From Stark
Bellingham mayoral candidate Clayton Petree has issued a press release saying the city should refocus its spending on essential services such as law enforcement. In a followup email, he called attention to the latest gruesome state revenue forecast, as featured on the Business Blog.
If that forecast is correct, the state’s $738 million budget reserve will be mostly depleted over the next two years, setting the stage for even more cuts to education and other critical state government functions.
Petree noted that the city has been spending down its own reserves while to some extent counting on an improved economy to boost revenue and get the city’s finances back on a sustainable long-term path. He thinks the latest state forecast calls that approach into question.
It’s worth noting that some of the city projects Petree is targeting have partial funding sources that could not be shifted into city programs such as the police department. The Central Avenue waterfront project, for example, would rely on street fund revenues provided by gasoline taxes, while state environmental cleanup money would cover some of the cost of the waterfront toxic site he mentions.
But Petree is correct in asserting that waterfront cleanup and redevelopment comes with hefty city costs for cleanup, streets and utilities, and city officials freely admit they have no sources of money in hand for those projects. This means the pace of process on these things may be slow.
Here is Petree’s press release:
“Referring to recently announced City of Bellingham plans and task force reports Clayton Petree,
a candidate for mayor, called on current Mayor Dan Pike to immediately begin to work with the
Bellingham City Council to reprioritize the City of Bellingham’s spending approaches.
“It appears we are simultaneously going out to bid on a multi-million dollar bridge to nowhere
even as we fail to plan for identified needs to maintain adequate public safety for the citizens of
our city,” Petree comments. “That is fiscally irresponsible and we cannot wait for an election
and a new mayoral term to begin to work on the issue.”
“According to Petree the mayor has proudly announced in recent weeks the bid process would
begin soon on building roads and bridges to Bellingham’s waterfront even as a task force report
presented to the Mayor and the City Council in February pointed to a lagging level of public
safety. “It is inappropriate to begin building additional roads to a waterfront that has no
adopted plan and a 50 year time line for build out at the same time we are ignoring an
identified need for adequate police officers. Why are we already beginning to subsidize the
waterfront “want” that isn’t projected to be complete until 2061 and ignoring the identified
police force “need” that should exist today? That makes no sense at all.”
“Petree says the two examples he points to are only the tip of the iceberg floating across the City
of Bellingham’s financial horizon. “City Finance Director Jon Carter recently presented a pretty
gloomy set of financial forecast scenarios to the Bellingham City Council. Our current practice
of deficit spending will take us below the safety threshold or completely exhaust our reserves
within a few short years. Even as we are floating in a sea of red ink, the city is spending many
thousands of dollars, fighting with the county over frivolous issues. We’ve bailed out the
owners of a contaminated waste site by agreeing to accept clean up responsibilities that put
the city ‘on the hook’ for at least $2.74 million in unfunded, already identified costs and at the
same time, the citizens are told we can’t afford seven hundred thousand dollars a year to fund
our identified need for a new police unit? What kind of approach to budgeting is that?”
“We must begin, as a city, to spend within our means,” Petree concludes. “All we have to do is
look at our unsustainable, failed State budget to see what happens when we spend on wants
instead of needs. The time to work on this issue is right now. We can’t be playing election
games as we run the ship of Bellingham aground.”
End press release
Nice try, but attempting to paint the current administration and council as fiscally irresponsible, big spending liberals simply won’t wash no matter how broad the brush. Besides being deceptive, Petree’s strained and bloated rhetoric is actually quite reprehensible, repugnant, and repulsive.
The world certainly doesn’t need more bombastic balderdash from big-talking, but vacuous, politicians like Clayton Petree. We’d all be a lot better off if he’d simply go do something harmless, instead of muddying the political waters.
T2, so only people who espouse the party line are the ones that should be allowed to run for office?
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
Petree is just trying to shoehorn himself into various debates, but bottom line — he only appears self serving and short sighted. The projects he rails about are important necessary first steps, I think we can see by his priorities that he is not the forward thinking candidate needed in this position…
As cannot be stated enough, the waterfront will provide far more employment for the building trades and other employers and entrepreneurs than any venture being proposed at this time, anywhere in the county….if we build it they will surely come..
Continuing to listen to obstructionists is in vogue with some these days, but it is not productive by any stretch…and once more Mr. Petree shows us he is not up to the challenge of planning and executing for the future..
Once again, the present Mayor shows that he, and he alone, has the foresight we need to drag our city into the 21st century…..
Also, puhleeze, the public safety canard is simply a red herring, there is no crisis and besides it is not a
mutually exclusive issue…..Mr. Petree apparently believes we cannot walk and chew gum at the same time and that does not show much faith in or respect for the citizens of Bellingham…
TIme and again Clayton shows us why he is certainly not the best choice for city leadership..
As a political neophyte, Petree is as assertive as he is ignorant. A common mistake among political newbies is to assume monies can be freely transferred between funds and uses much more than is actually possible.
The Waterfront redevelopment is a long term project that will be costly, but delaying initial expenditures – environmental clean up and necessary infrastructure to physically access that area safely – are necessary early actions if new business is to be stimulated and jobs generated. Are we simply supposed to ‘kick that can down the road’ on the assumption we can’t instantly fund it? I don’t think so!
That public safety IS the City’s top priority should not be doubted, despite insufficient sustainable funding. Would this candidate be willing to advocate for a public vote on such an issue? It has been the top priority for many years. And, since about 60% of the City’s General Fund is already committed to Police, Fire & EMS, where would this candidate suggest additional funds should come from? Closing the Library? How about the Museum or Mt Baker Theater? Want to cut Parks & Rec more? Exactly what is being suggested?
Wishful thinking can certainly be an entertaining sport, at least until actual proposals for achieving them are required. This candidate needs to do more homework on municipal finances before further demonstrating his naivete and political ignorance. Otherwise, he is just another hack, trying to impress voters with questionable public rhetoric. He has certainly impressed me, but in the way he might wish!
The last sentence of my comment above should read “…..but NOT in the way he might wish!”
I agree Mr. watts, public safety is the number one concern, but I also know that the PD is doing a more than adequate job as evidenced by some of the ways time and resources are wasted on less than serious matters….on need only spend a day in court to realize we are policed adequately ….. Where in Bellingham do you not feel safer than anywhere in the country that comes to mind?
I agree with Clayton with regard to Waterfront issues. Public safety issues are clearly being ignored… how can anyone deny that when the City has agreed with the Port plan to cap the Cornwall Landfill with dioxin contaminated sediment dredged from Squalicum Harbor? The cap is being covered with a plastic sheet, with a 4-5 year useful life, held in place with sandbags. This interim action does not meet the applicable cleanup levels under the Model Toxic Control Act. And Clayton is correct that there is no adopted master plan for the Waterfront District.
I do not want to see money dumped into the Watefront without better planning and environmental oversight. DIOXIN, people… DIOXIN.
Thanks, Clayton, for bringing up an issue that is being swept under the rug.
I believe Clayton was referring to the RG Haley site , that was acquired by pike. This MCTA cleanup site is adjacent to the Cornwall Landfill that Wendy has written so well about @ NWcitizen.com and Latterepublic. This pig in a poke was a gift to the Jansen family who got former Mayor Hertz to put pike under the either and bail them out of this toxic dump. Once more FIRE,READY,AIM!
I thought everything was about jobs/jobs/jobs. Why isn’t everyone on board with anything that moves us closer to waterfront development faster? “The road to nowhere” is adorable, but not accurate. At worst, it’s the “road to nowhere in the immediate future,” but in the meantime, it’s jobs. Will Petree campaign on that? “I oppose a construction project.” Seems like a gimme to Pike.
@ Pollyanna:
There is already access at Central, Cornwall, and Wharf. The city doesn’t have excess money at this time and the best way to move toward the waterfront redevelopment is to complete and adopt the plan. We don’t even have that yet and the word is that the plan may change again.
@ Clayton: under every scenario looked at, Central still needs to be rebuilt. In addition, there is significant current infrastructure within that right-of-way that is deteriorating, and must be addressed in the near term, or the costs could be much, much higher. In short, it makes sense to do now, puts local people to work fixing it now, and forestalling would expose the City–and by extension, the taxpayers, who ultimately pay for everything we do–to considerable and unnecessary risk.
@ Jon Watts,
Of course funds cannot be freely transferred. However, when the city is dipping into reserves for several years at a time we must more carefully consider what projects receive the money we do have. As far as getting the waterfront project started – I agree…. but after a plan is adopted. Just because grant money may be available, it doesn’t mean we have to match ourselves into a hole.
The City is building an overwater pedestrian bridge connecting Boulevard Park to the Cornwall Landfill at a cost of over 7 million dollars. This project was permitted and approved by the City and DOE this year, and is funded partially with ear-marked federal funds obtained from Patty Murray, and partially with greenway levy III funds, although this was not disclosed at the time of the levy fund vote. The bridge is being built years before the Landfill will be developed, hence the “road to nowhere”. (OK, its an overwater walkway to a blocked exit at a MTCA site.)
The landing for the bridge is where the dioxin is being dumped as a ”cap.” In fact, the City advised the Port that it may need to pierce the plastic sheet “containing” the dioxin in order to place pilings for the bridge landing.
Exiting the Cornwall Bridge will take the public over the RG Haley site, which contains dioxin, PCB’s and a hydrocarbon petroleum plume which has leaked to the groundwater and into the Bay. This site is unstable and subject to rapid erosion as seen this winter, when a heavy rain required an emergency action to install a long, large bulkhead. The City and Port have not even begun to tackle cleanup at this site, although you must cross over it to reach the Waterfront District.
The expensive and non-essential overwater structure will place 1/2 mile of pervious surface over Bellingham Bay, although overwater structures are known to have signficant impact to water quality and ecological functions. This is habitat for endangered and priority species, including 3 species of salmon, rockfish, wintering seabirds and marine mammals, such as harbor seals that sun with their pups on logs. Forage fish spawn nearby and this was close to the 2nd largest breeding colony of Caspian Terns on the Pacific Coast before the Port prevented their return. The City provided NO compensatory mitigation for impacts to fish and wildlife, beyond saving eelgrass, which may not be accessible to certain species. This was done against the objections of the Lummi Tribe, whose treaty rights are being ignored.
So I ask all project proponents….. at what cost jobs? Clayton is right to question whether this is a financially prudent project. I believe there are much more important uses for greenway levy funds.
I am not so sure about Petree but anyone but Pike is okay.
Same with me.