Summary
The Washington Supreme Court held that, under the direct-petition method of municipal annexation, the filing of a petition signed by owners of at least 75 percent of the assessed property value triggers the 180-day period for notifying a county boundary review board. Because the City of Everett filed its notice within that period, the Board had jurisdiction to review and approve the annexation.
Holdings
- For an annexation initiated by the direct-petition method, the filing of the 75 percent annexation petition with the city or its governing body is the proposed action that triggers the 180-day period for filing a notice of intention with the boundary review board.
- The Boundary Review Board had jurisdiction because the City's notice of intention was filed within 180 days after the filing of the 75 percent petition.
Questions Presented
- Under RCW 36.93.090, what event in the direct-petition annexation process constitutes the proposed action that triggers the 180-day period for filing a notice of intention with the boundary review board?
- Did the City's notice of intention fall within the applicable 180-day period, such that the Boundary Review Board had jurisdiction to review the annexation?
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (6)
- King County v. Wash. State Boundary Review Bd., 122 Wn.2d 648, 671-72, 860 P.2d 1024 (1993)(followed)
- Dep't of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, L.L.C., 146 Wn.2d 1, 11, 43 P.3d 4 (2002)(followed)
- Heinsma v. City of Vancouver, 144 Wn.2d 556, 564, 29 P.3d 709 (2001)(followed)
- State v. J.P., 149 Wn.2d 444, 450, 69 P.3d 318 (2003)(followed)
- Snohomish County Fire Prot. Dist. No. 1 v. Wash. State Boundary Review Bd., 121 Wn. App. 73, 80-82, 87 P.3d 1187 (2004)(followed)
- Glenrose Cmty. Ass'n v. City of Spokane, 93 Wn. App. 839, 850, 971 P.2d 82, review denied, 138 Wn.2d 1009 (1999)(disapproved)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…