Jake Kimberley - Mayoral Candidate

Jo
Slot 16
Posts: 22663
Joined: Nov 27th, 2004, 1:33 pm

Jake Kimberley - Mayoral Candidate

Post by Jo »

A thread for Jake Kimberley, mayoral candidate.
omega
Posts: 3
Joined: Nov 4th, 2008, 10:17 pm

Past his best before date

Post by omega »

Run away staff levels at City hall. Cost overruns. Funding smoke and mirrors. Broadcasts of Council meetings being cut short by the City Administrator to censor the Mayor due to his anger management issues. Secret Meetings. Failure to speak candidly to the media. Excessive tax and utility increases. Failure to respect public will on Munson Mountain properties. Failure to protect useful public assets of the Pen hi gym and auditorium. Failure to purchase properties identified in the Official Community Plan for acquisition when available. Protracted and costly OCP review that essentially determined nothing. Is there any reason that we would want him back in office?
jake kimberley
Posts: 3
Joined: Nov 5th, 2008, 6:42 pm

Re: Jake Kimberley - Mayoral Candidate

Post by jake kimberley »

Run away staff: Between 2004 thru 2008 a total 5% increase in staff levels 272 to 288 mostly parks summer employees.
Regional District has increased their staff in the same period by 44%.
Cost overuns: Event Centre, total costs were published on the front page of Herald September 26, 2008. All paid for by lottery, casino and a legacy grant. Tax requisite set 2% at the end of 3-years paid off in total within 10-years. (Munson Mountain 20-years)

Broadcast cut short by city administrator, his decision not mine.

No secret meetings, council are governed by the Comunity charter under Section 90 paragraphs (1) (2) and Section 91 paragraph (1) (2) violation of that legislation would cause intervention by the Province. To date there has been no violation by this council and this council has followed the same pratice as previous councils when that legislation was introduced.

I have never refused to speak to the media, candidly or otherwise.

Execessive taxes and utility incresases. Tax increases by this council have been the same as previous councils. Utility increases had to be made because prior to this council's term no additional increses had been made and no capitol was spent on the infrastructure. Ex: the sewer capitol fund was at $660-thousand when this council took office in 2005, it is now at $4-million reducing the need to borrow. A $10-million grant has been applied for. The city's current total reserves are at $39-million. Surplus Reserves were drawn down by $660-thousand for emergentcy situations, $330-thousand has been repaid into that account and should be fully refunded by year end.
Failure to respect public will on Munson Mountain. The referendum question did not tell this council to sell the land it simple said no to ball diamonds, the property has been destined for park since a study in 1993. To sell this property would not have recovered enough to pay out the remaining mortgage which runs for another 16-years @ $220-thousand per year.

Pen Hi and Gym, see my latter to the paper on the real costs of saving those buildings.

Failure to purchase useful public assets? If you are refering to Elm St. The previous council could have bought that for $380- thousand plus a final offer by the owner with an added $25-thousand. Expropriation of the property was initiated by that council and cost the city an additional $60-thousand in legal fees, this council were forced to pay todays appraised value close $960-thousand.

The OCP review dictates the city's projected growth to the year 2020 and requires densification to accomadate that growth by saying no to sprawl up the hillsides and farland supporting fully the principles of Smart Growth. Higher densification which is already happening will bring greater tax revenues back to the city coffers than sprawl.
Hopefully this information will clarify some of the misinformation that is out there.

Jake Kimberley.
Madtaxi
Fledgling
Posts: 136
Joined: Nov 5th, 2008, 11:49 am

Re: Jake Kimberley - Mayoral Candidate

Post by Madtaxi »

you can't believe everything you read in the newspaper.
Cfay
Posts: 2
Joined: Oct 26th, 2008, 8:36 am

Re: Jake Kimberley - Mayoral Candidate

Post by Cfay »

I support Jake Kimberly and feel he has done a great job for the City and hope he gets re-elected.

Did the tax levy not decrease from the previous year? (I'm referring to the City's levy and not the ones that the City is required to collect for other levels of Government)
jake kimberley
Posts: 3
Joined: Nov 5th, 2008, 6:42 pm

Re: Jake Kimberley - Mayoral Candidate

Post by jake kimberley »

Hi, there has been a suggestion by some of the candidates that this council has over spent the city's finances. Look for my add in this weeks print media. It shows audited statements as follows:
Total reserves 2005 = $33.8 m 2008 = $39.01 m (+$6.0m in 3-years)
Gen surplus 2005 =$2.5 m 2007 = $2.3 m by end of 2008 projected @ $2.2.
Sewer fund 2005 = $2.7 m 2007 = $3.4 m
Water Fund 2005 = $1.7m 2007 = 2.0 m

These are audited statements made in public.

Don't let the statements being made that the city is broke it's better off now than it has been for a long time. These are the highest the city's reserves have ever been. It is a known fact when you don't have a platform you campaign on overspending and blaming city staff for the lack of your commitment.

Anymore questions for Jake Kimberley?
Madtaxi
Fledgling
Posts: 136
Joined: Nov 5th, 2008, 11:49 am

Re: Jake Kimberley - Mayoral Candidate

Post by Madtaxi »

What about 2006,2007 audited statements ?
lawman
Posts: 17
Joined: Nov 10th, 2008, 9:45 pm

Re: Jake Kimberley - Mayoral Candidate

Post by lawman »

Incumbent Mayor Jake Kimberley:
Once again, you’ve been a little disingenuous with your answers.
You compared Penticton’s staffing increase to the regional district. Who cares: we’re not voting for regional district, we’re voting for City Hall. In the city you run, the population increase was three per cent but your staffing increased by nearly double that amount. Yet you insist on comparing your increase with the increase at the RDOS, whose staffers serve a far greater area – 10,000 square kilometres compared to just 42 square kilometres in the city limits. Justifying an excessive staff increase simply by saying your neighbours spent more is ridiculous logic that defies common sense. (Oh, and that’s direct staffing, I believe you are referring to, not counting over-priced consultants paid on a contract basis.)
But if you insist on comparing, let’s look at another comparison – just this year the Canadian Federation of Independent Business looked at city spending and found Penticton ranked second in B.C. compared with similar-sized cities. In fact, the CFIB found Penticton spends a whopping $1,656 per person, 50 per cent more than the average city over 25,000 population.
And of course, if staffing has only increased 5 per cent, then there’s no need to be leasing two additional office spaces downtown and we can drop plans for the City Hall replacement mega-project.
On cost overruns for the events centre you once again avoid acknowledging the elephant in the room. During the referendum campaign, you promised the public you would only spend $56 million, not the $78.5 million spent to date (which even then does not account for costs moved forward to the next fiscal year which will bring the entire cost over the $80 million mark). Given you “guaranteed” the public a cost for the events centre which ballooned by $22.5 million (at least), how can the taxpayers believe any promises you make now? You should not be patting yourself on the back for that less-than-stellar bit of negotiating on behalf of the public purse or the subversion of the democratic process through false advertising.
While the tax requisite is only two per cent, the true cost is much higher as much-needed roadwork and other infrastructure spending is delayed for future administrations to play catch-up. Meanwhile, construction costs rise.
And your comment that city administrator Leo den Boer made the decision to cut short the public broadcast also sidesteps the real concern raised by “omega” in his/her post. Den Boer purportedly made that decision because your temper got the best of you; if truly his decision, did you discipline den Boer for that decision or did you support his decision by just letting it go? And can you reassure “omega” there are no anger management issues that would impact your ability to lead the city through what may be difficult times ahead?
And yes, you have at times refused to speak to the media. After the “guaranteed price” fiasco, your public relations department issued a press release demanding the media make their interview requests in writing – and that you would not be answering any more questions relating to the costs of the events centre. You later changed your mind and started answering direct questions again, but you certainly did not return every phone call from the media. You were, shall we say, selective in whose calls you returned, favouring those members of the media who would be more sympathetic to your administration.
But let’s look at the real crisis. City spending has increased, on staffing and mega-projects. To pay for it all, the total tax load on property owners – from property taxes to utility rates – increased by 10 per cent last year, not the five per cent the mayor would have us believe. Meanwhile, our tax-and-spend council ignores the fact this city has taken it on the chin when it comes to the economy. We’ve lost well-paid manufacturing jobs, our largest call centre has closed, and our seasonal tourism industry was already slumping thanks to a number of factors. And those were decisions made BEFORE the current economic crisis hitting our primary source of tourism customers.
Sure, we’ve got a nice, new hockey rink built. In the meanwhile, your administration has done little to ensure the local economy continues to thrive so we can pay for this new building.
jake kimberley
Posts: 3
Joined: Nov 5th, 2008, 6:42 pm

Re: Jake Kimberley - Mayoral Candidate

Post by jake kimberley »

In answer to Lawman?
The reference to the Regional District is obvious for those who know the reasons why, the city pays 42% of their budget. While the city is being fiscally responsible (look at the city’s all time high in total reserves) the Regional Government is spending and hiring at the city’s expense. At the same time the directors gave themselves a 25% stipend increase plus they went to two meetings a month doubling their meeting allowance and again at the city’s expense! The chairs stipend went from $24 thousand to $37-thousand a year. The RDOS may serve a greater area but not the same level of service as the city or the same level of development as the city has to deal with. A majority of their area has no zoning regulations and/or building regulations! If you were more familiar with the RDOS they spend more on consultants than the city does. They employ 4-GPS staff the city “0” they employ 3 environmental staff the city “0”, simply because the city can’t afford them. They have 11 planning staff the city has 4. The city has lost 4 planning staff to higher paying municipalities, Westside and Nanaimo and 2 to Summerland before I was returned to office. The city has had great difficulty filling these vacancies because the city wages are lower than other cities are paying senior staff.
On the issue of spending I ask that you look back on the city’s record of financing infrastructure. It’s pretty appalling simply because previous councils didn’t have the courage to face the reality that the city infrastructure was falling apart and was not providing adequate water supply and sewer collection to keep up with development. One development project in the South end of the city was almost brought to a standstill because of a lack of capacity on the sewer system. The water system was literally drying up back in 2003, (read the recent public report) with inadequate water supply to fight fires in many parts of the city.
Previous councils failed to recognize the need to invest dollars on an annual basis into the city’s infrastructure. The recent assessment report on infrastructure indicates that the city needs to invest $40-million into water and sewer alone.
I did not make such a promise in the 2005 campaign that the CITY would only spend $56-million on the Event Centre, please read my statements in the media records. No one knew what the true price would be until it went out to proposal bid. No the local contractor did not submit a true cost bid. In the 2005 campaign the only commitment I made was to state that the project would only go ahead if it was “affordable”.
I have never seen a project so publically inflated in costs from people who have never enquired about the costs or who basically don’t want to know the true costs! The infrastructure around the building was never referred to by the previous council in their announcement of this project. Most of the infrastructure was scheduled to be done despite the Event Centre going ahead. The work was for Power St. and the lift station on Alberni. Alberni was necessary to upgrade to help traffic flows but it was the Min of Highways insistence that the city purchase 7-homes on Eckhardt Ave at an additional cost of $2.2 million to accommodate a North accelerator lane. They also would not allow an Eastern exit from Alberni. Roadwork costs were taken out of public works infrastructure budgets as they would have had they been done without the Event Centre. The sewer lift station costs were taken out of sewer capitol funds.
What false advertising are you referring to? Casino funds $10-million DAC funds $40-million and the legacy grant $9.7 million at the insistence of the government could only be spent on the Event Centre. What would a referendum question ask: “Should the city spend the $60-million on the Event Centre or should we give the money back?” I can assure you the 2% property tax requisite for this building is locked in until the debt is totally paid by 2018. A ten year mortgage for a $55.7-million dollar building, has never been done before in any city, even Munson Mountain mortgage was signed by the previous council for 20-years at $220-thousand a year.
Yes construction costs rise, steel went up 100% during the term of the contract plus all other materials, and it’s a matter of record that construction costs through this project were increasing at 2% a month.
As chair it is my responsibility to control the council meetings and address persons accordingly that show disrespect for the chair and council. There was never a time when I refused any media interview, the reason why the media were asked to put their questions in writing was because they were misquoting every piece of information they were being given, this is still an ongoing problem. $55.7 is stated constantly as $78-million, city staff still can’t figure out where they came up with that figure.
Just imagine had the city not been successful in getting $60-million free money towards this building we would have faced a decision promoted by the previous council to raise taxes by a whopping 15% just for the Event Centre!
Increased charges to services are purposely introduced to offset the need to borrow the money to fix the problems in the future, they are also a consumption tax, the more you use the more you pay. Turn off the lights and the sprinkler; you’ll see no increase to your bills.
How can you possibly suggest that the cost of being in business here caused the city to lose the jobs? It was publically announced that the Call centre went to Asia, the Canwood name was sold and production moved to Asia and Okanagan Manufacturers moved back with their parent company in Abbotsford and then into Washington State and have since closed down! City hall does not have any influence over the Global economy I’m afraid. I’d ask that you check Britco, Structurlam and SlimLine all are desperate for new employees and have been trying for months to get skilled workers. The Event Centre has created 35 full time jobs and 130 part time jobs, in addition the Event Centre has already affected the local economy, with the hotels and restaurants being filled whenever there is an event happening. Did you read the statements made by them just recently when the group Chicago were in town?
I am very positive about the additional economy this building will bring into the city. Being negative only brings negative results. Incidentally the management contract provides for 90% of the profits to be paid to the city and 10% to the management, projected profits on the first 2-years bookings are around $5-million!
This council has not taxed and spent they have invested into the city’s infrastructure, our asset. The total city reserves are at an all time high at $39.03 million, sewer and water funds have doubled in total in the last 3-years, (look for my add this week). I encourage you to read a report put out by KMPG, which stated that Penticton is the best place to invest in a business. I would encourage you to talk to the city treasury staff on real numbers related to property taxes. You are referring to ratios, which is a totally different representation of tax requisite.
Hopefully my answers will encourage you to be a little more positive and investigate the answers you are looking for before being so negative. We are investing into the future of our city, a city where you and I both chose to live. May I suggest that we meet for coffee and discuss your concerns rather than through the internet.
Jake Kimberley.

Return to “Penticton”