Culver Library Woes
Starting with a disclaimer on this. I’m not taking sides on any of the “I’m with Esmie” debacle, because I don’t know the facts of the matter. That said, I work with three other libraries and I’m friends with 4 other librarians. I thought some of their comments were worth sharing:
- All of them have been amazed by the community support for Mrs. Rodgers. The number of names on the petition as a percentage of residents was staggering to them.
- All of them were dismayed by how the Library Board handled the situation.
- Two of them said, “Maybe our library should hire her!”
- One of them told me about attending a library symposium in Wichita, Kansas. When people found out she was from Indiana, she was asked, “What’s going on with the Culver Library!?”
- Three of them were shocked by the resignations.
- Three of them were concerned by the rehiring of Mrs. Rodgers before the hiring of a new director.
- Two of them express concern for the library’s director search due to the notoriety of the situation.
- Two of them noted that there are still “I’m with Esmie” signs around Culver after her rehiring. They said that those signs would be intimidating to anyone interviewing for the director’s position.
- Three of them said that at this point, they should just make Mrs. Rodgers the director.
I’m probably writing this a bit late. I don’t know the current status of the Library Director search, but my impression is it will be a challenge to fill the position. I’m not throwing shade on anyone involved, just noting that the eyes of the library world are on us, and in not the best light.
LIHTC & Stellar
At the December meeting of the Culver Redevelopment Commission (CRC), Linda Yoder, Executive Director for the Marshall County Community Foundation (MCCF), made a presentation on One Marshall County. One Marshall County is the new umbrella organization that Marshall County Economic Development Corp (MCEDC) has spearheaded. Linda and I serve on the collaborative council discussing this new initiative and Linda had volunteered to make the presentation of the need for One Marshall County before the CRC. This also included a request for funding.
There were a few math errors in the presentation, but one of these jumped out at me was during the discussion of Stellar and the investment that Marshall County Crossroads brought to local communities. The numbers quite clearly did not include the investment from tax credits provided by IHCDA. The Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) provided by IHCDA amounted to the biggest single project investment from any of the State agencies involved in Stellar. In all, through the tax credits and loans, Plymouth and LaPaz shared $14 million dollars of investment in their communities with Riverside Commons. That investment didn’t show up in the presentation numbers. This is no shade on Linda! She didn’t prepare the numbers…
This isn’t the first time for this. Culver received approximately $10 million in tax credits and loans for The Paddocks, but that number rarely shows up in their Stellar discussions. These would be huge contributors to the ROI discussion, since local investment in these projects was largely limited to in-kind waivers and some inhouse work. (Culver contributed nothing to The Paddocks project. Plymouth gave waivers on improvements to surrounding alleys. LaPaz waived sewer tap fees and secured matching INDOT funding to improve the street serving the project.)
I think there are a couple of reasons for this lack of acknowledgment: 1) The Stellar Committees don’t really understand the program and 2) Unlike many of the project which were directly municipal projects, i.e. parks, trails, etc., that required more active involvement, the LIHTC portion of Stellar is directly administered by the project developer, so there isn’t a pass-through of dollars. The LIHTC award creates a private project. Where there was some shifting of dollars amongst the other municipal projects within the Stellar awards, that was not an option with LIHTC.
Despite the success of The Paddocks in Culver’s Stellar Community program, Marshall County didn’t even include a LIHTC request in their first application for Stellar Region. I had lobbied for its inclusion and felt that the group slighted IHCDA by not accepting their offer. I lobbied a little harder in their second attempt and Riverside Commons was included in that application, which was successful. This was probably not the only reason, but I firmly believe it contributed to the success of the second application.
There have been some complaints about The Paddocks, but The Paddocks has met or exceeded all of the metrics set forth for it. The same can be said for Sand Hill Farm Apartments, the precursor project that made Culver Stellar and The Paddocks possible. It’s too soon to document that for Riverside Commons, which has different goals, but I have no reason to believe the results will be different. As far as community acknowledgement, the LaPaz and Plymouth councils have done a great job of recognizing Riverside Commons. They each have a Stellar agenda item on their council agendas and request updates for each meeting. Culver did not include The Paddocks in their Stellar reports to the council.
I think it’s a missed opportunity when the LIHTC investment is not celebrated and included in the ROI… But then, I’m obviously biased!
Little Pink Houses…
After the last Culver Town Council meeting, John Mellencamp‘s Pink Houses song was in my head… “Little Pink Houses… for you and me!” Though on reflection, a couple of Talking Heads‘ more angry song lyrics might have been more appropriate, i.e. “Burning Down the House!” or “This is not my beautiful house!”
A local resident rose to speak during public input. Apparently just recently finding out about The Dunes (seriously!?), she had many concerns, not the least of these being aesthetics. She wanted to see what the buildings were going to look like. She didn’t want a bunch of cookie cutter houses looking all the same. (What, like The Riggings, Chadwick Shores, The Harbour or The Cove?) Paraphrasing here, she used a line similar to what has been used from multiple perspectives and variations against The Dunes, “That isn’t Culver!” Really? What is Culver? She made reference to living on South Street. The last lake home on South Street, the Shaffer house, was demolished within the last month as it is about to be replaced by something new. In many ways, THAT is what Culver has become. A continuing renaissance of demolition and replacement.
Back in 1998, Culver hosted a Charrette, where some themes were identified. Recommendations were made on things that should be highlighted. One of these was the use of field stone, which prompted the pillars for the Welcome to Culver sign at 10 & 17 and covering the wall at the Lake Shore Drive curve with stone. Even recently, this theme has been continued in the developments at Sand Hill Farm (Stone facades at The Paddocks & Sand Hill Farm entrance sign) and with the wall replacement completed by Boo Marshall & Paul De Benedictis on Lake Shore Drive. But there was never a directive or ordinance requiring compliance. Thus within a year or so of the Charrette, Bob & Mary Tanguy built Mary’s Shoppe, now the Culver Academies Museum, on the southeast corner of Main Street and Jefferson Street. (As another recommendation, the Charrette discussed the need to follow the existing downtown character with infill development, but Tanguys were allowed to do what they wanted.)
Where do we draw the line on such things? Culver has very few zoning requirements that apply to aesthetics. The first two that come to mind are the height restrictions (no, it’s not a fire department requirement) and side yard requirements that mostly are there to keep similar aesthetics in similar neighborhoods. On the lake, there is currently a line-of-sight front setback restriction which is mostly aesthetic. (And is currently under review for removal from the ordinance.) Culver has a grass ordinance and the unsafe building ordinance has been stretched to cover aesthetics, but other than that, residents are mostly free to do as they please. Much to some people’s chagrin, there used to be a pink restaurant building on Lake Shore Drive, a yellow house on the south side of the lake, a yellow & orange house on the east side of the lake and now there are a few that are nearly completely black. To each their own!
As it has been discussed so far, The Dunes will be built out by the developer, so all decisions on construction styles will start there. It will have a Home Owners Association (HOA), which would control such things as colors and landscaping, if they want. (In reality, the developer plans to hold ownership on the majority of the properties and thus would have control of the HOA decisions.) All those decisions will be made based on their ability to wring the most profit from rentals and sales. I personally don’t agree with their decision to face all of the houses inward to the property with no front doors on South Main Street, but it’s their property, so they can do as they please. The decision to make the project self-contained makes the complaints about cookie cutter houses even less salient. As with all HOA style developments, buyers and renters know what they are getting when they move in. Some people like every property the same and under control, thinking that makes their neighborhood better. Isn’t that what the local ‘Walking Ladies’ hoped for when they would call out properties that didn’t meet those elusive Culver standards?
Due to the comments of this resident, the Town Council suggested asking for some renderings of buildings (reasonable) and maybe asking for a model of the property (totally unreasonable!). But before going too far with this, the council and residents need to ask how far they really want to go? Is this standard going to be the new one throughout Culver? Much like an HOA, is the council going to dictate paint colors, shingle colors, roof materials, siding types, etc. throughout Culver? Would the resident complaining about this, want that standard applied to her home?
Burning Down the House contains another line that might be salient here: “Ah watch out… you might get what you’re after.”
CRC Facade Grants
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:
- In the past, CRC members have literally gone up and down the street trying to talk people into using these grants. While I think they should be a tool to encourage businesses (buildings) to make necessary repairs and improvements, I don’t know that the dollars should be treated as a line item that the CRC must spend every year. Letting some build-up in that fund would let them do more when there’s a need. (Building up funds may be harder now that there is a State required yearly budget…)
- The grants should be used as an incentive and not just a reimbursement, i.e. when someone has already completed work or is in the process of doing so, let them be! They obviously had budgeted the work and had it covered. Maybe talk to them about incentives to do more, but don’t retroactively give them grant money. (If they have already begun the work, they can’t even meet the preliminary minimum requirements expected of a normal applicant.)
- The grant area should be expanded outside the TIF districts more often. It’s common for other CRC funds to be used outside the TIF district for “things that benefit the TIF district”. Improving the facades throughout town benefits the ambiance of the whole town in the same way.
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.
Municipal Services
December 26, 2023
Kevin Berger
Commentary, Culver, Politics
Community, Culver, government, Plan Commission, Town Council
One of the things that continually comes up in response to the controversy regarding The Dunes, is the State requirement that municipalities provide utility service to annexed properties within 3 years. The parcels The Dunes is being built on, plus the next parcel south were annexed into Culver around 13 years ago. This was done when Culver Garden Court was being built. The Town is remiss in providing water and sewer to these properties. Granted, they hadn’t asked for services before and as I understand it, the south property doesn’t particularly want services, but it is an obligation the Town accepted in their annexation plan which included a fiscal plan on how to pay for the utility extensions.
The initial impetus for this annexation was to bring Culver Garden Court into Town and provide utility service to support the project. As often happens, politics entered into this. The then Clerk treasurer had just moved to the southernmost property. So the annexation was expanded to include that parcel, else she would have had to resign her position as she would no longer be a resident. Doubling down on this, Culver has annexed the property on the south side of the Masonic Cemetery and that property owner HAS requested utility service. As I understand it, Culver has sufficient utility capacity for this extension, though it will use a significant portion of the capacity reserve.
I have no issue with any of the above. But the conversations regarding the municipal obligations do cause me some concern. If those are truly an issue, there is another ticking timebomb for Culver…
As with most of us, my life is now divided into prepandemic and post-pandemic, so I’m going to forego the research on the timeline beyond that as I talk about the property owned by Culver Investment Corp outlined in cyan and yellow on the adjacent map. (Also known locally as ‘The Beste Property’.) Prepandemic, Culver was presented with a plan for a PUD development at the Northwest corner of Town. This would take in most of the unannexed area within S.R. 17 and S.R. 10. Along with that area (72 acres), the PUD included 14.6 acres of land on the north side of S.R. 10. The majority of this land was to be residential, a continuing Town priority, with the parcel north of S.R. 10 slated to be a gas station/convenience store (area in cyan on the adjacent map). As part of that negotiation with the developer, Culver had sufficient utility capacity, but the developer would be responsible for extending utilities to serve the property. Overall, this was a positive for Culver. I didn’t have any issues with the project, though I did have a few issues with it holding up Sand Hill Farm Apartments and with the treatment of existing business, Good to Go. The property was annexed and a Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezoning was approved.
The project stalled shortly after that. No doubt the pandemic was a factor, but I suspect there were other issues as well. The Plan Commission gave the developer several extensions, but in the end, the PUD was rescinded this year (’23) and the land was rezoned back to S-1, Suburban Residential, as it was prior to the PUD. Shortly after the PUD was rescinded and the rezoning was completed, the property went on the market.
This brings me to my concern: The properties were never combined and are listed for sale individually. Culver Investment Corp is not doing any development of these properties, so the development agreement with that corporation is null and void. If the 6.7 acre parcel at the north east corner of S.R. 17 and S.R. 10 sells and is developed, Culver must run utilities to that parcel per State annexation requirements. (Culver would be unable to deny a permit for a house on that property per current zoning.) It would appear the nearest utilities at 4/10ths of a mile away… as the crow flies… There are no easement provisions to get utilities to this property. Right-of-way access would require INDOT cooperation, which can be tedious at best and require nearly a mile of utility extensions without even considering the need for a water loop.
I have not seen or heard anything about this in public meetings, but this seems to be a potentially large budget item. One potential solution, would be to de-annex the property, but I would suggest that’s not best for Culver either. Having control of that area is important. That was discussed extensively with the Comprehensive Plan Committee. (There was also extensive discussion about increasing our extra territorial boundary.) Getting together a new fiscal plan for the area would seem to be another important step. Culver can’t be completely distracted by the growth on the south side of town and ignore this 86 acre area on the north. That could come back to bite us.
Edit 4-3-24 – This past weekend, I was contacted by a Culver Town Council member regarding this post. The Town Council and their attorney believe my conclusions here are in error. They’re determination is that the development agreement with Culver Investment Corp. is still in force and Culver Investment Corp. is in default. The Council has signed and recorded a resolution affirming their rights of enforcement. I’m pleased that they are looking into this and are pursuing remedies. As attorneys are fond of saying, “Time is of the Essence.” I sincerely hope their interpretation proves to be correct.
0 comments