Which Proposition 1 is this?

Proposition 1 on the 2025 ballot in King County, Washington. Several different measures can carry the same number on one county ballot, so the year, the county and the body asking are all needed to identify one.

Where do these results come from?

The Washington Secretary of State’s certified election results. We publish the certified canvass, not election-night returns.

Why is there no argument for or against here?

Washington publishes committee-written for and against statements for most local measures. We have not ingested them. Showing one side without the other would be worse than showing neither.

Ballot measure · Washington State

City of Burien Proposition No. 1 — King County 2025

City of Burien Proposition No. 1 — King County 2025 was on the 2025 ballot in King County, Washington. It passed with 47.2% voting yes, on 12,244 votes cast.

2025
King County
City Measure
Proposition 1
Passed

Source WA Secretary of State official election results · as of 2026-08-07

The result

47.2%

voted yes

Passed

certified outcome

12,244

votes cast on this measure

Yes 47.2% · No 52.8%

Source WA Secretary of State certified election results · as of 2026-08-07

What it costs you

We cannot calculate what this measure costs a household. That figure needs the levy rate per thousand dollars of assessed value, and the result export does not carry it — it records how people voted, not what they were voting on. We will not estimate it: a wrong number on a household tax bill is worse than no number. The rate is published in the county assessor’s levy certification and in the voters’ pamphlet for the election.

Last checked 2026-08-07

The case for and against

Printed in the county voters’ pamphlet and mailed to every voter in the jurisdiction. Written by committees the jurisdiction appointed, and reproduced here exactly as they wrote them.

Statement in favor

Written by Jamie Jo Skeen, Tiffany Crosby yesforburienpublicsafety.com

Burien Public Safety Levy is a smart, balanced investment in the well-being of our community. This measure will ensure continuation and expansion of our successful co-response model that pairs law enforcement with mental health professionals to ensure effective 24/7 support for individuals in crises like domestic violence, mental health, grief and drug abuse. This collaborative approach improves outcomes for those in crisis and reduces reliance on traditional law enforcement. The program is being eliminated due to the loss of federal funding, but it has proven effective in directing individuals to necessary resources and is a key component of our safety. Additionally, the levy helps maintain police staffing levels and allows for the hiring of additional officers to support increased patrols and enhance crime prevention programs. A visible and adequately staffed police presence is essential for crime deterrence and swift response. The levy also focuses on safer streets and sidewalks through infrastructure improvements and additional lighting, which enhances pedestrian safety and deters criminal activity. The Public Safety Levy is a necessary investment in a model that keeps Burien safe and thriving. Its benefits to our community far outweigh the cost. Endorsed by the King County Sheriff’s Guild. Rebuttal of statement in opposition This funding is by Burien and for Burien. Without this funding we lose the 24/7 crisis prevention and are unable to increase our police force. Opponents want more clarity on where the funding will go but it’s important to have flexibility to meet the most emerging need and utilize funding to fill gaps. City Council sets the priorities for the Levy. Voting for the council members that represent you also ensures your priorities are reflected.

Statement in opposition

Written by Daniel Martin, Omaha Sternberg, Stephen Lamphear noburientax@gmail.com

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. Rebuttal of statement in favor Council has never stated that the co-response model is threatened with a loss of federal funding. The Sheriff’s Office is short-staffed countywide; a new tax will not enable the city to hire new deputies. Bottom line: there is no plan. And $52 million over the next 6 years is far more than needed to fund the co-response model and other public safety needs. Until a real plan is presented, Vote No!

Neither statement is fact-checked, by the county or by us. King County Elections prints these as the committees submit them and does not correct punctuation, grammar, or accuracy. They are arguments, not findings. We reproduce them because they are what voters were sent, and we take no position on the claims in either one.

Last checked 2026-08-07

Source King County voters’ pamphlet · as of 2026-08-07 · page 85 of the pamphlet

The pamphlet as published · archived copy, which is what we read

Who is funding each side

Political committees registered with the Public Disclosure Commission that named this proposition number when they formed.

No committee named this proposition number. We searched PDC committee filings for proposition 1 in 2025 and found none. That can mean no committee formed, or that one formed without naming the number — the filings do not distinguish the two.

Last checked 2026-08-07

What this county has asked before

Other city measures put to King County voters. Matched on county and measure kind — the results export carries no jurisdiction key, so these are comparable measures rather than provably the same body asking again.

Comparable earlier measures
Year	Measure	Yes	Result
2025	City of Bothell Proposition No. 1 — King County 2025	69.1%	passed
2025	City of Lake Forest Park Proposition No. 1 — King County 2025	49.8%	passed
2025	City of Mercer Island Proposition No. 1 — King County 2025	54.6%	passed
2025	City of Seattle Proposition No. 1 — King County 2025	80%	passed
2025	City of Seattle Proposition No. 2 — King County 2025	71%	passed
2024	City of Des Moines Proposition No. 1 — King County 2024	40.2%	passed
2024	City of Seattle Proposition No. 1 — King County 2024	66.5%	passed
2023	City of Maple Valley Proposition No. 1 — King County 2023	65.7%	passed

Source WA Secretary of State certified election results · as of 2026-08-07 · 8 of 8 passed

What this page will not compute

Each of these is a number a reader might reasonably expect. None of them follow from the records we hold, so we do not publish them.

What it costs a household: Requires the levy rate per thousand of assessed value, which the results export does not carry. Stated above rather than estimated.
Whether the money decided it: We can show what each side raised and what the vote was. Connecting the two would be an inference about cause from two numbers, and campaign spending is not the only thing that moves a local levy.
Whether this is the same body asking again: Earlier measures are matched on county and kind, not on jurisdiction — the export has no jurisdiction key. A school district and its neighbour both appear as school measures in the same county.
What the measure would have done: The ballot title and the full text are not loaded. We hold the result, not the proposal.

Common questions

Did City of Burien Proposition No. 1 — King County 2025 pass?: Yes, it passed. 47.2% voted yes on 12,244 votes cast.
Which Proposition 1 is this?: Proposition 1 on the 2025 ballot in King County, Washington. Several different measures can carry the same number on one county ballot, so the year, the county and the body asking are all needed to identify one.
Where do these results come from?: The Washington Secretary of State’s certified election results. We publish the certified canvass, not election-night returns.
Why is there no argument for or against here?: Washington publishes committee-written for and against statements for most local measures. We have not ingested them. Showing one side without the other would be worse than showing neither.

Cite this page

This is public-records reporting. Use it, and say where it came from.

“City of Burien Proposition No. 1 — King County 2025,” WashingtonIndependents.org, data as of 2026-08-07, accessed 2026-08-09. https://washingtonindependents.org/measure/2025-king-prop-1-city-of-burien-proposition-no-1/

Where this page comes from

Every figure above is read from a primary source and rebuilt on a schedule. Nothing here is modelled or inferred; where a source is silent the page says so rather than filling the gap.

WA Secretary of State certified election results: The vote totals, the yes share and the outcome. Certified canvass, not election-night returns.
Public Disclosure Commission committee registrations: Committees formed for or against the measure, matched by the proposition number they registered. Committees that did not name a number are not linked here.
Not loaded: Ballot title and full text, the voters’ pamphlet for and against statements, and the levy rate. Each is named where the page would otherwise use it.