1 1 STATE OF INDIANA ) ) SS: 2 COUNTY OF MONROE ) 3 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONROE COUNTY 4 CAUSE NO. 53C06-2203-PL-509 5 6 COUNTY RESIDENTS AGAINST ANNEXATION, INC., ) an Indiana not for profit corporation, ) 7 Representative of Those in the Territories ) Sought to be Annexed; DON CREEK, HARRY ) 8 FERRIS, WILLIAM MANWARING, DAN DOYLE, ) CATHERINE DENSFORD, ETHEL ANN SATLER, ) 9 MARILYN J. DANIELSON, DEAN E. HOKE, BERT ) F. PHILLIPS, SUNNY SLATER, HOLLY HILL, ) 10 DEBORAH REED for REED QUARRIES, INC., ) THOMAS W. McGHIE, RICKY FERGUSON, THOMAS E.) 11 OSBORN, JIMMIE JOHNSON, RICHARD PEACH, ) KAREN LAUCELLA, BARBARA LEININGER, RHONDA ) 12 GRAY, ARLLYS PAPKE, JOANNA HAHN; and OTHER ) TERRITORY 1A AND 1B OWNERS OF LAND, ) 13 ) Petitioners, ) 14 ) -vs- ) 15 ) THE COMMON COUNCIL of the City of ) 16 Bloomington, Monroe County, Indiana, ) CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, Monroe County, ) 17 Indiana, ) JOHN HAMILTON in his official capacity as ) 18 Mayor of Bloomington, Monroe County, ) Indiana, and CATHERINE SMITH in her ) 19 official capacity as Auditor of Monroe ) County, Indiana, ) 20 ) Respondents. ) 21 22 DEPOSITION OF MAX STIER 23 24 The deposition upon oral examination of MAX STIER, a witness produced and sworn before me, 25 Colleen Brady, Notary Public in and for the County of Monroe, State of Indiana, taken on behalf of the 2 1 Petitioners, at the offices of Bloomington City Hall, 401 North Morton Street, Room 225, 2 Bloomington, Monroe County, Indiana, on the 27th day of March 2024, at 11:38 a.m., pursuant to 3 the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure with written notice as to time and place thereof. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 APPEARANCES 2 FOR THE PETITIONERS: 3 Ryan M. Heeb BUNGER & ROBERTSON 4 211 South College Avenue Bloomington, IN 47404 5 812.332.9295 rheeb@lawbr.com 6 William J. Beggs 7 BUNGER & ROBERTSON 211 South College Avenue 8 Bloomington, IN 47404 812.332.9295 9 wjbeggs@lawbr.com 10 11 FOR THE RESPONDENTS: 12 Stephen C. Unger BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS LLP 13 111 Monument Circle Suite 2700 14 Indianapolis, IN 46204 317.684.5000 15 sunger@boselaw.com 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 1 INDEX OF EXAMINATION 2 Page 3 DIRECT EXAMINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Questions by Ryan M. Heeb 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5 1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 2 Page Deposition Exhibit No.: 3 Exhibit 80 - Email, dated 4/27/2023 . . . . . . . .27 4 Exhibit 81 - Email, dated 7/7/2023, . . . . . . . .36 5 BLOOMINGTON_157727 and 728 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 2 Page Previously Marked Exhibits: 3 Exhibit 75 - Subpoena duces tecum . . . . . . . . .16 4 Exhibit 76 - Email, dated 5/26/2023, . . . . . . .33 5 BLOOMINGTON_154818-824 6 Exhibit 77 - Density analysis document, . . . . . .40 BLOOMINGTON_071113 and 114 7 Exhibit 78 - 2023 Urbanization Summary, . . . . . .48 8 Bloomington_189802 9 Exhibit 79 - Annexation Frequently Asked . . . . .49 Questions document, dated 10 10/22/2021 11 INDEX OF CERTIFIED QUESTIONS 12 Page Line 13 30 15 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7 1 (Time noted: 11:38 a.m.) 2 MAX STIER, 3 having been duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole 4 truth, and nothing but the truth relating to said 5 matter, was examined and testified as follows: 6 7 DIRECT EXAMINATION, 8 QUESTIONS BY RYAN M. HEEB: 9 Q Will you please state your name for the record? 10 A Max Stier. 11 MR. UNGER: I'm sorry, before we get going, 12 I want to state a preliminary objection for the 13 record. 14 We received, on Monday afternoon -- we, 15 being counsel for the city -- received subpoena 16 duces tecum for the witness. They were 17 procedurally defective for several reasons. 18 First, no notice of deposition exists for 19 the witness's deposition. A notice of 20 deposition is a prerequisite to issue in a 21 deposition subpoena under Trial Rule 45(D). 22 Second, we as counsel for the city, never 23 agreed to accept service of non-party subpoenas 24 sent to city employee. To our knowledge, the 25 subpoenas have not been served on the witnesses. 8 1 Third, the subpoena duces tecum required a 2 15-day waiting period under Trial Rule 34(C) 3 before service on a non-party. 4 Fourth, given that the witness is an 5 employee of a party, no subpoenas were required. 6 Simple notices would have sufficed. 7 Fifth, in the event the subpoena duces 8 tecum were both proper and necessary, the 9 subpoena still must allow the responding person 10 30 days to respond under Trial Rule 34(C), which 11 cross references Trial Rule 34(B), which sets 12 forth the time to respond. 13 Sixth, the document requests ask for 14 exhibits, documents, and datasets for which -- 15 on which the witnesses will give or base 16 testimony at trial. The witnesses will not be 17 determining what questions they will be asked at 18 trial, nor will they decide which items will be 19 offered as exhibits at trial. Counsel does 20 that. The decisions about what questions will 21 be asked and which exhibits will be offered have 22 not yet been made in our mental impression based 23 work-product, subject only to disclosure 24 requirements under the controlling case 25 management order. 9 1 Even so, the city is presenting the witness 2 for deposition today, March 27, as agreed. Also 3 subject to the sixth item that I've already 4 discussed, I've already provided you with a 5 flash drive of the documents from Bloomington's 6 production responsive to the documents requested 7 to the subpoena duces tecum. Those records are 8 a reproduction of the same materials that were 9 sent in to you in December and again on March 7 10 in UAV video files. There is also one map that 11 had A appended to the Bates number, correction 12 relates to the legend and zoning classification 13 in Area 1B. The map is otherwise unchanged. A 14 copy of the corrected map was provided by email 15 today and is also in the thumb drive that's been 16 provided. 17 Subject to those objections, we have made 18 the witness available still. 19 MR. HEEB: And so there is no objection to 20 continuing with the deposition? 21 MR. UNGER: No objection to continuing with 22 the deposition. 23 MR. HEEB: Okay. Thank you. 24 BY MR. HEEB 25 Q Mr. Stier, my name a Ryan Heeb. I'm one of the 10 1 petitioners -- excuse me -- one of the attorneys 2 who represent the petitioners in the annexation 3 litigation that is currently ongoing. 4 Do you understand that you are giving 5 testimony under oath and it's just as important 6 to tell the truth here today as if you would 7 before a judge in a courtroom? 8 A Yep. 9 Q And do you understand today that what you say 10 may be, later, brought out in evidence at trial? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Have you ever given a deposition before? 13 A I have not. 14 Q I'm going to keep going through a couple of 15 ground rules here to help us better conduct this 16 deposition. 17 If I ask a question and you answer it, is 18 it fair for us to assume that you understood my 19 questions as asked? 20 A Yeah, if -- unless I ask for more clarification. 21 Q That brings me to my second point. If for some 22 reason you do not understand my question, will 23 you ask me to rephrase it? 24 A Yes. 25 Q And the court reporter here is transcribing 11 1 everything you and I are saying, so it's very 2 important that you and I don't talk over each 3 other. Let me ask my question, and I'll let you 4 answer your question -- answer the question. 5 Okay? 6 A Uh-huh. 7 Q It's also important that you provide verbal 8 responses to my questions. Verbal yes's and 9 no's. Not "Uh-huh" or "Uh-uh," and not shakes 10 of the head or nods of the head. Okay? 11 A Yes. 12 Q And if for some reason I say "Is that a yes? Is 13 that a no," I'm not trying to be mean. I'm just 14 trying to make sure we have a clean record. 15 Okay? 16 A Yes. 17 Q It's okay for you to take breaks throughout the 18 deposition, but I just ask you answer my 19 question before you take that break. Okay? 20 A Yes. 21 Q What have you done today to prepare for this 22 deposition? 23 A Today? I haven't done anything today. 24 Q Prior to today, what have you done to prepare 25 for this deposition? 12 1 A Reviewed the material that I worked on related 2 to the deposition. 3 Q What material did you review that you worked on 4 related to the deposition? 5 A Specifically, the maps. That was my, kind of, 6 area that I participated in. 7 Q What maps? 8 A The annexation related maps, I think, that were 9 provided. Yeah, it was a big series of maps. 10 All different subject but, yeah. 11 Q Can you list the subjects for me? 12 A Not -- I don't -- not without the files in front 13 of me. There's a bunch of maps. But just, 14 generally, you know, related to annexation. 15 Some supporting maps. 16 Q What else did you do to prepare for the 17 deposition? 18 A Not much besides reviewing the material I, you 19 know, participated in creating. 20 Q Did you have a meeting with Meghan Blair? 21 A We have meetings all the time, yeah. 22 Q Did you meet with Meghan Blair to prepare for 23 the deposition? 24 A I'm sure the deposition came up and mostly to 25 discuss, you know, what we had done. You know, 13 1 the stuff she had worked on and the maps I had 2 made. 3 Q Tell me a little bit more about those 4 discussions you had with Ms. Blair. 5 MR. UNGER: I do want to object to the 6 extent it gets into any discussions that 7 included legal counsel. If you can answer 8 without getting into discussions with legal 9 counsel, you can answer. 10 A Yeah. Mostly just reviewing the subject matter. 11 So, you know, what the maps were about just 12 'cause we had done them a few months ago -- 13 maybe a couple of months ago. 14 So just to, like, refresh myself on, you 15 know, the map that was created, what the subject 16 was and what, if any, decisions we made about 17 the maps. 18 Q Do you recall those decisions you made about the 19 maps? 20 A I mean, they were mostly, you know -- in terms 21 of specifically for the maps, they're about, you 22 know, just trying to convey information. So 23 stuff about colors and, you know, what labels 24 we're using. 25 Q I want to circle back. Can you generally 14 1 describe the topics for these maps you created? 2 A The maps are all kind of supporting information. 3 So, you know, a lot of spatial -- spatial data, 4 you know. They are not really analysis. It's 5 mostly just, you know, what is where in the city 6 and in the annexation areas, trying to 7 highlight, you know, the spatial data. 8 Q Right. What I'm trying to understand is, in my 9 mind, you've produced a bunch of maps that 10 depict a bunch of different topics. 11 A Right. 12 Q Is that fair? 13 A Yes. 14 Q What are those topics? 15 A I mean, again, without seeing all the maps, 16 because there were so many, I mean, it's stuff 17 like the county's zoning districts. Stuff like 18 the, I think -- was it the sewer system? -- you 19 know, City of Bloomington's sewers, you know, in 20 those vein. Again, without seeing the whole 21 list ... 22 We did just generally what the annexation 23 areas are; where's the city boundary. Those 24 kind of things. Just broad overview maps. A 25 lot of it is reflecting the county's parcel 15 1 data, either the land use or the zoning, just to 2 kind of get an idea of those annexation areas. 3 Q Is there a list of all the maps you have 4 produced for annexation somewhere? 5 A I mean, the list provided -- you know, that set 6 of documents provided are the maps we created. 7 Q And I appreciate that, but I don't think that 8 responded to my question. 9 Is there one document that lists all of the 10 maps that you have produced? 11 A No, actually, probably not. I mean, we shared 12 them in a folder. I could do a screenshot of 13 the folder but, no, we didn't produce a 14 separate -- or, really, I did not produce a 15 separate document that is a list of the maps. 16 Q Could you produce a screenshot of that folder to 17 your counsel to produce for us? 18 A I think -- yeah, I mean, it's Google Drive. 19 Yeah, I'm sure we could. It's everything we 20 have. 21 MR. HEEB: And, Steve, you can -- 22 MR. UNGER: Subject to review and potential 23 objections, I don't see any reason why not. 24 Q Okay. Have we talked about everything you did 25 to prepare for this deposition? 16 1 A I think so, yes. 2 Q Have we talked about all the documents and 3 things you reviewed to prepare for this 4 deposition? 5 A Yes. 6 (Deposition Exhibit 75 previously marked 7 for identification.) 8 Q I'm going to hand you what's been marked as -- 9 hand you what's been marked as Exhibit 75. Take 10 a look at that document, sir. 11 Have you ever seen Exhibit 75 before? 12 A No. 13 Q I'll represent to you this a subpoena duces 14 tecum that we served upon the City of 15 Bloomington's counsel in this matter. I want to 16 go to the second page and Item 1. 17 Have you brought with you today, sir, true 18 and accurate copies of each and every exhibit 19 for which you will give testimony at trial 20 sponsoring, authenticating, or referencing such 21 exhibit? 22 MR. UNGER: I'm going to object, again, and 23 refer back to the original objection I made. 24 Q You can go ahead and answer. 25 A I have not brought anything. 17 1 Q Did you bring true and accurate copies of each 2 and every document, dataset, or other such item 3 upon which you base any testimony you will give 4 at trial in this matter? 5 MR. UNGER: Same objection. Refer to my 6 original objection. 7 Q You can answer. 8 A I have not. Yeah, I haven't brought anything. 9 Q Did you help compile documents to respond to 10 Exhibit 75? 11 MR. UNGER: Same objection. 12 A I helped create documents. 13 Q So you didn't work with someone on responding to 14 a subpoena duces tecum? 15 A No. 16 Q Do you know whether or not any documents were 17 withheld that were responsive to the subpoena 18 duces tecum? 19 MR. UNGER: Same objection. 20 Q You can answer. 21 A I do not know. 22 Q Mr. Stier, what is your title? 23 A GIS specialist. 24 Q What is your job description? 25 A There's probably a written down job description 18 1 but, generally, what I do is I'm part of the 2 team that maintains the GIS -- which is 3 Geographic Information Systems -- for the city. 4 So it's, like, any spatial data and kind of 5 related data. We help maintain other 6 department's -- mostly other department's data. 7 We produce maps. That kind of stuff. 8 Q Prior to holding your position as GIS 9 specialist, what other positions have you held 10 within the GIS division? 11 A In the city? None. I've been a specialist the 12 entire time I've been here. 13 Q Prior to working for the city, where did you 14 work? 15 A I worked for the state of Indiana for, maybe, a 16 year as a, sort of, part-time position. About 17 30 hours a week, I think, technically. 18 Q Doing what? 19 A GIS. I'm not sure what the title was at that 20 point but GIS. 21 Q When did you start working for the city? 22 A 2013. So 10 years ago. 23 Q Prior to working for the state, who did you work 24 for? 25 A I worked for an architecture -- archaeological 19 1 firm called Goodwin and Associates doing GIS. 2 Well, I guess I was an archaeologist and I 3 started doing GIS kind of toward the end of my 4 time there. Just helped me get started in the 5 GIS field. 6 Q And I guess that kind of brings me to my next 7 question here. 8 Can you describe your educational 9 background for me? 10 A Yeah. I went to Ohio University. I got my 11 bachelor's in anthropology and a minor in 12 history. That's pretty much it. I did some GIS 13 courses for -- it was, like, a Penn State online 14 program while I was doing archeology. 15 Q Is that bachelor's the highest level -- 16 A Yes. 17 Q -- that you obtained? 18 A Yep. 19 Q Did you obtain any type of certificate or other 20 such certification for the GIS course with Penn 21 State that you took? 22 A No. They might have -- they probably sent us an 23 email that was like a -- no. There's, like, a 24 thing called a -- there is a GIS certification 25 credential; it wasn't that. It was just -- I 20 1 don't know if they called it a certificate but 2 it was just some -- I don't have a piece of 3 paper, certainly, no. And I don't use it on my 4 resume or anything like that. 5 Q You just took some classes? 6 A Yeah. Kind of a refresher as I wanted to get 7 into the field. Just to have something on my 8 resume that I did those courses. 9 Q Have you ever taken any courses in demography? 10 A No. 11 Q Do you have any special training in demography? 12 A Demography, no, I don't. 13 Q I asked you if you've ever given a deposition. 14 Have you ever testified at trial before? 15 A I have not. 16 Q You touched on this briefly, but what projects 17 did you work on for the city's attempt to annex 18 certain areas outside the City of Bloomington? 19 A I worked on the mapping of the -- you know, in 20 this -- the data that we, you know, kind of -- I 21 produced the maps for the data. I mean, it's 22 not really the data that Meghan produced. It's 23 mostly related maps. 24 And then in prior annexation, I had -- you 25 know, the annexation stuff has been going on a 21 1 long time. I don't think I produced any of the 2 maps but I was definitely aware of the projects, 3 but I think Meghan's predecessor, Laura Haley, 4 did all that stuff as far as I remember. 5 Q Is it fair to say that Meghan Blair did the 6 analysis and then you performed the mapping of 7 Meghan's analysis? 8 A It's definitely fair to say she performed the 9 analysis. The maps don't really reflect her 10 analysis. You know, she did a lot of the stuff 11 about population density, you know, all that 12 kind of stuff. We didn't really map that 13 information. She made some of the decisions 14 about how to classify residential versus 15 commercial -- I think was one of the maps -- I 16 certainly mapped that stuff. 17 But, no. The analysis she did, we didn't 18 really reflect visually, geospatially, in a map. 19 Q Did you perform a population density analysis 20 for Area 1A or 1B? 21 A I did not, no. 22 Q Did you perform a subdivision analysis for Area 23 1A or 1B? 24 A No. 25 Q Who is Laura Haley? 22 1 A She's the previous GIS -- I don't know -- 2 manager, I don't remember. Whatever Meghan's 3 position is, is what Laura did. 4 Q Did Ms. Haley perform a population density 5 analysis for Area 1A or 1B? 6 A I presume so, previously. Again, I didn't 7 really do the annexation analysis work back 8 then, but she did all the annexation stuff. So 9 if there was an analysis performed, it would 10 have been from her, I assume. 11 Q Did she perform a subdivision analysis for Area 12 1A and 1B? 13 A I don't know. I guess I can't really speak to 14 the specific analysis she would have done but 15 what analysis happened, it would have been 16 something she did. 17 Q Are you still in contact with Ms. Haley? 18 A No, actually. 19 Q Do you know her phone number? 20 A Not off the top of my head. I mean, it's 21 probably buried somewhere in, like, an old 22 email. Although, I don't even know her cell 23 phone number. It was her -- I only contacted 24 her through, you know, her work phone. 25 Q This probably is asking the obvious, but are you 23 1 familiar with the City of Bloomington's 2 attempted annexation of certain areas? 3 A Yeah, generally. 4 Q Do you live in any area in which the city is 5 attempting to annex? 6 A No. 7 Q Are you in favor of or opposed to annexation? 8 A I do not really have an opinion on it since it 9 doesn't really impact me. The only think I 10 think about is, like, mechanically -- because of 11 my role -- what it would entail for my 12 day-to-day job. 13 Q Sure. 14 A But, no, I don't really have an opinion on it to 15 be honest. 16 Q We're going to be talking about proposed areas 17 for annexation 1A, 1B; do you know where either 18 of these areas are located? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Where's Area 1A located? 21 A West of the city. 22 Q What about 1B? 23 A Southwest, south. 24 Q Are you familiar with the Indiana annexation 25 statutes? 24 1 A No, not in any detail. 2 Q So you've never read them? 3 A No, certainly not. 4 Q You said you did not perform a population 5 density analysis for Area 1A; correct? 6 A No. I think at most, you know, Meghan and I 7 might have talked about the methodology. But I 8 certainly didn't crunch the numbers, as they 9 say. 10 Q Can you tell me about that conversation you had 11 with her about the methodology? 12 A You know, we just talked about what a 13 methodology to perform population density is, 14 considering, you know, the boundaries and the 15 geometries involved. And I just basically 16 agreed with what she had done -- what she was 17 considering to do and what she did. 18 Q What was she considering to do? 19 A You know, I don't -- I'm not as familiar with it 20 because I didn't do it. I'm sure she could go 21 into more detail. But you kind of get the 22 population of whatever geometry you have -- so, 23 like, block groups, for example -- and you kind 24 of get a percentage of how much of that falls 25 into the annexation areas and that kind of gives 25 1 you an idea. 2 Because the boundaries, you know, aren't 3 coincident with the -- or they don't align with 4 the other, like, block groups, for example. You 5 have to cut them up a little bit to try to get 6 that percentage. Stuff like that. 7 Q Can you tell me what you mean by you have to cut 8 them up a little bit to get that percentage? 9 A You know, if you have a block group that has 100 10 people and only 50 percent of it actually falls 11 within the annexation area, in order to 12 determine kind of how much population you add to 13 the total of the annexation area, you kind of 14 weight that based on that percentage area that 15 falls in there. 16 Q To come up with a rough calculation? 17 A Yeah, yeah. You know, it's the best method you 18 can -- that we have. Yeah, the method, I think, 19 is sound certainly. 20 Q You did not perform a population density 21 analysis for Area 1B? 22 A Correct. 23 Q Aside from Ms. Blair and Ms. Haley, are you 24 aware of anyone else performing a population 25 density analysis for either Area 1A or 1B? 26 1 A No. 2 Q Do you know what data was used to perform the 3 population density analysis? 4 A Yeah. I assume the census data. 2020 Decennial 5 Census. And then it also relies on the polygons 6 that we use; so, like the annexation area 7 boundary and those block groups. I think there 8 was the block groups. I don't know that for -- 9 I can't remember for sure. I assume so. Yeah, 10 the census to get the figures. 11 Q No other data for population figure? 12 A No -- I mean, not -- yeah, not to get the 13 population numbers, no. 14 Q What tools were used to perform this analysis? 15 Do you know? 16 A We use a software called Esri Arc Map Pro -- 17 ArcGIS Pro, sorry. It's the industry standard 18 for GIS. 19 Q Did the GIS division do a count of how many 20 people live in Area 1A or 1B, house-to-house 21 count? 22 A No. 23 Q Do you know how many people live in Area 1A? 24 A I can get you the figures based on the census. 25 You know, that percentage area calculation is a 27 1 way to know how many people are in Area 1A, 2 yeah. 3 Q Are there other ways to know? 4 A Probably, but that's the way I know to count 5 population in a -- especially in an area that is 6 not, again -- I mean, that is not the same 7 boundary as a census division is doing that area 8 calculation percentage. 9 Q So census blocks are not the same boundaries as 10 the proposed annexation areas? 11 A Correct. Like, you can't build the census 12 area -- you can't build the annexation area with 13 a bunch of census boundaries. 14 Q Why do you say that? 15 A They cross. You know, there's a division in the 16 middle in a census boundary made by the 17 annexation area. I think the annexation is a 18 subset of parcels rather than census divisions. 19 Q Do you know what data Ms. Haley used to perform 20 her population density analysis? 21 A Not off the top of my head, no, I do not. It 22 was, I assume, a census related thing, but I 23 can't say for sure. 24 (Deposition Exhibit 80 marked for 25 identification.) 28 1 Q I apologize, can you pronounce your last name 2 for me? 3 A Stire. 4 Q Mr. Stier, can you -- I'm handing you what's 5 been marked as Exhibit 80. Can you please take 6 a look at that document? 7 A Sure. 8 Q What is Exhibit 80? 9 A This is a weekly report I produce. 10 Q Please turn to the third page of Exhibit 80. Do 11 you see that first bullet point that is there on 12 the third page of Exhibit 80? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Can you tell me why this meeting was 15 interesting, as you say, "not necessarily in a 16 good way"? 17 MR. UNGER: I want to object. It's 18 referring to a meeting with Mike Rouker, legal 19 counsel for the city of Bloomington. I object 20 to any questions relating to meetings with 21 legal. 22 MR. HEEB: I'm just asking questions about 23 this email that he sent to Ms. Blair. 24 MR. UNGER: Which, again, I object about 25 emails concerning legal communications with -- 29 1 or communications with and meetings with city 2 legal -- 3 MR. HEEB: Well, this is -- 4 MR. UNGER: -- protected by attorney-client 5 privilege. 6 MR. HEEB: Well, this is produced -- 7 MR. UNGER: Whether it's produced or not, 8 if it's protected by attorney-client privilege, 9 you have an obligation to notify me that there 10 was an email that was included attorney-client 11 privilege, and we have a right to draw that 12 back. 13 MR. HEEB: What in this is attorney-client 14 privilege though? 15 MR. UNGER: You're asking about a meeting 16 with Mike Rouker, the city attorney. 17 MR. HEEB: No, I'm asking about his report 18 to Ms. Blair. 19 MR. UNGER: I'm sorry, can you refer to 20 which -- where you're talking about? 21 MR. HEEB: Yeah. Exhibit 80 is an email 22 from Mr. Stier to Ms. Blair. 23 MR. UNGER: I'm sorry, can you clarify, are 24 you asking about a meeting he had with Mike 25 Rouker? 30 1 MR. HEEB: I'm asking about this email. 2 MR. UNGER: Which is about a discussion he 3 had with Mike Rouker. 4 MR. HEEB: No -- 5 MR. UNGER: Is that what you're asking 6 about? 7 MR. HEEB: No, I'm asking about -- 8 MR. UNGER: Okay. I'm sorry, if you can -- 9 if you can answer without -- why don't you reask 10 your question and I'll make sure I'm clear. 11 But, certainly, if you can answer without 12 talking -- disclosing discussions you had with 13 Mike Rouker, the witness can answer. 14 BY MR. HEEB 15 Q Why did you tell Ms. Blair, that the meeting was 16 interesting "not necessarily in a good way"? 17 MR. UNGER: I'm going to object to the 18 extent you're asking about a meeting that he had 19 with Mr. Rouker. 20 MR. HEEB: Okay. But I can ask him why he 21 said that. 22 MR. UNGER: If you can answer without 23 revealing any of the communications or 24 discussions you had with Mr. Rouker, the witness 25 can answer. Otherwise, I instruct the witness 31 1 not to answer. 2 A Yeah, I don't think I can characterize -- I 3 think I would have to characterize that meeting 4 to explain that sentiment. 5 MR. HEEB: Will you please certify that 6 question? 7 BY MR. HEEB 8 Q In that same paragraph, you reference analysis 9 that Laura did in 2021. 10 What analysis did Laura do in 2021? 11 A Just preparation -- annexation related analysis. 12 Q Did you do a population density analysis? 13 A I did not, no. 14 Q Did Laura? 15 A I don't know. It was whatever annexation 16 related stuff there was. I don't have her file 17 so I can't say exactly what she did. 18 Q Why did you say Laura would be -- why did you 19 say you don't think Laura would be a candidate 20 to be a witness at this stage? 21 MR. UNGER: Objection to the extent it 22 involves discussions you've had with legal 23 counsel. If you can answer the question without 24 referring to -- relying on discussions that you 25 had with legal counsel, you can answer. 32 1 Otherwise, I instruct the witness not to answer. 2 MR. HEEB: Certify the question please. 3 MR. BEGGS: Did you refuse to answer? 4 A She didn't work at the city anymore, at that 5 point, when I wrote this email. 6 Q Also in the same paragraph, you say you'd 7 "probably go through the work Laura had done so 8 I can have a plan to just re-run her methods." 9 What methods did you re-run? 10 A I didn't end up re-running them. I probably -- 11 I didn't get to this stuff. This was the stuff 12 Meghan ended up working on. So, yeah. 13 Q You didn't re-run a population density analysis 14 or subdivision analysis? 15 A No, that fell into Meghan's responsibility. 16 Q After you sent this April 27, 2023 email, did 17 you meet with Meghan Blair? 18 A We meet every Monday, at least. We meet 19 multiple times a week. 20 Q Looks like you're referencing a meeting in 21 person on Wednesday. Looks like that would be 22 probably early May of 2023. 23 Do you recall that meeting with Meghan 24 Blair? 25 A No, I don't. 33 1 (Deposition Exhibit 76 previously marked 2 for identification.) 3 Q Mr. Stier, I'm handing you what's been marked as 4 Exhibit 76. Would you please take a look at 5 that document. 6 What is Exhibit 76? 7 A This is a weekly report that Meghan produced. 8 Q Looks like you were cc'd on this document. 9 A Right. 10 Q So have you ever seen this before? 11 A Probably. These are intended to go to our 12 manager. I sometimes review them. I can't say 13 for sure whether I reviewed this specific one. 14 Q Can you go to the third page of Exhibit 76? 15 A Yes. 16 Q And the OOTM Staff Viewer. And then in 17 parentheses, it says Max. 18 Is that referencing you? 19 A Yes. 20 Q And then on the second bullet point, 21 "Urbanization and annexation areas map request." 22 Do you see that? 23 A Yep. 24 Q What was that request? 25 A So we -- The Office of the Mayor, OOTM Staff 34 1 Viewer is a web application that we produced, 2 and, you know, I can't say exactly but my -- I'm 3 assuming that they wanted the annexation areas 4 to be added to their staff viewer. 5 Q Looks like the sub-bullet point above that, "We 6 plan on including all the census," do you see 7 that line? 8 A Yes. 9 Q What census is referenced there? 10 A I mean, if this is from -- yeah, it would have 11 been 2020 Census related data. 12 Q What about ACS? What does that stand for? 13 A It's called the American Community Survey. That 14 is something produced by the census. The U.S. 15 Census is the American Community Survey produces 16 that, yeah. 17 Q And "EJ Screen"? 18 A That's an Environmental Justice thing. This is 19 not -- some of this stuff is -- so the EJ 20 Screen, specifically, is a dataset that another 21 department asked us to add to their map. The 22 MPO office asked us to add the EJ Screen data. 23 Really, the Environmental Justice. 24 Q Did you say "MPO"? 25 A MPO. Sorry, yes, MPO. 35 1 Q What does that stand for? 2 A Municipal Planning Organization. 3 Q And "Qualified," what is that? 4 A I can't remember what that means. 5 Q What about "Urban areas"? 6 A Again, maybe the county has an urbanization -- I 7 don't know. There's a -- it could mean a few 8 things, to be honest. It's not very clear. 9 The county has an urbanization related 10 polygon. I think, that, you know, U.S. 11 transportation has, like, an urbanization 12 related boundary. Something like that. 13 Q Go to the second to last page of Exhibit 76. 14 A Yes. 15 Q And under "Max," is that you? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Says "Annexation analysis." Why does it say 18 that there? 19 A It was kind of shorthand for this related 20 project. So my, you know, just -- this is kind 21 of a list of projected tasks for the upcoming 22 week or in the future. So we had, like, kind of 23 a standing -- you know, as I was preparing maps 24 for the annexation, that was my line item, I 25 assume, for my role in the analysis, maps. 36 1 Stuff like that. 2 Q Under the first sub point under your name. It 3 says "Parcel analysis calculations." 4 A Yes. 5 Q What is that? 6 A I have no -- I don't remember what that is 7 referring to. 8 Q Is it related to annexation? 9 A I can't say if that's the case. Because it's 10 referencing a static map, it sounds like, no, 11 it's probably something else. 12 Oh, you know, I think that might be related 13 to a different project. It's hard -- I can't 14 say for sure. I could probably guess, but I 15 might be wrong about what project it is related 16 to. I'm going to say it's definitely not 17 annexation. It would have been specific there 18 if it was. 19 (Deposition Exhibit 81 marked for 20 identification.) 21 Q I'm going to hand you what is marked as 22 Exhibit 81. Will you please take a look at that 23 document? 24 A Uh-huh. 25 Q What is Exhibit 81? 37 1 A Another weekly report. 2 Q Please go to the second page of Exhibit 81, 3 under "Annexation Analysis." There it looks 4 like you said "I worked on recreating the 5 population estimate annexation analysis 6 workflow." What is that? 7 A Kind of just working on the methodology. So 8 discussing the strategy for, you know, the 9 analysis. The population estimate analysis. 10 Q Tell me about that discussion. 11 A I don't remember details of the discussion, but 12 kind of the stuff we talked about earlier, 13 method to get a population estimate for a census 14 area that is not -- doesn't have the same 15 boundary as the -- as the annexation area in 16 this case. 17 Q That next part of the sentence "Once I was 18 working with the same source data," what source 19 data? 20 A Probably the -- if it's from 2019 data, it's 21 older census data. I don't know, specifically, 22 what the data source was off the top of my head. 23 I don't have it here, but it was, again, an 24 older dataset. 25 Q Says "Same source data I did get the same 38 1 results for that category for 2019 data." 2 Can you explain that to me? 3 A Yeah. We were probably testing a methodology. 4 It was probably a part of that discussion about 5 what would be a good workflow. So we probably 6 pulled some census data, old census data, to try 7 to test it to see if it worked. 8 Q Okay. Based on this analysis, how many people 9 lived in Area 1A? 10 A I can't -- I don't know. 11 Q What about for 1B? 12 A I do not know. 13 Q Is this the only time you performed a population 14 estimate? 15 A I don't know. I mean, this is more of a 16 workflow kind of trial/study. I would never, 17 you know, say this was a population estimate 18 calculation. It was mostly a trial just to see 19 if the mechanics of the workflow worked. 20 Q Can you kind of walk me through that? 'Cause 21 what you just said seems very in tune with what 22 you do on GIS so I'm not as familiar. 23 Explain what you mean by that. 24 A Sure. Again, we had this methodology to figure 25 out the percentage of population and a way to 39 1 test it so it was repeatable, was to use this 2 data and try to see if we could get the same 3 numbers. 4 Q So, again, it was Ms. Blair that did the 5 population density analysis for Areas 1A and 1B, 6 not you? 7 A Correct, as far as I remember. Certainly the -- 8 yeah, what we submitted as -- what we think is 9 the authoritative thing, yeah. 10 Q Are you aware of the city ever publicly 11 representing the total number of people that 12 live in Area 1A or 1B? 13 A Aside from related to this stuff, I don't know. 14 Q Has anyone ever asked you to change or modify 15 your calculations of the total number of people 16 who live in Area 1A or 1B? 17 A No. 18 Q Do you know how Ms. Haley performed her analysis 19 of the population density for Area 1A or 1B? 20 A I think it was probably the same method. Again, 21 that percentage of area, whatever the shorthand 22 is for that. But I did not, you know -- I don't 23 remember going through it with her. That was 24 kind of something she did. I would guess it's 25 similar. 40 1 (Deposition Exhibit 77 previously marked 2 for identification.) 3 Q I'm going to hand you what's previously been 4 marked as Exhibit 77. Would you please take a 5 look at that document. 6 Do you recognize Exhibit 77? 7 A Yeah, not in this format. I mean, I know what 8 these numbers are. I don't think I've ever seen 9 this specific document. 10 Q Do you know who prepared Exhibit 77? 11 A No, not on the face of it, no. 12 Q Do you know when this document was prepared? 13 A No, no, I don't. I mean ... 14 Q Do you know what the purpose of this document 15 is? 16 A It looks like it's a summary of a population 17 density kind of a study analysis. 18 Q Did you provide any information for the 19 production of Exhibit 77? 20 A I can't say for sure. I don't know when -- how 21 long ago this was made. I don't remember. 22 Q So if you're looking at this first paragraph 23 under the title, the second sentence there, 24 "When examining annexation area for density 25 purposes, commercial, industrial, business, and 41 1 similarly classified non-residential areas are 2 eliminated." 3 Do you see that? 4 A I do see that. 5 Q Do you know why it says that? 6 MR. UNGER: I'm going to object to the 7 extent the witness's already answered that he's 8 not familiar with this and never reviewed it 9 before. But you can go ahead and answer. 10 A Okay. I mean, I suppose the -- well, it says 11 it's a density analysis on residential areas. 12 So in order to, you know, specify -- in order to 13 define the residential areas, you're omitting 14 these other types of areas. So that's probably 15 what that sentence is trying to reinforce. 16 Q Turning to these population estimates that 17 appear on the first table on Exhibit 77, do you 18 know how those were calculated? 19 MR. UNGER: Same objection. Calls for 20 speculation. To the extent you can answer, 21 answer. 22 A I would have to speculate but, no, I don't. I 23 can't -- based on the document and my memory, I 24 do not know how they were calculated. 25 Q You didn't perform those calculations of 42 1 population estimate for 1A or 1B? 2 A I don't believe so, no. 3 Q You don't know who did? 4 A I mean, if this came from -- no, I can't say 5 based on this document, no. 6 Q So is it fair to say you don't know how any of 7 this analysis is performed in Exhibit 77? 8 A I know a way to perform an analysis like this. 9 I don't know, you know, I wasn't standing over 10 the shoulder of whatever person did this, as far 11 as I remember. 12 Q Generally speaking, how would you calculate the 13 number of people per acre? 14 A You would -- so you get the population of 15 whatever area you are talking about and divide 16 it by the number of acres. Something like that. 17 Q I think, Mr. Stier, you said you did not map the 18 population density analysis performed by 19 Ms. Blair. Is that correct? 20 A Yeah, I think that's -- yes, that's correct. 21 Q And is it correct that -- so what work did you 22 perform on the population density analysis for 23 Area 1A or 1B? 24 A I think we discussed methodology. We did the 25 test in the previous exhibit, but all the 43 1 official -- all the, you know, all the work that 2 we were doing, Meghan did the population density 3 analysis, yeah. 4 Q So Meghan came up with the methodology; correct? 5 A Yeah. She -- I mean, it's kind of a standard 6 methodology. She landed, yeah. She made the 7 decision what we were going to do, yeah. 8 Q Thereafter, you double checked things? 9 A Yeah -- I mean, not even. There was a certain 10 point, again, in the beginning where we were 11 reviewing the methodology but, yeah, she -- I 12 kind of trusted her analysis. 13 Q Did you perform an analysis of the percentage of 14 Territory 1A that has been subdivided? 15 A No, I did not. 16 Q Did you perform an analysis of the percentage of 17 territory in Area 1B that has been subdivided? 18 A No. 19 Q Do you know anyone that has performed an 20 analysis of the percentage of Areas 1A or 1B 21 that has been subdivided? 22 A Without looking at Meghan's work, I don't 23 remember. You know, maybe she did that. I 24 don't remember. There was -- it might have been 25 one of the subjects she worked on. 44 1 Q If she said she couldn't perform that analysis, 2 you just trust her word for that? 3 A Yeah, certainly, yeah. 4 Q Do you know how many formally recorded 5 subdivisions are Area 1A? 6 A I do not. 7 Q What about for Area 1B? 8 A I do not. 9 Q Did you or anyone in the city GIS division pull 10 each of the plats and calculate the number of 11 acres within each subdivision for Area 1A or 1B? 12 A No. Well, I can say I did not do that. 13 Q Have you performed any analysis on whether Area 14 1A or 1B involves an economic development 15 project by the City of Bloomington? 16 A I don't recall doing anything like that. I 17 mean, yeah, no, I don't. 18 Q Have you performed analysis on -- strike that. 19 Have you performed analysis on whether any 20 of Area 1A or 1B is zoned for commercial 21 business or industrial uses? 22 A No, I have not performed that analysis. I 23 believe I mapped something like that but, yeah. 24 Q So you think you mapped? 25 A I didn't map anything based on -- like, when you 45 1 say "analysis," I assume you mean something like 2 a calculation of percentage or something like 3 that. I mapped the shapes, basically, but no 4 analysis. 5 Q So someone else did the analysis, provided the 6 data to you, you mapped it? 7 A Again, that's not even necessarily true in the 8 sense that the analysis did not really mostly 9 show up. I mean, that subject of whether 10 something was commercial, industrial -- whatever 11 those topics, subjects, were -- we mapped that 12 stuff based on the county's parcel data, their 13 land use codes, and their zoning. 14 So if there was analysis that had to do 15 with percentages, those percentages weren't 16 reflected in the maps. 17 Q Okay. So did you produce any map that 18 demonstrated whether Area 1A is zoned for 19 commercial, business, or industrial uses? 20 A I produced a map reflecting those categories, 21 yes. 22 Q And you did the same for 1B? 23 A Right, correct. 24 Q And the data you used to produce that map came 25 from the county? 46 1 A Correct, yeah. We used their parcel data and/or 2 their zoning data. 3 Q So I want to, I guess, go back. Did you produce 4 any maps that demonstrate that there are 5 economic development projects in Area 1A? 6 A Without seeing the set of maps, economic 7 development projects, I don't -- that doesn't 8 sound familiar, but I would have to look at the 9 maps, I suppose, to know for sure. We mapped 10 things in 1A and 1B. 11 I don't -- yeah, that doesn't sound 12 familiar, but without looking at the suite of 13 maps, it would be hard to make sure we're taking 14 about the same thing, but I don't think -- that 15 doesn't sound familiar to me. 16 Q Same question for 1B. 17 A Same answer. 18 Q Did you also produce a map for Area 1B 19 demonstrating portions that were zoned for 20 commercial, business, or industrial uses? 21 A Yeah. I mean, like, so the county zoning is 22 more complicated than those three categories. 23 We definitely produced a map of their zoning 24 boundaries, and then we -- there's also a set of 25 maps that are those three categories that we 47 1 tried to simplify their zoning to fall into 2 those buckets. 3 Q Explain to me why you say that, "Simplify zoning 4 to fall in those buckets." 5 A Yeah. So, you know, industrial -- the county 6 has a lot of zoning categories. So a quarry is 7 a zoning category but, you know, which could be 8 considered industrial. 9 So in order to group all those together 10 into something that made a little more sense, we 11 grouped where those -- yeah, we grouped those 12 zones into those three categories. 13 Q When you say "we" -- 14 A Meghan was kind of the authority, you know, the 15 final word on how we made those distinctions. 16 Q She made the call? 17 A Yeah, oh, yeah. For sure. 18 Q She said, "This goes into commercial, this goes 19 into industrial, this goes into business"? 20 A Correct. 21 Q "And this is residential"? 22 A Correct. 23 Q And then, from there, you mapped it? 24 A Yeah, right. Exactly. 25 Q Did you produce any maps that demonstrate 48 1 whether the City of Bloomington needs and can 2 use Area 1A for the city's development in the 3 reasonably near future? 4 A No. 5 Q And same question for Area 1B. 6 A No, no. I don't think the maps -- any of the 7 maps were certainly specific to that subject. I 8 mean, you could -- no, I don't think, no. 9 Q Are you aware of any development projects the 10 City of Bloomington has planed to occur in Area 11 1A? 12 A I am not aware of any of that. 13 Q Are you aware of any development projects the 14 City of Bloomington has planned to occur in 1B? 15 A No. 16 Q Did you produce any maps that demonstrate 17 whether annexation would be in the best interest 18 of the residents in Area 1A or 1B? 19 A No, nothing with that subject in mind certainly. 20 Q Did you produce any maps that demonstrate that 21 annexation would not have a significant 22 financial impact on residents of Area 1A or 1B? 23 A No. 24 (Deposition Exhibit 78 previously marked 25 for identification.) 49 1 Q I'm going to hand you what's been marked as 2 Exhibit 78. Please take a look at that 3 document. 4 Do you recognize Exhibit 78? 5 A This -- I recognize what it is. Again, I 6 haven't seen it in this format though. It's a 7 summary of an urbanization analysis. 8 Q Have you seen this document in other formats? 9 A No. I mean, no, other than the stuff, you know, 10 the city produced. 11 Q Did you help create Exhibit 78? 12 A I did not. 13 Q Was it just Ms. Blair that created this 14 document? 15 A Yeah. It wasn't me. I can say that for sure. 16 I don't know if she got figures from anywhere 17 else. I presume she did this. 18 (Deposition Exhibit 79 previously marked 19 for identification.) 20 Q I'm going to hand you what's been marked as 21 Exhibit 79, and I will represent to you, that's 22 an Annexation Frequently Asked Questions 23 document that's publicly available on the city's 24 website. Appears as if it's up to date as of 25 October 22, 2021. 50 1 A Okay. 2 Q Have you ever seen this document before? 3 A I've -- no, actually. No, I certainly have not. 4 I can say that. 5 Q Will you please turn to page 7 of Exhibit 79. 6 A Okay. 7 Q Do you see under the "What is the population of 8 the areas proposed for annexation?" Area 9 1A: 3,987. 10 A I see that. 11 Q Did you produce that estimate? 12 A No. 13 Q Do you know who did? 14 A No, not with any certainty. If it was produced 15 by the GIS department, it would have been Laura 16 at this -- if it's 2021. But some of it -- it 17 wasn't me, and if it came from GIS, it would 18 have been Laura. But I can't even say who put 19 it on the document. I don't know. 20 Q Do you know how Laura arrived at that population 21 estimate for Area 1A? 22 MR. UNGER: Objection to the extent it 23 misstates the record. Your question was how did 24 Laura arrive at it; the witness just testified 25 he doesn't know who created it. 51 1 Q I will withdraw the question. Do you know how 2 this estimate was calculated? 3 A I don't. 4 Q Go to page 8. Population estimate for Area 5 1B: 4,566. Do you know who provided this 6 estimate? 7 A Same answer as 1A. 8 Q You don't know? 9 A I can't say for sure. 10 Q Who do you think did it? 11 MR. UNGER: Objection. Calls for 12 speculation. 13 Q You can go ahead and answer. 14 A Again, if these numbers came from our 15 department, the GIS team, it would have been 16 Laura because she did the previous annexation 17 analysis. That would be a guess. Again, I 18 assume she didn't type it in to this document; 19 so ... 20 Q Do you know how this estimate was arrived at? 21 MR. UNGER: Object to the extent it calls 22 for speculation. 23 A Again, I don't. Not with certainty, no. 24 MR. HEEB: Let's go off the record. 25 (Off the record.) 52 1 BY MR. HEEB 2 Q Mr. Stier, do you know the percentage of Area 1A 3 that has been subdivided? 4 A No. 5 Q Do you know the percentage of Area 1B that has 6 been subdivided? 7 A No. 8 Q If you'll turn back to -- I believe it's 9 Exhibit 78. 10 A Single sheet, yeah. 11 Q Under the total population for Area 1A, see 12 where it says 4,351? Do you agree with that? 13 A If this is what Meghan produced, I agree with 14 her. I trust her work so, yeah. 15 Q So you agree that -- and I'm looking here, under 16 persons per acre and total annexation. You 17 agree that there's 1.38 persons per acre in Area 18 1A? 19 MR. UNGER: Objection to the extent it 20 misstates the exhibit. But to the extent you 21 can answer, go ahead and answer. 22 Q Go ahead and answer. 23 A The persons per acre and the residential zones 24 says 3.26. Is that -- sorry, can you ask your 25 question again? 53 1 Q I can certainly do my -- 2 A Sorry. 3 Q -- do my best. In that same persons per acre -- 4 A Okay. I'm here. 5 Q -- tab, we'll call it. You see the total 6 annexation? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Do you agree that for Area 1A, 1.38 persons per 9 acre in Area 1A? 10 A Again, if this is the figures Meghan provided, I 11 trust her analysis. So I agree with it, yeah. 12 I mean, I would stand by it for sure. 13 Q So then for, going back up to total population 14 under 1B: 5,758. Do you have any reason to 15 disagree with that? 16 A I do not. 17 Q Going back down to persons per acre, total 18 annexation, Area 1B: 3.28. Any reason to 19 disagree with that? 20 A No reason. 21 Q In what role did you play in producing this 2023 22 urbanization summary? 23 A I would think none besides, again, that early 24 on, we were discussing methodology. So, yeah, I 25 mean, I don't think I touched this spreadsheet, 54 1 for example. 2 Q Do you know why -- and I'm back under the 3 persons per acre tab. Do you know why 4 residential zoning was included there? 5 MR. UNGER: Objection to the extent it 6 calls for speculation. You can answer if you 7 can. 8 A No, besides it is a subset of the zone -- the 9 zones. I don't know, specifically, why the 10 decision was made to include that as a portion 11 of the analysis, no. 12 Q What about the residential parcels, do you know 13 why that was included? 14 MR. UNGER: Same objection. 15 A Similar answer. Those are, you know, two sets 16 of polygons. And so those are two figures to 17 represent them. 18 Q Mr. Stier, is there anything else we have not 19 discussed today which you will testify to at 20 trial? 21 MR. UNGER: Objection. To the extent it 22 calls for attorney mental impressions and calls 23 for speculation. To the extent you can answer, 24 you can answer. 25 A No, I -- unless you've got any more questions 55 1 about the maps, yeah, I mean, no, I think that's 2 it. 3 Q To your knowledge, have all the maps that you 4 will sponsor at trial been produced? 5 A To my knowledge, all the maps, yeah, I created 6 were produced, yeah. 7 MR. HEEB: I don't have any other 8 questions. 9 MR. UNGER: No questions. 10 THE REPORTER: Will the witness read and 11 sign? 12 MR. UNGER: Yes. 13 (Time noted: 12:47 p.m.) 14 AND FURTHER THE DEPONENT SAITH NOT. 15 16 17 ____________________ 18 MAX STIER 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 56 1 STATE OF INDIANA ) ) SS: 2 COUNTY OF MONROE ) 3 I, Colleen Brady, a Notary Public in and for 4 the County of Monroe, State of Indiana at large, do 5 hereby certify that MAX STIER, the deponent herein, 6 was by me first duly sworn to tell the truth, the 7 whole truth, and nothing but the truth in the 8 aforementioned matter; 9 That the foregoing deposition was taken on 10 behalf of the Petitioners, at the offices of 11 Bloomington City Hall, 401 North Morton Street, 12 Room 225, Bloomington, Monroe County, Indiana, on 13 the 27th day of March 2024, commencing at the hour 14 of 11:38 a.m., pursuant to the Indiana Rules of 15 Trial Procedure; 16 That said deposition was taken down 17 stenographically and transcribed under my 18 direction, and that the typewritten transcript is a 19 true record of the testimony given by the said 20 deponent; and thereafter presented to said deponent 21 for his signature; 22 That the parties were represented by their 23 counsel as aforementioned. 24 I do further certify that I am a disinterested 25 person in this cause of action; that I am not a 57 1 relative or attorney of any party, or otherwise 2 interested in the event of this action, and am not 3 in the employ of the attorneys for any party. 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 5 hand and affixed my notarial seal on this 11th 6 day of March 2024. 7 8 9 <%25563,Signature%> Colleen Brady 10 11 12 Seal, Notary Public My Commission Expires: State of Indiana March 8, 2029 13 Colleen Brady County of Residence: 14 Commission No. NP0732235 Monroe 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Veritext Legal Solutions 1100 Superior Ave Suite 1820 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Phone: 216-523-1313 April 11, 2024 To: Mr. Unger Case Name: County Residents Against Annexation Inc. Et Al. v. The Common Council Of The City Of Bloomington Et Al. Veritext Reference Number: 6618737 Witness: Max Stier Deposition Date: 3/27/2024 Dear Sir: Enclosed please find a deposition transcript. Please have the witness review the transcript and note any changes or corrections on the included errata sheet, indicating the page, line number, change, and the reason for the change. Have the witness’ signature notarized and forward the completed page(s) back to us at the Production address shown above, or email to production-midwest@veritext.com. If the errata is not returned within thirty days of your receipt of this letter, the reading and signing will be deemed waived. Sincerely, Production Department NO NOTARY REQUIRED IN CA 1 DEPOSITION REVIEW CERTIFICATION OF WITNESS 2 ASSIGNMENT REFERENCE NO: 6618737 3 CASE NAME: County Residents Against Annexation Inc. Et Al. v. The Common Council Of The City Of Bloomington Et Al. DATE OF DEPOSITION: 3/27/2024 4 WITNESS' NAME: Max Stier 5 In accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure, I have read the entire transcript of 6 my testimony or it has been read to me. 7 I have made no changes to the testimony as transcribed by the court reporter. 8 _______________ ________________________ 9 Date Max Stier 10 Sworn to and subscribed before me, a Notary Public in and for the State and County, 11 the referenced witness did personally appear and acknowledge that: 12 They have read the transcript; 13 They signed the foregoing Sworn Statement; and 14 Their execution of this Statement is of their free act and deed. 15 I have affixed my name and official seal 16 this ______ day of_____________________, 20____. 17 ___________________________________ 18 Notary Public 19 ___________________________________ Commission Expiration Date 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 DEPOSITION REVIEW CERTIFICATION OF WITNESS 2 ASSIGNMENT REFERENCE NO: 6618737 3 CASE NAME: County Residents Against Annexation Inc. Et Al. v. The Common Council Of The City Of Bloomington Et Al. DATE OF DEPOSITION: 3/27/2024 4 WITNESS' NAME: Max Stier 5 In accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure, I have read the entire transcript of 6 my testimony or it has been read to me. 7 I have listed my changes on the attached Errata Sheet, listing page and line numbers as 8 well as the reason(s) for the change(s). 9 I request that these changes be entered as part of the record of my testimony. 10 I have executed the Errata Sheet, as well 11 as this Certificate, and request and authorize that both be appended to the transcript of my 12 testimony and be incorporated therein. 13 _______________ ________________________ Date Max Stier 14 Sworn to and subscribed before me, a 15 Notary Public in and for the State and County, the referenced witness did personally appear 16 and acknowledge that: 17 They have read the transcript; They have listed all of their corrections 18 in the appended Errata Sheet; They signed the foregoing Sworn 19 Statement; and Their execution of this Statement is of 20 their free act and deed. 21 I have affixed my name and official seal 22 this ______ day of_____________________, 20____. 23 ___________________________________ Notary Public 24 ___________________________________ 25 Commission Expiration Date 1 ERRATA SHEET VERITEXT LEGAL SOLUTIONS MIDWEST 2 ASSIGNMENT NO: 6618737 3 PAGE/LINE(S) / CHANGE /REASON 4 ___________________________________________________ 5 ___________________________________________________ 6 ___________________________________________________ 7 ___________________________________________________ 8 ___________________________________________________ 9 ___________________________________________________ 10 ___________________________________________________ 11 ___________________________________________________ 12 ___________________________________________________ 13 ___________________________________________________ 14 ___________________________________________________ 15 ___________________________________________________ 16 ___________________________________________________ 17 ___________________________________________________ 18 ___________________________________________________ 19 _______________ ________________________ 20 Date Max Stier 21 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS ________ 22 DAY OF ________________________, 20______ . 23 ___________________________________ Notary Public 24 ___________________________________ 25 Commission Expiration Date