Tag:Volunteering
Remote Workers
Inside Indiana Business reported that three Indiana Cities took positions in the Wall Street Journal’s list of Top Ten Places for Remote Workers: Evansville was #3, Lafayette was #5 and Fort Wayne was #10. The topic of remote workers comes up often at the Culver Crossroads meetings. While Culver has done a lot to become attractive to remote workers, I’m not sure we’ve done much to actually attract remote workers.
Culver saw a lot of remote workers during the pandemic. Not surprising that a community of second homes became a desirable location to shelter-in-place. One advantage that Culver had over the cities listed above (for sheltering in place) was our small size. We have many of the necessary amenities without the large population. We undoubtedly missed an opportunity to capture more of those remote workers.
While we have boosted our amenities, we can’t compete with small city amenities such as colleges. (Though to some extend, Culver Academies fills a lot of that gap. That’s not necessarily obvious to someone looking in from the outside.) What we should do is promote our proximity to these. Two of the above cities, Lafayette and Fort Wayne, are within 75 miles of Culver. Lafayette gives us proximity to Purdue. South Bend and Notre Dame are 45 miles away. Chicago is only 76 miles away! Michigan Wine Country is only 76 miles away. We’re only 100 miles of Indianapolis. Yet we only continue to promote Culver as a destination. The Culver Visitors Center promotes itself as Find Culver.
What if we were to also promote Culver as a hub? Marshall County Economic Development Corporation has been doing this with manufacturers for years, pointing out the manufacturing centers and vast population within a 200 mile radius of Marshall County. (One of those interesting statistics is that there are more people within 200 miles of Marshall County, IN than within 200 miles of Atlanta, GA.)
I know we’re still working on things and there are some issues, such as broadband, yet to be solved, but I don’t think it’s too soon to talk about why Culver is a great place to live, not just a great place to visit. This is an across the board thing. Look at the sign CabinetWorks has promoting working in Culver (above) and the image from their website promoting Culver itself (right). How do we extend their suggestion of working in Culver to living in Culver. Culver assisted Sand Hill Farm Apartments and The Paddocks bringing in workforce housing. They are in the process of helping two other developers bring in upper income housing. Is it possible to broaden the Culver Visitors Center’s mission to include finding new residents, not just visitors?
12/27 Culver Town Council Meeting
After the quickie Blue Zones vote at the last council meeting (See Earlier Post), councilman Rich West requested that it be added back to the agenda for this meeting. Six people spoke for the program including myself. Other than two councilmen, no one spoke against it. After the discussion, one of the councilmen reversed themselves and it was funded at a lesser level, $15k, in a 3:2 vote. It was made clear that this did not change the pledge of $25k in each of the following years.
Though it’s good that they changed their position, there were still repercussions. Ginny Munroe tendered her resignation as Town Manager due how this was handled. Not only was the public, the Crossroads Committee and the Blue Zones groups blindsided by this decision, Ginny was as well. The town will struggle to replace her and is unlikely to find an “employee” that has the passion for Culver that Ginny has exhibited through her tenure as Town Council President and then Town Manager. None of the past town managers have and it’s unlikely that the next one will. I’ve told Ginny several times that good leaders leave a legacy and there is no doubt she has left her mark on Culver. In the past couple of years, that has extended to all of Marshall County. I think I am just a one person among a multitude that wishes her the best of luck in her next endeavor. I have little doubt that she will do well with whatever she decides to tackle next. (Here is her Linkedin profile in case you want her on your team. She has my endorsement.)
There was one other person that spoke to the way the decision was made. He expressed how that vote damages trust in the Council. It resonated with me as I have been in the position described a couple of times. Town Council Attorney, Jim Clevenger, has said on occasion that the Town never “partners” with others on projects. No matter the term used, it is how it is perceived. By pledging money and supporting Ginny as she worked on Blue Zones and told others that Culver supported Blue Zones, they had encouraged the Blue Zones committee. They were considered a partner. It would have been assumed that they could be counted on to follow through. That trust has been shaken. Despite the reversal Tuesday, the Blue Zones committee has to understand that they’re one vote away from losing funding again.
There are three major development projects working towards breaking ground in 2023 that I know have been working closely with the Town. Likewise, there are other civic groups like Blue Zones that receive pledges of funding and backing from the Town. There have been commitments made. Those commitments should not be taken lightly or these things that should move the Town forward will dry up. I would assume all of them are looking at that vote and are weighing the value of their investments in time and money to date.
Trust is a hard earned commodity. When damaged, it isn’t easily rebuilt. It should always be guarded jealously…
Thoughts on the 12/13 Culver TC Meeting
I’ve had hand surgery, so I’m behind on completing my blog entries. Sorry Lurkers! 🙂 I did have a few thoughts on the last Culver Town Council meeting. I’m not going to get into the controversial things, but I am disappointed in some of the procedural things and thought I would comment on those here.
The first one I found odd involved the approval of a PUD request. The request was approved without issue, but later in the meeting, Culver Fire Chief, Terry Wakefield, circled back to it. All of the buildings included in this PUD are going to have fire sprinkler systems, so due to the location, this will require a fire pump. The designers have been in discussions with Chief Wakefield regarding this and he had requested a hydrant be placed on the property. This would have improved the fire rating at this site and the surrounding area. He said the request was denied. A couple of questions I would pose regarding this:
- Was this part of the Technical Review Committee (TRC) discussion? Is the Fire Chief consulted in the TRC review?
- On the PUD for The Paddocks, tens of thousands of dollars in additional requirements were added, including infrastructure and easements. Why wasn’t Chief Wakefield’s request made a requirement? This seems like a minor request, considering the infrastructure already being placed. Any liability concerns could have been handled.
This seems like a missed opportunity here, but maybe one that can be corrected in the future…
The second issue involved the rescinding of matching dollars for Blue Zones. That match was contingent on other funding which hasn’t come through, so the use of the dollars is pretty much moot at this point, but my concern now is the methodology employed here.
Blue Zones was discussed at multiple meetings before the funding was approved. Presentations were made, public input was allowed and the allocation was passed. Then it was added to the 2023 budget. Once again there were opportunities for discussion and input. Throughout the past year, the Town Manager, Ginny Munroe, has promoted the project with the Council’s blessing. Reports on it were intermittently included in her Town Manager’s reports to the Council.
On the 13th, at the end of the meeting, after all of the agenda items were finished, including Citizen Input, it was brought up under Council Members Issues. The rescinding of support was voted on with minimal supporting information, a split 3:2 vote, and no public input. Was there anything illegal about it? Not that I know of… Was it completely out of line with Culver’s stated values for open communication? Undoubtedly. In my opinion, anything that has gone through as much preliminary discussion and input before being voted in should at least be an agenda item before being voted out.
Culver has done this in the past and I believe there should be some kind of resolution to change this. Projects that are supported and fostered by the Council shouldn’t get dropped without at least minimal conversations with those affected. I don’t think this usurps the Council’s prerogative to change their mind, but citizens that invest time and money into projects with the Council’s support shouldn’t be cast aside without due respect and consideration.
Both of these items are “water under the bridge” at this point. But they should be opportunities for reflection and, hopefully, opportunities for new rules and procedures to do better in the future.
The Roger Umbaugh Impact Investing Fund
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.
Our Customers Say…
Ronald W Liechty - President, Garden Court, Inc.
Planning Conundrum
March 20, 2023
Kevin Berger
Commentary, Marshall County, Tips
Community, government, Tips, Trends, Volunteering
Because I can’t say no, and because I generally believe in giving back to the community, I agreed to be on the Subdivision Ordinance Review Committee for Marshall County. (Currently I’m on the Plymouth Comp Plan Committee, (2x) and the Culver Comp Plan Committee (3x)) Marshall County Plan Director, Ty Adley, wisely recognized that the proposed new sewer districts working their way through the County could result in an increase in requests for new subdivisions. Apparently, for the first time in many years, a subdivision application was made last year, alerting him to issues with the old ordinance.
There’s lots to change and I think we can make major improvements. Apparently there have been some updates, but never a rewrite. There are issues where it ventures into Zoning requirements and thus creates some conflicts.
One of the larger discussions at the last meeting was how to balance fairness and good planning when it came to subdivisions that could reasonable be expected to be gateways into additional property. So in Sketch 1 to the right, there are properties A, B, C & D all under separate ownership. Properties A, B & C are of sufficient size to support 15 lots while parcel D could reasonable support 90 lots. The owner of parcel B comes to the county and proposes a 15 lot subdivision. They would be required to access the highway from one point. They would, at a minimum, be required to stub their road to their property line (2) with parcel D, to allow access to that property. If the county determined that they wanted to limit access points to the highway, they would require road stubs connection parcels A & B as well. (road stubs 1 & 3 on the diagram.) This is good planning. Good planning would also suggest that the road connection to the highway be sized to accommodate the potential growth. This might include Accel/Decel lanes, turn lanes and a traffic blister or island. It might include heavier duty pavement specifications due to the anticipated traffic from trash collection trucks, moving vans and the anticipated traffic from the adjacent developments. While the county doesn’t currently have But there’s the rub…
If the county requires the owner of Parcel B to include all of those things because of the potential development on parcel’s A, C & D there are a few possible results:
We didn’t really settle on any solutions, but I will follow up on this post with some potential ideas as I work through them. I think there’s a way to make at least some of this reasonably fair to the initial developer, though it will be hard to make it totally equitable.
0 comments