Re: Last call for responses
|
? ? A bit of history (as far back as I can go) regarding the pavement of Fairfield. ?I may not have all the facts and Jim Ruby will need to fill in where I am mistaken or missing information.
As the FERMID began considering the project the first step was to obtain property easements from all property owners. ?In my recollection the owners of the properties marked Jones¡¯ and 8081 Fairfield Circle did not agree and did not provide easement agreements to the FERMID. Ken, does the FERMID now possess the easement to the two properties indicated? ?The FERMID tax assessment is a different issue. ?The tax assessment was levied on all properties whether the owners supplied an easement agreement or not. I am fuzzy here on how that all occurred.
In addition, Fairfield major (not including any side streets or ¡°driveways on private property¡±) was the first step in the pavement process...Venado was paved later so the extension of Fairfield north of Venado was not planned (nor ANY of the side streets). As mentioned, Venado was paved some time later and extensions down the side roads were done to preserve the intersections, where possible.
Again, these may not be completely accurate facts as I am writing from memory from almost 10 years ago.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Mar 11, 2021, at 8:32 AM, Karen McKnight <imecorp@...> wrote:
? This is an excellent question. I was perplexed why my end of the road was not paved.? If someone could shed some light on this it would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Karen
Karen¡¯s statement, ¡°The Fairfield ?Road
organization
did not extend the paved road to my area¡¡± brings up a question
I¡¯ve thought
about. What are the roads that the Fairfield Estates Road
Maintenance and Improvement
District (FERMID) are responsible for? I assume they are defined
in the governance
document, and I suspect that they are the roads the original
developer planned
and those are shown on the county parcel map (attached). Karen¡¯s
driveway is on
the easement of the Odean and Sandoval property shown on the map
in Philip¡¯s
email.
You may have noticed something odd about the
way I outlined
Fairfield Estates (FE) on the attached map. Karen¡¯s property is
8081 FC and the
parcel immediately to the north looks like it should be in FE. I
left it out
because it has an address on Circle S Drive. Philip¡¯s photo
shows it is separated
from Karen¡¯s property and the rest of FE by a dry wash, and they
don¡¯t use our
roads. I checked their tax document, and it turns out the
property is in FE,
however it¡¯s not taxed by FERMID, which is fair.
Ken
Just saw Karen last email. Thank you, Karen.
On 3/11/2021 8:06 AM, Karen McKnight
wrote:
Thank you for the layout and explanation .? I then
have no issues with option #3.
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 8:15
AM Philip Apodaca < PSAAPO@...> wrote:
I
concur with Mr. Paddock and want to also point out it would
be on the paved portion and there is another property
between you and the proposed site.?<Screenshot_20210311-071106_onX Hunt.jpg>
|
