Click here to skip to main content.
scenic picture from Washington state
Subjects › Legal › Annexation
Updated 02/2012

Annexation

Contents

Introduction

The methods by which cities may annex territory are governed strictly by state law, and they vary somewhat by city classification. Cities and towns located in counties that plan under the Growth Management Act may only annex property that is located within their designated urban growth areas.

The basic methods by which cities may now annex territory are: the "old" or "traditional" petition method, which requires approval from owners of property representing a certain percentage - now uniformly 60 percent - of the assessed value of the proposed annexation area; the "new" petition method codified in RCW 35.13.410-.460 and RCW 35A.14.420-.450, enacted during the period (2002-04) that the traditional method had been declared unconstitutional by the state supreme court, which requires support of property owners representing a majority of the area proposed for annexation and of a majority of the voters in the area; and the election method, which requires approval of the voters in the proposed annexation area. Although there are other methods of annexation - municipal purpose annexations, annexations of "islands" of unincorporated territory, and the interlocal agreement method - they are available only in limited circumstances and so not often used.

MRSC has produced an Annexation Handbook that outlines the pro and con arguments for annexation, the consequences of annexation, reviews the methods for annexation, and discusses the role of boundary review boards in the annexation process.

Recent Annexation Legislation

ESSB 5808 (2009)

The 2009 legislature enacted some significant changes in annexation law, changing the petition requirements for non-code cities and adding a new method of annexation. In ESSB 5808 (Adobe Acrobat Document) (Laws of 2009, ch. 60), the requirements for a sufficient petition under the traditional petition method of annexation for first and second class cities and for towns were changed from needing the signatures of owners of 75 percent of the assessed value of the area proposed for annexation to needing the signatures of owners of only 60 percent of the assessed value of that area. This change makes the petition requirements for these cities and towns the same as they have been for code cities.

ESSB 5808 also added a new interlocal method of annexation when a city is proposing to annex territory served by one or more fire protection districts. Under this method, the city, the county, and the fire district(s) can enter into an interlocal agreement that describes the annexation area and the goals of the agreement, including such matters as: the transfer of revenues and assets between the fire protection district(s) and the city; the impact of annexation on the level of fire protection and emergency medical service in both the unincorporated and incorporated area; community involvement in the process; and revenue sharing, if any. If the fire protection district(s), city, and county reach an agreement, the annexation may proceed and is not subject to referendum. If only the city and county reach an agreement, the annexation may proceed under the interlocal agreement, but the annexation ordinance is subject to referendum for 45 days after its passage. This legislation also imposed various new requirements regarding the transfer of employees from a fire district to the city in the event of annexation of territory of the district, under any method of annexation. A more detailed summary of this legislation can be found in the Final Bill Report (Adobe Acrobat Document).

ESSB 5836 (2007)

The 2007 legislature passed some significant legislation that changed when cities receive property tax revenues when they annex territory within a fire protection or library district. Under ESSB 5836 (Adobe Acrobat Document) (Laws of 2007, ch. 285), when a city annexes territory within a fire protection or library district, it will now begin receiving, as of the date of annexation, the district-levied property tax revenues that are not delinquent but have not yet been collected by those districts within the annexed territory.

SB 5836 (Ch. 285, Laws of 2007) provides that, when cities annex territory within a fire protection or library district, they will now begin receiving, as of the date of annexation, the district-levied property tax revenues that are not delinquent but have not yet been collected by those districts within the annexed territory.

The legislation provides that, as with county road taxes, any fire or library district taxes on annexed property that were levied, but not collected and not delinquent, must be paid to the annexing city when collected, at times required by the county, but no less frequently than July 10 for collections through June 30th and January 10 for collections through December 31st following the annexation. Taxes that were delinquent but not collected on the date of annexation are to be paid to the districts. The annexing city is to notify the fire and/or library district, as well as the county assessor and treasurer, of the annexation at least 30 days prior to its effective date; the county treasurer is required to pay to the annexing city only those fire and library district taxes collected 30 or more days after receipt of the notice.

SB 5836 also provides that, if the annexed property is subject to an outstanding general obligation bond, the bonded indebtedness of the fire or library district remains an obligation of the taxable property annexed to the city.

Lastly, this legislation amended RCW 84.09.030 to change from March 1 to August 1 the date when, for purposes of the following year's property tax levies, the boundaries of cities and other taxing districts are set.

Legal References

Statutes and Regulations

  • Ch. 35.13 RCW - Annexation of Unincorporated Areas (for cities of the first and second class, and towns)
  • Ch. 35A.14 RCW - Annexation by Code Cities
  • Ch. 35.10 RCW - Consolidation and Annexation of Cities and Towns - These annexation procedures apply to annexation of one portion of a code or non-code city or of a town to another or to consolidation of two or more cities or towns.
  • WAC 173-26-150 - Local government annexation - Shoreline environment predesignation in planning jurisdictions
  • WAC 173-26-160 - Local government annexation - Involving shorelines; requirement of amending or developing shoreline master program

Court Decisions

The county removed 19 parcels from their designation as agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance and simultaneously included the 19 parcels in its then existing urban growth areas (UGAs). While the appeal of the dedesignations/UGA expansions was pending before the growth management hearings board, the cities of Camas and Ridgefield annexed the parcels at issue within their respective UGAs. As to the annexed parcels, the court of appeals ruled that the cities' rights to annex the lands had not yet vested under state law. County decisions related to the GMA that are timely challenged and pending review before the growth board and/or an appellate court are not final and cannot be relied on until either (1) the growth board's final order is not appealed or (2) the county's decisions are affirmed and a final order or mandated opinion is filed by a court sitting in its appellate capacity.

The state supreme court invalidated a boundary review board decision that, at the request of King County, expanded a proposed annexation by the city of Redmond to more than three times the size of the area represented in the annexation petition. The expanded area had previously voted at an election to reject annexation. The court, in a 5-4 decision, held that the review board violated RCW 35A.14.140, which authorizes a code city to "annex all or any portion of the proposed area but may not include in the annexation any property not described in the petition," and that the review board exceeded its authority under RCW 36.93.150 to modify the boundaries of a proposed annexation. The court also concluded that the review board's decision offended the due process rights of property owners in the annexation area.

RCW 36.93.090 provides that a notice of intention must be filed with the boundary review board within 180 days of when the annexation is "proposed." The state supreme court interpreted this to mean that an annexation is "proposed" for purposes of this statute when the initiators of the annexation file their petition - in this case, a 75 percent petition -with the city. An annexation is not "proposed" for purposes of this statute when the initial notice of intention, sometimes referred to as the 10 percent petition, is filed with the city.

The state supreme court, upon reconsideration, reverses its earlier decision at 145 Wn.2d 702 (2002) and holds that the petition method of annexation is constitutional.

RCW 35A.14.900 and RCW 35.13.280 provide that, when a city that annexes an area that is served by certain types of franchises, any such franchise is automatically cancelled and the city must issue a new franchise for a seven-year period (formerly five years), unless the city purchases or condemns the franchise. Under these statutes, if the city issues a new franchise for a seven-year period, it will still be liable to the franchisee for any "measurable damages" the franchisee suffers. The state supreme court, overruling the court of appeals, held that the city's liability under RCW 35A.14.900 for "measurable damages" is "to be calculated at the time of annexation by determining the difference in market value of the hauler's [WUTC-issued] certificate before and after annexation. In determining an award, the amount of damages must then be reduced by the benefit gained by the hauler from the five-year [now seven-year] extension of the franchise."

The state supreme court invalidated the petition method of annexation, holding that it violates the state constitution's privileges and immunities clause. (See later decision above overturning this decision.)

In this case, the court of appeals held that, under RCW 28A.335.110, a public school district may petition to have school property annexed to a city only if the school property constitutes the whole of the property sought to be annexed. A public school district may not petition for annexation if the school property comprises only a fraction of the property sought to be annexed. This holding applies to code cities, as well as to other classes of cities.

Some cities in Washington utilize what is termed an outside utility agreement, in which property owners who reside outside the city limits are allowed to receive municipal utility services if they sign an agreement that they will sign a future annexation petition. This type of outside utility agreement was upheld in the case as a valid waiver of future rights. However, in view of the decision in the Grant County case, listed above, such agreements likely have no validity or binding value.

In this case a city was held to have the authority to sign an annexation petition in the same manner as owners of taxable property. The fact that property owned by the city is tax exempt does not mean the city cannot sign the annexation petition.

Documents

Annexation Procedures

Annexation Goals and Policies

Annexation Certification

Annexation Information Programs

Annexation Methods

Fiscal Impact Studies and Financial Plans for Annexations

Other Financial Annexation Issues

Franchises in Newly Annexed Areas

Interlocal Agreements for Annexations

  • Interlocal Agreement () between the City of Issaquah and King County Regarding the Annexation of a Portion of the Snoqualmie Mill Planning Area, 2011
  • Interlocal Agreement () between the City of Kirkland and King County Relating to the Annexation of the Juanita-Finn Hill-Kingsgate Annexation Area, 2011 
  • Interlocal Agreement (Adobe Acrobat Document) regarding annexations of the West Plains Urban Growth Area between the City of Spokane, the City of Airway Heights, and Spokane County, 2010
  • Interlocal Agreement () between the City of Bellingham and Fire District #4 Concerning Mitigation of Annexation Impacts, 2008
  • Interlocal Agreement () between the City of Bonney Lake and Pierce County Relating to Post-Annexation Processing of Building and Related Permits and Land Use Applications for Annexation Area 1-B
  • Interlocal Agreement (Adobe Acrobat Document) between the City of Gold Bar and Snohomish County concerning annexation and urban development within the Gold Bar Urban Growth Area, 2003
  • Interlocal Agreement (Adobe Acrobat Document) between the City of Wenatchee and Douglas County regarding annexation delivery of services and revenue sharing, 2001
  • Interlocal Agreement (Adobe Acrobat Document) between the City of Issaquah and King County relating to the annexation areas of Klahanie and South Cove/Greenwood Point, 2005
  • Master Interlocal Agreement (Adobe Acrobat Document) between City of Vancouver and Clark County for post annexation delivery of services, 12/16/1996

Pre-Annexation Zoning and Annexation Development Agreements

Additional References