Residents urge DuBois County Council to withdraw from RDA after Midstates Corridor update

State transportation staff and consultants gave the DuBois County Council a detailed Tier 2 update on the proposed Midstates Corridor, describing progress on alternatives, environmental reviews and procurement timelines while saying the preferred alternative will be announced later this fall and early construction procurement work is planned for 2026.

The presentation framed Tier 1 as complete and said the Tier 2 analysis is refining alignments, access locations and right-of-way needs for Section 2 from I‑64 north toward Haysville. Presenters told the council they expect to use primarily federal and state funding and that, at present, the county is not expected to provide a local match for right-of-way acquisition or initial construction contracts.

But the technical briefing was followed by an extended and emotional public-comment period dominated by opponents of the corridor and by speakers arguing the county should withdraw from the Regional Development Authority (RDA). A coalition representative asked the council to "not continue to support the Regional Development Authority" and presented a draft withdrawal ordinance the group said follows the statutory process for withdrawal under Indiana law. The speaker said petition drives and a new online petition show strong community opposition.

A resident who identified himself as Jason McCoy spoke for an extended period, criticizing RDA leaders and local officials, calling for accountability and saying the RDA has failed to keep the council informed. Another attendee, Mark Dimontransky, said the RDA’s role concluded after Tier 1 and criticized what he described as a lack of transparency and 'backroom' meetings. Multiple commenters cited polling figures—one speaker said county polling showed 81% opposition to the corridor—and urged a recorded roll‑call vote on a withdrawal ordinance.

Council members repeatedly said they heard the public concerns and several said they want their county attorney to review any proposed withdrawal ordinance. The council chair told speakers that the body plans to consider the matter further and scheduled follow‑up discussion at its March 30 meeting so legal counsel can review the draft ordinance and other materials before any formal action.

The presentation and public comments underscored a split between state transportation officials, who emphasized technical progress and funding pathways, and many residents, who said the project threatens farmland, safety and quality of life and demanded the council withdraw from the RDA or adopt a withdrawal ordinance.

What happens next: the council will have the county attorney review the draft withdrawal ordinance and will revisit the RDA/mid‑state question at the March 30 meeting; the NDOT/Tier 2 team will continue the environmental and design work that it says must precede any right‑of‑way acquisition or construction.