Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Reserves topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Joint Animal Services proposes 2026 budget that relies on reserves to limit jurisdiction assessments
Summary
Joint Animal Services staff presented a proposed 2026 budget that uses about $870,000 in reserves to hold down partner assessments, prompting discussion among appointed jurisdictional members about long‑term reserve use and alternatives ahead of November and December votes.
Joint Animal Services Executive Director Sarah Hawk presented a proposed 2026 budget on Thursday that staff say will rely on $870,000 from the agency’s reserves to offset operating costs and limit increases in jurisdictional assessments.
Hawk said the recommended budget totals $3,941,922 and includes a repeat recommendation to use $385,000 from reserves for general purposes ($135,000) and medical staff ($250,000), and additional reserve draw to reach the $870,000 figure. "We are using $870,000 of our reserves to help offset the true cost of service," Hawk said, adding that "this practice is not sustainable."
The proposal keeps assessments for the four Interlocal Agreement (ILA) partners — Thurston County, Olympia, Lacey and Tumwater — lower than they would be if reserves were not used. Hawk told the committee the recommended budget reflects cost‑of‑living adjustments, higher medical and supply costs tied to increased animal intake, and a new limited contract with Mason County for services.
Why it matters: the ILA allows Joint Animal Services to pass shared revenues and direct revenues (adoptions, licensing, reclaims) back to jurisdictions on a per‑capita basis, which reduces assessment obligations; staff cautioned that repeated reliance on reserves and large, one‑time donations makes longer‑term planning fragile.
Committee members pressed for context and for options that would reduce reserve use. Commissioner Klaus said she appreciated staff’s proposal but noted recent jurisdictional budget pressures and the commission’s previous guidance to reduce reliance on reserves: "It makes sense to me to leave it the way that it already is because after the last several weeks, we kind of landed on keeping it where it is," Klaus said. Several members asked staff to run alternate scenarios showing the assessment impact of using less reserve funding (for example, reducing the reserve draw by roughly $20,000 would approximately restore assessments to last year’s levels).
Staff emphasized this is a preliminary presentation and no action was requested at the meeting. Hawk said the budget is scheduled for a budget hearing in November and a final vote in December and asked appointed members to take the draft back to their jurisdictions for feedback. "We are not asking for any action tonight," Hawk said. "The budget presentation is for you to take back to your councils, your commission, to talk about what the assessment is."
Other notable budget items discussed included: a projected 8.1% increase in overall revenue driven by donations and new contract revenue (including the Mason County limited‑service contract), an estimated increase in private contributions for 2026 (staff did not budget for the unusually large bequests received in 2025), and continued capital and depreciation planning for vehicle and computer replacements.
Several committee members pushed a broader point about sustainability: if intake and associated costs remain elevated, either jurisdiction assessments must rise over time or services will need to be reduced. Hawk warned that sustained understaffing or cuts could force the agency to reduce outcomes: "When we don't have staffing to meet standards of care, we are not going to warehouse animals or keep more animals than necessary, which means our euthanasia numbers would go up," she said.
The committee asked staff to prepare materials showing at least two alternatives — (a) maintaining the proposed reserve use and (b) a scenario that reduces reserve draw to approximate last year’s assessment — and to circulate updated, clearly labeled slides for jurisdictions ahead of the November meeting. Staff also said they would report to jurisdictions that JASCOM discussed the options and solicited feedback.
Ending: the proposed budget will return to JASCOM for further discussion in November and a final vote in December. Staff requested guidance from appointed members before the next meeting so updated assessments can be included in the final packet.
