Re: Does the USPS pay for cluster mailboxes?
Good Morning Karen,
The PO will only deliver to cluster
mailboxes in developments like 3 Canyons. There are no individual
mailboxes in 3 Canyons. The developer of Fairfield Estates should
have put in cluster mailboxes with enough tenant doors for all the
lots, but he did it on the cheap with no paved roads, no
mailboxes, very shallow wells, and insufficient wells (we're on a
9 share).? My guess is that the developer of VDO installled the
mailboxes at the time the roads were paved and even before there
were any houses. At Covey Run there is a 13 door unit and a 2 door
parcel box but only three houses. Likewise at Wild Horse, the part
with the entrance on Andalusian Way, they have eight units of 16
doors, enough for 128 homes, and the development isn't even half
built out.
If you don't mind me asking, where are
you? Just curious.
Ken
On 3/14/2021 6:52 AM, Karen McKnight
wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Hello I have a question also on the payment of
installation of the mailboxes.? Has anyone looked into the
developers responsibility? ? Also it might be worth checking
with the VDO HOA to see what steps they took to install their
mailboxes if this hasn't been done already? What's the
difference in installing individual mailboxes, might be cheaper
as each person would be responsible for their own mailboxes
located at their homes?? Just a thought..
Karen
There
have been two comments on
about "if the USPS will pay
for the mail boxes". If you are not on , then you didn't see
them. It's a pain for me to have two email list, and to
relay this type
of information to only a very few not on . Frankly, at this
point, I figure that if you're not on , then you're really
not
that interested in keeping up with what's going on. So, from
now on I'm
only dealing with .
However, I hope those of you who haven't
joined will
want to continue communicating with the community.
If you want to join, I will be happy to help.
The comments were:
"I thought the post office was providing the mailbox unit.
Not sure what
they charge."
and
"I was also under the impression the post office provides
and installs
the boxes"
At the only Board meeting I've been at, someone commented
that the PO
would pay for the boxes. They were going to look into it,
but I've heard
nothing more. It may be true under some circumstances, but
everything
I've read on the web is like the following:
"Appropriate mail receptacles must be provided for the
receipt of mail.
The type of mail receptacle depends on the mode of delivery
in place.
Purchase, installation, and maintenance of mail receptacles
are the
responsibility of the customer."
Most of what I've read seems to pertain to new developments,
so maybe
that doesn't pertain to us. I haven't pursued it yet because
it makes no
sense to me. Why would the USPS pay for cluster mailboxes so
we will
stop paying to rent boxes at the post office? But life often
doesn't
make sense, lol.
In any case, I was going to ask the Postmaster, Doug Hover,
about it
when I talked to him about approving the site.? Back in
September when
this all started, he did come out and approve the site at
the "pull-out"
on the east side of Fairfield Cir directly across from the
present
preferred site. But the approval was for a drive-around
installation
like at Vista Del Oro. I've learned an enormous amount about
easements
etc since then.? The VDO site was on HOA property, and we
don't have
that luxury. Doug is a very reasonable guy and I don't
expect him to
have any problem approving the new site on the west side of
the road.
In any case, I'll definitely ask him about USPS owned boxes.
Ken
|
Re: Does the USPS pay for cluster mailboxes?
Hello I have a question also on the payment of installation of the mailboxes.? Has anyone looked into the developers responsibility? ? Also it might be worth checking with the VDO HOA to see what steps they took to install their mailboxes if this hasn't been done already? What's the difference in installing individual mailboxes, might be cheaper as each person would be responsible for their own mailboxes located at their homes?? Just a thought..
Karen
There have been two comments on about "if the USPS will pay
for the mail boxes". If you are not on , then you didn't see
them. It's a pain for me to have two email list, and to relay this type
of information to only a very few not on . Frankly, at this
point, I figure that if you're not on , then you're really not
that interested in keeping up with what's going on. So, from now on I'm
only dealing with . However, I hope those of you who haven't
joined will want to continue communicating with the community.
If you want to join, I will be happy to help.
The comments were:
"I thought the post office was providing the mailbox unit. Not sure what
they charge."
and
"I was also under the impression the post office provides and installs
the boxes"
At the only Board meeting I've been at, someone commented that the PO
would pay for the boxes. They were going to look into it, but I've heard
nothing more. It may be true under some circumstances, but everything
I've read on the web is like the following:
"Appropriate mail receptacles must be provided for the receipt of mail.
The type of mail receptacle depends on the mode of delivery in place.
Purchase, installation, and maintenance of mail receptacles are the
responsibility of the customer."
Most of what I've read seems to pertain to new developments, so maybe
that doesn't pertain to us. I haven't pursued it yet because it makes no
sense to me. Why would the USPS pay for cluster mailboxes so we will
stop paying to rent boxes at the post office? But life often doesn't
make sense, lol.
In any case, I was going to ask the Postmaster, Doug Hover, about it
when I talked to him about approving the site.? Back in September when
this all started, he did come out and approve the site at the "pull-out"
on the east side of Fairfield Cir directly across from the present
preferred site. But the approval was for a drive-around installation
like at Vista Del Oro. I've learned an enormous amount about easements
etc since then.? The VDO site was on HOA property, and we don't have
that luxury. Doug is a very reasonable guy and I don't expect him to
have any problem approving the new site on the west side of the road.
In any case, I'll definitely ask him about USPS owned boxes.
Ken
|
Does the USPS pay for cluster mailboxes?
There have been two comments on groups.io about "if the USPS will pay for the mail boxes". If you are not on groups.io, then you didn't see them. It's a pain for me to have two email list, and to relay this type of information to only a very few not on groups.io. Frankly, at this point, I figure that if you're not on groups.io, then you're really not that interested in keeping up with what's going on. So, from now on I'm only dealing with groups.io. However, I hope those of you who haven't joined groups.io will want to continue communicating with the community. If you want to join, I will be happy to help.
The comments were:
"I thought the post office was providing the mailbox unit. Not sure what they charge."
and
"I was also under the impression the post office provides and installs the boxes"
At the only Board meeting I've been at, someone commented that the PO would pay for the boxes. They were going to look into it, but I've heard nothing more. It may be true under some circumstances, but everything I've read on the web is like the following:
"Appropriate mail receptacles must be provided for the receipt of mail. The type of mail receptacle depends on the mode of delivery in place. Purchase, installation, and maintenance of mail receptacles are the responsibility of the customer."
Most of what I've read seems to pertain to new developments, so maybe that doesn't pertain to us. I haven't pursued it yet because it makes no sense to me. Why would the USPS pay for cluster mailboxes so we will stop paying to rent boxes at the post office? But life often doesn't make sense, lol.
In any case, I was going to ask the Postmaster, Doug Hover, about it when I talked to him about approving the site.? Back in September when this all started, he did come out and approve the site at the "pull-out" on the east side of Fairfield Cir directly across from the present preferred site. But the approval was for a drive-around installation like at Vista Del Oro. I've learned an enormous amount about easements etc since then.? The VDO site was on HOA property, and we don't have that luxury. Doug is a very reasonable guy and I don't expect him to have any problem approving the new site on the west side of the road.
In any case, I'll definitely ask him about USPS owned boxes.
Ken
|
Re: Meeting and Cost Estimates
I was also under the impression the post office provides and installs the boxes
|
Re: Meeting and Cost Estimates
I thought the post office was providing the mailbox unit. Not sure what they charge.?
Bill
Gail, My assumption all along has been
that the costs will be cover by our Road District tax money, and
I've never heard anything to the contrary. That is why the Board
needs to vote on it.
Ken
On 3/13/2021 9:32 AM, Gail Pielack
wrote:
Thanks for the info.?
And your hard?work
I agree to even division of costs.?
Gail and Jon Admore?
On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 8:39 AM
Ken Cameron < rocks@...> wrote:
Jim
I completely agree that the Board
should consider all options for siting the mailboxes, and
it needs to vote on the site. But, I can¡¯t think of any
site along Fairfield Cir that is equal to or better than
site #3 in terms of legality, spaciousness, and
convenience. Maybe some property owner will donate land,
and we can have large, off-road mailbox site like they do
in Vista Del Oro.
Below are some cost estimates. Those
types of cost will apply wherever the mailboxes are
located.
Speaking of costs, I assume that at the
Board meeting there will be a financial report and
financial plan. I¡¯ve only been to one Board meeting, but I
haven¡¯t seen any financial information or heard any
discussion of a financial plan.
Thanks,
Ken
?Most cluster mailbox units have both
tenant boxes and parcel lockers, and both are generally
about 12¡± wide and 15¡± deep. An important difference among
the different models is the height of the tenant boxes.
The some are about 3¡± high, but others are nearly 5¡± high,
which means they will more likely take packages than the
smaller boxes.
The two most common models of mailboxes
the size that we will need have either 16 or 13 tenant
doors ?(see attached images and links
below). We will need two units because there are a total
of 30 properties in Fairfield Estates and 18 homes at
present.
The 16-door model has the smaller
tenant boxes 3¡± high but two parcel lockers. Two of these
would provide more tenant boxes than we would ever need.
You can see examples of these units at Vista Del Oro.
The 13-door model has the larger 5¡±
high tenant boxes although it only has one parcel locker.
Two of these units would have 26 tenant boxes, which would
likely be enough for years to come, perhaps ever, as some
lots are likely to be held as buffers rather than being
built on. You can see examples of these units at Covey
Run, a couple miles east on 3 Canyons.?
Most cluster mailbox installations have
additional parcel lockers, and these are either 2 or 4
door models. Personally, I would prefer the 4-door model
because I really don¡¯t want to go to the post office to
pick up parcels, especially at Christmas when the line is
long, lol.
Cost estimate:
Surveyors need to establish the
property line $?
2 mailbox units: 2x ~$1400 = ~$2800
1 parcel locker =? ~$1200 to ~$1727
taxes and delivery= few hundred dollars
gravel and delivery ~$1000
Site preparation = ? (digging out couple mesquite, grade,
concrete pad, installation of units) ?(Can
any of our property owners do some of these?)
?
|
Re: Meeting and Cost Estimates
Gail, My assumption all along has been
that the costs will be cover by our Road District tax money, and
I've never heard anything to the contrary. That is why the Board
needs to vote on it.
Ken
On 3/13/2021 9:32 AM, Gail Pielack
wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Thanks for the info.?
And your hard?work
I agree to even division of costs.?
Gail and Jon Admore?
On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 8:39 AM
Ken Cameron < rocks@...> wrote:
Jim
I completely agree that the Board
should consider all options for siting the mailboxes, and
it needs to vote on the site. But, I can¡¯t think of any
site along Fairfield Cir that is equal to or better than
site #3 in terms of legality, spaciousness, and
convenience. Maybe some property owner will donate land,
and we can have large, off-road mailbox site like they do
in Vista Del Oro.
Below are some cost estimates. Those
types of cost will apply wherever the mailboxes are
located.
Speaking of costs, I assume that at the
Board meeting there will be a financial report and
financial plan. I¡¯ve only been to one Board meeting, but I
haven¡¯t seen any financial information or heard any
discussion of a financial plan.
Thanks,
Ken
?Most cluster mailbox units have both
tenant boxes and parcel lockers, and both are generally
about 12¡± wide and 15¡± deep. An important difference among
the different models is the height of the tenant boxes.
The some are about 3¡± high, but others are nearly 5¡± high,
which means they will more likely take packages than the
smaller boxes.
The two most common models of mailboxes
the size that we will need have either 16 or 13 tenant
doors ?(see attached images and links
below). We will need two units because there are a total
of 30 properties in Fairfield Estates and 18 homes at
present.
The 16-door model has the smaller
tenant boxes 3¡± high but two parcel lockers. Two of these
would provide more tenant boxes than we would ever need.
You can see examples of these units at Vista Del Oro.
The 13-door model has the larger 5¡±
high tenant boxes although it only has one parcel locker.
Two of these units would have 26 tenant boxes, which would
likely be enough for years to come, perhaps ever, as some
lots are likely to be held as buffers rather than being
built on. You can see examples of these units at Covey
Run, a couple miles east on 3 Canyons.?
Most cluster mailbox installations have
additional parcel lockers, and these are either 2 or 4
door models. Personally, I would prefer the 4-door model
because I really don¡¯t want to go to the post office to
pick up parcels, especially at Christmas when the line is
long, lol.
Cost estimate:
Surveyors need to establish the
property line $?
2 mailbox units: 2x ~$1400 = ~$2800
1 parcel locker =? ~$1200 to ~$1727
taxes and delivery= few hundred dollars
gravel and delivery ~$1000
Site preparation = ? (digging out couple mesquite, grade,
concrete pad, installation of units) ?(Can
any of our property owners do some of these?)
?
|
Meeting and Cost Estimates
Jim
I completely agree that the Board should
consider all options
for siting the mailboxes, and it needs to vote on the site. But, I
can¡¯t think
of any site along Fairfield Cir that is equal to or better than
site #3 in
terms of legality, spaciousness, and convenience. Maybe some
property owner
will donate land, and we can have large, off-road mailbox site
like they do in
Vista Del Oro.
Below are some cost estimates. Those types of
cost will
apply wherever the mailboxes are located.
Speaking of costs, I assume that at the Board
meeting there
will be a financial report and financial plan. I¡¯ve only been to
one Board
meeting, but I haven¡¯t seen any financial information or heard any
discussion
of a financial plan.
Thanks,
Ken
?Most cluster mailbox units have both tenant
boxes and parcel
lockers, and both are generally about 12¡± wide and 15¡± deep. An
important
difference among the different models is the height of the tenant
boxes. The some
are about 3¡± high, but others are nearly 5¡± high, which means they
will more
likely take packages than the smaller boxes.
The two most common models of mailboxes the
size that we
will need have either 16 or 13 tenant doors ?(see attached images and links
below). We will
need two units because there are a total of 30 properties in
Fairfield Estates
and 18 homes at present.
The 16-door model has the smaller tenant boxes
3¡± high but
two parcel lockers. Two of these would provide more tenant boxes
than we would ever
need. You can see examples of these units at Vista Del Oro.
The 13-door model has the larger 5¡± high tenant
boxes
although it only has one parcel locker. Two of these units would
have 26 tenant
boxes, which would likely be enough for years to come, perhaps
ever, as some
lots are likely to be held as buffers rather than being built on.
You can see
examples of these units at Covey Run, a couple miles east on 3
Canyons.?
Most cluster mailbox installations have
additional parcel
lockers, and these are either 2 or 4 door models. Personally, I
would prefer the
4-door model because I really don¡¯t want to go to the post office
to pick up
parcels, especially at Christmas when the line is long, lol.
Cost estimate:
Surveyors need to establish the property line
$?
2 mailbox units: 2x ~$1400 = ~$2800
1 parcel locker =? ~$1200
to ~$1727
taxes and delivery= few hundred dollars
gravel and delivery ~$1000
Site preparation = ? (digging out couple mesquite, grade, concrete
pad,
installation of units) ?(Can
any of our property
owners do some of these?)
?
|
Jim,
I agree. When do you want to meet? Hal
should send an email to all those at the last board meeting. I've
forgotten who all was there.
Thanks for the kind words. I know that
forming the road district was an order of magnitude more difficult
than simply finding a location for the mailboxes. We all have
benefited enormously from having the district so thank you Jim and
Mark and anyone else involved who still lives here. I do want to
write the history of the district.
Yes there was some glitch in your
joining groups.io. For some reason you weren't confirmed, and that
happened to two others. I'll have a confirmation email sent to
you. I think you will just need to reply.
Ken
On 3/11/2021 10:45 PM, Jim Ruby wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I
tried to post to the group, but it bounced back.
I
believe a board meeting is in order to discuss all the options
and put it to a vote.
I
would really like to not involve Nathan until we absolutely
have to. He charges by the hour and for everything.
I
also want to take this time to tell you how much we all
appreciate your efforts, energy and dedication to this
project.
I
don't believe anyone has worked this hard on a project since
we formed the district 10 years ago.
Jim
Ruby
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 3:41
PM Ken Cameron < rocks@...> wrote:
Jim
and Nathan,
Jim, is Nathan authorized to send the letter to the Eller's
regarding
the Road District's intent to install the cluster mailboxes?
Nathan, what do you need from us? Are the photos, simulation
and sketch
of the site plan sufficient, or do they need to be better
done?
Ken
ps. Jim, thanks for joining .
--
|
Re: Important Comment from Mark Boggie
Those of you who haven't joined groups.io have been out of the loop for some emails and this is an important one from Mark so I'm sending it to everyone.? (It would certainly simplify my life if everyone joined groups.io.)? I think it's extremely important to have the history of FERMID recorded and given to every new homeowner so they will understand how we got to the present situation. I will be happy to meet with Jim and Mark and record as much detail as they remember. To answer Mark's question, I don't know about the easements on those two properties.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 3/11/2021 8:59 AM, Mark Boggie wrote: ?
? 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.
Mark P. Boggie
|
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>
|
Re: Last call for responses
Karen, As I said, I suspect it is
because your end of the road was not planned to be a road by the
developer, and it's not shown as a road on the county parcel map.
But I really don't know.? The FERMID governance document should
shed some light on the question so it's another reason to get a
copy of that document. ?
Ken
On 3/11/2021 8:32 AM, Karen McKnight
wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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.?
|
Re: Last call for responses
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.?
|
Re: Last call for responses
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:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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.?
|
Re: Last call for responses
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.?
|
Re: Last call for responses
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.? 
|
Re: Last call for responses
²Ñ²¹¡¯²¹³¾,
I ?guess I don¡¯t understand why traffic would increase down the dirt road to your house. It¡¯s approximately a 1/4 mile from where the proposed mail boxes would go to your house. And the site is before the turn onto Paseo Venado. Additionally there is space on the opposite side of the road from the mail box to turn around. I would imagine the only ones drive down towards your house are lost as it is a dead end. Given all the options I do not really see how any others are better and more neutral than site #3.?
Matthew Paddock
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Mar 10, 2021, at 22:00, Karen McKnight <imecorp@...> wrote:
? I meant significantly not signification auto correct (bummer)? On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:58 PM Karen McKnight via <imecorp= [email protected]> wrote: Hi Neighbors:
I understand the legal aspect of it, however my concern is that a flow of traffic at site#3 would bring significant traffic to my property.? My area of Fairfield road suffers signification since The Fairfield ?Road organization did not extend the paved road to my area ; which suffers when in Monsoon.?
?I can see my area of Fairfield road, becoming a turnaround spot if the mailboxes are put ?at site 3. I already get trespassers whom take the liberties of using my property as a throughway.?
?I suggest we look at a neutral location that affects no-ones property. ? With this being said I'm not saying no ?but not saying yes at this time.?
Any feedback would be welcomed.
Thanks, Karen
Thank you Karen for your question.
I assume that you are referring to near
the intersection of Fairfield and 3 Canyons.? That is potential
site #1 referred to in previous emails. The Road District
attorney, Nathan Williams, looked at the easement documents for
both that site and #3 and concluded that legally we have a much
better case for installing the mailboxes on the easement of site
#3 than #1.? This is because the easement for site #1 is just the
usual broad easement for "ingress/egress and utilities" and is not
a specific agreement between the Road District and the property
owner, the Palominas School District.? In contrast, the easement
agreement for site #3 is specifically between the Road District
and the previous landowner and gives the Road District much more
latitude as what we can do in the easement.
Personally I see other advantages to
site #3 over #1 such as it's much more spacious than what we would
have at site #1.?
Ken
On 3/10/2021 6:46 PM, Karen McKnight
wrote:
I was just wandering why the mailboxes couldn't be
placed at the beginning of the street by the entrance, where
there are no homes and traffic would be to a minimum ?
Hi
All,
I'm sure you're getting really tired of getting emails from
me, but I
would like to get as many responses as possible regarding
the proposed
location of the mailboxes. Of the 17 homeowners on the email
lists, so
far 12 have responded with a thumbs up and none with a
thumbs down.? If
you haven't responded, please do so by midnight tonight.
Thanks,
Ken
|
Re: Last call for responses
I meant significantly not signification auto correct (bummer)?
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:58 PM Karen McKnight via <imecorp= [email protected]> wrote: Hi Neighbors:
I understand the legal aspect of it, however my concern is that a flow of traffic at site#3 would bring significant traffic to my property.? My area of Fairfield road suffers signification since The Fairfield ?Road organization did not extend the paved road to my area ; which suffers when in Monsoon.?
?I can see my area of Fairfield road, becoming a turnaround spot if the mailboxes are put ?at site 3. I already get trespassers whom take the liberties of using my property as a throughway.?
?I suggest we look at a neutral location that affects no-ones property. ? With this being said I'm not saying no ?but not saying yes at this time.?
Any feedback would be welcomed.
Thanks, Karen
Thank you Karen for your question.
I assume that you are referring to near
the intersection of Fairfield and 3 Canyons.? That is potential
site #1 referred to in previous emails. The Road District
attorney, Nathan Williams, looked at the easement documents for
both that site and #3 and concluded that legally we have a much
better case for installing the mailboxes on the easement of site
#3 than #1.? This is because the easement for site #1 is just the
usual broad easement for "ingress/egress and utilities" and is not
a specific agreement between the Road District and the property
owner, the Palominas School District.? In contrast, the easement
agreement for site #3 is specifically between the Road District
and the previous landowner and gives the Road District much more
latitude as what we can do in the easement.
Personally I see other advantages to
site #3 over #1 such as it's much more spacious than what we would
have at site #1.?
Ken
On 3/10/2021 6:46 PM, Karen McKnight
wrote:
I was just wandering why the mailboxes couldn't be
placed at the beginning of the street by the entrance, where
there are no homes and traffic would be to a minimum ?
Hi
All,
I'm sure you're getting really tired of getting emails from
me, but I
would like to get as many responses as possible regarding
the proposed
location of the mailboxes. Of the 17 homeowners on the email
lists, so
far 12 have responded with a thumbs up and none with a
thumbs down.? If
you haven't responded, please do so by midnight tonight.
Thanks,
Ken
|
Re: Last call for responses
Hi Neighbors:
I understand the legal aspect of it, however my concern is that a flow of traffic at site#3 would bring significant traffic to my property.? My area of Fairfield road suffers signification since The Fairfield ?Road organization did not extend the paved road to my area ; which suffers when in Monsoon.?
?I can see my area of Fairfield road, becoming a turnaround spot if the mailboxes are put ?at site 3. I already get trespassers whom take the liberties of using my property as a throughway.?
?I suggest we look at a neutral location that affects no-ones property. ? With this being said I'm not saying no ?but not saying yes at this time.?
Any feedback would be welcomed.
Thanks, Karen
Thank you Karen for your question.
I assume that you are referring to near
the intersection of Fairfield and 3 Canyons.? That is potential
site #1 referred to in previous emails. The Road District
attorney, Nathan Williams, looked at the easement documents for
both that site and #3 and concluded that legally we have a much
better case for installing the mailboxes on the easement of site
#3 than #1.? This is because the easement for site #1 is just the
usual broad easement for "ingress/egress and utilities" and is not
a specific agreement between the Road District and the property
owner, the Palominas School District.? In contrast, the easement
agreement for site #3 is specifically between the Road District
and the previous landowner and gives the Road District much more
latitude as what we can do in the easement.
Personally I see other advantages to
site #3 over #1 such as it's much more spacious than what we would
have at site #1.?
Ken
On 3/10/2021 6:46 PM, Karen McKnight
wrote:
I was just wandering why the mailboxes couldn't be
placed at the beginning of the street by the entrance, where
there are no homes and traffic would be to a minimum ?
Hi
All,
I'm sure you're getting really tired of getting emails from
me, but I
would like to get as many responses as possible regarding
the proposed
location of the mailboxes. Of the 17 homeowners on the email
lists, so
far 12 have responded with a thumbs up and none with a
thumbs down.? If
you haven't responded, please do so by midnight tonight.
Thanks,
Ken
|
Re: Last call for responses
Thank you Karen for your question.
I assume that you are referring to near
the intersection of Fairfield and 3 Canyons.? That is potential
site #1 referred to in previous emails. The Road District
attorney, Nathan Williams, looked at the easement documents for
both that site and #3 and concluded that legally we have a much
better case for installing the mailboxes on the easement of site
#3 than #1.? This is because the easement for site #1 is just the
usual broad easement for "ingress/egress and utilities" and is not
a specific agreement between the Road District and the property
owner, the Palominas School District.? In contrast, the easement
agreement for site #3 is specifically between the Road District
and the previous landowner and gives the Road District much more
latitude as what we can do in the easement.
Personally I see other advantages to
site #3 over #1 such as it's much more spacious than what we would
have at site #1.?
Ken
On 3/10/2021 6:46 PM, Karen McKnight
wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I was just wandering why the mailboxes couldn't be
placed at the beginning of the street by the entrance, where
there are no homes and traffic would be to a minimum ?
Hi
All,
I'm sure you're getting really tired of getting emails from
me, but I
would like to get as many responses as possible regarding
the proposed
location of the mailboxes. Of the 17 homeowners on the email
lists, so
far 12 have responded with a thumbs up and none with a
thumbs down.? If
you haven't responded, please do so by midnight tonight.
Thanks,
Ken
|
Hi Ken. I have emailed Jim and tried calling Jimmy Ruby but I was unsuccessful contacting either of them as of tonight. Hal Nyander
Those
of you
who haven¡¯t joined [email protected]
haven¡¯t seen the replies to my email yesterday, but thus far 11
of the 17
households have replied positively and none negatively. One of
the advantages
of that group is that all the replies are public and saved on
the website. If
you haven¡¯t joined, I encourage you to join so I¡¯ll only have to
deal with one
email list. If you haven't found your invitation email, I'll be
happy to have another sent.
Ken
|
