Council members and members of the public debated whether the city could rescind or reconsider approvals tied to Project Maze, a large data‑center development, but the city attorney advised against reopening the matter because contracts tied to the project are already executed.

Doctor Cynthia Cora, a council member, asked whether the council could reconsider three prior resolutions related to Project Maze and requested legal advice on whether rescission was feasible. City Attorney Joel Harris told the council that “in general and in theory, yes, the council has until the next council meeting … to reconsider any official action taken at the prior meeting,” but added that exceptions apply when a contract exists. Harris said that in this case a fully executed taxpayer agreement is on file and that the other party “has relied upon the terms of that agreement, which is fully executed … and ordered equipment,” and that pursuing a motion to reconsider “would expose the city to liability because of the agreement that’s in place.”

The attorney’s explanation prompted public commenters and union representatives to press the council for stronger commitments to hire local workers. John Watson, a business agent for Laborers Local 150, asked the council to “rescind the incentives request until Phoenix signs an agreement and commits to utilize local workers,” saying the development is “valued at hundreds of millions of dollars” and has been granted large incentives with “very few local workers.” Corey Campbell of Laborers Local 81 similarly said there was no meaningful commitment to local labor and asked the council to rescind incentives until that changes.

Local contractors and union signatories described different experiences on the site. Andy Schia, who identified himself as a local union contractor working at Project Maze, said his company has gotten rapid payment and flexible contract terms; Jay from Paul’s Construction said the project had already sourced local union labor and that his first pay arrived within seven days. Those statements were echoed by other speakers who said some local union firms are participating while others are not.

Council members debated whether the city had leverage after the approvals were signed. Councilman Brian Dabney and others said they were not informed that additional negotiation leverage existed when they voted; they said pulling or attempting to rescind approvals now could lead to lawsuits and financial exposure because the city lacks the legal and financial capacity to absorb contested claims. Dabney said he did not feel the council was in a position to “play some high stakes game of chicken.”

No motion to rescind or formally reconsider the Maze‑related resolutions was made at the meeting. Instead, the discussion ended with members and public commenters urging future work on community workforce and union commitments and with council members saying they intend to pursue policies or workshops addressing local hiring for future projects.

Why it matters: Project Maze is a major private investment in Michigan City. Council decisions about incentives and contractor commitments affect local hiring, tax receipts and the city’s exposure to legal claims if agreements are reopened.

Details and next steps: Attorney Harris’s advice that an executed agreement limits the council’s ability to rescind was the decisive legal guidance at the meeting; several union representatives said they would file information requests and press for explicit labor commitments. Council members said they plan to pursue community workforce requirements and meet with unions after the budget season.