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

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.180 (2026)

Objectives of boundary review board

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The decisions of the boundary review board shall attempt to achieve the following objectives:
(1) Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities;
(2) Use of physical boundaries, including but not limited to bodies of water, highways, and land contours;
(3) Creation and preservation of logical service areas;
(4) Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries;
(5) Discouragement of multiple incorporations of small cities and encouragement of incorporation of cities in excess of ten thousand population in heavily populated urban areas;
(6) Dissolution of inactive special purpose districts;
(7) Adjustment of impractical boundaries;
(8) Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns of unincorporated areas which are urban in character; and
(9) Protection of agricultural and rural lands which are designated for long term productive agricultural and resource use by a comprehensive plan adopted by the county legislative authority.
[ 1989 c 84 s 6; 1981 c 332 s 10; 1979 ex.s. c 142 s 2; 1967 c 189 s 18.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases, 1976–2018 · 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 37× “170 and each of the "objectives" listed in RCW 36.93.180. See resolution and hearing decision (Board's decision); Clerk's Papers, at 1218-29.”
City of Seattle v. State, 694 P.2d 641 (Wash. 1985). · cites it 35× “Thus, the interest *668 asserted by the City in challenging RCW 36.93.180 and RCW 35.13.165 as special legislation falls directly within the zone of interests protected by Const.”
Spokane Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 9 v. Spokane Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 652 P.2d 1356 (Wash. 1982). · cites it 6× “RCW 36.93.180 sets out a list of objectives which the Board is to "attempt to achieve" by its decisions.”
Snohomish Cnty. v. Hinds, 810 P.2d 84 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 7× “On September 29, 1988, the Board denied the proposed annexation by a vote of 4 to 1, finding that the proposal failed to achieve five of the nine objectives of boundary review boards set out in RCW 36.93.180. On October 7,1988, Ray Hinds, owner of property within the annexation,…”
Spokane Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 8 v. Spokane Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 618 P.2d 1326 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 7× “010; RCW 36.93.180. In addition to "guiding and controlling the creation and growth of municipalities" under RCW 36.”
King Cnty. Water Dist. No. 54 v. King Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 554 P.2d 1060 (Wash. 1976). · cites it 2× “170 and its decision does not achieve the objectives listed in RCW 36.93.180. In its resolution and hearing decision, the board found that the proposed assumption “tends to accomplish” objectives (1) and (3) of RCW 36.”
City of Richland v. Franklin Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 676 P.2d 425 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 3× “We have held that the intent behind the gerrymandering of boundaries is irrelevant when considering an annexation proposal.”
Friends of Snoqualmie Valley v. King Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 825 P.2d 300 (Wash. 1992). · cites it 3× “Appellants appealed the Board's decision to the King County Superior Court, arguing that the Board lacked authority to conduct a substantive environmental review under SEPA and that the annexation did not meet the objectives set forth in RCW 36.93.180. Associates countered that…”
City of Wenatchee v. Boundary Review Bd., 693 P.2d 135 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 3× “93 is to promote logical growth of local government. RCW 36.”
Interlake Sporting Ass'n v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 146 P.3d 904 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 6× “It claims that because Interlake does not challenge the BRB’s findings relating to RCW 36.93.180, all such findings are verities on appeal.”
Stewart v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 996 P.2d 1087 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “11 RCW 36.93.180 sets forth these objectives: The decisions of the boundary review board shall attempt to achieve the following objectives: (1) Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities; *171 (2) Use of physical boundaries, including but not limited to bodies of…”
Leer v. Whatcom Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 957 P.2d 251 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 5× “The superior court: (1) refused to hear new evidence not considered by the Board; (2) held that the sufficiency of the petition, while necessary for adoption of the ordinance, was not necessary to confer jurisdiction on the Board; and (3) concluded that there was substantial…”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.180(1) — 2 cases
King Cnty. v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 860 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1993). “170 and each of the "objectives" listed in RCW 36.93.180. See resolution and hearing decision (Board's decision); Clerk's Papers, at 1218-29.”
Spokane Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 8 v. Spokane Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 618 P.2d 1326 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). “010; RCW 36.93.180. In addition to "guiding and controlling the creation and growth of municipalities" under RCW 36.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.180(10) — 1 case
City of Seattle v. State, 694 P.2d 641 (Wash. 1985). “Thus, the interest *668 asserted by the City in challenging RCW 36.93.180 and RCW 35.13.165 as special legislation falls directly within the zone of interests protected by Const.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.180(2) — 2 cases
King Cnty. v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 860 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1993). “170 and each of the "objectives" listed in RCW 36.93.180. See resolution and hearing decision (Board's decision); Clerk's Papers, at 1218-29.”
Snohomish Cnty. v. Hinds, 810 P.2d 84 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “On September 29, 1988, the Board denied the proposed annexation by a vote of 4 to 1, finding that the proposal failed to achieve five of the nine objectives of boundary review boards set out in RCW 36.93.180. On October 7,1988, Ray Hinds, owner of property within the annexation,…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.180(3) — 2 cases
King Cnty. v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 860 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1993). “170 and each of the "objectives" listed in RCW 36.93.180. See resolution and hearing decision (Board's decision); Clerk's Papers, at 1218-29.”
Spokane Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 8 v. Spokane Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 618 P.2d 1326 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). “010; RCW 36.93.180. In addition to "guiding and controlling the creation and growth of municipalities" under RCW 36.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.180(4) — 3 cases
King Cnty. v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 860 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1993). “170 and each of the "objectives" listed in RCW 36.93.180. See resolution and hearing decision (Board's decision); Clerk's Papers, at 1218-29.”
Snohomish Cnty. v. Hinds, 810 P.2d 84 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “On September 29, 1988, the Board denied the proposed annexation by a vote of 4 to 1, finding that the proposal failed to achieve five of the nine objectives of boundary review boards set out in RCW 36.93.180. On October 7,1988, Ray Hinds, owner of property within the annexation,…”
Spokane Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 8 v. Spokane Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 618 P.2d 1326 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). “010; RCW 36.93.180. In addition to "guiding and controlling the creation and growth of municipalities" under RCW 36.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.180(8) — 2 cases
King Cnty. v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 860 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1993). “170 and each of the "objectives" listed in RCW 36.93.180. See resolution and hearing decision (Board's decision); Clerk's Papers, at 1218-29.”
Spokane Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 9 v. Spokane Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 652 P.2d 1356 (Wash. 1982). “RCW 36.93.180 sets out a list of objectives which the Board is to "attempt to achieve" by its decisions.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.180(9) — 2 cases
Stewart v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 996 P.2d 1087 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “11 RCW 36.93.180 sets forth these objectives: The decisions of the boundary review board shall attempt to achieve the following objectives: (1) Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities; *171 (2) Use of physical boundaries, including but not limited to bodies of…”
Stewart v. BRB, 996 P.2d 1087 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).
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.