Culver

Exit Interviews for Businesses

by
Max’s Playhouse (before)

Brandy Pohl announced the closing of Max’s Playhouse late last year. We worked with Brandy and her Architect, SRKM Architecture, on the remodeling required to bring the buildings up to early childcare standards in 2019-2020. (See this 2019 post after getting BZA approval.) We completely changed the look of the old duplex to give it a modern, clean, professional feel. We became friends and her business journey has been of interest to me. No one can accuse Brandy of not being passionate about her business and childcare in general. It was sad to see her journey in Culver end the way it did.

Brandy posted an offer to explain what transpired, causing the business model to fail, to anyone interested. This was to tell her story about why she closed, how she got to that point, and how she saw that affecting Culver. Only three people from Culver responded and in the end, only two of us showed up.

Max’s Playhouse (after)

I am not going to attempt to tell Brandy’s story. It is hers to tell. But what struck me is that this isn’t a story about just a failed business. She has other similar businesses that are successful in other communities. This is a story of a business that couldn’t make it in Culver… A business that was struggling and, openly and publicly, questioning its ability to continue in Culver, while posts on Culver’s list serve, TGL, were asking for additional childcare facilities.

This was a somewhat unique opportunity. Unless there is a public statement about a retirement, most businesses close quietly. Business failures, even when beyond the owner’s control like this one, are hard to talk about. They usually involve financial costs and sometimes worse, like in this case, shattered dreams. I was disappointed there were no elected officials that took Brandy up on this. (Marty Oosterbaan was there from the CRC.) I’m not privy to whether they have met privately with her, but this seemed like a forum where they should have been represented. This was the chance for a rare, business exit interview.

The town is embarking on a new downtown redevelopment study. As I understand it, this is geared towards several goals, two of the most prominent being; 1) filling vacant commercial buildings and 2) preparing existing and new businesses to serve the growth expected from The Dunes development. Bringing in new businesses is much tougher than supporting existing businesses, and while not directly in the downtown target area, Culver just added another business vacancy with the loss of Max’s Playhouse. There doesn’t seem to be a question that this was a needed service.

I’ve learned from Brandy that childcare is a difficult business in Indiana. Unlike what we are hearing about the Minnesota debacle, there is excessive oversight paperwork, with many standards to meet. On top of that, it would appear that the rules change, at a minimum with every administration, but in general every year or so. That’s a tough model within which to work.

I would suggest that Culver could work on some form of business exit interview strategy. You would hope that there is communication before it comes to the point of a business closing, but if not, there should be an attempt to learn from any turnover happening. This could be something that the new consultant helps develop. Having the consultant do some of these along with a town official could provide valuable insight. A perfect example: How valuable would it be to the NFP group trying to revive the theater to know the personal and financial challenges that caused the theater to close? Others that fulfilled a perceived need that would merit a conversation, would be: 1) The Bennett family, who recently closed a second generation contracting and appliance business, 2) Don Baker, who ran a bicycle shop (Which seems like a natural fit with the push for trails and other outdoor recreation.), 3) Kyle Pugh, who ran the Axe to the Max axe throwing venue (Another entertainment venue that is a perceived missing piece in Culver.), and 4) George & Tammy Pesek, who moved the Evil Czeck Brewery (Another popular request.) and the Corndance to South Bend.

In the past, MCEDC has helped fill this role with their BEAR (Business Expansion And Retention) interviews, but MCEDC’s focus is more industrial. Also, when interviews are conducted, they need to be done in a friendly, open manor, rather than accusatory. Town officials can’t be offended when shortcomings are pointed out. Often, to the town’s credit, some of the shortcomings I heard turned out to be communication issues not actual deficiencies, i.e. there was a program or other service available of which the business was unaware. Culver generally does a good job of communicating, but respectful non-defensive listening is a part of that.

In whatever format, asking what businesses need in order to thrive is never a wasted effort, but it can become wasted if there is no follow up. In most cases, the exit interview is too late, but ongoing conversations could help eliminate the need for them.

Culver – Downtown Redevelopment

by

The Culver Redevelopment Commission (CRC) will be having a special meeting this Wednesday at 6:30. (See the notice to the right.) They are really making an effort to get a good turnout, thus the venue move to the School Admin Building.

The presentation will be from a company called Retail Strategies. They are one of three firms that responded to an RFP the town manager put out earlier this year. As you can see from the announcement, they are proposing to provide consultation on downtown revitalization for Culver, particularly looking at the two downtown corridors on Main Street and Lake Shore Drive.

The discussion at the CRC has been to look into what can be done to make our downtown areas more successful as a first step with future expansion to the rest of the town. This is partially a response to The Dunes and how to provide services for the additional full time residents the town hopes to attract.

I have a conflict, so I won’t be there for this presentation. My two thoughts on what I would have liked to hear are:

  1. The concentration on the downtown areas is fine as a first step, but that shouldn’t be done without also looking at the town as a whole and how everything fits together. Too often Culver falls into a one step back before two steps forward pattern. Inefficient at best. Generally costly too. I know we have a rough framework of what should happen in the town as a whole from the Comp Plan, but making sure any sub-plans fit holistically into the master plan is important. How will this concentrated plan fit?
  2. The thing Culver needs more than another analysis (We’ve been analyzed more than Tony Soprano!) is an implementation plan the town can actually do. Culver did great things with Stellar, but has somewhat stalled since then. The impetus to move things forward has to come from the Town Council. I’m not sure that they have the same fire that was there for Stellar. A restating of the problems we already recognize won’t hurt, but it’s that next step towards action that matters. Will the Town Council be at the meeting and will they step up?

This is meant for the downtown merchants, so I hope they step up too. This could be a major benefit to them, but only if they participate and help work the plan. I appreciate the Town Manager and CRC taking this on. They can’t just do it though. They need active participation and help from those affected. The town can assist in this, but the merchants and property owners have to take the reins at some point and make it happen.

Innovate Indiana Series

by
Suzanne Jaworowski

Easterday Construction is a member of the Indiana Chamber of Commerce. As such, I was offered the opportunity to share their table at two Innovate Indiana presentations in South Bend. Both featured Suzanne Jaworowski, Indiana Secretary of Energy and Natural Resources, as the key note speaker. The presentation was moderated by Gerry Dick of Inside Indiana Business, so it presented a pro-growth vision for Indiana. This series was one of several done in various regions of Indiana.

There were a few others from Marshall County present, though I only recognized people from Plymouth and Culver. One of them spoke in the morning round-table session and made the comment that they were afraid that our County is becoming the County of “No”. It was a bit disheartening to hear a titter go around the room followed by one of the people from downstate responding something to the effect of, “Oh, we know that well!” Ugh! Not what you want to hear.

That rolled into Ms. Jaworowski’s follow-up comments. These were the key take-aways for me:

  1. Energy production is a priority of the current presidential administration and Indiana wants to step up to this challenge.
    • Indiana is promoting an “all of the above” position on energy. We still have coal-fired plants, but most of them have been upgraded and while not environmentally perfect, they are not the dirty coal plants of yesteryear. We also have productive gas-fired plants that perform well. We are expanding solar and wind energy production and looking into nuclear power. None of these are THE solution, but they can all be complimentary.
  2. Data Centers are critical to the growing AI industry and another priority of the current presidential administration. The President has specifically called out Indiana as a State primed for data center construction.
    • Indiana is a prime location for data centers due to our position within the country and our access to the electrical grid. We also have generally good internet infrastructure. The power solutions listed above add to the attractiveness of our State.
    • Indiana has taken a position requiring data centers to provide projections of their ultimate electrical needs and requires them to provide 80% of the upgrades necessary to provide for those needs. Most utility companies are taking this a step further and requiring them to provide 100% of the upgrades before any power is turned on. Locally, in the case of AEP, they require the data centers to pay the ultimate use bill from day one, before they have ramped up to that need, in order for AEP to guarantee that capacity down the road.
    • Ms. Jaworowski indicated that this should lead to rate reductions for current rate-payers in Counties with data centers. An advantage our County of No will not have.

There was a round table discussion at lunch that talked about the need to be forward thinking and support businesses that support the communities. The role of the Regional Development Authority (RDA) was discussed. The RDA has made great strides, but is still far from the goals it has set for itself.

Absent from these meetings were elected officials from Marshall County. Elected officials from our other regional partner counties where there, which puts us at a disadvantage. Marshall County often seems to be treated like the redheaded step child. The failure of our elected officials to participate won’t help that.

Culver Zoning Revisions II

by

I wrote about the current round of revisions to the Culver Zoning Ordinance here. They were discussed and tweaked at the September meeting of the Plan Commission. A public hearing was held at the October Plan Commission meeting and a vote to send them on to the Town Council for approval was passed. As always, before I gently criticize, I want to start by giving kudos to people that volunteer for posts such as the Plan Commission. I appreciate them stepping up to work that is generally thankless. I always want to give them consideration and I will defend them on this, even when I don’t agree with them.

As a person that tends to attend meetings and pay attention to what’s going on, I don’t have a lot of patience for those that complain about things happening without their knowledge, when it has been advertised and presented in public meetings. Culver is above average in asking for input in most cases. In this case I may fault them for some large changes to the Zoning Ordinance that were probably not adequately advertised. As stated in the meeting notice to the right, a public hearing was properly advertised for “…amending the Culver Zoning Ordinance to correct clerical errors and make revisions.” I don’t fault them for thinking that what they added/changed were minor improvements, but not everyone will see them that way. That agenda item sounds pretty innocuous and for the most part it is, but there are a few things included that may end up causing some controversy:

  1. The first, which I mentioned in a previous post, is the change in accessory structure height for the S-1 District. This was a specific request from the farm community that has been carried forward. It allowed a 50′ accessory structure height without need for a variance. This was to accommodate grain legs on silos. Since that time, Culver created a specific AG district, but there is still some farmland within the S-1 district. Interestingly, the AG district only has a 35′ height allowed, but I’m pretty sure both should be at 50′ per previous conversations. This is a minor issue for these districts and are an easy accommodation to the farm community. Since a future goal in the Comp Plan is to expand our extraterritorial boundary, it just makes sense to play nice with that community. Slipping in a change is not playing nice. The Town Manager has been having meetings with the farm community, so a heads up on this would have been good.
  2. Another that may cause a stir with the extraterritorial land owners is eliminating the average setback requirement on lake frontage. This sentence being eliminated is, “Where property immediately adjacent on either side of the lot is already developed with principal structures, the required setback shall be determined by a line drawn between the farthest extension of the adjacent structures including any decks or raised patios.” Admittedly, this has been a controversial requirement and has spawned many BZA hearings, but it has been in place for decades. Many houses have been forced back from the lake because of this rule. House shapes have been changed to meet this rule. Where variances were requested, neighbors howled and called foul!!! I would be extremely upset if I had been forced to follow this rule sometime recently only to find out that it had been eliminated on a whim…
  3. Under the Development Standards and under Definitions, a new “Institutional” category was created and defined. This has been discussed for years and under the previous building commissioner, there was a subcommittee of the Plan Commission formed to work on this. At that time, the thought was that it affected both the private school and the public schools so representatives of both were included in the discussions. The new definition excludes the public schools, stating it is “Specifically for Culver Educational Foundation…” I don’t know if the public schools were consulted before being excluded, but it would seem they should be part of this.
  4. Under Intent, the language that set a minimum front yard setback of 10′ has been removed in favor of allowing the Building Commissioner to determine an “average” and allow that as the setback. This seems loosely defined and a potential issue. I understand the intent, which mostly refers to the average setback on a block and realistically one side of the block. But lawyers will be lawyers, i.e. block, neighborhood or zoning district? Both sides of the street? What if there’s an alley breaking up the block? Average implies the mathematical definition, but the intent is when 4 of 5 houses are 5′ off the sidewalk, the 6th one can be 5′ off the sidewalk too, but that’s not the “average” if one of the original five is setback 25’…
  5. Under definitions: Nuisance Building – Includes structures with appearances that detract from the neighborhood (such as properties that are not properly maintained, abandoned, structures covered with graffiti, or vacant buildings), as well as properties that present safety issues (such as fire-damaged buildings or structures that remain partially built or partially demolished). Nuisance Real Property – IC 32-30-6-6 While it references Indiana Code, this definition goes farther than the code definition. While I don’t particularly have a problem with the definition, I have to question why it is being added and how it is intended to be used. My concern is that it portends an expansion of the duties of the Unsafe Building Committee, which already often ventures into aesthetics verses safety. First off, area of aesthetics slippery slope, extremely subjective, and being fair with them is tough. Second, for some reason, this seems to be an area where Culver is all stick and no carrot… It would seem to be more productive to help find tenants for vacant commercial buildings and with our shortage of houses, help find new residents for vacant homes.

There were only a few people at the hearing in on Tuesday. For those of us that did attend, they didn’t have copies of the proposed changes for us to review. They also voted to waive reading them aloud at the meeting. When the notice leads by saying, “…correct clerical errors…” it’s not too surprising that there was no one there to listen, even if it had been read aloud. I had already commented on 1 & 2 at the September meeting and they said there was no agenda on 4. In the spirit of Culver seeking input, it would seem that some notice should have been given to the Township Trustees, the school superintendents, the Lake Maxinkuckee Environmental Council and the Lake Maxinkuckee Association. That would have allowed information to be circulated to those affected. My sense is that may well have increased the attendance and audience participation!

The list of changes is 9 pages long… The five I listed above are the ones that jumped out at me as potentially controversial or difficult to administer, but that doesn’t mean others aren’t affected by more of them and might have comments on them. Because this is a change to an ordinance, the Plan Commission is only sending on a recommendation to the Town Council. The council then adopts, rejects or sends the changes back to the Plan Commission. I believe that requires another public hearing, so there’s still time. We’ll see how it goes.

Finally, I want to reiterate my commendations to Mr. Gorski for tackling this. My commentary here is in no way meant to diminish the work he put in. Sometimes you can’t know or glean the history and the historical reasons may or may not be pertinent, but should be explored never the less. He is on his way out, leaving the Building Commissioner position after three years. I want to wish him the best in his future endeavors.

Disannexation

by

A new word! This isn’t one I was familiar with, though the meaning of “disannexation” is pretty self-evident. Here’s an excerpt definition from Justia:

The property in question is part of the 70+ acres owned by Culver Investment Corp which was annexed as part of a mixed use PUD project at the northwest side of Culver. (Outlined in cyan and yellow on the GIS map to the right.) The project proposal included a large residential subdivision for most of the property and a gas station/convenience store on the NE corner of the intersection of SR 10 & SR 17. A preliminary PUD plan was presented and the developer entered into a development agreement with the town, which included the annexation. Since that time, the town has rezoned the property back to S-1, Suburban Residential, The developer has sold the north two parcels which are on the north side of SR 10 to two different purchasers and the remaining property has been on the market for some time.

It will be interesting how the Culver Town Council handles this. Disannexation seem counter to the reasons it was annexed in the first place and counter to the Comprehensive Plan, which includes developed uses for this property as part of Culver and expansion of the extraterritorial boundary based on this annexation.

The suggested disannexation is roughly the middle third of the overall property, parcel 502117203032000022 on the adjacent map, that was in the original annexation. If this goes through, this effectively creates a non-contiguous annexed area north of State Road 10. There are a few exceptions to the contiguous rule during annexation, but the exceptions generally apply to industrial parks and municipal properties. A brief search online didn’t turn up any consideration for creating orphan annexed property no longer contiguous to the town limits.

Disannexation Plat

I wrote about this a while back in a post here: Municipal Services As stated in an update at the bottom of that post, the town believes Culver Investment Corp is still responsible for extending services. I am not an attorney, but I do continue to have questions about that. Allowing this disannexation before having a resolution of the utilities issue would further complicate this in my mind. I would assume the new property owners have an expectation of utilities from the town. The town’s remedy for supplying these utilities would be the Culver Investment Corp Development Agreement. Messy at best…

I know it might be expedient to allow this disannexation and to pursue disannexation of the properties across SR 10, but my opinion is that would be a mistake. Culver should control these areas and particularly the intersection there. Culver is in somewhat of a growth phase, so giving up property control seems counterproductive to that. I hope the Council looks at the Comp Plan and the work that went into it before making a rash decision here. Time will tell…