This three-dimensional rendering shows a preliminary plan for Milltown, a 135-home development in Twisp on 18 acres across Highway 20 from Twisp Airport Road. Elements of the plan are subject to change.
Lower-cost units make development eligible for $2M state grant
Earlier this year, before Twisp Town Council members approved a 135-unit residential development called Milltown at the south end of town, they were given no guarantees that any of the new homes would be affordable for those making less than an average income.
That changed last week, when the council heard a proposal from a Milltown developer to offer 56 units for households below the area mean income (AMI).
The change of plans makes the Milltown project eligible for a $2 million state grant that would cover at least part of the cost of stormwater improvements, and water and sewer connections. The grant is available to projects that set aside at least 25% of their units at below-market rates for lower wage-earners.
Milltown’s proposal of 56 affordable homes meets that requirement, making up 41% of the total.
The council on Sept. 22 ultimately approved a request from Milltown to apply for the Department of Commerce’s Connecting Housing to Infrastructure Program (CHIP) grant on the developer’s behalf.
The affordable units would include 36 condominiums priced for people making 80% of AMI, and 20 “mini homes” for those at 60% of AMI, according to a draft of the grant application and Rich Barnes, a Milltown representative.
The condominiums would sell for about $387,000, and the tiny homes would go for roughly $280,000, based on today’s income levels, Barnes told the council.
After the vote to pursue the grant, it remained unclear how long the 56 homes at Milltown would remain affordable. Council members debated whether the 25-year minimum required by the CHIP grant was long enough, but they didn’t settle on a specific duration.
Council members Tim Matsui and Molly Filer, and Mayor Hans Smith, planned to hash that out with the developers in a meeting before the Sept. 30 grant application deadline.
“We’re fine with 40 years if you want to just pick a number out of the air,” Barnes told the council. “I would avoid 100 years, or something like that.”
If the grant isn’t awarded — the $2 million request is the maximum allowed, and only $31 million is available statewide — then Milltown’s developers will still endeavor to make some of the housing affordable, Barnes said in an interview after the meeting.
Affordability is the “legacy” property owners Hank and Judy Konrad wanted to leave in Twisp, he said.
“We were told to make this a legacy for normal people to be able to buy houses,” Barnes said. “We’re not going to go in there and build a bunch of million-dollar homes.”
However, Barnes also acknowledged that the 135 homes in Milltown, including 67 single-family residences, will come at a variety of price points.
“I can’t say there’s not going to be some really expensive places in there … but we’re trying to create price-point opportunities for Okanagan (County) residents,” he said. “We are working so we will be able to make this, at least at first, available to Okanogan residents preferentially.”
The CHIP grant requires construction to begin within 24 months after it is awarded. Barnes said the developers intend to break ground next spring, “as soon as everything thaws up.”
Opponent responds
The Methow Valley Citizens Council (MVCC) organized opposition to Milltown earlier this year because the development allows wood stoves that degrade air quality, and because it augurs a trend of rapid population growth in town that MVCC leaders say is unsustainable.
In response to the affordable-housing proposal at Milltown, MVCC Executive Director Rebekah Phillips said in a statement to the Methow Valley News that “MVCC strongly supports affordable housing, and adding 56 affordable units would be a meaningful step in that direction.”
“At the same time, affordable housing on its own isn’t a substitute for a comprehensive, community-informed strategy for growth,” she added.
Phillips went on to say that MVCC remains concerned about the impact of rapid residential growth on the town’s public safety, infrastructure, aesthetics and environment.
“The community should be able to track whether we’re actually meeting our housing goals, rather than seeing a succession of developments described as ‘affordable’ without a larger strategy for where that growth occurs and how it will be supported,” she said.
Nepotism rule change
In other action, council reversed itself last week and voted to relax Twisp’s nepotism rules so that family members may work for the town under the same supervisor. The town’s Personnel Policy Manual had prohibited this, but town officials discovered that no other municipal governments in Okanogan County had this policy.
“There’s a lot of jurisdictions our size, with programs similar to ours, functioning just fine without that prohibition,” Smith said before the vote.
A policy barring one family member from hiring or supervising another remains in place. The personnel manual also prohibits family members from working in the same department under “circumstances (that) might lead to potential conflict among the parties, or conflict between the interest of one or both parties and the best interests of the town.”
The mayor acknowledged the “trade-offs” at stake in changing the town’s nepotism rules.
“I do recognize … that there are potential management headaches that come from supervising family members. So it isn’t that that’s not without risk to us,” Smith said. “But I also feel like there’s risk and setbacks to us from not being able to hire the best-quality candidates.”
Two weeks earlier, Public Works Director Andrew Denham told the council that a highly qualified candidate for an open operator position could not be interviewed under the current policy because he has a family member who works for the department.
At that meeting, on Sept. 8, the council voted 3–2 against changing the personnel manual. The majority cited concerns over conflicts that can arise if family members work in the same department. Filer, one of the initial dissenters, also questioned why the town would make a policy change for the benefit of a single job applicant.
But on Sept. 22, Filer and council member Rosemary Seifried changed their vote.
Filer said she would have voted in favor of the policy change on Sept. 8 if she had known then that similar jurisdictions didn’t have a policy barring relatives from working for the same boss.
Seifried also cited this new information as a motivation to change her vote, adding that she didn’t want to limit the town’s recruitment options.
“Also, the mayor articulated more clearly both his and the supervisor’s role in addressing any issues,” Seifried said in an interview after the meeting. “That was the sort of information I was looking for, to feel comfortable with the change.”
“I feel satisfied that the town will do due diligence with all the applicants,” she added.
Council member Will Menzies, who also cast a “no” vote on Sept. 8, remained unswayed and voted against the policy change again on Sept. 22. The final vote was 4–1.
Menzies noted that other qualified candidates might find it unfair that the council had changed a policy in a way that benefited one of the other applicants. ‘
“I think I would take exception to that,” he said.
“It’s not necessarily about one particular candidate,” Denham said on Sept. 22. “I just want the opportunity in this particular go-around to … process a candidate, or all the candidates, that are top candidates.”
Compression brakes
Council last week appeared to support a ban on the use of noisy compression brakes on trucks passing through town. An ordinance prohibiting the use of unmuffled compression brakes could come to a vote at a future council meeting.
Council members considered the ban at a May meeting, but most showed little interest in pursuing it at the time. Seifried’s views have evolved since then.
“I’m happy to see this come back before us,” she said last week. “Since the last time we talked, I’ve been hearing quite a few compression brakes.”
Police Chief Paul Budrow said at the May 12 meeting that it would be “virtually impossible” to enforce a ban on compression brakes, or “jake brakes.”
“I’d have to be there to hear it,” he said, noting that he had never heard jake brakes in his 15 years in Twisp.
Mayor Smith suggested that if the ordinance passes, the town would need to create a culture of compliance with the new rule.
“Just passing an ordinance doesn’t mean you are not going to hear compression-brake use in town,” he said.
The draft ordinance directs town officials to post road signs indicating that compression brakes are prohibited.
