[0:02] Great. Okay, well, it looks like we do have a quorum present, and so we will go ahead and start this meeting. This is the board meeting for the Skyfall Infrastructure Financing District. It is Monday, July 20, 20, 26, 2 p.m. I'm Betsy Russen with a WBA. I'll also recognize at the meeting in the conference room, it was worth, which is the anchor location.

[0:32] and we have Robert and Nate

[0:40] Ballard present.

[0:42] Is there anybody else there with you

[0:43] at the anchor location?

[0:46] They've worked in the air.

[0:47] I don't see anyone else unless I hear someone walking

[0:51] in the car, I, I, I, I, I,

[0:54] will you, I will you, I will you.

[0:56] This is me, this is me.

[0:58] You guys know I see this.

[1:02] And I'll come back to you, Robert,

[1:04] but we also have Lauren Werburton

[1:06] with CLA, and I think that is it. I'm not sure if we'll have Chase join us. I do see two members

[1:16] of the public. It looks like perhaps and we'll get to you in a minute. So Robert, were there other members,

[1:24] it looks like there are other folks there in the room with you? Would you mind introducing those individuals?

[1:29] I think we might be doubled up, or are you guys also on there?

[1:35] I just have my sub-bomb, you're off.

[1:39] Okay.

[1:40] So there's an iPhone 179.

[1:44] That's me.

[1:47] So there's the joining.

[1:48] Okay, so I'm saying that.

[1:51] I said joining, they're not on right now, Betsy.

[1:54] And then we have a 911-723-44425.

[1:58] That's right.

[1:59] And is that anyone we know or is that a member of the public if

[2:07] it's a member of the public, would you mind stating your name just for meeting purposes for record purposes?

[2:15] And if you're trying to talk, you are muted.

[2:19] That's the individual at 19177234425.

[2:28] Okay. And then I see Ted Novakowski.

[2:36] And we'll

[2:37] come back to you individuals when it's time for public comment. So at this time we'll

[2:43] call the meeting to order. I have that it is two or two in just what introduced the two

[2:48] people here.

[2:49] Also, that's right. I asked you to do that and then cut you off like a true attorney. Didn't I go ahead Robert go ahead. No from I'm Mary and suffers. I'm resident of that my French.

[3:02] Great. And Mary, what what how do you sell your last name?

[3:04] S-O-M as in Mary E-R-S.

[3:08] Great, thank you, Mary Ann, and then who else is there?

[3:14] Laura and I do, and I have a lot 122 and 50.

[3:19] And I'm reading that on.

[3:21] 122 and 50, and what was your, how do you like the last name, Laura?

[3:25] M-A-Z-Z-U.

[3:28] Great.

[3:29] And it looks like, did we just have somebody else join?

[3:34] Okay.

[3:38] Again, we'll come back during the public portion of the meeting. At this time, we'll

[3:43] cover preliminary action items. As far as preliminary action items, conflict of interest

[3:50] disclosures. Are there any disclosures of potential or existing conflicts that any of the board

[3:57] members would like to make it this time?

[4:02] We obviously had a conflict on file. Are there any additional,

[4:05] any other conflicts anyone would like to disclose?

[4:09] No, no. Okay. All right, we'll move on then to consideration of approving this meeting agenda

[4:17] as it is, as it was published and as it is in front of you. Any questions or additions to this

[4:26] I will. This is Robert on motion to prove the agenda.

[4:30] Great. Is there a second?

[4:33] This is Alex all in favor?

[4:37] Right.

[4:38] Great. So noted.

[4:40] Next now we'll move on to the public comment portion of our meeting.

[4:45] This is where members of the public may express their views to the board.

[4:50] And this is this meeting is being recorded.

[4:52] I'll just have note and that's of matters that may affect the district and we

[4:57] will limit comments to three minutes per person. It looks like we have a few

[5:02] different members of the public present. We've already identified Mary and

[5:06] Somers and Laura Mizzou. It looks like we also have a Clint Peterson and Ted Novakowski.

[5:12] There's also a phone number ending in 42425. If anyone would like to identify

[5:18] themselves from that 4 4 2 5 number please do so and we'll open up this portion of the meeting

[5:26] for public comment if anyone has anything that they would like to to stay or share.

[5:33] I mean I'm trying to pause you to see if the people on the phone want to go first if not we can

[5:38] jump in. You know I don't see that anyone's come off of mute so it looks like Mary Ann you want

[5:45] to say something do you have a microphone there or I can hear you just fine.

[5:53] I think most of us that are living there are main concern is understanding what the future

[5:59] of the development is and we've invested millions of dollars in properties there and we

[6:06] all know that there have been so many problems with phase 1A.

[6:10] The main thing is trying to understand how you guys are involved or not involved, what your

[6:16] perspective is on phase one A, how is that when it affects future development or you know can

[6:24] we have any positivity or optimism about it getting cleaned up and getting finished and are there

[6:29] things you can share for us. Now obviously it's going to be high end housing above us and that the

[6:37] value of that will be affected by what's going on in phase one A. So I think that that's my main

[6:43] public comment and try to understand that.

[6:47] Thank you.

[6:48] All right.

[6:49] Thank you for that.

[6:50] Are there any any responses from any of the board members?

[6:54] Would you guys like to?

[6:58] We're supposed to sit to agenda items in our meetings.

[7:02] So we need to address future items and future board meetings.

[7:06] We can get them on the agenda to address the board meetings.

[7:09] I'll comment that there is a difference between

[7:12] development group, which we are all members, and the infrastructure financing district,

[7:19] which is the public meeting of, and this infrastructure financing district and the engines

[7:25] of the developer are two different things that are going by side by side, and so it'd be appropriate

[7:31] to address the involvement of the developer and those sorts of things, probably separately,

[7:36] then this meeting, which is about the infrastructure financing district and its purpose and its goals moving forward. Does that make sense?

[7:46] I think we can actually talk offline. I'm from that standpoint, but I think that would be my response to that comment.

[7:53] Okay.

[7:53] Can I have a follow-up question?

[7:55] Sure.

[7:55] So the financial district, as far as I understand, does not involve Phase 1A or does involve Phase 1A?

[8:06] The IFD, I don't think we've collateralized, no, it does not collateralize Phase 1 staff.

[8:14] So Phase 1A is not part of, not included in the boundaries of this public entity.

[8:20] Okay. And HOAs would be your element and finance it. Okay, correct. Yeah.

[8:28] No, go ahead, Robert. No, no, I was it. I was I was going to see if there's other public comments.

[8:36] Yeah. And so, Mary Ann, thank you for your comment. Are there any others? Laura, did you have anything that you wanted to share?

[8:44] There's just, obviously, misunderstanding that the IDFD would also cover any of the MNVs

[8:53] clubhouse and such as far as horizontal goes in phase-blending.

[8:59] So there's, yeah, I think that isn't probably misunderstanding.

[9:03] IDFD funds public improvements to the extent that those improvements are private and it wouldn't

[9:08] fund those improvements.

[9:09] It would be private developer that would fund those improvements.

[9:12] And we're talking now probably offline, we can bring this offline maybe after this public meeting.

[9:19] But those are public.

[9:21] Are they doing that?

[9:22] Yeah, if you would tell.

[9:23] And that type of thing.

[9:24] No.

[9:25] No, no.

[9:25] All the private development.

[9:27] All right.

[9:27] So the public.

[9:29] Think of the IFD as the person that's going to fund the rents.

[9:32] Okay.

[9:32] That's effective.

[9:33] The rents.

[9:36] So everything else will be public.

[9:38] So this meeting is really about the funds related to the public.

[9:43] I think about the general infrastructure of the surrounding properties, some of the surrounding

[9:49] properties to you, I guess. So, the wage will impact you long-term. Yes, benefit you long-term.

[9:56] Yes, but it's not specific to those types of things.

[10:00] Great. And I agree with everything that's been said here. Let's see if there's any additional

[10:05] comments first before I speak to answer Clint Peterson if you have anything or Ted or

[10:14] 42425 okay then I'll I'll just know that I agree with everything that Robert how Robert

[10:24] described what the IFD is and Nate thanks also for your clarification and it sounds like

[10:32] with your developer hats on, not as your board member hats, it sounds like you

[10:38] can answer some of the individual questions offline that have come up today.

[10:41] Is that correct? Okay, and if there are additional questions about the IFD,

[10:49] then I will give you my contact information. Obviously, then you can you can call

[10:54] me and we can talk and answer any other questions about the IFD itself. But

[10:59] But that being said, I see no other public comments forthcoming and so we'll move on to the

[11:06] action items and want to thank each of you who spoke up.

[11:10] Thanks for your time and thanks for the time to travel and participate in the meeting.

[11:15] We appreciate your comments and any public impact or in what's the word I'm looking for.

[11:23] Thank you.

[11:24] not in fact I guess in fact for sure but input that we yeah okay so we'll move on then we'll

[11:34] consider next item 4a and that's approval of the minutes from the June 23rd 2026 meeting I'll

[11:41] jump to that in the tabs here let's see there they are and they were part of the meeting packet

[11:48] Are there any corrections or anything anyone would like to have noted or changed in regards to those minutes?

[11:58] No, I'll move to approve the minutes. This is Robert.

[12:01] Okay. Thanks, Robert. Is there a second?

[12:05] Good. I'll come here on the roll. I'll call it all second.

[12:09] Thank you. All in favor?

[12:13] Yes.

[12:14] Great.

[12:14] Okay, we'll move next on the agenda to the acceptance or approval of the June 30th,

[12:25] 2026 financial statements. I'll turn this over to Lauren who is the District Accountant

[12:32] with CLA. Lauren, the mic is yours.

[12:38] Would you like me to share my screen? Or can I have you scrolling for me?

[12:43] I'll scroll. You just direct anywhere to go. All right. Let's start with page one, one down,

[12:50] and I'll point out here before I start for this is still marked as a draft simply because we do

[12:55] have one outstanding question that probably won't affect the financials too much, but we do want

[13:02] these to be accurate. So I will leave my questions for for after we're through the recorded

[13:10] portion of the meeting because I think mostly it's just coordination to reach out to for specific

[13:15] questions. But for now, the anticipated change would be to this account's payable line. So this

[13:22] $99,142, we would expect that to go down and then the developer advances on the next page to go up.

[13:31] So I'll explain that a little bit more, but we can start here with the balance sheet. So total assets

[13:36] that's as a June 30th, sitting in the corner.

[13:40] Yeah.

[13:40] Can I interrupt one quick just level setting real quick?

[13:44] Can you want?

[13:45] Sorry, I just wanted to ask a quick question before we get in.

[13:48] Yeah.

[13:48] Are we're counting on an annual on a fiscal calendar base, correct?

[13:54] Correct.

[13:56] OK, thank you.

[13:58] Yes.

[13:59] So this should be our first reported

[14:06] time frame, I guess I should say, at this, this will be affected by the question that

[14:11] I have later about some of these invoices.

[14:14] But total assets currently sitting at $435 million, $649,000, $83.20, with the majority

[14:23] of that being in the capital projects, or excuse me, the debt service fund, sitting at $255,000,

[14:31] and then just under 80.1 million in the capital projects fund.

[14:36] Then on liability side, currently accounts payable,

[14:40] sitting at just over 906,000 with 800 and just almost 807,000 of that being the capital projects fund.

[14:49] This portion under the capital projects fund is for those bond issuance costs

[14:54] that technically have not been claimed yet.

[14:56] So this is an accrual that we expect to be paid out.

[15:00] I hope in the next, I'd say a couple of weeks and months. And then this 99.1,000 general fund

[15:07] is worth administrative costs. There is a little bit of accounting fees in this. And then

[15:12] most of it is made up of Zalipal costs, payable to WBA. We expect this to go down primarily

[15:20] because it looks like the developer. I believe Jamie Mackie, developers, paid one or more

[15:28] invoices and so we want to clarify which one of those were paid so that we can

[15:33] shoot this up or down. But that is it on the ballot sheets. So of the cost that

[15:41] were identified in the closing, Jamie paid maybe one of those invoices and so

[15:47] that wouldn't come off of this public entity is that what I understood

[15:51] Lauren? So the expense will still show on the next page for that invoice and then

[15:57] And like you said, yes, the 99.1,000 or whatever

[16:02] should go down a bit.

[16:04] I'm not sure by how much, but it sounds like Jamie

[16:06] did make a payment for one or more invoices to WBA.

[16:10] I don't believe that's a bond issue.

[16:12] It's possible.

[16:15] OK.

[16:17] Well, what cost would WBA have that we're not part of the IOT?

[16:22] You're just saying it's part of the IOT,

[16:23] it's just not part of the issue.

[16:25] Yes, yes, sorry.

[16:26] Just not part of the actual issue.

[16:30] And then in the general fund here so far, obviously still very new, so no revenues showing

[16:35] up quite yet, total expenditures sitting at that 99.1 million, 93 million of that being

[16:43] the legal cost to WBA, and then I believe it's just an invoice or two for CLA.

[16:50] And I think it means that I wasn't instead of a million.

[16:54] Wow, thank you.

[16:57] I mean, I think it's the biggest.

[16:59] But I didn't see that.

[17:01] I mean, three million.

[17:03] Not 90 million, definitely 1000.

[17:07] So I'll say that again, total expenditure is $99,142.

[17:13] And then this is the other line that should be updated a bit.

[17:17] is the developer advances. So this should go, I would assume, have at least a couple thousand here.

[17:24] So that brings our ending fund balance at this time to 99.1,000 in a deficit which is

[17:32] totally normal at this point in time since we're paying for administrative invoices through developer

[17:37] for advances.

[17:40] Lauren. Yes. We may as Betsy also remind me, don't we have an administrative

[17:49] bucket and a capital bucket effectively? That's how we've dealt with, you know,

[18:09] other

[18:09] also have to step in and help me with this one. I believe the working capital

[18:12] funds that we have is only for the water reservation fees and is part of the

[18:19] capital project's fund. Does that sound familiar Betsy? You know, I'd have to

[18:22] check with Blair. I don't know that answer right off the top of my head. Sorry.

[18:27] And maybe I'm, you know, I've got a member of other public entities as well, where

[18:33] we have to have a kind of administrative bucket that covers WBA, that covers CLA, that covers

[18:40] those types of things, and then we have a capital project budget, and we actually have

[18:45] capital separately.

[18:47] As we have an adopted budget for the administrator, we have to adopt the budget for the capital

[18:50] projects.

[18:51] Yeah.

[18:52] Would it be the same here?

[18:55] I think that is definitely the common case.

[19:01] Here, it's looking like administrative costs are being funded through developer advances.

[19:07] For $20.00.

[19:09] They were up until bond closing, but going forward, they should not.

[19:14] Yes, and Robert, let me just note too, I had a good discussion with Blair.

[19:18] Blair was double booked for this meeting, and he said, if this issue did come up, he could

[19:23] have an offline conversation with you to answer kind of what's been done prior to bond

[19:28] issuance versus what's the expectation going forward and answer some of these questions

[19:33] that are a little more in the weeds, but he'll reach out to you if he has, it sounds

[19:38] like he hasn't already, but was planning to.

[19:41] Okay.

[19:42] And this is a preliminary budget anyway, right?

[19:46] I wouldn't say preliminary budget, but definitely preliminary financials, it's probably going

[19:51] to be making at least a change.

[19:53] Well, we can adopt a budget but always amended.

[19:55] You can always amend your budget graph.

[20:00] And we already do have, I mean, you have the 2026 budget that was adopted already, but

[20:06] I think you're talking about amending in the future and yes, I'll be quiet now.

[20:14] So anything else on the, oh, you're just fine.

[20:16] Anything else on the general fund?

[20:22] Okay.

[20:23] We can scroll on down to the debt service fund.

[20:25] This will show more information from the bond issuance.

[20:36] Here we go.

[20:37] So still very new.

[20:40] Obviously no revenues coming in quite yet.

[20:43] Although we do have budgeted revenues through the end of the year.

[20:47] Same with the expenditures.

[20:48] So right now all we have here is the transfer in from other funds

[20:52] is 63.1 million.

[20:54] Truly meant to say million here.

[20:56] And this is from the capital projects fund from bond issuance to service the bonds.

[21:05] And that is it for the debt service fund.

[21:11] And then lastly, the capital projects fund here, no revenues quite yet.

[21:15] And then as far as expenditures go, looks like just under 150 million, it's 140.1 million

[21:22] of that being capital outlay, and then 9.8 million of that being bond issuance costs.

[21:28] And this was from that first requisition that went out as part of bond issue.

[21:33] So then after the transfer out to the debt service fund of $63.1 million,

[21:39] and including the bond issue proceeds of $292 million are ending fund balance.

[21:45] Capital projects fund is sitting at $79.28.

[21:51] Any questions I can answer either on this or any of the other financial so far?

[21:59] No.

[22:01] Okay, and that is all I have for this.

[22:08] So, is there an action item?

[22:12] Yeah, I'm sorry, just getting back to the agenda.

[22:15] So, this time, we just, we'll, I'll ask the board

[22:19] if I'll entertain a motion to approve or accept.

[22:23] This is the June 30th, 2026 financial statements.

[22:28] And Lauren, and that's equal.

[22:30] We approve on a monthly basis financial

[22:33] but the financial statements, monthly?

[22:37] Go ahead, Lauren, can you talk on frequency?

[22:41] Yes, so we prepare them quarterly.

[22:43] I believe we do have some districts that do it monthly

[22:46] if that's your preference,

[22:49] but it seems to work best quarterly,

[22:51] especially we're trying to get everyone together

[22:53] for the meetings at the same time.

[22:56] And all know, there are some districts that are very,

[22:59] very busy that are, you know, that we see a lot of financing coming through and sometimes

[23:06] it's helpful to have them more often, but quarterly is generally accepted.

[23:11] There are others where there isn't any movement and sometimes they'll go a little bit later

[23:16] if needed for scheduling purposes, but this is the norm.

[23:21] Okay.

[23:22] Yeah, I will say usually we also present a payment listing to go along with these financial

[23:29] Obviously with the outstanding question of what WBA invoices have been paid, we don't have that prepared today, so we can cover that as part of Q3.

[23:39] But that is also something you can expect to see in the future.

[23:43] So the motion would be to prove then subject to minor adjustments that CLA might make. Is that right?

[23:52] Yeah, I think so with Lauren's question pending. Yes, that would be correct. Just kind of final legal or finalization.

[24:03] I'll make that motion. I'll move to approve the June 30th, 20th, 26th Financial Saints as presented subject to minor edits.

[24:12] Let's see how you make me.

[24:14] Okay, is there a second?

[24:17] This is Nate. I'll second.

[24:20] Thanks, Nate. I'll in favor.

[24:27] Next that takes care of the action items next is just discussion items and that is listed the discussion of the process for accepting or approving district costs.

[24:39] As I mentioned, Robert, as far as forward going, there will be a conversation of differences

[24:48] from prior developer entities to new developer entities and subsequent to the bonds being issued.

[24:57] As far as the process of approving district costs, we do have the infrastructure acquisition and reimbursement agreement

[25:06] that was signed by the new developer entities,

[25:10] the Steiffal Improvement Group on November 18th, 2025.

[25:16] Are there any general questions as to that process

[25:19] or things that need to be discussed at this meeting, I guess?

[25:25] No, I'm going to summarize my understanding best for all of you, maybe.

[25:33] IFD is a public entity can't contract for things because it didn't have money, it didn't

[25:37] have a bonditions to pay money and so it decided to contract with development entity and

[25:44] the new development entity effectively, just like I've been kind of agreement with Jamie's

[25:48] development entity said hey we don't have money, we can't legally contract until we have

[25:53] wanting to make the final services and so we'll have contract with a developer to fund

[25:58] our costs and tell such times we have money and then we can reimburse those costs effectively.

[26:04] So that's the agreement that was signed in November that your referencing was kind of a financing

[26:10] agreement for the IFD and tell such time as it had costs. Now, that's not the IARA or infrastructure

[26:22] and acquisition reimbursement. That was noted as the funding and reimbursement agreement.

[26:27] So I'll note that. There are two. And the one you just referred to is the FRA, yeah.

[26:34] Okay, so let's go with the FRA first. The FRA, that's the one that I was expecting.

[26:39] At this point, to no longer be needed, right? Because now we have a bunch of money sitting

[26:45] in with trustee. And so advances that the developer makes, other than let's call it split costs,

[26:52] and shared costs in those kind of new on situations.

[26:55] Those might expect them now, you know, not really be needed.

[26:59] So go now, tell me the other agreement

[27:02] that reminded me of that C.

[27:04] It's the infrastructure acquisition

[27:08] and reimbursement agreement.

[27:10] I-A-R-A is the acronym that we commonly use or that you'll see.

[27:16] Okay, and give me the talking points of that agreement.

[27:21] So that's the agreement, typically.

[27:22] So I'll just just to speak to I do agree with the expectation for the funding and reimbursement agreement and the purpose that you just described.

[27:31] The infrastructure acquisition reimbursement agreement is as public infrastructure is completed or as the developer entity completes infrastructure that does fit within that public a bucket.

[27:49] they can seek reimbursement through the district for those costs that are

[27:53] qualified. So there's the involvement obviously of the district accountant and the

[27:58] district engineer who will certify that the costs or the improvements are

[28:03] indeed public and goes through kind of line item to make sure that they're

[28:09] acceptable costs or that their fair market value and then can reimburse the

[28:15] developer for expenses that have been paid.

[28:19] So I hope you understand Betsy because if we're going to now go build a row, we're going

[28:27] to go, you know, I.F.E. is going to contract with someone, the contract to build a row,

[28:34] and development and you can have coordinate those pieces, but the contract will be with

[28:39] the I.F.E. that will be funded out of the I.F.E. so the contract will be reviewed by this

[28:42] board to approve, and then, you know, any major invoices and things like that, we will

[28:49] approve the trustee who will email and say, hey, are these invoices good to pay? So who

[28:55] is this agreement that we're talking about with? Or is it an agreement or is it just a set

[28:59] of rules? No, so this is an agreement between the district and the skyfall improvement group,

[29:07] who is the developer entity and so we're essentially reimbursement agreement 2.0

[29:15] effectively.

[29:17] Yes but there are many steps involved and this this involves the

[29:21] engineer much more the account much more and you'll see there are many steps on

[29:26] I was just getting the level set and I'm familiar with the process and getting it all

[29:32] engineer in the board wrote that to you. So, okay, understood. And did we execute that agreement at closing?

[29:39] No, that was executed prior to closing. They're on the same date, those two were both

[29:47] because there was change in the recognition of the skyfall improvement group. So there was a

[29:53] cancellation of the prior agreement with the prior developer entity. And then there was the

[30:00] Assigning of this agreement at the same time. Okay. Well, that's one that's been in place since 2025.

[30:09] November. So, latter part of 2025. That's correct. But at the end of the day, the process is, as costs, we need to vet the process to make sure that they are public in nature, that they are appropriate to be reimbursed and that they are, you know,

[30:29] But the public is getting the value.

[30:32] That's why we have you, Lauren, and the district engineers

[30:36] to be able to review those items, right?

[30:38] Yes, and so there's a, if there's going to be any type

[30:41] of acceptance, the engineer will, we get into, you know,

[30:45] evaluating if it's done to standards, acceptable standards,

[30:51] and engineering standards, things like that.

[30:52] So yes, and I can go back through and I can redact everywhere

[30:56] where I've called it, the IARA, and can call it the reimbursement agreement 2.0.

[31:04] It's fine, I was trying to remember it's been some time, obviously, but it's the next

[31:10] step in the reimbursement process, but this is a standard, it's a standard document, and

[31:17] it's standard for all IFDs and public infrastructure districts to have a form of this IARA in place.

[31:26] Got it?

[31:28] Do we have, as a district yet, a pro-curement policy set up?

[31:33] You know?

[31:36] Yes.

[31:37] In the district by-laws, it does talk

[31:39] about the need to comply with Utah procurement policies.

[31:45] And I think you may be referencing the other project

[31:50] that we work on with you, Robert, a little bit different

[31:54] than how procurement has been done here versus there, but there is a general

[32:00] procurement policy. We don't have a procurement specialist identified or

[32:05] anything like that here. We might also explore that here in terms of being able to

[32:13] advance the project, you know, state law allows for, you know, direct

[32:18] after wars under certain dollar amounts that are not one of those such that for a $40

[32:23] I don't know you don't have to go get three quotes and I mean there are I think they're

[32:28] we might want to explore something that's you know practical reasonable as a policy which

[32:34] we're allowed to do as long as it follows state procurement just something to think about.

[32:39] Well yeah for sure and that's the way that it's how this board decides to set things up in

[32:44] structure things. So there can be additional agreements and other things done to do that.

[32:50] So yeah, good point.

[32:51] Okay.

[32:53] All right. Any other questions about the process for approval of district costs or public

[33:00] costs?

[33:02] No.

[33:03] Okay. We'll move on then to item 6 and this is just administrative non-action items. Our next

[33:11] regular meeting. Obviously, we're looking at quarterly. So this will be to discuss September,

[33:17] end of September quarter. This is set for October 19th at 2 p.m. So it's actually the same time period

[33:26] going forward.

[33:29] So I think we already have a meeting invite sent out for that. So it should be on

[33:34] your calendars. Anything else? Oh go ahead. No, there may be a need for some, if we have

[33:46] a emergency type meeting or something like that, remind me Betsy's last one. If we're within

[33:54] the budget, we're signing a contract and you don't have to answer that if you don't know off-hand,

[34:01] do we have to have every contract approved by the board or if it's within you know within budget

[34:06] we can move that forward or can we sign it and ratify later those are the things that I have

[34:11] questions on in terms of as we start to advance you know some engineering on roads or something like

[34:16] that you all of those have to be approved by a board meeting and if so then we have to set up a

[34:20] board meeting with my three to October to do those sorts of things or can we sign them and ratify

[34:25] them if they're in budget does that make sense? Yeah and at this point the way things are

[34:31] set up that if it's considered public, yes, you can go ahead and forward and then we

[34:42] can ratify.

[34:43] But obviously the better, if it's anything that affects the board in general, we definitely

[34:50] would rather the board meet earlier.

[34:53] And especially if it's for any type of cost acceptance, there are models but it's to avoid

[34:59] trouble.

[35:00] We want to make sure that anything that is asked to be reimbursed, it needs to be to go through this process.

[35:08] And the process can be fairly quick if the legwork has been done.

[35:12] But we definitely prefer to have things approved rather than ratified later.

[35:18] If it's just general board items then we can ratify agreements and things like that.

[35:26] But if it's a thing that affects the board, essentially, we'd want to make sure that everything's

[35:36] kind of forward-going.

[35:37] There's opportunity for public notice and comment and feedback.

[35:42] Okay.

[35:43] I agree.

[35:45] Okay.

[35:46] All right.

[35:47] Well, with that, then I will entertain—well, is there anything else?

[35:52] Any other questions or comments?

[35:55] I just asked Betsy, after we're through the recorded portion, I'd like to say on the board

[36:02] for a few and it's just asked some additional coordinating questions, if that's okay.

[36:07] Sure.

[36:08] What we're allowed to do that, we have to limit our core on the one of us, I think, core

[36:12] on the first few.

[36:13] We're talking about the items.

[36:16] That's exactly it, just because this is a board of three, you don't want to take any

[36:21] a non-noticed board actions or decision.

[36:25] So I would just say, maybe learn.

[36:27] Just keep it on the recorded line.

[36:29] Well, I would just ask if you could connect with Robert,

[36:31] maybe, or the designated board member

[36:34] to have your questions answered.

[36:36] OK, Robert, is it OK if I email you

[36:38] and we can schedule a quick call?

[36:40] Absolutely.

[36:42] OK, that's great.

[36:43] Thank you.

[36:44] I do.

[36:45] This may I didn't see the 19th on the invite out.

[36:48] I might still check that if so, maybe on this.

[36:51] Oh, okay, and this one may have been an exception,

[36:54] because I think we were scheduled for the 12th

[36:56] and realized that's Indigenous people's day.

[36:59] It's a federal holiday.

[37:00] So I think we ended up having to move it.

[37:02] So I'll look and if not, we'll get that sent out.

[37:07] I will note, too, there were some other members of the public

[37:10] that did show up, but after the comment period.

[37:14] and so I have you noted on the participant list, but with that then we will

[37:24] I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved.

[37:30] Is there a second?

[37:33] Is that out?

[37:34] Yes, out. All in favor. All right, thanks everyone and thanks for your

[37:41] participation again. Robert, I'll just note to look out for that call from

[37:47] from Blair and then obviously Lauren is going to reach out.

Notice of July 20, 2026 Regular Meeting and Agenda, Skyfall Infrastructure Financing District

Transcript