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.