County hears RDA counsel and residents raise transparency, renewal and eminent-domain concerns about Mid-States Corridor

The Dubois County Council on Dec. 29 heard legal counsel Bill Kaiser and RDA Chairman Mark Schroeder outline the Mid-States Corridor Regional Development Authority’s role, finances and timeline while county residents urged withdrawal and questioned the RDA’s transparency.

Bill Kaiser, legal counsel for the RDA, told the council the authority has a limited scope under state law and disputed suggestions of outside funding ties: "There is no connection between the Indiana Economic Development Corp (IEDC) and the Mid-States RDA. No money is received from the IEDC." Kaiser presented handouts including a development plan, annual reports, audit letters, a September 30, 2025 financial statement and a conflict-of-interest policy.

Kaiser and Chairman Mark Schroeder described the Mid-States Corridor project as advancing the study, development and potential construction of an upgraded four-lane route roughly following US 231 from the Ohio River at Rockport through Dubois County toward I-69. Schroeder said the Tier 1 study is complete and Tier 2 will determine construction specifics; he urged the County to remain engaged with INDOT and said the council "will ultimately decide whether to renew or withdraw membership from the RDA." Schroeder also encouraged county staff to work with County Engineer Levi Leffert on proposed intersections and right-of-way issues.

Council members pressed for details about authority, funding and timing. Kaiser said the RDA can issue bonds under state law but "does not have and cannot create revenue sources." He also explained that federal funds flow to the state and INDOT determines how they are spent. Members asked how and when the eight-year renewal required by statute must be processed; Schroeder said he believes the eight-year date is May 11, 2026, while Kaiser said he is still seeking clarification and asked the council for direction.

Public comment reflected strong public concern. Brad Hochgesang said he doubted Kaiser’s neutrality because Kaiser represents the RDA and recommended county counsel obtain a constitutional attorney; Hochgesang urged the county to withdraw from the RDA and told the council he believes the Public Policy Poll, which Kaiser said had a 2% response rate, accurately shows constituent opposition. Jason McCoy, a Martin County resident with commercial property in Dubois County, said he had not been contacted by Martin County officials about the RDA and described the project as political. Bob Pfister warned the board that the road would "force approximately 150 property owners to go through condemnation and lose their property unwillingly." Roger Pund cited Indiana Code 36 regarding RDA reporting requirements and asked when those reports were filed with the county.

The exchange highlighted two recurring points: residents and some council members urged greater transparency and expressed concern about the poll methodology, while Kaiser and Schroeder emphasized the RDA’s statutory limits, the Tier 1 findings and the need to proceed through INDOT and Tier 2 studies to access federal funding. No formal decision was taken at the meeting; council members were presented with the statutory timeline question and asked Kaiser for clarification. Schroeder said he believes the relevant eight-year date falls on May 11, 2026, but Kaiser said the statute is silent on exact procedural steps and the RDA requests direction from the County.

The council will revisit the RDA membership question once the statutory timeline and any requested clarifications are provided; the next regular meeting is scheduled for Jan. 21, 2026.