James Rose:

It is very clear that the issue of the Public Safety charge was not very well thought out from the onset. The legal questions of whether or not the Public Safety “charge” still appearing on our monthly water bills is truly a “user fee” or a “tax” has yet to be determined by any judicial authority. Based on my research, the current PS Fee is an illegal tax because it was not voted on by the electorate. The fact is that the city likely remains in jeopardy of this charge being declared an illegal tax at some point. I believe that “taxation without representation” is fundamentally wrong. Our current City Council chose to pursue the imposition of the Public Safety charge and continued increasing the fee by 500% in just two years without taking into account this basic consideration. The Council “doubled down” on taxation without representation when the City Council voted 4-3 on February 26, 2019 to nullify the result of a duly held election. Councilor Slater and my opponent – Councilor Jessica Engelke were two of the four votes that raised the fee to $30 per month in spite of the November 2018 election result that said “No” to a $10 fee increase. The passage of Measure 176 will forever stop the imposition of fees in lieu of taxes in the City of North Bend and I am glad that I was a part of the initiative and the campaign that was overwhelmingly supported by the citizens of North Bend.

Jessica Engelke:

Being a City Councilor requires you to make the best decisions possible with the information that is available to you at the time. Given a choice between potentially cutting public safety or fire fighters and increasing the public safety fee, I chose to make the best decision with the information I had at the time and considered input from the citizens who attended the meetings. There were
mixed feelings in the community, but I was earnestly working to protect the best interest of North Bend and the people who live here. My priority is always going to be keeping our citizens safe. Voters have made the decision that we need to find other ways to fund public safety, and I welcome that challenge. My experiences as a City Councilor helped me to learn and grow. I am committed to
looking for ways to keep the same level of service our citizens deserve with the limited financial resources we have in our city’s budget. I support citizens having the right to control methods of revenue generation that directly affect them.

Eric Gleason:

I think that the advisory vote was ill conceived in its plan and execution. The city should bring the people together to have a conversation regarding the need for the funds and what they were to be utilized for. I firmly believe that by having that discussion we do not have the need for prop 176/177. We would have had the trust of the people in lock-step with the city council. With improved communication, you have improved policies and procedures that are in keeping with the idea of moving our city forward.

Jonathan Vinyard:

By placing the public safety fee to a vote and learning the citizens of North Bend did not want an increase, I would have voted against the rise in the fee as any Council member should have. Remember, City Council members are elected to be the voice of the citizens they serve. The citizens said no to the increase and their wishes should have been granted. Period. I absolutely support the idea that the citizens have the right to control methods of revenue generation that directly affect them. City Council’s job is not to decide for the people, it is to be a mouthpiece of the people. It is also City Council’s job to freely provide all necessary information to the people so they can make the best decision as it pertains to them.

Pat Goll:

Once again if I would have been on City Council when the $30.00 issue came up, the vote would have been 4-3 against the increase. Public safety is definitely important to me, and to all citizens. Is there other ways in the budget to fund it? I am ready to put in the work to figure that out. I am 100% North Bend and for a better city for all.

Ron Kutch:

First of all, I believe the whole Public Safety Fee and Associated Fallout was a hairball. Just one big, ugly, stinky hairball. It pitted neighbor against neighbor, brother against brother, father against son… Well… that may be a bit over-dramatic, but it WAS a hairball, amiright?. “We are going to combine 911 centers” “No we’re not” “We need $5 a month” “We need $15 a month” “We need a ballot measure to increase property taxes” “No, we need a ballot measure to impose a fee” “Now we need $20 a month – aw, heck, let’s just call it $30.”

But you know what? I was at those meetings. I saw the agony that the City Council went through. Not a single one of them wanted to increase fees, but every single one of them wanted a better, safer City. But you know what I didn’t see? I didn’t see many other citizens there. I know – I’m weird. I like City Council meetings. And I have more spare time than some other folks. But I had to give up several episodes of Jeopardy to make those meetings. There were a few other folks there, but not many.

That comes to why I am running for City Council. Our system of communication between City Hall and the citizens of North Bend is broken. Many (most?) folks didn’t know about a fee until it showed up on their water bill. I believe that if citizens knew – really knew – about City finances and how they were managed and why it costs more to run things than the revenues coming in and health insurance and PERS and all the other things, and trusted the City Council to do the right thing, they would, like myself, swallow hard and say ”y’know. I’m gonna miss that extra money every month, but when somebody is breaking into my car or my house is on fire, I want someone to show up.” Now, some people can’t afford any extra money to go toward anything every month. Others can. I
have been blessed. I would pay my part and someone else’s if I needed to. But, I think most folks can afford the fee, they just don’t want to pay it.

Which brings me to the crux of the question. It’s not about the money. The problem is the citizens have lost confidence in the North Bend City Council to represent them. That is the issue. I promise you that I will;

1) make communication easier, and
2) will listen, and
3 ) that we will disagree about SOMETHING down the road, guaranteed.

But I will listen. It’s up to you to speak up. I can’t hear you if you don’t speak up. Deals?

OK, back to the question “Do you support the idea that the citizens have the right to control methods of revenue generation that directly affect them?”

The short answer is Yes. . But there is more than one way to do that. 6-176 and 6-177 is one way. I would have preferred people show up at council meetings, listened, asked questions and expressed their opinion during the whole hairball process. You know – a conversation. I think if communication between the citizens and the City was better we wouldn’t be here. I would have handled it differently by heading the hairball off before it became a hairball.

I understand why NBCFGFG did what it did. I really do, and I completely support the initiative petition process. I was on the fence about 6-177. I don’t want to be known as the city who works their public safety officers harder and pays them less than anywhere in the state. (It’s hyperbole, folks – don’t take it too literally) But I also understand the citizen’s right to say “NO” and be heard. It was wrong for the Council to bypass the will of the voters. Overall, I can’t fault you all for putting 6-176 and 6-177 on the ballot, although I would have tried harder earlier on. Although it is the City’s responsibility to get information out and get opinions from the citizens, the meetings are public.

I was opposed to 6-176. I believe in a Representative form of government. We elect people to get the facts and make the decisions. Since we can’t all possibly get all the facts, we have to trust the elected officials. When we come to a point where we don’t trust them, we fire them – at the ballot. Having said that, 6-176 was passed and we will abide by it.

But again. Money isn’t the issue. Trust is the issue. I commit to earning your trust, even if we don’t always agree. Fair ‘nuff?

Susanna Noordhoff:

It would be interesting to look behind the curtain and learn the inside story. I would not have added the $15 Public Safety fee after the citizens had voted against it. I think it’s suspicious that the City’s Finance Director left the City’s employment during the development of the 2020-2021 budget, and that City Administrator O’Connor did not make any public announcement about this departure at a Council meeting. I support the idea that the citizens have the right to control revenue generation. I also believe the City should be run in a fiscally responsible manner.

Timm Slater:

The citizens have a right and responsibility to be actively engaged in the operations of their city, county and state. Ultimate authority comes from the direction of the majority of those being represented. The very best approach, from a balanced financial basis, would be to propose a 3 year serial levy. It would lay out the amount of service cost to be allocated on a value of property basis, with a statement of service to be provided. At the end of the 3 years the people grade the effort by extending or ending the levy.