Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Increment Financing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Peru council again fails to establish TIF allocation area; vote falls short
Summary
The Peru Common Council on July 16 reconsidered Resolution 7-20-26 to establish a tax-increment financing (TIF) allocation area but did not reach the votes required; proponents said the designation only enables future redevelopment and does not approve any project.
The Peru Common Council on July 16 reconsidered Resolution 7-20-26, which would designate a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) allocation area, but the motion again failed to secure the votes required for adoption and was recorded as a non-vote.
Jim Ted, with the Miami County Economic Development Authority, told the council the resolution would only create an allocation area and "nowhere in the resolution ... does it talk about a specific project, nor does it talk about any incentive for a project," adding that any future incentives or approvals would come back to the council for separate votes. The resolution proposes naming the district the "Home and Heritage allocation area."
Supporters argued the TIF designation could enable redevelopment, including housing. A council member who spoke in favor said the city lacks affordable housing and described personal and constituent reasons for supporting potential apartment development, saying, "I think we need affordable housing" and that the designation could be part of the solution. Opponents and other members pressed whether all reuse options had been explored and whether private parties had been approached; proponents responded there were currently no private entities stepping forward.
The clerk cited Indiana Code and parliamentary procedure during a discussion of next steps, noting paperwork and statutory language the clerk said treats absences as no votes and referencing Roberts Rules of Order for motions to reconsider. The chair said the council would consult the city attorney about whether and how the item could be rescheduled for another vote.
A council member moved to adopt Resolution 7-20-26 and the motion was seconded. The clerk conducted a roll call; vocal responses produced a split result and the chair declared the outcome a non-vote, meaning the measure did not pass and no formal action was taken. Council members noted a prior vote on July 6 had been 3–2 and that the resolution requires four affirmative votes to take effect.
The meeting concluded after brief procedural discussion about the mechanics of reconsideration; the chair adjourned the special session. The council did not adopt the TIF allocation area on July 16; any future action would require additional formal consideration and, if necessary, legal guidance on the proper motion and timing.
