DuBois County — Legal counsel to the Midstates RDA and the RDA’s chairman briefed the DuBois County Council on the authority’s role, finances and ongoing participation in an INDOT‑led environmental study, then answered council questions and public criticism.

Bill Kaiser, who identified himself as legal counsel to the Midstates Board of the RDA, said the RDA’s authorized, singular purpose is to study, develop and potentially support construction of a four‑lane corridor connecting the Ohio River area through SR 64 and SR 231 in DuBois and Spencer counties. “If you look at the development plan … the RDA’s limited purpose, singularly limited purpose, is the issue with respect to the addressing of the traffic problems,” Kaiser said. He denied any funding relationship between the RDA and the Indiana Economic Development Corporation, saying the RDA “has never received a single penny from the IEDC.”

Kaiser and RDA chairman Mark Schroeder provided handouts showing the Tier 1 study’s receipts and disbursements. Schroeder said private contributors pledged roughly $3.8 million and public entities about $3.5 million toward the Tier 1 study, for a total in the study period near $7.3 million. Schroeder outlined operating and administrative costs he described as modest: legal and administrative expenses and audits over the study period “a little over $250,000,” with audits about $40,000 total.

Kaiser and Schroeder said the RDA files development plans and annual operating reports with the state and distributes reports to local officials; they also described an RDA website that has been hacked and is being rebuilt. On donor confidentiality, Kaiser said state law allows private donors to request that their contributions remain anonymous and obliges the authority to honor that request.

The RDA’s legal powers were a focal point in council questions. Kaiser acknowledged that under statute an RDA can bond and possesses eminent‑domain powers on paper, but he emphasized those powers are conditional: absent a committed revenue source from participating governments or other pledged funding, those authorities cannot be exercised in practice. "It could bond, but it can't bond without a revenue source," he said.

Schroeder described the RDA’s role on the Tier 2 work as a participating (advisory) agency on a project management team led by INDOT and Federal Highway. He noted that Federal Highway issued a Record of Decision for the Tier 1 study in September 2023 and said the Tier 2 study affecting DuBois County began in July 2024 with an anticipated completion in mid‑2027 and a planned hearing on the draft environmental document in 2026.

On the project’s momentum, Schroeder told the council: "I would tell you there's greater than a 95% chance that this thing is gonna get built, because INDOT is now 100% behind this project." That assertion prompted repeated challenges from public commenters who accused the RDA and its backers of insufficient transparency, questioned whether the RDA’s board is sufficiently independent of proponents, and warned about the prospect of property acquisitions or condemnation should the project move forward.

During public comment, multiple residents urged the council to withdraw county membership from the RDA, questioned why most board members have publicly supported the corridor, and cited a poll reported to show majority opposition. Speakers threatened litigation and asked the council to seek independent legal review and more detailed disclosures on timelines, intersection designs and potential impacts on property owners.

Council members asked staff and the RDA for legal clarification about the RDA’s eight‑year statutory term and the steps required to withdraw or renew membership; presenters said they have sought guidance from state agencies and would return with clearer options. The RDA representatives urged continued engagement while statutory questions are resolved, saying local participation helps shape alignment and intersection decisions.

The council did not vote on continuing membership at the meeting. The RDA’s counsel and chair left the record with copies of audit and operating reports and asked the council to identify any specific follow‑up items the RDA should pursue on the county’s behalf.

The next procedural step for the county, council members said, is to obtain clarified legal guidance on withdrawal/renewal deadlines and obligations and to schedule a follow‑up discussion once that guidance is provided.