Wash. Rev. Code » Title 35 · Chapter 35.92
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 35.92.025 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Cities and towns are authorized to charge property owners seeking to connect to the water or sewerage system of the city or town as a condition to granting the right to so connect, in addition to the cost of such connection, such reasonable connection charge as the legislative body of the city or town shall determine proper in order that such property owners shall bear their equitable share of the cost of such system. The equitable share may include interest charges applied from the date of construction of the water or sewer system until the connection, or for a period not to exceed ten years, at a rate commensurate with the rate of interest applicable to the city or town at the time of construction or major rehabilitation of the water or sewer system, or at the time of installation of the water or sewer lines to which the property owner is seeking to connect but not to exceed ten percent per year: PROVIDED, That the aggregate amount of interest shall not exceed the equitable share of the cost of the system allocated to such property owners. Connection charges collected shall be considered revenue of such system.
[ 1985 c 445 s 6; 1965 c 7 s 35.92.025. Prior: 1959 c 90 s 8. Formerly RCW 80.40.025.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1965–2021 · leading case: Landmark Dev., Inc. v. City of Roy, 980 P.2d 1234 (Wash. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Landmark Dev., Inc. v. City of Roy, 980 P.2d 1234 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 13× “— This case requires us to decide whether a municipality, in setting and applying water connection charges authorized under RCW 35.92.025, is liable to a developer for damages under RCW 64.”
Palermo at Lakeland, LLC v. City of Bonney Lake, 147 Wash. App. 64 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 14× “RCW 35.92.025 authorizes cities to charge property owners seeking to connect to the water system “such reasonable connection charge as the legislative body .”
Prisk v. City of Poulsbo, 732 P.2d 1013 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 3× “" However, the statute has no application here as it specifically states that the existing authority of cities to impose such charges remains unaffected by the statute.”
City Of Issaquah, V. Westridge-issaquah Ii Lp, 500 P.3d 157 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 17× “Additionally, Polygon asserts that the City’s imposition of the higher GFCs violated RCW 35.92.025—a statute requiring utility connection charges to be reasonable such that they are based on property owners’ equitable shares in the cost of the city utility systems.”
Tapps Brewing Inc. v. City of Sumner, 482 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (W.D. Wash. 2007). · cites it 5× “§ 1988 ; (3) violation of Article 1, Section 16 of the Washington State Constitution; and (4) violation of RCW §§ 35.92.025 and 82.02.020. II. DISCUSSION A.”
Samis Land Co. v. City of Soap Lake, 23 P.3d 477 (Wash. 2001). “1">Hillis Homes II are good examples of valid regulatory fees, because unlike Soap Lake's standby charges, which are imposed exclusively upon vacant lots, connection fees "pay for only those improvements to the water system necessitated by the [fee payers], and hence will…”
Palermo at Lakeland, LLC v. City of Bonney Lake, 193 P.3d 168 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 15× “RCW 35.92.025 authorizes cities to charge property owners seeking to connect to the water system "such reasonable connection charge as the legislative body .”
Samis Land Co. v. City of Soap Lake, 143 Wash. 2d 798 (Wash. 2001). “Utility “connection fees” such as those at issue in Hillis Homes II are good examples of valid regulatory fees, because unlike Soap Lake’s standby charges, which are imposed exclusively upon vacant lots, connection fees “pay for only those improvements to the water system…”
King Cnty. Water Dist. No. 54 v. King Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 554 P.2d 1060 (Wash. 1976). “92, but is accompanied by sufficient standards and safeguards to satisfy constitutional requirements. The legislature has imposed a standard of uniformity of water rates for the same class of customers or service.”
Landmark Dev., Inc. v. City of Roy, 980 P.2d 1234 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 13× “This case requires us to decide whether a municipality, in setting and applying water connection charges authorized under RCW 35.92.025, is liable to a developer for damages under RCW 64.”
IRVIN WATER DIST. v. Jackson P'ship, 34 P.3d 840 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “The issue there was whether a municipality, in determining its water system users' equitable share of the system's cost via the computation of water charges authorized under RCW 35.92.025, must deduct grants and donations used for improving the water system.”
Hatley v. City of Union Gap, 106 Wash. App. 302 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “He alleged the new ordinance violated its enabling statute, RCW 35.92.025, and that it violated RCW 82.”
Show all 15 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.