City Council retreat round-up
from this week’s paper:
By Tom Scanlon Editor, the North Coast News
The pessimists of the world, like your Dave Creightons, would say, “The sky is falling!”
To which a Dean Bunkers-type optimist would answer, “But at least it’s not raining. And as soon as the sky is done falling, we’ll be in great shape!”
Mayor Bunkers held a two-day retreat last week, with City Council, department heads and a volunteer facilitator. Creighton, easily the most outspoken and dark-viewed of the council members, often suggested the recent past is a cloud of doom over Ocean Shores.
“We had people spending money that anyone with half a brain would realize we couldn’t afford,” Creighton said.
“Over the last several years we’ve been lied to and lied to and lied to . . . You have to look at the past so you don’t make the same mistake.”
Coming off a brutal year of layoffs and budget crunches, and facing more tough fiscal years, one might expect them to go for the “run away” meaning of “retreat.”
Not so for the forward-charging Bunkers, who took this time to have council look back at accomplishments of the previous year, review all City departments, set goals and prioritize.
He often stayed in the background, but used his time in leading a discussion of budget issues to put positive spin on economic challenges.
“We’ll be coming out of (the recession) a year in advance of the rest of the country,” Bunkers promised.
Yet some of the challenges Ocean Shores faces this year could swing an optimist to Creighton’s grumpy place.
Sure, there was some good news at the retreat. An improved fire rating, and reduced crime (see story, above). A list of accomplishments from 2008, including smoothly reforming the City’s government, establishing the City’s first Critical Areas Ordinance and beginning construction of a new fire station.
(See northcoastnews.com for a complete list of “accomplishments.”)
And now, some not-so-great news:
-An EMS (Emergency Medical Services) levy expires this year, and Fire Chief Jim Hodges will likely ask for a new levy, in the neighborhood of 50 cents per assessed thousand dollars.
He was asked: If it fails?
“I would lose half my staff. . . . when you call 911 up and say ‘I have chest pains,’ I say ‘I’ll be with you in two hours.’”
-Reserves of general fund are just under $1.2 million. But it includes a $220,000 interfund loan from the street LID to general fund. Bunkers said it will have to be repaid in three years, with a $70,000 payment in 2010.
-Revenues continue to decrease.
-Unfunded items that department heads have identified as important to the City add up to around $360,000: new fire engine, $200,000; financial software, $45,000; Weatherwax banking, up to $37,000; emergency preparedness, $50,000; summer parks program, $12,000; Fourth of July safety, $20,000.
-Increasing labor costs continue to unduly burden the City, Bunkers said. He noted he is addressing the six-year bargaining contracts with various unions.
“I’ve asked for some concessions . . I’m hopefully close to wrap up negotiations with the exempts.”
-Street maintenance is not funded.
-A storm drain lawsuit looming on the horizon (Bunkers said a Thurston County judge pledged a decision within two weeks on whether the suit goes to trial); it could drain the City’s plentiful utility reserves.
Despite some of the gloomy projections, the mood at the retreat was generally cheerful, often jolly.
Yet there were a few moments of tension, such as when Dick Skewis complained that the Convention Center does not have a maintenance fund.
“Two years ago, we had 80 grand in that fund,” Creighton edgily countered. “We started spending like drunk sailors, and now there’s nothing.”
And, when Garland French pushed to get a resolution regarding Weatherwax on the next agenda, there was push-back.
“We put it to a vote, 68 percent said ‘save it.’ Now it’s our turn,” French said. “ . . . I believe we are overdue with responding to the people.”
“It’s kind of slipped off our radar,” conceded council member Bob Crumpacker.
Still, he and other council members raised the concern about not having enough time to get a resolution on the next agenda.
This was pretty much how the retreat went. It was a mixture of back patting, worrying, minor complaining (Peggy Berry spent about 15 minutes harping on those who don’t have garbage picked up), vague planning . . . and precious little action.

Mr. Skewis: “Action” meant more as a verb, such as the “action” you took in attempting to put a timeline on a water plan (first quarter of 2009). Or the “action” of Mr. French trying to get on the agenda. Or “actively” of prioritizing other goals (which I believe would be legal?). . . . Just the same, probably not the best choice of words, thanks for the clarification.
Tom, your last sentence in the above article is way out of school. It is not legal for the council to take action at a retreat. The purpose of a retreat is to discuss issues outside of the formal arena of a council meeting and share ideas to move issues forward.