less than it would cost for the County to provide it -- between $4-5 million according to a study done to look for cost savings. Instead, of course, it turned out that it would cost more.

So it is really a business decision. Today, we struggle to find and keep the top-flight talent that we can trust to open a breathing passage in your child's throat or handle an accidental release of an odorless poison or travel 400 miles to spend three weeks fighting wildfires under our mutual aid obligations. Contrary to outdated stereotypes, these college-educated, experienced professionals are not sleeping overnight to line up to qualify for these jobs. In fact, last year we went several months before we could find six recruits to put through the intense fire academy. Only five graduated, only four remain with us. Our standards are tough.

Reasonable people can second-guess labor contracts -- the split vote on the Council is an indication that balancing budgets and keeping the right talent are tough challenges. But no, we are not going bankrupt, nor has the City lost its mind. We have huge pension challenges as a nation -- but here in Ventura, we are working hard to keep the community safe. That comes at a cost -- both financial and in political terms. But safety is not something that any community can sell short. .."

Hey, I was also reading that the CTA is putting together a ballot measure for a one-cent sales tax increase dedicated to increasing school funding. Based on your unwaivering past support for teachers I imagine that you will also be supporting this tax increase as well. Then maybe we can implement some additional pension increases for our heroic teachers.

By my last count that would give your fellow citizens a sales tax rate of somewhere around 11 percent if we add in taxes for libraries, public safety, and balancing the state budget. That'll get the ol' economy kick started!

Just saw your last post.

You have grossly mischaracterized my support of the latest state budget proposals. I favor a more balanced approach as advocated by our recently retired legislative analyst. She advocated for reforms plus targeting special interest tax credits which are no longer serving their intended purpose. Some of her proposals have found their way into budgets; most have not.

We may have to rethink the vehicle license fee. One of the largest contributors to the state's spending is the reimbursements to local governments for money lost when our governor cut the VLF. It's a $6-billion annual state spending program.

I'm neutral on the meters Downtown.

Wal-Mart is free to move into the existing K-mart building. Our city's own citizen-generated General Plan and Victoria Corridor plan forbid a superstore at that location. The big-box initiative is pretty moot, in my opinion. I personally am not a Wal-Mart shopper. If it moves in, I won't buy anything there.

Bubba, how would you balance the state budget? You already posted here once that you were in favor of "revenue enhancements" (the PC term for taxes.)

Marie, I'm tired too. I've made my point. You are free to have your own opinions on the subject. Personally, I think your city manager is full of crap, so I don't take quotes from his blog as serious information. But it is your city, so it is up to community leaders, such as yourself, to decide your own direction. I still think that your budget situation will continue to deteriorate, and that your city finances are worse than you think. Only time will tell if I am right or wrong.

I think we can agree to disagree and move on to another topic. Goodnight.

It's easy for anonymous antigovernment Bubba from Seamy Valley to hurl insults at people doing their jobs in a town he knows little about. Your own city offers much higher compensation for police (even better now apparently) and it contracts with County Fire which also offers better packages, which is all passed on to your cities taxpayers. Offered a reasonable explanation, Bubba counters with Cole is "full of crap." This city made a decision to keep trained firefighters from jumping ship to surrounding cites like yours which pay better.

Where are the statistics that back up Cole's claims that the city struggles to "find and keep the top-flight talent"? He makes general statements without actual data to back it up. And I'm suppose to take that at face value? The only source of data provided on this thread to support the argument that firefighters needed a 50% increase in pension benefits comes from an opinion posted on a blog. Get serious.

According to the linked VC Star article, "union officials worry firefighters will abandon the department at an increasing rate. So far, however, that hasn't proven true. In the past four years, only four of 68 sworn individuals have left Ventura for better-paying fire departments". That means that the department has had, on average, a turnover rate of one person per year for sworn employees. Let's see, by my math that translates into a turnover rate of just 1.5%. So when Cole states that the city has a problem with finding and keeping top-flight talent he is obviously full of crap because it isn't supported by the facts.

And don't forget that the SEIU now want their own 2.7% at 55 contract. I guess you guys should go ahead and give it to them, even if you don't have the money. You can fund it by closing a few more local libraries.

What do you take at face value? Only that which supports your own arguments? Cole says his guys are struggling to find top talent but Simi Bubba knows better? Please provide data for city of Ventura which refutes Cole.

Bubba, one thing about your posts here does confuse me: You are obviously very unhappy about public employee unions statewide and because of that you don't want us here in Ventura to consider raising our sales tax from the state minimum via a vote by the voters, even though Oxnard did this already, offers better pay and incentives to its public safety employees and is also cutting its budget. (And subsidizing theatres at $1.6 million a year and financing its street repairs in controversial ways.)

But on another post on this blog you advocated for the state to raise revenues through increasing vehicle license fees. How is one OK, but another is not?

I am advocating for everyone to share the pain right now: taxpayers, unions, and users of public services. We will all have to sacrifice. I would also like to amp up public/private partnerships. I think this is a reasonable and fair position to take.

I accept any kind of data that backs up the argument. Cole says there is a problem retaining talent, but the data says otherwise. I have already refuted his argument by providing information that shows that the Ventura fire department has a turnover rate of just 1.5%. This information was published in the VC Star and has not been disputed by the fire department, city council, or by Rick Cole. If you have some information that in contrary to what I have posted then please provide it, rather than assuming that third party hearsay from a blog is true because one person says so. Besides, the city council should be making their decisions based on real facts, not conjecture. It is shameful that they are justifying the expenditure of millions of taxpayer dollars to supposedly fix a problem that, by any objective measure, doesn't exist.

If the citizens of your city are so gullible then maybe you deserve to have your library closed.

Cole said they were having trouble attracting talent. Provide evidence to the contrary to back up your arguments. Last year, the Fire Department went several months with six vacancies, which is nearly 10 percent of its workforce.

Marie, I have consistently stated that the state has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. The fact is that state spending has increased by 40% over just the past five years, which is inexcusable. However, I acknowledged that the only way to get out of this mess would likely require some form of tax increases. That doesn't make me an advocate for raising taxes, nor does it mean that I think that raising taxes in a bad economy is very smart. But we have put ourselves into a corner and simply don't have many options left. And the truth is that unions aren't voluntarily offering concessions or trying to be part of the solution, so I see no reason to be optimistic that we can make any meaningful cuts to the cost of government.

The same applies to your local library that is facing closure. There is probably no way to keep it open without considering new taxes. So now you are in a situation of having to make some hard choices. Do you pay more money for the same service, or do you let the library close? My point has always been that you shouldn't even be in this situation, and that there is a direct relationship between the recent pension benefit giveaways and the cutting of public services to pay for them. You can't pretend that they are completely independent of one another.

Then again, the firefighters union makes political endorsements and contributes large sums of money to political campaigns.

skip, I already provided the evidence. Your fire department has a turnover rate of 1.5%. That refutes Cole's argument.

The only reason why your department has vacancies is because they can't afford to fill the open positions. Your city council has already gone on record saying that the city need more funds in order to fully staff their public safety departments, which is why they pushed for the half-cent sales tax increase and imposed the controversial 911 fee. Increasing the cost of the pension plan will only make the problem worse.

Bubba, the library issue is far more complicated than that. It's a county library and from all I have been told will likely go away anyway in 2015 because of the lease difficulties.

The pension decision was made the first week in August, before all this trouble hit the fan. And it was already budgeted for. That's a fact I obviously did not make clear to you.

How do you feel about Oxnard's theater deal? That troubles me much more than compensating firefighters.

I've already blogged many times here and elsewhere why state spending has increased -- inflation, reimbursing local governments for their losses from the vehicle license fee cuts and spending on prisons.

Prison costs increased 6.7% each year and the car tax cut has cost the state about 25% more every year, on average. These are figures supplied by our state treasurer's office.

K-12 spending didn't keep up with inflation, welfare spending actually declined.

I need to get something else done now. Thanks for the posts. I think these are good discussions to have now.

Marie,

A big reason why prison costs have escalated is because their salaries have been tied to CHP salary scales. Your state legislators also approved an increase in their pension plan to... take a guess... 3% at 50. The same reasoning was used to justify the hike in pay and benefits for prison guards that is being used to justify increases for cops and firefighters. How then can you complain about the escalating costs of operating prisons? It is the same reason we are suffering from an escalating cost of government throughout the state. Giving away large pay and benefit increases to public employees costs money, and, absent finding additional sources of revenue, requires cutbacks in other programs to be funded. If you think that cops and firefighters should be able to enjoy early retirement at 90% pay, then why not prison guards? Your local SEIU believes that, in light of the recent pension increase for firefighters, their members should also receive a 35% pension increase to 2.7% at 55 (just like Orange County, which is in the middle of their own fiscal crisis). That would allow clerks and nurses to retire at 81% pay after 30 years. And why not? After all, aren't nurses "HEROES" too? All you need is the willingness to close a few more libraries and cut back on programs to the poor and homeless, then you can shower your local heroes with all the money they want.

And I am not buying your argument that five months ago your city council had no idea that there would be fiscal problems. Your city council had been complaining for years that there was inadequate funds for public safety, and even pursued a 1/2 cent sales tax increase and the now infamous 911 fee. Your fiscal problems have being going on for years. Plus, everybody in the nation knew that we were sliding into a deep recession, and the real estate bubble had already burst back in 2007. A member of the HJTA spoke at the meeting when they approved the increase and warned them that this was a ticking timebomb, and they chose to ignore him and pass it anyway. How then can you tell me with a straight face that they passed this before they knew there would be fiscal troubles?

A year ago the Council voted on competitive compensation for all employees as a goal, like it or not. It was before the economy started getting really bad. You can quibble if you want about whether any city should've looked at paying their employees competitively back then. I don't think anyone here could've predicted the depths to which our economy would plunge. I really don't.

The prison guards are out of control now, I completely agree with you on that one. They gave buckets of money to Tony Strickland's campaign and the local Republicans and made various large independent expenditures on his behalf.

As for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, that group has evolved from a grassroots organization into a gun for hire which takes money from Indian tribes and is now a destructive force in the state which attacks moderation and compromise.

Our city's credit rating was recently increased by Standard & Poors; we are a well managed city. That report made that clear.

Because we are an older, full-service city we have extra issues.

Even if we had not cleared the pensions for firefighters we would be $12 million in the hole right now.

As I write this my neighborhood is filling with smoke. There is a fire nearby. Some firefighter is probably out risking his life to put it out.

Enjoy your day. I am done.

The CCPOA gave lots of money to both republicans and democrats. It is silly for you to only mention their support for Strickland. They could not have achieved their influence in this state without strong support from the California democratic party. How quickly your forget that this is the same organization that gave $2 million to elect Gray Davis, and $200,000 to John Burton. I'm sure that the "buckets" of money that Strickland received from the CCPOA is nothing in comparison to what many democrats have taken from them. And I also make no distinction between CCPOA contributions and contributions from groups like trial lawyers and the CTA who shower millions on election campaigns for democrats, including people like Hannah Beth Jackson.

I'm writing something that I will post this weekend, Bubba. You will like it. Stay tuned. Send me an email if you want.

OK. I'm looking forward to it. Sounds like it's going to be long and complicated.

So much for the Ventura County LIBRARY!