County commissioners vote to recommend staying in RDA despite residents' objections

Dubois County commissioners voted at a special meeting to recommend that the county remain a member of the Regional Development Authority (RDA), a move the board said preserves a local advocate for long‑range work on the proposed Mid‑States Corridor and U.S. 231 improvements.

The vote followed a presentation from RDA representatives who reviewed the authority’s work, financing and schedule for federal studies. Commissioner Susano moved to recommend continued participation; another commissioner seconded the motion, and the chair declared the motion carried after a voice vote.

The recommendation will be forwarded to the Dubois County Council, which — under the RDA statute cited by presenters — has the legislative authority to join or withdraw the county from the RDA.

Why it matters: RDA backers said the organization helped secure and manage early studies that identified a new terrain roadway as the region’s preferred solution to long‑standing congestion on U.S. 231, and they argued that continuing to participate keeps the county “at the table” with INDOT and federal partners as the tier 2 study proceeds. Opponents said the RDA is insufficiently accountable, that private fundraising could skirt state review, and that residents whose property would be affected face an uncertain future.

What RDA representatives told the commissioners

An RDA representative said the authority’s website was recently hacked but is back online and that the RDA’s audit is under review by a state‑approved accounting firm and the State Board of Accounts. “We got hacked. That website’s back up. It is almost up to date,” the representative said.

On funding and studies, a presenter said the tier 1 contract was authorized as a not‑to‑exceed $7,000,000 engagement and that roughly $6,750,000 was paid to INDOT for study work; the speaker said government entities contributed about $3.5 million and private entities funded the remainder. The RDA representative also said INDOT is conducting the tier 2 study and that a preliminary routing decision is expected in late summer or early fall, with a federal record of decision possible around 2027.

RDA staff emphasized the body’s advocacy role and said it does not make final construction decisions: “We’re here to advocate for the county,” one presenter said, adding the RDA will take direction from the county and other member organizations.

Public opposition and key concerns

Residents who spoke during public comment strongly objected to continuing the RDA. Brad Wilson said the RDA “seem[s] to be an advocate for the road. They don’t seem to be an advocate for the citizen,” and handed commissioners a proposed resolution urging the county council to withdraw from the RDA.

Other speakers raised specific concerns:

- Marissa Derpols described the prospect of a route running through her family’s neighborhood and asked how land acquisition could begin before a formal relinquishment agreement is settled. “It could potentially go right in the middle of us, completely destroying the fabric of our community within our family,” she said.

- Maggie Mary Snow warned that private fundraising by the RDA could let a large county‑level project avoid a state budget‑committee hearing that applies when the state would spend over $250 million in a single county. “If the RDA is able to raise private money, then they can bypass that step as well,” Snow said.

- Other residents accused the RDA of lacking public input at its meetings, questioned whether federal approvals cited by presenters actually mean the federal government has committed to building the road, and said elected officials should not cede decision authority to an appointed, quasi‑governmental board.

Commissioner and process questions

Commissioners pressed for procedural and legal clarity. One asked whether the RDA’s eight‑year initial term had expired and whether the county could unilaterally withdraw. RDA staff said the statute is ambiguous and that the RDA has requested a written opinion from state authorities about renewal and withdrawal timing; verbal guidance indicated membership continues unless a member gives the required notice.

Motion and next step

Commissioner Susano moved that the board recommend continued participation in the RDA and that recommendation be presented to the Dubois County Council. Another commissioner seconded the motion. The chair called for a voice vote and declared the motion carried; the transcript does not record a roll‑call tally of yes/no votes.

What the meeting did not resolve

The county commissioners did not adopt a formal ordinance or set a council date within the meeting for the council to act on the recommendation. The transcript shows residents’ requests for more detailed written information and a clearer public process; the RDA presenters said they would provide documents and continue outreach.

The county’s next procedural step is to present the commissioners’ recommendation to the Dubois County Council for whatever action that body chooses.