News

Kelli Linville

Kelli Linville’s three R approach

By Tim Johnson · Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Cascadia Weekly: Perhaps because of your background in education, you’ve adopted the Three Rs as your campaign mantra. Only in your case it is Respect, Relationships and Results. Let’s start there, and why you feel Mayor Pike has not performed satisfactorily in those areas.

Kelli Linville: As you campaign you learn things and some things become clearer as you campaign. Those three things have come into focus because, while I think Dan Pike has been good at many things, he has not been good at those things—using respect to strenthen relationships so you can more people together to achieve results.

My buzzword for Dan has become “The Dog Ate My Homework” because it always seems to be someone else’s fault when unfortunate things happen.

As I’ve gone into into issues in this campaign, I’ve encountered things that really aren’t a matter of policy or style, but are actually just inappropriate actions in City Hall. One or two of them, maybe you can look the other way. A pattern of that really raises alarms.

CW: How does your approach to government differ from Mayor Pike’s?

KL: The mayor has demonstrated that he is a poor negotiator in the public’s interest, whether it is with the Port of Bellingham, Whatcom County government, red light cameras, adjoining smaller cities—or even banks, in the instance of Chuckanut Ridge. I have a lot of experience negotiating very tough deals in very tough times, often with people with whom I strongly disagree and with whom there is often little chance for agreement.

You don’t put your bottom line out in the newspaper. You don’t disregard or misrepresent someone else’s interests. As long as those interests are out there and understood—as well as the public’s interest—there’s no reason some agreements can’t be reached. The mayor doesn’t have to be the victor in this.

Dan has described himself as experienced, effective, inclusive mayor to lead the town that understands governing. The first job of the mayor is to manage the staff and the budget. I think he has failed on those two critical elements.

CW: Have city staff communicated their concerns as you’ve campaigned?

KL: There’s some of that. Obviously, the police guild filed a complaint of unfair labor practice, and I think that is unheard of in city history. You don’t threaten workers with job loss in order to get them to do what you want them to do. That’s an unfair labor practice, and that’s what drew the complaint.

CW: Do you believe the concerns of the police union could be accommodated, given the constraints of the budget and city priorities?

KL: If you look at priorities of government, you look first at services you must provide. We do not have a lot of control over whether to employ federal and state mandates; we do have a lot of control over how we do it.

Things Bellingham City Council would like to adopt by policy are at the bottom of that priority list; and I say that not because I don’t like or appreciate City Council, but because those are expressed preferences. Those are items we have the option to pursue, a wish list. Much of what is in the city budget is mandated and essential.

I think there are a lot of things we can do better and more efficiently, but we’re prevented from doing that because so many city departments are compartmentalized in silos.

Are private/public partnerships available to leverage city goals? Are private entities better equipped than the city to perform work in the public’s interest? There are lots of examples, the streets among them. Much of the work there is contracted out to private companies.

The role of government is, we have to be expert regulators. We have to be expert enforcers. We have to be experts in public policy.

CW: Obviously, the economy is a major factor and influence on city budgeting. What are your thoughts there?

KL: Look at all the empty stores north of Bellingham! And I don’t see a lot of planning or interest on what that future might be or look like. There is no relationship with the county or port or merchants to get that discussion going.

Having vision is not the same thing as getting things done.

I have not seen any big investments that would have increased the economic prospects in downtown Bellingham. And I am increasingly concerned about the future of Costco and WalMart.

We get more revenues from Costco than all of Fairhaven put together, and the rumblings about Costco’s future in Bellingham are increasing rather than decreasing. Will we force big-box stores out into rural areas? Will we lose that revenue?

Ferndale Mayor Gary Jensen and I have already had conversations about potential revenue generation, similar to concepts underway in Bothell. Our conversation has revolved around how Bellingham can retain some of its revenue while Ferndale doesn’t have to absorb all of the infrastructure and regulatory costs should these stores decide to move there.

I believe those conversations stalled out between Gary and Dan when Dan expanded the focus and scope of the discussion to include the cities’ downtown cores. I want to keep that conversation focused on the very real challenges and opportunities as these big-box stores plan for their future expansions.

CW: On the subject of relationships, you appear to have strong supported from Port of Bellingham commissioners. What’s been wrong with that relationship and how will you address that as mayor?

KL: A year ago, according to documentation by the port, the city could have submitted a subarea plan to the Planning Commission and we could have started talking about this.

Why did the mayor spend $400,000 looking at a road grid for a plan that had not even been developed at that point?

The waterfront unfortunately has been stalled since Dan Pike was elected mayor. I believe the port is frustrated by the fact that a lot of these documents and agreements have to be approved before funding for waterfront cleanup and redevelopment can be approved.

CW: Yet the city is moving forward ahead of the port on the RG Haley property adjacent to the waterfront. You’ve criticized that. Why?

KL: It may not mean a lot to many people, but that strikes me as the most egregious decision that has been made for a variety of reasons—primarily on the principles and precedents it establishes: We didn’t pollute the property. Why are we taking the liability?

I’ve been told by City Council members their understanding was the city was looking at perhaps a $3 to $5 million cleanup, of which the owner was paying nothing. I then talked to port officials and learned the agency had already performed an analysis of the site and were uncertain there was a public benefit in owning it. Their cleanup estimate, due to the kinds of contaminants and the sediments and groundwater issues, was $7 to $10 million.

contaminants and the sediments and groundwater issues, was $7 to $10 million.

The same type of site, with the same type of pollutants. on a smaller scale cost $30 million to clean up in Anacortes. What if we’ve actually taken on a $30 million cleanup, with no way to pay for it?

Well, there’s a way to pay for it, which is through the city’s solid waste fund.

So, my concerns here are no public, independent cleanup estimate. Even if they’d used the port’s, that might have provided a differing view of the city’s purchase. Secondly, if Ken was the chair of the Public Development Authority, having tried to find a buyer for this property over the years, he probably should have recused himself just to maintain a sense of propriety and perspective. You cannot have confidence in the city’s decisions when decisions are made like this.

But more than any of this, my biggest issue is taking on the liability with no plan to ask the polluter to pay.

CW: Is it your opinion that there was an inappropriate relationship between Mayor Pike and former Mayor Ken Hertz on the purchase of the RG Haley property at the foot of Cornwall Avenue?

KL: I don’t think there’s necessarily an inappropriate personal relationship. Ken is one of the city’s most successful developers and he is a major campaign contributor to Dan’s campaign.

However, I’ve learned that Ken has been trying for years to get the city to buy this property, often through the use of Greenways, on behalf of the owner of the RG Haley property. I believe the history of this property is that the company purchased the property with the idea that the Alaska ferry terminal might be sited there. I’m told by the Port of Bellingham there are significant environmental concerns there, and I believe the original idea was that the property would be cleaned as a part of the site preparations for the ferry, a minor expense for a project of that scale. When the ferry did not go there, the landowner was left with significant liability and a need to sell the property.

Ken gave me a tour of the site when I was in the Legislature when there was an idea MTCA [state cleanup] money might be available. At that time I had no idea that the company wasn’t paying for any of the cleanup.

When the mayor took this on, he took it on with all the liability, I managed to obtain about $2.2 million in MTCA to clean it up in the understanding that it was part of the whole bay cleanup, not understanding that this was a separate action being considered by the city independent of the port.

CW: What’s manifestly different about this deal than the Port of Bellingham taking on the Georgia-Pacific property and liability for the cost of cleanup?

KL: The port had a clear idea about how much liability they were willing to expose themselves to, based on an analysis and on an estimate from Georgia-Pacific. That amount was $120 million. They had a significant amount of guarantees from the state. They obtained cost overrun insurance for additional protection.

I think the biggest difference is due diligence. The port did due diligence on the GP property. I don’t believe the administration did the same due diligence, figuring it out for themselves.

Second, the insurance policies. On the GP site, we know at the end what our exposure will be. On the RG Haley property, we might go from $3 to $30 million with no end in sight.

CW: I imagine the city could just fence the property, but it seems they’ve compounded the issue by planning an extension of the Taylor Street boardwalk to terminate at that site, meaning the site must be cleaned.

KL: Absolutely.

This really gets into the weeds of how decisions are made and integrated with Greenways and Parks plans. Do we really understand what we’re doing when we integrate projects, or are we operating on the assumption that every bright idea is best and whatever comes next we do? I don’t see the plan.

That became very clear on the issue of Chuckanut Ridge.

CW: Let’s discuss that.

KL: I have no interest in belittling the mayor on every decision he’s made, but had I been in his place, and this was a purchase I thought was important, first I would not have blurted out to the newspaper, “I’ll pay $8.23 million for it.”

The mayor said that was the cost of it. But that’s what the bank said! That’s not what the market said.

There are not a lot of developers lining up waiting for that property. It was likely to sit there until the bank had to unload it. Instead, we took the whole thing, and on their timetable. The city is not responsible for the bank’s timetable or for outside pressures on the bank.

I probably would have seized the bull by the horns earlier and had the planning department look at the appropriate levels of development there.

We needed two key pieces of information we didn’t get before the city made its decision to buy. First was an independent appraisal of the property that could question certain assumptions by the bank. Second was a commitment from the neighborhoods about where these 700 undeveloped or undevelopable parcels might go so that the impacts are shared along with the benefits to the Southside.

Not only did we use the bank’s appraisal, the timeline was dictated by them. Again, the public’s interest was not fully served.

CW: Are these issues correctable at this point, or are we as a community stuck with them?

KL: RG Haley I believe we may be stuck with.

I don’t know if there’s $30 million in the solid waste fund to cover the potential liability of this site. I don;t know that the solid waste fund is not better suited, or dedicated, to other uses. That is a big black hole.

CW: My understanding is a portion of the solid waste fund is already dedicated to expansions of the wastewater treatment facility at Post Point.

KL: Whatever conversation the mayor wants to have about balancing the budget, I will challenge him on the tradeoffs. Did we do fund transfers? Are there items in the budget that are not fully disclosed that can put it out of balance?

When I was Ways and Means chair in the Legislature, I had about one year to cut $5 billion out of the state budget. And the way we got there was we established some principles that allowed us to prioritize. It wasn’t easy, but those principles made it easier.

When you get a budget full of tricks, you can’t fix it in a year. My goal is to make sure in Bellingham, we use priorities of government, we use performance-based budgeting, we have accountability measures, so we can get more services for the people who are paying taxes. That’s an attainable goal!

CW: What are your concerns about the Post Point expansion?

KL: This seems another big boondoggle. We have an opportunity to take another look at this expansion and have an independent evaluation. The company that performed the evaluation the city is responding to is the same company who is designing the expansion.

Bellingham is committed to using the oldest technology, we will continue to burn our sludge and add chemicals to our treatment. New technologies offer less chemical treatment, and would cost $20 million less to implement with better environmental results. And would last longer.

CW: An observation by some members of City Council has been that if the amount of inflow and infiltration (I&I) could be reduced, expansion might not be necessary at Post Point.

KL: I believe that’s true. And actually that issue—control of infiltration—has application in Lake Whatcom.

Instead of focusing on things like Silver Beach, reengineering everyone’s yard, we need zero-discharge goals. That is how we addressed the issue of dairy waste entering the Nooksack River. It has been effective.

Of course, you don’t build more there, either, and I think the city’s efforts there have been appropriate.

CW: Do you feel the city’s emphasis on property acquisitions has been appropriate for Lake Whatcom?

KL: It has to be a policy prevention and restoration. Acquisitions help that.

Our largest challenges in the lake are addressing the portions that are already developed. Can we restore back to the quality standards of, say, the Seattle watershed? No. They selected that as a water source first. We selected ours as a water source second.

Our goal over time is zero discharge.

But before we sue the county and water districts, we have responsibilities of our own to address. the city is responsible for urban runoff in portions of the lake that are within city limits.

CW: We’ve talked about a lot of issues, but we’ve not talked about coal and coal trains. Many people appreciate that the mayor has been so bold on these issues. You’ve expressed frustration in this campaign with how your views on the shipping terminal at Cherry Point have been portrayed by supporters of Dan Pike. What are your views on coal?

KL: I supported, and continue to support, a smaller, multipurpose pier, as originally proposed. If it is a single-purpose coal terminal, or even one with a primary purpose to ship coal, I do not support it.

I have been consistent from day one. I do not support exporting coal or any other non-renewable natural resources. I do not now, nor have I ever, supported a coal terminal at Cherry Point. I have worked against exporting and burning coal for many years. I will vigorously ensure that we are engaged in the scoping and permitting process from beginning to end to ensure our interests are represented.

I personally believe that if we permit the construction of a coal terminal, then we as a larger community are making a big mistake. It is a stupid federal energy policy, it is a stupid state decision, and a stupid county decision, if all we want to do is allow the export of cheap coal to Asia.

I think the mayor has taken a very simple position on a complex topic while a lot of the facts about the proposal are unclear. Yet the mayor and his supporters have not actually put forward a resolution to start the process to scope the project, that seems a basic step. And, yes, I do think that the mayor’s statements have harmed the city’s ability to engage in a robust discussion of coal and its impacts on Bellingham.

He scored political points that may get him elected. But, if elected, can he be effective in the discussion?

CW: We had talked earlier about private/public partnerships and the need for efficiencies in mandates like public safety. Given those earlier statements, what are your thoughts on the issue of red light cameras?

KL: In my first exposure to the issue, I was questioning similar initiatives for traffic cameras in the Legislature in Olympia. What I learned is that, where they have been installed the longest, they are starting to be taken down—either because the citizens wanted them to, or they weren’t achieving revenue and safety goals.

That information was available, and I’m sorry the city didn’t look more deeply into that information before they inked this contract.

I believe the mayor inappropriately told police that he would address their personnel concerns by creating this revenue source—as he assured firefighters he would address their concerns through annexations and the construction of new fire stations. Police were split on this, but I think it is disingenuous to say this was about safety when safety was only an afterthought.

Dan prematurely signed a contract with the company that allowed the company to sue challengers directly should those challengers place a measure on the ballot to test public support for these cameras. In other communities, the company had to wait until there was an actual plaintiff complaining of these cameras before they had standing to sue.

I don’t believe the city should make it easy for corporations to sue citizens.

blog comments powered by Disqus

 

Recent Articles