The CEPOA board held its regular monthly meeting virtually on July 23, 2026. President Russell Ziegler, Treasurer Susan Mitnick, Secretary Nina McVicker, and members at large Ryan Edwards and Cathy Gunderson were present, with quorum confirmed at the start of the meeting. Association Counsel Brittney joined for the portion of the meeting covering the McMakin Lot 25 Parcel A settlement (Hoffman vs McMakin 2021CV000059). Secretary McVicker confirmed all five board members were present, establishing quorum. Ziegler stated that the meeting was being recorded by the association for record keeping purposes under CEPOA’s conduct of meeting policy, and the recording is retained only until meeting minutes are adopted, then deleted.
Section 1 — Approval of Minutes
Ziegler called for a motion to approve the June 16, 2026 monthly board meeting minutes as presented. Edwards moved to approve, and the motion was seconded. Before the board voted, Ziegler opened the floor for community comment on the motion. Mark Hochstedler commented that community input may not be necessary specifically when approving minutes, suggesting it could save time in future meetings; Ziegler responded that he had seen it done both ways and preferred to keep the practice for now to be safe. No other comments were raised. The board voted unanimously to approve the June minutes.
Section 2 — Treasurer’s Report
Mitnick reported that the association’s balance at the time of the last meeting was $67,666.47. Income since that meeting totaled $50.48, reflecting interest on the association’s account and a payment plan. Expenses included legal fees, the six month renewal of the association’s PO box, and the renewal of workers’ compensation insurance, which Mitnick noted renewed at an unchanged cost. Fees from the association’s accounting firm were not reflected this month because the firm is behind on issuing invoices, meaning two months of accounting fees may appear in next month’s report. The reported ending balance was $64,683.45. No board members had questions on the report.
Section 3 — ACC Current Applications
Ziegler reported that Ryan Patterson, the ACC chair, had no applications to review or present for the prior month.
Section 4 — ACC Volunteer Appointments
Ziegler noted that Bryan Spencer had resigned from the ACC due to time constraints, and that Patterson had agreed to remain on the committee temporarily to help train incoming volunteers. Edwards then summarized the committee’s candidate review process: nine candidates initially expressed interest, five responded to outreach, and three confirmed continued interest. Edwards conducted roughly 30 minute interviews with each of the three, evaluating them on their reason for interest, professional background, relevant experience, familiarity with the association’s guidelines, availability, and collaborative approach. Edwards told the board all three candidates met the minimum criteria to serve competently, and recommended two, Willy Hammond and Calvin Craig, for appointment.
Mitnick asked for more detail on the recommended candidates’ backgrounds, since she was not familiar with them. Hammond described his professional background as a former building official for the city of Sun Valley, Idaho, a former county building inspector, a former firefighter, and current work in the insurance industry conducting building inspections. Craig described his background as an engineering executive managing roughly 2,500 engineers for Lockheed Martin, along with personal experience building and remodeling homes and navigating county permitting.
Edwards moved to appoint Hammond and Craig to the Architectural Control Committee effective immediately, acknowledging the conclusion of Bell’s service and confirming that Patterson would continue serving as chair to assist with training and transition. McVicker seconded the motion. Ziegler opened the floor for community comment; no comments were raised. The board voted unanimously to approve the appointments. Ziegler thanked Bell for his service on the committee, noting his tenure exceeded ten years.
Section 5 — McMakin Lot 25 Parcel A Settlement
Ziegler outlined a four phase framework the board has used to describe the settlement process to the community. Phase one covers negotiation of the broad terms of the settlement agreement. Phase two, which Ziegler said the board had reached as of this meeting, is the board’s formal consideration and vote on the settlement. Phase three is community review and education following a board vote to approve. Phase four is a community vote on the associated amendment to the declaration, which would permit a road easement on Lot 25.
Ziegler explained that the settlement itself falls within the board’s authority to negotiate and approve, while any change to the association’s governing documents requires a community vote. He stated that the final settlement terms had been completed roughly 30 minutes before the meeting began.
Ziegler moved that the board enter executive session to receive and discuss privileged legal advice from Association Counsel regarding the pending McMakin Lot 25 Parcel A matter. McVicker seconded the motion. Ziegler opened the floor for community comment before the vote; none were raised. The board voted unanimously to enter executive session, and the meeting recessed at approximately 7:15 p.m.
Section 6 — Executive Session
The stated reason for executive session was to receive and discuss privileged legal advice from Association Counsel regarding the pending McMakin Lot 25 Parcel A litigation and settlement documents. The board returned to open session at approximately 8 p.m. Ziegler stated that no formal settlement approval action was taken during executive session, and that the session was limited to consultation with counsel and review of privileged and confidential legal information.
Section 7 — Settlement Terms Presented to the Community
Following executive session, Ziegler introduced Brittney, the association’s counsel, to provide a legal summary of the settlement terms to the community ahead of the board’s vote. Brittney explained that the underlying dispute originated from a disagreement between the Hoffman family, owners of Lot 32, and Ms. McMakin over the use of a shared driveway providing access to a 40 acre parcel behind Lot 32. McMakin had sought to use that driveway as a secondary emergency access point to support development of the 40 acres, prompting the Hoffmans to initiate litigation over how the driveway could be used. The association later intervened in that litigation because the current declaration prohibits using any lot as an access road to property outside the community.
Brittney described the settlement as having two components. The first addresses restrictions on development of the 40 acre parcel, referred to as Parcel A. Under the settlement, between zero and 12 lots may be developed on Parcel A (in addition to one home on lot 25, for a total of 13 houses maximum). Any lot touching the association’s boundary must be a minimum of 3.5 acres, with a 40 foot rear setback matching the association’s own declaration. Homes on those lots must be between 2,000 and 6,000 square feet of above grade floor area, and outbuildings are limited to a combined 3,000 square feet, both consistent with the association’s current declaration. Rezoning of the parcel is limited to rural residential or estate residential designations. Any access road built on Lot 25 to reach Parcel A will either be conveyed to the county for maintenance or remain a private road maintained jointly by the Lot 25 owner and the Parcel A owner, not the association. The road must be constructed to reasonably mitigate light exposure to surrounding homes, and the association’s Architectural Control Committee will review and approve the road’s final design.
The second component addresses payments from McMakin to the association. Brittney said the settlement establishes tiered payments based on the number of lots ultimately platted on Parcel A, though she did not disclose specific dollar figures. She stated the first payment, due within 30 days of a successful declaration amendment vote, would be more than double the association’s legal fees incurred over the past two years. Additional payments are tied to the number of lots platted and to the eventual sale of those lots, with funds held in escrow in cases while the number of lots is not yet determined at the time of a sale.
Brittney and Ziegler both emphasized that none of these terms take effect unless the community approves the associated amendment to the declaration. If the amendment does not pass, the settlement is voided and litigation resumes.
Section 8 — Motion to Approve the Settlement
Ziegler moved to approve the settlement documents and exhibits as presented to the board. Edwards seconded the motion. Ziegler then opened the floor for community comment before the board’s vote.
Section 9 — Community Comments on the Settlement
Several community members raised questions and comments on the settlement before the board voted.
Jon Karp asked whether homes on Parcel A would be part of the association, whether any funds paid to the association might be directed specifically to lots bordering the 40 acre parcel, and whether a gate at the main entrance to Parcel A had been discussed. His tone was engaged and largely supportive of the settlement’s progress, while pressing for specifics on compensation and access. Brittney responded that Parcel A is not part of the association and would require a separate declaration amendment to become part of it, that the board had not yet discussed allocation of settlement funds, and that nothing in the settlement currently prevents a gate at the main entrance if it is a private street.
Mike Green asked how a court imposed deadline of August 5 for either a dismissal filing or a hearing date would affect the timing of the community’s vote. His tone was procedural and pointed. Brittney answered that board approval and signature of the settlement would allow the association to notify the court a settlement had been reached, but formal dismissal of the litigation would not occur until after the community’s vote and, if approved, recording of the declaration amendment.
Calvin Craig, speaking again in his capacity as a community member, opened with a complimentary tone, commending both parties for reaching what he called a fair agreement, and drew a contrast to a prior experience with a neighboring development that lacked any such agreement. He then raised substantive questions in a more measured tone, including whether homeowners who paid additional dues due to the litigation might see some return of funds, whether an owner of both Lot 25 and Parcel A would be entitled to attend and observe community meetings, and how water service would be arranged for the parcel’s lots. Brittney responded that McMakin holds 17 existing water taps from the water district, more than sufficient for the maximum of 12 lots allowed, and confirmed that an owner of both Lot 25 and Parcel A would be entitled to attend open meetings under the same rules as any other lot owner, though would be excluded from executive session discussions involving related legal disputes.
Teri Hochstedler spoke in an appreciative but firm tone, thanking the current board for continuing the prior board’s work on the settlement, then raising two concerns she described as significant enough to affect her ability to support the settlement. She asked that the board release the owners of the two lots directly across from the planned development from existing easements, citing that the current settlement plan does not include the community recommended annexation of parcel A into CEPOA, resulting in concerns about trespassing and safety given that the parcel would not be part of the association and therefore outside the board’s enforcement authority. She also expressed concern about the settlement funds being directed to the association without a stated plan for their use. Ziegler acknowledged both concerns as noted for consideration, stating the board could not address either at that time.
James asked for clarification on whether Lot 25 would become the primary entrance to the community and asked about the legal status of the related easement dispute between the Hoffmans and McMakin. His tone was brief and clarifying. Brittney confirmed that the county had required two access points for the development, a primary access and a separate emergency access, and that the arrangement discussed with McMakin’s developers reflected that requirement.
John Tracey asked in a probing tone whether the settlement would eliminate the association’s existing covenant against using a lot to access property outside the community, and asked for background on how the underlying lawsuit began. Brittney provided a condensed version of the dispute’s origin, reiterating that the association had intervened after learning that a proposed access arrangement between the Hoffmans and McMakin would have violated the association’s declaration.
William Mathias asked, in a cautious tone, whether a future sale of the 40 acre parcel to a third party could reopen the dispute or unsettle the agreed terms. Brittney answered that the settlement’s terms would be recorded as covenants on the land itself, binding on any future owner regardless of who purchases the property.
Mark Hochstedler spoke last, in a reflective and measured tone, recalling that during his time on the prior board, the board had discussed the possibility of reducing dues for a year or two if settlement funds were received, though he noted uncertainty over whether direct payments to homeowners would be appropriate.
Hochstedler also recalled early conversations with Brittney and other attorneys at the beginning of the lawsuit about how quickly the demands of pursuing litigation like this can affect members, and noted the burnout and infighting that did occur, and how it seems the current settlement terms would result in only three fewer homes than originally proposed, and the appearance of a payoff.
Section 10 — Settlement Vote
Following community comments, the board voted on the motion to approve the settlement documents and exhibits. McVicker voted yes. Edwards voted yes. Gunderson voted yes. Mitnick abstained, which Ziegler noted was consistent with her abstentions throughout the matter due to prior involvement predating her time on the current board. Ziegler voted yes. With quorum present, the motion passed four in favor with one abstention.
Section 11 — Trail Maintenance Responsibility Review
Ziegler reported that the board does not yet have a sufficiently complete answer to adopt a formal position on trail maintenance responsibility, and that review of county title, easement mapping, and insurance questions is ongoing. He noted Brittney is assisting with this review under the association’s existing monthly retainer, separate from litigation costs.
Section 12 — New Business: Annual Meeting and Board Transitions
Ziegler raised the possibility of shifting the annual meeting date, historically held in December [only held in December in 2025 due to legal timing], to October, November, or January, in order to align in-person voting during the annual meeting and board elections with the anticipated community vote on the declaration amendment. He stated that Gunderson and McVicker have agreed to step down from their board seats at the next election, consistent with a transition plan begun under the prior board to stagger board terms so that not all five seats turn over simultaneously. New board members would serve two year terms. Ziegler asked community members on the call to help spread word that the board is seeking two new members.
Section 13 — Closing Open Forum
Ziegler opened a final round of community comment. Teri Hochstedler asked for clarification on the date of the next meeting, noting that meetings are typically held on the third Tuesday of the month, while Ziegler had stated August 25, the fourth Tuesday. Ziegler confirmed her correction, stating the next meeting would be held August 18. No further comments were raised.
Section 14 — Adjournment and Next Meeting
The next regular board meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, August 18, 2026. Ziegler moved to adjourn the meeting, McVicker seconded, and the meeting adjourned at approximately 9 p.m.