Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Budget Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Thurston County commissioners move to oppose approval of most FY25 general‑fund requests
Summary
The Board of County Commissioners voted to adopt a motion directing staff to oppose approval of general‑fund additions, positions or reclasses with additional general‑fund cost for fiscal year 2025; the board amended language after legal concern about the word "prohibit."
Thurston County commissioners on Sept. 10 adopted a motion directing county staff and departments that the board will oppose approval of fiscal‑year 2025 requests that would add general‑fund positions, add general‑fund budget items, or reclassify positions if the change has a new general‑fund expenditure impact.
The measure began as a proposal read by county staff to “prohibit fiscal year 2025 requests for general‑fund additions, positions, or reclasses that have an additional general‑fund expenditure impact.” Commissioners debated whether the verb “prohibit” could be interpreted to bar independently elected officials from submitting requests. After discussion the board accepted a friendly amendment that changed the wording from “prohibit” to “oppose approval of,” and then carried the amended motion by voice vote.
County Manager Leonard Hernandez told the board the motion is intended to provide clarity to offices and departments and to avoid spending staff time on requests that would increase the county general fund in the current fiscal climate. Commissioners said the direction is intended as a limited, interim posture while staff develop the 2026–27 budget and that offices may still submit requests but should expect that the board will likely oppose approval of general‑fund increases.
Some commissioners flagged legal limits on the board’s authority to restrain independently elected officials; Hernandez and other staff clarified the action does not physically prevent anyone from submitting a request, only that the board is signaling they will not approve such requests for FY25 absent extraordinary justification. Commissioner Emily Klaus and Vice Chair Wayne Fournier were among those who sought clearer wording before the vote.
The board recorded the motion as amended and verbally called the question; the chair declared the motion carried.
This direction will be used in preparing the 2026–27 budget documents and in communications to offices and departments about how out‑of‑cycle requests will be handled for the remainder of 2025.
Ending: Staff advised the revised motion is not a permanent policy but a short‑term posture for FY25; if offices seek exceptions they may still bring requests for board consideration and legal review.
