LAKE MOOVALYA KEYS, INC.
Board of Directors
Regular Meeting
JUNE 7, 2004

CALL TO ORDER
Vice-President Chris Chambers called the regular meeting of the Lake Moovalya Keys Board of Directors to order at 6:30 p.m.

PRESENT
Vice President: Chris Chambers
Board Members: Bill Risen (184), Bob Stroud (202), Trish Wikoff (95), Russ Derby (85), Jack Sweeney (197), Joe Price (41/42), Gary Svider (82/233), Joe Maxwell (238)

ABSENT
President: Chuck Baker
Board Member: Tonya McPherson

OTHERS PRESENT
Guests: Gene Hines (130); Jeff & Jennifer Baerg (62); Carl & Kaye Bozeman (61); Dan & Beverly Hutchison (167); Richard & Sheryle Jaschke (170); Laura Glass & Gary Schmitt (185); Barbara Risen (184); Lynnda Sweeney (197); Edna Price (41/42); Squeak & Lauri Burke (122); Ken Ferguson (172); Don Lastra (109); Bruce & Carolyn Bunker (49); Al Moroff (178); Ken Beard (108); Bryan Herrell (52); Michael Barrett (245); Bill McLaran (191); Steve Lassere (83/84); Nancy Lewis (36/180); David Plunkett (219); Rob Troxler (160); Dino Gory and Kim Harsch (RGR Realty)
Legal Counsel: John C. Churchill (153/154)
Bookkeeper/Recording Secretary: Sue Thomson
General Manager: Joanne Hugaert

MINUTES
Mr. Risen made a motion to approve the May 24, 2004 Executive Session Board Minutes regarding proposed rules and fines. Mr. Stroud seconded the motion. There was no discussion, and the motion carried.

OPEN DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED RULES & FINES

7-Day Parking
Mr. Chambers opened discussion on the first item listed on the Rules & Fines Recap of May 24, 2004. He informed the guests that we are having problems getting Parker Towing to tow vehicles off Association premises. Mr. Churchill stated that the Association is having a problem locating a tow company to tow away vehicles in violation of our parking rules, further stating that Sheriff's intervention is the ideal way in which to handle the situation, and the Sheriff's Office has intervened in the past. However, this has resulted in instances of the vehicle owner raiding the tow yard to retrieve the vehicle. Because the Sheriff's Office will no longer intervene for parking infractions, Parker Towing is reluctant to tow away vehicles in violation of the rules. He stated it is not illegal for a vehicle owner to confiscate his own vehicle from the tow yard. Mr. Churchill stated that we have not given up the idea, we're just experiencing problems. He also stated that parking in the common lot is for overflow parking for homeowners, and not for renters. Mr. Churchill stated that homeowners could be dunned for their tenants' violations. There was a question about the possibility of tagging trailers with identification and a date, and Mr. Churchill stated that the Association would have to mark, tag and trace license numbers of trailers parked in the lot.

Question was raised about holidays and where guests are to park when the lot is full, inadequate parking in general, and there being no rhyme or reason for the way in which trailers are parked in the lot--what are the remedies? Mr. Churchill replied by stating that the Association has no obligation to provide parking for guests, that he moves his vehicles downtown when he is expecting guests, and that guests sometime just have to find another way. Mr. Churchill stated that the CC&R's preclude parking on the streets, and that the Association owns the streets. A guest made reference to a letter dated 2/21/01 regarding the roads, and stated that he would show this letter to Mr. Churchill.

Question was raised about the mechanism to be put into place to enforce. Ms. Hugaert explained that she has been red tagging vehicles and trailers, but there is no enforcement until the rules and fines are passed. Mr. Stroud stated the Association would be able to trace lot numbers for golf carts should the fine for the rule pass. Mr. Churchill suggested that lot numbers also be placed on trailers, and trailers with no lot ID could be considered abandoned. Mr. Derby relayed a query from a neighbor regarding the storage of vehicles and trailers on vacant lots; should one homeowner move his boat from the vacant lot to the front of his house? The homeowner doesn't understand the rule, stating that it looks worse to store it in the front yard of his house rather than on the vacant lot. Mr. Churchill stated a homeowner could store it in their yard if it's in compliance with the rules, i.e., it's within the homeowner's lot boundaries, and the white lines are not the homeowner's property lines. Mr. Stroud stated that storing on vacant lots is not permitted. He stated that the location of water meters is the approximate lot boundary. There was discussion about Mr. Smith erroneously receiving a red tag for parking on the vacant lot, and Mr. Price stated that Mr. Smith has letters stating that parking on a vacant lot, either your own, or with permission from the lot owner, is allowed for up to seven days out of the month. Mr. Stroud concurred that seven days out of the month is allowed.

Mr. Churchill clarified the process needed to pass these rules; that a 2/3 vote of the members present in the room can pass or fail a motion.

Mr. Svider made a motion to approve a fine of $25 for each 24-hour period a vehicle/trailer is parker over the time limit of any seven days per month, regardless of whether or not the vehicle/trailer has been moved to a new spot within the common lot. Mr. Price seconded the motion. There was discussion as to the procedure for identifying vehicles and trailers. Mr. Stroud stated that the Association would be able to identify them, and that Ms. Hugaert patrols the lot on a daily basis, logging license numbers and dates. He also stated that fines could be protested. Mr. Churchill confirmed that one could protest a fine; that there is a form of due process that would be used, with notice first being sent. Mr. Stroud stated that the Association is merely trying to control chaos with the imposition of rules and fines. A vote of hands was taken, 20 voting for and 10 voting against, and the motion failed to carry.

White Line Parking
Mr. Svider made a motion to approve a fine to lot owners of $50 for first offense and $100 for subsequent offenses for parking or encroachment of a parked vehicle/trailer into the area between the two white lines. Mr. Derby seconded the motion. There was a guest comment about fining right off the bat without any warning. Ms. Hugaert reported that she often meets with non-cooperation when she asks people to move their vehicles back from the white line; that when she returns to the scene from making her rounds, the illegally parked vehicle hasn't been moved. There was discussion regarding the $50 fine being too large, and that violators should be warned before being fined. Mr. Chambers stated that the distance between the white lines is 18', and that this is 2' less than the desired 20' passage for emergency vehicles, so the Association must maintain strict compliance with the 18' clearance. He answered a homeowner question about how we determined exactly where to place the lines and was a survey done. Mr. Chambers stated that the Association could not afford a survey, that the space is 18'. He stated that some houses are built closer to the property line from the normal 10' setback, and these houses would have only 6' or 7' from the property line. A vote of hands was taken, 10 voting for and 16 voting against, and the motion failed to carry.

Mr. Sweeney made a motion to approve a fine to lot owners of $25 for first offense and $50 for subsequent offenses, with a prior warning to be given at the discretion of the General Manager, for parking or encroachment of a parked vehicle/trailer into the area between the two white lines. The motion was seconded. A vote of hands was taken, and the motion was carried.

Unleashed Dogs
Mr. Svider made a motion to approve a fine to lot owners of unleashed dogs, with Animal Control also being called, in an amount of $50 for first offense and $100 for subsequent offenses. Mr. Price seconded the motion. There was discussion as to whether or not this includes unleashed dogs on one's own property, and it was reported that this rule does not apply to unleashed dogs on one's own property. There was a query as to how this rule could be enforced, and Mr. Thomson stated that the Association has a digital camera, and stray dogs could be either photographed or reported to the General Manager by an eyewitness. There was clarification on the wording of the rule that the lot owner of the dog would be fined, not the lot owner where the unleashed dog is found. Mr. Sweeney stated that this rule is designed for those who continually let their dogs run loose. A vote of hands was taken, 21 voting for and 1 voting against, and the motion failed to carry.

Edna Price made a motion to approve a fine to lot owners of unleashed dogs, with Animal Control also being called, in an amount of $25 for first offense and $50 for subsequent offenses, with a prior warning being given. Mr. Sweeney seconded the motion. A vote of hands was taken, and the motion carried.

Dog Cleanup
Ms. Wikoff made a motion to approve a fine to lot owners of dogs who have not been picked up after in an amount of $25 for first offense and $50 for subsequent offenses, with a prior warning being given. Mr. Price seconded the motion. A vote of hands was taken, and the motion carried.

Mr. Beard made an announcement to the general meeting regarding the consequences of imposing fines; that everyone should consider what they are passing, because he felt that there would be more rules and fines forthcoming if we start imposing fines here tonight. Mr. Chambers stated that he is against fines, and that is why he joined the Board

Golf Carts
Mr. Risen made a motion to fine lot owners for speeding and reckless operation of a golf cart in an amount of $25 for first offense, $50 for second offense and $100 for subsequent offenses. Mr. Derby seconded the motion. There was discussion as to how the Association plans on observing violators. Jeff Baerg questioned why all vehicles, including golf carts and off-road cycles and quads, should not be fined. After further discussion, Mr. Risen withdrew his motion.

Jeff Baerg made a motion to fine lot owners for speeding and reckless operation of any vehicle, including golf carts and off-road vehicles, in an amount of $25 for first offense, $50 for second offense and $100 for subsequent offenses. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously.

Golf Cart Identification Number
Mr. Baerg stated that all vehicles, not just golf carts, should post lot identification. Mr. Baerg made a motion to do away with the identification of golf carts only. The motion was seconded. There was discussion that golf carts are the Association's biggest problem on this subject, and there was general disagreement on this point among the guests. The motion failed to carry. Mr. Chambers stated that since there is no motion to approve the lettering of golf carts only, there is no imposition of a rule or fine on this subject.

Sleeping in RV's
Ken Beard made a motion that the CC&R's be changed to allow people to do whatever they want to do with their RV's as long as they are on their own properties. Mr. Churchill explained that one can't make a motion to change the CC&R's in tonight's venue. He stated that occupying an RV, and anything could be considered an RV, such as a rundown trailer like the baby blue trailer painted with a roller, is prohibited by the CC&R's, because the CC&R's state that lots are zoned R-1, single-family residences. The CC&R's can be changed, that's how they got changed in 1995, but changing the CC&R's requires a 2/3 vote of the entire membership, not just those in attendance at this meeting. Mr. Churchill explained that the current CC&R's preclude occupying RV's and that a system of fines helps the Association enforce the rules. He further explained that without a system of fines the only other remedy to enforce CC&R's is the filing of lawsuits, which is costly and time consuming. The imposition of fines gives the Association the least expensive method with which to enforce CC&R's. It was reported that there were people living in RV's over the recent holiday on Moovalya Drive and Yaqui Loop.

Mr. Price made a motion to impose a fine on lot owners who permit anyone to occupy an RV on their lot in an amount of $50 per night for first offense and $100 per night for subsequent offenses. Mr. Sweeney seconded the motion. A vote of hands was taken, and the motion failed to carry.

Mr. Churchill reported on a legal case where a homeowner in another development with similar CC&R's was sued for violating this regulation, and a judgment was awarded against the homeowner in an approximate amount of $20,000. David Plunkett asked for clarification on the subject, specifically, whether we are talking about parking the RV on the lot. Mr. Chambers stated that one can park an RV on their lot within the lot boundaries. Mr. Churchill stated that this proposed rule deals only with occupying an RV.

Mr. Sweeney made a motion to impose a fine on lot owners who permit anyone to occupy an RV on their lot in an amount of $25 per night for first offense and $50 per night for subsequent offenses. Squeak seconded the motion. A vote of hands was taken, 26 voting for and 3 voting against, and the motion carried.

Lot Conditions/Trash at Houses
Mr. Stroud made a motion to impose a fine of $25 a day for lot owners of unkempt properties up to 30 days, with a $50 a day fine after 30 days, including the cost of clean-up by the Association with a prior ten-day warning before fine imposition. Mr. Maxwell seconded the motion. There was discussion about what constitutes an abandoned vehicle. Mr. Churchill stated the Association could use the Arizona statutes to define an abandoned vehicle; that the Association can determine what length of time it wants to use to determine abandonment. A suggestion was made to use current registration tags as proof of non-abandonment. A 30-day notice was suggested to notify owners that they need to remove abandoned vehicles.

After further discussion, Mr. Stroud amended his motion to impose a fine of $50 per day for a maximum of 10 days, after a 30 day notice, and if the lot is not clean after the 10-day period, then the Association will do the clean up and assess the homeowner for the fine and the clean-up expense. There was discussion about being more specific as to bad structures, referring to the river lot with the bad roof, and can't the County assist us in this regard. Mr. Churchill stated that he has been asked to deal with these instances on an individual basis, and the owner of the lot with the bad roof has been sent a letter requesting that the roof be put in good repair in condition. There being no further discussion, a vote of hands was taken, 27 voting for and none voting against, and the motion carried.

Dumpster Abuse
Lauri Burke and Squeak stated that they were required to put up a dumpster when they did their construction, and why aren't others required to do this, stating that there are three other construction projects in progress at this time which don't have on-site dumpsters. Mr. Chambers stated that some owners make their own arrangements, via private trailers or vehicles, to haul out their construction trash, and that it isn't a requirement for an owner to put out a dumpster for this purpose. Their only obligation is to remove the construction debris from the Association premises.

Squeak made a motion to approve the imposition of a $100 per occurrence fine to the lot owner for non-household trash being placed in the dumpsters, and any trash that does not fit into the dumpster. The motion was seconded. There was discussion about what constitutes an "offense", and one trip, one vehicle is considered one offense. A vote of hands was taken, 28 voting for and none voting against, and the motion carried.

There was a question regarding when these fines will go into effect, and Mr. Chambers stated they would be into effect at the next regular Board meeting.

Squeak made a motion to make it mandatory for a homeowner planning construction not only to post the $750 construction deposit, but to also place a dumpster on the property to be constructed. Mr. Chambers stated that not all properties can accommodate a dumpster, and that some owners choose to haul away their owner construction debris. Mr. Churchill stated that the previous motion could be interpreted to deal with this issue.

Renters
Mr. Stroud explained why renters should post a security deposit; that it is to be used in the event of property damage. There was discussion from homeowners that $500 would not be an adequate security deposit, with one homeowner reporting the total loss of two jet skis caused by a renter.

Lauri Burke made a motion to require all renters and tenants of Association properties to post and maintain a $1,000 security deposit on all rental contracts. A vote of hands was taken, 27 voting for and 1 voting against, and the motion carried.

There was discussion about the constant abuse by renters and what our remedies are; can we stop homeowners from renting. Mr. Chambers stated that properties that are rented out and not owner-occupied for at least 30 days a year are considered commercial properties, and a phone call to George Nault, La Paz County Assessor, would result in the property being taxed at the 25% commercial rate, rather than at the 10% residential rate. Once the tax rate is changed, it cannot be changed back for the remainder of the tax year. Squeak stated that realtors should be involved in the process. There was an inquiry about owner-occupied properties being occupied six months of the year and rented six months of the year. It was confirmed that as long as the homeowner occupies the property for at least 30 days, it would be taxed at the residential 10% rate. David Plunkett stated that there is a transient rental rate of 25%, which is prorated for combination properties.

Revisit of the 7-Day Parking Issue . It was bought up that if someone parks a vehicle/trailer in the common lot for a period of not to exceed seven days a month, one could park a vehicle/trailer the last week of the month and the first week of the next month, resulting in a 14 day park. Mr. Churchill stated that the rule should state that no one shall park a vehicle/trailer in the lot for more than seven days in any 30-day period, not a calendar month. Mr. Sweeney stated that most people who use the lot come up on the weekends and want to park there just for the weekend.

David Plunkett made a motion to impose a fine of $25 per 24-hour period to the lot owner for parking vehicles/trailers in the common lot in excess of seven days at a time, not to exceed 14 days a month and that each vehicle/trailer must be affixed with lot number identification by the owner. Ms. Hugaert stated that it would be difficult to locate the owners of vehicle/trailers in the lot, and that all vehicles/trailers should be identifiable by lot number. The Board was reminded that the Association used to sticker all vehicles with lot identification. A vote of hands was taken, and the motion carried.

Mr. Churchill proposed one other subject for rules regulation, that being if an owner changes the use of his lot, commercial to residential, or changes the zoning, the owner shall comply with the residential CC&R requirements. There are some properties that have changed their zoning from commercial (C-1) to residential (R-1) without complying with the residential CC&R requirements. The original drafting of the CC&R's did not contemplate this scenario. Commercial properties have their own building and fire safety codes because many are on zero lot lines. Height is also an issue with commercial properties, as the commercial 35' height limit exceeds the residential CC&R's height limit. If people are going to reside in commercial properties, or change the commercial zoning to residential, which is done mainly for the purpose of cheaper financing and property taxes, then those properties should comply with the residential CC&R regulations. Mr. Churchill stated that C-1 zoning requires a structure to maintain certain percentages for business use and for residential use. Mr. Plunkett reported that the CC&R's also do not contemplate R-2 zoning for multi-family residences, and the CC&R's do not technically approve zone changes. However, in the case of recent duplex construction on Association lots the setback requirements as stated in the CC&R's have been met. Mr. Churchill stated that because we are in a gray area, the Association needs to define what the homeowner should be required to do when changing the property use and/or the zoning from commercial to residential.

Mr. Sweeney made a motion that all Association commercial properties that lot owners rezone to residential shall comply with the residential requirements of the Association's CC&R's, or in the alternative, homeowners must retain their commercial C-1 zoning and otherwise comply with the CC&R's. The motion was seconded. There being no further discussion, the motion carried.

OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Svider presented a no-wake sign that is available for purchase by the Association and the members. If anyone is interested, they are available.

Mr. Chambers discussed the need for waterfront addresses being posted on houses on the canals. He stated this is a safety issue, as the absence of house numbers on the waterside of houses presents a problem with fire and law enforcement response time. The house numbers would be 4" reflective numbers, with a hyphen then the street initial letter, all on a metal backing. Mr. Svider has a quote of $7.50 per set. It was reported that Home Depot has letters and numbers for approximately $4.50 for the required sequence. The Association would be responsible for installing the address letters so that they are placed in a proper location and in a consistent manner. They cannot be placed on docks, as boats would cover them up.

A motion was made that the Association purchase and install at a total cost not to exceed $12 for materials and labor, for each 4" reflective, metal backed address id plates, for each waterfront lot on the canals. The motion was carried.

The meeting recessed at 8:52 p.m. and the Regular meeting of the Board of Directors reconvened at 9:01 p.m.

OLD BUSINESS
Carl and Kaye Bozeman presented an update on the issue of their dogs, stating that they never received Mr. Churchill's first warning letter. They stated that they have had to retrain their dogs to get used to not being on an acre of land; that since Animal Control came to their property, they have poured concrete to keep the odor level down, they have put bark collars on their dogs, and there are no further problems. They reported on the nipping incident with the man who was returning a wallet and came onto their property. They stated that it was not the dog's fault, that the man came onto their property, and the man did not wish to file a report. But since all of these issues have been remedied, they expressed displeasure at receiving a second warning letter from Mr. Churchill stating that they need to remove their aggressive dogs from the premises.

Mr. Churchill responded by stating that the Association asked him to write the letter, as the dogs are a nuisance because of loud barking and aggressive behavior. Mr. Churchill stated that the first letter was dated 3/1/04, and the second letter was dated 5/14/04. The Bozemans stated that they did not receive the first letter. Mrs. Bozeman stated that the dogs are not disturbing the peace, that they are not a nuisance, that they wear bark collars, but that they do snarl and growl when people walk by. She doesn't even walk the dogs anymore. She stated that even though they growl when someone walks by, people get used to it. The dogs are not vicious; they have just had to adjust to their environment. She also stated that one dog is more aggressive than the other.

Mr. Churchill stated that he owns two large dogs, and if they snarled, that would be a nuisance, even though they snarl and growl on one's own property. This is a hazard, and would result in his having to remove then from his property. Mrs. Bozeman asked if the letter stands, requiring them to remove the dogs. While the Association states it has received other complaints, Mrs. Bozeman said she was not aware of any other complaints. It was decided that if there were any further complaints about the dogs, they would have to go. If the problems have been fixed, as the Bozemans state, then the Association won't require their removal. Mr. Churchill will send a copy of the 3/1/04 letter to the Bozemans.

MINUTES
Mr. Price made a motion to approve the May 5, 2004 Executive Session Board Minutes. The motion was seconded. There was no discussion, and the motion carried.

Mr. Price made a motion to approve the May 5, 2004 Regular Board Meeting Minutes. The motion was seconded. There was no discussion, and the motion carried.

Mr. Price made a motion to approve the May 19, 2004 Executive Session Board Minutes. The motion was seconded. There was no discussion, and the motion carried.

REPORTS
Mr. Price made a motion to approve the Bookkeeper's May report and all prepaid bills. The motion was seconded. Mr. Stroud questioned the $50 petty cash lunch expense, and Ms. Hugaert stated that this was in trade for the use of a hydraulic forklift to reinstall the flag and flag rope. Mr. Stroud stated that APS would assist in flag installation in the future at no charge, and that the Association does not wish Ms. Hugaert to put herself in danger by going up to that height in a forklift.

Ms. Thomson requested approval for current statements due to John Churchill, Davis Building Supply, Precision Striping and We Monitor America (gate clickers). A motion was made, seconded and carried to approve payment of the bills due to John Churchill, Davis Building Supply, Precision Striping and We Monitor America.

Ms. Thomson reported on the premium quote for increased insurance coverage on the bridges. A motion was made to approve the quote for $20,000 bridge coverage for the upcoming policy renewal. The motion was seconded and carried.

Ms. Thomson reported a complaint by VDMA owner Phyllis Gormley on standing water behind the berm between the ramp and the dumpsters. She stated Mrs. Gormley is concerned about West Nile Virus. The Board stated that the water periodically appears as a Brooke Water operational function, and that the pool of water is on Brooke Water property. The issue should be brought up directly with Brooke Water.

Ms. Thomson reported on Christie May/Charlie Ward's (lot 227) follow-up e-mail letter of May 29 regarding the burnt out street light, the chaining off of the adjacent vacant lot, the mail box key request and gate code request. Ms. Thomson stated that she contacted Ms. May regarding the gate and mailbox matters. Ms. Hugaert stated that she was attempting to get the light replaced, and the Board informed her that although the Association owns the light fixtures, APS is responsible for replacing the light and that APS should be requested to replace the light. The Board also stated that as soon as we have permission to chain off the adjacent lot 228 to the south of their lot, the Association would install the poles and chains.

Ms. Thomson presented an e-mail letter from Peter Becker (lot 115) submitted on June 3 regarding excessively loud music during the Memorial Holiday. Mr. Becker explained that this wasn't just loud music at a loud party it was concert-intensity loud, uncomfortable to hear, and sitting outside on their patio wasn't an option, as the offending speakers were located outside. He explained that this continued for almost 48 straight hours. He reported that asking them to turn it down was of no avail, and that one older couple on his street ended up going home early because of this. Mr. Chambers stated that all noise nuisances should to be reported to the Sheriff's Office, as they will deal with these nuisances. The matter was tabled for further discussion at the next regular Board meeting.

Mr. Risen made a motion to approve the May Profit & Loss Statement and the May Balance Sheet. The motion was seconded. There was no discussion. The motion was carried.

Mr. Risen made a motion to approve the General Manager's May Progress Report and Memorial Weekend Report. The motion was seconded. There was discussion about the openings on Chuck Baker's lot 251 that straddles the exit gate. People are using the openings to bypass the gate. The proposed lot buyers apparently made the openings, but escrow has not yet closed. The Board will request Mr. Baker to close off the openings on the lot. Mr. Stroud said he received one minor complaint about the security guards towing someone on the premises, and he wondered what other feedback we received on the new guard service over the holiday. Ms. Thomson stated she received their report by fax today and had given it to Ms. Hugaert, who reviewed the report with the Board. The report includes a total of seven incident items. There being no further discussion, the motion was carried.

Mr. Sweeney reported that he has installed another camera provided by Al McPherson (lot 070) and that the addition has greatly improved surveillance. We are now able to zoom in and capture license plate numbers of all vehicles at the gate.

Mr. Sweeney also reported that the camera system CD player has been installed and is operational. He also stated that Richard DiNolfi dropped off two no-wake signs at his house, which will be installed.

Squeak reported on his volunteer efforts to keep the lawn and oleanders watered. He stated that the automatic watering system had to be turned off, and he spends 4-5 hours hand watering. He stated that no one has mowed the lawn in weeks. Mr. Chambers explained that we lost our lawn guy, and we haven't replaced him as yet. Squeak also expressed his displeasure at the trashy conditions in the entire entrance area from the oleanders up to and including the dumpster area. There is trash in the bushes, and trash around the dumpsters. He encouraged the Association to hire a maintenance/grounds person to take care of these issues. Mr. Chambers stated maintenance is one of Ms. Hugaert's duties, but that the Association does need to hire a gardener.

Mr. Risen made a motion that the Association hire a Groundskeeper to assist the General Manager, and that Ms. Hugaert look for someone to fill this position. The motion was seconded and carried.

Mr. Svider suggested that the Board pursue the matter of the Richard DiNolfi inventory shortages at its next Board meeting.

Ms. Hugaert presented her detailed fence installation estimate for the area between the boulders and the oleanders to keep off-road vehicles from using it as an exit/entrance. The estimate is for a 4' high wood fence approximately 25' long at a cost of $474. Mr. Chambers stated he is opposed to the fence, as this would just detour riders over the lawn and out the opening by the entrance; that we should just move the two Fontleroy boulders off that lot and space them out with the other boulders in the subject area to slow down riders, thus keeping them away from the lawn and entrance area. Mr. Risen stated he is concerned about liability should a rider hit a boulder. Ms. Wikoff suggested using bigger boulders. Mr. Churchill stated that we used to have a split-rail fence at this location before there were boulders. Mr. Price stated that fencing off the area would result in riders tearing up the lawn. Mr. Chambers stated that riders need access, and that the opening by the gate would be too dangerous. Mr. Stroud stated that the area by the mailboxes is also a dangerous situation.

Mr. Sweeney made a motion to move the Fontleroy boulders over to the area by the mailboxes and space them out with the other boulders to slow down off-road vehicles. The motion was seconded and carried.

The meeting adjourned to Executive Session at 9:50 p.m. and reconvened the regular meeting at 10:05.

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.

Submitted by Recording Secretary, Sue Thomson

APPROVED BY BOARD OF DIRECTORS JULY 5, 2004