HOW GOVERNMENT FAILS ANIMALS: THE FATE OF WASHINGTON STATE HOUSE BILL 2258
- May 23
- 8 min read
Government fails animals. Undoubtedly, individual cities and counties have municipal shelters with staff and volunteers who work very hard for the animals in their care; however, these shelters are not supported sufficiently. They are under-resourced and overlooked as part of government services and city planning. While these jurisdictions have animal cruelty laws,they are often outdated with enforcement dependent on staffing and the willingness of a law department to prosecute offenders.
There are many examples of these failures in government. This post looks at a recent Washington state bill that failed in the last legislative session.
Main points:
HB 2258 would have authorized cities and counties to levy a tax to support local animal control and shelter systems.
The bill did not have a hearing and died in committee.
The bill relied on a household excise tax generally seen as a greater burden on lower-income households.
Animal services are perceived as a niche issue.
While the state did not want to allow for additional tax burdens, it did pass a bill allowing the City of Seattle to do exactly that with a possible fire district.
Animal services as a valuable public service must be argued on a larger platform.
What was Washington State House Bill (HB) 2258?
This bill was introduced at the beginning of the 2025-2026 Washington State Legislative Session and was referred to the House Finance Committee. This bill authorized cities and counties to levy a household excise tax for the operation, maintenance, and capital needs of animal control and shelter systems.
The bill language outlines the reasoning behind this legislation. According to the bill, there is “an increasing number of city and county-owned or contracted and operated animal control and shelter systems in the state of Washington, as in the nation, are finding that revenue from general funds and licensing fees alone are insufficient to maintain animal control and shelter systems that meet essential and community needs, resulting in service reductions or elimination or impacts to other essential public services.”
What is a household excise tax?
An excise tax is a specific type of tax that is levied on certain goods or services at the time of their purchase. Common goods subject to excise taxes in the United States include motor fuel, tobacco, and airline tickets. These taxes are typically paid by businesses but are passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.
Additional examples in Washington State include the Motor Vehicle Tax in which the State and Sound Transit levy excise taxes based on a vehicle’s value. The State also imposes the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) on the selling price if one buys or sells property.
What happened to HB 2258?
HB 2258 died in committee by not meeting the legislative cutoff deadlines during the 60-day 2026 legislative session. This means that House Finance Committee members did not vote to move it to the next phase of the legislative process which would have been a referral to the House Rules Committee. HB 2258 never received a public hearing or executive action in the House Finance Committee after its initial reading on January 5, 2026.
Why did HB 2258 fail?
In many ways, this bill was doomed from the start. The bill was a proposal to allow another local tax increase. Taxpayer fatigue is becoming an issue with new levies being proposed at an increasing rate. Sadly, while taxpayers may be willing to fund a library or emergency services, no one is making the case that an animal control district would be a net benefit for the local community; as a result, it appeared as more of a “niche” issue.
In addition, excise taxes generally charge a flat amount per unit (e.g., a 50-cent tax per gallon of gas) rather than a percentage of the item's price. As a result, they are considered regressive, meaning that the taxes consume a larger percentage of a lower-income household's earnings compared to a higher-income household.
Yes, but….
The State Legislature’s concern about taxpayer fatigue seems inconsistent. The City of Seattle heavily lobbied for a bill passed by the State Legislature that would give Seattle the authority to levy taxes (or a fee called a “benefit charge”) outside the existing property tax cap—meaning that the city could increase taxes without bumping up against the $3.60 property tax limit.This would be a win-win for Seattle. Should voters approve a new fire district, this could remove General Fund support of fire services, closing the city’s budget gap, and instead impose a levy on property owners to support the new fire district. Since the fire district levy would not be included in the property tax limit, the City would still have room to pursue additional property taxes up to that limit. All of this would depend on the voters approving the levies.
What is the bottom line?
The bottom line is that animal services, whether animal control or the shelter system, are not seen as worthy of additional public funding. While an excise tax is regressive, there could be other methods of increasing public funding. But that is not the main problem.
Despite being part of the government, animal services are seen as a “niche” issue instead of a public service like libraries, affordable housing, and parks. It is easy to say that this is because animals don’t vote but it’s more than that. Animal welfare groups are highly fragmented and it is a challenge to bring them together for any endeavor. There is no public campaign to bring attention to animal services as a public service interrelated with homelessness, domestic abuse, crime, public health, and law enforcement. Until that happens, then animal welfare will always be perceived as a niche issue.
At a certain point, we need to balance our appeals to emotions with an appeal to practicalities.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Who sponsored the bill?
There were eight (8) cosponsors. All of them were Western Washington Democrats.
Lisa Parshley, Democrat, District 22 (Olympia area)
Darya Farivar, Democrat, District 46 (North Seattle area)
Julia Reed, Democrat, District 36 (West Seattle area including Ballard and Magnolia)
Janice Zahn, Democrat, District 41 (Mercer Island/Newcastle area)
Shelley Kloba, Democrat, District 1 (Woodinville/Bothell area)
Shaun Scott, Democrat, District 43 (University of Washington area)
Beth Doglio, Democrat, District 22 (Olympia area)
Mary Fosse, Democrat, District 38 (Marysville/Tulalip area)
Who were the members of the House Finance Committee?
Below were the members of the House Finance Committee. Representative Shaun Scott was both a member of the Finance Committee and one of the bill’s sponsors.
Chair: April Berg, Democrat, District 44 (Mill Creek/Snohomish area)
Vice Chair: Chipalo Street, Democrat, District 37 (Columbia City/Rainier Valley area)
Ranking Member: Ed Orcutt, Republican, District 20 (Toutle area near Mt. St. Helens)
Assistant Ranking Member: Cyndy Jacobsen, Republican, District 25 (Puyallup/South Hill area)
Sharlett Mena, Democrat, District 29 (South Tacoma/Spanaway area)
Alex Ramel, Democrat, District 40 (San Juan Islands)
Sharon Tomiko Santos, Democrat, District 37 (Columbia City/Rainier Valley area)
Shaun Scott, Democrat, District 43 (University of Washington area)
Larry Springer, Democrat, District 45 (Totem Lake/Duvall area)
Janice Zahn, Democrat, District 41 (Mercer Island/Newcastle area)
Amy Walen, Democrat, District 48 (Redmond/Bellevue area)
Sharon Wylie, Democrat, District 49 (Vancouver area)
Hunter Abell, Republican, District 7 (Colville area)
Rob Chase, Republican, District 4 (Spokane Valley area)
Josh Penner, Republican, District 31 (Enumclaw/Snoquera area)
What was the specific language of House Bill 2258?
AN ACT Relating to authorizing cities and counties the ability to levy a household excise tax for the operation, maintenance, and capital needs of animal control and shelter systems owned, contracted, or operated by a city, county, or animal service provider organization; adding a new chapter to Title 82 RCW; creating a new section; and providing an effective date.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. (1) The legislature finds that an increasing number of city and county-owned or contracted and operated animal control and shelter systems in the state of Washington, as in the nation, are finding that revenue from general funds and licensing fees alone are insufficient to maintain animal control and shelter systems that meet essential and community needs, resulting in service reductions or elimination or impacts to other essential public services.
(2) Therefore, it is the intent of the legislature to authorize cities and counties to levy a household excise tax to assist in the funding of animal control and shelter systems throughout the state.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. (1) A city governing authority may by ordinance or resolution impose a household excise tax for the operation, maintenance, and capital needs of animal control and
shelter systems located within the city's jurisdiction and owned,contracted, or operated by a city, county, or animal service provider organization.
(2) A county governing authority may by ordinance or resolution impose a household excise tax within the unincorporated areas of the county for the operation, maintenance, and capital needs of animal control and shelter systems that serve the unincorporated areas and are owned, contracted, or operated by a city, county, or animal service provider organization.
(3) A city or county governing authority may refer the ordinance or resolution to the voters of the city or the unincorporated area of a county before imposing the tax in this section.
(4) Any referendum petition to repeal a city or county ordinance imposing the tax or altering the rate of the tax authorized in this section must be filed with a filing officer, as identified in the ordinance, within seven days of passage of the ordinance. Within 10 days, the filing officer must confer with the petitioner concerning form and style of the petition, issue an identification number for the petition, and write a ballot title for the measure. The ballot title must be posed as a question so that an affirmative answer to the question and an affirmative vote on the measure results in the tax or tax rate increase being imposed and a negative answer to the question and a negative vote on the measure results in the tax or tax rate increase not being imposed. The petitioner must be notified of the identification number and ballot title within this 10-day period. After this notification, the petitioner must have 30 days in which to secure on petition forms the signatures of not less than 15 percent of the registered voters of the county for county measures, or not less than 15 percent of the registered voters of the city for city measures, and to file the signed petitions with the filing officer. Each petition form must contain the ballot title and the full text of the measure to be referred. The filing officer must verify the sufficiency of the signatures on the petitions. If sufficient valid signatures are properly submitted, the filing officer must submit the referendum measure to the county or city voters at a general or special election held on one of the dates provided in RCW 29A.04.321 as determined by the county legislative authority or city governing authority, which election must not take place later than 120 days
after the signed petition has been filed with the filing officer.
(5) The tax must be levied and collected on every dwelling unit or each parcel containing nonresidential property within the city or in an unincorporated area of a county in an amount not to exceed $2.50 per household unit per month for the first five years of enactment
(6) After the first year of enactment, the city or county governing authority may, by ordinance or resolution, annually increase the maximum monthly rate if the governing authority finds that an increase in revenue is necessary to maintain adequate funding for the operation, maintenance, and capital needs of animal control and shelter systems owned, contracted, or operated by a city, county, or animal service provider organization. The increase is limited to the lesser of the following:
(a) Two percent; or
(b) The percentage change in the implicit price deflator for personal consumption expenditures for the United States as published by the bureau of economic analysis of the federal department of commerce published for the most recent 12-month period.
(7) Revenue from the tax imposed in this section must be used for the operation, maintenance, and capital needs, including the payment of bonds, of animal control and shelter systems owned, contracted, or operated by a city, county, or animal service provider organization.
(8) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(a) "Dwelling unit" means a residence containing living, cooking, sleeping, and sanitary facilities.
(b) "Parcel" means any contiguous quantity of land in the possession of, owned by, or recorded as the property of the same claimant, person, or company.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. Section 2 of this act constitutes a new chapter in Title 82 RCW.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. This act takes effect January 1, 2027.
Sources:
