[By Suzan Torguson, North Bend City Councilmember. Views expressed are those of the author, not the Living Snoqualmie website. You may submit letters to info@livingsnoqualmie.com.]
Author’s Note: The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect the position of the North Bend City Council.
When the City Council adopts a budget, it’s more than numbers on paper—it’s a commitment to the public regarding how your tax dollars are spent. Because of that commitment, the way decisions are presented to the public matters just as much as the decisions themselves.
At the April 21st North Bend City Council meeting, we were asked to vote on a budget amendment (AB26-037) titled “Amending 2025-2026 Biennial Budget (BA#5)”. I want to explain why I voted “no” on this measure and provide some context on the city finance process that informed my decision.
The Budget Cycle
Because North Bend operates on a two-year budget cycle, our spending plan is established well in advance. When a brand-new policy or project is proposed mid-cycle, it should follow a clear path: first, the Council vets and approves the policy itself. Only after that approval is granted should a budget amendment be brought forward to authorize the actual spending.
Usually, budget amendments are routine “clean-up” items—adjusting the books for projects the Council has already thoroughly debated and authorized. This proposal, however, was different. It bundled four separate items into a single, “all-or-nothing” vote.
The Bundle
The amendment (AB26-037) included four distinct items. Three had already been approved through separate ordinances before this measure reached the Council. I supported those infrastructure projects, which included long-term investments in expert consultants to drive economic development and necessary updates to the police annex to ensure a safe, code-compliant workspace for our officers. Public safety and smart investment are priorities I will always support.
The fourth item, however, was only partially vetted. It tethered a previously approved utility update to a brand-new policy change: the creation of a new job title and its associated pay scale.
Unlike the other items, this was a fresh policy decision that had never been voted on. By combining them, a routine administrative update was used as a vehicle to carry a new financial commitment across the finish line without independent scrutiny.
Why It Matters
Because these items were combined, councilmembers were placed in a difficult position: vote “yes” to all four items, or “no” to all four—even if we supported some but disagreed with others.
I am comfortable with the “second vote” of a budget amendment for projects we have already agreed upon. I am not comfortable using that technicality to tether a new salary structure to “must-pass” budget updates.
While updating a utility budget is an operational task based on previously approved rates, creating and adding a new salary structure is a distinct policy decision. Adding a new salary structure to the existing salary schedule carries long-term financial implications—especially considering its impact on the City’s projected 2027 budget deficit. Each deserves its own discussion and its own clear, transparent vote.
Commitment to Accountability
Good government requires clarity. When unrelated items are bundled, transparency is reduced. It becomes harder for both the public and their representatives to see exactly what is being committed.
My vote was not a rejection of infrastructure or public safety; it was a call for a process that allows the public to clearly see, understand, and trust how decisions are made.
Transparency in government isn’t optional; it’s essential. As a Councilmember, my responsibility is not just how I vote, but ensuring the process itself remains clear and accountable to the residents I serve.
