11-02-2026 Battle Ground City Council Study Session & Regular Meeting

The Battle Ground City Council held a 2027 budget study session and regular meeting on November 2, 2026. Staff presented a preliminary citywide budget of $91.2 million, including $6.3 million in appropriated fund balance; after excluding internal transfers, the budget was described as $71.3 million. Major categories included $25.3 million in capital expenditures, $19 million for services, and $17.8 million for salaries and benefits. Capital priorities included transportation, parks, and facilities, with projects funded through a mix of grants, impact and mitigation fees, real-estate excise tax, and city funds. Remy Park improvements were budgeted at about $2.66 million, supported by a large grant and park impact fees. The budget also carries forward the 2026 street-preservation investment, while Southwest Eaton Boulevard projects will not proceed in 2027 after the city did not receive a Safe Streets grant. The proposed budget and 2027 fee schedule remain subject to later hearings and adoption; the fee schedule is scheduled for council consideration on November 16, as is the ordinance setting the 2027 property-tax levy, which includes a 1% increase.

For Community Development Block Grant funding, staff presented Remy Park Phase 3 and a Grace Avenue pathway project as possible applications. After discussion, council reached consensus to apply only for Remy Park; staff noted that available CDBG funding was insufficient to fund both proposals. Council also discussed possible city support for a downtown business mobile app, but requested further exploration through the economic development committee and made no funding decision. Other policy and development matters included a proposed master-planned-development zoning code with a longer vesting period for larger phased projects, and proposed school impact-fee rates; these were presentations or scheduled for later hearings, not contract awards. No vendor selection or procurement contract award was identified. The council did not approve the proposed interim city manager contract on the consent agenda, and the later city-manager-related vote concerned employment action rather than procurement.