Wash. Rev. Code » Title 36 · Chapter 36.93
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.090 (2026)

Filing notice of proposed actions with board

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Whenever any of the following described actions are proposed in a county in which a board has been established, the initiators of the action shall file within one hundred eighty days a notice of intention with the board: PROVIDED, That when the initiator is the legislative body of a governmental unit, the notice of intention may be filed immediately following the body's first acceptance or approval of the action. The board may review any such proposed actions pertaining to:
(1) The: (a) Creation, incorporation, or change in the boundary, other than a consolidation, of any city, town, or special purpose district; (b) consolidation of special purpose districts, but not including consolidation of cities and towns; or (c) dissolution or disincorporation of any city, town, or special purpose district, except that a board may not review the dissolution or disincorporation of a special purpose district which was dissolved or disincorporated pursuant to the provisions of chapter 36.96 RCW: PROVIDED, That the change in the boundary of a city or town arising from the annexation of contiguous city or town owned property held for a public purpose shall be exempted from the requirements of this section; or
(2) The assumption by any city or town of all or part of the assets, facilities, or indebtedness of a special purpose district which lies partially within such city or town; or
(3) The establishment of or change in the boundaries of a mutual water and sewer system or separate sewer system by a water-sewer district pursuant to RCW 57.08.065; or
(4) The extension of permanent water or sewer service outside of its existing service area by a city, town, or special purpose district. The service area of a city, town, or special purpose district shall include all of the area within its corporate boundaries plus, (a) for extensions of water service, the area outside of the corporate boundaries which it is designated to serve pursuant to a coordinated water system plan approved in accordance with RCW 70A.100.050; and (b) for extensions of sewer service, the area outside of the corporate boundaries which it is designated to serve pursuant to a comprehensive sewerage plan approved in accordance with chapter 36.94 RCW and RCW 90.48.110.
[ 2020 c 20 s 1028; 1996 c 230 s 1608; 1995 c 131 s 1; 1987 c 477 s 2; 1985 c 281 s 28; 1982 c 10 s 7. Prior: 1981 c 332 s 9; 1981 c 45 s 2; 1979 ex.s. c 5 s 12; 1971 ex.s. c 127 s 1; 1969 ex.s. c 111 s 5; 1967 c 189 s 9.]

Notes:

Part headings not law—Effective date—1996 c 230: See notes following RCW 57.02.001.
Effective date—1995 c 131: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect immediately [April 24, 1995]." [ 1995 c 131 s 2.]
Severability—1982 c 10: See note following RCW 6.13.080.
Legislative declaration—"District" defined—1981 c 45: "It is declared to be the public policy of the state of Washington to provide for the orderly growth and development of those areas of the state requiring public water service or sewer service and to secure the health and welfare of the people residing therein. The growth of urban population and the movement of people into suburban areas has required the performance of such services by water districts and sewer districts and the development of such districts has created problems of conflicting jurisdiction and potential double taxation.
It is the purpose of this act to reduce the duplication of service and the conflict among jurisdictions by establishing the principle that the first in time is the first in right where districts overlap and by encouraging the consolidation of districts. It is also the purpose of this act to prevent the imposition of double taxation upon the same property by establishing a general classification of property which will be exempt from property taxation by a district when such property is within the jurisdiction of an established district duly authorized to provide service of like character.
Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, as used in this act, the term "district" means either a water district organized under Title 57 RCW or a sewer district organized under Title 56 RCW or a merged water and sewer district organized pursuant to chapter 57.40 or 56.36 RCW." [ 1981 c 45 s 1.]
Severability—1981 c 45: "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 45 s 14.]
Consolidation of cities and towns—Role of boundary review board: RCW 35.10.450.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases, 1976–2020 · leading case: Snohomish Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 1 v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 117 P.3d 348 (Wash. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Snohomish Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 1 v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 117 P.3d 348 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 10× “We hold that RCW 36.93.090, in concert with chapter 35.”
Grant Cty. Fire Prot. Dist. v. City of Moses Lake, 83 P.3d 419 (Wash. 2004). “RCW 36.93.090 requires the city of Snoqualmie to file a notice of intention to annex with the BRB before annexing the property.”
Nisqually Delta Ass'n v. City of DuPont, 627 P.2d 956 (Wash. 1981). · cites it 3× “RCW 36.93.090 empowers these boards to review any proposed actions within the county which pertain to: (1) The creation, dissolution, incorporation, disincorporation, consolidation, or change in the boundary of any city, town, or special purpose district, except that a board may…”
Grant Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake, 150 Wash. 2d 791 (Wash. 2004). “RCW 36.93.090 requires the city of Snoqualmie to file a notice of intention to annex with the BRB before annexing the property.”
City of Bellevue v. King Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 586 P.2d 470 (Wash. 1978). · cites it 2× “NOTES [1] "The board shall review and approve, disapprove, or modify any of the actions set forth in RCW 36.93.090 when any of the following shall occur within sixty days of the filing of a notice of intention: "(1) The chairman or any three members of the boundary review board…”
Vashon Island Comm. for Self-Gov't v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 903 P.2d 953 (Wash. 1995). “The board shall review and approve, disapprove, or modify any of the actions set forth in RCW 36.93.090 when any of the following shall occur within forty-five days of the filing of a notice of intention: "(1) Three members of a five-member boundary review board or five members…”
Spokane Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 8 v. Spokane Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 618 P.2d 1326 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “Next, the Glenrose Association contends the Board failed to review and evaluate the City of Spokane's planning department declaration of environmental nonsignificance 1 and then make an independent determination of environmental impact. County boundary review boards are created…”
Spokane Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 9 v. Spokane Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 652 P.2d 1356 (Wash. 1982). “To hold otherwise would prevent the Board from reviewing any annexation where the annexing authority did not have a zoning classification identical to that applicable prior to annexation.”
Friends of Snoqualmie Valley v. King Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 825 P.2d 300 (Wash. 1992). · cites it 2× “On November 17, 1989, while negotiations continued, the City filed with the King County Boundary Review Board its notice of intent to annex, as required by RCW 36.93.090. On December 18, 1989, King County requested the Kong County Boundary Review Board to review the proposed…”
Snohomish Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 1 v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 87 P.3d 1187 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 5× “To resolve this dispute, we must decide when the annexation has been “proposed” for purposes of triggering the 180-day deadline for the City to file its notice of intention with the BRB under RCW 36.93.090, which states: Whenever any of the following described actions are…”
People for Pres. & Dev. of Five Mile Prairie v. City of Spokane, 755 P.2d 836 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 3× “125 3 that those seeking annexation file *819 a notice of intent with the City Council, and the requirement of RCW 36.93.090 4 that the City file a notice of its intention to annex with the Boundary Review Board.”
Glenrose Cmty. Ass'n v. City of Spokane, 971 P.2d 82 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “” If the legislative body of the city accepts the proposed annexation or a modification of it, RCW 36.93.090 next requires it to file a notice of its intent to annex with the boundary review board.”
Show all 28 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.090(1) — 3 cases
Spokane Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 9 v. Spokane Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 652 P.2d 1356 (Wash. 1982). “To hold otherwise would prevent the Board from reviewing any annexation where the annexing authority did not have a zoning classification identical to that applicable prior to annexation.”
Snohomish Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 1 v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 117 P.3d 348 (Wash. 2005). “We hold that RCW 36.93.090, in concert with chapter 35.”
City of Wenatchee v. Boundary Review Bd., 693 P.2d 135 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.090(1)(a)(1985) — 1 case
Ronald Wastewater Dist., Res. v. Olympic View Water & Sewer Dist., Apps. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.090(3) — 1 case
Ronald Wastewater Dist., Res. v. Olympic View Water & Sewer Dist., Apps. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.090(4) — 2 cases
Orchard Grove Water Ass'n v. King Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 600 P.2d 616 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979).
Ronald Wastewater Dist. v. Olympic View Water& Sewer Dist. (Wash. 2020).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.090(5) — 3 cases
People for Pres. & Dev. of Five Mile Prairie v. City of Spokane, 755 P.2d 836 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “125 3 that those seeking annexation file *819 a notice of intent with the City Council, and the requirement of RCW 36.93.090 4 that the City file a notice of its intention to annex with the Boundary Review Board.”
People v. The City of Spokane, 755 P.2d 836 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988).
Ronald Wastewater Dist., Res. v. Olympic View Water & Sewer Dist., Apps. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
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.