Wash. Rev. Code » Title 35 · Chapter 35.13
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 35.13.125 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Proceedings for the annexation of territory pursuant to RCW 35.13.130, 35.13.140, 35.13.150, 35.13.160 and 35.13.170 shall be commenced as provided in this section. Prior to the circulation of a petition for annexation, the initiating party or parties who, except as provided in RCW 28A.335.110, shall be either not less than ten percent of the residents of the area to be annexed or the owners of not less than ten percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property for which annexation is petitioned, shall notify the legislative body of the city or town in writing of their intention to commence annexation proceedings. The legislative body shall set a date, not later than sixty days after the filing of the request, for a meeting with the initiating parties to determine whether the city or town will accept, reject, or geographically modify the proposed annexation, whether it shall require the simultaneous adoption of the comprehensive plan if such plan has been prepared and filed for the area to be annexed as provided for in RCW 35.13.177 and 35.13.178, and whether it shall require the assumption of all or of any portion of existing city or town indebtedness by the area to be annexed. If the legislative body requires the assumption of all or of any portion of indebtedness and/or the adoption of a comprehensive plan, it shall record this action in its minutes and the petition for annexation shall be so drawn as to clearly indicate this fact. There shall be no appeal from the decision of the legislative body.
[ 1990 c 33 s 565; 1989 c 351 s 3; 1973 1st ex.s. c 164 s 11; 1971 c 69 s 1; 1965 ex.s. c 88 s 10; 1965 c 7 s 35.13.125. Prior: 1961 c 282 s 18.]

Notes:

Purpose—Statutory references—Severability—1990 c 33: See RCW 28A.900.100 through 28A.900.102.
Severability—1971 c 69: "If any provision of this 1971 amendatory act, or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act, or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1971 c 69 s 5.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1962–2005 · leading case: Yakima Cnty. (West Valley) Fire Prot. Dist. No. 12 v. City of Yakima, 858 P.2d 245 (Wash. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Yakima Cnty. (West Valley) Fire Prot. Dist. No. 12 v. City of Yakima, 858 P.2d 245 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 5× “RCW 35.13.125. RCW 35.13.125 provides in relevant part: Prior to the circulation of a petition for annexation, the initiating party or parties .”
Snohomish Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 1 v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 117 P.3d 348 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 7× “RCW 35.13.125 requires that, as “the initiating party or parties,” property owners must own at least 10 percent of the assessed value of the property to be annexed and must “notify the legislative *73 body of the city or town in writing of their intention to commence annexation…”
Glenrose Cmty. Ass'n v. City of Spokane, 971 P.2d 82 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 9× “RCW 35.13.125. We conclude that the court had jurisdiction because the Association’s action here is for declaratory relief and not an appeal as that term is used in the statute.”
King Cnty. Water Dist. No. 90 v. City of Renton, 944 P.2d 1067 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “It provides: In addition to other powers and duties as provided by law, every board of directors, if seeking to have school property annexed to a city or town and if such school property constitutes the whole of such property in the annexation petition, shall be allowed to…”
Spokane Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 9 v. Spokane Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 652 P.2d 1356 (Wash. 1982). “3 RCW 35.13.125 et seq. provide that annexation may be accomplished by petition rather than election; however, the petition must be signed by the owners of at least 75 percent of the assessed valuation for general taxation purposes in the area to be annexed (RCW 35.”
Snohomish Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 1 v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 87 P.3d 1187 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 5× “RCW 35.13.125. 1 The purpose of the 10 percent petition is to “notify the legislative body of the city or town *77 in writing of [the petitioners’] intention to commence annexation proceedings.”
McAlmond v. City of Bremerton, 374 P.2d 181 (Wash. 1962). · cites it 2× “Appellants next contend that the petition did not conform to RCW 35.13.125 (Laws of 1961, chapter 282, § 18, p.”
People for Pres. & Dev. of Five Mile Prairie v. City of Spokane, 755 P.2d 836 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “The second issue concerns compliance with the requirement of RCW 35.13.125 3 that those seeking annexation file *819 a notice of intent with the City Council, and the requirement of RCW 36.”
City of Tukwila v. King Cnty., 469 P.2d 878 (Wash. 1970). “As the land was contiguous to Tukwila, its owners petitioned that city on January 18, 1961, for the annexation of their land under the provisions of RCW 35.13.125. Tukwila was apparently amenable to the proposed annexation and notice of a public hearing on the subject was…”
People v. The City of Spokane, 755 P.2d 836 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “The second issue concerns compliance with the requirement of RCW 35.13.125 [3] that those seeking annexation file *819 a notice of intent with the City Council, and the requirement of RCW 36.”
Snohomish Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. v. Brb, 87 P.3d 1187 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 5× “RCW 35.13.125. [1] The purpose of the *1189 10 percent petition is to "notify the legislative body of the city or town in writing of [the petitioners'] intention to commence annexation proceedings.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.