Local voters will see Proposition No. 1 on their Nov. 4, 2025 General Election ballot, a city-backed measure designed to provide new funding for public safety in Burien, according to a press release from the City of Burien on Wednesday, Oct. 1.
The measure, also called the “Levy Lid Lift for Public Safety,” was approved for the ballot after more than two years of city-led community engagement and planning, the city said.
The Burien City Council unanimously adopted Ordinance 874 on July 14, 2025, approving the ballot language, and King County Elections certified the ballot title and issued an Order of Election on Aug. 25, 2025.
The city said the proposal is intended to address rising public safety costs, which have increased by an average of 5 to 8 percent annually, while property tax revenues grow by only 1 percent per year.
Without additional funding, the city said it cannot maintain current service levels.
According to the city, the levy would:
- Preserve and expand the police co-response model for homelessness, mental health crises and public drug use.
- Maintain current police staffing levels and add officers to support co-response teams, expand patrols and assist crime prevention programs.
- Improve streets and sidewalks with infrastructure upgrades and added street lighting.
The average levy rate increase would be about $0.79519 per $1,000 of assessed property value. For a home assessed at $596,000, that would amount to about $39.50 per month, or $473.90 annually. Homeowners 62 and older, or those who are disabled and meet low-income requirements, may qualify for property tax exemptions under state law.
Ballots will be mailed Oct. 15 and must be returned by 8 p.m. on Nov. 4 or postmarked by that date.
The measure will require a simple majority to pass.
Statement of Opposition
Opponents, including Daniel Martin, Omaha Sternberg and Stephen Lamphear, argue that while public safety is important, the city has not provided voters with clear plans or financial details to justify the proposed tax increase.
They say that the Burien City Council approved the measure without presenting supporting data or outlining how the more than $52 million projected to be raised over six years would be spent.
“City officials have been asked to provide their plans, including the amount of money required and data and research to support this,” opponents said in a statement. “However, the Council approved the ballot measure without presenting a single fact, while seeking over $52 million over six years.
“Our city leaders need to be clear with voters about how they intend to use our tax dollars. The fact is, the council has been unclear at best. The ballot language is confusing, misleading, and flawed. No plan has been presented to the citizens. And the public presentation included vaguely worded promises for public safety, ‘including…costs associated with…safer streets, sidewalks, and additional street lighting.'”
Here’s the full Statement of Opposition:
“Public safety is important. So is transparency. Property taxes impact us all: homeowners, businesses, landlords, and renters. Businesses pass on their taxes to customers; landlords pass on their taxes to tenants. So, what’s the plan?
“City officials have been asked to provide their plans, including the amount of money required and data and research to support this. However, the Council approved the ballot measure without presenting a single fact, while seeking over $52 million over six years.
“Our city leaders need to be clear with voters about how they intend to use our tax dollars. The fact is, the council has been unclear at best. The ballot language is confusing, misleading, and flawed. No plan has been presented to the citizens. And the public presentation included vaguely worded promises for public safety, “including…costs associated with…safer streets, sidewalks, and additional street lighting.”
“This ballot measure is poorly written and subject to interpretation. Our council is hiding the facts, refusing to justify its position financially. We should not vote for a tax increase that looks more like a slush fund for the city. Join landlords, renters, conservatives, progressives, and independents, and vote no on this unaccountable, poorly conceived tax grab.
“Daniel Martin, Omaha Sternberg, Stephen Lamphear, noburientax@gmail.com”
Links:
- More information about voting can be found on the King County Elections website.
- Those interested in learning more about Burien’s Proposition No. 1 can visit the City’s webpage at burienwa.gov/levy.
Right on schedule the usual three naysayers are chiming in with just more excuses why Public Safety is a poor investment, if the City used key words like equity and Progressive ideals they’d vote yes.
Yet AGAIN, governance by nonprofit (no receipts or results required) so yeah…nope.
How dare you compare the City of Burien with the absolute grift and abuse of funds like the organizations linked to the (so called Non Profit) Homeless Industrial Complex. Talk about no receipts and lack of results, whereas Burien has described where and how the funds will be spent and you can’t have a receipts or results until things happen.
NFW !!!!! Once again NO !!! This levey will add over $500 to my property taxes. Burien doesn’t spend the tax dollars they get wisely or maintain the streets now !
Here’s the quandary facing the Burien Progressives, Leftists and SJW’s. They all want less funding for Law Enforcement, yet all demand the Co Response model be instituted. Since Dow ran KC out of money and all those pockets are losing funding how else can those groups expect that model? Here’s how things work in the real world, nothing is free and you can offset that Levy cost by tightening your coffee and donut budgets.
You paint in such broad strokes. I am a property owner in Burien and I am OK with additional levies against my property, since our state has a regressive lack of income tax. Regardless, it would help the council’s cause to provide plans for exactly where these levies will be used. “Improvements to infrastructure” could mean a lot, and where they are being made should also be taken into consideration. Without that information, which is absolutely not in the ballot language, voters have to rely on best intentions.
It’s common sense to expect to see the plans before spending the money.
I’m not opposed to a levy, but I need more specificity for what the funds are going to be used for.
The city mentioned that they want to fund more police, but we can’t fill the spots we already have budgeted. It doesn’t make sense to me.