DRUM POINT VILLAGE WEST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
MINUTES OF BOARD MEETING
October 16, 2002
Board Members Present: Bob Martin, Ed Kocher, Dolores Tappert, Paula Groppe, Gene Ann Pesano
Covenant Committee Members Present: Harriet Martin
Homeowner's Present: Fred Weintraub, Herb Armstrong, Helen Bertch (arrived approx 8:20pm), Lyn Monteiro, Richard & Lori Gaynor, Peter Ceretta Jr., Peter Ceretta, Saverio Camporeale
Robert Martin called this meeting to order on October 16, 2002 at 8:06 p.m.
· First Order of Business - Reading and approval of the September 2002 minutes.
The minutes were distributed to all Trustees prior to the meeting. Gene Ann Pesano made a motion to accept the minutes and was seconded by Ed Kocher. Unanimously approved. Ed stated that due to an oversight, photocopies of the minutes were not made for this meeting. Ed Kocher asked if anyone present would like a copy of the minutes mailed to them. No one requested copies. Ed also stated that the minutes are on the website.
Note: At a later point in the meeting Ed advised Mrs. Bertch of this issue and Mrs. Bertch stated that she would like a copy. Ed stated he would mail a copy to Mrs. Bertch tomorrow morning.
· Second Order of Business - Recent Actions of the Board of Trustees
Without objection, for the purpose of brevity, it was agreed to waive the reading and simply insert the actions list into the minutes. It was also pointed out that this list is on the web site. Printed copies were distributed to those present.
Actions of the Board
Sept. 11, 2002 to Oct. 16, 2002
v Lawn restoration
Ø Implemented lawn restoration plan for the entire community
v Fencing project behind bldg 10
Ø Bob Martin cleared approximately 225 ft. of shrubs, trees and debris in preparation for the fence installation. This was done at no charge to the Association and saved the homeowners approximately $500.
Ø Fencing project completed 9/12/02 and was overseen by Bob Martin.
Ø Landscapers removed debris left over from new fence construction
v Miller units – drainage, crawlspaces, etc.
Ø Contacted Road Supervisor to confirm that they will repair any damage they might do to the irrigation system during the drainage project. The supervisor agreed verbally but was reluctant to put same in writing. Subsequently, the Township Business Administrator advised that, prior to the commencement of the project, we would have this in writing.
Ø Letter sent to our attorney regarding an answer from Hanover Insurance regarding a claim of mold. In their response, Hanover does not even mention mold, and instead treated the claim as a water damage claim. As a result, the claim has initially been denied.
Ø Notices sent via first class mail on 9/16/02 to all Miller unit owners instructing them to inspect their crawlspaces for the presence of water, mold and/or mildew. To date less than ten unit owners have responded. The Association has asked that the township inspect all crawl spaces prior to the commencement of the drainage project.
Ø All residents of the Miller units were visited in person and asked to attend the Town Council meeting on 9/24 in a show of solidarity re the crawlspace problem. This meeting was subsequently postponed. Most unit owners were advised of this delay.
Ø Spoke at length with the Township Business Administrator regarding multiple issues regarding the Miller unit crawl spaces. The Township Business Administrator agreed to reply to these concerns within two weeks.
Ø Received a letter from Scott MacFadden asking us to provide the Township with a representative sampling of units to have their crawlspaces inspected by the Township. We responded by advising the township that because our own inspections have found widespread problems, each of the crawlspaces needs to be inspected by the Township and that any problems found in any crawlspace must be remediated by the Township. Currently awaiting the Township's response.
Ø Met with Fred Weintraub several times and made copies for him for the Township Council Meeting.
v Parking, fire and road safety
Ø Bob Martin has been attempting to schedule a meeting with Kevin Batzel (Fire Marshall) concerning our ongoing discussions with the township regarding fire zones and parking issues. So far, we cannot get all parties to agree on a specific date/time.
Ø A consultant has been retained to represent the Association at our meetings with the Fire Marshall regarding street parking and Fire Zone issues. This consultant has been successful in negotiating with the Fire Marshall in the past and, with his help, we hope to have the police and fire protection we seek without sacrificing a large number of on-street parking spaces.
v ADR – requested by a homeowner
Ø Retained a professional ADR mediator and gave him the homeowner’s name, address and phone number in order to start the ADR process.
Ø Multiple phone calls made to the ADR mediator to work out logistics of the homeowner’s ADR request.
Ø Requested permission from the township to hold the ADR hearing at Town Hall. Approval pending.
Ø Received a letter from Edward R. Hannaman, Esq., NJ Bureau of Homeowner Protection, regarding our handling of ADR, open meetings and minutes of open meetings. This letter was the direct result of a homeowner’s complaint to him that the Association was not in compliance with State law. We responded in kind. Mr. Hannaman then responded to us and advised that our current policies and procedures are acceptable to the State. Mr. Hannaman also stated that he would advise the complainant of same.
v Covenants Committee
Ø Covenants Committee completed inspections of the exterior of all 95 units on 9/15/02.
Ø Covenants Committee delivered their inspection report to the Trustees. On 9/30/02, violation letters were sent from the trustees to 28 owners and nine tenants (tenants get copies of the letters sent to their unit owners).
v Homeowner issues
Ø Letter written and hand delivered to unit owner requesting removal of mothballs from the area around a unit. The mothballs were subsequently removed.
Ø Responded to a report from a Migantti homeowner that a window was "warped." Upon initial inspection, the homeowner was advised that, as the window is a part of the unit and not a common element, that the homeowner should contact Mignatti and/or the window manufacturer for warranty repairs.
Ø Prepared responses to 11 complaints/suggestions/concerns received by a homeowner
Ø Prepared responses to 10 additional complaints/suggestions/concerns received by a homeowner
Ø Responded to a homeowner request seeking permission to install a patio divider fence between the patios of two Miller units at the homeowner’s expense
v Financial / Insurance Issues
Ø Successfully negotiated with our current insurance carrier for them to renew our property, liability and umbrella policies – Initially the carrier had stated that they would not be renewing the policies due to a mold claim being initiated by the Association. However, the renewal quote is more than 50% higher than our prior premium.
Ø Asked our insurance broker to shop our policies for a better premium
Ø Responded to four requests for certificates of insurance for homeowners that were refinancing their units.
Ø Filed Annual Corporate Report with the State Treasurer's office
Ø Filed Change of Agent Report with the State Treasurer's office
Ø Prepared and sent quarterly statements to all 95 unit owners.
Ø Added a graphical presentation of the annual budget to the web site
v Miscellaneous
Ø Obtained the following information from the Brick Township police department regarding watering restrictions:
· A police officer may only issue a summons for violations if he personally witnesses the violation.
· Any citizen who witnesses such violations may sign a complaint.
Ø Transcribed September 11th Board Meeting and distributed to Board Members for review
Ø Published the first edition of the Association’s newsletter – to be distributed during the week of October 14th
Ø Added the legal description of the unit to the web site – can be found under the Insurance and Restrictions FAQs
Ø Multiple phone calls and letters to Donald Steele (our prior attorney). Made contact with Donald Steele and requested the Mignatti file be transferred to our current attorney. Mr. Steel mailed the file to the Board Secretary who forwarded it to our current attorney.
· Third Order of Business – Miller Unit Crawl Spaces
o Bob Martin stated that we have sent out letters to all Miller unit owners asking them to go down and inspect their crawlspaces and to give feedback to us. Ed Kocher stated that of 46 Miller unit owners, we have received responses from approx ten unit owners. Eight of them have found some sign of water either being present or having been present and of those eight, approx six or seven have mold and/or mildew. Most prevalent was mildew on the underside of the I-beams. It was stated by the people who inspected approx five crawl spaces that the mold or mildew was not too bad, so with some kind of remediation in a relatively short amount of time, we should be good on that.
o We have had ongoing conversations both in writing and on the phone with the Township. Ed stated that he had an in depth conversation with Scott Mc Fadden (the Township Administrator) on several issues, chief among them is the fact that the Township has known about this issue for almost three years and has promised us for two to 2 ½ years to come up with a plan and to act on that plan. Ed said that he has been asking the Township for a year and a half for a plan. Ed stated that he told township engineer’s office that we have an irrigation system on our property that would come into play. Now, the township engineer is suddenly surprised that we have that irrigation system. Ed stated that he told the township engineer’s office a year and 1/2 ago that a plan that only addressed the drainage from the leaders off the rear of the buildings would not be sufficient and would not solve our problems and that it must encompass all of the building (front and back and sides). Ed continued by stating that when we finally did get the plan about 2 months ago it addressed only the rear of the buildings. At that point Ed advised Mr. Mac Fadden that it would not be acceptable and that we would not consider our waiver of liability to be in effect. Ed also informed Scott that it is not just one unit owner but there are multiple units, possibly all of the units are affected, and that we feel that the presence of the mold has been caused directly by the way the buildings were constructed and also because of the fact that the Township has sat back for 2 to 3 years and has not done anything about this. Ed stated that now we have a mold problem that we probably did not have 2 to 3 years ago. Ed stated that it should be the Township's responsibility not only to come up with a remediation plan to not only drain the water away from the buildings, and to keep it from happening again, but also to remediate the crawl spaces. Ed stated that this Friday the Township will be having a “Capital” meeting and at the end of that meeting Ed should be receiving a phone call from Scott McFadden and this time Ed will be asking him to back up anything he says in writing. Fred Weintraub requested to be called with the results as he will be delivering a letter to the Township later in the day.
o Bob Martin stated that he saw Tom Rospos surveying something in the front of the buildings but he did not have any time to stop and ask him what he was doing. Bob suspects that he may have been there doing fieldwork to update the plan.
· Fourth Order of Business – Insurance
Ed Kocher stated that we put in a claim with our insurance carrier for mold based on the first unit that reported mold to us. They immediately sent us cancellation notices for our insurance that stated they would not be renewing when our policies expires at the end of this month. Ed stated that they then subsequently treated the claim as a water damage claim never using the word mold in the claim rejection letter. They have now backed down from their non-renewal position since they are now referring to it as a water damage claim and since we reported this to the New Jersey State Department of Banking and Insurance. They are now willing to renew the policies, but the down side of this is that the rates will be approx 50% higher than in the prior year. Instead of paying approximately $13,500, we will be paying approximately $20,000 to $21,000. Some of this is not just because we put in the claim, as insurance premiums have increased across the board. At any rate, Ed asked our insurance broker to shop around for a better rate. The good news is that we will have insurance coverage.
· Fifth Order of Business – Mignatti/Pool
Bob Martin stated that we have an ongoing negotiation with Mignatti for reimbursement for not having the pool and the associated recreational facilities. Ed Kocher stated that we were ready to file suit, but that our attorney felt there was a red flag, and he needed the file from the previous attorney who handled the negotiation prior to the agreement with Mignatti being signed. After much effort on the part of the Board, we did obtain the previous file and turned it over to our current attorney to review. We may be instituting a suit against Mignatti in the very near future. Once a suit is filed, the filing becomes public and available to any homeowner who requests it.
· Sixth Order of Business – Siding Warpage – All Units
Bob Martin stated that we are having a problem, which Fred brought up to us, regarding the siding. Gene Ann stated that Certainteed was contacted and was told that All County Aluminum did the installation and had been contacted but they were non-responsive to us. We have initiated warranted procedures with Certainteed. Certainteed want questionnaires and pictures and they will be starting an investigation very shortly.
· Seventh Order of Business – Patio Extension Request from Fred Weintraub
Bob Martin stated that Fred Weintraub had submitted a request to widen the patio behind his unit. Bob stated that the board had discussed the request and was now ready to take a vote. Voting results: Ed Kocher-NO, Gene Ann Pesano-NO, Dolores Tappert-NO, Paula Groppe-ABSTAINED, Bob Martin-YES. The Nay's have it. Mr. Weintraub’s request was denied and the patio will not be widened.
Fred asked, "Are there any patios that are larger than the initial intended sizes of patios. Yes or No?"
Bob Martin stated, "That when Mignatti came in they gave an option of minimum size, full size or no patio."
Fred stated, "Are you sure? Are there any patios that are larger than the maximum or full size allowed when the units were sold to the customers."
Fred stated, "I'm talking about fairness."
Fred W. asked" Is there a reason for this decision ?"
Bob Martin said "Everybody had different views and the majority felt that the Miller units had been provided with a certain size patio and everyone is the same.
Ed Kocher answered a question from the floor as to who voted and how
Bob M. said "As I was saying, Fred and for conformity they feel that everybody as long as they were given that way as opposed the Mignatti size they were given a choice of no patio, medium size patio or large size patio. I tend to agree with you that is that if you are staying within your quote unquote limited common area you should be allowed.
Fred W: Excuse me"
Bob M. continued "to extend it out."
Fred W.: "Excuse me."
Bob M. continued "others feel the opposite or feel differently.
Ed Kocher said "The only alternative to that issue is brought up when someone wants to make a change to the exterior of their unit or the limited common element they need to apply to the Board of Trustees of the Association. The Board has a certain amount of time to respond and if they do not respond within that certain amount of time then the response is a negative one. It should not be construed that [the absence of a] response means “Well, they did not make a decision so I'm just going to do what I want to do” Now, if Fred wants to he can bring this up as an issue at the annual meeting (which will be in the latter part of March or the early part of April) for a vote by the entire homeownership and if 50% of the eligible homeowners are in favor of it then that would override our decision. That is the check and balance of the veto control.
Fred W. asked" The only one question that I ask is this are there any patios in this entire development on either side that are larger than the original intended patio sizes"
Ed Kocher said:" The Millers.
Fred W. said " I asked on the entire development are there any patios that are larger than the initial intended patio – that's a yes or no"
Bob M. said "That's a moot point because when Mignatti came in, they provided choices of sizes and we didn't have control of what they did I think it was in the public offering statement and some people opted to have none ,some people had a minimum size, and some people had full size of their back patio.
Fred W. said" All I'm asking is: "Is there any patio in this entire development that’s larger in size than the full size or the maximum allowed size when they were sold to the customers. Yes or no?
Bob M. said "As far as I know NO.
Fred W. said "Are your sure? I'm talking about fairness. If you're going to make a decision on size…
Ed Kocher said, "If you're referring to Mignatti, there are two different architectural styles and two different sponsors. Mignatti gave the option of larger patios they have smaller units. All of the patios on this side by unit, type and location are all uniform with one exception and that is 41 White Swan Way because of an encroachment on the setback buffer, their patio had to be made smaller.
Fred w. asked, "Was there an approval for Mignatti's size of patio, larger than the size offered to the people who bought in this community?"
Ed Kocher said " That bought a Mignatti unit? 'No' they were offered and they asked permission to install a patio similar to patios that were installed by Mignatti for and by Mignatti buyers.
"Fred W. said "Not larger than ?
Ed Kocher said "No ,not larger than any patio that Mignatti offered and sold as an option to their buyers .
· Eighth Order of Business – Future Handicap Parking
Gene Ann stated that she received a call from a Mike Fowler because one of our unit owners had asked him to call us about the possibility of designating some of our off-street parking as handicapped spaces. Gene Ann stated that she told him that at this time we don’t have enough parking spaces for our homeowners as it is and that we are having problems with people parking in fire zones. Mr. Fowler then asked if we would consider handicap parking if and when we may expand our off-street parking. Gene Ann told him that indeed we would consider that, should we ever have more parking spaces available. Ed Kocher asked Gene Ann if she had told Mike Fowler that each unit has two off-street parking spaces designated to the unit. Gene Ann stated that she had informed him as such.
· Ninth Order of Business – Mignatti Gutters
Ed Kocher stated that at the front of a certain Mignatti model (affecting approx ten Mignatti units) the architectural style of the gutters are different from the rest of the other Mignatti units and for that reason a leader on the units dumps water at the intersection of the unit’s front walkway and the unit’s driveway, causing a potential ice hazard as people exit the walkways and come around the front corner of the garages. Ed stated that this problem is similar to that of the Miller units prior to the siding project being done. The potential solution in to install new gutters on the front of these units that would have the leaders drop in the center of the garages. While their no is feasible method to eliminate the icing problem, at least by doing this the result in icing in a less dangerous place. For this reason, we went to All County Aluminum and asked for a quote. Ed stated that while he doesn’t have the quote with him at the meeting, he believes the quote is approximately $2,200. This quote includes the removal of the gutters, removal of existing leaders, installing new gutters with a center droop, installing new leaders with a center drop, creating an attachment anchor for that leader in the stone façade, and repairing the vinyl siding where the holes are for the existing leaders. Ed stated that this is not a per unit price, but a total job price for all affected Mignatti units. Ed Kocher made a motion to have that work done, and ask for an appropriation of up to $2,500 from the general siding reserve account for the purpose of re-routing those leaders as previously explained. Gene Ann seconded the motion with an amendment to have the leader behind 7 BFT included in this project. It was agreed that the owner of 7 BFT should attempt to have Mignatti reroute that leader and correct the associated fencing issue before the Association expends its funds for that purpose. Gene Ann withdrew her amendment. Bob Martin seconded Ed’s motion without amendment. All were in favor.
· Tenth Order of Business – Treasurer’s Report
Copies of the current financial statements were distributed to all present. Ed stated that the only major change from last month was that the Board received the attorney's bill for a period of about 5 months which was to the tune of approx $4,000. Ed Kocher had broken that out between what was applicable to the pool removal and what is applicable to general operating activities and that is reflected in the statement. Ed still doesn't have a target date from our audit to be completed. Ed wishes stated that our auditor agreed to squeeze us in between his other clients and for this we a re receiving favorable rates from the auditor. Ed stated that he left a reminder message on the auditor’s answering machine this evening as well as several other messages over the past few weeks. To date, we have not received a response. In the check detail there are 2 transfers for $3,320.42 - one for the month of August and one is for the month of September. For the Board Members that have the accounts receivable summary and the un-earned revenue summary that the regular homeowners do not have copies of, nothing has changed on the two problem units and Ed Kocher is going to tell Mike Sicola to file suit and to advise their mortgage bankers if Mike feels that it is appropriate. Ed stated that one unit is in default in the amount of $1,349.00 and the other unit is in default in the amount of $2,237.00. The Board will not be sharing their unit numbers to the general homeownership. Herb Armstrong asked if their was a written policy in place to deal with past due units. Ed Kocher stated that he did not feel that a written policy was required and that, in dealing with past due unit owners, he wanted to have some flexibility in how he deals with them. Ed stated that the circumstances regarding each unit owners finances are unique, and that a written policy would lock Ed into a “one size fits all” approach to dealing with past due units. Ed stated there is already a statutory lean on every unit by default. Ed stated that if a unit owner goes to sell the unit and the new owner doesn't come to the Association to find out if the previous unit owner's bills were paid, then that new unit owner automatically assumes the debt. Ed stated that the Association is, by law, in front of a mortgage bank for 6 months ($125 X 6 = $750.00). After that 6 months, the Association is behind the bank in line to recover bad debt. The only people that are in front of us on the $750.00 is the IRS. After the six months, we are behind the IRS, the Township tax, the Township Water Company. Ed stated that he typically files a physical lien with the County Clerk on a unit when it becomes more than six months past due. Ed stated that liens have been filed on both units in question for some time now, and the unit owners are aware that these liens exist and they have copies of these liens. Ed stated that once a physical lien is filed, if someone would attempt to buy those units, the Title Insurance Company is then typically on the dime. Ed further stated that he usually finds out about sales before the closings. Ed pointed out that since becoming Treasurer, we have not had to write off anything (knock on wood), and that we recovered over $7,000 from one unit and more than $9,000 from another unit that was back due. Helen Bertch asked about the $1465 line item for Miller Siding Repairs. Ed stated that he did not know the details of this expense, but that it was probably for additional lumber or possibly leak repairs. Mrs. Bertch stated that if this is the case, then the final disbursement was not the final disbursement, Ed asked her if she was referring to the refund. Helen stated no, she was talking about the final disbursement to the contractor. Ed then stated that the $1465 was probably paid out at the very beginning of the Fiscal Year, but definitely prior to the final refund calculation being made. Mrs. Bertch then asked why this amount was on the statements if it was paid out back then. Ed stated that all the statements provided at monthly meetings are for Fiscal Year to date (in this case April 1, 2002 through to September 30, 2002).
· Eleventh Order of Business – Lawn Restoration
Ed Kocher stated that the Association has contracted, as a repair (to come out of the regular operating fund and not the replacement fund), with our landscaper to do the work that homeowners may or may not have noticed them doing over the past several weeks. You'll notice that your lawn first had holes in it, then it suddenly became pin-stripped in two directions and then some pellets were thrown down, etc. All the lawns have been reseeded, fertilized and aerated. If there is precipitation in the fall and spring than the lawns should look perfect by late spring. Ed stated that, ironically, half of the money for this project is from the money that the Association didn't need to spend on water during the drought. Ed stated that the cost for this project is approx $10,000 and that the landscaper has agreed to accept payment for this project over ten equal installments. Ed hopes that we will have good results from the project, but stated that results cannot be guaranteed.
· Twelfth Order of Business – New Business
o Gene Ann asked who is responsible for leaking mailboxes. Ed Kocher stated that the USPS owns the mailboxes and they are responsible for maintenance unless there is proven negligent damage, in which the Association may have to pay for it. Gene Ann stated that the mailboxes leak and the mail gets soaking wet. Ed stated that sometimes the same thing happens to the Miller Mail boxes.
o Fred Weintraub wanted to know if anyone had gotten a copy of the request that Mignatti made to reduce his bond based on the Board of Adjustment resolution and the removal of certain items. Fred said we can get a copy of that because it is public information. Fred stated that he had asked about this at last month’s (or another prior) meeting. Ed stated that no one has but that within the past 30 days, our attorney sent a letter to several people at the Township, one being the Engineer, and possibly the Township Administrator and Chairman of the Board of Adjustments that the bond be attached by the Township on Drum Point Village West's behalf. Fred stated that the letter of removal could either be an item of confirmation of what you consider to be the items removed so that you can get your bids. If Mignatti agrees with what the Board wants removed, by asking that it be taken off the bond, in court, he loses because he's asked for what you have.
o Fred stated that the thing with the siding, the drainage, etc. that the Board has known about these issues for years and that the pictures should have gone to Certainteed a long time ago. Bob Martin stated that he admits that he dragged his feet on the siding but he had minimal control over the drainage of these units. Fred stated that something should have been done by now.
o Fred asked what a reasonable amount of time would be for a homeowner request to view the Association records. Ed Kocher stated that the law applies only to financial records and does not require that the Association show homeowners the folder regarding Mignatti and the drainage, etc. Fred stated that you are telling me then that I cannot see these records. Ed replied that he did not state that but only that the law does not require it, and that Ed was stating this for a specific reason. Fred stated that any homeowner should be able to view those files with adequate notice.
Note: At this point Fred left the meeting.
o Mrs. Bertch stated that the ADR (as mentioned in the Actions of The Board handout) was at her request.
o Mrs. Bertch argued the fact that it is her understanding that she has the right to see more than just the financials and she will take it a step further. Ed Kocher stated that he has already, on many occasions, told Mrs. Bertch what our attorney told us, what other property managers told us, and what Mr. Hannaman (State of NJ) told us. Ed Kocher also stated that on a regular basis, Mrs. Bertch either has apparently misconstrued or misrepresented what Mr. Hannaman has told her regarding this issue. Mrs. Bertch asked if Ed Kocher would like to see it in writing. Ed Kocher said that we have it in writing and that Mrs. Bertch gave it to Ed herself, and that Mrs. Bertch then sends us letters saying that we’re wrong and that those letters are a completely different interpretation from what the state tells Mrs. Bertch and the Association. Mrs. Bertch said that the statue says she can see all books and records not just financials. Ed Kocher told Mrs. Bertch to read the law again and for her to read the summary sheet that you gave the Association that Mr. Hannaman gave to you. Mrs. Bertch told Ed Kocher that she has already read it more than once. Ed Kocher told Mrs. Bertch that we disagree and we will take care of it during the ADR hearing that you have now put on record that you are the homeowner requesting ADR. Ed Kocher stated that the Board purposefully did not disclose the homeowner’s name for privacy reasons and it wasn't on record until Mrs. Bertch said it, and he wants that fact stated on the record. Mrs. Bertch stated that she also wants it on the record that she is the one who is requesting ADR. Ed Kocher said fine, you can request anything you want Helen. Mrs. Bertch said she will.
o Herb Armstrong wanted to also know about stored vehicles that he believes are adding to the parking problem. Bob Martin stated that it is already being addressed. Letters were written and if these unregistered vehicles are not removed in a short amount of time, they will be towed. Herb reiterated that he was asking about registered cars parked for months on the street obstructing the limited parking space that we have, and that it was a renter who was doing so. Ed Kocher stated that all the Board can do is write letters about the vehicles that are registered that don’t move for 6 months at a time in regard to Herb's question. If the vehicles are unregistered, the Board can have them towed in 48 hours.
Bob Martin asked if there were any other items for the open portion of the meeting. There was no response from anyone present.
Ed Kocher stated that it is 9:07 p.m. and he makes a motion to close the open portion of the meeting and Bob seconded the motion. All were in favor. Bob Martin thanked everyone for attending the meeting. There being no further business, the meeting was duly adjourned by Bob Martin at 9:07 p.m.
The next meeting of the Board of Trustees will be held on November 13, 2002 at 43 White Swan Way.