Rants

Dance With The One That Brought You

by

This falls squarely in the Rant column here, so scroll on if that doesn’t interest you.

The other day I posted about the the READI grants we submitted. (here) The Water Street Townhomes project in Plymouth was part of an application that went in with the original READI call for projects in July of 2021. When I found out that Culver only had one small park project to submit, I asked if they would support a small housing project. I suggested 12 townhomes similar to those suggested for Water Street project. I was told a straw poll had 3 council members in favor and, “You be the lead if you don’t mind. I fully trust you.” This all came about last minute and I ended up spending a Saturday putting together a proforma and submitting an application. Spirit Townhomes in Culver was listed as part of the South Bend Elkhart Regional Partnership (SBERP) READI application submitted to IEDC.

I grew up in Culver and even though I live outside of Culver now, I still consider it my home town, since my business is here and my parents still live here. Most of you know my track record for participation and dedication to helping move Culver forward. (I started to make a list, but it seemed self-serving.) That’s why I participated in Stellar and partnered with the Town on Sand Hill Farm Apartments and The Paddocks, when no outside developers would. Both of those projects met or exceeded the goals the Town set for them. In the months leading up to the application deadline, I was told Culver wouldn’t be participating in READI. Then in the last couple weeks before the deadline, I was surprised by the Town of Culver’s decision to pursue a project with a different, out-of-town developer. I suggested submitting a version of the Spirit Townhomes too and was told there wasn’t time…

Dance With The One That Brought You…

This seems to be a pattern that is repeating. I don’t know if this is a conscious decision or just a careless oversight. In any case, it’s a noticeable departure from the stated goals of supporting local businesses. A couple other examples of which I’m aware:

There are two banks in town. The First National Bank of Monterey and First Farmers Bank & Trust have sponsored Town events, participated on committees, supported the Town by purchasing their bonds, cashing their checks and covered all the minor things such as providing change. The Town shopped their services, as they should, but in lieu of keeping the competition local, they went outside the town and ended up moving their money to Plymouth for minor advantages. Was it really worth it? Dance With The One That Brought You…

Good-To-Go brought in plans to the Culver TRC to demolish their existing building and put in a whole new service station which would have brought additional money to the TIF and improved the downtown. During that same time, an outside developer approached the Town about a new service station at the edge of town (outside the Town’s Comprehensive Plans stated goals), which would have damaged Good-To-Go’s business as well as that of the other convenience store in town. Their concerns were met with derision, including one council member chastising them about prices and telling them that they bought their gas in Plymouth. This was while Good-To-Go had a “Cavalier” pump set up with a portion of all sales from that pump going to the Culver Community Schools. Good-To-Go scaled their project back by half. The other developer’s project never came to fruition. Dance With The One That Brought You…

I’m sure some will read this as just “sour grapes” and maybe deservedly so. But with all three examples here, it’s a question of supporting those that support the Town, not with handouts, but yes, maybe with a little favoritism, in recognition of what local businesses do for the town on a day-to-day basis… As the saying goes, Amazon does not sponsor your little league team or have employees coaching it.

Culver Zoning 7/19 Update – Part 3

by

This is a continuation of my thoughts on the 7/19/22 Plan Commission Meeting. You can find the previous posts here and here. This one is more of a whiny rant, so if you’re not up to hearing me complain, it would be best to skip this post!

412 Lake Shore Drive

I own the property at 412 Lake Shore Drive. It is a postage stamp size parcel with a 100 year old kit home on it. The lot would be unbuildable by current standards. According to the Accessor, the lot is 38′ x 120′. There is an alley down one side which makes it a corner lot. 38′ minus 10′ Side Yard Setback, minus 25′ ROW Setback leaves 3′ buildable without some extreme variances. The home also sits well into the 25′ front setback.

Do you know how our lives are divided into pre-pandemic and post-pandemic now? Sometime pre-pandemic (2020), the adjacent property owner at 404 Lake Shore Drive built a fence on the property line. Before I even noticed it, then Plan Commission member, Marty Oosterbaan, pointed out that it was not built per standards. Chapter 6, Section 070, B.1. – Within the limits of a required front yard setback area, no fence shall exceed 5 feet in height and shall have a minimum of 50% of its surface open to permit visibility. The fence as constructed extends into the front yard setback area, thus in that area it is too high and does not provide 50% visibility. The Plan Commission directed Chuck DeWitt, then Building Inspector, to pursue a remedy.

Multiple things happened: 1) Covid and the associated lack of public meetings for the Plan Commission; 2) Mr. DeWitt left his position as Marshall County Building Inspector and took a job as Building Commissioner for Culver; 3) The property changed ownership; 4) Ginny Munroe replaced Jonathan Leist at Culver Town Manager; 5) Marty Oosterbaan stepped down from the Plan Commission (and there were other member changes as well.) Throughout this, I continued to bring this up to the Plan Commission every month or so. At one point, I even drafted a letter for their use citing the violations. When the property was on the market, the Plan Commission directed Mr. DeWitt to let the realtor know about the violation in hopes that it would get corrected as part of a sale. While there was an open building permit on the property, the Plan Commission requested that the Marshall County Building Department not provide a Certificate of Occupancy until the violation was corrected.

412 Lake Shore Drive

At the meeting on the 19th, a status report on this issue was requested by the Plan Commission President. Mr. DeWitt reported that he had inquired about this with the Town’s Attorney handling Plan Commission matters and was told there was no grounds for enforcing this issue. This was a shock to me as well as some of the commissioners!

And here’s the Rant… I’m not the guy that comes in and raises a stink at meetings. I have a lot of respect for volunteers and what they do for the community. I don’t call them out or try and embarrass them in public meetings. But this is part of a string of promises from the Town, that I have waited patiently on, that have not borne results. This happened with Sand Hill Farm Apartments, The Paddocks and most recently the READI Grant applications. I have trusted in the process and been disappointed again and again. While I don’t volunteer with the expectation of returns, it’s frustrating to lose property value and business opportunities to others who have contributed little or nothing to the community. I’ve always been optimistic, but pragmatic. My optimism is waning lately… and my pragmatism is transitioning to cynicism…

Audiologist’s Husband Rant

by
Rebecca L. Berger, AuD (Dr. Becky)
Doctor of Audiology

Just felt like venting a bit on Becky’s behalf. Becky has always loved helping people with their hearing. Her initial degree was in Deaf Education with a minor in Audiology from Ball State University. After several years of teaching, she found that it wasn’t right for her. She loved helping the children, but the administration and bureaucracy was too much. At that point we were living in Georgia. (Did you know that most teachers prepare a lesson plan for their class, while teachers of special needs students, such as deaf students, are required to fill out IEP‘s for each individual student?) We discussed it and she ended up quitting teaching and going to the University of Georgia and getting a Masters Degree in Audiology. Shortly after that we moved back to Indiana and she began practicing Audiology with a group of Doctors. While working with them, she went back to school again, obtaining her Doctorate in Audiology. She studied and understands the theory behind hearing aid technology and the anatomical parts of the ear, how they interact with the brain and how they all are affected by hearing loss.

With all Becky’s education came additional responsibility. As a Doctor of Audiology, she is under different regulations than hearing aid dispensers. She is governed by HIPAA regulations, Medicaid & Medicare regulations and other requirements; things dispensers don’t have to follow.( To be a hearing aid dispenser, there is a test you must pass with the State, but the minimum education is a GED, not a degree, let alone a Doctorate degree.)

The Doctors Becky worked for retired and she decided to go on her own. That was in 2015 when she started Berger Audiology. Less money, but more autonomy and more time to help patients. She invested in the latest technology. She is now the only full time Audiologist in Marshall County. She operates a satellite office in Winamac. But she struggles with the competition. She wrote a 2019 blog post about it here.

Since that time, things have progressively gotten worse. The government has been slowly chipping away at what differentiates an Audiology from a dispenser. On top of that, they are pushing a trend towards Over-The-Counter (OTC) hearing aide sales or even worse, over the internet. You’ve probably seen the ads by Lively which advertise a telephone consultation with an audiologist or worse, My Power Ear, which cites “no need to see an Audiologist” as a positive selling point. She’s seen patients that have bought hearing aids from big box stores, having been sold that they were getting “the latest technology”. In some cases that has turned out to be a generation or two old. Honestly she’s a bit depressed and upset every time one of those ads.

We’re all thrilled with the convenience of the internet and the ability to buy nearly anything you want from Amazon. But is this what we want for healthcare providers? Telemedicine may work for some things like getting a prescription refilled, but does it really replace hands on care? Or in the case of Becky, an Audiologist, how is a phone conversation prescribing a hearing aid equal to her, a trained professional, doing a complete physical examination and doing a hearing test in a calibrated sound booth, using the latest technology? Can they look in your ear an determine that your hearing loss is actually due to wax? Or that the type of hearing loss indicates that you need to see an ENT because there’s the potential for serious issues where hearing loss is just a symptom? Food for thought… or just my rant…

Lost Opportunity

by

This is a bit of a mini rant today. I’m not sure who it is directed at, but I’m disappointed with the Culver Redevelopment Commission (CRC) and the Marshall County Economic Development Corporation (MCEDC). And probably others for not making things happen and holding MCEDC accountable. For a bit of context for those that don’t know, I was one of the original board members that started MCEDC. For that reason, I feel like its creation is a bit of a legacy thing for me. That’s why I feel bad seeing it in decline over the last several years.  

I was pleased when the CRC added funds to support MCEDC a few years back, though I was never a fan of the laundry list approach, where the CRC dictated a list of things that must be done in order to receive those funds. In my opinion it would be better to keep MCEDC nimble and able to address the most pressing needs across the county rather than be encumbered by enumerated requirements. (How this began is understandable, as it was the result of the former MCEDC director’s broken promises.)  

This year the MCEDC director met with the CRC to discuss the contract early in the first quarter of the year. An initial conversation was had regarding what should be included with MCEDC to come back with a contract. This never happened.  

This is poor performance on the part of MCEDC. An inexcusable and disrespectful performance. But unfortunately, it appears that CRC is looking at this as a cost savings, rather than a lost opportunity. While I didn’t like the way the contract was written, it did provide MCEDC with funds and Culver with MCEDC’s attention.  

I’m concerned with MCEDC’s poor performance. I have seen this played out in other communities; not just Culver. I hope the MCEDC board is able to turn this around. MCEDC has been an asset to Marshall County and the communities within it. It is important that it becomes that asset again.

Residential Fire Sprinklers

by

I ran across an interesting article at QRFS.com’s Blog titled The Conflict Over Residential Fire Sprinkler Requirements which I found interesting. It does a reasonable job of laying out pro’s and con’s on the the cost of the systems themselves and their safety benefits. What it does not discuss is the additional regressive fees that communities are currently putting on these systems. This is often a hidden tax as well, i.e. one that’s not recognized until the bill comes after construction.

This is an argument I had with the Town of Culver last year. Sand Hill Farm Apartments has a Fire Sprinkler System. This is required by the State of Indiana. We also installed a fire hydrant on the property. This was not required, but just seemed like a reasonable way to terminate the line. (There is a fire hydrant adjacent to the site in the street, so there was no insurance benefit or coverage benefit to it. It was just there to flush the line.) Before construction was even complete, we received two invoices from the Town, one for $700 for having a Fire Hydrant and one for $1,200 (plus tax!) for having a Fire Sprinkler System. When I inquired about this, I was told that it was in the ordinance. It doesn’t cover material, maintenance, inspections, replacement or any other service. Paraphrasing: It is there to cover additional load and upsizing of the system to support the additional fire protection. These are arbitrary fees, i.e. it is the same fee whether one of these is installed in a single family home, a 24 unit apartment building or a 400,000 sf manufacturing facility.

Rough-in Complete on an apartment at The Paddocks. Sprinkler lines are in orange

This is not solely picking on Culver. Culver is just where it first came to my attention. While they are not as high, Plymouth has the same fees. Neither community allows for higher densities (as suggested in the linked article) or gives any other incentives; just punitive fees if these things are installed. They are also not capped, so if a developer/apartment building owner/homeowner would rationalize these fees as they stand and plan for them, there is no guarantee that they will not double or triple in the future. Being an arbitrary fee suggests that it can change arbitrarily as well. These fees are apparently suggested by the accountants doing the rate studies as a way of reducing fees charged to residents.

The forlorn fire hydrant that was removed from the Sand Hill Farm Apartments site

It cost $500 to remove the fire hydrant at Sand Hill Farm Apartments. Wasted money on top of the original installation, but a reasonable investment against $700 or more a year forever more. Again, there was no issue regarding coverage as there is a fire hydrant in the street in front of the building. It was installed on site as a way to flush the line where it terminated.

In my opinion, the assertions made about the additional costs for the system are specious. 1) The standard line size was used in the street in front of the apartments to provide the loop service and to supply the fire hydrant that would have been there regardless of the development. The line was not upsized due to the sprinkler system. 2) The whole point of the sprinkler system is to put out a fire before it spreads. Theoretically, a fire in one of the apartments would be extinguished before it spread to other units, using much less water than a building that could otherwise be engulfed in flames.

Furthermore, it would make sense to encourage sprinkler systems with incentives in lieu of penalizing them with regressive fees. 1) They improve life safety for residents. 2) They improve life safety for fire fighters. 3) They reduce fire fighting equipment costs. 4) They improve a communities fire rating, which helps all residents.

Townhouse unit under construction at The Paddocks

Because the State requires sprinkler systems in multifamily housing, the local community has building owners over a barrel. We took this into account for the Riverside Commons project planned for Plymouth. That development will be 100% townhouses. By using this model, with firewalls in-between units, the State requirement is void. This increases initial construction costs, but helps control yearly ownership costs.

At some point, as discussed in the QRFS article, fire sprinklers may be required in all residential construction. I cannot say this is a bad thing or that it doesn’t improve life safety. It is one more thing that contributes to the high cost of housing and is an expense that must be considered on any affordable housing project.