It always comes as a bit of a surprise when I meet a Lurker in real life (IRL): “So, I’ve been meaning to ask, are you the one that writes the Easterday Construction Blog?” Why yes I am!
So few people actually comment, I generally assume I’m talking to myself. This was the second one in the last few months that said they ran across my blog and ended up going down the rabbit hole of Culver commentaries I’ve posted. So far, all of them have been complimentary of my insight and my writing. Since I’m often sitting here banging something out that I have bit my tongue about in some meeting… that’s positive! I think they even used the term “thoughtful analysis” too. That’s flattering and makes sense. That’s often why I don’t say it at the meeting, i.e. I’m more organized in writing and definitely able to put thoughts together better if I have time to let them simmer. For this reason, I don’t think I ever could be a successful politician. It’s not that I can’t think on my feet, it’s more that I have so many thoughts that pulling together a cogent response takes some time. Whatever comes out of my mouth, spur of the moment, probably isn’t the best answer and definitely isn’t properly fleshed out.
It was good to get some feedback and have a back and forth discussion on some things. Culver politics, Esmie, One Marshall County and, of course, The Dunes, where the main topics of conversation. I learned some things from another perspective and shared a few things that I know better than to put in writing! Ha!
Along with this Lurker/new friend, I was talking to some old friends and they were quizzing me about The Dunes. I was a little surprised about some of the misinformation they had. As a follow up, I sent them a couple of blog links. They obviously went down the rabbit hole as well, since they responded back that Culver should hire me for the Czar position. What’s funny about that is I would (and occasionally do) do that for free. But Culver often doesn’t use the resources it has. There are lots of talented and knowledgeable people in the Culver Community that are not residents. I served on the Culver Chamber of Commerce board for years and it was a joke that of the 10 board members at that time, only 3 of them could actually vote in a Town election. The same thing could be said for a large portion of the Chamber membership in those years. Yet we were people with a passion for moving Culver forward. (During that time, the Chamber spearheaded the Charrette, a new Comp Plan and spawned the Second Century Committee.)
Non-resident Culver talent has been called to participate in things like Culver Crossroads and the Comprehensive Plan Committee. These are great uses of that talent and knowledge, but most of those people that stepped up for those one-time committees, are just a phone call away when Culver is looking at the one-off projects too. The one-offs often have large impacts. Sometimes it seems we fall into the fallacy that you have to be located at least an hour away to be an expert. Culver has paid good money to out-of-town consultants, mostly with good results, but they rarely have the whole picture. They are called in for the one-off project without much understanding of how that project will weave into Culver’s tapestry of history, culture and goals for the future.
Winning an election is a form of a popularity contest. The ability to get elected doesn’t make you an expert in all the things you’ll need to make important decisions on as an elected official. But as a politician, you have shown a talent for rallying people. I would suggest that council members put that political talent to work and surround themselves with a cadre of people that fill the gaps in their expertise. If all the council members pooled their individual cadre of human capital resources, their individual advisory committees so to speak, there would be a standing taskforce of diverse talents that could be called on to help the council move Culver forward. But then, I’m mostly talking to myself…
Sometimes it takes an outside voice to change things… Rob Hurford with Culver Storage Unit Solutions came before Culver Plan Commission on October 17th to request relief from permit fees on their project. They are building mini storage units on the property west of The Paddocks.
Around 2017/2018, Jonathan Leist, then Culver Town Manager, spearheaded increased building permit fees. The increases were based on what was being charged in larger surrounding areas rather than the cost of services rendered. I protested this at the time, saying they were punitive, unreasonable and comparable fees had been cherry-picked to justify high fees… I was mostly ignored with the argument being presented that the building permit fee was still such a small part of the overall project cost for lake houses and commercial structures that it would not stop construction. I argued that wasn’t the point! The money collected does not go to the plan commission, but to the town’s general fund, i.e. it was a money maker, not a service fee.
The permit fees for the storage unit project were over $17,000. That was partially because the County was requiring each building to be permitted separately, rather than looking at the project as a whole, but also because Culver piled on. These are simple. single story, pole building construction with no water or sewer hook-ups. There will be minimal electrical for lighting. That means that Marshall County’s Building Inspector will have very little to look at and Culver’s Building Commissioner can almost do his job looking at setbacks with a drive-by…
Mr. Hurford is the Building Inspector for Warsaw, IN. He said in Warsaw, the permit fees would amount to 6% of the Culver fee. They have completed these projects in Winamac and Bass Lake and fees there were less than 15% of the Culver fee.
Culver’s Building Commissioner, Steve Gorski, did a review of permit fees based on costs and has provided the plan commission with revised numbers. These changes were passed on first read and were used to lower the fee for the project to $9k. Still high (and still inflated by the County in my opinion), but much better than the original $17k.
I’m pleased to see that the Plan Commission is taking steps to correct this one. It ultimately falls on the Town Council to make the Ordinance change. Hopefully they follow through. There are other, regressive, junk fees the town charges that don’t reflect services rendered, i.e. private fire hydrants, private fire sprinkler systems, etc. Hopefully this will prompt a review of some of these fees as well.
The October 16th meeting of the Culver Redevelopment Commission had a pretty full house and the majority of the meeting was taken up with a Public Meeting (not Public Hearing) on The Dunes. I was pretty proud of Culver as the majority of the questions were well thought out and asked respectfully. There were only a few questions I thought were irrational and even those were asked succinctly and calmly. I was also pleased to see that all of the Town Council members and a few of the candidates for Town Council were in attendance to listen.
Burke Richeson spoke for the Developer and did a nice job. Only getting a little vex’d when another attorney representing opposition spoke. Kevin Danti, Culver Town Manager, did a good job of keeping things moving and controlling the conversation. (I was going to link to Kevin’s page on the town’s website, but it hasn’t been updated.)
There were questions about environmental concerns, but these seemed to center on the effect on Lake Maxinkuckee. It was stated by Karen Shuman, who is on the Lake Maxinkuckee Environmental Council (LMEC), that LMEC had determined that the property is not within the Lake Maxinkuckee Watershed. I’m not sure that’s 100% correct, but it is at least mostly correct. Lake Maxinkuckee’s watershed is not large, but since the lake is mostly sustained by springs, the quality and quantity of ground water is important. That said, besides the lake, there are other environmental concerns, one the bigger ones being the surface runoff flow to the wetlands at the north side of the property and the town well fields just north of the property. Protection of those are critical.
Most of the conversation was well presented and questions were mostly answered with the exception of questions regarding the bond structure. Those got rather deep and ended with an offer from the town to provide a visual chart and breakdown to make the flow of funds more understandable. At this time, an agreement between the Town and Developer has not been reached, so the final numbers remain in flux. Progress is being documented on the Town’s Website in a link to Dunes. They stated a plan to document the questions heard at this meeting as well as others under a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section.
Aside from the bonding, which was confusing to all involved, I was a little confused about the Tax Incremental Financing District (TIF) discussion. This was presented by Marty Oosterbaan, Commission Chairman, and I think most people in attendance didn’t know the right questions to ask. A couple of the things that left me puzzled were: 1) was the new land area for The Dunes being taken into the existing downtown TIF as discussed or would it stand alone; 2) was there one new TIF area or two? There was discussion of a 20yr TIF (residential) and a 25yr TIF (commercial) to cover the areas with rental apartments. How do these fit? There was also a discussion about how this would affect local residents and again, the discussion of taxes were muddy. It was stated that there would be no effect for the life of the TIF, but I don’t believe that to be correct, since there will be a reassessment and taxes levied on the new development which could affect neighboring property.
Another positive I heard last night was the future involvement of Michiana Area Council of Governments (MACOG). Culver is already working with them on the new Comprehensive Plan and have engaged them for help on The Dunes as well. They will be conducting traffic studies, apparently including boat traffic studies. Hopefully they will also step in to fill the Urban Planner role I suggested here before. It would be interesting to see if they address the issue of suburban sprawl and disconnection of subdivisions in Culver I discussed in this post. Would this development be more acceptable if it followed the streets and alleys development grid found on the east side of South Main Street rather than as a controlled access, separate neighborhood? An interesting question…
Though there weren’t pitchforks and torches at this meeting, the tenor of the conversation made it clear that the community is not embracing this project yet. There were comments about screening it so it’s not seen and changing the entrance to face S.R. 17 in lieu of South Main Street, as discussed here before. These ideas treat it as if they expect an eyesore or having nothing to contribute to Culver. While there may be reasonable concerns, the Town government seems to be on a path to address them the best they can. There is good reason to be cautious, but there should also be efforts to take advantage of the positives that could come from this.
Riffing off my last post, here are a few things that I think an Urban Planner or similar professional can bring to the table… In the vein of my post, “Culver Needs an Infrastructure Czar”, an Urban Planner could step back and take a holistic approach on how this affects Culver now and into the future making sure we aren’t making another two steps forward, one step back mistake. I’ve broken these things up into major headings for some organization:
Infrastructure
in-fra-struc-ture – /ˈinfrəˌstrək(t)SHər/ – the basic physical and organizational structures and facilities (e.g. buildings, roads, power supplies) needed for the operation of a society or enterprise.
Aesthetics
aes-thet-ics – /esˈTHediks/ – a set of principles concerned with the nature and appreciation of beauty, especially in art.
Culture
cul-ture – /ˈkəlCHər/ – the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular social group.
I feel that an outside eye is needed here. I’m sure I’ve only scratched the surface of things that should be considered. Someone (or firm) that has worked with communities like ours and has experience in this type of change to smaller towns. Just like the funds being expended on outside legal advice and outside financial advice, this is place where we could benefit from planning advice. I think it could go a long way to making things better.
CRC Facade Grants
December 11, 2023
Kevin Berger
Commentary, Culver
Community, Culver, Culver Redevelopment Commission, Facade Renovation, government, Trends
At the November Meeting of the Culver Redevelopment Commission (CRC) there was a discussion on Facade Grants. This is one of the ways the CRC uses Tax Incremental Finance (TIF) money to improve the town. There was some discussion on the ambiguity of the application. It sounds like that’s an issue as there have been a lot of misconceptions with them. I struggle with these grants for a few reasons:
I have mixed feelings about the above, as I think the CRC members do too, but clearing up the ambiguity and making the applications more accessible would help with that. It’s ironic they’re having the discussion about the accessibility of the Facade Grant program when the link to the application is currently broken on the Town website. (I’ve included the link a couple of time here in case it is repaired soon. Culver’s Clerk Treasurer says there is a new site in the works, so updating the old site has become less of a priority.)
In a way, Facade Grants address blight. OCRA has a blight clearance program that specifically addresses blight, so maybe a separate CRC Blight Clearance program is appropriate. This could be a way of cleaning up properties that need it. By putting in place a specific program with criteria, it would allow the CRC to make decisions about moving properties in and out of the TIF districts when blight is addressed. Currently the Facade Grant program specifically excludes demolition, which is appropriate since demolition generally results in a lower assessed property value. (TIF districts capture the increased assessed value of properties when improvements are made, but they also suffer the losses created when a property in the TIF is devalued, i.e. through unrepaired fire and storm damage or through demolition.)
In my mind, if a Blight Clearance program is created, it should be expanded to include residential properties in Culver as well. While they would not be directly TIF related, there’s no doubt that the removal of derelict houses would improve the town as a whole. An incentive like this could be useful in motivating an owner to take the necessary steps, where the efforts to force things through the unsafe building committee have been unsuccessful. I’ve not researched this, so there may be pitfalls of which I’m not aware. Most Redevelopment Commissions make more use of the “things that benefit the TIF district” clause than Culver does.
I think the CRC is mostly on the right track with the Facade Grant Program, but as with most volunteer boards and commissions, they suffer a bit of ADHD, causing a flurry of activity around the latest “problem” and allowing last month’s topic to languish until a problem concerning it bubbles to the surface again. I am completely confident they can walk and chew gum at the same time. Keeping things on the agenda until they’re resolved might be the key.
0 comments