Minutes September 18, 2004
Bayshore Beach Club Inc.
Board of Directors Meeting
September 18, 2004
Mary Lou Morris, President Division 1
Mary Sue Reagen, Vice President Division 3
Dorothy Bogumil , Corporate Secretary Division 1
Ray Schmidt, Board Member Division 2/6
Connie Abercrombie, Board Member Division 4
Max Metcalf, Board Member Division 4
Ed Biancone, Board Member Division 5
Ted Thurman, Board Member Division 7
Kevin MacPhee, Board Member Division 7
Gillian Rampley, Secretary/Treasurer
President Mary Lou called the meeting to order at 1:00 pm. She introduced Barbara Dougherty of Lincoln County Health and Human Services Department who gave a presentation on Identifying Meth Labs. She advised that in June 2004, the Governor announced that Oregon would work with Meth Watch, a program to involve local retail and tourist establishments in the fight against the production of methamphetamines. The program educates employees to be alert for the signs of meth production or purchases of supplies for that production. She advised Bayshore members that one-half of the drug labs in Lincoln County are in rented homes. She asked that everyone be alert for indications of such labs. She provided handouts.
Max thanked Ms. Dougherty and reminded members not to confront any suspected drug-related individuals. He advised that his experiences working in maximum security prisons had shown how dangerous such people could be.
Mary Lou noted for the record that all board members were present.
Members stood for the Pledge of Allegiance.
MSP Ted made a motion, seconded by Kevin, that the Minutes of the August 11, 2004 working meeting be accepted as written. Motion carried unanimously.
MSP Ed made a motion, seconded by Mary Sue, that the Minutes of the September 8 special meeting be accepted as written. Motion carried unanimously.
Mary Lou reviewed the Profit and Loss v. Actual Report through August 31, 2004. Ed asked for clarification of the Planning Committee expense; Mary Sue advised that it was for one-half of the digital camera expense. Mary Sue reported on the water/propane use for the summer. Propane use had increased 4% over last year; water use was increased by 27%, with the billing amount increased by 31%. She noted that the budget for water for the current year will need to be increased. She also advised that the insurance costs were increasing as the liability coverage was now based on the number of residences in the community. The insurance carrier had audited Bayshore and raised the premium by $3,600, which included $2,300 for 2003-2004. The additional amount is still under discussion with the agent. Mary Lou thanked Mary Sue and Rosanna Creighton for doing a physical ³house count² to update the Club¹s records to be able to provide accurate information to the insurance company.
Ted had a question regarding the budget for capital outlay on the entrance sign. He was advised the survey costs were included in last year¹s budget. Gail Watrous, Chairman of the Budget Committee, advised that the cost of refilling of the pool was included in the capital expense for pool repair. Mary Sue stated that the pool pressure testing might require more funds than budgeted as the original contractor was unable to do the work and a new one was in the process of providing an estimate. Ron Leroy noted that the new person will be here to look at the pool on September 29. Mary Lou advised that the new estimate would be reviewed at the October meeting.
Mary Lou apologized that not all the correspondence was in the packet; several items arrived in the office after the packets were distributed.
1. E-mail from Lewis and Loretta Carlson dated August 18, 2004. Mary Lou thanked them for the positive input and advised that she will answer for the Board in either an e-mail or a phone call.
2. Letter from Homer and Carol Rhodaback dated September 8, 2004 expressing their feelings that there should be a ³good neighbor² policy within Bayshore. They agreed with Boat and RV permits and felt violations should be dealt with in a neighborly manner. They asked when an audit had last been done Mary Lou advised that one was done 5 years ago and one is now in process. Max suggested that a thank you note be sent; Dorothy volunteered to write one.
3. E-mail from Duane Peltier dated September 8, 2004 regarding the RV policy and concerned about the use of the word ³occupied² versus ³inhabited.² Duane asked if RVs could be used for guests. Mary Lou advised that persons occupying RVs should use local RV Parks. Duane asked that the Board consider that question at another meeting. Larry Dalton commented from the audience that the Planning Committee had granted permission for an RV to be kept in his driveway and used by guests in 2003. Mary Lou stated that the Board would be discussing the word ³occupied.²
4. Letter dated September 9, 2004 from Nancy Peterson on behalf of the Water Aerobics Group. The group asked for permission to install a bench on the west wall of the ladies¹ locker room, as well as installation of hooks above all the existing benches. The Group would absorb the cost of everything. The board happily agreed.
5. E-mail dated September 13, 2004 from Susan Prothero regarding beach access in Division 7. She asked that another letter be sent to rental agencies, non-beachfront owners and the motel regarding trespassing on private property to access the beach. She asked too if adjacent property owners could assist in taking care of the access. Mary Lou advised that the maintenance is the responsibility of the Beach Club; the State did not want to do it, nor did the County. Kevin will respond to Susan.
6. Unsigned e-mail dated September 14, 2004. Mary Lou implored the members to please be sure that any correspondence to the board is signed. The writer was asking that all builders be considerate of homeowners. Work is beginning very early and continuing on weekends and some machinery is interfering with radio and TV reception. The writer also asked about a rumor involving the banning of manufactured homes. Mary Lou advised that she had not heard such a thing and, to her knowledge, Federal Law assures that manufactured homes are allowed unless specifically banned at the time of the initial development of a subdivision. Bayshore does allow manufactured homes with some very specific rules.
7. Letter received September 14, 2004 from Judy Holien. Ms. Holien was present in the audience. Mary Lou thanked her for the letter which stated that the C&Rs are necessary and a good thing and asked that common sense and compassion be used in enforcing the C&Rs. Mary Lou apologized if Ms. Holien felt that she was hassled during her construction but stressed that it is most important that all plans be reviewed by the Planning Committee prior to work beginning and sufficient time should be allowed for that review before scheduling work. Ms. Holien expressed concern that regular maintenance needed prior permission from the Planning Committee. Ed advised that, at this time, a Construction Approval Request form should be submitted but the Planning Committee was working to get to the point that such approval would not be needed for certain identified specific repair or maintenance projects. In the case of emergency, obviously repairs would need to be done but the approval request should still be submitted, even if after the event. Mary Lou advised that forms are now available on the website and in a box situated outside the office door. She noted that everyone recognized that there are emergencies and they should be dealt with immediately but approval should still be requested at the earliest possible time. Mary Lou also advised that the Planning Committee is trying to work on this issue but also have a large agenda of items to deal with. Discussion by several audience members on this issue followed. Ed noted that, without the appropriate review, some individuals have tried to take advantage by modifying and changing rather than repairing. The Planning Committee is in place to be sure that people adhere to the Lincoln County Building codes.
8. Letter dated September 15, 2004 from Don Brown. Mr. Brown expressed a concern that the Board needed to do long-term planning rather than constantly revisiting issues. Mary Lou advised that the Board had, this year, set goals‹short-term, medium-term and long-term goals. The Budget Committee also looked at long-term planning for maintenance items. An audience member asked where the goals had been published. Mary Lou advised that the survey was used as a primary tool with over 500 responses from property owners and discussed at a brain-storming session. The audience member asked that those goals be distributed with the next issue of the Breeze.
9. Letter from Attorney Bartoldus.
Mary Lou asked all audience members who wished to speak during the meeting to come forward to the microphone, give full names and address and limit their comments to three minutes.
Social Committee. Lana Thurman, Chairman thanked all who had attended the Bar-B-Que in July and advised that there was a good turnout. The next function is the October 14, 2004 Fashion Show at the Koret Shop, Lincoln City Outlet Mall. Friends would be welcome. Please RSVP to one of the social committee members. She also reminded everyone that the holiday party was scheduled for December 4, 2004 and asked that attendees bring finger foods and a beverage. A potluck was scheduled for January 29, 2005; a Cinqo de Mayo celebration scheduled for May 7 and an Octoberfest for September 24, 2005.
Planning Committee. Ed Biancone, Chairman, advised that he had joined the Planning Committee in July and two weeks later became its Chairman. He had inherited a backlog but the Committee was now caught up. The E&E Committee had been formed to take over some of the responsibilities. He advised that the Planning Committee is still short-handed and appealed, as he had in the Breeze, for volunteers. He noted that the Committee had reviewed four new constructions, one with a height variance request. Two had been approved, one was waiting for additional information and the height variance request was moving through its procedure. There had also been numerous requests for remodeling and repair. The Committee had received nine construction complaints, of which four had not been found to have a violation and one had been granted an extension of time. Two letters had been sent requesting property owners complete Construction Request Forms for prior construction. No violation letters had been sent as the Committee was trying hard to work things out with individual owners. He asked that any property owner who does receive a violation letter to please respond.
Ed then introduced Marcia Mohr and nominated her for the Planning Committee. Ted asked her background. Marcia advised that she was acting as General Contractor in the building of her current home and had built several homes previously. She was interested in building and interested in helping out in Bayshore. Ted stated that a person who worked in the building industry could not be on the Planning Committee because of possible conflicts; however, Ms. Mohr was not employed in the industry and is not a contractor by profession.
MSP Ed made a motion, seconded by Max, that Marcia Mohr be appointed to the Planning Committee. The motion carried unanimously.
Mary Lou commented that the Planning Committee could use more help; please volunteer. Jane Hamblet spoke to compliment Ed on his efforts to work with everyone, citing an occasion when he had spent a Saturday afternoon with her neighbors talking to them about their remodeling issues.
Enhancement and Enforcement Committee. Clark Clayton, Chairman, thanked the Committee and all the people who have been working in Bayshore. He advised that 79 letters had been sent out regarding problems. Of those 79, only two were still pending and they had only been mailed this week. He thanked members for their cooperation. The Board was given a written summary of E&E activities.
1. Beach Accesses. Mary Lou advised that nothing had been done in the last month. The board was working with a contractor to get the northernmost access excavated. Despite a request in the Breeze, only one volunteer had come forward. She noted that a sign up sheet was available at the meeting and volunteers to operate weed-wackers were needed.
2. Entrance Sign. Ted advised that the Board had met at the Monolith last month to decide where best to place the new sign regarding community rules. After two conversations with the County, he was given the verbal go-ahead to put up the sign. Al Ames, head of Building and Permits, stated that Bayshore did not need a permit and no fees would be required if the sign was attached to the existing monolith. He exhibited a sample of the sign and advised that it would be 6 foot by 6 foot. The sample was circulated. The existing ³Estates and Beach Club² portion of the sign would be removed. Mary Lou advised that the County had not yet sent anything regarding parking and the right-of-way issue. Kevin asked whether the sign included anything about horses; they were prohibited in Bayshore but not on the beach. Ted advised that the only unresolved issue was the verbiage regarding parking. Mary Lou recommended that this issue be tabled until the October meeting in the hope that the parking issue had been resolved. The Board agreed.
3. Boats/RVs policy. Mary Sue advised that the only remaining issue on the previously-approved policy was the height of boats. The E&E Committee had discussed the height; they had found that there were places in Bayshore where a boat higher than 6 foot could be kept without obstructing views. The language in the Guidelines was amended to allow boats of between 6 foot and 8 foot to receive a permit if approved and found not to be blocking views. This would be decided on a case-by-case basis.
Jane Hamblet, 2205 NW Convoy, Bayshore member, asked if the definition of ³stored² and ³parked² had been discussed with the attorney. Mary Sue advised that the attorney had advised that the only difference was the length of time. As a practical matter, there is no reasonable way to enforce parking versus storage. Jane stressed that the C&Rs are the rules, not the Guidelines, and boats should not be allowed.
Mary Sue noted that the E&E Committee had come up with the policy; had modified the policy and had ordered the decals and felt that the Committee had done its part.
Mr. Fernandez, 1910 NW Oceanview, Bayshore member, asked why not change the C&R to reflect the new rules? Mary Sue advised she had spent a lot of time researching C&Rs and Guidelines. If the organization was formed after 1985, the C&Rs tended to be very detailed. When Bayshore was formed in the 1960s, the C&Rs were very vague. Homeowners Associations have developed Guidelines to give more detail to their C&Rs. In the last 15-20 years, Bayshore has attempted to change its C&Rs five times but never was able to get enough votes (two-thirds of owners have to vote). One of the long-range goals of the Board was to change the C&Rs. Mary Lou commented that, in regard to the boat issue, no-one wanted to see boats decaying on properties. If the E&E Committee received a complaint, they will treat such a boat as a nuisance. They will not allow old boats to become an unsightly storage problem. Ray commented that the E&E Committee had done a terrific job.
Mary Sue also recommended that the RV Guidelines be changed to use the word ³inhabit² rather than ³occupy.²
Jane McMillian, 2301 NW Parker, Bayshore member, commented that she had received a letter about a camper on a pickup. At the time she purchased the camper, the Board had granted permission to keep it on her property; now, she had received a letter telling her that it must be stored. She had written a letter to the E&E Committee. Mary Sue advised that the letter was on the agenda for the next E&E Committee meeting.
Lloyd Haines, 1973 NW Admiralty, Bayshore member, asked where the RV policy was published. He was told it was on the website and would be in the next issue of the Breeze.
Mary Sue advised there had been significant discussion between the Planning Committee and the E&E Committee regarding truck campers; the issue was primarily that of people living in the campers.
Mary Lou asked for a motion to accept the Guideline revisions for boats and RVs, with the change as discussed to use the word ³inhabited.²
Max recommended that, due to the fact that people seemed concerned with these issues, the vote be delayed until people¹s concerns had been answered. As the changes were being made on the basis of what the 505 people who had answered the survey had wanted, the board was not trying to railroad the issue. However, the concerns of the people attending the meeting should also be considered by the Board. He expressed great concern at some of the comments heard during the meeting and asked that members respect the efforts of the Board and show courtesy to the Board members who were volunteers and were certainly not trying to railroad things or force things upon members. The Board was in the crossfire between the complainants. He suggested that the vote be taken after the opinions of members at the meeting had been heard.
Mary Lou clarified that the policy had been approved by the Board in July; all that was being done today was a revision. Kevin agreed that the vote should be tabled until the end of the meeting.
4 & 5. Guidelines for Tree Height/Garbarge. Mary Sue advised that the E&E Committee had asked, in the September Breeze, for comments regarding these policies. They received a total of six comments regarding the tree policy; all six were positive. For the garbage policy, there was only one comment, stating that it was a great idea. There were no negative comments received.
Martha Schell, 1705 NW Graham Court, Bayshore member, stated that she had received two letters regarding her trees but will not cut her trees as cutting would reduce the value of her property. She also felt that her trees were original. She also thanked all the people who had helped her while she was ill.
Jo Loughary, 2215 NW Oceania Drive., a Bayshore member for 36 years, commented that the policy was really trying to make everyone happy. She felt that the C&Rs addressed ³natural² trees. Mary Sue read the applicable section of the C&Rs which refers to ³original, natural² trees in ³original location² (Article II, Paragraph 4). Ms. Loughary noted that, in the beginning of the development, homeowners were encouraged by the Board of that time to plant trees to improve Bayshore and bring up property values.
Connie commented that the trash company would not like the garbage cans being covered. Mary Lou advised that the policy does not require the enclosures to have lids.
Carol Botelho, 202 NW Oceania, Bayshore member, asked why the trash company could not retrieve garbage cans from the house itself and carry them to the truck. If that happened, all garbage cans could be kept by the house and would not need to be by the street. Mary Sue advised that the trucks will not drive up concrete.
Sharon Roddy, 1906 NW Coracle & 2017 NW Oceanic Loop, Bayshore member, asked if the Planning Committee had to approve the new garbage containers. Please consider whether that would be necessary.
Max commented to give an example of how neighbors are working together to resolve tree problems. He recognized Brad Roy, who worked with his new neighbor to restore views.
Connie asked that the original text from the C&Rs be used in the Guidelines.
Tom Theobald, 2702 NW Bayshore Loop, a 3-month Bayshore member, advised that he bought his property because of the trees; they do not obstruct anyone¹s view. The trees were not planted; they are not original trees but are the sons and daughters of original trees.
MSP Dorothy made a motion, seconded by Ray, to approve the Guidelines for tree height. Connie, Dorothy, Ray, Mary Sue, Ed and Max voted for the motion; Ted abstained and Kevin voted against.
MSP Dorothy made a motion, seconded by Ted, to accept the Guidelines regarding garbage and dumpsters. Dorothy, Ray, Mary Sue, Ed, Max, Ted and Kevin voted for the motion. Connie voted against.
Mary Lou thanked the E&E Committee for all their work on the Guideline revisions. She stated that the policies for budget and correspondence would be tabled until the October meeting.
Fine Schedule. Mary Lou distributed handouts to the Board. She advised that this item was brought again after discussion at the August meeting. Before opening the issue up to the floor, Mary Lou wanted to make some comments. She noted that an unsigned flier had been distributed within Bayshore. She discussed issues raised in the flier and gave an overview of the Board¹s actions and the fact that the only remedy previously available to enforce violations was the filing of a lawsuit. Such remedies are very costly to the association. The Fine Schedule was first discussed at the September 29, 2003 Board Meeting and at several meetings thereafter. In addition, the topic was discussed in the Breeze on several occasions and was approved by the association¹s attorney. The final draft was presented to the Board by the Planning Committee and sent to the attorney for review. The fine schedule was approved on May 4, 2004 by six members of the Board, with two abstentions. There were 505 properties represented in the survey, 364 members were in favor of having a fine schedule to enforce the C&Rs; only 45 members were against the fine schedule; 91 had no opinion. The Board is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the C&Rs in the Bylaws and in the Oregon Revised Statutes. To date, no-one has received a fine letter, which have to be approved by the Board. People have been asked to comply with the C&Rs and the majority who had been contacted regarding violations had been very positive and had taken care of violations when notified. She did note that the Board needed to approve a Resolution to put the fine schedule into effect. She then opened the floor to comments.
George Baker, 1921 NW Coracle, Bayshore member, asked what measures the Board is granted to enforce the C&Rs. Is the Board empowered to levy fines? Mary Lou advised that the Board does have that power. Dennis Bartoldus, the association¹s attorney, stepped forward to clarify the matter. Mr. Bartoldus explained that the issue regarding fines is a confusing one. In 2003, a law was passed allowing any homeowners¹ associations formed prior to 1982 to have the power to adopt guidelines and take actions to handle matters that were not specifically covered or prohibited in the C&Rs. As homeowners¹ associations have developed, the C&Rs have become more complex with more specific definitions. Under this law, the Bayshore Board does have the power to adopt fine schedules and has an obligation to enforce the C&Rs. His firm had provided an opinion letter to the Board. He added that if each violation had to be litigated, both the homeowners¹ association and the property owner would be at risk due to the excessively high cost of litigation. A fine schedule and the possibility of putting liens on property rather than litigation would be much more cost effective for the association. The amount of fines is up to the Board to decide. He also noted that the Board has made every effort to solve problems without litigation. Connie asked if the Board had to amend its documents. Mr. Bartoldus advised that the Board did not have to do anything but the legislature had given them the power to do that if they so decided. If they want to address an issue and there is not a specific prohibition in the C&Rs to prevent them from addressing that issue, then the 2003 law gave them the authority to act. The legal opinion was very clear; the Board has the authority to levy fines.
Martha Schell brought up the issue of her trees but Mr. Bartoldus was unable to discuss that as he had not been asked to address that matter.
Mary Lou asked what the ramifications of the Board doing nothing about violations might be. Mr. Bartoldus advised that under Article V, Section 2, the Club was charged with the authority and obligation of enforcement of the C&Rs. If the Club fails to take appropriate action within a reasonable time when a violation is reported in writing, any member can take such steps in law or equity as may be necessary for such enforcement. That would lead to a very messy situation and a free-for-all as has happened in some associations. Here, the Board is trying to establish some uniformity in the way the violations are dealt with and to use discretion as necessary. If the Board did nothing, then there is a possibility they could be sued.
Jack Whipple, 1910 NW Clipper, Trustee for a Bayshore member, stated that he did not agree. He read sections of ORS 94 which he believed contradicted Mr. Bartoldus¹ opinion. Mr. Bartoldus noted that the sections dealt with other things and advised that he would be happy to discuss these matters with Mr. Whipple outside of the meeting. He again emphasized that the Board had the ability to enact a fine schedule.
Dawn Sudmeier, 405 NW Alsea Bay Drive, Bayshore member, for the purpose of moving forward, accepted the fact that the Board had the ability to enact fines. She noted, however, that the large turnout may indicate that the membership did not want such fines enacted. She felt that the Board meeting was not the appropriate forum to solve the matter with its formal agenda; instead, she suggested that a town meeting be held for everyone to give input. She asked the Board to call a town meeting to give homeowners a chance to participate, to establish a committee and to set a deadline of three months to resolve the differences.
Paul Huber, 1706 NW Oceania, Bayshore member for three years, noted that communication between the Board and the property owners has been limited. He received the fine schedule in the mail and did not like it. He liked Ms. Sudmeier¹s suggestion about the community meeting.
Mary Lou asked the Board whether they wanted to approve the Resolution to enact the fine schedule or to table it until it October. Dorothy asked what the survey indicated. Mary Sue advised that 72% of respondents were in favor of a fine schedule. Ted noted that the Board had been working on this for over a year, with the community, and just a few people had objected. He felt it was important to go forward. Connie felt that the biggest gripe about the fine schedule was the amounts involved. Mary Lou advised that the amounts were at the discretion of the Board and the amounts listed were the maximums. No fines would be imposed if the violations were corrected. Ted stressed that the Board needed to move forward on this issue. Mary Sue spoke of the perception that everyone was present at the meeting because they were against the fines; however, most people were at the meeting because of the misinformation and lies being put out. She implored that community members check out anonymous rumors; most often they were lies or caused by misinformation.
Dawn Sudmeier spoke again to say her goal had been to say to the Board that change should be something everyone can live with. The intentions of the Board were positive; she understood the obligation to enforce the C&Rs but using a fine schedule put negative energy into the community. Homeowners have a responsibility to comply; they need to take a more active role. The Board needs to take into account the resistance to their proposed actions.
Max thanked Ms. Sudmeier for addressing the Board in a calm, collected manner. He noted that 364 members were in favor of fines, only 45 against it. He asked If another letter was sent out, surveying homeowners, would Ms. Sudmeier live with that result? Dawn stated that she felt the survey question was ambiguous and people did not understand the fines but if a second response indicating approval was received, she would accept it. Max noted that the Board wanted to know what the majority wanted in regard to the fine schedule.
Dorothy reminded members of the E&E report. 79 letters had been sent out and no fines had been imposed. Mary Sue added that at least two warning letters had been sent where violations would not have been corrected without the potential threat of fines.
MSP Ted made a motion, seconded by Mary Sue, that the Board adopt the Resolution to accept the fine schedule. Mary Sue, Ted, Ray, Max and Dorothy voted for the motion; Connie and Ed voted against the motion and Kevin abstained. The motion carried.
Max suggested that the Board make a motion to send out letters to the homeowners with a copy of the fine schedule. Mary Lou advised that the adopted Resolution would be sent to each homeowner with a copy of the fine schedule so no motion was needed.
Mary Lou thanked Mr. Bartoldus for attending the meeting. He left.
2. Oregon Homeowners¹ Association Handbook. Mary Lou told the Board that this was an Oregon-based publication which was a ³how-to² for homeowners¹ associations.
MSP Dorothy made a motion, seconded by Max, that the Board purchase a copy of the Oregon Homeowners¹ Association Handbook. Connie opposed the motion; all others voted in favor. Gillian will order.
3. Winter Office Hours. Mary Lou proposed that, for at least the winter, the office be opened for four days a week, rather than five, from 9 am to 1 pm. This would cut down on expenses. Mary Sue reminded everyone that there was a box for forms outside the office and there was a mail slot in the door to drop off correspondence. By unanimous consensus, the Board approved the change. Gillian will send an e-mail of the change and Duane will put it on the website.
4. Recycling. Duane Peltier, 2005 NW Parker, Bayshore member, wanted to make the initial request for a recycling point. He will present his ideas in writing to the Board. An audience member thanked him for the wonderful website.
COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS
Jack Ofelt, 113 NW Alsea Bay Drive, Bayshore member, addressed the Board regarding the sign to be placed at the entrance with particular regard to parking. He had been involved in the discussions regarding the language to be used and did not think ³no public parking² should be on the sign. Now the sign has that wording proposed again and he asked the Board if they had got the County to relinquish jurisdiction. Mary Lou advised they were working on it and trying to get the County to decide if the homeowners¹ association could have control over parking on the right-of-way. The lawyer for Lincoln County is in the process of getting documentation together to present to the Lincoln County Commissioners. Jack advised that the lawyer had advised if the sign is displayed as proposed, the association may be asking for trouble. He felt that the association was pushing the issue when just omitting the language regarding parking would resolve the matter without opening up the door for bigger problems. No-one wants people parking on the roadway where they might create a hazard, nor parking in the sand where they might get stuck. Ted stated that the language on the sign is the same as proposed earlier. The delay in placing the sign is solely due to the parking issue. Jack said the sign would work if it stated ³no parking on the pavement.² Ted said he did not want the sign to go up if it is not correct.
Mary Lou announced that the meeting needed to end as the building had been rented as of 5:00 pm.
Agenda for next meeting. Dorothy asked if the Women¹s Club was on the agenda; Mary Lou advised that it was.
MSP A motion to adjourn was made by Dorothy, seconded by Max and passed unanimously.
Meeting adjourned; next meeting October 13, 2004 at 9:00 am.
Approved by the Board of Directors on October 13, 2004