Not much, but enough.
Either way the vote swings, it's a win-win situation for the
officials. Interestingly enough, if the hard-working residents of Burbank
don't vote the increase, the council members can still vote to up their
It's the principle.
(And just how much did each candidate spend on their respective
Here's some principle to drink in before you belly up to the voting
Mayor Bill Wiggins owns a plating company, Automation Plating.
Vice Mayor Bob Kramer is a retired house painter.
David Laurell is the editor of a collectibles magazine.
Stacy Murphy owns a transcribing service.
And Dave Golonski is an executive at Health Net.
It was only a few short years ago that a guilt-ridden Golonski
bellowed from his leather seat in he council chambers that pay increases
should be voted on by the residents, not the City Council members
It's the principle!
But fiscally, it's not cost effective. In total, a salary increase
would be an extra $2,600 annually. The election costs the city $2,000. In
sum, the election costs almost as much as the pay hike.
But don't forget, it's the principle.
And don't forget that Burbank, with this first-of-its-kind special
vote, is the only city in the state of California where voters get a say
in their city officials' salary increase each and every time.
If the pay hike doesn't pass, don't fret. Council members are already
on the winning team. In addition to the monthly paycheck, perks include
optional medical benefits that can total $8,453 annually, and monthly car
allowances -- $185 for mayor, $145 for vice mayor and $125 for the other
And if council members are fortunate enough to be voted into office at
least twice, the lucky winner is eligible after five years of service to
sign up with the Pubic Employee Retirement System, the largest retirement
system in the world, in which all California government employees are
The City Council's last salary increase was four years ago.
Maybe it should be their last.