Peru council again fails to act on resolution to designate TIF allocation area

Peru’s Common Council did not approve a resolution on Thursday to establish a tax-increment financing (TIF) allocation area for the site the Economic Development Authority has labeled the “Home And Heritage” Allocation Area, leaving the proposal without formal action after a roll-call vote yielded a nonvote.

Jim Tude with the Miami County Economic Development Authority told the council the resolution would only designate an allocation area and would not authorize any specific project or incentives. “All you are doing is setting up an allocation area for any future development that would consider locating on that site,” he said, adding that any future incentives or project approvals would require a separate council vote and compliance with state statutes.

The statement reflected the authority’s request that the council concur with the Economic Development Authority’s earlier declaratory resolution and the planning commission’s action on June 25. Tude also said the name was chosen to acknowledge the site’s local history but was open to a different name.

One council member urged the body not to foreclose an opportunity aimed at expanding affordable housing in Peru, saying the city lacks affordable options and that preserving the ability to consider housing or other reuses could prevent blight. “I think we need affordable housing,” the council member said.

Other members questioned whether other options had been explored for the property and who would market or propose a reuse. Council discussion touched on whether Ivy Tech or private entities could pursue reuse and whether the city had advertised the property; no firm alternative had been presented at the meeting.

A motion to adopt the resolution was made and seconded; the council then conducted a roll-call vote. The chair characterized the outcome as “once again considered a non vote,” noting absences and procedural questions affected the result and that counsel would be consulted about next steps.

Council members also debated the procedure for reconsidering a defeated item. One member cited Indiana Code 36 and said someone who does not appear can be recorded as a no vote; another member cited Robert’s Rules of Order and said a prevailing-side member must move to reconsider. The council agreed to seek guidance from its attorney about whether and how the item could be reintroduced.

No projects, incentives or financial commitments were approved during the meeting; the resolution under consideration was limited in the language presented to establishing an allocation area, not to authorizing any specific incentives. The meeting adjourned after the council declined further audience communication and approved a motion to close.

Next steps: The council said it would consult the city attorney and decide whether to reschedule the item for a future meeting with the hope of full attendance.