Letter Opinion 1970 No. 018

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
 
 
                                                                February 11, 1970
 
 
 
Honorable Martin J. Durkan
State Senator, 47th District
Legislative Building
Olympia, Washington 98501
                                                                                                               Cite as:  AGLO 1970 No. 18
 
 
Dear Sir:
 
            This is written in response to your letter dated January 29, 1970, requesting our opinion on a question pertaining to proceedings before a county boundary review board under chapter 36.93 RCW.  You have made particular reference to RCW 36.93.120, which provides that:
 
            "A fee of twenty-five dollars shall be paid by all initiators and in addition if the jurisdiction of the review board is invoked pursuant to RCW 36.93.100, the person or entity seeking review, except for the boundary review board itself, shall pay to the county treasurer and place in the county current expense fund the sum of one hundred dollars."
 
            Your primary question, as we understand it, inquires as to who are the initiators of a proposal for annexation of territory to a fire protection district under RCW 52.08.060.
 
                                                                     ANALYSIS
 
            This statute provides for the annexation of territory to a fire protection district upon petitions signed by certain designated percentages of the registered electors residing within the territory proposed to be annexed.  If the fire protection district is located within a county which has a county boundary review board established in accordance with chapter 36.93 RCW, the initiators thereof are required to file a notice of their intention with the board under RCW 36.93.090, which provides as follows:
 
            "Whenever any of the following described actions are proposed in a county in which a board has been established, the initiators of the action shall file a notice of intention with the board, which may review any such proposed actions pertaining to:
 
             [[Orig. Op. Page 2]]
            "(1) The creation, dissolution, incorporation, disincorporation, consolidation, or change in the boundary of any city, town, or special purpose district; or
 
            "(2) The assumption by any city or town of all or part of the assets, facilities, or indebtedness of a special purpose district which lies partially within such city or town; or
 
            "(3) The establishment of or change in the boundaries of a mutual water and sewer system or separate sewer system by a water district pursuant to RCW 57.08.065."  (Emphasis supplied.)1/
 
             In our opinion, the initiators of a proposal to annex territory to a fire protection district under RCW 52.08.060, supra, must be regarded as the persons signing the petition for annexation ‑ and not the fire protection district.  We can see no basis for characterizing the district as the initiator of the proposal under this statute.
 
            Therefore, it follows that the twenty-five dollar fee which is to be paid by "all initiators" under RCW 36.93.120, is to be paid by the signers of the petition ‑ and it is they, and not the district, who are to file the notice of intention required by RCW 36.93.090.
 
            In addition, you have asked two further questions regarding RCW 36.93.120, supra, ‑ which we paraphrase and answer as follows:
 
            Question:  Is the twenty-five dollar fee required to be paid even where the review jurisdiction of the board is not invoked pursuant to RCW 36.93.100?
 
            Answer:  Yes.  It is only the additional one hundred dollar fee payable by ". . . the person or entity seeking review . . ." which is dependent upon an application for review under this statute.
 
             [[Orig. Op. Page 3]]
            Question:  Where two or more petitions for annexation are filed (i.e., for annexation under RCW 52.08.060), must a twenty-five dollar fee be paid for each petition?
 
            Answer:  Yes.  Each petition constitutes a separate proposal to change the district's boundaries ‑ and, therefore, the initiators of each proposal are required to pay the fee.
 
            We trust the foregoing will be of assistance to you.
 
Very truly yours,
 
SLADE GORTON
Attorney General
 
 
PHILIP H. AUSTIN
Assistant Attorney General
 

 
                                                         ***   FOOTNOTES   ***
 
1/See our opinion dated September 18, 1968, to the King County Boundary Review Board, copy enclosed, for a detailed description of the proceedings involved in reviewing an annexation proposal under this statute, together with RCW 36.93.100.