Dayton officials leave Lafayette City Council meeting defeated

LAFAYETTE, Ind. — Dayton, Ind., officials left May’s Lafayette City Council meeting upset and defeated after the council moved to incorporate land that sits near the town of Dayton.

This dispute has been an issue for both governments since the Carr Family Farm LLC filed a request with the Lafayette City Council in February to approve the voluntary annexation of approximately 132 acres of the family’s land into the city.

The land currently sits within the jurisdiction of the Tippecanoe County government and at the border of both Lafayette's and Dayton’s corporate limits.

The initial discussion came as a surprise to the leadership of Dayton, who had been in talks with the Carr family about annexing their property into the town for several years. The two parties were unable to reach a mutual agreement on the land.

At March’s city council meeting, leadership from Dayton shared their dismay about the Carr Family’s decision and requested Lafayette’s leadership to vote no on the second reading of the voluntary annexation of the property.

During that same meeting, the Carr Family rescinded its request to the board due to a complication with the petition.

But before the Carr family could file a second request with the Lafayette City Council for annexation, Lafayette’s Mayor Tony Roswarski asked the Carr leadership to return to the negotiating table with Dayton to see if they could carve out a deal to annex their property to Dayton.

By May, the two parties had not negotiated a new deal, and the Carr family’s request appeared on the council’s agenda again.

Similar to the March meeting, Dayton leadership attended in hopes of convincing their neighbors to vote no on the first reading of this new request from the Carr family.

Unlike the prior meeting, the Carr family was willing to provide more information on why it was unable to reach an agreement with the town of Dayton regarding terms of annexation.

Kevin Riley, an attorney from Reiling Teder & Schrier, who was representing Carr Family Farm LLC, told the board that in the past, the Carr family requested that Dayton provide a service letter indicating that the town agreed to provide sewage and water services to the property before it would agree to an annexation.

The town was unwilling to provide that letter, according to Riley.

“We’ve been at this for a while,” Riley said.

“We need utilities," Riley added. "Dayton wasn’t willing to provide them to use except on their terms. We wanted to prefer to deal with the City of Lafayette after that.”

When asked why the landowners wanted to annex into Lafayette, Riley noted that they had a better relationship with the city.

“I think the fire, the (Tax Increment Financing) district and, frankly, just the history between the landowner and the town of Dayton, our relationship with the city (of Lafayette) is better. That’s just to be very blunt about it,” Riley said.

Chris Wischer, the attorney for the town of Dayton, touched on points Riley had told the board.

Wischer explained to the board that Dayton was willing to provide the Carr family with the services they requested, but only after the property was annexed into the town.

He also explained to the board that one of the issues the town and the landowner couldn’t agree on initially was the use of the land.

In 2020, the Tippecanoe County Commissioners approved the rezoning of the property from agricultural use (A) to industrial use (I-3). At February’s meeting, the Carr family petitioner explained that it was planning on using that land for industrial economic opportunities.

Wischer explained that this rezoning and the new economic plan for the property went against the initial idea and how Dayton was planning on using the property.

According to the town’s 1981 comprehensive plan, which was later amended in 1987, the town wanted to use the land for a mixed purpose aimed at using it for residential, business and recreation development.

While this idea had been in place since 1981, the town did not approach the Carr family about annexation until 2019, when they were unable to move forward due to U.S. Census regulations.

Before May’s meeting, the two parties met discuss an annexation deal. The leadership of Dayton was willing to keep the land's industrial zoning and provide utilities and fire protection to the property, but were against a road that the Carr family wanted for the property.

“We talked about options, about how that road could work without connecting or it might be (able to) provide access without congestion at the interstate without all of these trucks now being routed through Dayton,” Wischer said.

Another shot at an agreement

After the discussion, the Carr family decided to return to the negotiating table and resubmitted its request with the city of Lafayette.

Wischer pleaded with the board to vote no on the first reading, and to give Dayton the opportunity to come to an agreement with the Carr family.

“I can’t overstate, to the people of Dayton this is a monumental, generational decision. It’s going to impact the town of Dayton forever, 10 to 20 years from now,” Wischer said.

“I understand we’re asking you all to do counterintuitive to the way we all think of annexation. Someone is standing here and saying please annex me and we’re asking you to say no to that.”

After Wischer explained Dayton's position on the matter, several Dayton officials and residents Marc Buhrmester, Dayton Council member Cindy Marsh, Council president Jen Manago and Ron Koehler, utility president for Dayton, spoke to the board.

The Dayton residents wanted to provide the board with more context behind their reasoning for holding off on certain issues as well as plead with the board to vote no on the matter.

Buhrmester explained that Dayton initially thought that the Carr family planned to zone that land for I-1 purposes and not I-3, which would allow larger industrial uses on the land.

Marsh also elaborated on the comprehensive plan that Dayton had been using, which included the Carr property in their expected growth.

To highlight the importance of the Carr property to Dayton's growth, the town received a grant in 2020 to conduct a new comprehensive plan which would highlight its need. The town expected it to be completed by 2023.

“Although the land use plan specifically called for intergovernmental cooperation, the county commissioners and their APC board turned their back on Dayton in favor of one man’s financial pursuit,” Marsh said.

“Now you are being asked to do the same. It seems intergovernmental cooperation could be a thing of the past.”

Decision's impact

Manago offered one last plea to the board, by highlighting how this decision would have a major negative impact on the town of Dayton, explaining that it would have generational repercussions on the town and that Lafayette would see a small positive impact in comparison.

She also pushed back against the landowner's claim that the city wouldn’t provide utilities to the property. Manago explained to the board that the town would only provide the utilities once the Carr family found an end user for the property.

“They say they want to deal with an end user. End users don’t want to enter a purchase agreement when they have no idea what utilities are going to be there and who’s going to provide them,” Riley said against Manago’s comments.

Koehler told the board that he had a good relationship with the father of the Carr family, and they would talk about how the two parties would use the land. Koehler said that relationship changed after the property was given to the son, Guthrie Carr.

During Koehler’s portion of public comment, he began to berate and point at Roswarski, Lafayette's mayor, for not communicating with Dayton’s leadership. Roswarski pushed back against those claims, saying that he had a phone call with them before the meeting Dayton held with the Carr family.

After all was said and done, the Lafayette City Council unanimously voted to approve ordinance 2023-23, which voluntarily annexes the Carr property into Lafayette.

“We have to do what is best for the citizens of Lafayette. They’re the ones that elect us,” Eileen Hession Weiss, Lafayette City Council member, said.

“I know the mayor asked the Carrs to go back and talk to the board (of Dayton). I’m sorry you couldn’t get things worked out, but that doesn’t constitute us to have to step in and say, ‘Oh, we need to stop this.’"

“I, for one, will be voting for this particular thing, because I feel like it is in the best interest of the citizens of Lafayette, who we serve.”

The second reading on ordinance 2023-23 will be at the July 10 city council meeting.

Noe Padilla is a reporter for the Journal & Courier. Email him at Npadilla@jconline.com and follow him on Twitter at 1NoePadilla.

This article originally appeared on Lafayette Journal & Courier: Dayton officials leave Lafayette City Council meeting defeated