Vivian Nguyen

At the Everett City Council Budget Hearing for Admin and Finance on Wednesday, May 27, 2026, Nguyen used her time to ask questions about the city’s DEI-related functions, event funding, and employee benefits. She first pushed for clarification on the city’s restructuring plans, saying that “from the way that it’s being presented, it sounds like you’re equating multicultural to race and faith, and it’s more than that. It’s also disability or abilities, neurodiverse populations.” She then asked, “who is going to serve those groups, and which department that’s going to fall under with the new restructuring plans.”

Nguyen also raised a question about funds that had been allocated in the previous fiscal year for DEI office events. She said she had noticed that certain events were listed in the last fiscal 2026 budget and asked, “what happened to the funds for the events that didn’t happen this year.” As examples, she cited the Lunar New Year celebration and AAPI Heritage Month. After receiving a response, she thanked the speaker and said she would “follow-up with other questions I have through email or some other way.”

Later in the hearing, Nguyen introduced another budget-related question about employee benefits and health insurance. She said she wanted “consideration” of the issue and explained her understanding that state law changed prior to 2013: councilors and special employees had once been eligible for benefits such as health insurance, but since 2013 eligibility had been left to municipalities, with older participants grandfathered in. She acknowledged the prior response and thanked the speaker.

Nguyen did not register any votes during the meeting.

At the Everett City Council meeting on Tuesday, May 26, 2026, Council Member Vivian Nguyen spoke in support of a collaborative approach on the issue under discussion, which concerned data centers. Nguyen said, “By all means, I’m open to any of my colleagues’ contributions on this matter,” and later added, “I think that there is a consensus that we all have concerns about data centers.”

Nguyen invited other council members to take an active role in shaping the proposal, saying, “So, I would welcome any of my colleagues to be cosponsors on this piece so that they can contribute to shaping it and making sure that we’re a unified front because this is us together as one Everett.” Her remarks emphasized shared council ownership of the issue and a desire to present a coordinated position rather than a divided one.

In her comments, Nguyen did not raise separate procedural questions or state a distinct opposing position. Instead, she framed the matter as one where the council already shared concerns and should work together to refine the policy response. She specifically encouraged colleagues to contribute ideas and become cosponsors, indicating openness to amendments or additions from others.

No votes by Nguyen were recorded in the extracted meeting activity for this item. Accordingly, there is no individual vote to report for her in this meeting segment. Her participation in the discussion centered on consensus-building, inviting co-sponsorship, and reinforcing the idea of a unified Everett City Council approach to data centers.

During the Everett City Council Budget Hearing on Small Departments on May 20, 2026, Council member Vivian Nguyen responded to the presentation by saying, “Thank you Madam President for your presentation.”

Nguyen then raised a concern about staffing and continuity in the city council support structure. She said, “I just wanted to make a suggestion seeing that institutional knowledge is really important to retain and that there is currently a gap in support in the city council.” She framed this as a reason to preserve the position being discussed and argued that the council needed dedicated assistance to avoid losing institutional knowledge.

Based on that position, Nguyen moved to oppose the proposed reduction. She said, “And that’s why I want to make a motion to, not support the budget cut in that area for that position.” Her motion was to do not support the budget cut for the assistant city clerk/support position. The motion carried with Nguyen voting yes.

Nguyen also participated in the discussion around keeping the position funded by confirming there was an understanding that the money would be used to retain Mr. Sayer. She further seconded Martins’s motion during the hearing. Later, when the council moved toward final action on the budget, Nguyen seconded the motion to accept the budget as presented and voted yes on that motion as well.

Her actions during the hearing showed support for maintaining council staffing and preserving continuity in support services, while also endorsing final adoption of the budget package. In summary, Nguyen supported preserving the assistant city clerk/support role, emphasized the importance of institutional knowledge and council support, and ultimately voted to accept the budget as presented.

At the Everett City Council meeting on Monday, April 27, 2026, City Councilor Vivian Nguyen participated in discussion around an ordinance item and was identified by the clerk as one of the councilors offering the ordinance. Her recorded remarks centered on procedure and how the matter before the council was being handled.

Nguyen asked whether the items under consideration could be divided for separate action, stating, “Can I make a motion to take these items separately?” This was a procedural question aimed at determining whether the council could split the items rather than consider them together. According to the meeting record, she was told that the motion was not possible because the items had already been taken collectively.

That exchange is the main substantive action attributed to Nguyen in the meeting record. She did not cast any recorded votes in the extracted activity, and no roll call vote or other formal vote is associated with her in the available data. Her role, as reflected in the clerk’s identification, was tied to offering the ordinance, but the extracted record does not indicate that she spoke at length on the policy substance of the measure or offered an extended position on its merits.

The notable point from Nguyen’s participation is her attempt to address the structure of the council’s consideration of the items. Her question suggests she was seeking a separate vote or separate treatment for individual components, but the procedural response closed off that option because the items had already been bundled for collective consideration. Beyond that exchange, the available record does not show additional comments, motions, or votes by Nguyen during this meeting segment.

During the Everett City Council meeting on Monday, April 13, 2026, Councilor Vivian Nguyen took a brief but clear procedural action related to item 30. Her recorded statement was, “Can I just make a quick request to update my vote for item 30 to no, please?” This was a request to correct or change her prior recorded position on that item.

The meeting record shows that Nguyen’s specific vote associated with this action was on “Reconsideration on item 30,” and she voted “no.” Her action was listed as a request to update her prior vote on item 30 to no, indicating that she wanted the official record to reflect her revised position.

No additional remarks, questions, or substantive policy arguments from Nguyen were captured in the extracted meeting data. The available record therefore shows her engagement on this item as procedural and focused on ensuring the accuracy of her vote. There is no indication in the extracted activity that she made broader comments on the merits of item 30, raised questions for staff or other councilors, or entered into a notable exchange beyond her request to update the vote.

In sum, Nguyen’s participation in the portion of the meeting reflected in the extracted data centered on a vote correction request and her “no” vote on reconsideration of item 30.

At the Everett Special City Council meeting on Thursday, April 9, 2026, City Councilor Vivian Nguyen took a limited but procedurally important role during the council’s action on nominations. Nguyen’s recorded activity shows that she did not make a substantive policy statement or raise a question from the floor during this meeting. Instead, her participation centered on parliamentary procedure.

When a motion was made to close nominations, Nguyen immediately seconded the motion. Her exact recorded statement was, “Second.” This action indicated her support for ending further nominations and moving the council toward a vote on the matter at hand. By seconding the motion, Nguyen formally helped place the question before the council for consideration.

Nguyen then voted yes on the motion to close nominations. The motion passed with her support, and her vote is part of the official record of the council’s decision. Her recorded actions show consistent alignment between her procedural endorsement and her final vote.

No additional remarks, objections, or exchanges by Nguyen were recorded in the extracted meeting activity. She did not register any opposition, ask questions, or offer commentary beyond the brief seconding of the motion. Her participation in this portion of the meeting was therefore concise and focused on advancing the council’s nomination process.

In summary, Nguyen’s role in the April 9 special meeting was straightforward: she seconded the motion to close nominations, stated “Second,” and voted yes on the motion.

At the Everett Ways and Means Committee meeting on Monday, April 13, 2026, City Councilor Vivian Nguyen participated in discussion of the blue bike grant/item and related procedural motions. Nguyen first sought clarification about how the funding would work if not all of the money were spent within the three-month period. She asked, “So I just wanted to clarify that if there’s excess money by the end of the three months, it just gets returned from the $150,000 if we were to allocate it.” After receiving an “Okay,” she reiterated her point: “I just wanted to make that point clear since it seems that there isn’t any loss if the money doesn’t get used.” Her comments reflected concern about whether unused funds would simply revert rather than create a downside for the city.

Nguyen also took an active role in the committee’s motions. She seconded the motion to strike the phrase “legally required” from the order. She then seconded the motion to invite the representative from the transportation committee up, indicating support for bringing that person forward for discussion. Later in the meeting, she seconded the motion for favorable action on the blue bike grant/item, signaling her support for advancing the proposal. Finally, she seconded the motion to adjourn.

Her recorded votes were all affirmative. She voted yes on striking “legally required” from the order, yes on inviting the transportation committee representative up, yes on favorable action on the blue bike grant/item, and yes on adjournment. Across the meeting, Nguyen’s interventions were focused on clarifying the handling of unspent funds and supporting the committee’s procedural steps and final action on the item.