City budgets are more than just sets of numbers representing revenues and expenditures. They are also statements of values. Budgets reflect what communities deem to be important when it comes to services and the common good.
We at SAW believe that well-funded and robust municipal animal services contribute to that common good. After reviewing available information on the City of Seattle’s adopted 2023-2024 budget, messages regarding animal services are mixed.
Reduced Seattle Animal Shelter (SAS) funding
The City of Seattle is decreasing funding for the Seattle Animal Shelter. The 2023-2024 budget shows a decrease of almost $2 million from the 2022 adopted budget. The rationale is that the City has identified “alternative revenue sources, including….donations to the Seattle Animal Shelter.” In fact, the Seattle Animal Shelter Foundation (SASF), a donor-driven nonprofit, is the sole funder of an additional administrative position within the Shelter. As can be seen in the chart below, City funding of SAS is geared primarily towards labor costs with a sharp increase in 2019. Non-labor expenses have remained low and static. It is possible that SASF has funded equipment and supplies for the animals to make up any gaps. Foundations do support city services, a prime example being the Seattle Public Library Foundation. However, it is a message about the importance of basic animal services when the City sees donations as reasons to decrease its funding obligations, particularly as donations are not a guaranteed source of income and can fluctuate based on other happenings in the world.
Two additional Humane Law Enforcement positions
Field officers are the City of Seattle employees who work with the public to enforce laws regarding animals and their welfare. It appears that two additional positions will be added in 2023 bringing the total number of field officers to 15. This is welcome news. In the last ten years, the City of Seattle has experienced an increase of over 112,000 individuals and an estimated 29,168 additional companion animals, but a net increase of only one field officer. An addition of two positions is sorely needed. Having said that, it is important to note that the City is not paying for these additional officers through the General Fund. Instead, funding for these positions comes from the Park District Levy, a property tax specifically designated for Seattle park district expenses. The Mayor’s proposed budget states that these positions are “to meet increasing community demand for security services and Park Code compliance support in Seattle Parks and Recreation (SPR) property.” Such funding arrangements have occurred before as field officer work does include enforcement of off-leash laws. We are confident that field officers will be addressing animal cruelty issues and we believe that field officer work should be considered a form of law enforcement. Nevertheless, it appears that only specific park security needs drove this increase, not animal welfare concerns. If not for that, would the two positions have been funded at all? Sources: https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/FinanceDepartment/2324proposedbudget/FAS.pdf https://www.seattle.gov/council/issues/understanding-councils-budget-amendments https://openbudget.seattle.gov/