I have lived here for many years and rarely agreed with Paulette Griffin...
Tonight, I agree. "I don't like the location at all!"
The City has always asked for respect...The Council should stay where they are until they can build their own facility or relocate to a place that is designated specifically as a City Hall.
Council Chambers
Moderator: Issa
Forum rules
Please follow the terms of use as illustrated on the main page of the forum. Only registered users may post in this forum. Classified posts and events must be posted in the Classifieds and Events forum. Thank you.
Please follow the terms of use as illustrated on the main page of the forum. Only registered users may post in this forum. Classified posts and events must be posted in the Classifieds and Events forum. Thank you.
City Hall
AmCan may buy Cabernet Village for City Hall
By KERANA TODOROV, Register Staff Writer
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Cabernet Village, a two-story office building near Napa Junction, could house American Canyon's City Hall one day.
The City Council voted unanimously Thursday to consider either acquiring the building or placing a modular unit on one of the city's parcels next door to the existing City Hall on Crawford Way.
Consultant William Chiat said the acquisition of Cabernet Village, a purchase he preliminarily estimated at $8.3 million, would make "good economic sense" for the city.
Councilwoman Cindy Coffey, however, disagreed with Chiat's recommendation, saying American Canyon cannot afford to buy the building.
"I think it's not a good time to do it," Coffey said. "To me, the modular is the most reliable solution." The councilwoman noted that the city already owns the land for the modular addition."
Ideally, down the road, City Hall should be located at the Town Center site...When and if that plan ever becomes a reality.
If I remember correctly, it was always the intention of previous councils after purchasing the land on Crawford that this would be an area the city would utilize for a temporary City Hall if expansion was needed. I would be interested as a tax payer as to what the price would be for these modular units. Also, I would hope the future use of these modules would be a consideration when they are originally set up. The City keeps growing. Several organizations have already out grown their current office space such as the Boys and Girls Club and the Post Office. These buildings could possibly be converted for use by the Family Resource Center, NVC classrooms and a Senior Center. I think what happens is in the past quick fixes have been made without thinking longterm.
I find $8.3 million dollars unacceptable for another temporary set-up for City use. If this is such a good investment for the City, why has so much of Cabernet Village been left empty for the past year? I would hope the Council will give this very serious consideration before jumping into a landlord tenant arrangement.
By KERANA TODOROV, Register Staff Writer
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Cabernet Village, a two-story office building near Napa Junction, could house American Canyon's City Hall one day.
The City Council voted unanimously Thursday to consider either acquiring the building or placing a modular unit on one of the city's parcels next door to the existing City Hall on Crawford Way.
Consultant William Chiat said the acquisition of Cabernet Village, a purchase he preliminarily estimated at $8.3 million, would make "good economic sense" for the city.
Councilwoman Cindy Coffey, however, disagreed with Chiat's recommendation, saying American Canyon cannot afford to buy the building.
"I think it's not a good time to do it," Coffey said. "To me, the modular is the most reliable solution." The councilwoman noted that the city already owns the land for the modular addition."
Ideally, down the road, City Hall should be located at the Town Center site...When and if that plan ever becomes a reality.
If I remember correctly, it was always the intention of previous councils after purchasing the land on Crawford that this would be an area the city would utilize for a temporary City Hall if expansion was needed. I would be interested as a tax payer as to what the price would be for these modular units. Also, I would hope the future use of these modules would be a consideration when they are originally set up. The City keeps growing. Several organizations have already out grown their current office space such as the Boys and Girls Club and the Post Office. These buildings could possibly be converted for use by the Family Resource Center, NVC classrooms and a Senior Center. I think what happens is in the past quick fixes have been made without thinking longterm.
I find $8.3 million dollars unacceptable for another temporary set-up for City use. If this is such a good investment for the City, why has so much of Cabernet Village been left empty for the past year? I would hope the Council will give this very serious consideration before jumping into a landlord tenant arrangement.
-
Rick Thein
- Wanderer
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:27 pm
- Location: American Canyon
About a year ago at a City Coucil Meeting they were discussing this topic. As I recall it was prior to the ouster of Mark Joseph. I approached Council at that time with the suggestion that they consider a joint venture with the Napa Judicial District to build a satalite Municipal Court House to serve the south county area. The court room for this could also be used as a city council chamber with the Judges Chambers serving for a closed session meeting room. My Step- Mother is the Mayor of the City of Clearlake and that is how they dealt with this situation. They have a very beautiful Court room and Council Chambers now.
When I spoke to council I saw a lot heads nodding approvingly, so I wonder why this option was not mentioned. It could save money for our citizens who have to use the court system or serve jury duty, the City would have a stable co-tennent, and with the south county area growing (not just American Canyon) a court house like this might be needed in the future. And it would fit in perfectly with the Town Center Project.
8 Million plus for a temporary chamber is not fiscaly responcible. And I don't like the Modular idea either. If you spend a little time in the modular buildings at the Middle School you will understand that this option is not going to be efficient.
When I spoke to council I saw a lot heads nodding approvingly, so I wonder why this option was not mentioned. It could save money for our citizens who have to use the court system or serve jury duty, the City would have a stable co-tennent, and with the south county area growing (not just American Canyon) a court house like this might be needed in the future. And it would fit in perfectly with the Town Center Project.
8 Million plus for a temporary chamber is not fiscaly responcible. And I don't like the Modular idea either. If you spend a little time in the modular buildings at the Middle School you will understand that this option is not going to be efficient.
DID ANYONE CONSIDER THIS ALTERNATIVE...?
There is a LARGE strip of land, just off James Road, adjacent to the current Am Can Post office cubile/kiosk, which is just waiting to be built upon. Why cant a temporary building be constructed there? One large room, with plenty of space for a large audiance, and WAY less than 8 MILLION dollars. And, it could be a non union construction, saving more money. Level the ground, pour the concrete slab, frame it and build it! Plus, if we do EVER see a perminant city council/city hall office built at the city center, this James/Crawford building could be rented out for weddings, receptions, civic meetings, etc... Its also NOT on the FAR north fringe of our city either.
Council Chambers
I didn't catch the entire meeting but after reading Dan Judge's article in yesterday's paper I would like to know why a remodel of the current City Hall could not be done. The old drive-thru for West America Bank should be removed and the building could be extended onto the adjacent lot. If you look closely at this building it is quite attractive. I cannot believe that the cost to add additional office space for the city staff could possibly warrant an $8.3 million dollar price-tag. Also, is this about extra office space in order to bring all depts back to one site? Or, is it about creating a new Council Chambers which is utilized for such a short period through out each month? If it is the latter, we've got a problem!
Also, what would the payments look like (including property tax) on the purchase of Cabernet Village? I hope the Council will not rush to make this decision and I think the Citizens of American Canyon better wake up!
Also, what would the payments look like (including property tax) on the purchase of Cabernet Village? I hope the Council will not rush to make this decision and I think the Citizens of American Canyon better wake up!
-
mindingcitybiz
- V.I.P.
- Posts: 254
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 3:30 pm
Spending $8.3 million is outragious. Remember when the new joint fire/police station was going to be built? The original quote was something like 2.7 million and now it is well over that figure at 7.4 million I believe. Feel free to correct my figures. The joint even includes the cost of a fire pole that will never be used, "because what is a fire department without a fire pole" Do you know how expensive that brass pole is? try $42 a foot and not to mention the cost for someone to paint the murial on the ceiling to go around the pole.
Our city needs to wise up. Cabernet Village is prime real estate. Why should we purchase prime real estate? Extension of the current building and adding a second floor should accomodate everything we need here in American Canyon. Like Rick said we should be able to offset the cost if we work with the county to build a chambers to service south co. City Council has no problem spending our tax dollars.
Our city needs to wise up. Cabernet Village is prime real estate. Why should we purchase prime real estate? Extension of the current building and adding a second floor should accomodate everything we need here in American Canyon. Like Rick said we should be able to offset the cost if we work with the county to build a chambers to service south co. City Council has no problem spending our tax dollars.
Cabernet Vilage is the best choice
I was asked to meet with the City Manager as part of (several) citizen groups to discuss this topic, prior to the City Council Meeting.
Of the 6 options presnented, the purchase of Cabernet Village, in my opinion is the best choice because:
a) Modulars, while are one-time expenditures, depreciate over time.
b) new construction will take approximately 3-4 years and the City would be require to pay escalating construction costs and union wages-at the time of construction.
c) The current leases for Cabernet Village are more than the monthly purchase cost-so this actually has the City realizing positive cash flow while they are occupying the building. The building will also realize appreciation. The normalized national appreciation rate for residential property is 6%, in CA it's about 9%.
"temporary" facility was described to be 5-7 years-and possibly as many as 10 years. Can you imagine what construction materials and union wages will be then?
After reading all the pros/cons-the decision is one many of us make daily: do we rent or buy a home? or lease buy a vehicle? After all these factors, the correct economic decision is to purchase an appreciating asset, which pays for itself and can be sold, in the future for a profit. Makes $en$e.
Of the 6 options presnented, the purchase of Cabernet Village, in my opinion is the best choice because:
a) Modulars, while are one-time expenditures, depreciate over time.
b) new construction will take approximately 3-4 years and the City would be require to pay escalating construction costs and union wages-at the time of construction.
c) The current leases for Cabernet Village are more than the monthly purchase cost-so this actually has the City realizing positive cash flow while they are occupying the building. The building will also realize appreciation. The normalized national appreciation rate for residential property is 6%, in CA it's about 9%.
"temporary" facility was described to be 5-7 years-and possibly as many as 10 years. Can you imagine what construction materials and union wages will be then?
After reading all the pros/cons-the decision is one many of us make daily: do we rent or buy a home? or lease buy a vehicle? After all these factors, the correct economic decision is to purchase an appreciating asset, which pays for itself and can be sold, in the future for a profit. Makes $en$e.
Can the City afford to pay property taxes on that 8.3 Million? I keep hearing that we have no money for this and that.
PS by the way- I HOPE the City isn't considering the Bocce Ball Courts. THAT would be a waste of money. That money should go to something that more than a few people might use... JMO
PS by the way- I HOPE the City isn't considering the Bocce Ball Courts. THAT would be a waste of money. That money should go to something that more than a few people might use... JMO
Council Chambers
Now I'm curious, VicRiv...What group were you representing when you met with the City Manager and who asked you. Also, what other residents were invited to participate in this meeting prior to the Council Meeting and what was their feedback as far as the options presented.
-
mindingcitybiz
- V.I.P.
- Posts: 254
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 3:30 pm
Why would it take 3 to 5 years to have an extension put on a building the city already owns? If a whole subdivision can be built and sold in a year and half maybe the city should start talking to the developers, or maybe they should consult with the developers for walmart, which was basically buillt in seven months once they began construction. Of course business are more efficient with their own money than government has ever been with taxpayer money.
Seriously, they could put out the bid for expansion construction could start with-in 3 months with expectation construction will be completed with in 9 months.
Of course now reality sets in, first the city council will want resident input, this will take 9 months to a year, then the city will put out a bid for an architect another year, third the council will want to have another town meeting for granduer on the project, then the council will finally vote to place advertisement for a developer, but it will be put on a future council agenda because the council members didn't have enough time determine the 3 x's the cost of the project and didn't think there were enough bells & whistles. A few months will go by and the council will vote and this time agree to place advertisement for a developer. 3 to 6 months will go by and the council will finally vote on a developer, by than the developer will come back and request more money for the project, because the city didn't project the cost of increase and forgot that you need more bathrooms, or omitted the doors for the conference room..... Now we are at more than two years later and the new mayor will announce a big celebration for groundbreaking for the expansion of city offices. Two months later ground will break and construction will start, then we will have delays, but our infrustructure cannot support the expansion for city offices and everything will come to a stand still. Yes looking back on the history of the city council I can see why you say it will take 3 to 5 years VicRiv.........](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall")
P.S. I am surprised they spoke to you Vic Riv usually they agree to pay an outside consultant 40k to 60K to advise them on how they should proceed. Besides I thought you were in sales.
Seriously, they could put out the bid for expansion construction could start with-in 3 months with expectation construction will be completed with in 9 months.
Of course now reality sets in, first the city council will want resident input, this will take 9 months to a year, then the city will put out a bid for an architect another year, third the council will want to have another town meeting for granduer on the project, then the council will finally vote to place advertisement for a developer, but it will be put on a future council agenda because the council members didn't have enough time determine the 3 x's the cost of the project and didn't think there were enough bells & whistles. A few months will go by and the council will vote and this time agree to place advertisement for a developer. 3 to 6 months will go by and the council will finally vote on a developer, by than the developer will come back and request more money for the project, because the city didn't project the cost of increase and forgot that you need more bathrooms, or omitted the doors for the conference room..... Now we are at more than two years later and the new mayor will announce a big celebration for groundbreaking for the expansion of city offices. Two months later ground will break and construction will start, then we will have delays, but our infrustructure cannot support the expansion for city offices and everything will come to a stand still. Yes looking back on the history of the city council I can see why you say it will take 3 to 5 years VicRiv.........
P.S. I am surprised they spoke to you Vic Riv usually they agree to pay an outside consultant 40k to 60K to advise them on how they should proceed. Besides I thought you were in sales.
More Council Chamber Questions
Besides the property tax expense what about an estimate on the leasehold improvements once this building is occupied. Are we just going to set up tables and folding chairs in a new location or are their plans to create a council chamber with a more permanent appearance?
How about the expense for a sign that identifies the building as City Hall?
What about costs for utilities such as computer hook-ups, phones etc.?
And how long are the leases that are currently in place for with the other tenants...1 yr, 2, 5?
Were all of these expenses in the equation when the group of select residents were presented with the options on this purchase?
How about the expense for a sign that identifies the building as City Hall?
What about costs for utilities such as computer hook-ups, phones etc.?
And how long are the leases that are currently in place for with the other tenants...1 yr, 2, 5?
Were all of these expenses in the equation when the group of select residents were presented with the options on this purchase?
responses
I was asked by Rich Ramirez. I represented myself, a citizen. I work for an registered investment advisor, our clients vary in assett size from $2M to $50B.
On a daily basis I review contracts, financial documents and the viability and profitability of financial institutions, including cashflows, revenues and liabilities. I have been in this line of work for almost 10 years-including being a guest speaker for industry sponsored conferences with attendees managing assets of over $3-4 Trillion.
AC94503: the costs included building design, construction, furniture, computer wiring and yes, chamber furniture.
All options were discussed thoroughly in a 10 page-now public document, presented to the Council during last TH's meeting.
Thanks
On a daily basis I review contracts, financial documents and the viability and profitability of financial institutions, including cashflows, revenues and liabilities. I have been in this line of work for almost 10 years-including being a guest speaker for industry sponsored conferences with attendees managing assets of over $3-4 Trillion.
AC94503: the costs included building design, construction, furniture, computer wiring and yes, chamber furniture.
All options were discussed thoroughly in a 10 page-now public document, presented to the Council during last TH's meeting.
Thanks
-
Paul Maguire
- V.I.P.
- Posts: 266
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:46 pm
- Location: American Canyon
- Contact:
Cabernet Village is a failed project as an office complex, because there is no reason to have an office complex on a 55 mph highway in the middle of nothing. As other lots get developed, it may blend eventually.
Granted, they have rented a few spots- but the developers know good and well they screwed up on this deal and want out bad as rumor has it.
Look at the office space on the corner of mini and broadway. Since the county moved out two years or so ago, its been vacant- they cannot rent it, they have not been able to sell it.
The concensus around town of those who are in development is that the building is butt ugly- and prior to the completion of the Gia Hotel, the ugliest new construction in town- now, I think the Gia holds that spot with its murials from Montana- it sure doesnt look like the "gateway to Napa Valley, does it'.
The upside is that rumor has it the owners are in trouble financially with the project, and its ripe for a buying. But 8.3 for that piece of DOO DUE is WAY too much money , especially in such an inferior location.
Its a common deal to throw a few leasees in there to make the numbers look good, but viability is the key. These are new leases, with no real track record.
The building would need to have the face redone, and hte front door moved to the front, not the rear. along with a face lift to make it look alot better.
It will have good views of the hills, and may make a great library, city hall chamber, mixed use type building- but certainly not city offices- there are in a great spot where they are. If the downstairs can be rented for now, and hte upstairs converted to useful space, this is one of those VERY RARE moments where I actually agree with Victor in some regard.
But the city seems to get small money ever time they sell a piece of city property, but seem to pay all the money and then some when they want something. That appears to be the case here too.
IF the city is going to buy this building, they should put a good amount of debt on it, and higher a professional commercial broker to represent them. IF they can not buy this building for under 7 million, they should let it sit. Its not going anywhere. Very few will pony up that kind of money to buy a mostly vacant building, even if its new, in that location, that looks like that.
The only viable use that will fill this building is government usage - otherwise, these owners are going to be sitting on a lot of empty sq footage for a long time. Its tough to get a take out loan on your construction financing with a building mostly vacant. IF they cant pay off the construction loan, they may end up in default, in which case ,the city should wait and buy it from the bank for a much lower number.
The city needs to consider as well other important cash needs, such as expansion of the wastewater treatment plant. But the city is going to need assets, and buying the bank building and that property was a good move. They could expand there too, and move out of Hess'es Canyon Plaza, putting all the admin at that location.
This idea of the town center is a pipe dream, and if it ever happens, likely 15-20 years out at least.
I hope this council will not screwup like it has in the past ( wastewater treatment failure, way off on budgets for costs, etc) costly us, the taxpayers and citizens an extra million or two ( or 3,)in overpaying for an inferior building, in an inferior location.
Granted, they have rented a few spots- but the developers know good and well they screwed up on this deal and want out bad as rumor has it.
Look at the office space on the corner of mini and broadway. Since the county moved out two years or so ago, its been vacant- they cannot rent it, they have not been able to sell it.
The concensus around town of those who are in development is that the building is butt ugly- and prior to the completion of the Gia Hotel, the ugliest new construction in town- now, I think the Gia holds that spot with its murials from Montana- it sure doesnt look like the "gateway to Napa Valley, does it'.
The upside is that rumor has it the owners are in trouble financially with the project, and its ripe for a buying. But 8.3 for that piece of DOO DUE is WAY too much money , especially in such an inferior location.
Its a common deal to throw a few leasees in there to make the numbers look good, but viability is the key. These are new leases, with no real track record.
The building would need to have the face redone, and hte front door moved to the front, not the rear. along with a face lift to make it look alot better.
It will have good views of the hills, and may make a great library, city hall chamber, mixed use type building- but certainly not city offices- there are in a great spot where they are. If the downstairs can be rented for now, and hte upstairs converted to useful space, this is one of those VERY RARE moments where I actually agree with Victor in some regard.
But the city seems to get small money ever time they sell a piece of city property, but seem to pay all the money and then some when they want something. That appears to be the case here too.
IF the city is going to buy this building, they should put a good amount of debt on it, and higher a professional commercial broker to represent them. IF they can not buy this building for under 7 million, they should let it sit. Its not going anywhere. Very few will pony up that kind of money to buy a mostly vacant building, even if its new, in that location, that looks like that.
The only viable use that will fill this building is government usage - otherwise, these owners are going to be sitting on a lot of empty sq footage for a long time. Its tough to get a take out loan on your construction financing with a building mostly vacant. IF they cant pay off the construction loan, they may end up in default, in which case ,the city should wait and buy it from the bank for a much lower number.
The city needs to consider as well other important cash needs, such as expansion of the wastewater treatment plant. But the city is going to need assets, and buying the bank building and that property was a good move. They could expand there too, and move out of Hess'es Canyon Plaza, putting all the admin at that location.
This idea of the town center is a pipe dream, and if it ever happens, likely 15-20 years out at least.
I hope this council will not screwup like it has in the past ( wastewater treatment failure, way off on budgets for costs, etc) costly us, the taxpayers and citizens an extra million or two ( or 3,)in overpaying for an inferior building, in an inferior location.
-
mindingcitybiz
- V.I.P.
- Posts: 254
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 3:30 pm
Ok so we pay 8.7 million for the building. Property taxes are 1%, + the additional unsecured property tax for napa county, and interest rates are currently around 6.5% assuming business properties get the same rate is residential properties. You have tenants who I would assume are on a five year lease which means majority of them have about 4 to 4 1/2 years left on their lease. So I guess American Canyon tax payers would be picking up the tab for the difference.
I have a great idea. Why doesn't "Impact 94503" raise the money to build council chambers and they could name the building after their group and spend as much money as they want, because its their money. You can even have the pleasure of showboating and patting each other on the back, calling us tightwad conservatives who just want to waste money on improving the infrustructure.
I have a great idea. Why doesn't "Impact 94503" raise the money to build council chambers and they could name the building after their group and spend as much money as they want, because its their money. You can even have the pleasure of showboating and patting each other on the back, calling us tightwad conservatives who just want to waste money on improving the infrustructure.
Council Chambers
I hate to say it but...I do believe that there is not a current Council Member that is qualified (based on their prior experience) to make this decision. I am not qualified to make this decision either and glad it is not my responsibility.
Regardless of Mr. Maguire's suit...I hope all of you will read what his take is on this deal to purchase Cabernet Village. This type of issue, Mr. Maguire, is where you could have been an educator to both the Council and Community of AC, if you would have run for a Council Seat. I recognize it and I'm sure others do.
I am surprised that within 3 months of the last election Council Members are asked to make a decision on such an important issue. Why now? Put it on hold like everything else until you have more information from several "qualified" individuals. Don't rush to satisfy a few!
Regardless of Mr. Maguire's suit...I hope all of you will read what his take is on this deal to purchase Cabernet Village. This type of issue, Mr. Maguire, is where you could have been an educator to both the Council and Community of AC, if you would have run for a Council Seat. I recognize it and I'm sure others do.
I am surprised that within 3 months of the last election Council Members are asked to make a decision on such an important issue. Why now? Put it on hold like everything else until you have more information from several "qualified" individuals. Don't rush to satisfy a few!
Not a new topic
This is NOT a new topic. The idea of a city hall complex has been discussed for years. Due to the snail pace of all things bureaucratic, this is FINALLY being presented to the City Council. ..and by the way--IF that decision had been made BACK THEN, a) the construction costs projections would have skyrocketed and b) interest rates would have also increased dratically. In the current market conditions-this could be a very sound decision-IF THE CORRECT SALES PRICE IS AGREED UPON.
I also disagree about 'qualified' people making this decision. IF all the background information is done correctly, and presented correctly-then an informed decision is made.
Callison is a succcessful business owner. Bennett, Garcia and West have experience with large budgets due to employment experiences. Coffey is/was a small business owner.
Maguire is a successful business person and can participate in the debate if he chooses, despite his opinions about the Gia's mural
As for the traffic and location-they are both being worked on and (like this project) will eventually be addressed.
I also disagree about 'qualified' people making this decision. IF all the background information is done correctly, and presented correctly-then an informed decision is made.
Callison is a succcessful business owner. Bennett, Garcia and West have experience with large budgets due to employment experiences. Coffey is/was a small business owner.
Maguire is a successful business person and can participate in the debate if he chooses, despite his opinions about the Gia's mural
As for the traffic and location-they are both being worked on and (like this project) will eventually be addressed.
Council Chambers
VicRiv,
Sorry, but it is time to put egos aside!
I think the purchase of this building for whatever City purposes is probably already a "done deal". So I guess we can say..."Business as usual in AC"... Just My Opinion.
Sorry, but it is time to put egos aside!
I think the purchase of this building for whatever City purposes is probably already a "done deal". So I guess we can say..."Business as usual in AC"... Just My Opinion.
-
49erf8fuls
- Frequent Visitor
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:45 pm
No campaign finance papers in for big spender in AmCan elections
By KERANA TODOROV, Register Staff Writer
Sunday, February 11, 2007
The final cost of American Canyon's first mayoral race in November remains unknown.
The already-established top spender in the three-person contest, Paul Maguire, a real estate investor, former chiropractor and former Napa Valley Casino owner, did not file campaign finance papers due Jan. 31, according to City Hall.
Maguire, who lost in November in his third try for a city council seat, spent more than $42,000 of his own money between January 2006 and Oct. 31, according to past campaign finance forms filed at City Hall in the fall.
State law requires candidates and political campaigns to disclose financial and in-kind contributions and expenditures before and after the elections if they total more than $1,000.
Maguire ran twice last year. His other unsuccessful bid was the June special election, won by Joan Bennett. Bennett replaced longtime City Council member Lori Luporini who resigned last March under fire.
Leon Garcia, who was elected mayor in November, raised $8,661 and spent about $6,920 on his campaign, his reports filed at City Hall on Jan. 31 indicate. His campaign committee, Friends of Leon Garcia, raised and spent another $950, according to the filings.
Cindy Coffey's records indicated she received about $9,709 in campaign contributions. Her campaign filings also indicate she spent $9,965 and ended $1,934 in the red.
Coffey continues to serve on the city council even though she lost her mayoral bid because her four-year term as a regular city council member lasts to 2008.
Interim City Clerk Marilynn Linn last week said she would send reminders to those who did not file on time. Eventually, she will forward the names of non-filers to the California Fair Practices Commission, the state bipartisan commission that enforces political campaign laws.
"But nobody wants to do that," she also said.
Maguire could not be reached for comment.
American Canyon voters chose a mayor and two new City Council members in two elections in June and in November. Campaign filings showed expenses for two campaigns if the candidates ran twice in 2006.
Garcia shared campaign expenses with Ed West and Don Callison, both of whom won their bids for City Council, according to campaign filings.
John T. Miller, who ran in June and in November, raised $20,950 and spent $26,313 on his two unsuccessful City Council bids in 2006, according to his filings.
Miller, who received financial support from labor unions, raised $8,100 and spent $9,641 between July 1 and Dec. 31, his records also showed. He still owes $5,534, according to the records.
West, who also ran in June and in November for City Council, raised a total of $16,783 for his two campaigns and spent $17,250, according to his campaign forms. He has an outstanding debt of $2,150 from his two campaigns, according to the records. The debt is a loan to himself.
West's filings also show he raised $4,583 and spent $3,573 between Oct. 22 and Dec. 31.
Callison, who only ran in the fall elections in 2006, said he raised $5,216 and spent $5,237 on his campaign.
Former Mayor Cecil Shaver raised $5,226 and spent $6,100 on his unsuccessful re-election bid, according to his campaign forms. His expenses included $3,302 paid to the Napa County Elections Division for the ballot recount he requested after preliminary elections results placed him third, according to the filings.
The other former City Council candidates -- Kymberlee Gilson, James Walker and Bill Russell -- have repeatedly said they have raised less than $1,000 in 2006.
Guess some people still cant follow the rules.
By KERANA TODOROV, Register Staff Writer
Sunday, February 11, 2007
The final cost of American Canyon's first mayoral race in November remains unknown.
The already-established top spender in the three-person contest, Paul Maguire, a real estate investor, former chiropractor and former Napa Valley Casino owner, did not file campaign finance papers due Jan. 31, according to City Hall.
Maguire, who lost in November in his third try for a city council seat, spent more than $42,000 of his own money between January 2006 and Oct. 31, according to past campaign finance forms filed at City Hall in the fall.
State law requires candidates and political campaigns to disclose financial and in-kind contributions and expenditures before and after the elections if they total more than $1,000.
Maguire ran twice last year. His other unsuccessful bid was the June special election, won by Joan Bennett. Bennett replaced longtime City Council member Lori Luporini who resigned last March under fire.
Leon Garcia, who was elected mayor in November, raised $8,661 and spent about $6,920 on his campaign, his reports filed at City Hall on Jan. 31 indicate. His campaign committee, Friends of Leon Garcia, raised and spent another $950, according to the filings.
Cindy Coffey's records indicated she received about $9,709 in campaign contributions. Her campaign filings also indicate she spent $9,965 and ended $1,934 in the red.
Coffey continues to serve on the city council even though she lost her mayoral bid because her four-year term as a regular city council member lasts to 2008.
Interim City Clerk Marilynn Linn last week said she would send reminders to those who did not file on time. Eventually, she will forward the names of non-filers to the California Fair Practices Commission, the state bipartisan commission that enforces political campaign laws.
"But nobody wants to do that," she also said.
Maguire could not be reached for comment.
American Canyon voters chose a mayor and two new City Council members in two elections in June and in November. Campaign filings showed expenses for two campaigns if the candidates ran twice in 2006.
Garcia shared campaign expenses with Ed West and Don Callison, both of whom won their bids for City Council, according to campaign filings.
John T. Miller, who ran in June and in November, raised $20,950 and spent $26,313 on his two unsuccessful City Council bids in 2006, according to his filings.
Miller, who received financial support from labor unions, raised $8,100 and spent $9,641 between July 1 and Dec. 31, his records also showed. He still owes $5,534, according to the records.
West, who also ran in June and in November for City Council, raised a total of $16,783 for his two campaigns and spent $17,250, according to his campaign forms. He has an outstanding debt of $2,150 from his two campaigns, according to the records. The debt is a loan to himself.
West's filings also show he raised $4,583 and spent $3,573 between Oct. 22 and Dec. 31.
Callison, who only ran in the fall elections in 2006, said he raised $5,216 and spent $5,237 on his campaign.
Former Mayor Cecil Shaver raised $5,226 and spent $6,100 on his unsuccessful re-election bid, according to his campaign forms. His expenses included $3,302 paid to the Napa County Elections Division for the ballot recount he requested after preliminary elections results placed him third, according to the filings.
The other former City Council candidates -- Kymberlee Gilson, James Walker and Bill Russell -- have repeatedly said they have raised less than $1,000 in 2006.
Guess some people still cant follow the rules.
Campaign Funds
De-ja vue! I find the timing of this article very interesting. Wonder why the Register decided to research this now?
Also, a question...Mayor Garcia collected more than he spent. What happens with this extra $1,741?
Also, a question...Mayor Garcia collected more than he spent. What happens with this extra $1,741?
-
mookienunu
- V.I.P.
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:57 am
- Location: american canyon
campaign funds
Oh what a suprise to see that Ms. Coffey ran her campaign in the red almost $2000.00. Which just goes to say that both personally and professionally she cannot manage her finances. And to think, she wanted to run a city. Take some financial management courses would you!!
-
mindingcitybiz
- V.I.P.
- Posts: 254
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 3:30 pm
-
mookienunu
- V.I.P.
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:57 am
- Location: american canyon
It is what it is!!
M.C.B. if you are a true friend of Ms. Coffey, why don't you help her out. And I do have a life and it is going quite well, thank you. I don't live beyond my means and try to impress people with things that I don't have, I prefer to keep it real.
WOW
Ignoring the public’s right to know
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
If you can’t handle the rules, you shouldn’t play the game.
Last Friday marked the latest deadline for candidates to turn in campaign finance documents to elections authorities. The documents are required to show money spent between Oct. 22 and Dec. 31 with overall totals for the election held Nov. 7, 2006.
Paul Maguire. a candidate for mayor, failed to turn the documents in. Other candidates for office in American Canyon did turn in the disclosures, while a few AmCan candidates were not required to do so because they did not engage in fundraising.
Based on earlier campaign finance reports, Maguire will almost certainly turn out to be the leader in money raised and spent in the November election in American Canyon.
But registered voters decided not to make him the leader at the polls, which is understandable since he had almost no personal presence in town during the campaign, ended up suing the city regarding where he could put campaign signs and has not played nearly as active a role in civic life as his rivals.
His disregard of campaign finance law proves again his selective interest in the public or the public’s right to know. This is even more the case because it was Maguire’s second run for office. He managed to create television ads and a campaign DVD — pretty sophisticated stuff for American Canyon — but he did not file documents required under California law.
Campaign finance information says a lot about a candidate, offering information about his or her supporters that inevitably sheds light on likely legislative goals and priorities. That’s why the federal government, California and many other states have laws requiring periodic disclosure of campaign finance data.
There are not many requirements for those who decide to seek public office, but a reasonable one is that they abide by campaign laws. Too bad Maguire isn’t up to the task.
Just wondering who wrote this?
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
If you can’t handle the rules, you shouldn’t play the game.
Last Friday marked the latest deadline for candidates to turn in campaign finance documents to elections authorities. The documents are required to show money spent between Oct. 22 and Dec. 31 with overall totals for the election held Nov. 7, 2006.
Paul Maguire. a candidate for mayor, failed to turn the documents in. Other candidates for office in American Canyon did turn in the disclosures, while a few AmCan candidates were not required to do so because they did not engage in fundraising.
Based on earlier campaign finance reports, Maguire will almost certainly turn out to be the leader in money raised and spent in the November election in American Canyon.
But registered voters decided not to make him the leader at the polls, which is understandable since he had almost no personal presence in town during the campaign, ended up suing the city regarding where he could put campaign signs and has not played nearly as active a role in civic life as his rivals.
His disregard of campaign finance law proves again his selective interest in the public or the public’s right to know. This is even more the case because it was Maguire’s second run for office. He managed to create television ads and a campaign DVD — pretty sophisticated stuff for American Canyon — but he did not file documents required under California law.
Campaign finance information says a lot about a candidate, offering information about his or her supporters that inevitably sheds light on likely legislative goals and priorities. That’s why the federal government, California and many other states have laws requiring periodic disclosure of campaign finance data.
There are not many requirements for those who decide to seek public office, but a reasonable one is that they abide by campaign laws. Too bad Maguire isn’t up to the task.
Just wondering who wrote this?
Oh would you look at that- an article with no name on it. Hmmmm. Unbelievable, attack Cindy for what ALL PAPERS do.
Just a quick statement about Cindy Coffey. She helped members of this community when they needed help with food. She helped a family when the father lost his job by giving him work to do. Look at yourselves before you jump on her. She's been there for this community and she asks questions when they should be asked. That's what we hired her to do.
Just a quick statement about Cindy Coffey. She helped members of this community when they needed help with food. She helped a family when the father lost his job by giving him work to do. Look at yourselves before you jump on her. She's been there for this community and she asks questions when they should be asked. That's what we hired her to do.
-
mookienunu
- V.I.P.
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:57 am
- Location: american canyon
So let me see if I have this right, being that this is still a small town and word gets around. The father that lost his job and Cindy gave him work, this would probably be Cindys good friend Paulettes "adopted " son that we have heard so much about and have seen Paulette out and about with. I have heard about the adopted sons extensive criminal history and judging by what I have heard there is a reason he would have employment issues. So this would be another case of "Look at me look at me I'm important" from your friend Miz Coffey. It's all about appearances.
Nice Mookie- If it truly were for appearances, you all would have heard about it. It was no one related to Paulette, in fact, Paulett and her family have no idea who these families were. Always have to make things into dirt. There are some truly wonderful people in our community and you CLEARLY are not one of them. You make me 
. Today was a wonderful day. It was about people helping people, it's about externding a helping hand to someone even if you can't afford it yourself. Something you would know nothing about.
. Today was a wonderful day. It was about people helping people, it's about externding a helping hand to someone even if you can't afford it yourself. Something you would know nothing about.-
mookienunu
- V.I.P.
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:57 am
- Location: american canyon
Council Chambers
According to this article the price tag in 2 weeks has gone to $9 million with the improvements that would be required for this building to serve the City. For less than the estimated improvements an 8,000 square foot building could be built next to the existing City Hall.
Council weighs options for AmCan City Hall
By KERANA TODOROV
Register Staff Writer
Thursday, February 15, 2007
The American Canyon City Council may decide tonight whether to purchase a $7.2 million building along Highway 29 to house City Hall.
Cabernet Village, a two-story building facing Highway 29 and the Napa Junction development, which opened in 2006, is home to various businesses.
In addition to the purchase price, the city would need another $1.8 million to transform the second floor of the 25,444 square-foot building into the city’s council chambers and administrative offices, according to a report released this week.
The move would allow the city to place all of its offices and its City Council chambers under one roof.
Cabernet Construction developed the property and owns the building.
City Hall occupies a former bank site on Crawford Way. In addition, the city leases space at Canyon Plaza for planning, engineering and building staff; municipal meetings are at a recreation center.
Other options the City Council could entertain include leasing space at Cabernet Village or spending an estimated $1.4 million to install a 8,000 square-foot building on city land next to City Hall.
City officials have said any new location, including the Cabernet Village building, would be an “interim” city hall while they look for a permanent solution. No timeline has been set for how long they would occupy temporary space.
The move to Cabernet Village could “free up the existing city hall” for “other community uses,” or the property could be sold, according to the analysis attached to City Manager Rich Ramirez’s staff report.
American Canyon’s city officials have explored moving City Hall for years.
In 2003 the city put plans to build a new city hall for $3 million on the back burner, when bids came back more than $1 million over preliminary estimates, according to city reports and former city manager Mark Joseph.
Architect Mark Lopez of Architectural Network on Wednesday said the drawings for the building — a 9,400 square-foot, one-story building near city hall on Crawford Way — remain available to the city.
Former Mayor Cecil Shaver said the city’s biggest need is to have City Council chambers and space to meet in closed sessions. Council members should have their own offices to meet the public, Shaver said.
Mayor Leon Garcia and Vice Mayor Joan Bennett said they want to discuss the options before making up their minds.
Bennett, however, said the city should own its city hall instead of spending money on a lease.
“Why should you just keep paying rent somewhere?” Bennett said.
Sherry Tennyson, executive director of the American Canyon Family Resource Center, a group that tries to bring social and other services to American Canyon, said the current city hall building could be renovated into a place where social services could be offered.
Land for a city hall or a civic building has been set aside at Town Center, a 100-acre retail and residential project under development at the site of a former cement plant on the east side of Highway 29.
More recently, however, discussions have focused on a civic building rather than a city hall.
Mike Anderson, a vice president at McGrath Properties Inc. of Oakland, said Town Center could break ground in late 2008 or early 2009.
“The Town Center Project will set aside land for a ‘civic use,’” Anderson wrote in an e-mail Wednesday. “(This) could be a site for a future City Hall, Community Center, etc.
“It is really up to the city to decide. They will hold the land and determine what uses to there.”
Rick Hess of Canyon Plaza, where the city leases a suite, said “(The) city’s got to figure out what it’s in their best interest.”
Tenants on the first floor of the Cabernet Village building include Napa Land Title, the American Canyon School of Music, Cabernet Village and a law firm, Gravett & Frater.
What
American Canyon City Council meeting
When
7:30 p.m. today
Where
Recreation Center, 2185 Elliott Drive, American Canyon
Council weighs options for AmCan City Hall
By KERANA TODOROV
Register Staff Writer
Thursday, February 15, 2007
The American Canyon City Council may decide tonight whether to purchase a $7.2 million building along Highway 29 to house City Hall.
Cabernet Village, a two-story building facing Highway 29 and the Napa Junction development, which opened in 2006, is home to various businesses.
In addition to the purchase price, the city would need another $1.8 million to transform the second floor of the 25,444 square-foot building into the city’s council chambers and administrative offices, according to a report released this week.
The move would allow the city to place all of its offices and its City Council chambers under one roof.
Cabernet Construction developed the property and owns the building.
City Hall occupies a former bank site on Crawford Way. In addition, the city leases space at Canyon Plaza for planning, engineering and building staff; municipal meetings are at a recreation center.
Other options the City Council could entertain include leasing space at Cabernet Village or spending an estimated $1.4 million to install a 8,000 square-foot building on city land next to City Hall.
City officials have said any new location, including the Cabernet Village building, would be an “interim” city hall while they look for a permanent solution. No timeline has been set for how long they would occupy temporary space.
The move to Cabernet Village could “free up the existing city hall” for “other community uses,” or the property could be sold, according to the analysis attached to City Manager Rich Ramirez’s staff report.
American Canyon’s city officials have explored moving City Hall for years.
In 2003 the city put plans to build a new city hall for $3 million on the back burner, when bids came back more than $1 million over preliminary estimates, according to city reports and former city manager Mark Joseph.
Architect Mark Lopez of Architectural Network on Wednesday said the drawings for the building — a 9,400 square-foot, one-story building near city hall on Crawford Way — remain available to the city.
Former Mayor Cecil Shaver said the city’s biggest need is to have City Council chambers and space to meet in closed sessions. Council members should have their own offices to meet the public, Shaver said.
Mayor Leon Garcia and Vice Mayor Joan Bennett said they want to discuss the options before making up their minds.
Bennett, however, said the city should own its city hall instead of spending money on a lease.
“Why should you just keep paying rent somewhere?” Bennett said.
Sherry Tennyson, executive director of the American Canyon Family Resource Center, a group that tries to bring social and other services to American Canyon, said the current city hall building could be renovated into a place where social services could be offered.
Land for a city hall or a civic building has been set aside at Town Center, a 100-acre retail and residential project under development at the site of a former cement plant on the east side of Highway 29.
More recently, however, discussions have focused on a civic building rather than a city hall.
Mike Anderson, a vice president at McGrath Properties Inc. of Oakland, said Town Center could break ground in late 2008 or early 2009.
“The Town Center Project will set aside land for a ‘civic use,’” Anderson wrote in an e-mail Wednesday. “(This) could be a site for a future City Hall, Community Center, etc.
“It is really up to the city to decide. They will hold the land and determine what uses to there.”
Rick Hess of Canyon Plaza, where the city leases a suite, said “(The) city’s got to figure out what it’s in their best interest.”
Tenants on the first floor of the Cabernet Village building include Napa Land Title, the American Canyon School of Music, Cabernet Village and a law firm, Gravett & Frater.
What
American Canyon City Council meeting
When
7:30 p.m. today
Where
Recreation Center, 2185 Elliott Drive, American Canyon
Cabernet Village
Well, as I said, "Business as usual in AC". I hope you guys know what you are doing, I would love to be wrong.
Also, Cindy thank you for standing up for what you believe and I'm sorry the support was not there for you tonight.
One last comment, as a resident for 20 something years I have only had to visit the city hall once...I never really payed attention to what the building looked like I was more concerned on getting what I needed in a quick manner.
Enjoy your new home!
Also, Cindy thank you for standing up for what you believe and I'm sorry the support was not there for you tonight.
One last comment, as a resident for 20 something years I have only had to visit the city hall once...I never really payed attention to what the building looked like I was more concerned on getting what I needed in a quick manner.
Enjoy your new home!
-
mindingcitybiz
- V.I.P.
- Posts: 254
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 3:30 pm
This whole cabernet village is a mark joseph deal holdover. a rogue city council will get you in debt even deeper. Mr. West said our finances are in good standing. Hmmm! Then why haven't they done the work on kimberely field? How come we are having problems with our sewer plant? The biggest question everyone should be asking themselves is why did the council vote on it so quick, no study, no input from the community. Majority of the people I talk to were stunned the council pulled another fast one. Why would anyone vote for three people knowing their only getting one idea is just beyond me. Enjoy your three amigos, cuz it is costing us a fortunate.
Council Chambers
AmCan should wait
By Times-Herald readers
Article Launched: 02/22/2007 07:31:35 AM PST
The American Canyon City Council needs more office and meeting space and is contemplating purchasing the newly completed office building at Napa Junction Road and Highway 29. I would strongly suggest that any action of this matter should be delayed until the Wal-Mart matter is decided.
Even if the city has the finances for this purchase, it would be wise to wait. I believe that if Wal-Mart loses and is not able to open, it will sue the city. This means that the city will not have the funds to purchase a dog house but will have a gigantic structure (the deserted Wal-Mart building) that should more than meet any needs for office space and maybe even another fire station.
Robert Budd, American Canyon
By Times-Herald readers
Article Launched: 02/22/2007 07:31:35 AM PST
The American Canyon City Council needs more office and meeting space and is contemplating purchasing the newly completed office building at Napa Junction Road and Highway 29. I would strongly suggest that any action of this matter should be delayed until the Wal-Mart matter is decided.
Even if the city has the finances for this purchase, it would be wise to wait. I believe that if Wal-Mart loses and is not able to open, it will sue the city. This means that the city will not have the funds to purchase a dog house but will have a gigantic structure (the deserted Wal-Mart building) that should more than meet any needs for office space and maybe even another fire station.
Robert Budd, American Canyon