The February 17, 2026 CEPOA board meeting was held virtually via Zoom at 6:30 p.m. Board members present: President Russell Ziegler, Secretary Carolina (Nina) McVicker, Treasurer Susan Mitnick, and members Cathy Gunderson and Ryan Edwards. Several community members attended and participated in open forum.

Section 1 — Approval of Minutes

Topic: January 2026 meeting minutes Led by: Russell Ziegler

Ziegler opened by noting the recording from the January meeting would be deleted now that its minutes were being formally approved — consistent with the board’s stated policy of retaining recordings only until minutes are memorialized. He asked if any board member had corrections. None were offered. Ziegler entered a motion to approve; McVicker seconded. The motion carried unanimously.

Section 2 — Agenda Format Change

Topic: Moving open forum to end of meeting Led by: Russell Ziegler

Ziegler explained a format adjustment made since January: the homeowner open forum, previously held at the start of the meeting, has been moved to just before executive session. His reasoning was practical — homeowners at the January meeting had been asked to comment before the board had presented any information, leaving the discussion without context. By placing open forum at the end, attendees can ask questions informed by what the board actually discussed. He told community members to hold their questions and that they could either speak on camera or submit a written question to the board through the chat.

Section 3 — Community Q&A / Policy Update

Topic: Amended bylaws and six new board policies adopted in fall 2025 Led by: Russell Ziegler

Ziegler addressed a question carried over from the January meeting about governance document changes. He said he had reviewed the records and consulted the HOA’s attorney before answering.

On the six new policies adopted November 19, 2025: Ziegler said these were drafted by legal counsel because they had been missing from CEPOA’s policy framework entirely. He described it as standard HOA practice — associations accumulate gaps over time and fill them in as they mature. The adoption required only a board vote, not a community vote. All six were approved at the November meeting, signed, and posted to the CEPOA website.

On the amended and restated bylaws signed October 15, 2025: Ziegler said the prior bylaws incorrectly referenced specific policies, were missing provisions required by Colorado state law, and contained outdated or inaccurate language. Legal counsel drafted the revisions. The board voted to finalize and sign them at the October meeting. Ziegler noted that both the current and previous versions of the bylaws are available on the governing documents section of the CEPOA website for anyone wanting to compare them directly.

Section 4 — Knowledge Share

Topic: CEPOA’s governing document hierarchy Led by: Russell Ziegler

Ziegler continued a recurring educational segment he introduced last month, covering how CEPOA’s governing documents relate to each other and to state law. He walked through five layers in order of authority: Colorado law (specifically the CCIOA), the Declaration (covenants and CCRs recorded with Douglas County), the Articles of Incorporation, the bylaws, and board policies and rules. He explained that each layer must conform to the ones above it, and that any conflict between a governing document and Colorado law is resolved in favor of state law. He added a bonus item — the annual disclosure, which the board is required to send homeowners once a year. Ziegler said he had decided to distribute it electronically this year rather than in print to save paper, and that it would go out within a week or so. McVicker noted, via a community member’s chat message, that CEPOA also operates under the Colorado Nonprofit Corporation Act — a point Ziegler welcomed and credited.

Section 5 — Treasurer’s Report

Topic: Financial update through mid-February 2026 Led by: Susan Mitnick

Mitnick reported the following figures:

Beginning balance (as of last board meeting): $68,370.89. Income received since then: $11,802.15, with $11,725 of that from 47 annual dues payments. The remaining $77.15 included a $75 payment plan installment, $0.51 in savings account interest, and a $1.64 IRS refund. Expenses totaled $7,384.18, broken down as $6,673 in legal fees, $623.90 in accounting fees, and $87.28 in postage and printing for dues invoices. Ending balance: $72,788.86.

Ziegler noted that 47 payments represents roughly half of the 103 lots, with approximately $13,000 still expected from the remainder. He made a direct appeal to anyone on the call who had not yet paid to do so, noting that non-payment requires the board to follow up individually with each household.

On legal fees, Ziegler explained that the $6,673 reflects costs related to the ongoing Lot 25 litigation, which is not covered by the HOA’s $199-per-month legal retainer. He said the retainer had already paid for itself — Mitnick confirmed the firm had credited roughly $662 in non-litigation work against the retainer, netting the HOA about $460 in effective savings in January alone.

Section 6 — Committee Report

Topic: Architectural Control Committee Led by: Russell Ziegler

Ziegler reported briefly. ACC chair Ryan submitted to him saying no new applications to review. Ziegler repeated the call for ACC volunteers, saying the board was still short-handed and encouraging community members to reach out directly or spread the word.

Section 7 — Unfinished Business

7a — Legal Update: Lot 25 and the 40-Acre Matter

Led by: Russell Ziegler

Ziegler gave a measured update. The board had recently met in executive session with legal counsel to review a counterproposal related to the 40-acre dispute. He said the board is continuing to evaluate that proposal with attorneys, and that no decision has been finalized. He was deliberate in his framing: any agreed-upon settlement would require formal board action, and any amendment to the Declaration that might follow would require a community-wide vote. He said further updates would be provided as appropriate, within the limits of attorney-client confidentiality.

CEPOAWatch note: The board’s repeated references to this matter as the ’40-acre dispute’ are imprecise. A fuller explanation of the actual litigation, including the covenant violation at its center, will be published separately.

7b — Physical Dropbox for Payments

Led by: Russell Ziegler

Ziegler admitted he had mistakenly removed this item from the agenda last month, having confused it with cloud-based document storage. McVicker relayed a chat message from homeowner Terry (Hochstedler) clarifying that the original suggestion was for a physical drop box where residents could leave dues payments and correspondence, as an alternative to mail. Ziegler said the board would discuss next steps.

7c — ACC Guidelines Review

Led by: Russell Ziegler

Ziegler and Edwards said they are coordinating an informational meeting with current ACC members to review the existing guidelines. Scheduling has been delayed by a busy month, but the outreach has gone out and the ACC is cooperative. Ziegler was clear that no decisions would come out of that meeting — it is fact-finding only — and that any changes to guidelines would go through the full board process before being presented publicly.

7d — Chatfield Estate Entrance Lighting

Led by: Cathy Gunderson / Russell Ziegler

Gunderson reported on her investigation into the darkened traffic light at the Chatfield Estate entrance. A community member, Carolyn McNee, had contacted Xcel Energy and been told responsibility lies with CDOT. McNee obtained a contact name at CDOT and is passing it along to Gunderson, who plans to follow up directly. Gunderson raised a complication: if CEPOA were to take financial responsibility for the light and a vehicle later damaged the pole, the HOA could be on the hook for replacement costs running into thousands of dollars.

Ziegler added a second complication. Even if the liability and CDOT questions were resolved, CEPOA’s funds can only be spent on assets that are formally part of the community — and the Chatfield Estate entrance light technically is not. He suggested a donation-based fund as a possible workaround, though he acknowledged that the administrative and legal mechanics of that approach still need to be worked through.

McVicker relayed another chat message from Hochstedler, who noted the previous board had already approached CDOT about the light and been told it did not meet their threshold for a safety concern. Ziegler acknowledged that while the prior effort was unsuccessful, circumstances or personnel at CDOT may have changed, and the attempt is worth making again.

Outcome: Gunderson will continue pursuing the CDOT contact. No vote taken; issue remains open.

7e — Community Survey

Led by: Russell Ziegler / Carolina McVicker / Susan Mitnick

Ziegler announced the community survey is ready to launch. He described it as 3-6 minutes to complete, with open-ended fields for homeowners who want to say more. McVicker confirmed the survey is live and offered to add a link to the CEPOA website.

Mitnick raised two practical points before the send: first, that the cover communication should clarify that one household can submit a single response or two members can each respond separately if they have differing views; second, that an automated confirmation message go out to each submitter. McVicker confirmed both are already built in.

The board settled on a deadline of March 9 — one week before the next meeting — so results can be discussed at the March 17 board meeting. Mitnick also raised the question of homeowners without email addresses, suggesting printed copies be made available. McVicker said she can provide a printable version, and Gunderson agreed to hand-deliver surveys to any households without email access.

Ziegler noted that no board vote is required to send the survey; it is an information-gathering tool, not a policy decision.

7f — Additional Community Committees

Led by: Russell Ziegler

Ziegler said he has a structural framework in mind for formalizing community volunteer committees — including protections for the HOA and limits on committee influence — but does not yet have time to fully develop and present it. He plans to consult the attorney on the structure within the retainer’s coverage and present a proposal at a future meeting. He flagged that results from the community survey may shape what kinds of committees are most needed.

7g — Enhanced Communications

Led by: Russell Ziegler / Susan Mitnick

The board acknowledged that a newsletter and more structured website communication strategy remain on the agenda but have not yet been formally developed. Mitnick made the practical observation that survey results should come first — since the survey specifically asks homeowners how they prefer to receive information, it would be counterproductive to build a communication structure before knowing whether the community actually wants a newsletter, uses the website regularly, or prefers another channel. Ziegler agreed and deferred further discussion to a future meeting.

7h — Professional HOA Management Services

Led by: Russell Ziegler / Susan Mitnick

Ziegler confirmed the board has received initial outreach from one management company and created a folder to collect information, but has not initiated contact or done any formal evaluation. He said the board lacks the capacity to pursue this right now and estimated it is a few months away from being properly investigated.

Mitnick made a thoughtful case for the delay: the board needs more time in their roles to fully understand what an HOA management company would actually be taking off their plates, what questions to ask, and what to watch for in pricing and contract terms. Ziegler agreed, saying they would not have been able to meaningfully evaluate a proposal on day one when they did not yet know the full scope of their own jobs.

7i — Bark-Boring Insect / Tree Damage

Led by: Susan Mitnick / Cathy Gunderson / Russell Ziegler

This was the longest discussion of the evening, and Mitnick drove most of it. She had obtained three quotes for tree maintenance: from KnottHead Tree, Above and Beyond, and Davey Tree Services. She walked through a comparison spreadsheet covering services, terminology differences, tree counts, and pricing.

The companies agreed on the basics: trees need treatment for bark-boring insects, deep root watering and fertilization are critical given drought conditions, and some trees need to come down. The disagreements were meaningful. KnottHead proposed removing 10 trees from a count of 53 (which included 3 trees later identified as on Douglas County land, leaving 50 on CEPOA property). Above and Beyond recommended removing only 3-5. Davey walked the site suggesting few removals were needed, then came back quoting removal of 11.

Mitnick raised a second issue that had emerged from the assessments: significant bark damage along the south side of North Chatfield Drive that Above and Beyond attributed to porcupines, not bark beetles. She described the evidence — bark stripped from the base of trees and from high up in the branches, with fresh sap still visible on a recent visit. Davey’s representative had attributed the same damage to deer; Mitnick expressed skepticism on the record, noting that deer do not climb trees. Online research she conducted matched the damage pattern precisely to porcupine feeding.

Gunderson confirmed she had contacted Colorado Parks and Wildlife about trapping and relocating porcupines and was told they do not handle that species. She is pursuing additional contacts. Community member John Tracy noted via chat that trees with bark stripped all the way around the circumference — girdled — cannot survive, as the bark is the channel through which nutrients travel from roots to canopy.

Homeowner Terry Hochstedler raised a broader question through the chat: whether it makes long-term sense to invest heavily in saving non-native trees in a drought-prone environment. Mitnick took the question seriously, noting the trees were planted roughly 40 years ago under different assumptions about water availability, and that the ongoing drought makes the question genuinely complicated. The board did not reach a conclusion. Ziegler framed the decision as multi-layered: do you try to save the trees at all, and if so, which ones — with money that will likely need to be spent again in future years?

The board agreed to add tree-related questions to the community survey before it goes out. Mitnick said she will draft questions at a high enough level to be useful without turning the survey into a referendum on arborist methodology.

Outcome: No vote taken. Survey will include tree questions. Gunderson and Edwards will continue pursuing porcupine relocation contacts.

Section 8 — New Business

8a — Property Tax Appeals

Raised by: Cathy Gunderson

Gunderson relayed a question from a community member who had seen her property taxes increase significantly and wanted to know whether anyone in the community had successfully appealed, and whether CEPOA could provide a referral to a realtor who could prepare a comparable sales analysis to support an appeal. No board member had a referral to offer. Ziegler suggested the homeowner search independently. Gunderson noted from her own experience that Douglas County has historically been resistant to appeals.

8b — $250 Special Assessment Refund

Raised by: Cathy Gunderson

Gunderson relayed a question from a community member asking whether the $250 special assessment collected previously would be returned if the funds turned out not to be needed for legal fees. Before the board responded, Gunderson turned the question toward former board president Teri Hochstedler — who was attending as a community member and has no standing to participate in board deliberations. The move seemed put Hochstedler on the spot in a public forum where she had no legitimate avenue to respond. Ziegler stepped in and answered. He said the funds almost certainly would not be returned. The HOA had operated with reserves well below appropriate levels before the assessment, and even setting the Lot 25 litigation aside, the reserve needed to be rebuilt. The assessment served two purposes: it created a buffer against potential litigation costs and addressed a pre-existing shortfall that needed correction regardless.

Section 9 — Next Steps / Upcoming Dates

Ziegler confirmed the next regular board meeting is Tuesday, March 17, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. He noted it falls on St. Patrick’s Day and offered the option to reschedule; the board agreed to keep the date. He closed with a reminder that annual dues are due March 1.

Section 10 — Open Forum

Teri Hochstedler (former board member)

Hochstedler spoke warmly but with evident purpose. She praised the current board’s transparency and said she genuinely appreciated the approach — particularly moments like Ziegler’s earlier response to her question about prior board policy decisions, in which he had described the previous board’s work as legally sound rather than deflecting. She made a pointed request: now that the current board has full access to the HOA’s legal counsel and all prior board emails and records, she asked them to actively correct what she described as misinformation and false narratives that had circulated in the community about the prior board being secretive or acting improperly. She said that from everything she has observed over the past two months, the current board is doing largely the same things the prior board did — the main difference being that the current board announces its commitment to transparency explicitly.

Ziegler responded thoughtfully. He said he had reviewed the prior board’s records in detail and consulted with the attorney, and that what he found was consistent with what Hochstedler described — a board that made a large number of required changes under difficult circumstances. He said he appreciated that the work had been done.

John Tracy (homeowner)

Tracy raised a concern about a covenant change he had recently become aware of. He said the current covenants, revised in 2024, allow homeowners to keep any animal that Douglas County permits — a change from prior language that he recalled as limiting livestock to horses, with dogs and cats also allowed. Tracy said a new resident is considering bringing farm animals into the subdivision and expressed concern that the change, if it stands, could lead to goats, pigs, sheep, or cattle in the community.

Ziegler confirmed he had already reviewed this specific change as part of his broader review of the governing documents. He said the revision was done correctly — it went through a proper community vote at the required percentage threshold, with proxies counted, and the resulting document is 150-plus pages because it includes the recorded signature of every homeowner who participated. He explained that the spirit of the change was to simplify the HOA’s role by deferring to county standards rather than maintaining its own livestock list. He acknowledged that Tracy’s concern is legitimate and said the community absolutely has the ability to revisit and amend the covenant again through the same process — a full community vote. He said the survey would give homeowners a place to flag this as something they want addressed.

Tracy pushed back, suggesting that the animal covenant had been bundled into a broader package that most homeowners were focused on approving for other reasons. Ziegler did not dispute that reading but held his position firmly: the document was available, the vote was properly conducted, and the responsibility to read what was being voted on rests with each homeowner. He said he intends to use a cleaner format in future community votes — similar to ballot proposition language, with a plain-language yes/no summary of each change — so that future changes are easier for homeowners to evaluate.

Mark (Lot 21 homeowner)

Mark spoke quietly but with visible frustration. He said his reputation in the community had been damaged over the past five or six years and that he had always wanted to be a good community member. He said he was troubled by a comment made at the annual meeting by neighbor Mike Greene, who had publicly indicated that “they” (Mark and Hochstedler and his wife) had multiple covenant violations. Because Greene made the allegation publicly, Mark said, the board has a responsibility to address it, either by reaching out to Greene to identify the specific violations or by investigating through the board’s own records. He said he wanted to know what violations he has, if any, so he could address them. He added that he appreciated Ziegler’s earlier confirmation that the covenants are approximately 7 pages long, clarifying what he described as a prior claim by someone who said they are now 40 some pages long now.

Mike Greene (homeowner)

Greene had technical trouble turning on his video but eventually succeeded. He opened by praising the current board, saying it is more welcoming and informative than any prior board he had observed, including one he had served on himself. He added that since the new board took over (approximately 8 weeks), he had not heard one negative thing said about a prior board.

On the matter raised by Mark, Greene said “I don’t remember saying he has any violations” and then pivoted immediately to a list of personal grievances: that Mark shoots prairie dogs, called Greene an ass, and they cussed out his wife. He characterized these as personal matters that he probably shouldn’t address in a public board meeting, but did anyway, and said he is content to have no further contact. It was a clean deflection. Mark had asked for a list of specific covenant violations so he could address them. Greene provided none.

Greene then returned to the question of HOA management services, saying he had previously opposed the idea because of cost, but that after watching what the board spends on legal fees, much of it on work that a professional management company would handle as standard practice, he has changed his mind. He argued that the volume and complexity of regulations governing HOAs has become a barrier to board recruitment, that people are reluctant to serve because they do not want to be responsible for keeping up with constantly evolving laws, covenants, and governing documents. The CCIOA alone runs over 100 pages, he noted, and the new covenants added another 25 or 26 pages on top of that. A professional management firm deals with those regulations across dozens of HOAs every day and would not need to call an attorney every time a routine question comes up. He closed by again praising the current board and encouraging them to keep up the good work.

Executive Session

Following the close of open forum, Ziegler formally moved the meeting into executive session. He stated the purpose as discussion of legal matters under Colorado law, clarified that no rules or regulations would be adopted during executive session, and asked for a motion. McVicker moved; Gunderson seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Community members were welcome to remain in the waiting room; the board would return after executive session only to formally adjourn.

CEPOAWatch Note

The board records and retains meeting recordings until minutes are approved, then deletes them — a policy President Ziegler stated on the record at this meeting. CEPOAWatch subsequently submitted a records inspection request for this recording; the board declined, citing legal counsel’s opinion that recordings are not association records subject to inspection under Colorado law (CCIOA Section 38-33.3-209.5). An attorney’s opinion is not a legal ruling and is only an opinion in the context of defending the board in the future. Homeowners who believe they have a right to these recordings may wish to consult their own counsel or pursue a declaratory judgment.