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

Wash. Rev. Code § 35.13.130 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A petition for annexation of an area contiguous to a city or town may be made in writing addressed to and filed with the legislative body of the municipality to which annexation is desired. Except where all the property sought to be annexed is property of a school district, and the school directors thereof file the petition for annexation as in RCW 28A.335.110 authorized, the petition must be signed by the owners of not less than sixty percent in value according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property for which annexation is petitioned: PROVIDED, That in cities and towns with populations greater than one hundred sixty thousand located east of the Cascade mountains, the owner of tax exempt property may sign an annexation petition and have the tax exempt property annexed into the city or town, but the value of the tax exempt property shall not be used in calculating the sufficiency of the required property owner signatures unless only tax exempt property is proposed to be annexed into the city or town. The petition shall set forth a description of the property according to government legal subdivisions or legal plats which is in compliance with RCW 35.02.170, and shall be accompanied by a plat which outlines the boundaries of the property sought to be annexed. If the legislative body has required the assumption of all or of any portion of city or town indebtedness by the area annexed, and/or the adoption of a comprehensive plan for the area to be annexed, these facts, together with a quotation of the minute entry of such requirement or requirements shall be set forth in the petition.
[ 2009 c 60 s 3; 1990 c 33 s 566; 1981 c 66 s 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 220 s 8; 1973 1st ex.s. c 164 s 12; 1971 c 69 s 2; 1965 ex.s. c 88 s 11; 1965 c 7 s 35.13.130. Prior: 1961 c 282 s 19; 1945 c 128 s 3; Rem. Supp. 1945 s 8908-12.]

Notes:

Purpose—Statutory references—Severability—1990 c 33: See RCW 28A.900.100 through 28A.900.102.
Severability—1981 c 66: "If any provision of this 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." [ 1981 c 66 s 2.]
Legislative finding, intent—1975 1st ex.s. c 220: See note following RCW 35.02.170.
Severability—1971 c 69: See note following RCW 35.13.125.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases, 1960–2006 · 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 2× “Although enforcement of the OUA's may make annexation easier, the validity of the OUA's is not determinative of annexation because the City's OUA's cover only about 66 percent of the value of the property in the area sought to be annexed.”
Johnson v. City of Spokane, 577 P.2d 164 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 11× “The plaintiff brought this action for an order restraining the City from considering the petition for annexation of the land around Beacon Hill until the requirements of RCW 35.13.130 had been met and for a determination of whether the city's property could be included within…”
Grant Cty. Fire Prot. Dist. v. City of Moses Lake, 83 P.3d 419 (Wash. 2004). “See RCW 35.13.130; RCW 35A.14.120. Likewise, the property owners satisfy the requirements of actual injury for the "injury in fact" test because they face different tax rates following annexation.”
Grant Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake, 42 P.3d 394 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 2× “See RCW 35.13.130, RCW 35A.14.120. Likewise, the property owners satisfy the requirements of actual injury for the "injury in fact" test because they face higher tax rates following annexation.”
King Cnty. Water Dist. No. 90 v. City of Renton, 944 P.2d 1067 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 3× “In Parosa and Johnson, the courts held that the Port of Tacoma and the City of Spokane, respectively, had the right to petition for annexation of their property under RCW 35.13.130 because that right was an attribute of their power to own property.”
Grant Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake, 150 Wash. 2d 791 (Wash. 2004). “See RCW 35.13.130; RCW 35A.14.120. Likewise, the property owners satisfy the re *803 quirements of actual injury for the “injury in fact” test because they face different tax rates following annexation.”
Grant Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake, 145 Wash. 2d 702 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 2× “See RCW 35.13.130; RCW 35A.14.120. Likewise, the property owners satisfy the requirements of actual injury for the “injury in fact” test because they face higher tax rates following annexation.”
People for Pres. & Dev. of Five Mile Prairie v. City of Spokane, 755 P.2d 836 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 8× “The first issue focuses *818 on the requirement of RCW 35.13.130 1 that when annexation proceedings are initiated by petition of the area's landowners, as here, the petition must contain the signatures of the owners of 75 percent of the assessed valuation of property in the area.”
Spokane Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 9 v. Spokane Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 652 P.2d 1356 (Wash. 1982). “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 35.13.130).”
Snohomish Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 1 v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 87 P.3d 1187 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 7× “The property owners then gathered signatures on an annexation petition, which contained the signatures of the owners of at least 75 percent of the assessed value of the property in the area to be annexed, as required by RCW 35.13.130 (the 75 percent petition). The 75 percent…”
Glenrose Cmty. Ass'n v. City of Spokane, 971 P.2d 82 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 3× “RCW 35.13.130. They also represented that the assessed values of their property amounted to not less than 10 percent of the total assessed value of the property within the proposed annexation, as required by RCW 35.”
Snohomish Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 1 v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 117 P.3d 348 (Wash. 2005). “RCW 35.13.130 provides that the “petition for annexation” must contain a legal description of the property, a plat outlining the property boundaries, and a statement of the City’s requirements regarding the annexed area’s adoption of the comprehensive plan and assumption of any…”
Show all 20 citing cases →
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.