Could a Washington port district annex a separate, nonadjacent part of its county?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1984. Ask about yours and see what current Washington law means for your facts, with citations you can check.
Plain-English summary
In 1984, a Washington senator asked whether a port district smaller than its county could annex a separate, nonadjacent area elsewhere in that county. The Attorney General said RCW 53.04.080 did not authorize it. The statute described annexation but was silent about noncontiguous land; the AG applied the rule that a municipal corporation or taxing district needs express statutory authority for that kind of annexation.
The opinion contrasted the port provision with a city statute that expressly mentioned both contiguous and noncontiguous territory for specified municipal purposes. It read adjacency as an implicit requirement for port-district annexation under the then-existing law.
“RCW 53.04.080, relating to annexation by a public port district, does not authorize such a district to annex noncontiguous (or nonadjacent) territory located elsewhere within the county.” (Official opinion)
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1984. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: Could a port district skip over land and annex a disconnected area?
A: The AG said no under RCW 53.04.080 because it lacked express authorization for noncontiguous annexation.
Q: Did the statute's silence mean any area in the county could be annexed?
A: No. The AG read a contiguity requirement into the statute precisely because it did not expressly allow an exception.
Q: Why did the AG mention a city annexation statute?
A: RCW 35.13.180 expressly permitted some city annexations of noncontiguous property, illustrating the kind of authorization absent from the port law.
Background and statutory framework
RCW 53.04.080 governed a port district's enlargement within its county. The AG found no direct Washington case on point and relied on the general rule that a public district needs express statutory power to annex detached territory.
Citations and references
The opinion discussed RCW 53.04.080 and RCW 35.13.180.
Source
Original opinion text
Attorney General Ken Eikenberry
DISTRICTS ‑- PORT ‑- ANNEXATION ‑- NONCONTIGUOUS TERRITORY
RCW 53.04.080, relating to annexation by a public port district, does not authorize such a district to annex noncontiguous (or nonadjacent) territory located elsewhere within the county.
April 23, 1984
Honorable Lowell Peterson
St. Sen., 40th District
1632 Peterson Road
Burlington, WA 98233
Cite as: AGO 1984 No. 12
Dear Senator Peterson:
By recent letter you asked whether a public port district, the boundaries of which are not coextensive with those of its county, may annex noncontiguous (or nonadjacent) territory located elsewhere within the county.
We respond in the negative for the reasons set forth in our analysis.
ANALYSIS
As you have pointed out in your letter, the statute which governs annexations by port districts in this state is RCW 53.04.080. And, as you have also noted, that statute is silent on the question of whether or not the territory being annexed must be contiguous, or adjacent, to the annexing district. RCW 53.04.080 simply provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
"At any general election or at any special election which may be called for that purpose the board of county commissioners of any county in this state in which there exists a port district which is not coextensive with the limits of the county, shall on petition of the commissioners of such port district, by resolution, submit to the voters residing within the limits of any territory which the existing port district desires to annex or include in its enlarged port district, the [[Orig. Op. Page 2]] proposition of enlarging the limits of such existing port districts so as to include therein the whole of the territory embraced within the boundaries of such county, or such territory as may be described in said petition by legal subdivisions. . . ."
In our opinion, however, that very silence on the issue necessitates a negative answer to your question.
While our research has disclosed no Washington cases directly in point, it appears to be well settled in other jurisdictions that a municipal corporation or taxing district may annex noncontiguous territory only where it has been granted direct, express, statutory authority to do so. See,e.g.,Ridings v. City of Owensboro, Kentucky, 383 S.W.2d 510 (1964) and authorities cited therein. Township of Genesee v. Genesee County, 369 Mich. 592, 120 N.W.2d 759 (1963); andMcGraw v. Merryman, 133 Maryland 247, 104 Atl. 540 (1918); and see also, McQuillan,Municipal Corporations, § 7.20 (page 357); and 37 Wash.L.Rev. 404, Annexation by Municipal Corporations (1962), at page 406.
In addition, that same principle is implicit in prior opinions of this office. For example, in a letter opinion dated April 14, 1969 to then State Senator Don Talley, copy enclosed, we approved of a proposed annexation of territory contiguous to the Kelso Municipal Airport because the airport property was, in turn, contiguous to the City of Kelso itself. The clear inference to be drawn from that analysis, however, is that in the absence of the intervening and connecting strip the question there posed would have been answered in the negative.
There are, of course, various statutes now in effect in our state which meet the foregoing test byexpressly authorizing particular municipal corporations to annex noncontiguous territory‑-ordinarily for certain specific purposes. See,e.g., RCW 35.13.180, relating to cities and towns, which reads as follows:
"City and town councils of second and third class cities and towns may by a majority vote annex new territory outside the city or town limits,whether contiguous or noncontiguous for park, cemetery, or other municipal purposes when such territory is owned by the city or town or all of the owners of the real property in the territory give their written consent to the annexation." (Emphasis supplied)
[[Orig. Op. Page 3]]
RCW 53.04.080,supra, is not, however, one of those statutes. Therefore, based upon the foregoing authorities, we would regard a requirement of contiguity as being implicit in the statute as it now stands.
We trust that the foregoing will be of assistance to you.
Very truly yours,
KENNETH O. EIKENBERRY
Attorney General
PHILIP H. AUSTIN
Senior Deputy Attorney General
What does Washington law say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1984. Ezel checks the current Washington statutes and case law, applies them to your situation, and cites what it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace