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

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.100 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
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 45 days of the effective filing date of a notice of intention:
(1) Three members of a five-member boundary review board or five members of a boundary review board in a county with a population of one million or more files a request for review: PROVIDED, That the members of the boundary review board shall not be authorized to file a request for review of the following actions:
(a) The incorporation of any special district or change in the boundary of any city, town, or special purpose district;
(b) The extension of permanent water service outside of its existing corporate boundaries by a city, town, or special purpose district if (i) the extension is through the installation of water mains of six inches or less in diameter or (ii) the county legislative authority for the county in which the proposed extension is to be built is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 and has by a majority vote waived the authority of the board to initiate review of all other extensions; or
(c) The extension of permanent sewer service outside of its existing corporate boundaries by a city, town, or special purpose district if (i) the extension is through the installation of sewer mains of eight inches or less in diameter or (ii) the county legislative authority for the county in which the proposed extension is to be built is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 and has by a majority vote waived the authority of the board to initiate review of all other extensions;
(2) Any governmental unit affected, including the governmental unit for which the boundary change or extension of permanent water or sewer service is proposed, or the county within which the area of the proposed action is located, files a request for review of the specific action;
(3) A petition requesting review is filed and is signed by:
(a) Five percent of the registered voters residing within the area which is being considered for the proposed action (as determined by the boundary review board in its discretion subject to immediate review by writ of certiorari to the superior court); or
(b) An owner or owners of property consisting of five percent of the assessed valuation within such area;
(4) The majority of the members of boundary review boards concur with a request for review when a petition requesting the review is filed by five percent of the registered voters who deem themselves affected by the action and reside within one-quarter mile of the proposed action but not within the jurisdiction proposing the action.
If a period of 45 days shall elapse without the board's jurisdiction having been invoked as set forth in this section, the proposed action shall be deemed approved.
If a review of a proposal is requested, the board shall make a finding as prescribed in RCW 36.93.150 within 120 days after the filing of such a request for review. If this period of 120 days shall elapse without the board making a finding as prescribed in RCW 36.93.150, the proposal shall be deemed approved unless the board and the person who submitted the proposal agree to an extension of the 120-day period.
[ 2025 c 39 s 2; 1994 c 216 s 13; 1992 c 162 s 1; 1991 c 363 s 96; 1989 c 84 s 3; 1987 c 477 s 3; 1983 c 76 s 1; 1982 c 220 s 1; 1967 c 189 s 10.]

Notes:

Effective date—1994 c 216: See note following RCW 35.02.015.
Purpose—Captions not law—1991 c 363: See notes following RCW 2.32.180.
Severability—1982 c 220: "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." [ 1982 c 220 s 9.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases, 1978–2006 · leading case: City of Bellevue v. King Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 586 P.2d 470 (Wash. 1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Bellevue v. King Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 586 P.2d 470 (Wash. 1978). · cites it 10× “From that time on, among the myriad maneuvers, motions, and actions, the following events are important to this appeal: (1) Redmond brought a summary judgment motion to have its annexation declared approved by operation of RCW 36.93.100, [1] alleging that no objections to the…”
Nisqually Delta Ass'n v. City of DuPont, 627 P.2d 956 (Wash. 1981). · cites it 6× “It had been prepared by DuPont, the lead agency.”
Yakima Cnty. (West Valley) Fire Prot. Dist. No. 12 v. City of Yakima, 858 P.2d 245 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 2× “In addition, even if enough landowners agree to sign the petition, review by the boundary review board will be necessary if requested by the board itself, by an affected government unit, or by 5 percent of the registered voters in the area or 5 percent of the affected landowners.”
Friends of Snoqualmie Valley v. King Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 825 P.2d 300 (Wash. 1992). · cites it 8× “RCW 36.93.100 states in pertinent part: The board shall review and approve, disapprove, or modify any of the actions set forth in RCW 36.”
Harris v. Hornbaker, 658 P.2d 1219 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 2× “RCW 36.93.100, .160. In that context, there was no need to invoke the "appearance of fairness" doctrine to provide the necessary process to be afforded in a legislative context that we consider quasi-judicial.”
Vashon Island Comm. for Self-Gov't v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 903 P.2d 953 (Wash. 1995). “7 RCW 36.93.100 provides in part: "Review of proposed actions by board— Procedure.”
Snohomish Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 1 v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 117 P.3d 348 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 2× “RCW 36.93.100 opens a 45-day window for board members, affected governmental units, registered voters residing in the annexation area, or owners of property within the area to request the boundary review board’s review; if the board’s jurisdiction is not invoked within the…”
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.”
King Cnty. Water Dist. No. 90 v. City of Renton, 944 P.2d 1067 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “They petitioned the BRB for review under RCW 36.93.100(3), arguing that the City of Renton’s notice of intent to annex was not properly before the BRB because the petition in support of the annexation did not contain "sufficient, lawful signatures.”
King Cnty. Boundary Review Bd. v. City of Auburn, 725 P.2d 451 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 7× “On January 13, 1983, pursuant to RCW 36.93.100, 1 three members of the Board requested a formal review of the City's proposed action.”
Hanson v. Spokane Cnty., 770 P.2d 210 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 9× “RCW 36.93.100; RCW 36.93.150. 1 On June 11, 1985, a petition for incorporation of a non-charter code city to be named the City of Spokane Valley was filed in accordance with former RCW 35A.”
Glenrose Cmty. Ass'n v. City of Spokane, 971 P.2d 82 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “RCW 36.93.100. The board’s decision is subject to superior court review.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.100(1) — 1 case
Hanson v. Spokane Cnty., 770 P.2d 210 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). “RCW 36.93.100; RCW 36.93.150. 1 On June 11, 1985, a petition for incorporation of a non-charter code city to be named the City of Spokane Valley was filed in accordance with former RCW 35A.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.100(1)(b) — 1 case
People v. The City of Spokane, 755 P.2d 836 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.100(2) — 9 cases
Snohomish Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 1 v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 117 P.3d 348 (Wash. 2005). “RCW 36.93.100 opens a 45-day window for board members, affected governmental units, registered voters residing in the annexation area, or owners of property within the area to request the boundary review board’s review; if the board’s jurisdiction is not invoked within the…”
Friends of Snoqualmie Valley v. King Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 825 P.2d 300 (Wash. 1992). “RCW 36.93.100 states in pertinent part: The board shall review and approve, disapprove, or modify any of the actions set forth in RCW 36.”
City of Moses Lake v. Grant Boundary Review Bd., 15 P.3d 716 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
City of Moses Lake v. Grant Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 104 Wash. App. 388 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
Snohomish Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 1 v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 87 P.3d 1187 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.100(3) — 2 cases
Nisqually Delta Ass'n v. City of DuPont, 627 P.2d 956 (Wash. 1981). “It had been prepared by DuPont, the lead agency.”
King Cnty. Water Dist. No. 90 v. City of Renton, 944 P.2d 1067 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “They petitioned the BRB for review under RCW 36.93.100(3), arguing that the City of Renton’s notice of intent to annex was not properly before the BRB because the petition in support of the annexation did not contain "sufficient, lawful signatures.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.100(3)(a) — 1 case
Nisqually Delta Ass'n v. City of DuPont, 627 P.2d 956 (Wash. 1981). “It had been prepared by DuPont, the lead agency.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.100(4) — 2 cases
Friends of Snoqualmie Valley v. King Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 825 P.2d 300 (Wash. 1992). “RCW 36.93.100 states in pertinent part: The board shall review and approve, disapprove, or modify any of the actions set forth in RCW 36.”
Friends v. Boundary Review Bd., 825 P.2d 300 (Wash. 1992).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.100(l)(b) — 1 case
People for Pres. & Dev. of Five Mile Prairie v. City of Spokane, 755 P.2d 836 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988).
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.