One month off, good to see everyone back. Still hot. It was hot last month, still hot. And the students are back. So they're coming back. So Bloomington is filling full again, for sure. So we will start with a roll call. You want to start online? Phil, you want to start? Yeah. Phil Emerson, B-U-E-A. Elisa Spinelli, B-E-U-A.
 Michael Hover, BU-EA. Kate Rosenberger, BU-EA. Heather Robinson, BU-EA. Jean Coopersmith, BU-EA. Mary Morgan, BU-EA. Dee Delarosa, ESD. Great. Thank you. Welcome, everyone. All right. First up is minutes from our June meeting. Any comments?
 corrections on the minutes from our last meeting. Hearing none, do we have a motion to accept the June 20, 25 minutes? Can I raise a question? Yes. This is for Alex, really. Alex, if you pull up the minutes relating to the change in name to the DEI, the former DEI grant line, is that language acceptable in terms of
 any kind of federal review. So which page? So it's on page two under director's report. And there's just one bullet that says DEI grant line reallocation, which is in response to obvious pressures that we're under. And so I just wanted to make sure that the language, before it goes into our formal record that's posted online. So the language will be equal opportunity
 Well, we know that that's OK. Yeah. But is the way that it's described here OK for our permanent record? Yes, that seems fine. OK, thank you for reading that. Any other questions or comments? Hearing none, if we could have a motion to approve the minutes. Motion to approve. Second? Second. And then we'll need to go around the room for approvals. So, Philip, we'll start on line again.
 Yes, Phil. Yes. Lisa Spinelli. Yes. Michael Hover. Yes. Kate Rosenberger. Yes. Heather Robinson. Yes. Jane Coopersmith. Yes. Mary Morgan. Yes. All right. Oh, Virginia. Oh, Virginia. Hi. Hi, Virginia. I'm coming in, Virginia. Get the A. All right. OK. Thank you. Motion carries. All right, D.
 Yeah, I tried to be as thorough as possible. So if there are any questions, just stop me. So as you can see, the agenda looks a little bit different. There have been some state house bills enacted. So we are complying as far as having our state
 meetings recorded they're on cats so we don't really have to worry about posting recorded videos they're already done for us which is thank you cats for all of your work we appreciate it and then um now we do have to put your names somewhere that people can see them uh so it's a little bit different depending upon the commission and the different things that happen i am just doing a standardized form where i
 put it on the notice, I put it on the agenda, there are no questions about it, that's it. So if that makes anyone feel uncomfortable and you want to talk more about that, and we can talk about it, but it's really just kind of like state, it's a state requirement now for these open door public meetings. So that's what's going on with that.
 I just wanted to make sure I put this in writing. I did make a mistake in the estimated total.
 that we were going to receive back. I wasn't accounting for payments from 21 and 22. So instead of the 700,000 plus, it ends up being closer to $600,000. The math is done there in those very tiny tables. But we will be seeing $563,195.65 coming to us from Catalan Novo Nordisk.
 They intend to remedy all of this by the end of this month. So we will see that hit our accounts sooner rather than later. Has there been an update on continuation of that easement? As far as I know, yes, there will be continuation of it. It's called a rebasing, I believe, or something to that effect. It's an asset purchase. Oh, an asset purchase. Yeah. OK. And they did go through that process of rebasing, which is to determine whether
 the AVs will work properly, like do the AVs transfer as is? And that was reviewed with the assessor's office, and they do stand. So yeah, business as usual for us. That's good. Good. Thanks for that work on that. I know that was.
 a bit of a long time coming. So it's nice to hear that this has felt really good once it did happen. So I mentioned that Cheryl won't be here for the financial report. So I just did a really high level breakdown. If you feel confident with these breakdowns,
 recommend that you go ahead and just approve the financials so we can move forward for next month with the July financials. If not, totally fine. I can send any questions over to Cheryl. But just for the record, total net income for June of 2025 was $48,342.60. Our total assets
 equate to, as of June 30, 2025, $3,044,138.83. And then our total net income for January through June 2025 is $18,459.64. And that makes us over budget by
 or I guess under budget, by $194,179.64. Great. So that is that. And so that when the large ease of payment comes in, that will bump up, that'll shift that and make it more aligned with the budgeted amounts, but it'll still be
 over budget. Yes, we will be very over budget. Well, it will increase the revenue, but where the variance is really coming in is the total expense. So we expected to expend a lot more to date, $634,000. I'd have to look and see specifically what makes up all of that. So what we're not spending, will we catch up on? Yeah. So when we get to, I can go ahead and hop over to the grants.
 if you guys want to take a look at that, because that's a lot of where we have not spent money. So the budget versus balance on the grants, the $100,000 for the Arts V Incubator has not left our accounts yet. It's accounted for in the disbursement and committed, but not actually in the QuickBooks. So that's a big section. On the PDF, this is page 14. Yeah, I can pull that up so everybody can see it.
 to follow along here. OK. Yeah. OK, great. So we still have. Do you want a screen chair so the film's on? No, thank you. Sorry. No, you're good. All this technology, guys. We don't want to deprive the public of the excitement. Of the excitement of this spreadsheet, of this beautiful spreadsheet.
 So up here at the Arts Incubator, we still haven't expended any of that. We still have $40,000 here in the City Arts Program, which does cover some BAC grants. We'll probably see some of that coming out. And then it'll also be... Hold on. This little guy needs to go away. Come on. There we go. Now I can see.
 So the $25,000 hasn't come out for our Walden Arts Center and I am not sure on what else Holly has coming up. So that $40,000 is still in there. The zone arts grants, we approved half of them the last time we met. We still have the other half for the end of the year. We still have $20,000 left for the historic facade grant.
 The $5,380 that you see committed in 2025, that's actually been dispersed and that was for assistance with OT 987, which is in the trades district. We have the direct assistance and small business community support. So those are the small minor repair grants. I have two of them in the hopper right now. So just trying to get those contracts completed.
 One is for the mill direct assistance for their ADA lift repair, and then cup and kettle direct assistance for signage. So getting those through, we still have $20,000 for the climate resiliency programs. I have not discussed that with sustainability and ESD yet. I don't know if they're going to use those funds this year. I don't know what their capacity for it is.
 And we have discussed none of the small business safety and security, the business building improvement, and the business accessibility modification are the same amounts as we had in June. So we have not expended any more dollars on that at this point in time. Yeah, so still 12,000 in safety and security, around 4,000 in the building improvement, and then 17,000
 18,000 in the accessibility modification. That's about $170,000 right there. Then I probably should have added the full budget. But as you can see, we're doing a really great job spending, but we still have some way to go. That's great. Thanks for that detail.
 that it's helpful for us to kind of know what's been committed, because we don't always see it takes a while for that to move through. Hi, Brad. Hi. Sorry, I'm late. It's OK. Should we have Brad? Since you missed roll call, Brad, does he need to say that he's joined the meeting or something? Say I'm here, Brad. I'm here. Brad Whistler has joined the meeting. Thank you.
 And that's pretty much all I have as far as financials and the grant budget update. Does anyone have any questions about anything? Again? I do have a question. So are we seeing things were more busy with the grant requests in the first and second quarter? It feels like things maybe have slowed down a little bit. Do we know why that might have been?
 So I did stop the safety and security grants at this point in time. Now that we have the city program happening, I'm kind of funneling some of those through that instead, because we are so low on that budget line, and we still have plenty of money in the city safety and cleanliness grant. So since it's citywide,
 makes sense to utilize that. A little bit of an overlap between that program and this. Yeah, absolutely. The building improvement, we have a couple now. I have not received any additional ones that I have seen recently. But I did check on Monday. It can change at any point in time. So I try to check on Mondays and Fridays for additional grant applications. And then the accessibility one, I would love for more people to take advantage of it.
 or comments on the financial statements? Well, are we considering a motion? Because we moved from the financial reports into grants. I wasn't sure if you were entertaining that or waiting. Yeah, I think we need to probably call out the financial report, the June financial, separately for a motion. Yeah. So. OK, it's going to make you feel comfortable. Yeah, if everyone's comfortable. We need Cheryl to prepare them.
 So I moved to approve the 2025. Sorry, we're looking at June or July here. June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June, June
 Heather Robinson, yes. Brad Whistler, yes. Jane Cooper-Smith, yes. Mary Morgan, yes. Virginia Gethier, yes. All right. Motion is approved. Thank you. All right. Great. So next, the grant review for First Christian Church Historic Facade Grant. I'll give you a little bit of background and a bit of a summary of
 Their application, their original ask is $40,000. I do want to remind the board that we only have $20,000 left in the historic facade grant line. So just to put that out there. First Christian Church has been an incredible community member and partner. They've done a lot of work with the unhoused, with emergency sheltering.
 They are a faith-based organization, obviously a nonprofit. They have done a lot of work with Habitat for Humanity. And they are seeking a historic facade grant for their building. They are outside of the zone. And I have included a map, which, unfortunately, I did not put directly with their application. Or I guess I put it at the end of their application.
 Their building is quite literally just a few hundred feet outside of the zone. So there we go. 222 feet. Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm not sharing this with you guys. My bad.
 Let me do that really quick. This will let me escape. There we go. Yeah, so once again, we're kind of in this
 dilemma where we have been asking it is outside of the zone. So I've provided the information and the application, and I leave it to you all to make the decision and have a discussion about it, or if anyone has any strong feelings about it. I always have strong opinions, but I'll hold nine for as long as I can sit on them, so others can discuss.
 Can we talk about the amount first? I know we've only got $20,000 on the line. What do we ask, I can't remember, for people to apply for, like the amount? So it is actually $10,000 per facade. Why is this keyboard not working right now? That's why we're considering it four times, right? Because 10,000 on each side. You can apply for multiple facades for this grant. OK. Yes. So it's 10 per wall.
 Essentially essentially kind of like okay so it's that which is good okay and this has been through historic preservation all of them all of the applications that we get for this grant goes through historic preservation first all right so they're they're good with it okay i believe at our last meeting we just denied a an application because it was outside of the zone even though it was close maybe not quite this close but
 And I hate it, but if we don't respect the lines, then why do we have them? Absolutely. Phil, did you want to say something? I saw you wave your hand. Are you speaking to me? Yes, I thought I saw you wave your hand. No, I was just scratching my nose. Oh, OK. Something to say. Oh, yeah.
 I agree. We have these guidelines for a reason. We just said no to someone outside of our borders. So this is another situation we have to say no. I think the argument can be made that it definitely improves the district with all their help with the unhoused and addiction. I think it's something to consider, especially in that area.
 I think we've set some precedent for funding nonprofits outside of the zone. So we had a situation worth 4th Street Art Festival and we did fund that and they technically are out just outside of the zone and I think the discussion at that point was the direct impact to the zone was such that it. You know was approved because that
 within the bylaws, the mission of impacting the zone was to the extent that the board agreed to that. And I don't know, because it's before my time, I think virtually any of our time, PALS ended up as something that we did fund through COVID. And I know that that was a crazy time. And I'm sure all working were trying to help. But that's significantly outside of the zone.
 It is a nonprofit and we essentially dismiss their loan, which will come through the financial statements as a grant. So I can say that we've drawn the line on for-profit businesses outside of the zone, at least in my time here, but we've not done the same for nonprofits, particularly when the work that they do is so impactful to the zone.
 So I would just put that out there for consideration and discussion. I think that's right on, Heather. And I just want to underscore, the map of the BUBA, it defines the district. But what the bylaws talk about is zone impact. And so the organizations that have been funded in the past, and PALS was intentionally funded for this reason,
 by measuring their impact to the enterprise zone. And I think, obviously, I'll just state my opinion. I'm strongly in support of funding this in spite of its location, 222 feet outside of the zone for a number of reasons. The church supports the mall, the mobility aids lending library. They do a ton of work to support unhoused folks providing day shelters. They provide transitional apartments for people who are
 getting out of homelessness but not yet able to support themselves in market rate or whatever apartments. Mary probably knows more about what they do than I do, but they do a lot of work for the community and specifically the community that's in the enterprise zone. Do we have data that speaks to that? I'm not sure, but I think there's a really strong case for supporting this organization and
 When you go pull back and look at general economic vitality of the enterprise zone, having churches in our downtown district is really important. And they just don't have a lot of money. So I think the need is really high in this case. And I respect everybody's opinions and am a hardcore rule follower. So I get that too. Just quickly, I think
 It would be helpful for me to have some type of rubric, because I really, I agree, I think from a humanitarian standpoint, I absolutely agree with Jane. But I think from just a rule standpoint, even with the viability of how nonprofits help the city, I need a rubric, because I'm kind of like Brad in the police. I'm like, well, this is very subjective.
 So I would feel more comfortable. Maybe that's the researcher in me. I think we need a rubric or something, because it's just difficult. If I'm able to release my own personal biases, then, of course, for this church, I'd be like, yes, let's do it. But maybe another similar organization. I'd be like, no, because XYZ. And I would have to fight that. So without a rubric, it's difficult for me just being completely transparent to be able to just blanketly say,
 Yes, because I feel like they've helped unhoused or, you know, so that's just my own kind of yeah. Yeah, I think that's well said. I think you can make the case for virtually anybody who applies for this that they're having an impact within the zone. That's not a high bar, right? Every any nonprofit in our town is serving residents that are in the zone, right?
 That to me is not enough. Not that this isn't without merit. And I agree with everything that Jane said. But there has to be some kind of standard. It can't just be, oh, if we like it, it's OK if it's outside the zone. If we don't, it's not. And I'm not comfortable with that. I'm all for it. If we can establish some kind of a quantitative way to say we will consider things outside the zone, if these things are met, I'm all for it. But I'm really not comfortable just
 making it so subjective, as you said. Yeah. That's great points. The other thing I wanted to mention is that we support other places like IB Tech and the MCCSE that are definitely outside of the zone. But again, they benefit the whole community, the downtown community. And they give us numbers. Yeah, that's a great point. And that's another thing I wanted to bring up. I had wrote down as a note.
 I would really wish they were here because I wanted to know who gave those initial estimates because they didn't say they had a contractor picked out or whether that contractor was going to be within the zone because that could be another selling point is that you're employing people who are going to work within the zone and benefit them. So maybe a little more information from them would be great if they could come and give a little presentation to be beneficial.
 Well, I feel like we're in an inflection point where we have some of these requests that are coming before us for consideration because we've not had a hard line in the sand about inside outside the zone. So sorry, there has been in the past. There was never a question. I mean, there was there was always a like we wouldn't fund things that were halfway across town, but
 the interpretation of the boundaries. It has never been, if it's in the boundaries, that's the only thing that can be funded. That has never, ever been the rule of this organization. So I just want to say this is very far outside. It's why I think I have such a strong opinion about it. But this is very outside the practice I've been involved with this organization since 2016. And this interpretation is very conservative, and I think it's
 You know, we have questions about the grant dollars going out. I look at the balance sheet over north of $3 million. When I started working at the city in 2020, it was $2.3 million. This is a nonprofit. It needs to get the money out into the community. You have a pillar organization that is a nonprofit that is doing more than supporting its own membership. I think the case is very clear. I think it could be beneficial to distill a policy
 describing, I think whether it's a rubric or just describing, putting that in writing so the board can reaffirm its commitment to how it operates. But I do not think that this church should be the test case. I think there is just such a clear case to support this grant application. I would just request that the board consider
 being open to it. So can I ask, Jane, would you say that historically most of the applications have been the nonprofit status would trump any type of distance? Like, is that more? There has to be zone impact. OK. Yeah. And I think proximity is a reason. Well, proximity. But zone impact measured by?
 is makes that easier to demonstrate, right? Thinking about the Buzzkirk Chumley, for example, when the BBA had funded projects there in the past, there was always like, oh, it's proximal, and a lot of our visitors are coming from the zone. But then we would request that they demonstrate that in a concrete way. And so they would often have an add-on of like, we're bringing Fairview students in. And so then the,
 what is sort of intangible becomes more tangible. But proximity and nonprofit status weren't the deciders, but they would impact. But it's really that zone impact question. And that's still kind of measured just on maybe what we see. So it's more anecdotal, not necessarily. I think it's whatever you can get. And I think organizations like SBDC
 and MCCSE, they're sophisticated. And so they're able to say, we're impacting X number of businesses, Y number of residents, we have Z students living in the district. But to ask this church to come up with a comparable metric
 they're not going to be able to do that. But I think they can talk about their programming, which very clearly extends beyond the footprint. Well, that's, yeah. And that's in the, they do provide some numbers about the number of people they serve on Sunday breakfast. And then they list all of the different organizations that they serve. So I don't think that there's a lack of, yeah. But I agree with, I mean, I would support, I'm not sure I would support funding all four facades.
 I think that they have made an impact argument very clearly in the packet. But I do agree that it does seem like every time we're just kind of like saying, yeah, it seems like there's no impact. And we can sometimes point to what information is provided by the petitioner. But I do like the idea of having something more concrete in writing so that we can say, OK, according to, you know,
 we approve this, whether it's a rubric or something else, and that this applicant has met these conditions, there would be a little less seeming like, yeah, they seem good to me. And I really just, and I won't say anything else on this, but honestly, I just brought that up because I'm like, from my standpoint, that maybe hasn't been, or I'm a little heavily engaged, but I'm saying, imagine somebody else being on VEE.
 being on this board, maybe who's fairly new or not really totally deeply engaged and doesn't know. And again, from the humanitarian standpoint, I'll be like, absolutely. But that's just long term. I think that that can be very, very challenging. And if it gets out, that's kind of how we've
 We're making decisions with our heart that can kind of, you know, I don't know, it can feel some kind of way. I'm just trying to look at it globally. We should develop a policy of the board that includes a rubric of in the zone, yes, outside of the zone, no. What are the things then if it's outside of the zone do we need to see as a board to consider that as an impact certainly would be one. How could that be measured even through
 you know, qualitative information and so forth. So we may not limit that to only non-for-profit then. We may not just limit that to one organization. We need to open that up to for-profits as well. Because why should we exclude for-profits if we're opening it up? If it impacts the zone, it impacts the zone, correct?
 I think that's a good point. And so all the more reason why the rubric would be so important to have, and do we want a proximity piece in that? Is it, you know, we would consider within six blocks of the zone, one mile, five miles? Or is it simply that the organization could still be five miles outside of the zone that have a huge impact?
 in the zone. I mean, I think we then get on kind of, you know, you get on a bit of a slippery slope with that, because then it could be potentially opened up broadly, and we may be really... I think there has to be some way to quantify that, right? Because it is not hard to make the case for any nonprofit that they have impact on the zone. I think if they're outside of the zone physically, they have to have
 disproportionate impact on the zone and a focus on the zone right I mean I've come up with a fake example if let's say that the I don't know it's the library in the zone but if there was an organization who had a foundation that was outside of the zone their focus and their of their of their mission was within the zone that would be a clear case where it would make sense but
 You know, just because an organization serves some residents in the zone, I don't think that is enough to say that it qualifies. That's my opinion. Because I just think you could make that case for just about any nonprofit anywhere in the city. Yeah, and just hand picking isn't adequate for any situation because it's going to make us look biased.
 I request maybe that Alex help Dee before next meeting with a legal review of the current policies, and then the board can get a clear picture of the current state. And then that serves as a foundation to draft a policy relating to this. Well, my question is, like,
 The way I do it for the city grants that we created, I mean, there is a rubric. There is a scoring sheet. And if that is the tool that you would like to have individually when you get these grants, that is something that is possible. That makes this whole process easier moving forward. It's just not something that, since I've been here, the board's ever requested, needed, or even necessarily considered because it wasn't
 because we didn't have as many grants, to be perfectly honest. Agreed. I think that we are getting more requests, which is great, because it allows us to put more out into the zone and impact the community. And I think you make a really good point, Dee. I mean, I know just a few years ago, there was, how can we get more money away? And now we're getting lots of requests where we're running through budget line items, and we are really
 Looking at this and of course looking at closely what the boundaries are of the zone and you know what our our true objective is and it's challenging because it's on a rolling basis so we don't have the full you know list of people who are applying so that we can evaluate that and prioritize so we're kind of we're making it on a you know.
 And that's really, yeah, that's interesting. Because businesses sometimes, or a lot of profits, don't know exactly when they're going to need funds. So having it just once or twice a year, like a lot of grant cycles are, it doesn't really work. Because you might learn that the windows in your business, and you need to apply for a grant fund at different times of the year. So yeah. I have some thoughts. Is that OK? Yeah, absolutely. I just took bullets, because it's a lot of snow.
 Rocketing back and forth, okay. So first, BUAA, like the BUAA mission, I was just looking at the historic guidelines, right, is to like improve this area for like economic, physical, social environment for residents and businesses. So that I feel like is where we have like our broad statement that like it's resident impact. The eligibility for this grant is for properties within the BUAA.
 Well, the zone, yeah, the BUE zone. So if I were applying, if I were looking for money myself for something and I saw that, I wouldn't apply because I'm not in the zone, right? And so first, I'm happy to fund most of this, just I'll say that. But the guidelines just say right there, you have to be in the zone. And I think it is difficult then to be like,
 while you're physically out of the zone and other people might not be applying because they are reading the rules and they're not eligible. So that is hard for me, just the way the grant guidelines are listed. And that would just be like, if we want to change them to also be more flexible, I think that we should look into that. I do like that we are so flexible. And I think that's really helpful for so many organizations needing grants, but flexibility then
 can be subjective, can be biased, you might lose equitability and predictability and transparency, but maybe not, because we do talk about everything out in the open, right? But I think there's just pros and cons to being flexible and being like, that sounds like something we should spend money on or not, right? I wasn't here for the follow-up for the insurance company funding, but it's that spectrum where to me, if we were to fund that,
 insurance company, it's right next door to Culver's. And I think then Culver's could have made the exact same case. And I don't think that is necessarily the mission, in my mind, of the BUEA. So I think it is like a murky water of just kind of what we fund and what we don't. Specifically facade, maybe this wasn't here, but I thought we did street facing facades. Is that not? Right, because the historic HPC tends to do. Yeah, we did that a couple weeks ago.
 another. I didn't know if we did find all four or if we were like we did find all four right if it's just the street facing no we funded the two facing the street okay I thought that was the thing
 No. They only applied for the two that were facing the street. I mean, I know just HPC stuff, at least residential, rules are much stricter for the street facing instead of the sides or the rear, usually. But maybe with the church, I mean, you're just going to have a lot of money on all the facades to do all the work. Anyway, those are my main thoughts, I guess. All good points. Yeah, really good. And the clarification on the facade is good, too.
 Can I ask one more thing? So just kind of thinking to the Hazens, the agency, if there's a situation with a profit or nonprofit, once we get the rubric or however we're going to move forward, what if it's a situation where they physically had a location in the zone, but maybe due to cost of a building
 the age of a building they had to move. Would that then be a consideration? It could be something maybe on the application. So like habitat, the only reason it's in my mind is I'm on the habitat board as well. And we're kind of going through this with the restore. It's just been a challenge issue. We've had to look high and low for space. It could be possible that an organization had a physical presence in the zone for 30 years.
 And then at year 31, they had to move 300 feet outside of, I mean, not with the historical church that's been there forever. But that could really happen. So that if they would submit an application, is there something in there that not being physically in the zone, they wouldn't be necessarily crossed off of that because all of their experience had been in the zone, but just by virtue of something else, they had to move out. I don't know if that makes sense.
 just thought I'd throw that out there as a possible consideration, because that also could happen. And they've served. So the scenario is where the location is. Yeah, maybe that's something Dee and Alex could discuss during a legal review. The other thing I just want to point out is that the BBA is very much supporting businesses and residents.
 I think that we look at the nonprofits as supporting the residents, but this organization and its bylaws do not buy us against for-profit businesses. They don't. This organization supports for-profit businesses as a way to increase and improve our economic vitality as a community. So I think we know that we have a lot of nonprofits in this community that are in need and that are doing the heavy lifting for our community, and so the board
 tends to support them, which is great, but just that the bylaws do not buy us against for-profit businesses. And I think we've supported a number of for-profit businesses. Most of the grants we've approved this year have been for-profit businesses. So I just want to put that on record. So it sounds like at this point that we need to ask Dee and Alex to help
 clarify policies for this, what currently exists, and what potentially a rubric for us so that we have a better sense. And in some ways, the grants that are outside, or the grants that have come in that are outside of the zone, as it's written right now, technically we should have probably never seen this.
 That is another piece that we're kind of being asked to review something that as it was written in the application, should we have this been brought to us? So it sounds like we need some policy clarifications and that then it'll help guide us as a board and we should be involved in understanding and improving those policies.
 I'd also request to get more information about their bid. I don't think they have showed exactly how they came up with their numbers. It would be nice to have a little more information about how they got to where they are. I would also just request that once we have adopted this rubric or this standard that we update the public facing
 website to reflect exactly that. Because as it reads today, it's clear. I mean, it says pretty clearly, you must be in the zone. And so I don't want the public to think that there's some sort of side door to come in and get funding here that the general public's not aware of. We want to be as transparent as we can be. Agreed. So are we tabling this approval
 this request today, more information, and we will revisit based on some policy and guide, like a rubric or guidelines. Okay. Second. All right. And then we'll go around the room. Felisa, are you want to vote on that? Yes. Move the table, Felisa Spinelli. Yes.
 Oh. Hey, Rosemary. Yes. Heather Robinson, yes. Brett Whistler, yes. I don't know. I want to say no, just on principle, because I really want to approve this. But I also feel like the board, it sounds like you wouldn't vote to approve it if we did consider it today. But I think I'll just take my spot and say I prefer not to table it, so I'll vote no. Mary Morgan, yes. Virginia Gutierrez, yes. OK.
 passes to table until we can get a better handle on some policies and how we treat these requests moving forward because the good news is we are getting more requests and we want to be able to put money out there but as a board we need to have a better understanding of what that looks like and if we're making exceptions for what's not listed in the online grant applications right now we need to be really clear about why we're doing that.
 and if we do make that change, then it needs to be publicized. Okay. All right, great discussion, everyone. Appreciate that. We have one item left on the agenda. It's unfinished business. Dee, you wanna talk a little bit about that, the warehouse? Yes, so we have had this come up for several meetings, and we'd like to put this one to bed.
 The warehouse has asked for a considerable amount for their grant application because of the funding that we have left in the business building improvement grant line. At our last meeting, we had decided to limit any asks to $10,000.
 So the maximum award that we could give the warehouse if we decide to give the warehouse anything is $10,000. Additionally, David is not here to speak on behalf of the warehouse. It's imperative that we are looking at the warehouse application strictly on the merits of the application for the business and building improvement grant.
 I don't know if Alex would like to speak to that further, but. Sure, yeah. Shall we go to Alex? Yeah, that would be good. We'll make room for you. So just as a recap, at the last board's meeting,
 There were some concerns raised that they are perceived political and religious association that the warehouse might have. And there was a discussion about that and whether the director should be invited and defend the mission of the warehouse. From a legal standpoint, this presents the appearance of a bias. We really can't question religious or political
 associations of any applicant. So my recommendation would be to just look at the application on its face, just look at what they've presented, look at the budget, whether we can accommodate such requests. Anything else would make the board look biased. And if any member feels like they might be biased,
 when they vote for this grant, I would advise that they abstain. Okay. Far be it for me to disagree with legal, but I have boundaries as well. They're not geographic boundaries, but they're constitutional boundaries. And I simply want to ask the question, does this organization support the First Amendment? And if any group came before us and said,
 You know, we want support. Oh, by the way, tucked away in our mission, we're against the freedom of press, or we're against the vote for women, or we're against public assembly. Then I couldn't in good conscience cross that boundary and say, I want to fund that group. I know I was perceived as being against religion. Of all people, I am not. But I am against the
 the use of religion to exclude any other religions. And all I want from the warehouse is a statement. Do you support Christian nationalism or not? And if they do, that means they support the exclusive religious practice of only one group. And my reading of the Constitution is that's against the First Amendment.
 I would have voted for, reluctantly, granting money to first Christians, because I'm clear that they, both as a congregation and denominationally, stand against exclusive religious practice, and only one religious group should speak for all in the United States. My fear is that's where we're heading, and my boundary is the U.S. Constitution
 First Amendment, freedom of religion, all are open. And we don't just practice exclusive practice for one group to have a voice. I would just add to that. And by the way, I want to be clear. If there's any question, I am biased. I am biased against the breaking of the Constitution of the United States.
 In fact, the BEA has supported other religious organizations, including churches, would make it appear if this was judged in some way on religious grounds. It will be a recent... All I want them is a statement. Do they support Christian nationalism or not? Well, I don't think this should be a consideration when we consider
 you should be concerned when you consider the grant. May I ask a couple of questions from a practical, well, I mean it's all practical, but from a different angle as well. So Alex had said to look at the grant from what's on the page. And Phil, thank you for your thoughtful analysis. I am grateful for that. But Alex's legal counsel was to look at it
 face value, what's on the page and what the budget allows. And when I'm looking at the budget versus balance sheet, I'm only seeing an available $4,442 and change in this budget line. And so I don't understand how even the $10,000 amount that was kind of what the board had shifted to, how that 10,000 could be considered.
 Yeah, we actually talked about that last meeting that we had some funds from 2024 and some of the different categories that essentially were unused. And so for this, and we may have some funds, we're not sure about the climate resiliency programs and so forth. So there is some likelihood that we may have some excess funds in budget categories for this year.
 So there was the discussion about the possibility then of exceeding that particular budget line this year and not necessarily just for the warehouse, but just in general that did we want to potentially exceed the budget because we had some unused funds from last year. And when we were having that discussion, we were also talking about the forge and the warehouse because of that.
 So that's why we're bringing this back up, because they were in that discussion in the previous meeting, so. So I think we sort of landed on the possibility of $10,000 that is typically like the threshold for grants in this area. We do get requests above that. This year we haven't funded any above that for business building improvements, so I think we had
 thought about the consideration of $10,000. I want to be clear. So we're not comfortable crossing a geographic boundary, but we would be comfortable crossing a constitutional boundary. I think the part they're trying to say is we can't. We cannot. We can't consider that.
 Under the law of our board, we can't consider it. No matter how we feel about it, no matter what our personal beliefs are, we have to set that aside and do what our job is and look at the application. I'm prepared to challenge this legally. I just want you to know. I understand that, but we are really, we support what you say and don't think that we're not acknowledging it.
 But we can't go off our emotions and our personal beliefs in this story. This is not just personal belief. It's the Constitution of the United States. And I understand that. It's a lot of things that I don't totally agree with, but I can't put my beliefs. All I'm asking is for David to give us a statement.
 We can't ask for that statement. That's what legal justice explains us. We cannot ask for that statement. Hang on, everybody. Hang on. But we can ask for groups outside the geographic boundaries to give us reasons, a score. All right. Everyone, can I call this meeting back to order? Thank you. Yeah, I need to. I appreciate this robot discussion here. Alex, can you speak to that request on we've
 I'm going to turn it over to you. So we cannot invite the director to speak because but for the comments made at last meeting that we can't consider in order to not be biased, we wouldn't have invited him. So inviting a business. All right, Bill, hang on. Bill, please let us plan. Time to do us for funding. We have no grounds.
 No, we do have grants. That they would want to break the first agreement? In our grant application, in our grant agreement, we have a provision that you cannot discriminate against a protected class. So any white supremacist organization that comes and applies, we won't be able to grant them the grant because it's illegal under Indiana law, under our code, and so forth.
 Irony of this is I'm probably the only one in this group that has given money regularly to the warehouse. I'm not against their mission. I am wanting clarity as to are they in the pocket of a lieutenant governor who clearly is about white nationalism. That's all I want to know.
 Bill, I would invite you to have a conversation outside of this board. I would welcome you to reach out to the executive director and have a conversation not related to the mission of the BUA and what our fiduciary responsibility is in oversight. I would like to call a vote today
 on whether or not we will fund this business building improvement grant for the warehouse. And I would ask for a motion to approve and an amount if we're ready to vote today. I'm wrestling with the grant amount because I don't want to
 For example, the sustainability, I don't want to prevent the opportunity for other organizations to fund projects in that category, but I guess I heard
 Heather, I heard you say there were prior years funds available that would make this available at $10,000 instead of $4,442. The board has the discretion to exceed a budget line item based on the financial standing of the organization. And we had this discussion last meeting. It doesn't mean that we're taking money from climate resiliency. It means that we've just agreed to exceed the business building improvement
 budget by, you know, forty six hundred dollars or whatever this may be or fifty six hundred dollars. So we could. I move to table. We had a legal. I guess you just vote. There has to be a second. No one has seconded.
 Sorry, I didn't hear you guys. We have to have a second on the table or the motion dies. Okay, so we don't have a second on the table. Do we have a motion to fund any part of this request? I move.
 approval of funding the grant at the level of $10,000 for the business building improvement and grant, business building improvement grant, understanding that our legal counsel is to evaluate what's on the page and to avoid bias. And for these reasons, I move approval at $10,000.
 second. Okay. We'll need. We'll need around the room. I have the same. I'm sorry. Michael Hover. I abstained. Okay. Okay. Okay. Rosenberger. Yes. Other Robinson. Yes. Red whistle. Yes. Jane Cooper Smith. Yes.
 Mary Morgan, abstain. Virginia, get the area abstain. Do we have? Bill Amerson, abstain with the notation that I have reached out to David and got no response. OK. All right. So we have one, two, three, four. Where does that foot is? Four yeses. I think, I think. One, two, three, four, five. Oh, five. Five. Five yeses, four abstentions.
 That carries. Thank you, everyone. I think we're adjourned.