Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.150 (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, upon review of any proposed action, shall take such of the following actions as it deems necessary to best carry out the intent of this chapter:
(1) Approve the proposal as submitted.
(2) Subject to RCW 35.02.170, modify the proposal by adjusting boundaries to add or delete territory. Subject to the requirements of this chapter, a board may modify a proposal by adding territory that would increase the total area of the proposal before the board. A board, however, may not modify a proposal for annexation of territory to a city or town by adding an amount of territory that constitutes more than one hundred percent of the total area of the proposal before the board. Any modifications shall not interfere with the authority of a city, town, or special purpose district to require or not require preannexation agreements, covenants, or petitions. A board shall not modify the proposed incorporation of a city with an estimated population of seven thousand five hundred or more by removing territory from the proposal, or adding territory to the proposal, that constitutes ten percent or more of the total area included within the proposal before the board. However, a board shall remove territory in the proposed incorporation that is located outside of an urban growth area or is annexed by a city or town, and may remove territory in the proposed incorporation if a petition or resolution proposing the annexation is filed or adopted that has priority over the proposed incorporation, before the area is established that is subject to this ten percent restriction on removing or adding territory. A board shall not modify the proposed incorporation of a city with a population of seven thousand five hundred or more to reduce the territory in such a manner as to reduce the population below seven thousand five hundred.
(3) Determine a division of assets and liabilities between two or more governmental units where relevant.
(4) Determine whether, or the extent to which, functions of a special purpose district are to be assumed by an incorporated city or town, metropolitan municipal corporation, or another existing special purpose district.
(5) Disapprove the proposal except that the board shall not have jurisdiction: (a) To disapprove the dissolution or disincorporation of a special purpose district which is not providing services but shall have jurisdiction over the determination of a division of the assets and liabilities of a dissolved or disincorporated special purpose district; (b) over the division of assets and liabilities of a special purpose district that is dissolved or disincorporated pursuant to chapter 36.96 RCW; nor (c) to disapprove the incorporation of a city with an estimated population of seven thousand five hundred or more, but the board may recommend against the proposed incorporation of a city with such an estimated population.
Unless the board disapproves a proposal, it shall be presented under the appropriate statute for approval of a public body and, if required, a vote of the people. A proposal that has been modified shall be presented under the appropriate statute for approval of a public body and if required, a vote of the people. If a proposal, other than that for a city, town, or special purpose district annexation, after modification does not contain enough signatures of persons within the modified area, as are required by law, then the initiating party, parties or governmental unit has thirty days after the modification decision to secure enough signatures to satisfy the legal requirement. If the signatures cannot be secured then the proposal may be submitted to a vote of the people, as required by law.
The addition or deletion of property by the board shall not invalidate a petition which had previously satisfied the sufficiency of signature provisions of RCW 35.13.130 or 35A.14.120. When the board, after due proceedings held, disapproves a proposed action, such proposed action shall be unavailable, the proposing agency shall be without power to initiate the same or substantially the same as determined by the board, and any succeeding acts intended to or tending to effectuate that action shall be void, but such action may be reinitiated after a period of twelve months from date of disapproval and shall again be subject to the same consideration.
The board shall not modify or deny a proposed action unless there is evidence on the record to support a conclusion that the action is inconsistent with one or more of the objectives under RCW 36.93.180. The board may not increase the area of a city or town annexation unless it holds a separate public hearing on the proposed increase and provides ten or more days' notice of the hearing to the registered voters and property owners residing within the area subject to the proposed increase. Every such determination to modify or deny a proposed action shall be made in writing pursuant to a motion, and shall be supported by appropriate written findings and conclusions, based on the record.
[ 2012 c 212 s 1; 1994 c 216 s 15; 1990 c 273 s 1; 1987 c 477 s 7; 1979 ex.s. c 5 s 13; 1975 1st ex.s. c 220 s 10; 1969 ex.s. c 111 s 8; 1967 c 189 s 15.]

Notes:

Effective date1994 c 216: See note following RCW 35.02.015.
Severability1990 c 273: "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." [ 1990 c 273 s 3.]
Legislative finding, intent1975 1st ex.s. c 220: See note following RCW 35.02.170.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1986–2006 · leading case: Vashon Island Comm. for Self-Gov't v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 903 P.2d 953 (Wash. 1995).
Vashon Island Comm. for Self-Gov't v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 903 P.2d 953 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 17× “We affirm the trial court, concluding that it did not err in denying the application for the writ on the basis that under a 1994 amendment to RCW 36.93.150, a statute that sets forth the actions the Board may take after reviewing "proposed actions,” the Board could not approve…”
King Cnty. v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 860 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 2× “Second, an EIS could assist the Board in crafting the appropriate scope of annexation approvals. Plum Creek contends an EIS may be difficult to prepare because there are no guaranties as to what annexations could be approved by the Board.”
Interlake Sporting Ass'n v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 146 P.3d 904 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 12× “RCW 36.93.150. ¶17 The current annexation proposal was adopted pursuant to the direct petition method authorized by RCW 35A.”
Hanson v. Spokane Cnty., 770 P.2d 210 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “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.”
Interlake Sporting Ass'n v. BRB, 146 P.3d 904 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 13× “RCW 36.93.150. ¶ 17 The current annexation proposal was adopted pursuant to the direct petition method authorized by RCW 35A.”
King Cnty. Boundary Review Bd. v. City of Auburn, 725 P.2d 451 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). “If this period of one hundred twenty 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 one hundred twenty day perioa.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.150(2) — 4 cases
Vashon Island Comm. for Self-Gov't v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 903 P.2d 953 (Wash. 1995). “We affirm the trial court, concluding that it did not err in denying the application for the writ on the basis that under a 1994 amendment to RCW 36.93.150, a statute that sets forth the actions the Board may take after reviewing "proposed actions,” the Board could not approve…”
King Cnty. v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 860 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1993). “Second, an EIS could assist the Board in crafting the appropriate scope of annexation approvals. Plum Creek contends an EIS may be difficult to prepare because there are no guaranties as to what annexations could be approved by the Board.”
Interlake Sporting Ass'n v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 146 P.3d 904 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 36.93.150. ¶17 The current annexation proposal was adopted pursuant to the direct petition method authorized by RCW 35A.”
Interlake Sporting Ass'n v. BRB, 146 P.3d 904 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 36.93.150. ¶ 17 The current annexation proposal was adopted pursuant to the direct petition method authorized by RCW 35A.”
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.