EDITOR’S NOTE: This story has been updated to clarify that Councilmember Kevin Schilling alleged a conflict of interest about a payment to the King County Transit Riders Union; no formal finding was cited.
At the July 13, 2026, Burien City Council meeting, local leaders tackled an agenda including high-stakes regional issues, personal milestones, and political friction.
The evening’s discussions highlighted a public forum on the environmental and local impacts of the Sea-Tac Airport expansion, alongside a federal funding update that underscored the challenges medium-sized cities face amidst a gridlocked Congress.
The council celebrated the joyful news of an impending addition to Councilmember Sam Mendez’s family and streamlined zoning laws to boost housing supply.
The atmosphere grew highly charged following an executive session. Tensions flared as a split vote to approve a $67,000 legal settlement with the King County Transit Riders Union drew fierce criticism from Councilmember Kevin Schilling, who raised sharp conflict-of-interest concerns regarding the entire council majority’s ties to the organization.
Public Meeting On Airport Expansion July 14
Interim City Manager Bob Larson shared that there is a public meeting from 6–7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 14 to discuss potential impacts from the planned expansion of SeaTac Airport. The meeting, which is in conjunction with the cities of SeaTac and Des Moines, will be held at Burien City Hall.
Federal Funds Update
Jake Johnston of the Johnston Group gave an update on federal policies and funding, as they relate to Burien. He explained that Congress is functionally stuck right now, and struggling to perform routine business. Meanwhile, the entire country is desperately awaiting decisions on many important bills that have an uncertain outcome.
The city currently has a big ask of $2.7 million dollars to support the development of a new international market. The Senate’s decision on this is still unknown, but the House has approved $500,000 for the endeavor. The project has already received an additional $850,000 during a previous funding cycle.
Johnston said that until 2021, cities of Burien’s size were effectively disqualified from receiving many government grants. These generous grants were generally only awarded to larger cities where they would affect the most people. Medium size cities have similar expenses to large cities, but far fewer opportunities for funding.
In 2021, lobbyists began asking for this to change, and now some very large grants have requirements that a percentage of the recipients be cities of fewer than 100,000 people. These lobbyists want to extend this parameter to other types of federal grants, upping Burien’s chances of receiving funding in the future.
New Council Baby On The Way
Councilmember Sam Mendez shared that he and his wife are expecting a second child in late December. He joked that he simply was not busy enough with one small child, a full time job, and his position on the council. Congratulations were shared with Mendez and his family.
Zoning Changes
The council approved zoning code amendments that will make it less burdensome to convert buildings from commercial to residential use. These changes are required by a new state law, and are one of many recent mandates meant to increase the housing supply. To date, there have been no inquiries from developers about making a residential conversion in Burien.
Selecting Council Candidates For Interviews
The contenders for former Councilmember Linda Akey’s seat have been whittled down. From a field of fourteen qualified applicants, the council chose their top five to move on to the next phase. Interviews with the candidates will take place at the July 27 council meeting, and will include:
- Patricia Hudson
- Jacques Colon
- Jessica Ivey
- Krystal Marx
- Torrance Dixon
There was discussion about limiting interviews to the top three candidates, who received the highest ratings during the decision making process. It was mentioned that conducting five interviews during a council meeting would take a lot meeting time, particularly when there were already three clear favorites. However, the council majority insisted on interviewing the top five candidates.
Executive Session Conflict of Interest
Following an Executive Session to privately discuss legal matters, the council voted to approve a $67,000 settlement with King County Transit Riders Union (KCTRU). This vote was a 4–2 split, with Councilmember Kevin Schilling vehemently opposed, along with Councilmember Alex Andrade. Schilling explained that KCTRU endorsed the entire council majority while they were running for their seats, including Mayor Sarah Moore, Deputy Mayor Hugo Garcia, and Councilmembers Sam Mendez and Rocco DeVito.
Councilmember Kevin Schilling said he was frustrated that those councilmembers had not recused themselves from discussions involving KCTRU or from the settlement vote, arguing that their past endorsements from the organization created a conflict of interest. In addition, he felt that staff were remiss in allowing this decision to be taken in light of the conflict of this organization having supported councilmember elections. He specifically called out Interim City Attorney Ann Marie Soto and Interim City Manager Bob Larson for not requiring these four councilmembers to recuse themselves from this process.
Video
Below is full, raw video of this council meeting:
Schilling is just a big baby for not getting what he wants. The settlement is far less than actually spent on this lawsuit in which the city attemped to eliminate the vote in favor of the minimum wage initiative. Face it Schilling, you lost while the public won.
Kind of like how Kevin Shilling did not recuse himself when voting matters related to Burien Toyota, his largest campaign donor.
I’m not hip onto why we yes we the City of Burien needs to pay KCTRU 67k can someone explain this to me please?
It’s to cover attorney’s fees. The city sued TRU and the judge threw out the suit but TRU is a small organization and had to spend their limited funds on attorneys fees so they countersued for relief. The original lawsuit was completely inappropriate and the (currently on leave) city manager should never have wanted city resources fighting an initiative voters passed.
*wasted city resources, not wanted.
That’s a convenient narrative, but it completely sidesteps the ethical issue. Whether the money was labeled “attorney fee’s” doesn’t erase the fact that KCTRU was a political ally of the council majority. Four officials accepted that organization’s outside endorsements, then voted to approve a $67,000 settlement benefiting it. Even if a court would say thats legally permissible, its exactly the kind of conduct that causes public to lose trust in the government.
The real question isn’t whether KCTRU had legal expenses. The question is why councilmembers with a clear political relationship to the organization believed they should participate in the decision at all. Kevin is absolutely in the right to call out the appearance of favoritism, and city leadership should have taken that concern seriously instead of acting as though endorsements are irrevelavant to public perception.
If the shoes were on the other foot, you would be screaming conflicts of interest and demanding investigation too.
If the majority had started a frivolous lawsuit against a small community org that a judge threw out and then the conservatives wanted to settle instead of dragging on, incurring more legal fees for both side, I would not call that a conflict of interest. The choice here isn’t $0 or $67k it’s $67k to end it now or a lot more to let it drag on.
Kelsey you’re still avoiding the central issue. Whether settling for $67,000 was cheaper than continuing litigation doesn’t answer the concern about public trust. Cost efficiency doesn’t erase the appearance of a conflict when councilmembers who benefited from KCTRU’s political endorsements voted to approve a payment to that same organization.
You keep framing this as if the only question is dollars and cents. It isn’t. The question is whether elected officials should have recused themselves to avoid even the appearance of favoritism. Public officials are expected to hold themselves to a higher ethical standard than simply asking, “Can we legally do this?”
Saying the lawsuit was frivolous doesn’t change that concern. If the political affiliations were reversed, I doubt you’d be so quick to dismiss the optics. Ethical government requires more than legal compliance, it requires public confidence that decisions are being made without political favoritism.
anyone that thinks this is not a conflict of interest by the new majority council members has never held any real leadership position with fiduciary responsibility or has a basic understanding of the concept – and that would include our current majority council.
Do you think Kevin Schilling voting on the lease for the Toyota lot is a conflict of interest? Or Alex Andrade voting on Discover Burien or Burien CARES contracts?
Extreme lack of accountability… People can come up with endless justifications for avoiding accountability by pointing the finger at someone else instead of taking responsibility for their own actions.
People murder other people in this country. Does that make it justifiable for you to do the same? Of course not. Its just childish logic.. Someone else’s wrongdoing doesn’t excuse or justify your own. Each person is still responsible for the choices they make 100%.
Spin spin spin
Thank you Sherry for maintaining this conversation. Not sure if the responses back are to beat around the bush or not but..
The issue has never been whether settling a lawsuit can save money. The issue is whether councilmembers who accepted political endorsements from KCTRU should have participated in voting to approve a payment to that same organization. Those are two separate questions, and seems to only want to keep answering the first while ignoring the second multiple times now.
Responses start from “its just attorney money anyways.” And the next reponse begins to describe a made up hypothetical.. and latest reponse points back at unrelated topics in the past to justify? … instead of answering the questions at hand. Hmm as a bystander party… not a good look here.
Just two days ago on another website Kelsey Vanhee actually self declares “I am an abrasive know it all” so with that there should be no surprises in this back and forth with her with an attitude like that.
you just made my point. But for further clarification Mendez even worked for the organization and quoted during his campaign “I’m proud to have worked closely with the Transit Riders Union (TRU) to help advance the public initiative that raised Burien’s minimum wage.” And now he is voting for the city to provide compensation to the organization he worked for. It is not breaking any laws but in my work experience leaders were required to document potential conflict of interests and avoid any perceptions of impropriety in their decision making roles. In this case – in my world – he would have been terminated for cause.