Maple Valley Council hears hours of public testimony on MFTE residential target-area proposal

The Maple Valley City Council on April 27, 2026, heard extensive public testimony during a public hearing on a proposed map of Residential Target Areas (RTAs) to be used with the city’s Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) program. The hearing, opened by City Attorney Jeffery Taraday at 6:55 p.m. at Lake Wilderness Lodge, drew more than two dozen speakers representing residents, developers and housing stakeholders.

Julie Dawson, a local realtor, told the council that many of her clients can no longer afford to live in Maple Valley and urged members to consider more nonprofit and policy options to maintain affordability. “My clients can no longer afford to live here,” Dawson said, asking the council to listen to residents’ concerns. Several residents including Thorsten Nygren (Hobart) and multiple speakers from unincorporated King County said they opposed the proposed RTAs because they would shift tax burdens to people who do not vote in or directly benefit from Maple Valley elections and services.

Opponents raised variations of two core concerns: an increase in property taxes since recent development and a perceived unfairness in taxing unincorporated King County residents for city incentives. Thorsten Nygren said property taxes had “doubled this year” in his view and argued Council does not represent those outside city boundaries. Other speakers, including Mike Chase and Debbie Hutchinson, urged the city not to expand or to rescind MFTE as a policy that disadvantages non-city residents.

Supporters countered that MFTE is a tool to produce attainable housing and satisfy county growth and affordability requirements. Curtis Lang, described in the record as a longtime developer, urged the council to pass the RTA map so ready projects could advance and provide long-term tax base and business support. Leah Sullivan, a property manager, said MFTE units provide housing options for renters who might otherwise be priced out. Jessica Clawson, a land use attorney, warned that revisiting the maps could create legal risk and recommended coordinating with the Department of Commerce and the Assessor’s Office.

Several commenters asked Council to refine program details: David Grampa criticized the 70% area median income (AMI) threshold as insufficient to generate rent incentives and said the proposed map excluded properties suitable for redevelopment. Others suggested alternative approaches such as allowing more single-family development, pursuing different incentives, or seeking state-level changes to growth boundary rules.

After the public hearing closed at 8:38 p.m., councilmembers recessed and later extended the meeting. The council subsequently moved the MFTE RTA ordinance discussion into executive session under RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) to consult with legal counsel about potential litigation; the record shows that motion passed 6–1 with Councilmember John Herbert dissenting. Council returned to open session and voted 7–0 to resume discussion at a special meeting — an executive-session special meeting — scheduled for May 11, 2026, at 5:30 p.m.

The meeting minutes also record a motion by Mayor Sean P. Kelly, seconded by Councilmember Victoria Schroff, to invite a representative from the Department of Commerce to the May 11 meeting; the minutes state both that the motion was made and that the “Motion fails, 7-0,” an internally inconsistent record noted in the meeting minutes and in the accompanying audit (the minutes do not provide a clear outcome about that invitation). The council did not take final action on adopting the RTA map at the April 27 meeting.

Next steps: the ordinance and MFTE map remain under Council consideration. The council has scheduled a special meeting for May 11, 2026, to resume discussion; members and several commenters suggested staff coordinate with the Department of Commerce and the Assessor’s Office ahead of that session.