Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Levy Lid Lift topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Legal briefing outlines options, deadlines if Burien seeks multi-year levy lid lift; pro/con rules, PDC limits explained
Summary
Outside counsel Deanna Gregory of Pacifica Law Group briefed the council on levy lid-lift options (one-year or up to six-year lifts), ballot-language requirements, filing deadlines, and Public Disclosure Commission rules that govern what the city may and may not use public resources to communicate about a measure.
Deanna Gregory, partner at Pacifica Law Group, told the Burien City Council on May 12 that a levy lid lift is the statutory tool that allows a taxing district to exceed the 1% levy lid established under state law with voter approval. Gregory explained the two common approaches: a one-year increase or a multi-year increase of up to six consecutive years, and she described the legal differences between temporary and permanent lifts.
Gregory outlined ballot requirements the council must meet if it pursues a multi-year levy lid lift: the ballot must state the maximum tax rate for the first year and must specify the limit factor (the index or percentage that will apply in later years). She emphasized the importance of choosing accurate first-year language because the maximum tax rate stated on the ballot caps the city’s ability to levy that first year.
The presentation included a calendar of deadlines for a 2025 ballot: the county election date available in 2025 is Nov. 4; the council’s ordinance and pro/con committee appointments would need to be filed by Aug. 5; explanatory statements intended for the voters pamphlet would be due Aug. 8. Gregory also reviewed Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) rules: the city may prepare objective, factual, neutral informational material about the measure, but the PDC disallows the use of public facilities or resources to advocate for or against ballot propositions. She noted the new state requirement that the council appoint up to three pro and three con committee members who must be residents of the city.
Gregory and staff recommended planning communications carefully and providing clear, factual explanatory statements (King County limits such statements to 250 words) and said the city should plan the campaign timeline with the statutory filing and ballot production schedule in mind. She also described the difference between temporary and permanent measures, the option to tailor the levy for general or specific purposes, and the typical rationale for choosing a temporary lift (for limited-duration needs and to build voter confidence).
Council members thanked Gregory and asked clarifying questions about next steps; staff said consultant CONSORT would present additional financial options to the council at an upcoming meeting and that the city is working to complete materials in time to meet the August filing deadlines if the council wishes to pursue a 2025 ballot measure.
No council vote took place on a levy measure at the May 12 meeting; the briefing was informational and intended to guide council direction, scheduling and next steps.
