Dubois County Council pauses final vote on Midstates Corridor RDA after heated debate and public testimony

The Dubois County Council opened a prolonged debate over whether the county should renew or withdraw from the Midstates Corridor Regional Development Authority (RDA), hearing legal guidance, council questions and emotional public testimony before moving the question to a second reading.

Council leadership said the meeting was intended to decide between three options: adopt an ordinance committing the county to another eight-year membership, adopt an ordinance withdrawing the county, or take no action and continue the discussion. Auditor Sandy read both draft ordinances aloud and reminded the body that Indiana Code 36-7.6-2-5 requires a county to provide statutory notice 12 to 18 months before the end of its membership term.

County attorney Greg said his interpretation of the attorney general's memorandum and the statute was that the council needs to time any ordinance within that 12-to-18-month window and cautioned that acting immediately may not satisfy the statute's intent. "The way I read the statute is that this body needs to pass an ordinance no sooner than 18 months before the end of its term and no later than 12 months," Greg said.

Councilors split over whether the RDA had already fulfilled its stated purpose. Several members argued the original, limited charge ' a Tier 1 study of the corridor ' had been completed and that the county's involvement had run its course; one councilor said the RDA's work "has run its course" and that the county should reassess its participation. Others, citing the ordinance language and the RDA's broader statutory authorities, said the body must consider the RDA's continuing role beyond the Tier 1 work.

RDA supporters who spoke to the council advised against withdrawal. Bill Kaiser, representing the RDA, said: "The RDA is not the enemy. The RDA is an advocate," and added that the authority helped raise funds and coordinate the Tier 1 study. Danny Spinner, who noted past local experience with INDOT and regional projects, told the council the RDA is a tool for cooperation and urged the county to maintain membership.

Several residents urged immediate action to withdraw. Brad Oksong asked the council to consider an ordinance that would withdraw the county immediately or present a fallback; he argued the statute was "cloudy" but favored swift action. Julie Shultz, in public comment, said she was grateful the council was listening to constituents and called the RDA an unelected body that had not represented residents.

After a motion to withdraw was made and seconded, councilors and the county attorney clarified procedure: a vote at this meeting would serve as a first reading and the council must hold a second reading (final adoption or rejection) at the next monthly meeting or a special meeting. The council did not finalize adoption tonight; members agreed to carry the ordinance to a formal second reading and to seek additional legal and factual clarification in the interim.

What happens next: the council scheduled a second reading and further consideration at its next meeting or a special session; adoption would, according to the attorney's reading of the statute and the attorney general memorandum, trigger a 12-month effective notice period for any withdrawal or a delayed start for an 8-year renewal.