Annexation Court Decisions

County did not have authority to enter into a sewer services transfer agreement and approve annexation of territory to a county sewer district to the extent it included territory outside the county limits.

Ronald Wastewater Dist. v. Olympic View Water and Sewer Dist. (2020) – In the early 1980s, King County sought to divest itself from sewer operations and transfer them to local water and sewer districts. King County agreed to transfer the Richmond Beach Sewer System (RBSS) to the Ronald Wastewater District (Ronald). A portion of the RBSS served properties in Point Wells in Snohomish County. King County held a public hearing and entered into a transfer agreement with Ronald, which purported to transfer the RBSS and the “area served” to Roland. The “area served” included the Point Wells, which was already within the Olympic View Water and Sewer District (Olympic). In 1985, the King County Superior Court approved the transfer to Roland pursuant to former RCW 35.94.410-440 (1985 Order), but Olympic was not a party to that action.

In 2009 Point Wells was designated by Snohomish County as an urban center and in 2016 Olympic amended its sewer plan to provide service to Point Wells. Snohomish County approved the amendment to the Olympic sewer plan, and Roland brought a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that Point Wells was within Roland’s corporate boundaries. Olympic contended that Point Wells was within its corporate boundaries, and that the 1985 King County Superior Court order was void to the extent it purported to transfer territory outside King County to Roland.

The Washington Supreme Court ruled that the 1985 Order was void because the court did not have subject matter or personal jurisdiction to annex Snohomish County territory to a King County special purpose district. Although water and sewer districts do have authority to provide service in multiple counties, such service must be provided with the consent or agreement of all affected entities. The same is true with annexation of territory from one district to another. Since Olympic was not a party to the 1985 litigation and never consented to annexation of Point Wells to Roland, the 1985 Order was void.

Boundary review board may not approve a utility district’s proposed annexation of a new service area that would violate the county’s comprehensive plan.

City of East Wenatchee v. Washington State Boundary Review Board for Douglas County, unpublished decision (2009) – The East Wenatchee Water District petitioned the Boundary Review Board for Douglas County (BRB) for permission to annex more than 4,000 acres of property bordering its current boundary of service. The BRB approved the request. The City of East Wenatchee appealed the water district’s annexation, arguing it was inconsistent with both the Growth Management Act (GMA), chapter 36.70A RCW, and the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW. The superior court upheld the district’s annexation, and the court of appeals reversed. The water district annexation would expand the service area beyond the urban growth areas established in the county’s comprehensive plan, in violation of RCW 36.93.157, which requires that decisions of the boundary review board in a county that is planning under the GMA, must be consistent with the planning documents adopted pursuant to the GMA by the county. Under the GMA, urban levels of service, including water, may not be extended into rural areas except in very limited circumstances. See RCW 36.70A.110(4).

Annexation of more territory than was described in petition.

Interlake Sporting Ass'n v. Boundary Review Board (2006) – The State Supreme Court invalidated a boundary review board decision that, at the request of King County, expanded a proposed annexation by the City of Redmond to more than three times the size of the area represented in the annexation petition. The expanded area had previously voted at an election to reject annexation. The Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that the review board violated RCW 35A.14.140, which authorizes a code city to "annex all or any portion of the proposed area but may not include in the annexation any property not described in the petition," and that the review board exceeded its authority under RCW 36.93.150 to modify the boundaries of a proposed annexation. The Court also concluded that the review board's decision offended the due process rights of property owners in the annexation area. However, the 2012 legislature, in HB 1627 (Laws of 2012, ch. 212), responded to this decision by amending RCW 36.93.150(2) to give boundary review boards the express authority to add territory to a proposed annexation as long as the amount of territory added does not exceed 100% of the original proposal.

Court clarifies notice of intention to boundary review board filing time per RCW 36.93.090.

Snohomish County Fire Protection District v. Boundary Review Board (2005) – RCW 36.93.090 provides that a notice of intention must be filed with the boundary review board within 180 days of when the annexation is "proposed." The State Supreme Court interpreted this to mean that an annexation is "proposed" for purposes of this statute when the initiators of the annexation file their petition—in this case, a 75% petition—with the city. An annexation is not "proposed" for purposes of this statute when the initial notice of intention, sometimes referred to as the 10% petition, is filed with the city.

Petition method is constitutional.

Grant County Fire Protection District v. City of Moses Lake (2004) – The State Supreme Court, upon reconsideration, reverses its earlier decision at 145 Wn.2d 702 (2002) and holds that the petition method of annexation is constitutional.

Franchises in annexed territory.

Dahl-Smyth, Inc. v. City of Walla Walla (2003) – RCW 35A.14.900 and RCW 35.13.280 provide that, when a city that annexes an area that is served by certain types of franchises, any such franchise is automatically canceled and the city must issue a new franchise for a seven-year period (formerly five years), unless the city purchases or condemns the franchise. Under these statutes, if the city issues a new franchise for a seven-year period, it will still be liable to the franchisee for any "measurable damages" the franchisee suffers. The State Supreme Court, overruling the court of appeals, held that the city's liability under RCW 35A.14.900 for "measurable damages" is "to be calculated at the time of annexation by determining the difference in market value of the hauler's [WUTC-issued] certificate before and after annexation. In determining an award, the amount of damages must then be reduced by the benefit gained by the hauler from the five-year [now seven-year] extension of the franchise."

Boundary review board properly considered protection of agricultural lands to be an overriding factor in denying city annexation.

Stewart v. King County Boundary Review Bd. (2000) – The court of appeals held that the boundary review board properly considered protection of agricultural lands to be an overriding factor when balancing the statutory objectives at RCW 36.93.180 and denying the City of Auburn’s petition to annex agricultural land within its urban growth area. The proposed annexation area’s agricultural designation under county's comprehensive plan was final, and the comprehensive plan contemplated completion of interlocal agreements before annexation of agricultural land. A boundary review board cannot second guess a comprehensive plan designation.

Annexation of school property.

King County Water District v. Renton (1997) – In this case, the court of appeals held that, under RCW 28A.335.110, a public school district may petition to have school property annexed to a city only if the school property constitutes the whole of the property sought to be annexed. A public school district may not petition for annexation if the school property comprises only a fraction of the property sought to be annexed. This holding applies to code cities, as well as to other classes of cities.

Outside utility agreements can be used as a valid waiver of future rights.

Yakima County Fire Protection District No. 12 v. City of Yakima (1993) – Some cities in Washington utilize what is termed an outside utility agreement, in which property owners who reside outside the city limits are allowed to receive municipal utility services if they sign an agreement that they will sign a future annexation petition. This type of outside utility agreement was upheld in the case as a valid waiver of future rights.

Court upheld annexations based on a boundary review board’s application of statutory factors and objectives in the boundary review board statutes.

King County v. King County Boundary Review Bd. (1993) – The Washington State Supreme Court distinguished between the "factors" and the "objectives" that a boundary review board must evaluate under Chapter 36.93 RCW:

• The factors (RCW 36.93.170): These are elements the board is required to consider (such as topography, drainage basins, and municipal services). The Court reaffirmed that as long as the record shows the board considered these factors and paid attention to relevant ones, the statutory threshold is satisfied.
• The objectives (RCW 36.93.180): These are mandatory statutory goals that the board must attempt to achieve (e.g., prevention of irregular boundaries, creation of logical service areas, and protection of agricultural/rural lands). The Court emphasized that these objectives are more than merely aspirational and a decision that fails to achieve them is reversible.

Statutory appeal method of boundary review board decisions is only available to individuals with property in or residing within the affected annexation area.

Friends of Snoqualmie Valley v. King County Boundary Review Bd. (1992) – Neighbors who lived within one-quarter mile of the area proposed to be annexed lacked standing to appeal under statutory appeal provision. The Washington State Supreme Court affirmed the decision in Nisqually Delta Ass’n v. City of Dupont (1985), which held that individuals living outside the area being annexed (or proposed to be annexed) could not appeal a boundary review board decision under the provisions of RCW 36.93.160(5) which is available to “any person owning real property or residing in the area affected by the decision.” That statutory provision results in an automatic stay of the board decision. Instead, individuals living outside (or owning property outside) the boundaries of a proposed annexation would need to file a writ of certiorari to seek review (see definition of writ of certiorari from Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute).

Flagpole-shaped proposed annexation area did not preserve logical service area or meet other statutory objectives and was properly rejected by a boundary review board.  

Snohomish County v. Hinds (1991) – The court upheld the county boundary review board’s rejection of a proposed annexation described as a “flagpole” shape (consisting of a 1,450 foot boundary with the city and a three quarter mile area of highway corridor with commercial development potential excluding all residential area). The review board denied the annexation in part because the annexation did not preserve a logical service area and because the annexation created “abnormally irregular” boundaries, some of the listed objectives at RCW 36.93.180. The review board found that “a preponderance of the evidence indicates that municipal services (fire, police, water, other) are adequately provided in the annexation area,” and concluded that the annexation might create “possible confusion in jurisdiction for fire and police response.”

City can sign annexation petition in the same way as owners of taxable property even when property owned by the city is tax exempt.

Johnson v. Spokane (1978) – In this case a city was held to have the authority to sign an annexation petition in the same manner as owners of taxable property. The fact that property owned by the city is tax exempt does not mean the city cannot sign the annexation petition.

Deference to a boundary review board in considering factors set forth in RCW 36.93.170.

King County Water Dist. 54 v. King County Boundary Review Bd. (1976) – The Washington State Supreme Court held that, as long as a boundary review board states it has considered the factors listed at RCW 36.93.170 and singled relevant factors out for "particular attention," RCW 36.93.170 is satisfied.

The laws of the annexing a city apply to the annexed area as of the effective date of the annexation.

Hoops v. Burlington Northern, Inc. (1974) – Recognizing the longstanding rule that upon annexation of new territory to a city or town, such territory immediately becomes an integral part of the municipality and subject to all the laws and ordinances regulating activities within city limits.

Annexation upheld despite errors in the annexation notice (including legal description) because challenge was brought too late and affected property owners had sufficient notice of proposed annexation.

Tukwila v. King County (1970) – The court upheld an annexation even though portions of the legal description were garbled as a result of drafting or typographical errors because all the property owners within the proposed annexation knew of and attended the annexation hearing, other nearby property owners had sufficient notice of a proposed nearby annexation, and the property was treated as part of the city for the next four and a half years.

The court determined that neigh­boring landowners should be notified of annexations in the general vicinity of their properties and be given a chance to appear and be heard. In this instance, that standard was met despite the flaw in the legal description.

However, a significant error in an annexation notice, such as a major flaw in a legal description, could cause a court to invalidate an annexation. See State ex rel. Great Northern Railway v. Herschberge (1921).

Annexation upheld as properly contiguous where annexation area substantially abutted existing municipal boundaries. Slight deviation from statutory notice requirements for annexation election did not void the annexation.

Long v. City of Olympia (1967) – The State Supreme Court upheld an annexation in which the annexed area was roughly shaped like an hourglass where the bottom of the glass abutted to the annexing city, and the top of the glass “substantially” abutted it. The Court distinguished this annexation from annexations which were held to be not properly contiguous to the annexing municipality in other states, such as shoestring annexations. A shoestring annexation is one where a long narrow strip (such as along a railroad right-of-way) connects territory at the end of the long narrow strip.

Additionally, the Court held that a slight deviation from statutory election notice timetables did not void the annexation where much publicity on the annexation occurred through radio and news accounts and the distribution of printed literature.

A port district can petition for annexation of its property to a city.

Parosa v. Tacoma (1960) – The Port of Tacoma had authority to petition the City of Tacoma for annexation of its property, since one of the attributes of land ownership is the right to petition for annexation to a city.

A county road included within an annexed area becomes a city street.

Evergreen Trailways, Inc. v. the City of Renton (1951) – When a county road is part of an area annexed by a city, the road becomes a city street, and the city assumes full responsibility for it, including the right to regulate its use. This is supported by McQuillin Law of Municipal Corporations, which states:

All public highways in annexed territory become, without any action on the part of the municipal authorities, streets of the municipality, and it assumes the same duties and liabilities as to them as rests upon it in reference to the public ways of its original territory.

See “Control over streets and highways,” 2A McQuillin Mun. Corp. Sec. 7:60 (3d ed.).