Residents and local trustees press Gibson County redevelopment board over proposed 25‑year Toyota TIF allocation

Princeton — Public comment at a Gibson County redevelopment commission meeting focused on a proposed Tax Increment Finance (TIF) allocation area tied to Toyota, where township trustees, residents and elected officials debated a proposed 25‑year, 100% capture arrangement and questioned who would bear long‑term costs.

The most persistent concerns came from township trustees and residents who said the proposal as written shifted too much fiscal risk to local taxing units and lacked clarity on which projects would be funded. "Major concern is a 25 year allocation period," said Jessica Kramer, Union Township trustee, urging a substantially shorter TIF or clearer project lists and asking that township leaders have representation on any body that controls TIF spending.

Patoka Township trustee Phyllis Ernst pointed to the meeting packet’s fiscal figures and said she could not recommend support without a balanced plan. "We are unable to recommend that Patoka Township support the proposed $74,000,000 in projects based on the financial information we have reviewed," Ernst said, adding that she saw "a funding gap of approximately $46,300,000 between the $74,000,000 in proposed project cost and the estimated $27,700,000 in TIF revenues even assuming a 100% capture of assessed valuation."

Several residents urged tighter conditions or periodic review. "Make them apply for this every year," one commenter suggested; another said Toyota is "playing you guys" and asked for local‑employment thresholds and reapplication periods of five years as checks on a long capture period.

Not all testimony opposed a TIF. Jeremy Overton, speaking on behalf of the county council, said the incremental revenue has funded road and infrastructure work and that preserving a TIF mechanism could help sustain those investments. "I'm in favor of the tax increment finance district as a continued means to support those," he said.

Gibson County Commissioner Chuck Lewis defended the county’s prior use of TIF funds, saying the dollars have paid for perimeter roads, utilities and community facilities including a YMCA and library projects. "The TIF didn't just take care of Toyota perimeter. It's spread well over the county," Lewis said, while acknowledging the board still needed to determine term length and pass‑through details.

Board members and the public debated technical effects of a TIF on levy caps, assessed valuation and school funding, with participants noting past decisions to capture 60% and pass through 40% to taxing units. Several speakers urged specific edits to the declaratory and confirmatory resolutions; one public commenter and multiple board members recommended rescinding the current declaratory resolution as a precondition to drafting a replacement with different term or capture provisions.

A board member moved to reject the confirmatory resolution and rescind the declaratory resolution; the motion was seconded and followed by extended discussion about legal requirements, vote thresholds and which provisions were problematic. Board members asked that redlines and specific problematic sections be identified and brought back for the August meeting so the commission could consider compromise language, such as a shorter allocation period or graduated pass‑through over time.

The board set the next meeting for August 10 at 6:00 p.m. and directed staff and members to prepare marked‑up language and clearer financial breakdowns for review. The meeting adjourned after routine motions approving prior minutes and claims.