Multiple Agency Fiscal Note Summary — 1201 S HB, Emergency Shelters/Pets
Summary
Multiple Agency Fiscal Note Summary for 1201 S HB, titled Emergency shelters/pets, with estimated cash receipts NONE and zero operating expenditures for the Military Department, followed by the Military Department individual fiscal note, a Department of Commerce local government fiscal note and a ten-year analysis. The Military Department note is checked No Fiscal Impact and says Substitute House Bill 1201 has no substantive changes to the Military Department. The local government note estimates approximately $53,000 in costs for cities and approximately $38,000 for counties to assess shelter conditions, designate pet-accommodating shelters and update local comprehensive emergency management plans, plus indeterminate costs for assessing coshelter sites.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Multiple Agency Fiscal Note Summary — 1201 S HB, Emergency Shelters/Pets.”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2025-01-29-a32579-d277949-1201-pshb-fn-final-20e4e6ccd5/
, SHA-256 72e306b7194ed276aad4d0e49d92faeebbdf88638bf275bdae021d66e38d7229.Full text
Multiple Agency Fiscal Note Summary
Bill Number: 1201 S HB Title: Emergency shelters/pets
Estimated Cash Receipts
NONE
Estimated Operating Expenditures
Agency Name 2025-27 2027-29 2029-31
FTEs GF-State NGF-Outlook Total FTEs GF-State NGF-Outlook Total FTEs GF-State NGF-Outlook Total
Military .0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0
Department
Total $ 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
Agency Name 2025-27 2027-29 2029-31
FTEs GF-State Total FTEs GF-State Total FTEs GF-State Total
Local Gov. Courts
Loc School dist-SPI
Local Gov. Other Non-zero but indeterminate cost and/or savings. Please see discussion.
Local Gov. Total
Estimated Capital Budget Expenditures
Agency Name 2025-27 2027-29 2029-31
FTEs Bonds Total FTEs Bonds Total FTEs Bonds Total
Military Department .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0
Total $ 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0
Agency Name 2025-27 2027-29 2029-31
FTEs GF-State Total FTEs GF-State Total FTEs GF-State Total
Local Gov. Courts
Loc School dist-SPI
Local Gov. Other Non-zero but indeterminate cost and/or savings. Please see discussion.
Local Gov. Total
Estimated Capital Budget Breakout
NONE
FNPID 72361
:
FNS029 Multi Agency rollup
Prepared by: Gwen Stamey, OFM Phone: Date Published:
(360) 790-1166 Final 2/ 4/2025
FNPID 72361
:
FNS029 Multi Agency rollup
Individual State Agency Fiscal Note
Bill Number: 1201 S HB Title: Emergency shelters/pets Agency: 245-Military Department
Part I: Estimates
X No Fiscal Impact
Estimated Cash Receipts to:
NONE
Estimated Operating Expenditures from:
NONE
Estimated Capital Budget Impact:
NONE
The cash receipts and expenditure estimates on this page represent the most likely fiscal impact. Factors impacting the precision of these estimates,
and alternate ranges (if appropriate), are explained in Part II.
Check applicable boxes and follow corresponding instructions:
If fiscal impact is greater than $50,000 per fiscal year in the current biennium or in subsequent biennia, complete entire fiscal note
form Parts I-V.
If fiscal impact is less than $50,000 per fiscal year in the current biennium or in subsequent biennia, complete this page only (Part I).
Capital budget impact, complete Part IV.
Requires new rule making, complete Part V.
Legislative Contact: Martha Wehling Phone: 360-786-7067 Date: 01/29/2025
Agency Preparation: Serina Roberts Phone: 2535127388 Date: 02/04/2025
Agency Approval: Seth Nickerson Phone: 253-512-7340 Date: 02/04/2025
OFM Review: Gwen Stamey Phone: (360) 790-1166 Date: 02/04/2025
Form FN (Rev 1/00) 199,684.00 Request # 1201 SHB-1
FNS063 Individual State Agency Fiscal Note 1 Bill # 1201 S HB
Part II: Narrative Explanation
II. A - Brief Description Of What The Measure Does That Has Fiscal Impact
Significant provisions of the bill and any related workload or policy assumptions that have revenue or expenditure impact on the responding agency by
section number.
Substitute House Bill 1201 has no substantive changes to the Military Department.
This bill updates state Emergency Management requirements obligating counties and cities to identify shelters that can
accommodate pets and post the information on their website.
Each local or joint local organization for emergency management is required to submit a local comprehensive emergency
management plan to the Washington Military Department Emergency Management Division. The local plans are
coordinated with the state's comprehensive emergency management plan, and are required to be reviewed pursuant to the
schedule created by the Adjutant General. Receiving and reviewing the local plans is part of Emergency Management's
regular duties. The bill has no fiscal impact to Military Department.
II. B - Cash receipts Impact
Cash receipts impact of the legislation on the responding agency with the cash receipts provisions identified by section number and when appropriate, the
detail of the revenue sources. Description of the factual basis of the assumptions and the method by which the cash receipts impact is derived. Explanation
of how workload assumptions translate into estimates. Distinguished between one time and ongoing functions.
II. C - Expenditures
Agency expenditures necessary to implement this legislation (or savings resulting from this legislation), with the provisions of the legislation that result in
the expenditures (or savings) identified by section number. Description of the factual basis of the assumptions and the method by which the expenditure
impact is derived. Explanation of how workload assumptions translate into cost estimates. Distinguished between one time and ongoing functions.
Part III: Expenditure Detail
III. A - Operating Budget Expenditures
NONE
III. B - Expenditures by Object Or Purpose
NONE
III. C - Operating FTE Detail: FTEs listed by classification and corresponding annual compensation. Totals agree with total FTEs in Part I
and Part IIIA.
NONE
III. D - Expenditures By Program (optional)
NONE
Part IV: Capital Budget Impact
IV. A - Capital Budget Expenditures
NONE
IV. B - Expenditures by Object Or Purpose
NONE
IV. C - Capital Budget Breakout
Acquisition and construction costs not reflected elsewhere on the fiscal note and description of potential financing methods.
Emergency shelters/pets 245-Military Department
Form FN (Rev 1/00) 199,684.00 Request # 1201 SHB-1
FNS063 Individual State Agency Fiscal Note 2 Bill # 1201 S HB
NONE
IV. D - Capital FTE Detail: FTEs listed by classification and corresponding annual compensation. Totals agree with total FTEs in Part IVB.
NONE
Part V: New Rule Making Required
Provisions of the bill that require the agency to adopt new administrative rules or repeal/revise existing rules.
Emergency shelters/pets 245-Military Department
Form FN (Rev 1/00) 199,684.00 Request # 1201 SHB-1
FNS063 Individual State Agency Fiscal Note 3 Bill # 1201 S HB
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL NOTE
Department of Commerce
Bill Number: 1201 S HB Title: Emergency shelters/pets
Part I: Jurisdiction-Location, type or status of political subdivision defines range of fiscal impacts.
Legislation Impacts:
X Cities: Approximately $53,000 in costs for cities to assess shelter conditions and designate shelters as pet-accommodating and
update local comprehensive emergency management plans. Additional, indeterminate costs for assessing coshelter sites
depending on existing policies.
X Counties: Approximately $38,000 in costs for counties to assess shelter conditions and designate shelters as pet-accommodating.
and update local comprehensive emergency management plans. Additional, indeterminate costs for assessing coshelter
sites depending on existing policies.
Special Districts:
X Specific jurisdictions only: Only impacts political subdivisions with that conduct local comprehensive emergency management
planning. There are 39 county plans, 54 individual city plans, and two coalition plans, which comprise 10
cities in east and west Pierce County.
Variance occurs due to:
Part II: Estimates
No fiscal impacts.
Expenditures represent one-time costs:
Legislation provides local option:
X Key variables cannot be estimated with certainty at this time: Specific timing of when the updates occur, all comprehensive
emergency management plans are to be reviewed and revised within
four years; the number of comprehensive emergency management
plans that already provide information on coshelters, emergency
shelters, cooling centers, and warming centers sites with pet
accommodations.
Estimated revenue impacts to:
None
Estimated expenditure impacts to:
Non-zero but indeterminate cost and/or savings. Please see discussion.
Part III: Preparation and Approval
Fiscal Note Analyst: Jordan Laramie Phone: 360-725-5044 Date: 01/30/2025
Leg. Committee Contact: Martha Wehling Phone: 360-786-7067 Date: 01/29/2025
Agency Approval: Alice Zillah Phone: 360-725-5035 Date: 01/30/2025
OFM Review: Gwen Stamey Phone: (360) 790-1166 Date: 01/31/2025
Page 1 of 4 Bill Number: 1201 S HB
FNS060 Local Government Fiscal Note
Part IV: Analysis
A. SUMMARY OF BILL
Description of the bill with an emphasis on how it impacts local government.
This fiscal note reflects language in the substitute version of HB 1201, 2025 legislative session. The amendments to this
bill are compared to the original version of HB 1201.
CHANGES FROM PRIOR BILL VERSION:
Sec. 2 changes the requirements of the prior bill of “counties or cities” to “political subdivision.” Amends the types of pet
accommodating sites that must be identified to the extent practical in local emergency management plans to include
coshelters.
Sec. 3 would amend 38.52.070 RCW to include a requirement, to the extent practical, to find a suitable location for
cosheltering during an emergency in each update of political subdivisions local comprehensive emergency management
plan.
SUMMARY OF CURRENT BILL:
This proposed legislation would require that, to the extent practical based on resources and site-specific circumstances,
political subdivisions must consider the accommodation of persons with pets in coshelters, emergency shelters, cooling
centers, and warming centers in their local comprehensive emergency management plans.
Sec. 2 is a new section added to 38.52 RCW that would include new provisions of for a local comprehensive emergency
management plan. The requirements include identifying at least one coshelter, emergency shelter, cooling center, and
warming center that can accommodate persons with pets. Political subdivisions must also make pet emergency
preparedness information available on their websites.
The bill would take effect 90 days after the bill were signed into law.
B. SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURE IMPACTS
Expenditure impacts of the legislation on local governments with the expenditure provisions identified by section number and when
appropriate, the detail of expenditures. Delineated between city, county and special district impacts.
EXPENDITURE CHANGES FROM PRIOR BILL VERSION:
The amends made to this act would result in minor but indeterminate increases in the planning time required to identify and
integrate coshelter sites into local comprehensive emergency management plans (CEMPs).
Some cities and counties may already have provisions to allow companion animals in all shelters, such as Spokane County,
where the county’s existing CEMP indicates that all companion and service animals are allowed in shelters. While other
jurisdictions only conform to the requirements of the PETS Act (2006) to have specific collocation of animal shelter
services for coordinated care of animals at specifically designated sites that may or may not allow cosheltering.
There could be additional costs for more than 40 hours of work for emergency management department staff to find a
suitable site that meets Federal Emergency Management Agency standards for shelter space for people and for
companion animals. The number of local CEMPs that detail the location of cosheltering sites is not currently known. Costs
for emergency management staff to conduct this work would be minor and add costs of approximately $2,100 (see
calculations below) per affected jurisdiction to existing costs of the prior bill. These costs would include holding internal
policy meetings, conducting on-site assessments, deciding if and where there are suitable location(s), and include this
information in the next iteration of the local CEMP.
EXPENDITURE IMPACT OF CURRENT BILL VERSION:
Cities and counties would have minimal costs of approximately $1,000 to $2,000 for up to 40 hours of work by
departments of emergency management and supporting staff (sheriff’s/police offices, public safety, and human services
Page 2 of 4 Bill Number: 1201 S HB
FNS060 Local Government Fiscal Note
personnel) to assess shelter conditions and designate shelters as pet-accommodating and update local comprehensive
emergency management plans (CEMPs). Additional indeterminate costs would be incurred by some local emergency
management departments to determine site suitability for coshelter locations. For these jurisdictions there may be
additional costs up to $2,200. These costs would include updates to the CEMP when the updates are scheduled to occur,
updates to publicly available documents, and work with other local offices to implement this legislation.
According to WAC 118-30, local CEMPs must be reviewed and updated at least every two years, although two-, three-,
and four-year updates are commonly performed by local governments. The Local Government Fiscal Note Program
assumes that the requirements of this act would be incorporated during the next routine update.
NARRATIVE:
Comprehensive Emergency Management Plans are required of all counties, cities, and towns, however the planning and
coordination of these documents can occur at the county-, city-, or joint-level between local governments. As of 2024,
there are a total of 95 CEMPs submitted to the Washington State Department of Emergency Management: 39 county
plans, 54 individual city plans, and two coalition plans, which comprise 10 cities in east and west Pierce County.
Outreach conducted for this assessment to local departments of emergency management indicate that if there was a
simple update with existing shelter information that already had suitable sites for colocation of persons with animals, the
workload may take between 8-10 hours of staff time, with minimal time to update the list of local resources available
online (city/county website or social media). If additional approvals or policy changes are required, there could be as much
as 10-20 hours of staff time, which includes coordination meeting with relevant departments. Variation in cost would be
determined by existing work to have a comprehensive list of emergency shelters with potential for animal colocation, or if
staff would need to do site visits to make these assessments.
Basic Assessment:
County staff to assess shelters and update CEMP:
Records Clerk, Sheriff’s Office: (8.35 hours x $28/hr x 1.43 Benefits Multiplier) = $350
Deputy Sheriff: (2 hours x $42/hr x 1.43 Benefits Multiplier) = $125
Emergency Management Program Manager: (8.35 hours x $40 x 1.43 Benefits Multiplier) = $500
County Costs: $350 + $125 + $500 = $975 x 39 local CEMPs = $38,025
City staff to assess shelters and update CEMP:
Records Clerk, Police Office: (8.35 hours x $28/hr x 1.43 Benefits Multiplier) = $350
Assistant Police Chief: (2 hours x $39/hr x 1.43 Benefits Multiplier) = $100
Emergency Management Program Manager: (8.35 hours x $40 x 1.43 Benefits Multiplier) = $500
City Costs: $350 + $100 + $500 = $950 x 56 local CEMPs = $53,200
Relaying information online about pet accommodating centers/shelters and other pet emergency response best practices
was reported to be a de minimis expense that could be incorporated into the workload of local communications staff.
Additional Assessment for Cosheltering Locations:
The number of local CEMPs that detail the location of cosheltering sites is not currently known. Costs for emergency
management staff to conduct this work may be approximately $2,200 per effected jurisdiction to hold meetings, conduct
site assessments, decide if there is a suitable location, and include this information in the next iteration of the local CEMP.
These costs would only be incurred if the existing policy does not provide for cosheltering accommodations, or whether
there is a comprehensive list of shelters that have already been identified by the local department of emergency
management about accommodation of companion animals.
Page 3 of 4 Bill Number: 1201 S HB
FNS060 Local Government Fiscal Note
County staff to assess cosheltering locations:
Records Clerk, Sheriff’s Office: (8 hours x $28/hr x 1.43 Benefits Multiplier) = $350
Deputy Sheriff: (2 hours x $42/hr x 1.43 Benefits Multiplier) = $125
Emergency Management Program Manager: (30 hours x $40 x 1.43 Benefits Multiplier) = $1700
County Costs: $350 + $125 + $1700 = $2200
City staff to assess cosheltering locations:
Records Clerk, Police Office: (8 hours x $28/hr x 1.43 Benefits Multiplier) = $350
Assistant Police Chief: (2 hours x $39/hr x 1.43 Benefits Multiplier) = $100
Emergency Management Program Manager: (30 hours x $40 x 1.43 Benefits Multiplier) = $1700
City Costs: $350 + $100 + $1700 = $2150
C. SUMMARY OF REVENUE IMPACTS
Revenue impacts of the legislation on local governments, with the revenue provisions identified by section number, and when
appropriate, the detail of revenue sources. Delineated between city, county and special district impacts.
This act would not impact local government revenue.
SOURCES:
American Veterinary Medical Association, Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act FAQ
City of Seattle Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (2021)
Federal Emergency Management Agency, “Can I bring my pets to the shelter?” (2023)
Municipal Research and Services Center, Emergency Planning
Spokane County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (2021)
Thurston County
Washington Administrative Code 118-30
Washington State Military Department, Emergency Management Division
Page 4 of 4 Bill Number: 1201 S HB
FNS060 Local Government Fiscal Note
Ten-Year Analysis
Bill Number Title Agency
1201 S HB Emergency shelters/pets 245 Military Department
This ten-year analysis is limited to agency estimated cash receipts associated with the proposed tax or fee increases. The Office of Financial Management
ten-year projection can be found at http://www.ofm.wa.gov/tax/default.asp .
Estimates
No Cash Receipts Partially Indeterminate Cash Receipts Indeterminate Cash Receipts
Estimated Cash Receipts
Name of Tax or Fee Acct
Code
Total
Biennial Totals
Agency Preparation: Serina Roberts Phone: 2535127388 Date: 2/4/2025 7:30:35 am
Agency Approval: Seth Nickerson Phone: 253-512-7340 Date: 2/4/2025 7:30:35 am
OFM Review: Phone: Date:
FNS066 Ten-Year Analysis 1
File and source
- File
- 2025-01-29_a32579_d277949_1201-pshb-fn-final.pdf
- Size
- 341,543 bytes
- SHA-256
- 72e306b7194ed276aad4d0e49d92faeebbdf88638bf275bdae021d66e38d7229
- Original
- No public link identified.