NOTES ON MEETING OF EEEHA BOARD COMMITTEE ON FORMING CITY-APPROVED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION December 4, 2008 7:00pm to 10:00pm at John Rupley's home Present: Joana Diamos, Elaine Hegstrom, Brad Rollings, John Rupley Absent: Guy Borders [will meet with JAR subsequently) [note: DNR has been merged into CSD, Community Services Dept.; we use here the old acronym, DNR, to minimize confusion] I. AIM: develop consensus on recommendation to EEEHA board block out report to board II. STRAW POLLS, TO DETERMINE STARTING POINTS FOR DISCUSSION: [the details of the polls are given at the end of this file] Summary of Polls on: REASONS TO FORM A CITY-APPROVED ASSOCIATION HIGH-RANKED BENEFIT (ranked 5 on a scale of 4 to 20): automatic noticing by DSD, etc. LOW-RANKED BENEFITS (14 to 20 on 4 to 20 scale): information from DNR mailings by DNR help with cleanups access to city grants and programs Summary of Polls on: POSSIBLE ACTIONS DO THIS persuade EEE residents to seek board expertise when applying for building permits/variances/etc WEAK REJECTION form city-approved NA, keep HOA (dual structure) STRONG REJECTION change HOA to city-approved NA (single structure) DEFER form city-approved coalition DEFER wait for and work for NPZ III. DISCUSSION [this was free-form - principal points are summarized] PURPOSE OF ANY ACTIONS TO BE RECOMMENDED TO THE BOARD from the EEEHA bylaws; 2. Specific Purposes. The specific purposes of this Association shall include, without limitation, the following: (a) to promote the quality of life of the residents of El Encanto Estates and its environs; ... [(b) and (c) concern association property - and are moot] (d) to encourage the residents and property owners of El Encanto Estates to maintain and enhance buildings, grounds and properties to the standards appropriate to a high quality residential area; (e) to promote compliance with any and all restrictions as to the use of lots and improvements situated thereon within El Encanto Estates as set forth in ... the Code of Ordinances of the City of Tucson, Arizona, and any applicable area or neighborhood plans of the City of Tucson, including but not limited to the El Encanto--Colonia Solana Neighborhood plan; and (f) to carry on and maintain any and all services which shall be desired by the members of the Association. all homes in EEE are affected by building, renovation, or remodeling that alters the historical context, e.g., change in a facade removing a home from the list of contributing structures, or building close to the street property line, or building a wall that blocks view of a facade, etc. the committee ranked highest among the benefits of forming a city-approved NA, the automatic noticing of variance/rezoning requests, liquor licenses, transportation plans and projects, etc. to realize the benefits of noticing, the EEEHA board must be willing to act for EEE residents as tutor, advocate, or adversary there appear to be procedures for realizing the benefits of noticing outside of forming a city-approved NA ACTIONS TO BE RECOMMENDED TO THE BOARD 1. persuade EEE residents to consult with board members who have knowledge of the neighborhood and of the possible impact of a remodeling or renovation project: if one is remodeling or renovating, consult at an early stage in planning, before submission of plans to DSD if one lives next to a home being remodeled or renovated, consult when first apprised of the project by the neighbor or by notice from DSD the sooner EEE residents consult with the board or a surrogate, the more likely we can avoid problems DSD does not notice except for requests for variances and rezoning, and the noticing is late in the approval process residents need to be made aware that they can ask the board for help: to this end, insert a paragraph in each newsletter, send a broadside separately once per year, include a brochure in the welcome package, etc. we should give advice on building and remodeling as seriously as we give advice on care of palm trees 2. identify a contractor who will assemble in a timely way information on requests to the city for building permits, variances and rezonings, liquor licenses, etc., for the area encompassed by EEE replicate the noticing by DSD, etc., and if possible enlarge the scope of events noticed, e.g., requests for building permits PRIVACY: strong concerns with regard to privacy blocked acceptance by the committee of conversion of the current HOA structure to city-approved NA, and contributed to blocking acceptance of a dual structure (form city-approved NA, keep existing HOA) concerns: meetings must be open to public (reporters, among others) if notices were sent by DNR mailing, which must be done for annual meeting and any meetings where officers are elected, bylaws changed, etc. all documents submitted to DNR are public record, accessible by freedom of information act; these include: officers' names and release forms charter and bylaws minutes of annual meeting minutes of meetings that change officers bylaws minutes of meetings noticed by DNR text of mailings sent through DNR (newsletters, etc.) some of above information is published on DNR website, including: officers' names text of newsletter DNR "censors" mailings: no benefit can be provided a homeowners association no advertisements (not a problem) no political information, except: information on how to vote, and notice of meetings at which all candidates are invited to speak DUAL STRUCTURE (PARALLEL HOA AND CITY-APPROVED NA) a dual structure is not uncommon among city-approved NA, e.g., Midvale Park, Udall Park, Rita Ranch, Mesquite Ranch (for all of these NA, we spoke with an officer of the association) in all cases, the one or more HOAs embedded within the boundaries of the NA function as businesses, fulfilling contractual obligations of upkeep, etc.; there is effectively no overlap between the aims and obligations of the NA and those of the HOA if a city-approved NA were formed to function in parallel with EEEHA, the aims and obligations of both would be essentially identical, and the NA and EEEHA would compete for city approval, an NA must not be subsidiary to an HOA, specifically, the governance of the NA must be fully independent of the HOA (nominations of officers/board members, elections, etc.) it would be unprincipled to run, if it were possible to do so, a city-approved NA as a subsidiary of the HOA the committee concluded that two independent organizations with essentially identical purview could not function together within a neighborhood such as EEE SINGLE STRUCTURE (CONVERSION OF EEEHA TO CITY-APPROVED NA) as noted above, this option is disfavored by privacy concerns the privacy concerns outweigh the benefits of noticing by DSD, etc. in addition, although not in itself disfavoring the single structure option, the committee believes that EEE residents would reject giving up what is familiar and has worked for 30 years PROCEDURES if the board were to decide to form a city-approved NA, under either the single or dual structure options, then at least the following steps would need to be carried out, without overt participation of EEEHA: submit an application to the city; select interim officers; develop bylaws inform EEE residents of arguments for and against the NA arrange for the city to call a meeting of EEE residents to vote on forming the NA, and to elect officers and board if vote is positive complete requirements of city for approval: minutes of meeting, signed bylaws, etc. NPZ a trial of the NPZ ordinance is under way, for the Feldman neighborhood near the university; it is in its early stages; legal challenges are likely; consideration of an NPZ overlay for EEE is not likely soon the design guidelines for the NPZ overlay would make noticing by DSD redundant CITY-APPROVED COALITION it should be possible for ten or more individuals in two or more neighborhoods to form a coalition recognized by the city; a city-approved coalition receives most of the benefits accorded an approved NA, possibly including noticing by DSD, etc. a coalition can be formed by the officers of an NA, without a vote by neighborhood residents forming a coalition might be a way for EEE to receive the benefits of a city-approved NA without the disadvantages of privacy violation or competition and confusion between a newly-established NA and existing HOA the approach would be cumbersome and would depend on the cooperation of another neighborhood this use of the coalition structure is untried; we should continue to collect information about a coalition formed from two neighborhoods without city-approved NAs the coalition structure is intended to facilitate coordination between neighborhoods in order to solve common problems, e.g., the homeless, renting to criminals, etc. establishment of a coalition of neighborhoods in the El Con area might be appropriately considered in the future ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DETAILS OF STRAW POLLS, TO DETERMINE STARTING POINTS FOR DISCUSSION: poll results are sum of rankings of 4 committee members present, with rankings ranging from 1 (highest/most important/most desirable) to 6, there being 6 items to rank relatively free-form discussion followed the first poll then there was a re-vote, ranking H=1 (highest/most important/most desirable), M=3, or L=5; rankings of re-vote are shown at start of each line REASONS TO FORM CITY-APPROVED ASSOCIATION 5=3H+?H 9 automatic noticing by DSD etc. 14=H+M+2L 10 information distributed by DNR (listservs, etc.) 18=M+3L 16 mailings 20=4L 16 help with cleanups 20=4L 16 access to city grants/programs 20=4L 17 block EEE insurgent group from forming competing NA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- POSSIBLE ACTIONS again a straw poll, ranking as above, followed by discussion, then a re-vote, with ranking = recommendation for action or inaction on particular option: DO THIS 9 persuade EEE residents to seek board expertise when applying for building permits/variances/etc or when responding to requests of a neighbor for support of their plans [option added by Joana Diamos, at start of meeting] DEFER 12 form city-approved coalition [interesting but useful in different context than means of getting DSD notices, etc.] NO+3weakNO 14 form city-approved NA, keep HOA (dual structure, HOA and NA) DEFER 14 wait for and work for NPZ [decide whether to embrace NPZ after trial has been worked through] MOOT 17 do nothing [we recommend doing something - first option above] 3strngNO+weakNO 18 change HOA to city-approved NA (single structure, NA formed from HOA) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- information passed out before/at meeting, see files on website, URL http://www.rupley.com/~guest/EEEHA/DNR/ DNR-background.txt information from dnr website DNR-coalitions-application-b-mod1.pdf DNR-coalitions-info-1-mod1.pdf information on Coalitions, scanned from pages supplied by DNR DNR-meeting-080930.txt notes on meeting with city representatives and Bill DuPont DNR-meeting-081009.txt notes on committee meeting on 10/9/08 DNR-meeting-081125-questions.txt DNR-meeting-081125.txt questions asked at and notes on meeting with Leticia Bermudez, DNR, on 11/25/08 DNR-meeting-081204-framework.txt framework for discussion at committee meeting on 12/4/08 other files on website, put in place previously or subsequent to meeting: DNR-meeting-081204.txt notes on committee meeting on 12/4/08 DNR-collection-081003.pdf collection of images of web pages from DNR website README index file