Thurston commission spares animal services from budget cuts after public outcry
READ MORE
Thurston County works to close 2026 budget deficit
Thurston County commissioners are deciding how to close an estimated $36 million budget gap in the general fund, the county’s primary operating fund, for 2026.
Expand All
Thurston County will spare local animal services from funding cuts for now following public pushback to a proposal last week.
On Friday, the Board of County Commissioners unanimously approved reversing a Sept. 23 decision that alarmed supporters of Joint Animal Services, the primary animal shelter and animal control agency for the county and local cities.
In the Sept. 23 decision, the board directed the county manager to begin conversations with Joint Animal Services Commission (JASCOM) about reducing the county’s contribution by about $500,000. That dollar amount represents about half of the money the county allocates to JASCOM, a separate body that operates JAS. If that cut was to be enacted, it would significantly reduce JAS field services in unincorporated Thurston County and limit resources for animal abuse cases in those areas.
Commissioners Emily Clouse and Rachel Grant opposed the Sept. 23 decision but were outvoted by their three other seatmates. The decision occurred as the commissioners worked quickly to fill a $36 million general fund budget deficit.
The Sept. 23 decision did not definitively decide the county would cut funding to JASCOM. Rather, it was a preliminary decision the board made to build a biennial budget due for final approval in December.
Still, the decision spurred public resistance that manifested in calls and emails to county commissioners. On Friday, the board’s meeting room at The Atrium was packed with county officials listening to budget deliberations as well as JAS supporters, some of which held signs.
Clouse, who currently sits on the JASCOM board, said Thurston County accounts for 40-45% of all field services calls and only 25% of the county’s contribution goes toward field services.
“Most of it is the cost of sheltering and caring for the animals that Animal Services has,” Clouse said. “So, with those details, it kind of helped me conceptualize the real impact, and it would mean that we would most likely lose shelter services, which is critical.”
After the meeting, Clouse said her seatmates’ turnaround showed the power of collective organizing and public participation.
“When the community shows up and they show out, things happen, changes are made,” Clouse said. “If people could pay attention, like they did on today’s topic, with more topics, and I know some of them are complex, but if people paid attention, they would change our decisions.”
Why did commissioners reverse their votes?
Commissioner Carolina Mejia provided some context ahead of the vote Friday. She said she supported increasing JAS funding three years ago to improve service levels.
“This was a priority to me, because I believe that our county residents deserve the same level of service as their city neighbors and that welfare of our pets and animals shouldn’t be different based on where you live,” Mejia said.
She said her Sept. 23 vote was a “very hard decision to make.” In the days afterwards, she asked Commissioner Tye Menser to reduce the targeted cut from $500,000 to $250,000 in a new budget proposal.
“Over the past months, weeks and days, I have been looking under every possible avenue to find solutions,” Mejia said. “I’ve had a number of calls and conversations with residents, and I want to thank everyone who reached out to share their input. I have heard your concerns and your passion, and it really has meant a great deal to me.”
Mejia said she is working on long term solutions for animal services funding with Washington state representatives Beth Doglio and Lisa Parshley. She said Parshley is planning to propose a statewide solution next year.
“This is critical, because I firmly believe the welfare of animals, our pets and those without a voice, should never be subject to yearly debates or uncertainty,” Mejia said. “I am grateful to continue this work alongside our state partners and our local jurisdictions.”
Mejia said knowing that there may be some light at the end of the tunnel for JAS made her believe it would be best to leave the agency’s funding untouched for now. She asked the public to support Parshley’s proposal in the year ahead.
“To all the residents here today, as the bill moves forward, just as you have shown up here today, I’m asking that you please show up and support this bill,” Mejia said.
Commissioner Tye Menser described the recent full funding for JASCOM as a pilot program, meaning he wanted to see if it would be cost effective for the county.
Menser initially said he did not feel comfortable leaving JASCOM funding untouched without cutting money from somewhere else.
“I’m not comfortable with Commissioner Mejia’s motion entirely, because it kind of just leaves it to chance,” Menser said. “Like maybe that bill will get through the legislature, and then maybe this board will have the will to pass another tax to support animal services.”
Commissioner Grant, who opposed the Sept. 23 decision, said finding an extra $250,000 in the county’s sprawling budget should be doable by the end of the year.
“That has been my biggest concern with all of this, is that I have a really hard time moving forward without full pictures and verified projections,” Grant said about the county’s approach to the budget this year.
“But I am absolutely in favor of supporting our animals. I will finish with this: I toured JAS as a commissioner and came home with a kitten and her name is Corey.”
Commissioner Wayne Fournier rejected Grant’s more optimistic outlook and said he favored more conservative budget estimates.
“We should not be projecting that things are rosy,” Fournier said. “We should not be spending to the hilt. We should be very cautious. I do believe that the economy is going to continue in a downward trend.”
Menser was ultimately swayed into keeping JAS at full funding for now after Mejia asked for his patience on an alternative funding proposal.
Though Wayne also voted to reverse the Sept. 23 decision as well, he said he still wanted the county to engage with JASCOM about funding.
“I still think a conversation needs to be had with Joint Animal Services, just like it is being had with every contract that the county has, but that targeted number… it’s got an emotional trigger to it,” Fournier said.
“I don’t think that we can put that out there as the goal, but I certainly think that the conversation needs to be had.”
Fournier said he had received dozens of phone calls, emails and Facebook messages from supporters and detractors of JAS. He said he shared constituent concerns about JAS field services but pushed back against “misinformation.”
He said the county has a contract with JAS. To amend that contract, the board must decide to direct the county manager to engage with JASCOM.
“We have to discuss things and come to a consensus about our approach before the county goes out and has discussions with the partners outside,” Fournier said.
He said the board needs to “make cuts everywhere” to balance its general fund and JAS is not the only place the county is looking at.
“This county will be losing incredible staff, important services and programs because of the cuts we are forced to make in this budget,” Fournier said.
What else did the board decide Friday?
The board move forward with a new budget proposal after making headway on a $36 million general fund deficit.
Over the past week, the board made a series of decisions that cut the deficit by about $19.5 million. The board decided to spread out about $10 million of that total equally among all offices and departments to reduce their expected cuts from around 26% to about 18%.
From there, the board applied the remaining $9.5 million to select offices and departments. The move spared some from deeper cuts and spared others from facing any cuts at all.
Offices that have been spared from cuts so far include those of the Assessor and Treasurer. County documents state these offices already have staffing shortages and workload challenges, but they must complete legally mandated work.
Thurston County District Court has also been spared from cuts, according to county documents.
Mejia said the commissioners decided to spare District Court because of its contracts with local cities, which most recently includes Olympia.
She added the county intends to conduct a rate study next year that will better determine the true costs of services to the cities.
“We’re not going to be able to get it right away,” Menser said of the study. “But we know there’s probably going to be some adjustments coming to District Court.”
Menser said District Court also benefited from providing extensive internal data showing they are understaffed for their caseloads.
“For some groups, it’s speculative,” Menser said about underfunding. “We know it, but they’ve (District Court) actually got studies and data to back it up.”
Notably, previous county documents showed it was facing a $23.8 million general fund deficit. However, the numbers the board was working with now show there’s a $36 million deficit.
When asked to explain the new number, Menser said the deficit can range depending on how staff approach it. He said $36 million is the “absolute worst-case scenario” and the county wanted to start from there when considering cuts.
“I think in government, in general, you want to stay a little bit on the conservative side, so you don’t have to build something that you have to then tear down,” Menser said of his approach. “Government is trying to create stability for people and its employees and the community.”
This story was originally published September 30, 2025 at 5:00 AM.
