At last night’s meeting of the Culver Town Council, I again broached the subject of funding a new Comprehensive Plan. (See previous entries on this subject here.) Apparently the idea of pursuing a new income survey has been shelved, so it now becomes a budget item that will need to be funded internally. At the behest of Kathy Clark, I have approached the Culver Redevelopment Commission (CRC) about funding all or part of a new Comp Plan. I also discussed this with Jennifer Laurent at MCEDC and she concurred that this is a viable use of the TIF funds that the CRC controls. The CRC is interested in pursuing this, but they would like participation from the Town, thus my request last night.
I brought this issue up again before the Plan Commission last week and offered to make the request to the Council on their behalf. I think the Council understands the importance. I reminded them of the recent article in the Pilot News last week that discussed Plymouth’s effort to update their Comp Plan since their current outdated plan was limiting their ability to obtain grants.
The Comp Plan is such an intrinsic piece of the puzzle for everything from infrastructure maintenance and expansion, land development, zoning issues, grant pursuits and economic development that it is critical that we have an up to date plan. There once was a chart on the wall in the Council Chamber showing how everything flowed down from the Comprehensive Plan. That is still an important point of understanding that I think is often missed.
The Town Council made the decision to schedule a work session on this issue around the middle of next month once the new Town Manager is in place. His start date is scheduled for June 4th and I’m sure he’ll have a lot on his plate. I hope we can keep this issue near the top of the agenda. With the Town coming up on the budget season, I’m hoping that we can get some money set aside to provide a Comp Plan that will provide the necessary guidance for the community.
Follow up on Tamarack Road Annexation
January 30, 2023
Kevin Berger
Commentary, Culver, Politics
Community, Culver, Economic Development, government, Plan Commission, Town Council
This is a follow up on my previous post, Musings on Tamarack Road, regarding the Beachview Properties project. Just to reiterate, I’m basically indifferent to this project, other than I believe that in general, growth is positive for Culver.
There was a public hearing on the annexation for this project at the Town Council meeting, Tuesday, January 24th. I brought up my question about how Tamarack Road will be handled. Ginny Munroe, Culver Town Manager, answered this question saying that there were no plans for Culver to take in any of the Tamarack Road Right-of-Way. Ownership and maintenance would remain with Marshall County. She further explained that Culver would maintain the frontage on West Shore Drive.
This means that no maintenance or improvements to Tamarack Road will be included in the Financial Management Plan for this annexation. It’s a little dated, but this document provides some explanation of what’s involved with the Financial Management Plan on pages III & IV: https://iacir.ppi.iupui.edu/documents/Fullreport_fromWeb_wCover.pdf
Later in the discussion, in response to questions from the Culver Fire Chief, Terry Wakefield, the owner’s representative, Burke Richeson, indicated that the property will be gated and due to the size of the expected vehicles to be stored, there will be one entrance on West Shore Drive and one on Tamarack Road so they can pull through. This means this development will have an impact on Tamarack Road. I am unclear on whether the County has to consent to the annexation, but I would assume they would have concerns about increased traffic loads caused by the proposed project.
This in no way suggests that Culver is doing anything covertly. I have to assume the County is fully aware of this project and the upcoming annexation. After all, the Town Board and County Commissioners share the same attorney and it’s been in the press. It’s just a question of how this benefits Marshall County if it means they take on additional costs.
Shared ownership of streets and roads is always an issue. The coordination of services ranges from the minor, i.e. who plows the snow, to the major, i.e. when one entity decides it needs paved, how is the bill divided? In the case of paving, so much is tied to State funds, it becomes complicated when grant applications are made. Culver just recently has been through this with the west end of Jefferson Street…
The Council decided there were enough changes yet to be made to the plan that they tabled it. First of three reads are scheduled for the next meeting. I expect it will go through and the Tamarack “Can” will get kicked down the Road…
0 comments