Kudos to your reporter for his articles. Having sat in meetings where he was not present and had no reason to be I have heard different versions of what he has been told.

The last numbers given at the final Utility Committee meeting prior to budget approval called for a raise in both sewer and potable water rates of over 10 percent. At an earlier meeting the city engineer projected an approximate 100-year life for the main line replacement from South Prairie Creek. Why would he now talk in the 50-year range unless it is an attempted justification for the hookup boondoggle to the Tacoma Water system that is being presented as a emergency option, at a considerable cost? The 20-year life of the Elk Heights booster station means Buckley citizens will get to pick up another developer’s costs as that is when the city is projected to assume financial responsibility for that station.

The revenue projections on potable water were impacted by an unusually wet, cold year. If the city is operating that close to a zero balance, I would suggest a serious look at cutting costs. In the five years this administration has been in power our utility costs have increased 87 percent for the same amount of service. For the compounders that is 13.3 percent per year and we do not receive sewer or NG service from the city. More employees have been added to the utility budgets though to be frank with you, we do not see the corresponding improvement in service. We do see more pickups driving around staffed by two people drinking their lattés. That is the mayor’s area of responsibility, but she has an issue dealing with that.

As for the budget preparations, I attended all the committee meetings last year and a majority of them this year including all the finance and utilities meetings. A budget agenda goes somewhat like this: 1) everyone is handed a copy of revenue and expenditure projections for that committee’s area of concern at the start of the meeting; 2) the city administrator goes through selected parts of the projections and explains those areas he is most interested in; 3) occasionally questions are asked about small items and there is some clarification (Never have I seen a committee decision in dissent. It may have something to do with the fact that critical committees are stacked, even if unqualified, with those sympathetic to the mayor’s agenda); 4) this goes through numerous iterations with the numbers changing as information becomes more complete. Never is there time to seriously study what is going on; I believe that to be by design. The budget document citizens are given to read and testify on is not the same document the council is presented for consideration. So it’s a hurry up process presented somewhat on the mushroom theory.

This somewhat confusing process goes on for three months, for those not familiar with the public process of budgeting it can get frustrating. But what has been a one-sided process is what some council members are attempting to inject a dose of reality into. Their attempts are being blocked by a coalition of those who do not want to do what their position says they should be doing; you might want to ask yourself, why is that?

Reality is, all public budgets are taking a hit, yet Buckley goes merrily along without any apparent cuts to any expenditures, employee costs have definitely gone up and are continuing to do so. All outside sources of revenue and projections are down, so the utility budgets have been Buckley’s only source of additional revenue and those funds are being increased and raided to avoid making choices that should be made. What isn’t happening is any serious improvements to basic infrastructure which is what the increases in utility costs should fund.

While there have been two people forced out, one was replaced half-time and the other, the very competent former city planner, was RIFed and replaced by a part-timer who is now costing the city more than the original full-timer. And employees have been added, I don’t have the exact number, but I do know in times past most of the pickups were old with one person in them. But what I find most interesting is that those who opposed this budget going forward at the time it did and the cost it did, actually work so are more limited in their access to enough time to properly study where costs could be contained. Again, hats off to council members Harple, Montgomery and McNally for taking a stand that should have been taken five years ago.

Marvin Sundstrom

Buckley