MCCF – Page 2 – Easterday Construction Co., Inc.

Deposit Dilemma

February 5, 2024 by Kevin Berger

One of the issues facing entry level workers is the issue of deposits. There is a deposit required for a rental unit. (In the case of a new home buyer, it’s the down payment.) There is a deposit required to get water turned on. There is a deposit required to get the gas turned on. There is a deposit required to get the electric turned on. For someone just starting out, this can be daunting. When someone moves, theoretically they’ll get their deposits back from the previous rental, but not before they have to put them down for the new place.

These have come about due to landlords, municipalities and utilities getting burned by tenants and homeowners skipping out on bills. For that reason, the justification for deposits is there. But… how often is this an issue in the first month when all the deposits are required? I would venture to say that 9 times out of 10, this is an end of occupancy issue, not a starting problem. Theoretically, the landlord renting to the tenant or the bank making the loan on a new purchase have vetted the tenant’s ability to afford their housing choice at least initially.

The new housing in Plymouth at Riverside Commons is geared towards lower wage earners. People that are good workers with steady income, but not at a level to afford good housing. These units are 100% electric and on city water and sewer, so there are only three deposits required. Unfortunately, Plymouth’s deposit requirement for water is $150. REMC, which provides the electric, has a deposit of $350, plus a $10 membership fee for the co-op. That’s $500+ in deposits without counting the rental deposit. This does not make it easy for a renter to move from substandard housing to the new units. The Paddocks in Culver runs into similar issues qualifying tenants, though I don’t think the start-up costs for water, sewer and electric are quite as high.

So, here’s what I would like to suggest for municipalities:

Municipalities create an account for delinquent and non-payed utilities. To put a number at it, I would suggest $10,000. In lieu of just being a line item, put this into an interest bearing account, so there is some modest growth. (Placing it with Marshall County Community Foundation would be a way to double down on doing good and possibly earn a bit more.)
Set the deposit rate at a number easily divided by 12. For example $120 in lieu of Plymouth’s $150.
Ask for the full deposit at hook-up as done now, with an option for half down and the remainder paid as a surcharge on the first 6 water bills. A convenience fee of a couple dollars could be added if deemed necessary.
- The Clerk would be better able to answer this, but I would assume that non-payment rarely happens in the first couple of months, but is more likely at the end of service when the tenant or homeowner has moved. By then, the deposit would have been fulfilled.
Put ALL utility deposits in the above interest bearing account.
- According to this site, there are 3,868 households in Plymouth. So, theoretically, there is an escrow account managed by the Clerk holding $580,200 in water & sewer deposits. If you reduced that to $120, as I suggested, then there’d still be $468,160 at any given time. Ignoring the current interest rate hovering around 5% (MCCF should be better), a 1% return would be $4,642 a year. That could cover quite a few no pays.
- According to this site, there are 592 households in Culver. (I think that’s pretty low and must be only counting fulltime residents.) Culver only has a $75 deposit, which is only about half again the cost of a minimum water/sewer bill. So, theoretically, there is an escrow account managed by the Clerk holding $44,400 in sewer & water deposits. Under the same conservative 1%, the return would be $444 per year. That’s not going to cover as much, but it would still cover some.
- I don’t know this, but I assume the current practice is to just mingle this money in the General Fund. That means the initial deposit is tracked for repayment, but any return (interest) on the General Fund account just goes back in the General Fund. If tracked separately, then that interest helps defer any non-payment costs. Obviously less effective in lower population municipalities, but still a factor.
- I also assume there are older accounts that had smaller deposit requirements, where the deposit has never risen. I’m just using round numbers, so the associated Clerks would probably want to set that straight, but I think the concept is reasonable. While I know that the utilities are supposed to be self-sufficient, every residential unit pays taxes to the municipality and over time, there is some reasonable cost of doing business.
Put all late fees in this account as well. This would act as an additional hedge.

The above isn’t a panacea, but it would help low-income workers with a hand up that shouldn’t hurt the municipality much, if any. If the same principles could be applied to private utilities and maybe even rents, then it would be an equitable way of solving the insurance provided by deposits, while reducing the penalty those deposits put on low income individuals and families. This is just the beginning of a thought on a possible solution… But I think it is something worth consideration and refinement.

LIHTC & Stellar

December 20, 2023 by Kevin Berger

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.

Riverside Commons – LaPaz, d.b.a. LaPaz Commons

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!

Impact Investing – READI 2.0

November 10, 2023 by Kevin Berger

I attended the introductory meeting on READI 2.0 presented by South Bend – Elkhart Regional Partnership (SEBERP) at the Rees Theater yesterday. Honestly, attendance was pretty poor, but there was some good information. READI 2.0 is a refined repeat of the original READI (1.0) program which was a refined repeat of the Regional Cities Initiative. In various forms, these programs have been designed to incentivize municipal and private investment in statewide goals. As with the past programs, READI 2.0 offers the carrot of up to 20% project investment matched by 20% local government investment and 60% private investment. Whether the entire 20% is granted depends on the quality of the project, its merit for meeting goals and its ranking among other submissions.

Sand Hill Farm Apartments was awarded Regional Cities Initiative (RCI) dollars. Those funds, though only 7% of the project cost, provided some incentive to move the project forward when Culver‘s first Stellar application was unsuccessful. The project was initially to be the LIHTC portion of Culver’s Stellar application. When that wasn’t successful, the RCI funds helped make the project viable as market rate housing. Moving this project forward has been noted as instrumental in Culver’s success with their second Stellar application. Unfortunately, Culver did not follow through on their commitment, so some of those funds never were disbursed by RCI and those that were got redirected to reimbursements in lieu of benefiting the project.

Culver Sand Hill Farm was awarded READI 1.0 dollars for Water Street Townhomes. This is a mixed use building with 11 two-bedroom townhouses, 2 one-bedroom apartments and a corner commercial space. We are still working with the City of Plymouth to create the structure to put those dollars to work. SEBERP awarded less than the initial request, but Plymouth is following through with their entire match in order to make this project possible.

Culver Sand Hill Farm also submitted a townhouse project for Culver, Spirit Townhomes, which was named in the READI 1.0 Strategic Investment Plan. Unfortunately, after the fact, Culver chose to partner with a different developer on the much larger and more controversial project, The Dunes. (Discussed here.) C’est la vie! Sometimes you reap what you sow.

SBERP will be putting in an application for READI 2.0 funds for our region after the first of the year. Yesterday’s meeting was one of several where they are soliciting input on what goals of the SEBERP region fit within the stated READI 2.0 goals. This will help them refine their application. They feel confident that their track record managing the Regional Cities Initiative and READI 1.0 funds put them in a good position to receive the maximum award from READI 2.0. The handout to the right was provided at the meeting, showing some of the impact these investments have had. $878 Million in project investment through those two programs, which is 9.5 times the investment from the State. (See the backside of the flyer here.)

There is a rural component to READI 2.0, directing that 25% should go to rural areas. Of the three counties in SBERP (St. Joseph, Elkhart and Marshall), only Marshall County is designated at rural. That doesn’t mean that Marshall County doesn’t have to have competitive projects, but it gives a 25% set-aside leg up. L:ast time, READI 1.0 projects were rewarded on population, which put Marshall County at a disadvantage.

One of the interesting changes in the program is the option for receiving a loan in lieu of a grant from the program. The funds could be loaned out at a reduced interest rate, with the funds paid back to SBERP for future reinvestment in the region. While the concept is a good one, the implementation appears to be flawed, from my perspective. As it currently stands, the loan would be capped at the same 20% level as the grants. While both a grant and a loan could be awarded, they cannot total more than 20% of the project. I will need to hear more about this, but my initial impression is that there is not much incentive to take the loan in lieu of the grant, but I may be missing nuances here. It would make some sense to see loan amounts allowed to be larger percentages since the money will be recirculated. Then there would be more incentive to take that option.

An interesting sidebar – not only did I sit with Linda Yoder, Executive Director of the Marshall County Community Foundation (MCCF), at the READI 2.0 meeting, I also followed that up with an MCCF meeting at her office to hear from MCCF’s financial advisor on impact investing options for the newly formed Roger Umbaugh Local Impact Investing fund. (More on this in a future post.)

Impact Investing seems to be a great way to influence desired outcomes. Great projects that are good for the community often flounder because the investor ROI isn’t there. If Impact Investing can influence that through grants, loans and other creative means, then it benefits everyone.

I don’t yet know if or how Easterday Construction Co., Inc. (ECC) or Culver Sand Hill Farm LLC (SHF) will participate in READI 2.0. The experience with READI 1.0 hasn’t been bad, but there have been a lot of strings attached to it after the award that weren’t factored into the original project. I’ve been approached about several projects that would fit under the READI 2.0 umbrella. I’ll continue to monitor this and continue to be part of the discussion. Whether ECC or SHF participate or not, it seems that it’s another great opportunity for Marshall County and Marshall County communities.

One Marshall County

October 16, 2023 by Kevin Berger

Marshall County Economic Development Corporation (MCEDC) and Marshall County Crossroads started conversations earlier this year about creating an over-arching organization to coordinate efforts throughout the county. This was looked at as the next step forward for Marshall County Crossroads. (Marshall County Crossroads seems to be faltering. Their website has not been updated since 2021. This is at least partially due to a lack of funding.) They created what was called the Collaborative Council, which has adopted “One Marshall County” as the name for the new organization. I was asked to join this group late in the game as they were missing input on housing; a target on the local, regional and State level. As I understood the initial mission, there were two main goals, 1) to try and coordinate the efforts amongst the various groups to better use funds and personnel, and 2) to form a united front and coordinated funding request when READI 2.0 project requests are announced.

While I’m generally supportive of the effort, I’m feeling a bit of Deja Vu’. I helped form the Second Century Committee in Culver. This came about around Culver’s bicentennial as a collaborative planning committee to coordinate the efforts of the various clubs, organizations and the town government. In Culver’s case, it was started as a subcommittee of the Chamber of Commerce. It did a lot of good things, including helping work through a charrette and motivating a new comprehensive plan. One Marshall County has bigger plans, and is looking for funding, but I don’t know that they won’t suffer from some of the same issues that came to plague the Second Century Committee.

The Second Century Committee had a core group forming a steering committee that pushed hard to get it started. There were regular meeting, agendas and great collaboration. But when the torch was passed to new steering committee members, the passion and vision didn’t follow. Without common goals, the group meetings changed from planning meetings, to just lunches. As the direction faltered, the group meetings had less and less participation, until they ended up being just the steering committee meeting amongst themselves. Then, instead of being the planning and vision for the collaborative group, the steering committee started doing projects on their own. Some of these were great, but without the help of the larger group, funding became an issue and the steering committee members became burned out. Their efforts to be independent from the chamber lost them some of their chamber support. In the end, they could not find replacements for the steering committee and the group withered and dissolved.

One Marshall County has more grandiose plans. They are requesting funding from municipalities and are planning to solicit businesses as well. They plan on having a director to make sure things proceed. I like what they are trying to do, but there are just a few drivers of the initiative and as with the Second Century Committee, I’m concerned what happens when those drivers are ready to step aside. I am also concerned that many of the groups they hope to pull under this umbrella organization are not currently involved in the planning. They can’t just assume that they will have to fall into place. As an example, Argos is not interested in participating and plans to go their own route.

My other concern is for MCEDC. As a founding member and past board member, I know the good that MCEDC has done and the gap that would be left without them. One Marshall County is targeting the same funding sources with MCEDC slated to fall under One Marshall County. That concerns me. For those not in the loop, and that includes a lot of those funding decision makers, it is going to be hard to differentiate between the two and justify doubling their contributions. (I understand the ask to be a match of what’s being giving to MCEDC for most of those involved.)

I will continue to be involved. The idea of One Marshall County is still evolving and I think it has potential. It’s just hard not to look at this through the lens of Culver’s, now defunct, Second Century Committee…

The Roger Umbaugh Impact Investing Fund

October 4, 2022 by Kevin Berger

A little history…

I’ve talked about my friend, Roger Umbaugh, a couple of times here. Roger was a past board member of on the Marshall County Community Foundation (MCCF). While on that board, he was also on the MCCF Investment Committee. When I joined the MCCF board, I also joined the MCCF Investment Committee.

One of Roger’s goals was to get MCCF into a better home. While the generosity of Key Bank was always appreciated, it was not always the best solution. On top of that, the Community Foundation had grown and needed more space than was available at Key Bank. When financing for the community pool project was under discussion, Roger found a way to finance it using New Market Tax Credits and to put MCCF in a position to facilitate this while also getting a new home as part of the deal.

Another of Roger’s goals was to see some of MCCF’s investment funds invested back into the community. He always thought it would serve two purposes… providing some income and doing good in the community. At the start, he didn’t know that there was a name for this: Impact Investing.

When the New Market Tax Credit project needed additional funding, Roger broached the subject of MCCF providing the funding gap as a loan. This resulted in $500k of Community Foundation funds be loaned to the project. This was a win-win for MCCF and project.

After Roger’s passing, I wanted to carry this forward for him. In his name, I championed designating the $500k as the start of an Impact Investing Fund. I also suggested that the fund be named the Roger Umbaugh Impact Investing Fund. The board voted to approve both measures. I have the feeling that this will be a draw to a different kind of donor for the Community Foundation. Another win-win.

This is still new. I have sat in on a seminar on Impact Investing. I have done a little research. There appears to be a lot of different ways we could approach this. At the last MCCF board meeting, I suggested that we should start this process by setting some goals which we’ll be doing in a future meeting. This seems to range from self-run scenarios to hands-off options where 95% of the heavy lifting is done using outside financial institutions.

So… I’m throwing this out here to see if there is any input from followers. This is your chance to add suggestions on how this new venture should be structured. Any ideas? Contact me by email (mail@easterdayconstruction.com) or feel free to use the comments.