This bill creates a new chapter in Title 35 RCW establishing a new type of municipal corporation called an "animal services district." The district is authorized to provide animal sheltering, medical care, adoption services, pet licensing, temporary emergency housing, and humane law enforcement. It can be formed across parts or all of one or more cities or counties by voter approval after a local government resolution or citizen petition (petition threshold noted as 15% of registered voters in the proposed area in the available text). The bill provides three governance options for a district board: five elected commissioners, a single city or county governing body serving ex officio when the district is wholly within that entity, or collective ex officio service by multiple city and/or county governing bodies. It sets rules for the initial election and staggered terms for elected commissioners, vacancy-filling under chapter 42.12 RCW, and requires elections to follow state general election law where not inconsistent with the new chapter. The bill establishes financial and fiscal procedures for districts, including the ability to levy an annual general tax up to $0.25 per $1,000 assessed value, to issue short-term obligations and warrants, to issue revenue bonds, and to issue general obligation bonds subject to state bond law. Nonvoter-approved general indebtedness is limited to 0.25% of the value of taxable property in the district; with three-fifths voter approval the district may incur additional indebtedness so combined voterand nonvoter-approved general indebtedness does not exceed 2.5% of taxable property value. The county treasurer of the county containing all or the major portion of the district must serve as ex officio treasurer (with limited alternatives) and, where the county treasurer serves, district taxes are to be held in a separate "animal services district fund." The bill also specifies bond calling and coupon payment procedures and requires a tax levy sufficient to pay bond interest and optionally fund a sinking fund. The bill adds procedures for local improvements, annexation, dissolution, withdrawal, reannexation, and deannexation of district territory. Local improvement assessments become liens collected like assessments in first-class cities. Annexation can be initiated by petition (25 registered voters generally, or 20% of registered voters if the territory lies within another city), requires hearings and published notice, and is effective immediately upon majority voter approval. Districts may be dissolved by a majority board vote if the city or county agrees or upon petition by a specified percentage of voters, with liabilities prorated. Withdrawal and reannexation require resolutions by the district and the city/town/county and become effective at the end of the calendar year (December 31) specified; a referendum petition to stop reannexation must be signed by 10% of registered voters in the area, and if valid a reannexation must be submitted to voters at the next special election and approved by a simple majority. Deannexation by a city, town, or county requires specified resolutions or voter petition and is submitted at the next general election and becomes effective December 31 of the approval year. This summary is based only on the extracted text provided. Several provisions in the source are incomplete or cut off in the supplied extracts (including some excess-levy procedures in Sec. 12 and portions of the deannexation/petition rules), and certain definitions and cross-referenced statutory definitions (e.g., "value of the taxable property") appear only by citation to other RCW sections and are not included here.

If enacted, the bill creates a new kind of local government — an animal services district — that can be formed by voter approval to provide shelters, medical care, adoption, licensing, temporary emergency housing, and humane law enforcement across parts of cities and counties. Practically, that gives these districts clear authority to raise revenue and borrow: they can levy a regular property tax up to $0.25 per $1,000 of assessed value, must include enough in their levy to pay bond interest (and may establish sinking funds), and may issue short‑term obligations, revenue bonds, and general obligation bonds within state caps (with higher borrowing possible if approved by three‑fifths of voters). County treasurers are the default treasurers, must hold district money in a separate fund, may provide bridge loans or lines of credit until levy proceeds arrive, and district bond and coupon payment procedures require public notice and follow set timelines. The parties most affected are local taxpayers in the proposed district (who may face a new ongoing property tax and future bond measures), city and county governments (which can be appointed to govern districts, may assume assets or liabilities on dissolution or annexation, and must participate in annexation/withdrawal processes), and county treasurers (who gain new fiduciary duties without additional compensation and potential short‑term lending exposure). Other impacts include costs for elections, required public notices in local newspapers, and the need for surety bonding if a non‑treasurer is chosen. The bill text available leaves out some implementation details — for example, the full procedures for levies in excess of regular limits and specifics of required interlocal agreements — so exact timing and administrative steps for some actions remain unclear.