Mid-States RDA representatives defend transparency, urge county council to continue membership as eight-year term nears expiration

Representatives from the Mid-States Corridor Regional Development Authority presented a comprehensive defense of their operations to the Dubois County Council, requesting the council continue membership as the regional development authority approaches its eight-year statutory expiration in May.

For background, Regional Development Authorities were authorized by statute in 2017 through Senate Bill 128, co-authored by then-State Representative Mike Braun and then-State Senator Mark Messmer. Both acknowledged the bill’s ability to secure federal funding for infrastructure, specifically for new roads, during its passage.

The Dubois County Council, Spencer County Council, Jasper Common Council and Huntingburg Common Council all approved the formation of the Mid-States Corridor Regional Development Authority in 2017. This enabled the public and private sectors to raise about $7 million for the Tier 1 corridor study. That study advanced the corridor to the next stage of development, the Tier 2 study currently underway with the Indiana Department of Transportation.

Bill Kaiser, legal counsel for the Mid-States RDA, and Mark Schroeder, Mid-States RDA board chair, addressed the county council on what they called misinformation about the authority’s role and transparency during a lengthy presentation that included handouts of financial records, audit reports, and operational documents.

Kaiser told the council that the authority’s sole purpose is addressing traffic problems through “the study, development and potential construction of a four-lane road from the Ohio River through I-64 through Dubois County and Spencer County, eventually connecting to I-69.”

Kaiser emphasized that the RDA receives no funding from the Indiana Economic Development Corporation, as opponents to the corridor have implied. He presented annual operating reports filed with the state from 2020 through 2024, as well as audit reports reflecting the authority’s financial condition.

The funding issue was raised as Kaiser explained the RDA’s broad capabilities, like eminent domain, but noted its limited scope of action because it is not a taxing authority.

“It has the power of eminent domain, but you have to pay for land, right?” Kaiser said. “So if it doesn’t have any revenue source, saying it has the power of eminent domain is really, again, a paper tiger.”

He added that the RDA was formed to represent the interests of the parties involved, in this case, the counties, cities and private donors for the Tier 1 study. For the Tier 1 study, the RDA secured funding for the Indiana Department of Transportation to conduct the study. As they were presented with invoices for the completed work by the contractor, Lochmueller Group, the RDA approved payment of those invoices.

Kaiser’s presentation also addressed criticism of private donor anonymity, noting that Indiana law allows donors to request confidentiality and requires government agencies to maintain it. “Most of the private donors did request to remain anonymous and so the RDA has an obligation to maintain and follow the state law,” he said.

The lack of disclosure on the donor list has been a talking point among opponents of the Mid-States Corridor, as the list was provided with about three-quarters of the donors’ names redacted. However, donor anonymity isn’t limited to this use case; it also allows individuals to support local public projects without being identified. Local examples include fundraising for the new Jasper Fire Department tower truck, public park improvements, the Thyen-Clark Culture Center, K-9 programs, and more.

Kaiser also outlined the RDA’s formation, membership, conflict-of-interest policy, meeting notice procedure, and issues with the entity’s website, which he alleges has been hacked and is currently being rebuilt.

Schroeder began his presentation to the council by outlining the board’s membership and how they were selected to serve on the RDA. Board members were proposed by the mayors and commissioners of the participating government entities and approved by those councils. The board membership includes Mark Schroeder, Sue Ellspermann, Ken Mulzer Jr., Scott Blazey, and David Drake.

Schroeder said Commissioner Elmer Brames reached out to him to serve on the board. He explained that Jasper Mayor Terry Seitz reached out to Scott Blazey; Mayor Denny Spinner contacted David Drake, the Huntingburg representative; and that Sue Ellspermann was chosen by consensus of the mayors and commissioners to represent an at-large seat and give Ferdinand some representation on the RDA. Spencer County chose Ken Mulzer Jr. as its representative.

Opponents have criticised the board’s composition for not including anyone opposed to the corridor and being selected by the donors, but as Schroeder explained, the RDA was formed specifically to assess the corridor’s viability.

“At the time, there was a unanimous feeling across all the government entities that pursuing, having a tier one study done, was a good idea,” Schroeder told the council. “If I had been opposed to that and I’d gotten a call, I probably would have said no.”

He added that, to his knowledge, no one on the RDA was involved in lobbying for the passage of the bill that created the pathway to the RDA, nor the fundraising efforts to support the Tier 1 study. Opponents of the corridor have stated that RDA members expressly support those backing the Mid-States Corridor.

Schroeder said in light of that criticism, he has gone back to Brames and asked if the donors had pushed for certain members to be chosen for the RDA. According to Schroeder, Brames denied the allegation and stated that, as a governing body, they selected individuals they believed would perform well and who represented diverse expertise.

With the Tier 1 study complete, Schroeder detailed the RDA’s current role as a participating agency on the project management team for the ongoing Tier 2 study in Dubois County, which began in July 2024 and is expected to be completed in mid-2027.

Schroeder attends the monthly project management meetings with several other agencies, including the Federal Highway Administration, INDOT, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, the Corps of Engineers, and various state agencies.

He explained the RDA was no longer an active partner in the process once the Tier 1 study was approved.

“One bit of color I want to add to that. There’s been some talking that this is all political,” Schroeder said. “The study process itself is not political. This final (Tier 1) study that determined that a new roadway was the best way to address the problem was approved by the Biden administration.”

Moving forward, Schroeder didn’t have a clear vision for the RDA’s involvement but explained they would likely continue to serve as a representative for local governing bodies at meetings. He explained that they raised concerns about the multiple J-turn intersections proposed in INDOT’s plans.

Regarding the J-turns, “I can assure you that your comments, these people’s comments and … our comments are all being looked at very seriously,” Schroeder told the council, motioning to the crowded room. “There is more to come that you’re going to hear about those intersections.”

He also stated that the RDA has insisted that any future local funding sought by INDOT must come from the private sector.

“We’ve communicated to them about the realities of the local funding match on the event of construction,” Schroeder said. “We have told them clearly at all levels that our local government entities do not have any funds to pay toward the construction phase of this in any way, shape or form.”

He stated they also didn’t support the relinquishment of U.S. 231 to the county and cities as an in-kind payment to the project. But Schroeder also criticized the County Commissioners, who were not present, for not continuing communications with INDOT regarding U.S. 231 or participating in the study of the roadway with the cities of Huntingburg and Jasper.

“I think that is shortsighted,” he said. “I don’t think that is in the best long-term interest of the citizens.”

Ending his comments, Schroeder told the council that he and the other board members were serving because they believe it is the right thing for the county.

“This has not been a pleasant assignment,” he said. “The RDA boardmembers have had their character, their honesty and their integrity attacked by those who, admittedly, they’re adversely impacted by this road so it’s emotional for them. But the only thing those of us on the RDA board are guilty of is saying yes when an elected government official called us and asked us to volunteer our time to serve on the board for the benefit of the common good of the majority of the citizens.”

After Schroeder finished, Kaiser stepped back up and criticized the recent poll conducted by Raleigh, N.C.-based Public Policy Polling. The poll was funded by donations from residents and members of the Property Rights Alliance and the Coalition Against the Mid-States Corridor. The results were announced last week at a public meeting in front of the County Courthouse.

According to Public Policy Polling, 16,000 Dubois County voters were asked to participate in the poll via text or telephone calls. They received 636 responses, overwhelmingly opposed to the project. The results show 72% strongly oppose the project, 9% somewhat oppose it, 14% support it, and 6% remain unsure.

Kaiser said this was a very small sample and questioned who knew about the poll before it was sent. “Were they mainly members of the opposition that answered the poll and received the poll?” he asked.

During public comments, Brad Hochgesang, a representative of Mid-States Update who opposes the project, told the council that the poll was a valid indicator of local sentiment.

He explained that these polls typically have a 4 percent standard response rate; this poll had a 3.975 percent response rate.

Hochgesang stated that he contacted a statistics professor to assess the poll’s validity. “1,500 is enough to poll the entire population of voters in the United States, which is 170 million people,” he said.

According to Hochgesang, the Mid-States Corridor poll’s response margin of error is less than 4 percent. He said that the odds that the poll is an outlier and off by 8 percent is one in 36,000. The odds it’s off by 10 percent are well over one in a million, “And that still means that there is 71 percent opposition to this road,” he added.

The opposition has used this sentiment to sway local elected officials, but Kaiser noted that the need for an improved road was demonstrated long before they took office. He distributed news articles from studies conducted in 2004 and 2005 that supported the creation of a new road.

“As elected leaders, you’re being asked to solve problems for our community,” he said, “make right decisions for our current status, or 10 years, 20 years, even 50 years in the future.”

Council President Mike Kluesner questioned the RDA’s broader statutory powers beyond the corridor project. Kaiser clarified that while the development plan filed with the state grants broad authority for various infrastructure projects, the RDA’s actual scope remains limited to the single corridor project.

“Does it have the authority to do that? It does. Has it taken any action to undertake any other projects? No, it hasn’t,” Kaiser said.

In the end, the council took no action on withdrawing from the Mid-States Corridor RDA. There was still confusion about when they should have started the process, since the statutory deadline for member organizations to decide on renewal falls between 12 and 18 months before the eight-year term expires.

With the eight-year deadline approaching in May 2026, Kaiser acknowledged confusion about the exact process and said it is seeking clarification from state agencies on withdrawal and renewal procedures.

He explained that the statute’s language was designed to wind down the RDA as it completed its original purpose.

Kluesner asked about the county’s financial obligations beyond the original $1.75 million contribution approved in 2018. Kaiser confirmed that no additional funding requests have been made and none are planned from the RDA.

Council members expressed appreciation for the detailed presentation but indicated they need more time to review the information before making a decision on renewal. The council’s next meeting is scheduled for Jan. 21.

“I think we have to consider what the RDA is doing,” Kluesner said, noting the authority handles communications and financial matters the county might struggle to manage independently. “We don’t have a county administrator who can handle the communications.”

He added that if they decided to continue the RDA, they would include language in the agreement stating that the county has no financial liability to the RDA for the project.

Kaiser reminded the council that the RDA has to come back to them for financial support. “It couldn’t bond without a revenue source,” he said. “It would have to come back to this county and the city of Jasper and Huntingburg and Spencer County.”

During his public comments, Brad Hochgesang, joined by his wife, Maggie Marystone, urged the council to seek advice from a Constitutional attorney to guide them through the decision-making process.