Burien TIF study: consultant says tax-increment district could fund public improvements but revenues depend on development and exemptions

Bob Stowe, the consultant on Burien’s tax-increment financing feasibility study, presented a primer on TIF and a step‑1 analysis to the Burien City Council on Feb. 23. The presentation explained how a tax-increment area would freeze a base assessed value and use new taxes from future private development to fund public improvements.

The study identified a proposed TIF area covering roughly 86 acres and listed public improvements it said could encourage private investment — notably a large portion (the consultant estimated $7 million to $8 million) for Southwest 153rd Street, plus improvements on 6th Avenue, a road extension and a town square/playground. The consultant said the city had identified “between roughly $9.75 million and $10.75 million” in public improvements that could be paired with private development to support a TIF.

Why it matters: if the city forms a TIF area, it could finance public infrastructure to spur private redevelopment without immediately raising general taxes. But the model depends on private development materializing as projected, on state notice-and-review timelines, and on limits such as the city’s cap on taxable assessed value inside an area.

Key findings and caveats

- Revenue scenarios: Stowe summarized three build‑out scenarios over a 25‑year horizon. In an aggressive scenario the model showed an estimated $128.8 million in nominal tax‑increment receipts to the city; a moderate scenario produced roughly $92 million; a limited scenario yielded about $46 million. Those totals are the consultant’s modeled nominal revenue over 25 years and assume the modeled private development occurs. Stowe emphasized the projections are speculative and require further project‑level analysis.

- Impact of multifamily tax exemptions (MFTE): Stowe said applying the city’s multifamily tax exemption to downtown development would materially reduce TIF revenues. Under the consultant’s examples, revenues fell substantially when MFTE was included (the aggressive, moderate and limited scenarios dropped to much lower totals, in some illustrative scenarios into the low tens of millions over 25 years).

- Constraints and process: Washington law excludes school and state property tax from a TIF calculation, limits jurisdictions to two concurrent increment areas and caps combined assessed value, and requires a project analysis and formal notice to other taxing districts and the Office of State Treasurer. Stowe noted you can only adopt a tax increment area once per year (by June 1) and that the state-review timeline builds in months of notice.

Council reaction and next steps

Council members pressed for more detail about how MFTE interacts with TIF and how the city would create stronger developer certainty, such as development agreements or financial backstops. Councilmember Linda Akey urged caution about removing MFTE before the city has data on how MFTE is being used. Deputy Mayor Hugo Garcia asked what “greater certainty” from private developers would look like; Stowe said it largely means firm commitments or agreements from developers that they will build if certain public investments occur.

No action was required or taken on Feb. 23. City staff and the consultant said a more detailed, project‑level “step‑2” or project analysis would be the next step if council wants to move forward, and the city has a separate Department of Commerce‑funded feasibility study underway (a TDR/LCLIP grant) that could offer alternatives.

Quote: “Tax increment financing is a financing tool that supports desired private development by redirecting the property taxes that are generated by the private development to fund the public improvements needed for that private development to exist,” consultant Bob Stowe said.

The council did not vote on forming a TIF area at the meeting; staff said they would return with further analysis if a specific project or developer opportunity emerged.