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

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.170 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In reaching a decision on a proposal or an alternative, the board shall consider the factors affecting such proposal, which shall include, but not be limited to the following:
(1) Population and territory; population density; land area and land uses; comprehensive plans and zoning, as adopted under chapter 35.63, 35A.63, or 36.70 RCW; comprehensive plans and development regulations adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW; applicable service agreements entered into under chapter 36.115 or 39.34 RCW; applicable interlocal annexation agreements between a county and its cities; per capita assessed valuation; topography, natural boundaries and drainage basins, proximity to other populated areas; the existence and preservation of prime agricultural soils and productive agricultural uses; the likelihood of significant growth in the area and in adjacent incorporated and unincorporated areas during the next ten years; location and most desirable future location of community facilities;
(2) Municipal services; need for municipal services; effect of ordinances, governmental codes, regulations and resolutions on existing uses; present cost and adequacy of governmental services and controls in area; prospects of governmental services from other sources; probable future needs for such services and controls; probable effect of proposal or alternative on cost and adequacy of services and controls in area and adjacent area; the effect on the finances, debt structure, and contractual obligations and rights of all affected governmental units; and
(3) The effect of the proposal or alternative on adjacent areas, on mutual economic and social interests, and on the local governmental structure of the county.
The provisions of chapter 43.21C RCW, State Environmental Policy, shall not apply to incorporation proceedings covered by chapter 35.02 RCW.
[ 1997 c 429 s 39; 1989 c 84 s 5; 1986 c 234 s 33; 1982 c 220 s 2; 1979 ex.s. c 142 s 1; 1967 c 189 s 17.]

Notes:

Severability—1997 c 429: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201.
Severability—1982 c 220: See note following RCW 36.93.100.
Incorporation proceedings exempt from state environmental policy act: RCW 43.21C.220.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1972–2018 · leading case: King Cnty. v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 860 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
King Cnty. v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 860 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 14× “In reaching its decision, the Board considered a number of the "factors" enumerated in RCW 36.93.170 and each of the "objectives" listed in RCW 36.”
King Cnty. Water Dist. No. 54 v. King Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 554 P.2d 1060 (Wash. 1976). · cites it 3× “Appellant argues that the Boundary Review Board failed to comply with its statutory mandate inasmuch as it did not consider the factors specified in RCW 36.93.170 and its decision does not achieve the objectives listed in RCW 36.”
Snohomish Cnty. v. Hinds, 810 P.2d 84 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 3× “Many of the factors the Board is directed to consider by RCW 36.93.170 relate to land use decisions.”
Nisqually Delta Ass'n v. City of DuPont, 627 P.2d 956 (Wash. 1981). · cites it 2× “065; or (4) The extension of permanent water or sewer service outside of its existing corporate boundaries by a city, town, or special purpose district.”
City of Richland v. Franklin Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 676 P.2d 425 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 2× “The Board approved Pasco's proposal as modified at the hearing.”
Snohomish Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 1 v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 117 P.3d 348 (Wash. 2005). “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 45-day period,…”
Spokane Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 8 v. Spokane Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 618 P.2d 1326 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). “" 3 RCW 36.93.170: *496 "In reaching a decision on a proposal or an alternative, the board shall consider the factors affecting such proposal, which shall include, but not be limited to the following: "(1) Population and territory; population density; land area and land uses;…”
City of Wenatchee v. Boundary Review Bd., 693 P.2d 135 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 3× “The Superior Court affirmed and the City timely appeals.”
Neighbors Against Annexation v. Snohomish Cnty. Boundary Review Bd. (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 10× “76936-7-1/2 that annexation is consistent with the statutory factors set forth in RCW 36.93.170, the objectives set forth in RCW 36.”
Cunningham v. King Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 493 P.2d 811 (Wash. Ct. App. 1972). “Some of the factors which are to be considered by the boundary review board in acting upon a proposal to enlarge the territory of an existing sewer district are set forth in RCW 36.93.170. 1 The record of the hearing before the boundary review board reflects that the board…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.170(1) — 2 cases
King Cnty. v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 860 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1993). “In reaching its decision, the Board considered a number of the "factors" enumerated in RCW 36.93.170 and each of the "objectives" listed in RCW 36.”
Snohomish Cnty. v. Hinds, 810 P.2d 84 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “Many of the factors the Board is directed to consider by RCW 36.93.170 relate to land use decisions.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.170(2) — 1 case
King Cnty. v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 860 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1993). “In reaching its decision, the Board considered a number of the "factors" enumerated in RCW 36.93.170 and each of the "objectives" listed in RCW 36.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.170(3) — 1 case
King Cnty. Water Dist. No. 54 v. King Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 554 P.2d 1060 (Wash. 1976). “Appellant argues that the Boundary Review Board failed to comply with its statutory mandate inasmuch as it did not consider the factors specified in RCW 36.93.170 and its decision does not achieve the objectives listed in RCW 36.”
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.