Tag:Culver Redevelopment Commission
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.
Culver Redevelopment Commission & The Dunes
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.
Rose Among Thorns
I was at the Culver Town Council Meeting on the 9th. They appointed Lilly Arzola to the Culver Redevelopment Commission (CRC). She made a nice introduction and said that she is a life-long resident and now that her son is out of high school, she wanted to give back to the community. I think it’s great that she’s stepping up. My odd sense of humor can’t help but look at the make up of the CRC and the Town Council and wonder… Sally would be called a Rose among Thorns as the only woman on the Town Council. What would you call Marty Oosterbaan as the only man on the CRC now? Inquiring minds want to know!
Moving on…
The CRC has been more active than most redevelopment commissions. Often redevelopment commissions are accused of hording money, but the CRC has actively put their dollars to work in the community. It will be interesting to see what the new group decides to do as there is only one returning member this year. Of course, as always, I have opinions and suggestions! Here are a few:
Blighted Properties: There are five commercial properties in and around Culver that are constantly discussed as needing improvements. I’ll not be naming names here, but most of you reading this will have properties come to mind. In some cases, the CRC/Town have gone to the point of getting appraisals to consider buying them. They have also pursued them at tax sales and through the Unsafe Building Committee in Culver and Marshall County. They have been met with resistance from the owners who don’t see their properties in the same light. What if these property owners were approached as partners in lieu of adversaries?
- The Office of Community and Rural Affairs (OCRA) has Blight Clearance Program with grant opportunities for improvements to blighted properties. Possibly the CRC could champion one or more of these properties for improvement under this program.
- The CRC already has a Facade Grant Program. Why not look at expanding this program to include cleanup of properties such as these? I can envision some pushback as this would “enrich” the property owner, but why is this any different from the enrichment offered with a facade grant? In the grand scheme of things, this not only increases property values which will be recognized in tax assessments, but it adds value to surrounding properties which are likely adversely affected. Whether it’s a renovation, a clean up or a complete tear down, this would add value to the community.
- The CRC could also be the catalyst for change in a positive manner here. Provide those property owners with updated appraisals. Provide them with professional recommendations on what improvements would increase value. If appropriate, provide them with Phase I Survey information or sponsor them with Marshall County if that Brownfield Program is reinstated. Provide them with paths for better use of the property if those owners want to remain the owners and if not, provide them with resources for lucrative sales. Again, any of these options would have a positive effect on assessed value.
- For a few hundred dollars, the CRC could commission architectural renderings of ‘What could be’ if the buildings in question were improved. Sometimes it takes an outside eye to see the hidden potential. This could be the catalyst to any of the previous points above.
Expansion Opportunities: There are businesses in Culver that could expand with assistance. In some cases there maybe a lack of knowledge and in others it could just be a perception that the expansion wouldn’t be welcomed. Here are a few that come to mind:
- CabinetWorks sits on a large portion of the land Culver has designated as an Industrial zoning district. As far back as when McGills originally was there, that property was held for control of neighbors, potential future expansion or the potential for a complimentary industry partner. When was the last time the town met with CabinetWorks to discuss their plans or to encourage them to pursue expansion or assist them in finding that complimentary partner? Is the necessary infrastructure in place so that property would be considered “Shovel Ready”?
- Edge Mechanical, Skyline Builders, Sellers Services are among the many companies that have a large service presence in the Culver area, but do not have a physical facility here. Could the CRC help them start satellite facilities here?
- The Business Development arm of Culver Crossroads worked with the Small Business Development Center (SBDC) to identify potential businesses that would fill a need in Culver. One that fit that need strongest was a sporting goods store. Could the CRC champion recruiting for something like this? (Maybe this would be a chance to kill two birds with one stone and replace one of the above blighted properties with a new commercial venture.)
- Millers Merry Manor has property surrounding it that was slated for future expansion into an Assisted Living facility at one point. The CRC could approach them to see if these plans are still under consideration and what assistance the town could offer to make this happen. If that plan is no longer viable, what do they want to see there? Could the CRC assist them in finding other opportunities for that property?
Online Presence: The CRC contributed to the effort to bring SURF broadband to Culver. They could champion community education on how to take advantage of this:
- Sponsor classes that teach web development, online marketing and online sales. The Culver Chamber of Commerce has made several false starts at this, but the broadband access should make this easier.
- Sponsor upgrades to our town websites including those that represent the town, but are not strictly municipally controlled, such as the Chamber of Commerce, the Visitors Center, Discover Culver, the Historical Society, LMEC and others that are commonly searched when someone is trying to find out more about Culver.
- A presentation was made at their meeting on May 15th where a MACOG program for bringing remote workers to Culver was discussed. The CRC could sponsor a specific landing page for people considering that move listing all the positive things and all the options for help. (Most of this is out there already, but just not in an organized form. A good start for this could be made just by linking the existing resources…)
- Sponsor professional services to improve websites. It could be done similarly to the Facade Program where there would be matching funds. Just as improving building facades makes Culver more presentable when someone visits, having local websites more presentable will help increase visits.
Transition Assistance: Long time businesses that are fixtures in the community often disappear when there’s not clear transition path. Bennett’s was a long-time Culver business that closed last year. Was the town aware they were closing? Did the town offer any assistance to prevent that closure? Is the town working with them after the closure for a new occupant for that building? Another example would be the Evil Czech on the Davis Street. While the town benefited when the lot was donated to them, wouldn’t it have been better for the town if a replacement business was there?
- The CRC could implement a program similar to the BEAR (Business Expansion And Retention) program MCEDC uses to keep track of industrial users could be implemented locally with our current businesses. Touching base and understanding challenges, plans and goals would allow offers of assistance to be timely.
- The CRC could assist in finding buyers for businesses.
- The CRC could purchase transitional properties and improve them for sale or market them to desirable new ventures.
- The CRC could sponsor consulting services that would help a transitioning business make themselves more marketable.
Promote Viable Businesses: Often small business owners are too busy just keeping the doors open to even know what help is available. This goes along with the previous transition assistance with the CRC providing a clearing house of resources available to small businesses:
- Provide explanations and assistance in obtaining appropriate tax abatements.
- What is the difference between a Real Property Tax Abatement and a Personal Property Tax Abatement.
- Provide explanations on TIF Districts and how to access those dollars.
- Provide information on Facade Grants.
- Provide contacts for the Small Business Development Center (SBDC)
- Provide contacts for mentoring programs such as SCORE.
- Provide information and contacts on student assistance available through local schools.
- Provide information and contacts on student assistance available through local colleges.
- Provide information and contacts on State training dollars.
- Provide information and contacts on State intern programs.
I’m sure there are lots of other things and the new commission members will have come in with their own goals. That said, the CRC is a group that always has a lot of potential for making positive changes in Culver. I hope the new group takes that mission seriously and is able to make things happen. From the brief introductions, I think they are.
LIHTC & Stellar
December 20, 2023
Kevin Berger
Commentary, Culver, LaPaz, Marshall County, MCCF, MCEDC, Plymouth, Sand Hill Farm, Stellar
Community, Culver, Culver Redevelopment Commission, government, LIHTC, Marshall County Crossroads
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!
0 comments