Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hood River adopts FY 2026–27 budget; council hears plea for animal-shelter funding and reviews $13M in public‑works projects
Summary
City officials approved the FY 2026–27 budget, set the tax levy and designated state revenue-sharing uses. Public Works Director Adam Field outlined $13 million in planned projects; a public commenter representing Hood River Adopt A Dog urged clearer, more reliable animal‑control funding and raised concerns about the shelter’s sustainability.
The Hood River City budget committee on May 13, 2026 approved the city’s proposed FY 2026–27 budget, adopted the advertised tax levy and approved planned uses of state revenue-sharing funds after public hearings and deliberations.
Public Works Director Adam Field (speaker 1) presented a department-by-department briefing that covered roads, sewer, stormwater, water, parks, fleet and engineering. Field said the city completed a major waterfront stormwater project this year and has $13 million of capital projects planned for FY 26–27, including Columbia Street pipe replacement, stormwater projects on 13th Street, and an I-84 bridge sewer‑line relocation tied to upcoming ODOT highway work.
Field also highlighted the newly online hydroelectric facility, reporting the unit now produces electricity. City staff and a finance presenter explained the city will implement a $25,000 asset-management program and use a mix of fund sources for capital projects; Field said the city does not have dedicated budget for real-estate acquisition in the Westside work.
During a public-comment period, Lorraine Lyons (speaker 15), representing Hood River Adopt A Dog, urged the committee to review how the county’s payments for animal-control services are allocated and asked for more reliable funding for the shelter. Lyons said the nonprofit operates on roughly $415,000 annually, receives only limited government support (about $39,000 previously), and is already drawing down reserve funds.
City and county arrangements constrain direct city payments to the shelter: staff described an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) under which the city pays the county for animal-control services (an earmark of roughly $50,000 is currently budgeted), but lease and IGA terms limit the city’s ability to contract directly with the nonprofit. The IGA is up for renewal in August and staff said they will continue coordination with the county.
Committee members asked staff for timeline details on several projects and for analyses of potential revenue options to address longer‑term structural shortfalls, including utility-rate adjustments, parking fees and other user fees. Staff reiterated the council’s fiscal policy target of at least three months of operating reserves and noted the city operated a balanced budget in the previous fiscal year.
On formal actions, the committee approved the summary of budget changes (payroll and bargaining‑agreement impacts, and a $46,000 increase in planning professional services) and voted to allow state revenue-sharing funds to be used for purposes shown in the FY 26–27 budget. The committee then moved and approved the budget and tax levies at the advertised rates.
What’s next: staff will close out the identified capital projects, continue county-level conversations about animal-control funding and present any proposed contracts or budget notes to council for final decisions; the IGA renewal with the county is expected to be discussed this summer.
