Summary
The Washington Supreme Court held that a boundary review board exceeded its statutory authority by expanding a proposed annexation from the 58.96 acres described in a property-owner petition to a 184-acre area. The court also held that property owners outside the petition area could not be subjected to pre-annexation municipal indebtedness or zoning without the required statutory opportunity to consent. The court reversed the superior court and denied the appellants’ request for attorney fees under the common-fund exception to the American rule.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Boundary Review Board had statutory authority to expand a direct-petition annexation from the 58.96-acre area described in the petition to a 184-acre area.
- Whether the Boundary Review Board could subject property owners outside the petition and notice area to Redmond's pre-annexation indebtedness and zoning.
- Whether the Growth Management Act authorized or altered the statutory limitations governing the annexation.
- Whether Interlake was entitled to attorney fees under the common-fund exception to the American rule.
Holdings
- A Boundary Review Board may not expand a direct-petition annexation beyond the territory described in the petition. The board's authority to modify or adjust boundaries does not include adding new acreage to the petition area.
- The expanded annexation violated Washington's statutory scheme requiring property-owner consent for direct-petition annexations because owners outside the 58.96-acre petition area had no opportunity to sign or oppose the petition.
- The Growth Management Act's requirement that boundary review decisions be consistent with applicable growth-management provisions did not supersede the specific limitations in the annexation statutes or confer authority to expand a direct-petition annexation.
- A Boundary Review Board may not subject property owners outside the petition and notice area to a city's pre-annexation indebtedness or zoning when those owners were never given the opportunity to consider and consent to those terms.
- Interlake was not entitled to attorney fees under the common-fund exception because the litigation did not create or preserve a common fund from which fees could be paid.
Key quotations
“We hold that the BRB erred, as a matter of law, by expanding the area sought by the petition from approximately 59 acres to 184 acres.” (548)
“This court will not amend the statute to add the word “expand” to the boundary review boards’ statutory mandate adopted by the legislature.” (554)
“A boundary review board has no power to subject unrepresented property owners to taxation for pre-annexation indebtedness or zoning under RCW 35A.14.120.” (559)
Factual background
The City of Redmond sought to annex land in a 184-acre area between Kirkland and Redmond. After a 2002 annexation election covering the entire area was defeated and a subsequent 76.63-acre petition effort failed, Redmond obtained the required signatures for a 58.96-acre direct-petition annexation. Property owned by Interlake Sporting Association and Gerald K. Hirschler was outside that petition area, but the Boundary Review Board expanded the proposed annexation to all 184 acres, thereby including owners who had not been given an opportunity to consent and subjecting them to Redmond's pre-annexation indebtedness and zoning.
Procedural history
Redmond initiated a direct-petition annexation proceeding for a 58.96-acre area supported by signatures from owners representing 60 percent of the assessed property value. At King County's request, the Boundary Review Board exercised jurisdiction and approved annexation of the entire 184-acre area, despite substantial opposition and the absence of petition consent from owners outside the 58.96-acre area. The King County Superior Court affirmed, and the Supreme Court reversed.