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

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.160 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) When the jurisdiction of the boundary review board has been invoked, the board shall set the date, time and place for a public hearing on the proposal. The board shall give at least thirty days' advance written notice of the date, time and place of the hearing to the governing body of each governmental unit having jurisdiction within the boundaries of the territory proposed to be annexed, formed, incorporated, disincorporated, dissolved or consolidated, or within the boundaries of a special district whose assets and facilities are proposed to be assumed by a city or town, and to the governing body of each city within three miles of the exterior boundaries of the area and to the proponent of the change. Notice shall also be given by publication in any newspaper of general circulation in the area of the proposed boundary change at least three times, the last publication of which shall be not less than five days prior to the date set for the public hearing. Notice shall also be posted in ten public places in the area affected for five days when the area is ten acres or more. When the area affected is less than ten acres, five notices shall be posted in five public places for five days. Notice as provided in this subsection shall include any territory which the board has determined to consider adding in accordance with RCW 36.93.150(2).
(2) A verbatim record shall be made of all testimony presented at the hearing and upon request and payment of the reasonable costs thereof, a copy of the transcript of the testimony shall be provided to any person or governmental unit.
(3) The chair upon majority vote of the board or a panel may direct the chief clerk of the boundary review board to issue subpoenas to any public officer to testify, and to compel the production by him or her of any records, books, documents, public records or public papers.
(4) Within forty days after the conclusion of the final hearing on the proposal, the board shall file its written decision, setting forth the reasons therefor, with the board of county commissioners and the clerk of each governmental unit directly affected. The written decision shall indicate whether the proposed change is approved, rejected or modified and, if modified, the terms of the modification. The written decision need not include specific data on every factor required to be considered by the board, but shall indicate that all standards were given consideration. Dissenting members of the board shall have the right to have their written dissents included as part of the decision.
(5) Unanimous decisions of the hearing panel or a decision of a majority of the members of the board shall constitute the decision of the board and shall not be appealable to the whole board. Any other decision shall be appealable to the entire board within ten days. Appeals shall be on the record, which shall be furnished by the appellant, but the board may, in its sole discretion, permit the introduction of additional evidence and argument. Decisions shall be final and conclusive unless within thirty days from the date of the action a governmental unit affected by the decision or any person owning real property or residing in the area affected by the decision files in the superior court a notice of appeal.
The filing of the notice of appeal within the time limit shall stay the effective date of the decision of the board until such time as the appeal shall have been adjudicated or withdrawn. On appeal the superior court shall not take any evidence other than that contained in the record of the hearing before the board.
(6) The superior court may affirm the decision of the board or remand the case for further proceedings; or it may reverse the decision if any substantial rights may have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:
(a) In violation of constitutional provisions, or
(b) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the board, or
(c) Made upon unlawful procedure, or
(d) Affected by other error of law, or
(e) Unsupported by material and substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted, or
(f) Clearly erroneous.
An aggrieved party may seek appellate review of any final judgment of the superior court in the manner provided by law as in other civil cases.
[ 2009 c 549 s 4153; 1994 c 216 s 16; 1988 c 202 s 40; 1987 c 477 s 8; 1971 c 81 s 97; 1969 ex.s. c 111 s 9; 1967 c 189 s 16.]

Notes:

Effective date—1994 c 216: See note following RCW 35.02.015.
Severability—1988 c 202: See note following RCW 2.24.050.
General corporate powers—Towns, restrictions as to area: RCW 35.21.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases, 1972–2019 · leading case: Nisqually Delta Ass'n v. City of DuPont, 627 P.2d 956 (Wash. 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nisqually Delta Ass'n v. City of DuPont, 627 P.2d 956 (Wash. 1981). · cites it 26× “The adequacy of the EIS is being contested in a separate action brought by petitioners, and is not a part of this suit.”
King Cnty. v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 860 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 12× “An aggrieved party may seek appellate review of any final judgment of the superior court in the manner provided by law as in other civil cases. RCW 36.93.”
King Cnty. Water Dist. No. 54 v. King Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 554 P.2d 1060 (Wash. 1976). · cites it 7× “The sole hearing held by the board in the present case was that on February 22, 1973, a complete transcript of which is before this court in compliance with the statute.”
King Cnty. Water Dist. No. 90 v. City of Renton, 944 P.2d 1067 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 9× “The court thus reversed the BRB’s approval of the annexation. The City of Renton timely appealed the trial court’s reversal of the BRB’s decision.”
Snohomish Cnty. v. Hinds, 810 P.2d 84 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 11× “RCW 36.93.160-(6)(b). We disagree. Many of the factors the Board is directed to consider by RCW 36.”
Friends of Snoqualmie Valley v. King Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 825 P.2d 300 (Wash. 1992). · cites it 16× “On cross appeal, Associates asserts that appellants did not have standing under RCW 36.93.160(5) to appeal the Board's decision to the superior court.”
City of Richland v. Franklin Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 676 P.2d 425 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 7× “It further argues that the trial court erred in dismissing its request for declaratory and injunctive relief because the automatic stay provision of RCW 36.93.160 operates throughout all appeals of the action.”
City of Bellevue v. King Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 586 P.2d 470 (Wash. 1978). · cites it 3× “The board moved to strike the interrogatories on the ground that the superior court, acting under RCW 36.93.160, may consider only materials in the record on appeal from the board's ruling, and that facts outside the record are inadmissible, rendering interrogatories improper.”
Spokane Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 9 v. Spokane Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 652 P.2d 1356 (Wash. 1982). · cites it 3× “Despite the fact that RCW 36.93.160 was officially enacted into law prior to the APA standard (see Laws of 1967, ch.”
Kitsap Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 7 v. Kitsap Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 943 P.2d 380 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “The Civil Rules The District argues RCW 36.93.160(5) requires only filing of the notice of appeal within 30 days to comply with the statute and stay the decision to annex the property.”
Cleveland v. Duke, 137 P.3d 16 (Wash. 2006). “2d 1067 (1997) (applying identical principle to RCW 36.93.160(5)). ¶18 Cleveland requested and served a citation on Duke more than two years after timely filing a petition contesting Kordon’s will.”
In Re Est. of Kordon, 137 P.3d 16 (Wash. 2006). “2d 1067 (1997) (applying identical principle to RCW 36.93.160(5)). ¶ 18 Cleveland requested and served a citation on Duke more than two years after timely filing a petition contesting Kordon's will.”
Show all 33 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.160(1) — 4 cases
Nisqually Delta Ass'n v. City of DuPont, 627 P.2d 956 (Wash. 1981). “The adequacy of the EIS is being contested in a separate action brought by petitioners, and is not a part of this suit.”
Snohomish Cnty. v. Hinds, 810 P.2d 84 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “RCW 36.93.160-(6)(b). We disagree. Many of the factors the Board is directed to consider by RCW 36.”
Orchard Grove Water Ass'n v. King Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 600 P.2d 616 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979).
Nisqually Delta Ass'n v. City of DuPont, 617 P.2d 446 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.160(2) — 1 case
King Cnty. Water Dist. No. 54 v. King Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 554 P.2d 1060 (Wash. 1976). “The sole hearing held by the board in the present case was that on February 22, 1973, a complete transcript of which is before this court in compliance with the statute.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.160(5) — 24 cases
Nisqually Delta Ass'n v. City of DuPont, 627 P.2d 956 (Wash. 1981). “The adequacy of the EIS is being contested in a separate action brought by petitioners, and is not a part of this suit.”
King Cnty. v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 860 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1993). “An aggrieved party may seek appellate review of any final judgment of the superior court in the manner provided by law as in other civil cases. RCW 36.93.”
Friends of Snoqualmie Valley v. King Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 825 P.2d 300 (Wash. 1992). “On cross appeal, Associates asserts that appellants did not have standing under RCW 36.93.160(5) to appeal the Board's decision to the superior court.”
King Cnty. Water Dist. No. 90 v. City of Renton, 944 P.2d 1067 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “The court thus reversed the BRB’s approval of the annexation. The City of Renton timely appealed the trial court’s reversal of the BRB’s decision.”
King Cnty. Water Dist. No. 54 v. King Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 554 P.2d 1060 (Wash. 1976). “The sole hearing held by the board in the present case was that on February 22, 1973, a complete transcript of which is before this court in compliance with the statute.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.160(6) — 11 cases
King Cnty. v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 860 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1993). “An aggrieved party may seek appellate review of any final judgment of the superior court in the manner provided by law as in other civil cases. RCW 36.93.”
Snohomish Cnty. v. Hinds, 810 P.2d 84 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “RCW 36.93.160-(6)(b). We disagree. Many of the factors the Board is directed to consider by RCW 36.”
King Cnty. Water Dist. No. 90 v. City of Renton, 944 P.2d 1067 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “The court thus reversed the BRB’s approval of the annexation. The City of Renton timely appealed the trial court’s reversal of the BRB’s decision.”
King Cnty. Water Dist. No. 54 v. King Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 554 P.2d 1060 (Wash. 1976). “The sole hearing held by the board in the present case was that on February 22, 1973, a complete transcript of which is before this court in compliance with the statute.”
Spokane Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 9 v. Spokane Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 652 P.2d 1356 (Wash. 1982). “Despite the fact that RCW 36.93.160 was officially enacted into law prior to the APA standard (see Laws of 1967, ch.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.160(6)(b) — 6 cases
King Cnty. Water Dist. No. 90 v. City of Renton, 944 P.2d 1067 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “The court thus reversed the BRB’s approval of the annexation. The City of Renton timely appealed the trial court’s reversal of the BRB’s decision.”
Snohomish Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 1 v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 117 P.3d 348 (Wash. 2005).
Snohomish Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 1 v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 87 P.3d 1187 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
Hanson v. Spokane Cnty., 770 P.2d 210 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989).
Snohomish Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. v. Brb, 87 P.3d 1187 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.160(6)(e) — 2 cases
Snohomish Cnty. v. Hinds, 810 P.2d 84 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “RCW 36.93.160-(6)(b). We disagree. Many of the factors the Board is directed to consider by RCW 36.”
Neighbors Against Annexation v. Snohomish Cnty. Boundary Review Bd. (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.160(6)(f) — 3 cases
King Cnty. v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 860 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1993). “An aggrieved party may seek appellate review of any final judgment of the superior court in the manner provided by law as in other civil cases. RCW 36.93.”
City of Wenatchee v. Boundary Review Bd., 693 P.2d 135 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984).
Barrie v. Kitsap Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 643 P.2d 433 (Wash. 1982).
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.