On Nov. 3, 2025, the Town of Sellersburg Redevelopment Commission agreed to pursue further investigation into a potential sound‑deadening barrier along U.S. 31 near the Silver Creek Logistics Center to address recurring resident complaints about nighttime noise.

The discussion centered on reports from neighbors of frequent truck horn use, backup alarms, trailers being dropped and late‑night vehicle noise connected to operations at the logistics center. Charlie (staff member) said the facility recently added third‑shift operations for a tenant described as a Ford supplier, which "creates a lot of the noise that the residents are complaining about." He told the commission that operational changes attempted by the property owner had limited effect and that materials vendors had begun evaluating products and costs.

Why it matters: commissioners said a sound barrier could reduce noise impacts for nearby residential neighborhoods but raised legal and funding constraints. Charlie cautioned that participation by the redevelopment commission would require careful statutory review because the commission typically funds public‑realm improvements rather than private, on‑site work. He noted that any participation must be evaluated against competing capital priorities and the commission’s limited cash on hand.

Details discussed: staff reported preliminary outreach to two product vendors and said options range widely in cost — from high‑end concrete noise walls like those seen on interstates to mid‑range absorbent or reflective materials that affix to existing fencing. Charlie warned of a technical complexity: "the tall concrete wall basically is now creating a sound tunnel," meaning some barrier types could increase reflection rather than attenuate noise. The staff plan is to obtain formal cost estimates, a focused acoustic study, and to discuss partnership terms with NAI Fortis, the property owner representative who has engaged with the town on operational changes.

Fiscal and statutory considerations: commissioners reviewed the redevelopment commission’s funds and were reminded that TIF money is a restricted source with statutory limitations. Nicholas (staff) reported the commission’s TIF fund balance is $22,014,253.07 but emphasized that available cash, bonding needs and other capital commitments limit the practical size of new projects. Staff said they will analyze whether the commission could fund a project on its side of the property line, pursue a partnership with the owner, or consider alternative mitigations.

Next steps and outcome: by consensus the commission asked staff to continue investigations, obtain cost and acoustic analyses, clarify legal constraints related to public‑realm versus private improvements, and engage NAI Fortis about potential partnership or cost‑sharing. No formal funding decision was made at the meeting.