- Welcome, everyone. Welcome to Spring and Bloomington, kind of. So we'll get started with a roll call
- around the room. Jane, do you want to kick things off? Jane Coopersmith, BU-EA. Dee DeLaRosa, ESD, stuff
- that you've done. Cheryl Gilliland, Deputy Controller, City Controller's Office. Tegan Garner, Staff.
- Virginia Gethiri, BU-EA.
- Heather Robinson, BUEA. Katerina Ka, BUEA. Kate Rosenbarger, BUEA. Michael Hover, BUEA. Kalisa Spinelli,
- BUEA. Excellent. And Alex Pratt, legal. Cool. Do we have someone else on character? And then, do we
- have a guest? Eric, can you just state your name, please?
- You are on mute. Good afternoon. My name is Eric Hose. Thank you. All right. Welcome, everyone. Yeah.
- So we have a new face in the room. Hey. Welcome. Katerina, how do I pronounce your last name?
- Is it Coke? Ka. Ka? Ka. OK. So Katerina Ka, she is our newest member.
- and is in the C3 position that Mary Morgan used to occupy. If you want to tell us a little bit about
- yourself. Sure. My name is Katarina Caw. I moved to Bloomington over 12 years ago, left for about seven
- years, and I've done my Bloomerang. I came back in 2023. I'm the executive director of the Lotus Education
- Arts Foundation. I have a dog and two cats. I met my husband here when I came back to Bloomington.
- Yeah. Anything particular else I should share? Yeah. Great. That's great. Cool. Great. Okay. Thank you.
- Thank you. Good deal. D. All right. So we do have minutes, but on that note, we need to reapprove the
- December minutes because somehow in the recording and in our notes, we missed the first and second in there.
- I will leave it to you to make that happen. Can we do December and February together? Yes. Is everyone
- okay with that? Were there any questions on the minutes, comments, corrections? Anything, anybody see
- anything? No, we've already approved the end of the time, the December minutes. I didn't see any problems
- with February. Okay.
- Hearing that there are no corrections or anything. Do we have a motion to approve both December and
- December 2025 and February 2026 minutes? Motion. Motion. Do we have a second? Second. Second. And then
- we'll need to do a roll call for approval since we have Felisa online. So Jane, you want to start again?
- Yeah. Jane, first, 9th, aye. And then it comes to you, Virginia. Virginia, get there, yes. Heather Robinson, yes.
- Katerina, should I stay in? You can, yeah, since you were not here. Kate Rosenberger, yes. Michael Hoever,
- yes. Belisa Spinelli, yes. Thank you. It looks like Eric has his hand up. Eric? Yeah, I have a point
- of order. Did you have quorum in February? Yes. Yes. And did you also satisfy the electronic meeting
- Yes. Law. Yes. Sorry, is it public comments? Yeah, also we're not in a section of public comments. Oh,
- I'm sorry. This is somewhat intimate. Yeah, we don't usually have people online. So yeah. Sorry. The
- reason I asked that is I think it's not public comment right now. Yeah. All right.
- Eric, we can come back to that when we get to general. It's not even typically public comment on this
- agenda. But you can allow it, Heather, later if you want to. Sure. Or whatever you want to. Yeah. Can
- we have to move to add it to the agenda? OK. All right. Yes, we will allow. Eric, if you can just hang
- on. We'll have a space for public comment. We will have to add it to the agenda, approve that.
- process and then we can add it to the agenda. Okay, so Dee, then on to director's report. Okay,
- pretty quick. So we took care of the meeting minutes, easing reminders and invoices. We're going to
- send those next week. We're still working on getting all of the correct contact information.
- and we've confirmed that DMA will still be representing Novo Nordisk. So thankfully, there's not a lot
- of confusion getting all that taken care of. Once again, board members, if you have recommendations
- for the remaining open seats, please let me know as soon as possible. You can also contact Jennifer
- Crossley in the clerk's department directly for anything like that.
- And then something exciting that has happened recently. We had a little ESO meeting. So it's
- Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship Support Organization meeting. So it was myself, some people from
- the mill, SBDC, and the chamber just got together and kind of talked about what we do. It was a lot
- of people who were boots on the ground, which was really fun.
- Some of the things that we are in the process of working on is having a resource desk at the mill. So
- that would be pretty much open to the public or any of the entrepreneurs or startups that are there.
- The members of each said organization will rotate out so we can tell people, I can sit there and tell
- people about the city and the opportunities there, and the chamber can do the same.
- the former small business entrepreneurship person over at Amplify. Her team was working on a database
- of all of the potential resources within the city and in surrounding county.
- So that's going to be a really great database for us to work with to create a resource rail for people
- to be able to access, and then eventually doing some ecosystem mapping. So obviously, because the BU
- has resources, you guys will be on that list as well. And so we're really excited. It's kind of small
- steps, foundational steps, but I think it could be really good. And it's nice to get all of us in a
- room together, because we see each other in
- in large meetings, but never get to just specifically talk about what we do. So those are nice. Other
- than that, that's really all I have. So then we have some financial reports to look at. Cheryl, thanks
- for having
- the end of year reports available and ready. So if you want to talk about the year end and so forth,
- just sort of like the bigger picture. And when you're looking at Latch,
- At 2025, on your budget to actual, I provided the report that shows all the details. When we're looking
- at just on the income side, you exceeded the amount of money you brought in.
- based on over the budgeted amount of what you expected. But basically by 83 percent. So that was really
- good. Yeah. To bring in more than you anticipated. But I do think that some of it was a back pay from.
- Yeah. So, you know, that you know, you're you're you're doing really well with your
- with on your income side. So then when you look on the expense side, you spent 61% of your budget, which
- is a lot better than you did in 2024. 2024, you only spent 48% of your budget. So that was nice to see
- because I think that's a reflection of your budget.
- your leadership and you know in terms of some of the budgeted items in 2024 just didn't get off the
- ground and where I think in 2025 you had you know great response and you know I think narrowed in on
- some of your programs a little bit better and so that was nice to see.
- And I will just say that one category in your admin category, it shows that you overspent by 14%. And
- this is really not correct, because on the management side, you'll see that it says $100,000 that was spent.
- It's really only $50,000 because we had an error in kind of an overpayment. The check was written and
- instead of being deposited into, because it was written to the city of Bloomington for internal management,
- it was deposited back into not the city account, but the VUA account.
- So the check had to be rewritten. So it was rewritten and shows up here. But the correction for the
- first wrong deposit didn't happen until January. So it's kind of skewed a little bit, just so that I
- just know. So in January, we're going to have a negative $50,000 that will
- Yeah, it balances itself out. So in terms of just looking at your budget, it's really kind of over-saving
- because you really didn't spend $100,000 on management fees. So just so that you know that. So that
- does add $50,000 more technically to the net income for the year. Exactly. So we're over $500,000 for
- the year then. Yes. So.
- But yeah, so if you look down at all of your different grant categories, you spent 56% of your grant
- budgets overall, which was really good. Other than that, yeah, there's not really. And I will also say
- that it's not reflected on this particular
- profit and lost budget versus actual but on your balance sheet and I think the balance sheet I provided
- is just for the end of the year, it shows the full year. It was pointed out that PALS is still listed
- and I did not, I was not aware that that needs to be removed because
- evidently the group decided to cover that balance after the tornado over the summer. And so I can go
- back and get that corrected and then provide you with an updated or I could wait and do it for the 2026
- where you actually have budgeted to cover a lot of your RRF
- Yeah, because the PALS is actually included in that. It's included in the future forgiveness pot of
- money. It is? It's not? Yes. That's how I factored it in mathematically, but I didn't make you aware
- of what we were doing because you weren't at that meeting. I just forgot. Yeah, so if you want it, we
- can just reflect it in 26 if you wish.
- Yeah I mean it was approved in 25 and so at this point making a prior year adjustment seems like a lot
- for that since we do have budget for forgiveness and that one was in particular one that was converted
- to a grant the board approved that so yes we'd like to I think I mean I would say that it makes sense
- to put it in 26 but I welcome anyone else's comments on that as well.
- doesn't then because it's just since we already have a budget for this year for it let's do that okay
- perfect yeah well then you'll see that when I provide the quarter one for 2026 any questions from anyone
- on the reports that Charles provided we
- The net income gain of $500,000 is a lot, gang. So that's, you know. I have a question. It may be for
- another time. But I was just wondering about, are there goals or percentage goals for utilizing the
- grants? Yeah. D, that's probably more. Well, all of it.
- Yeah. I mean, the goal is 100% every time. But realistically, if we can get to an average of 50% on
- all of them, because it is a considerable amount of money to pump out, some of the grants we expend
- very quickly, and some of them we just do not. But if we can do an average of 50% on all of them, I
- think that makes me feel pretty good. Yeah.
- I would agree. But I mean, I just think that the group has done a much better job consistently over
- the last five years to set the budget amount closer to more realistic and made adjustments and getting
- the word out there. I mean, people have to apply.
- for the grants as well. Thank you. Excuse me, anything further on financial reports or any questions?
- And if you have questions, don't hesitate to reach out. I mean, I know it's a lot of material to take
- in at first and a lot of information, so if you do review the questions, don't hesitate to reach out.
- Okay, so we do need a motion to approve the Q4 2025 financial reports with a noting that the administration
- or management fee there is more. It's not gonna be adjustment on this or anything, but just to make
- that note, as Cheryl explained.
- If we could have a motion to approve the financials. You got a motion for me? Second. I'll second. OK.
- If we can do around the room roll call for approval. Jane Coversmith, aye. Virginia Gethary, aye. Heather
- Robinson, aye. Kettering Nicole, aye. Pete Rosenberger, yes. Michael Hover, yes. Felisa Spinelli, yes.
- Thank you. All right, Dee, what's up next? We have a business building improvement grant application
- from Wonder Lab. For full disclosure, I am on the Wonder Lab board. However, since I am not a voting
- member, all I can do is present you with the information.
- This grant is to replace windows in the. Oh, sorry. I thought I already had it up.
- Okay. Yeah, the pictures are really big. Yeah. They are big. They are big. Hello, little stuffed animal.
- Window key.
- Hang on just a second, folks. Yeah. Alex, can you go get your chats, please? Can you go get your chats,
- please? Sorry, guys.
- Sorry.
- transparent I was just verifying with legal that there's not a conflict of interest for D to present
- since she serves on the wonder lab board. She's not a voting member, but our goal at the city is to
- avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest as well as actual conflicts of interest. So my concern
- was that it inadvertently favors wonder lab by having a staff member present on their behalf, but legal
- is saying no, it's okay for D to present she is not voting. And she
- so she doesn't have the option of recusing herself. So you're presenting a staff report on behalf of
- Wonder Lab. You're not acting in your board member role. I am not. OK. I just wanted to clarify that
- for the record. Thanks. Thank you, Jane. Appreciate that. All right, Dee. So Wonder Lab has received
- grants from the BEA in the past. However, they have not applied for this specific grant. This is a business
- building improvement grant to cover the replacement of some windows that have been in the building for
- almost as long as the building has stood. Pretty basic replacement. You'll note that there is an updated
- budget from the draft
- that I sent out, which was on board or may still be. There were some labor costs that they wanted covered
- and within the labor costs that they were asking to have covered cannot be covered within this grant.
- So the ask numbers have been adjusted for the appropriate amounts. So WonderLab is my
- The screen just got small again, sorry. Because these pictures are big. So the ask is for, if I can
- find the budget now. Apologies.
- The ask is for $4,094.16. The total cost of the project is $8,188.31. That would be $7,793.11 for the
- windows and $395.20 for the labor for the Bloomington
- Glass, I believe, is the company. City Glass. City Glass, sorry. It's pretty straightforward. Building
- improvement grant. I think that 395 is the staff time for the work during the replacement. Is that right?
- To clear the gift store and be present for the install. So it's sort of a part of that construction
- cost is what I'm seeing.
- Yeah, that was up in there. Oh, I did not see that. Yeah, it was their staff time to remove items from
- the gift shop. And I think they estimated at 16 hours or something like that, if I remember correctly.
- Not on that page yet. And so they were asking for BUA to cover the staff time as well.
- Oh, okay. So the reason that's included is because in the application they state that they are closed
- on Mondays. They're doing the installation, they're doing overtime hours for staff time to clear the
- facility and prepare for the installation and have people on site. So that's why these expenses were
- broken down in actual immediate costs of the installation and construction costs. Okay, that's helpful.
- Quick question. So the grant, does it require a match? It does require a 50% match. OK. And then those
- labor costs. If you see the very back. Yeah. So those labor costs are included in the construction.
- The grant doesn't cover other labor other than the construction, is that right? Yeah. So in the original.
- The original budget that they gave us, there was lifetime maintenance, which we don't cover lifetime
- maintenance. We cover the things that get you there and the things to complete the project, but we don't
- do anything beyond that.
- I would say the only part I am unsure about is the 395. I mean, so just when we're talking about this
- grant versus other grants and what this might look like in another applicant. So I guess I don't know
- that we've covered additional staff time before. That's my only question. Is that something we're already
- into and are happy being in that space? Or is that, have we normally just covered
- the cost of like an outside contractor coming in? The only thing that, let me think. Let me just look
- something up really quick. Right, right. And I will say that most of the time when labor has been put
- into a thing, it's just as labor and it's, I think that many of
- of the projects that we funded have been for for-profit organizations. So take that however you'd like.
- But mostly, it has just been lumped in as labor. And no, I have not seen it broken up like this before.
- I would agree. I feel that it feels weird to pay the company that's receiving the grant of abortion
- to cover those costs. It does feel a little fishy.
- I think it's reasonable. It's not a large amount, but I could see it being taken advantage of in a different
- application. Any kind of project requires you to... They're not going to bring in somebody into their
- building and not have any staff to be able to manage the project. I guess if that cost is not considered
- a component of construction, I can see it
- I can see it both ways. Your new amount, then, would be a total cost of that $7,793.11. And then you'd
- be at a grant cost of $3,896.56, just for reference. Does anybody else have any comments considering
- that? Well, I'm thinking about what Brad would say if he were here. And he would want to know what's
- in the policy and the guidelines.
- I do think it's totally reasonable to include staff labor as a cost. This is an additional project outside
- of the normal responsibilities that we're doing. So I think if they allocate staff time to it,
- it's OK. It's just a question of what our policy is. And we may. Yeah, go ahead, Felisa. I think it's
- reasonable. I just think no one ever went through putting the details
- of significant, this is what we're paying who, what, when, and why. They just put labor. We've never
- seen it before. Yeah. And it's actually only $197.50, if we think about it from the standpoint of. Because
- they could complete these bills. We're contributing toward half of the total cost
- here, so with the labor on it. I'm OK with the labor being in there, I think, for this particular situation.
- I agree. And I kind of was in my mind about this, too. We haven't seen this. But if it's, as this is,
- completely called out and very specific to the actual installation, the day of the installation and
- the staff they need, I think that's reasonable to ask for.
- some coverage, and it'll end up being half of the cost of the labor. On our website, for business building
- improvement, we talk about eligibility criteria. We don't talk about ineligible expenses for this one,
- but for minor improvement, we list ineligible expenses as routine maintenance, major renovations or
- structural overhauls. Again, that's for the minor. Purchase of new equipment.
- not related to repairs, debt repayment, or refinancing. So I think staff could own the action item of
- updating the language on our website. And this might take us a little bit to get to, but to add in eligible
- expenses for each category to kind of make those guidelines more robust. And if the board needs to vote
- on that, we could make that official. So I also think, just from my observation,
- opening or anything, but this window is huge. And I'm sure the business has a lot of merchandise and
- things that must be removed in order to actually do the replacement. So it's kind of like tied in. They
- can't just put it in from the outside. It just seems like a lot of work.
- your home getting new carpeting or a floor out that you've got to move everything. So that's my observation.
- Any other comments? I think this one doesn't worry me as much, right? I'm always like, what have we
- done and what will we do that
- I think, Heather, some of the reasons you gave were good. I don't know that it matters that it's a small
- amount, because someone could come with a larger amount, and we would still have to figure that out.
- I think because Wonder Lab is closed on Mondays, it's definitely a day when their staff would not be
- working. I'm just going through some different scenarios, I think, that sometimes I think an organization
- could have somebody else managing the project, in which case that would be covered in the cost of the
- construction.
- I think that you kind of said it was specific and it's closed that day. And I think that is important
- to me because no matter what project comes here, some staff is going to be most likely managing it or
- overseeing it to some degree. And it's like, when is it outside of the normal course of the business?
- And I think this one is.
- to pack up all the gift shop. I mean, it just feels like a situation like that when you're in a nonprofit,
- especially everyone does that type of stuff. You don't hire out those types of things. And so the staff
- would. And of course, they just would have to be there to open the door and let the contractors in.
- They're doing the windows and all of these types of things.
- I think it completely fits within the project, but Kate, I think you make a really good point about
- in the future, if there's staff costs that are three, $4,000 and so forth. But again, if that's relevant
- to the specific project and it is kind of boxed into that, it could be a reasonable ask.
- to include that. But I agree, we should look at the language of the grant and maybe put some guidelines
- on there, because I could see it getting taken advantage of. Yeah. I suppose it depends on how they
- define it or the staff time needed for a specific thing. I think this is a clear need for staff to be
- there. I suppose in some other projects it may not
- you know, depending on what they're asking for. So, I mean, I'd hate to completely exclude it from the
- grant, I mean, but so what are you thinking as far as like parameters then? Like... I'm not quite sure
- I think that would be a group effort to try to determine that, but... Yeah. Yeah. Because I wouldn't
- want to put it in as an exclusion because in a situation like this, at least this is just me thinking that
- I think it's fair for them to ask for that. Sure. But yeah, so I don't know what the specifics could
- be around limiting something like that. Yeah, I mean, they're- I think this is a- sorry, Dee. Oh, no,
- go ahead. No, go ahead. Please, go ahead. I think this is a case by case situation. Because like Kate
- said, it could be a larger amount in a different situation where there's not staff needed.
- And we determine the factor where we shouldn't be applying funds where a company doesn't need staff
- there for this project. So we can't say, yes, we'll give money for staff to be on site when there's
- a project all the time. Or no, we won't give money when staff need to be on site because each situation
- will differ. And we have to determine on our end which we see fit. And that's going to be case by case.
- We just need to make our website very clear that in that case, or in any case, if we see fit, we will
- allow funds to be applicable. Yeah, I just wanted to say that there are a couple of things that could
- potentially be put in there.
- making the exception for non-profits, like making that just like, we'll do it for non-profits, but we
- won't do it for for-profits because we do give this grant to for-profit businesses. So that's one thing.
- Secondly, we are going to do it for non-profits, putting like a cap on it, where it's like only like,
- so much money, we'll only pay up to this amount of labor, either this amount or this percentage against
- your grant.
- to be able to do that. Sorry, what's the logic behind not approving labor costs for for-profits? I mean,
- we're just trying to do it. Oh, no, I'm saying no, that we wouldn't, that it would be for non-profits
- if this were to come up again. The staff labor costs? Yes. So why wouldn't we, if it's an eligible expense,
- in my opinion, it's an eligible expense regardless of the organization, because the BUEA's purpose is
- to work for,
- you know, economic revitalization of the enterprise zone. And it states that it's working for businesses
- in its founding documents. So I think that it's an introduction from the board if they're hair splitting
- between for nonprofits. And we all know that a lot of our zone small businesses are acting as nonprofits.
- I was just stating limiters that could be put out there. Yeah, yeah. I mean, maybe it's OK. Yeah, I
- know I'm going to come with a pitch for it when he starts his day. We should not have it on one side
- of my life. Yeah, I agree. I think it's across the board for the grant, if you get it applying and so
- forth. That's the case.
- I think it really is just making the case in the grant application as they did here. They cost it out
- per hour, what it takes, the number of hours, how they're closed on Mondays. Thanks for that information.
- They should have put that in there. Those types of things, I think then making the case for the labor
- then comes to the board and we can determine that is applicable for the grant. And in this case,
- I think they've made the case. But I mean, maybe some language more around, you know, that or if you
- get a grant submission that does the asking for it and doesn't have it.
- I think we need just clarity on it. Please provide some additional information. They also did note in
- their long narrative when we were working it out that they are closed on Monday, and that's why they
- were including staff time. Just to say that I didn't go searching for that information. They did provide
- that. Otherwise, we wouldn't have included it. They went through that in their basic product details.
- OK. So I would say. And I'm actually, oh, sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead.
- I think it's a delay on this. I can't hear y'all until two seconds after. So I'm actually glad that
- they broke it down in such a way, because it gave us a chance to have this conversation. Because we
- will run into this again. And I think this is a good cause. I'm all for this. The Wonder Lab is president
- in Bloomington. It's a really big deal. So I'm all for them.
- the staff needs to be paid if they're going to be on site during this project. I would probably say
- I'm going to be the devil's advocate in not adding language about staff time to the grant, because I
- think we're going to get into a position then where that's going to be an easy ask, easier that could
- exceed maybe. You know what I'm saying? So I would probably argue, especially since this is not something
- we've seen,
- or we don't see much, I don't know, that we don't add it, that we just allow to adjudicate each time,
- because we may not see this again for another year or two years. So that's just my two cents that I
- would probably not even say any language about if you need to include staff, if you need to, just because
- if it's there, it's going to be used. I'm not going to say it's going to be exploited, but I'm just
- going to say as a business owner myself, if we had
- a whole overhaul, and Oprah came and wrote me a check for $100 million and said, do whatever you want
- for popcorn, but you got to pay for your labor to be here for the guys to open up. Why wouldn't I pay
- them for eight hours to be there to twiddle their thumbs and eat extra popcorn? I mean, I'm just being
- transparent. So I would probably say, unless we feel that it is highly necessary, I probably would not
- add that as a line. Because this is public information, I mean, to a point,
- If it becomes a thing, then I think maybe re-review. But I mean, since I've been here, I've never seen
- it or heard it, so I don't know. I appreciate that. I'm curious about Kate, too, and her thoughts. And
- I just wanted to say, I benefited from Tagen's restatement of what the dynamic was. And so I want to
- say, for this instance, I support it because they have incurred additional staff time. But going forward
- in our guidelines, what I would recommend and what I think we can come
- staff can come back with a recommendation for the board, but is allowing staff time as in kind match.
- That's what would be standard for other grant making programs. So I'm walking back what I said previously.
- I wouldn't typically reimburse for regular staff time, but I would allow the calculation of staff time
- as part of their match. Where are you?
- I just because I have the or the original application up I think and it did you know it did say it will
- most likely be on a Monday when they are closed to not interfere with daily museum operations which
- I really appreciate it since so many people do plan their wonder lab trips on the days that it's open
- and that can be pretty bad for parents or teachers or anything so that's why I was saying it
- they're really doing it when their staff wouldn't be working and potentially their staff are not available
- that day because they're never working on Mondays so I think that is different. I'm sure Jamie asked
- because I've talked about this before that I think when our guidelines aren't clear like I've read guidelines
- and been like I don't think I've
- qualify, so I'm not going to apply where other people are like, eh, I'll just do it. And then we give
- it to the people who ask instead of the people who are following what the rules appear to be online.
- So in that way, I kind of lean against not saying it's available to everyone. But I do think capping
- it, I mean, this grant is $10,000 max. And then it can be more.
- if we review it, right? But I think if it's included in that max, and it's like a pretty low amount,
- like 250 or something, where we're not paying people $100 an hour to sit and watch someone replace a
- window or replace a door when their store is open. That's very different, right? But I guess I think
- parameters around it. I don't really understand the in-kind part, Jane. What do you mean by that?
- Well, we asked them to make a match for the project, a 50% match. And so if they have staff time related
- to the project, I'm suggesting that they could list that as part of their matching funds. So that could
- be, well, taking this as an example, the time that the person's removing things from the window, but
- not additional.
- Yeah, that's not a good example. In this situation, the outcome would be the same. Yeah. It's the same
- outcome, but you're clocking time to make sure you get more in money. And you're just using that money
- you pay your staff to clock that down. OK. Yeah, and just valuing the time value. Yeah. Those is an
- additional investment from the business. You're taking that into consideration.
- I think they did a really great job. We know that the 7,904 staff time over 20 years of cleaning is
- not eligible. So they were very clear about what they were putting that amount for. And then they're
- also very clear on what it actually takes to make the improvement project happen. And so you could do
- an improvement project that
- is not necessarily, they could be run by staff. I mean, the labor is sort of irrelevant to me, whether
- it's the staff doing it or it's a contractor doing it. They're choosing their staff to be there in that
- space to do it. So to me, it's kind of like, if the labor is required for the project, it is part of
- the project budget. And that could be clearly stated if there's going to be
- eligible or ineligible costs related in your policy. So. I'm going to have to step away to get ready
- for my 1 o'clock meeting. So if you all are ready to vote, I can wait for you. Everybody ready? OK.
- All right. So do we have a motion on the request from Wonder Lab for the replacement window? And as
- we've discussed,
- The labor. Sorry, I'm getting to the amount. $4,094.16. So moved. Do we have a second? Second. Second.
- And then Jane, if you want to start for. Jane Cooper-Smith, aye. Virginia Gutierre, aye. Heather Robinson,
- aye. Katerina Caw, aye. Kate Rosenberger, yes. Michael Hover, yes. Elisa Spinelli, yes.
- It is approved. Thank you. Thanks, everybody. Great. So what do we need to do? So for this, we have
- to motion to amend the agenda for public comment. And then we can allow Eric to speak. OK.
- We have a motion to amend today's agenda to allow, do we have to be specific about comment? Just motion
- to amend the agenda to add public comment. Okay, motion to amend the agenda and add a public comment
- section. Do we have a motion to? Michael Hover, yes. And a second? Okay, we'll second. All right,
- then we'll, Kate, for you.
- We'll start. Don't we have to do the. Yes. Yes. Yes. Virginia theory. Oh, that's okay. Heather Robinson.
- I Virginia get there. Yes. And we okay. Motion carries. Thank you. All right. So thanks. Eric comments,
- please. Yeah. Thank you. So
- I may be confused, and if so, I apologize. But I noticed that in your February meeting minutes, you
- have six members present. Mm-hmm. Yes. And your board has 12 members? Yes. So the quorum is based on
- the amount of voting members. So two of those members are non-voting.
- their gubernatorial appointments. So the quorum is based off of 10. So if we have six, that makes quorum.
- OK, so that's one point. But I think actually one of those governor appointments is voting. Not in our
- bylaws. No, but I mean by Indiana code, which
- authorized this body to exist. I believe one is voting, the other one is not voting. But regardless,
- and that might be something that onboard, please go ahead. Yeah, we're just getting some answers. We
- just want to answer your first question before we move to another. Yeah, just getting some clarification.
- Well, but I just looked at Indiana code and I believe that's what it says. But the onboard listing for
- this body has all members as voting.
- So that's one confusion. And that's on board, not on your webpage, because there's an on board page
- that's separate the lists, like the individual seats, like seat four, et cetera. So that's one point
- of order. The second one is the electronic meeting law. And for a member to participate electronically, you need
- 50% of the members present. And I don't think that was satisfied. Because you had six total members
- attending with one online. That meant five were present. And you needed six. We had four. We had four
- in person. We had Jane. We had Michael. We had Brad.
- So you needed six because, for instance, let's use the common council as an example. So if you have
- your thing, you have that. So, Eric, one second. We do have a person on council here who can explain
- that, because it's not the same as common council. Alex, you might be able to weigh in, I'm sure. BUEA
- has different rules. We don't have the state adopted rules for BUEA that common council follows. BUEA
- has its own rules.
- No, no, sorry. I was just using the numeric equivalent. But I think that if you indeed only have 10
- voting members, which I don't think is correct, but that was the claim, then I don't think either of
- these point of orders pertain. If, however, one of those members appointed by the governor is voting,
- that would give you 11 voting members.
- means that you would need six members present. Right. So a person that participates electronically is
- considered present for form. And we don't want you to move to a minor. No. Wait a minute. Did you read
- safe out? Yes. One second. That is different. No, and in fact, while I was
- waiting, you actually adopted in 2021 electronic meeting policy. This is your board did. Yes. Yes. Which
- was the same as state code, which means that 50% of members need to be present for any member to participate
- electronically. No, it's a little different. So if a board member that's voting is present electronically,
- They're considered present for the purpose of a quorum. That's quorum, not electronic participation.
- That's separate. Right, but the BEA has adopted a special rule where electronic participation counts
- as being present. For quorum? Yes. But not to... So these are two separate statutes.
- And maybe I don't know if it's really worthwhile if there's that point of confusion, but you could look
- at Indiana code. I believe it's 5-14-3 something, which states, and I think you have adopted that, which
- says that in order to have a member participate electronically, this is separate from quorum, you need
- to have 50% of your members present.
- That is not part of the policy that the BEA has adopted. I believe there was a meeting in 2021 where
- you did. If you want to forward any information about that, I'll be happy to look at it. But that is
- not our current policy. OK, I think it was July 2021. And I believe Larry Allen presented this to you.
- Anyway, I also want to express appreciation. I know sometimes these things are difficult to keep track
- of. And you are very attentive to your charge. You're working with non-trivial sums of money. And you're
- helping a lot of people out. So I appreciate all of your time and effort on this. Yeah. Great. We appreciate
- your comments. But I would like a follow-up on my points of order so I can contact you later.
- Thank you, Eric. Appreciate it. All right, we're going on time 101. So unless there's anything else,
- we'll call the meeting adjourned. Thank you all. Thanks. Thank you.