City Of American Canyon Online Community Forums

A recent approval by the city council for re-imbursement of 300.00 plus dollars per month, is probably too low.

Few realize all the running around council members actually do to represent the city and it's interests.

$100.00 per week would be a closer number, and even that is conservative. Internet access, vehicle expenses including gas, insurance, maintenance, telephone, and so on , are all necessary expenses in order to attend functions that relate directly or indirectly with city business.

It is not reasonable to ask the council to provide dollar per dollar reciepts for such a small amount of common, reasonable expenses up to $400.00 per month. Over and above that, ok, sure, or maybe even costs in excess of $50.00 or $100.00. But an expense allowance of $100.00 per week is completely reasonable, and they are not even asking for that.

Elected officials have the public trust, and are elected. Therefor, it is to follow, that they should BE TRUSTED. Also, the law on use of public money is thorough enough to protect us.

$400.00 per month is completely reasonable, and chasing after small reciepts for this is just a waste of council and staff time. It would cost more to track it than to just pay it for one council person. Staff has enough to do already.

On that point, our finance director recently asked for and was granted additional help. That was good call in my book. She. very sincerely in my opinion, advised the council of her late nights at the office and this was confirm by one of hte council members. The city is growing, and the demands of the state and other laws require many hours of work.

Staff should not work for free. Nor, should they be expected too.

Just as reasonable, it should not cost our council members money to be on the council. The pay they get is too low already, and the expenses requested are probably too low as well, but certainly reasonable.

Anyone in business knows that going through $100.00 a week running around to meetings, taking phone calls, paying for an internet service to communicate, and other such expenses are a necessity to work.

Some would argue this is not reasonable, that they should account for every dime, and so on. The problem with this argument, is that it can cost as much in time and accounting in going through all the receipts than just paying a set amount as an expense. Such arguments are simply a waste of council time.

Lets talk about the important issues of the day, like finding the millions needed to finish the projects in the pipeline, traffic mitigation and road work, the veterans park completion, low income housing offset fees, revisiting the town green to add a public restroom, and providing the council and staff with positive constructive feedback, not a bunch of nagging about a non issue.

Or if the residents think 300.00 is too high then maybe they should have the city supply a gas card and pay for their phone line since they have no office in city hall. They have to use their phones or a cell phone and their internet service and the ink for the letters they write. Let's see I think with just one tank of gas and these other expenses I listed we are already close to 300.00.
Even my petty cash amount is higher then 300.00 a month. If they spend over 50.00 on something then they should have to show for what to show it was required.
I know at least three of them drive quite alot just to make their meetings required of them.
I think this needs to be addressed again.

One council member did say that he felt he did not deserve this amount since his time has been downsized...That possibly hurt the rest of the council in coming up with a solution...I totally agree that council members should not eat the cost of city expenses...
And definitely, reimbursement within a reasonable time...
I have no problem with watching billing for 3 months and revisit the issue.

Track for 60 or 90 days, it will be at least 400.00 a month- it might be 600.00 a month- thus, whatever it turns out to be, average it out, and there you have it.

We would be better off to just provide $100.00 per work for expenses- that is one heck of alot cheaper than paying someone to keep track of it all, or providing office space for council, or other costs we dont have with the current set up.

Like I said, its a very minor budget item. Petty cash, really.

Bad decisions cost money. If you are not sure of that, look at the litigation fees cities endure when they mess up-that is ANY city all over the state.

Lets make good decisions, and on issues like this, make a decision, and move on to important items, large dollar items, critical city wide items.

In my view of expense re imbursement, the article today proves the point.

When you look at what council members claimed in expenses, it is rather obvious that they way underclaimed costs and expenses.

Here is what they claimed according to the paper

Luporini 1434.00
Anderson 215.00
Shaver 45.00
Garcia 495.00

This is for the ENTIRE YEAR. YA RIGHT.

The bottom line is that council members are not tracking expenses, and not getting reimbursed for them. The city should not take advantage of thier poor record keeping, unwillingness to charge the city for thier expenses, or allow them to pay for items that they should not be paying for to conduct city business. It is as wrong as someone overcharging the city. Pick a number, lets move on. This is a minor item.

On another note, the city council has failed to raise thier pay for many years, up until last year. The pay is pitiful, and probably amounts to around $2.00 an hour per month given the time necessary to conduct city business, not just council meetings.

I recall Lori Luporini as Mayor, sitting in the office of the City Clerk, for over an hour, going over checks that she had to sign(every one) and the expenses. This was when? In the middle of the day, when the rest of us are working.

Dedications, Bay Area Government Meetings, Meetings with Staff, Accepting Checks from Government officials like the recent Veterans park check, City events, and on and on- This takes a lot of time...at minimum 5 hours a week, probably more when you figure getting dressed, driving there, doing the event or meeting, talking afterwards, and then driving home....a two hour meeting, can be a 5 hour ordeal.

Our city council is way underpaid, and I would like to see them track the actual hours they put in for 90 days, as I bet they are getting less than, probably substantially less than, minimum wage for their service.

Being on council is a service, an honor, but not one that council members should be paying out of their own pocket to perform, and not one in which they should be compensated less than what is fair- currently, that is just not the case at all.

Why doesn't the city be billed directly? They should issue cell phones, set-up internet connections and give $100 gas cards a month to the council members? Also why does the council member have to pay for an event or meeting out of their pocket first and then be reimbursed by the city? Shouldn't the application be filled out and the city send out the application with the check? This is the way it is done in most businesses.

I agree with mindingcitybiz...why can't the city arrange for the accounts to be sent direct to them. The internet connection, cell phones & gas cards and I am sure that other areas of the council members business could be done via the city rather than out of individual pockets and then reimbursed. I do think that they should get paid more but I feel that all expenses should be accounted for. Not for one minute is it because I don't trust them but I feel that everything that they do must be public. That would perhaps stop any rumours before they start.

First let me begin by telling everybody what a fantastic time we all had at the little league field last week. I never knew we has so many talented singers in American Canyon. And some of you I really had no idea you could shake a rug like you did. But it was great fun and I look forward to the next season.

Now onto business. You might notice that I usually don't vent unless I am really ticked off. Those of you who have seen me at the field can probably guess who I am. But as we all know if you do vent your opinions your family can be harrassed. So I prefer to be under a moniker at this time. But I think for those of you who are smart this will make perfect sense to you and as for the others well I can't help you out.

Other cities provide car allowances and financial stipends for basic expenses. If those expenses exceed the monthly stipend then the employee must account for it.

The same goes with the council. All other councils in California are afforded an expense amount to some degree. This amount agreed to pay all 5 council members is actually in the low 2 % of the state.

If we expect the council members to show that they in fact pay the allowance to the cell phone, home phone, dsl, and just basic mileage for the regular meetings that alone exceeds the 330.00. The down side is that the stipend is taxed, so the councilmember actually looses money.

What is outrageous is our top city staff earning over 100K a year working for little ol' american canyon and receiving a $300.00 per month car allowance. What for? At that rate of pay they can drive to a few meetings and around town. Anybody dare to disagree?

What about all of the freebies the city constantly throws away to developers, wasted consultant fees, free hook-ups, wasted architect fees (400k) etc., etc. It's all there along with excessive overruns on projects due to negligence. We all watch it week after week. The community better get it's priorities straight on what is important and what is not.

If we have councilmembers that do not use at least $330.00 per month in expenses then they are obviously not doing their jobs. I read the reports and see that these people often go to 3 to 7 meetings per week. At an average of 5 meetings assuming they are all in Napa that is 22 miles per trip. That is of course if you expect them to calculate mileage from American Canyon. But newsflash they can calculate mileage from another meeting elsewhere or from their job. That could easily exceed 100 miles for one meeting and calculated at 40.9 cents per mile along with the other expenses that exceeds the basic amount greatly.

But here is the catch that the council gets caught up in. When you realize you have a meeting do you stop and write down your mileage? Not likely. Why? Because you are preoccupied with your daily agenda, the future meeting or with a call on the phone. Then when you arrive you think you can do it later, but wait a co-worker keeps talking until you are late for the next appointment. But you will log it in that night right? Not likely as one can see by all of the expenses turned in by the council.

So after a week or so you think you can catch this up and before you know it you are trying to reconstruct the months events at the last week. Then you realize is all of this really worth it the time and so forth. Soon one month passes then two and three. Before you know it your personal expenses rise, your gas card is through the roof and you can't turn that bill in for reimbursement. Why? Because can you actually prove that all of that gas was used exclusively for city business. I am absolutely positive you stopped at Starbucks somebody would say (but wait that is the police department). Honestly, how many of us have tried to reconstruct a mileage log for a whole tax year? It pretty impossible but many have tried.

Does this sound familiar? Does it sound true? It is. Ask any of the councilmembers. ANY OF THEM. Leon admitted he travels quite a bit and yet he still volunteers. Cecil does spend the liimit too. He just forgot to add a few things in. As for Ben, well after 14 years of tireless service and all the money he has donated by not turning in receipts, who has the right to question.

You may think oh my god we must have receipts for everything because they are elected officials. But where does the accountability come in with city staff? Where does the accountability come in with commissioners? During an April meeting it was brought up by councilwoman Luporini why isn't the city paying it's bills ontime? Of course this was used as an excuse to add another 90K dollar employee to the payroll. Just how much has the city lost in paying the bills late? Probably a heck of lot more than a lousy 330.00 per month.

These bandwagon wannabes that monopolize the city meetings with their chatter and nastiness are nothing but bitter people. They are rude and condescending. I am losing respect for Cecil as Mayor because he is afraid to use his "pseudo mayor powers" and control the room. They are the reason I don't go. These are very disrespectful women that think that their opinions matter above all else in this city.

But all they are doing is successfully alienating themselves from the community. We all know who they are. One is attempting to align herself with the older crowd to hopefully sell their homes. Another has illegal people living on her property with illegal hookups and doesn't want anybody to know she owns 80 acres of Oat Hill. Never talks about it when she gets up to complain.

I had to laugh the other night with this whole MOU thing. I remember two meetings ago when the blond and the older woman were being disrespectful to the council because they wanted to wait 2 weeks to sign a 26 page document that they had no time to read. Sorry for you two but anything less would have been unacceptable. The ironicy of it all was when you did approve it the older lady with the 80 acres didn't like it or understand it. But yet two weeks earlier she knew it all and chastised the council. The credibilty of a handful of people in this community is failing rapidly.

The latest casualties are Joan Bennett, who was rocky during her short term, I remember her to be combative towards other councilmembers and not cooperative. Apparently 67 other people remembered as well.

Then there is Mr. Morris Curry. Does he even think before he speaks? I remember when Mr. Curry use to yell and shout at the council meetings over the Waste Water Treatment plant. You long time people know what I am talking about. How disruptive he was. I remember the city spent alot of money on legal fees because of him just about 40K. The city did not get that money back. Thank you Mr. Curry. I liked you better when you were productive and had the coco kids. Do you think that the youth in American Canyon don't need you anymore? Is that why you are being so hateful? You need to take a sabbatical and find God because you obviously have lost your way.

Both of these people will never be elected. The tone of the community is shifting and the priorities are as well. Things that use to be important to me have changed too. One of them is to protect my property value. I never expected this house to be worth so much. While I agree that the city council of past made some hasty decisions, I see a more thought out city council this time. They are not being intimidated and they are reigning in the city manager. (who I believed to be running this city for the last 5 years).

I don't know whether it is because of Coffey asking questions or challenging issues, all I know is I make sure to watch the meetings now. All councilmembers seem to be more active even Ben is getting to be like his old self. Everybody is working together and while they don't always agree I am feeling better that all aspects are being discussed as obviously they weren't in the past. Like with certain land use decisions.

I would like to see tighter control on development. Slower development. I would like to see the city take a proactive role in recruiting commercial development. It is my understanding that is what is on the horizon.

So to all of you who either lost or can't get over the loss, your candidate won. She has obviously moved on and so should you. People are very tired and sick of the drama your bad manners and attitudes are perpetuating. I know my neighborhood is.

Joan Bennett's recent opinion on city council spending uses the prior 12 months re imbursement totals to support her opinion.

Unfortunately, they don't support her opinion. Rather, they obviously point out that council is not taking expenses due them on a regular basis.

That is unfair, and for the members of this community or our city staff to allow it, unethical. Our council members should not be paying to be working for this city.

There is not a cell phone service or useful internet service that you can get for an entire year $500.00 each. That alone is AT LEAST $1000.00 in expenses. Yet, several council members too much less than that. Throw in gas, use of car, paying for a council member to havea computer, meetings, travel, and so on ....

$330.00 per month looks like a very reasonable deal. Asking council to write down every reciept in unreasonable, and impracticle.

Paul Maguire

I agree $330 per month is nothing in expenses, and if I remember correctly the council members are going to note their expenses for a 3 month period. It would not surprise me if expenses are way over the $300 for some if not all members.

"Asking council to write down every reciept in unreasonable, and impracticle." writes Paul M.

Paul, if the council do not note the amount spent and keep their receipts how are they going to know if they have spent over that amount, to get their refund? So I am assuming that they have their expenses noted then they can hand them in. Mapquest is a wonderful service, that I found when I was filling out our tax forms and I only had to check it once to find the mileage that we do perhaps once or twice a month and has to be recorded.

Why not just solve this problem by giving every city council a yearly raise and justify it based on expenses. Say, $3000 a year extra is for all your expenses. Its your pay so use it how you like. Then you dont have to worry about audits or how its spent or overhead to monitor it. City Council is a job, its your job to go to the meetings, phone people, travel, etc - because thats what you are paid to do really. If there happens to be something extra oridinary, the city council can approve based on each event individually.

The council is limited to a 3% increase per year, which they did not take for years and years until about 2 years ago.

The city council cannot just raise their pay. But, they should look at retroactively raising hte pay based on the 3% per year for each year, then come up with a number for today. Right now, they are paid like 300-500 per month, which as I said before, is probably below minimum wage based onteh work load.

The council refused a pay increase since year two believing it was the right thing to do. But as we all know prices increase with gas, responsibilites grow as the city grows and what the council was "handling" in 1992 is far different then the problems facing the council now.

Last year the council took the 3% pay increase. I believe that makes them receive about 315.00 per month. They didn't take it because they meant well, but lacked the foresight. With council's generally made up of retirees or the self employed and in our case the unemployed Mayor it isn't so easy to absorb all of the expenses related to service.

I am sure from now on the council will in fact take the 3% annually. Why not the other city employees receive it. As for making it retroactive, it is illegal and cannot be done. Although I am sure they appreciate the gesture.

I also wanted to say I am glad to see councilwoman Luporini and councilwoman Coffey working together. How important it is to acknowledge differences and move ahead. Now if we can just get the Dems and Republicans to do the same in Sacramento, imagine how prosperous our state would be.

Paul keep posting, as always we are very interested in your ideas as with anybody who is POSITIVE about American Canyon. I noticed Linda is becoming very positive and involved as well. Way to go Linda I look forward to meeting you soon.