Burien council orders staff to draft ordinance aligning city code with voter-approved minimum wage, 4–3

Burien — The Burien City Council voted 4–3 on April 20 to ask city staff to prepare an ordinance repealing Chapter 5.15 of the Burien Municipal Code and to draft a supplemental minimum-wage ordinance to clarify aspects of Initiative 1, the voter-approved wage measure. Deputy Mayor Hugo Garcia moved the action; Mayor Sarah Moore, Councilmember Sam Mendez and Councilmember Rocco de Vito joined Garcia in voting yes. Councilmembers Kevin Schilling, Alex Andrade and Councilmember Ache voted no.

The action followed more than an hour of public comment from nine residents, many urging immediate implementation of the initiative and criticizing the city’s prior litigation over the wage. Daniel Martin told the council, “Please pass the people’s minimum wage today,” while small-business owners such as Alicia Olson said they want “transparency and consistency with the law.”

Interim City Attorney Anne Marie walked the council through options, including continuing to edit a red-lined draft ordinance (No. 892), repealing the council-adopted ordinance (No. 855) and relying solely on the initiative, or repealing and adopting a supplemental ordinance that implements Initiative 1 with clarifying amendments. Councilmember Sam Mendez said he preferred rescinding the existing council ordinance and directing staff to implement the initiative “perhaps with one or two administrative changes” to aid administration and enforcement.

Deputy Mayor Garcia’s motion instructed staff to prepare a repeal of Chapter 5.15 and a supplemental ordinance for council consideration at the May 4 meeting. The supplemental ordinance is to include two clarifying items: setting the minimum wage for large employers at a dollar amount “consistent with Tukwila’s minimum wage for large employers” and adding clarifying enforcement language for staff related to Initiative 1’s rulemaking provisions. The motion text directed staff to bring the draft back for consideration on 05/04/2026.

Councilmembers who opposed the motion said they were not comfortable with specifying a wage by referring to another city’s rate without fuller legal analysis and that more deliberation was needed before changing the code. Interim City Attorney Anne Marie cautioned against discussing privileged legal risk in open session and recommended staff prepare clear draft options reflecting council direction.

The council’s action does not by itself set an immediate wage for every employer; rather it directs staff to prepare an ordinance that would be returned to the council for formal adoption. The initiative and the standing council ordinance were described in discussion as currently both on the books with conflicting provisions, and the motion is intended to resolve that conflict through repeal plus a supplemental ordinance.

The council also flagged concern about staffing and the 150–180 day timeline in the initiative for rulemaking and compliance, and members asked staff to propose enforcement approaches that are feasible within city resources. The item will return to council with a draft ordinance and recommended language for enforcement and wage specification.