Research Tools › MRSC Inquiries › Annexation

MRSC Inquiries

Annexation

Boundaries
Consequences of Annexation
Election Method
Legal Challenges to Proceedings
Municipal Purposes Method
Other Issues
Petition Method

Annexation - Boundaries

Is there a limit on the amount of territory that a city or town may annex?Reviewed: 07/11
The only statutory limitation is applicable to towns. Towns with a population of 1,500 or less and towns located in counties with a population of one million or more are limited to two square miles in total area. Towns of more than 1,500 population in counties with less than one million population are limited to three square miles in total area. RCW 35.21.010.

In addition, towns may not annex more than 20 acres of unplatted land belonging to any one person without the consent of the owner. RCW 35.21.010. (This limitation applies to state-owned lands as well as privately held lands. AGO 57-58 No. 107.)

Towns that change their classification to become code cities are no longer under these limitations.
May a city annex across a river, a body of water, tidelands, or shorelands?Reviewed: 07/11
An area proposed to be annexed to a city is to be deemed contiguous to the city even though separated by water, tidelands, or shorelands (shores of a lake or river, not subject to tidal flow). The statute applicable to code cities also provides that, upon annexation of such an area, the intervening water and/or tideland or shoreland is to become a part of the annexing city. RCW 35.13.010, RCW 35A.14.010
May a city annex property lying in another county?Reviewed: 07/11
There is no enabling legislation that specifically allows cities and towns to annex territory located in another county, although RCW 35A.14.020, relating to the election method of annexation in code cities, sets out a process for reviewing petitions where the territory in question is located in more than one county. This lack of specific statutory authority has led to some confusion as to whether such an annexation is legal, and the issue may not be definitely answered until either enabling legislation is enacted by the legislature or until the issue is decided by the state supreme court.

However, the stronger argument appears to be that in favor of a city's authority to annex across county lines. In AGO 59-60 No. 37, the attorney general's office concluded that a first class city "lying wholly within one county can annex contiguous territory in another county." This opinion was based not upon the broad authority granted first class cities by statute, but upon the broad powers granted all cities with respect to annexation. The opinion notes that crossing county boundary lines is not prohibited by any section of annexation law, and that the state legislature has specifically authorized the incorporation of any area lying in two or more counties. See, e.g., RCW 35.02.001, 35.02.015.

The cities of Woodland, Milton, and Bothell, and the town of Coulee Dam include territory in two or more counties.
May a city annex a very narrow strip of land (such as a road right-of-way) leading to a larger tract of land?Reviewed: 07/11
(This practice is known as a "shoestring" or "corridor" annexation, and the narrow strip of land is intended to make the larger tract at its end "contiguous" to the annexing city.) A shoestring annexation probably would be invalidated, if challenged within a reasonable period of time. In Long v. City of Olympia, 72 Wn.2d 85 (1967), the state supreme court recognized precedent in other states overturning shoestring annexations as not being properly contiguous to the annexing municipality. However, the court in Long upheld an annexation in which the annexed area was roughly shaped like an hour glass, the bottom of the glass abutted to the annexing city, and the top of the glass "substantially" abutted it.

The King County Superior Court has in two decisions from the 1950s invalidated shoestring annexations as not sufficient to satisfy statutory requirements of contiguity. State ex rel. Jonson v. Carroll, Superior Court for King County, Cause No. 508550 (1957), and State ex rel. Carroll v. Town of Houghton, Superior Court for King County, Cause No. 512321 (1957). These decisions were not appealed.

On the other hand, the Attorney General concluded in an old opinion that a city could annex the right-of-way of a state highway and privately owned property situated one-half mile from the city abutting on the highway. AGO 51-53, No. 269. Given the more recent precedents cited above, however, the continuing validity of this opinion may be questioned.

In connection with this issue, a 1964 informal attorney general's opinion (April 14, 1964, to State Senator Don L. Talley) is relevant. In this opinion, the attorney general's office concluded that additional property may be annexed to the "shoestring" portion of a "shoestring annexation," where the original shoestring annexation was properly accomplished under the municipal purposes method of annexation.
Where territory proposed for annexation and the city touch only at corners, and a person cannot pass from one to the other without passing outside the municipal boundaries, is that territory considered contiguous?Reviewed: 07/11
Probably not. While this issue has not been addressed by the Washington State Supreme Court, other state courts have not permitted annexations that touch cities only at corners. See Comment, Annexation by Municipal Corporations, 37 Wash. L. Rev. 404, 408 (1962).
If a city annexes land adjacent to a navigable river, does it have any jurisdiction in the water area?Reviewed: 07/11
Under RCW 35.21.160 and RCW 35A.21.090, a city acquires jurisdiction to the center of a navigable river when it annexes the bank of the river. See also AGO 59-60 No. 60.
Must an access easement to a proposed plat be permanent in order to be considered adequate access? Reviewed: 07/10
Subdivisions must have adequate access - access that meets the local standards for such. (See Lechelt v. Seattle, 32 Wn. App. 831, 835 (1982), review denied, 99 Wn.2d 1005 (1983):"Agencies reviewing plat applications must consider the adequacy of access to and within the proposed subdivision, and may condition approval of the plat upon the provision of adequate access.") Although we could find no legal authority right on point, it's our opinion that, where access is provided by an easement across adjacent private property, that easement must be "permanent" in order to be adequate. If that easement can be revoked in the future, it should not be deemed to be adequate access. The easement, however, need not be exclusive.

If the adjacent property owner will not grant a permanent easement, the landlocked subdivider/property owner may be able to obtain a "private way of necessity" that would serve as a permanent easement that would provide adequate access. See RCW 8.24.010.

In sum, we would recommend that plat or short plat approval not be granted if the subdivider cannot show a permanent access easement that meets the local standards for such.
Is there a statutory limit on the amount of the utility tax that a city can impose on its own water or sewer utility? Reviewed: 07/10
There is no statutory limit on utility tax rates that a city can impose on its own water and sewer utility, which is why you will see some of these tax rates at over 20 percent. The limit in RCW 35.21.870 of six percent on electricity, telephone, natural gas, or steam energy businesses does not apply to water and sewer utilities. So, the political arena imposes the only limitation on this utility tax.
Is it allowable for a public employee to leave a tip at a restaurant and be reimbursed by their local government employer? If so, what is the percent limit? Reviewed: 12/10
Yes, it is allowable for a public employee to leave a tip at a restaurant and be reimbursed for that expense, assuming of course that the meal is a part of official business. There is not a strict limit on the amount of the tip, but clearly a tip of 15 or even 20 percent would be considered to be reasonable.

In Bellevue v. State, 92 Wn.2d 717 (1979), the state supreme court upheld a city of Bellevue policy of reimbursement for restaurant tips while on city business. The court held that this does not involve a gift of city funds. Restaurant tips are an established custom and practice and are considered a basic part of the compensation paid to restaurant employees. 92 Wn.2d at 720.

The same reasoning should apply to other situations where tips are customary and expected (e.g., taxi rides, bellhop service). Thus, a local government should be able to reimburse employees for such tipping incurred in the course of public business. The local government should provide in their travel reimbursement policy that reimbursement for tips will be permitted and what the percentage limit will be.
May a person appointed to fill a vacant city council position immediately receive a salary increase that the council approved following the last election? Reviewed: 01/11
An issue has arisen concerning the compensation that should be paid to a councilmember who was appointed to fill an unexpired term. The council had enacted an increase in compensation for councilmembers in December, an increase that could not be received by the councilmember who had previously held the position due to the constitutional prohibition on elected officials who set their own compensation receiving salary increases approved during their term of office.

The newly-appointed councilmember may also not receive the increase in salary during this term of office. The state supreme court considered this exact issue in State ex rel Wyrick v. City of Ritzville, 16 Wn.2d 36 (1942), where the court concluded that the constitutional prohibition applies to the term of office rather than to the individual who is holding the office. This decision is still the law on this issue.
May a city put on the ballot an increase in the sales tax for a specific purpose such as criminal justice or public safety? Reviewed: 01/11
Yes, they may levy a tax of 0.1 percent, beginning January 1, 2011, as long as the county has not already levied a tax of more than 0.2 percent. See RCW 82.14.450. There is a discussion of the 2010 amendment that made this possible in A Revenue Guide for Washington Counties, page 26-27. It is not discussed in the city revenue guide because that was published in 2009.
May an agency require public disclosure requestors to provide their names and contact information? Reviewed: 04/11
When an agency cannot provide the records requested by an in-person request immediately, the agency will obviously need contact information. Oral requests, without more, are problematic in any event. As noted by the court Beal v. City of Seattle, 150 Wn. App. 865, 874-75 (2009):

Conceding that individuals may make oral requests for public records, the City also cites to the attorney general's comments under the PRA model rules for the proposition that oral requests are "problematic." While the model rules are not binding on the City, we agree that they contain persuasive reasoning. As this case demonstrates, orally requesting public records makes it unnecessarily difficult for citizens to prove that they in fact requested public records.

(Footnotes omitted.)

If the agency receives an email request and the only contact information is an email address that has no relation to the requestor’s name, the agency probably may not insist that the requestor provide his/her name; it is in most cases not necessary information for the agency to respond to the request.

However, in general, an agency should, for its own recordkeeping purposes and to help ensure proper processing of disclosure requests, have a request form that asks for name and contact information. We just don’t think the agency can require, as a condition of disclosure, that the requestor provide his or her name, if that information is not necessary for the agency to be able to respond to the request. The model rules at WAC 44-14-03006 addess disclosure request forms, but do not directly address whether an agency may insist on the requestor providing his/her name:

An agency should have a public records request form. An agency request form should ask the requestor whether he or she seeks to inspect the records, receive a copy of them, or to inspect the records first and then consider selecting records to copy. An agency request form should recite that inspection of records is free and provide the per-page charge for standard photocopies.

An agency request form should require the requestor to provide contact information so the agency can communicate with the requestor to, for example, clarify the request, inform the requestor that the records are available, or provide an explanation of an exemption. Contact information such as a name, phone number, and address or e-mail should be provided. Requestors should provide an e-mail address because it is an efficient means of communication and creates a written record of the communications between them and the agency. An agency should not require a requestor to provide a driver's license number, date of birth, or photo identification. This information is not necessary for the agency to contact the requestor and requiring it might intimidate some requestors.
How many of the 39 counties in the state utilize a boundary review board? Reviewed: 01/12
According to the Washington State Association of Boundary Review Board's website, 17 Washington counties have boundary review boards (BRB): Benton, Clallam, Cowlitz, Douglas, Grays Harbor, King, Kitsap, Lewis, Pierce, Skagit, Skamania, Snohomish, Spokane, Thurston, Walla Walla, Whatcom, and Yakima. However, Spokane and Walla Walla Counties have both very recently eliminated their BRBs, so the number of BRBs in the state now stands at 15. The Walla Walla County ordinance eliminating their BRB notes that the board had not met in nearly 10 years.

Annexation - Consequences of Annexation

When will the ordinances of the annexing city be effective in the annexed area?Reviewed: 07/11
The laws of the annexing city apply to the annexed area as of the effective date of the annexation. Hoops v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 83 Wn.2d 396 (1974).
When an annexation becomes effective within 30 days of the date scheduled for a city election, may residents of the newly annexed area vote in the election when they are otherwise qualified even though they technically have not resided within the city or town for 30 days?Reviewed: 07/11
A qualified elector of an area that is annexed to a city may vote at a city election even though the annexation's effective date is within 30 days of the election. AGO 1951-53 No. 248.

Annexation - Election Method

How many votes are necessary to approve an election method annexation?Reviewed: 07/11
A majority vote is sufficient if the vote is only on the proposition for or against annexation; or, for or against annexation and adoption of the comprehensive plan or proposed zoning regulation. If a separate proposition to assume all or a portion of city indebtedness is before the voters, a three-fifths vote is necessary for approval of that proposition and the total number of votes cast must be at least 40 percent of the votes cast in the area in the last preceding general election. RCW 35.13.090; RCW 35A.14.080.

The propositions to annex and to assume indebtedness may be combined on the same ballot, in which case the ballot proposition must be approved by three-fifths of those voting and the total number of votes cast must be at least 40 percent of the votes cast in the area at the last preceding general election. However, the city council may adopt a resolution accepting the annexation without the assumption of debt where the combined ballot is approved by only a simple majority of those voting. RCW 35.13.095; RCW 35A.14.085
May the election method of annexation be used where there are no residents in an area proposed for annexation?Reviewed: 07/11
No. See AGO 55-57 No. 214. There cannot be an election where there are no voters or electors residing in the area in which the election would be conducted.
Should a city council hold a formal public hearing (after giving notice) for an election method annexation?Reviewed: 07/11
The statutes governing the election method do not require a public hearing. Meek v. Thurston County, 60 Wn.2d 461, 465 (1962).
What election is used as the basis for determining how many signatures are necessary on a petition to initiate an annexation by the election method for first and second class cities and for towns?Reviewed: 07/11
RCW 35.13.020 provides that a petition for annexation must be signed by the residents in the area equal in number to 20 percent of the votes cast "at the last election." Unlike some of the other annexation statutes, RCW 35.13.020 does not refer to the "last state general election" or the "last preceding general election" it merely refers to the "last election." "Election" is defined in RCW 29A.04.043 to mean "a general election except where the context indicates that a special election is included." Thus, the "last election" refers to the last general election (which is held in November).

Annexation - Legal Challenges to Proceedings

How can a city know whether the legal description on an annexation petition is adequate?Reviewed: 07/11
The adequacy of a legal description of territory proposed for annexation is judged by whether a competent surveyor, either with or without the aid of extrinsic evidence, could ascertain the property in question. Long v. City of Olympia, 72 Wn.2d 85 (1967); McAlmond v. City of Bremerton, 60 Wn.2d 383 (1962). After review by the city engineer, some cities forward legal descriptions of proposed annexations to the county engineer early in the annexation process, requesting comments on adequacy.
What if an annexation ordinance for a petition method annexation inadvertently describes an area that is larger than that contained in the petition?Reviewed: 07/11
An attorney general opinion concluded that, where an annexing ordinance described a larger parcel of property than that contained in the annexation petition, it is void. However, the annexation ordinance could be reenacted based upon the original annexing petition and hearing, where there was an inadvertent misdescription, as long as conditions had not materially changed to make the annexation less advantageous either to the city or property owners. AGO 53-55 No. 173.
Will a minor error in an annexation notice invalidate an annexation proceeding?Reviewed: 07/11
Not necessarily. A footnote to the decision of the state supreme court in Tukwila v. King County, 78 Wn.2d 34 (1970), states that a minor error in notice does not mean the automatic invalidation of the annexation proceedings. In that case, the court upheld an annexation even though portions of the legal description were garbled as a result of a drafting or typographical error, because all of the property owners within the proposed annexation knew of and attended the annexation hearing and because the property was treated as a part of the city for the next four and one half years.

Slight deviation from statutory election notice timetables has also been permitted where much publicity on the annexation occurred through radio and news accounts and through the distribution of printed literature. Long v. City of Olympia, 72 Wn.2d 85 (1967).

Of course, a significant error, such as a major flaw in a legal description, would cause a court to invalidate an annexation. See State ex. rel Great Northern Railway v. Herschberger, 117 Wash. 275 (1921). The courts have invalidated an annexation election when formal notice was published in a newspaper that was not circulated in the area proposed for annexation. Davis v. Gibbs, 39 Wn.2d 481 (1951).
Is there a limitation on challenging annexation proceedings in second class cities?Reviewed: 07/11
RCW 35.23.545, known as a "curative" statute, requires legal challenges to annexation proceedings in second class cities to be made through a quo warranto action within one year. After one year, any errors or defects in the annexation cannot be a basis for invalidating the annexation.
Is an annexation ordinance subject to a referendum?Reviewed: 07/11
Under State ex rel. Bowen v. Kruegel, 67 Wn.2d 673 (1965), an annexation ordinance under the petition method of annexation is not subject to a referendum. See also Leonard v. Bothell, 87 Wn.2d 847 (1976). The election method is, of course, equivalent to a referendum procedure.

Annexation - Municipal Purposes Method

Must a first or second class city or a town own the property it seeks to annex for municipal purposes under RCW 35.13.180?Reviewed: 07/11
No, although all the property owners in the area must give their written consent to the annexation. RCW 35.13.180. Of course, the city or town would, as a practical matter, need to acquire a sufficient interest in the property, if not outright ownership, to be able to make use of the property for municipal purposes. (Code cities must own the property to annex it for municipal purposes under RCW 35A.14.300.)
Must a city actually use land annexed for municipal purposes for the purpose for which it was annexed?Reviewed: 07/11
In an informal opinion dated July 19, 1966, the attorney general's office concluded that a municipal purposes annexation could be successfully challenged if a city annexed the area with a preconceived intention to use it for a purpose not contemplated by the statute. (The attorney general's office was analyzing the municipal purposes method under RCW 35.13.180, but the reasoning of the opinion should be equally applicable to municipal purposes annexations by code cities under RCW 35A.14.300.)

However, proceedings resulting in annexations are presumptively valid. Unforeseen changes of circumstances would probably be recognized as sufficient to support a change in use if the city's original intention becomes impossible to accomplish or if there is a reasonable basis for the city to determine that the municipal purpose use can no longer be continued.
Is noncontiguous property annexed by a city for municipal purposes subject to city or county zoning?Reviewed: 07/11
After annexation, noncontiguous land becomes part of the city and is subject to the city's zoning authority just as if it were contiguous. (See Informal Opinion of the Attorney General to the Chelan County Prosecuting Attorney, dated July 19, 1966.)
May a city that is subject to the Growth Management Act annex territory for municipal purposes that lies outside its urban growth area?Reviewed: 07/11
No. The statutory prohibition on annexing territory outside an urban growth areais all-inclusive. It makes no exception for municipal purpose annexations, even though there may be valid policy reasons to exclude such annexations from this prohibition. RCW 35.13.005; RCW 35A.14.005.

Annexation - Other Issues

May a city annex or consolidate with a neighboring city or town?Reviewed: 07/11
Yes, a city may annex a contiguous city or town, or two (or more) cities may consolidate with each other. See procedures under chapter 35.10 RCW.
May a city require owners of property located outside of a city to sign an "outside utility agreement" or "preannexation agreement" as a condition of extending city utilities?Reviewed: 07/11
An "outside utility agreement" or "preannexation agreement" typically provides that owners of property outside of the city agree, as a condition of receiving utility service from the city, to sign an annexation petition when the city wants to annex the land at some point in the future.

The state supreme court upheld the validity of such agreements in Fire Protection District v. Yakima, 122 Wn.2d 371 (1993).
Is there a method by which first and second class cities and towns may annex "islands" of unincorporated territory they substantially surround?Reviewed: 07/11
Yes. See RCW 35.13.182-.1822, enacted in 1998.
Is a decision to annex a legislative or quasi-judicial decision?Reviewed: 10/11
The decision to annex is a legislative decision. The council has unlimited discretion in this area to decide whether or not to annex. The decision whether to annex is a legislative decision even though there is a public hearing connected with the decision. The statute for a code city under the direct petition method of annexation provides in part:

Following the hearing, if the legislative body determines to effect the annexation, they shall do so by ordinance. Subject to RCW 35.02.170, the ordinance may annex all or any portion of the proposed area but may not include in the annexation any property not described in the petition.

This statute is worded to give complete discretion to the council. Whether to annex territory is basically a policy decision for the city council and it is not an adjudication of rights between named parties. The council may decide for whatever reason not to annex even though the petition has total support and all the testimony is in favor of the annexation.

Annexation - Petition Method

(Note: These questions and answers relate to the "old" petition method in in RCW 35.13.125-.160 and in RCW 35A.14.120-.150.)

May owners of tax-exempt property, such as cities and special districts, sign annexation petitions?Reviewed: 07/11
Yes, owners of tax-exempt property may sign annexation petitions just as owners of taxable property may. See Johnson v. Spokane, 19 Wn. App. 722 (1978), review denied, 90 Wn.2d 1026 (1978). See also Parosa v. Tacoma, 57 Wn.2d 409 (1960), concluding that the Port of Tacoma had authority to petition the City of Tacoma for annexation of its property, since one of the attributes of land ownership is the right to petition for annexation to a city.

Is property owned by a school district that is considered for annexation under the petition method treated any differently?

Answer: There is a statute that relates specifically to this type of annexation. RCW 28A.335.110 authorizes a school district board of directors to petition for annexation only when the school district property is all of the property included in the annexation petition. See King County Water Dist. No. 90 v. City of Renton, 88 Wn. App. 214 (1997).

May state-owned land be annexed?

Yes. However, two attorney general opinions (AGO 1947-48 p. 22 and AGO 57-58 No. 107) cast doubt on the authority of state officials to sign annexation petitions absent specific legislative authorization applicable to the state agency involved. However, since one of the attributes of real property ownership is the right to petition for annexation to a city (see Johnson and Parosa, cited in Question 1 above), it is arguable that a state agency with authority to own land would have similar authority to petition for annexation if it desired to do so.

Alternatively, state land could be annexed by a method that does not require a petition to be signed on behalf of the state property, such as the election method initiated by resolution, or the petition method where enough signatures are obtained from private property owners to meet the percentage requirement.

Must both a husband and wife sign an annexation petition?

The signature of a record owner is sufficient without the signature of his or her spouse. RCW 35.21.005(9)(a); RCW 35A.01.040(9)(a) . However, it still may be advisable for both spouses to sign the petition.

If two or more individuals jointly own property, must all sign the petition?

Although there is no specific legal authority on this question, it would appear that all the individual owners should sign the petition in order for the property to be considered as part of the percentage required for a sufficient petition.
Who should sign an annexation petition when property is being sold under contract?Reviewed: 07/11
RCW 35.21.005(9)(c) and RCW 35A.01.040(9)(c) provide that the signature of the contract purchaser, as shown by the records of the county auditor, is sufficient (without the signature of his or her spouse).
Once property owners have signed an annexation petition, may they withdraw their names from it if they change their minds?Reviewed: 07/11
Yes, up to a certain point in time. RCW 35.21.005(4) and RCW 35A.01.040(4) require that a certificate be filed by the county officer who will determine the sufficiency of the petition. This certificate is to contain the date on which the determination of the sufficiency of the petition is begun. This is known as the “terminal date.” A signature may be withdrawn by a written request that is filed prior to the terminal date. The written request must describe the petition sufficiently so identification of the person and petition is certain. The name of the person seeking to withdraw is to be signed exactly as is signed in the petition.
After property owners withdraw their names from a petition, may they change their minds once more and revoke the withdrawal?Reviewed: 07/11
Yes, as long as they take this action before the terminal date, as explained in the preceding question.
Is a petition signature valid if the property represented by that signature is sold prior to the filing of the petition?Reviewed: 07/11
No. A signature is not valid if it is not by the owner of property in the area proposed for annexation. Since the validity of signatures and the sufficiency of a petition is determined after it is filed, a signature by a person that, at the time of petition filing, no longer owns the property for which he or she signed would not be a valid signature. See January 11, 1993 letter from Senior Assistant Attorney General James K. Pharris to Senator Dean Sutherland..
May neighboring landowners located outside of both the annexing city and the proposed annexation area participate in public hearings on the annexation? Reviewed: 07/11
Yes. The state supreme court concluded in Tukwila v. King County, 78 Wn.2d 34, 39 (1970), that neighboring landowners should be notified of annexations in the general vicinity of their property and be given a chance to appear and be heard.
May a city use its facilities and staff to help solicit signatures for an annexation petition or otherwise promote an annexation using the petition method?Reviewed: 07/11
Yes. Since petition method annexations do not involve ballot propositions, the prohibition in RCW 42.17.130 (after 1/1/12, recodied as RCW 42.17A.555) against the use of city facilities and staff in support of a ballot proposition does not apply. Also, since annexation questions have impacts on almost all aspects of city operations, it would be a proper municipal purpose to use city facilities and staff in this manner. See January 11, 1993 letter from Senior Assistant Attorney General James K. Pharris to Senator Dean Sutherland.
May a city recover the expenses it incurs in handling annexation requests using the petition method? Reviewed: 07/11
It is probable that cities, particularly first class and code cities, have the authority to charge fees for handling and processing annexation petitions. A number of cities charge fees for this purpose. However, it is unlikely that the fees charged will in most cases actually cover all the costs associated with a petition method annexation.
Is the assessed value of school property included in the valuation for the purposes of the petition method for annexation? Reviewed: 07/11
School district property is included in the property valuation. However, based on the decision in King County Water District No. 90 v. Renton, 88 Wn. App. 214 (1997), a school district does not have the authority to sign an annexation petition unless the only property in the annexation is school district property.

So, when property owned by a school district is only part of the area proposed for annexation, the city has to obtain signatures from property owners representing 60 percent of the assessed value of the proposed annexation area, without counting the school property.
Are cities required to give property owners within 300 feet of a proposed petition method-annexation notice by direct mail of a public hearing for adoption of an annexation ordinance, or is publication of the notice sufficient?Reviewed: 07/11
There is no requirement in state law that a city mail notice of the hearing to property owners within 300 feet of the annexation. The only notice requirements in state law for the hearing are that the city must publish notice at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and must post the notice in at least three public places within the territory to be annexed. See RCW 35.13.140 and RCW 35A.14.130.