开云体育

Good morning neighbors. I will be burning my brush pile to day. I am at 5983 E Paseo Venado. I have a permit so please don’t call the FD on me. Thank you and have a great day! Matthew Paddock

Hello Ms. DoPadre, Hope all is well. Thank you for your email. As you know, I'm out of country, you are correct my tenant moved and there is a new tenant renting my home. However, I know that the homeowners association fees are currently due . If you could please email me the invoice or the amount due, I will ensure the payment is timely. As far as a mailing address, I do not have one that would allow for the invoice to reach me timely as I'm in an area that is classified which would hinder a timely payment. I thank you for your understanding and look forward to your prompt response Karen McKnight 8081 S. Fairfield Circle Hereford AZ 85615

Hi All, The Herald/Review is running a series on the 10th anniversary of the Monument Fire. The first story was today, and it was accompanied by the attached pdf of the fire map. If you like maps, then this one may interest you, Zoom in on FE then you can see that the boundary of the fire went right through the intersection of Fairfield Cir and PV and crossed CCB about mid-way along its length. Everything to the southeast burned including Vista Del Oro. Hope we get some rain soon! Ken

Hi Neighbors, Maybe some of you have noticed that the lower (north) end of Fairfield has been cleaned up a little. Some overhanging branches have been cut from the roadside and to the easement boundary (as near as I can tell). Some brush has been mowed thanks to Tom. This has made the lower end of Fairfield a much safer drive due to increased visibility and the space it provides for passing vehicles. I realize we are trying to secure a contract to maintain Fairfield on an annual or biannual basis but it is probably to the neighborhoods best interest to clean up the rest of Fairfield in the meantime - before the rainy season makes it harder. In discussion with Tom we have decided to form a one time work crew on one of the next two Saturday mornings to do the rest of the work which includes: - Clearing the rest of the tree/brush branches from encroaching over the road boundary (pushing them back about 5 feet from the road edge) on the rest of Fairfield. - Moving the larger rocks from that area so mowing can take place without hitting impediments and throwing them. - Getting a closer cut on the remaining weeds to clear visibility and provide the space needed for vehicles to pass comfortably. If you are interested in joining us we will schedule either May 22 (next Saturday) or May 29 (the Saturday during Memorial Day Weekend) at 7:00 AM and going until 9:00 AM or when we are done. Hopefully this will be a cooler part of the day. Also, please respond with your name and your preference on day (May 22 or May 29). Once the day is decided we will let everyone know. On the decided work day is set please make sure you bring work gloves, sturdy shoes, long sleeves and pants. You also may want to have a hat, eye protection and water. Any tools that may help the cause would be appreciated. I will bring a chain saw, loppers, clippers, shovels and an axe. Tom indicated we could use his tractor for mowing. Hope to see you there! Mark Boggie

As a follow up to Jimmy’s email, I agree that comments should be constructive, positive and informative. In that spirit, this is an important opportunity for the Board to explain its reasoning for calling for a vote on the mailbox location on Wednesday, May 5. Asking for an explanation shouldn’t be consider either nonconstructive or negative. These are questions about facts that we all agree on, and I’m asking them in a straightforward and most respectful way. The questions are important because they bear on if the members (taxpayers) were fully informed of all the reasonable options before we voted on May 5. (1) Site #3. There was considerable interest and support for mailboxes at site #3 because, to at least some, it is the most convenient site because of its proximity to the houses. In early March there was a thumbs-up or thumbs-down email vote on the site. Of the 17 households on the email list, 13 voted thumbs-up, 1 voted “no objection”, and 3 didn’t vote. In light of that vote, the Board should have given serious consideration to the site. This leads to the following questions. Did the Board seriously investigate site #3 and contact the property owner? If not, why not? If so, how did the property owner respond, and why weren’t the members informed of this? (2) Proposal to the School Board. Sometime, probably in April, the Board’s request to the School Board changed from asking permission to put the boxes on a nonexistent easement to asking to grant an easement. That a huge difference, but the members were never informed of that change before the vote on May 5. What was the Board’s reasoning for calling for a vote on mailbox location on May 5 given: (1) the members had no reason to believe that the property owner of site 3 had ever been contacted, and (2) the members didn’t know a very reasonable request would be addressed by the School Board at their meeting only a week away on May 11? Presumably, the Board knew that their proposal would be considered at the School Board meeting on May 11. So, why did the Board have a meeting on May 5 and call for a vote then? Why not wait a week until May 12 after the School Board meeting, and then have a vote after there was some indication of how the School Board was leaning? At the meeting on May 11 the School Board appeared to be leaning to granting the new easement in a spirit of being "Good Neighbors". As I’ve said numerous times, I have no favorite site for the mail, I just want mailboxes. I’m perfectly satisfied with the vote on May 5 in favor of site #1 west. However, if I had known there was a reasonable possibility of a more spacious site on School District property, then I would have been in favor of postponing any vote until after the School District made a final decision. Simply asking questions shouldn’t be considered either nonconstructive or negative. Answering these questions would be a very constructive act by the Board of keeping the members informed and would give the members insight into the how the Board reasons. Respectfully, Ken

It’s a very confusing situation regarding mailbox sites. An absence of explanations and clarification by the Board inevitably leads to speculation. So, in this email, I want to briefly review the background of the investigation into site #1, briefly speculate on what happened at the Road Board meeting last Wednesday, and then report on the results of the School District meeting last night. The following email exchange can be found on the groups.io website under the topic “School District Update” on April 8. Jimmy wrote, “I spoke with the school district attorney Roger Decker. He has prepared the request of Fairfield District using the 40ft easement for the school board to vote on next Tuesday.” I wrote: “I think we need to be completely up-front with the attorney and school district.” By “up-front”, I meant tell the school district that there is no easement. Jimmy replied, “I think it would be wise to not provide any information that may complicate the matter or potentially not work in our favor.” The School Board meeting that Jimmy was referring to was April 13, but our proposal wasn’t on the agenda. I watched that meeting on Google Meet and our request came up at the very end under "Request for Future Agenda Items". It was agreed that use of the easement would be considered at the meeting in May. The agenda for School District meeting last night, May 11, read, “It is recommended that the Governing Board discuss and take action regarding the request from the Cochise County Fairfield Road Improvement District to grant an easement for the installation of a mailbox cluster on an easement approximately 16 feet by 30 feet located on the school site at the intersection of S. Fairfield Circle and 3 Canyon Blvd.” Obviously, the Road District Board changed its approach, was up-front with the School Board, told them there was no easement, and is now asking the School District to grant one. That’s good! That’s legal. Many of us thought that when the surveyors came, they were going to locate the western property line for sites #1 west and #3 west. But they didn’t. They staked the property line for site #1 east. It’s now obvious to anyone driving the road that the Road District owns only 3’ to 5’ east of the road. Since the concrete base of the mailboxes is 4’wide, it’s also obvious to most of the community that there isn’t room on our property east of the road for mailboxes. I would be surprised if the Postmaster would approve a site on the east side of the road on our property because it would require the Postal carrier to park in the full right lane of the road while filling the mailboxes. That wouldn’t be safe. An item on the Road District meeting last Wednesday was “Vote on mailbox location”. This struck me as really odd and premature since the proposal to the School Board was pending and there had been no attempt to contact the property owner of site #3. At the meeting, Jimmy said something to the effect, “Let’s vote site #1 the favorite because we own the land.” Those probably aren’t his exact words, and I don’t recall if he mentioned east or west, but I do know he said, “we own the land”. I assumed that he meant site #1 west since it is obvious that the district doesn’t own enough land on the east side road for the boxes. I was all for it, and greatly relieved that we had finally decided on a site. There may have been a vote at that point; I don’t recall exactly, and I haven’t seen the minutes of the meeting. Later, some woman sitting behind me who I can’t identify with certainty (but I’m most grateful to her) questioned if we had voted #1 east or #1 west the favorite. The Board may have replied #1 east, again, I don’t recall exactly. In any case, the members in the audience immediately responded that it should be #1 west. I noticed that the President looked very unhappy at this point. I then asked if I could seek approval from the Postmaster for site #1 west and send a proposal to the 3 Canyons MDC. The President said yes, and I did both. The Chair of the MDC wants to meet at the site. I have no authority to do that alone,

Look what's on the School Board Agenda for Tuesday night! 7. Public Request for use of Property for Mailbox Cluster It is recommended that the Governing Board discuss and take action regarding the request from the Cochise County Fairfield Road Improvement District to grant an easement for the installation of a mailbox cluster on an easement approximately 16 feet by 30 feet located on the school site at the intersection of S. Fairfield Circle and 3 Canyon Blvd. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tVY3Bwceg25ezGEIqWsgSmPDCqRPJ_0DspWTC0NRiMY/edit This would be a really great site. Better than #1 west in my opinion because it would be deeper than #1 west and because we could clear room on our own property on the opposite side of the road for a turnout. Notice they would be granting us an easement where none existed before. But I find it really odd that this option wasn't mentioned at the meeting last Wednesday when we voted in favor of #1 west. It's like the community is kept in the dark about what is planned or the options. Why do I have to dig around and be the one who tells the community about plans like this rather than the Board emailing us information or telling us at the Board meeting? It just seems like a very odd way to run things. Nevertheless, if this is approved, I'm for it! Ken

I’m glad to hear of the Board meeting on this Wednesday, May 5 at 6 pm at Ricardo’s. I’ve finally received the “public record” of the Fairfield Estates RIMD budgets for 2019 and 2020 and they are attached. The budgets are very simple with income about $20,000 a year in taxes, ~$10,000 in transfer from Reserve Account (which I know nothing about) and for 20-21 ~$22,000 carryover. The planned expenditures for each year are essentially $5,000 for Professional Services and $20,000 for improvements other than buildings. The last pages have the cash balances on June 30, ~$14K in 2019 and ~$33K in 2020. From 2019 to 2020 the cash balance increased by $18,569 so not much was spent in 2020. The FERIMD was dormant for several year before 2019 when Jim revised it. I greatly appreciate him for doing that as the Road District is a hugely important assent of our community. But the Road District is taking about $20,000 in our taxes every year, and I suggest the Board start following some of the rules that boards normally follow. See the attached copy of the Board Members Resource Manual. On page 24 of the attached Manual, it says, “The public must receive prior notice of the….meetings at 24 hours in advance. The notice must include …an agenda listing the specific matters to be discussed, considered or decided upon.” On page 10 it says, “All districts must publish their budget 30 days prior to the Public Hearing at a meeting to adopt the fiscal year budget. A copy of the publisher's affidavit and the published budget must be submitted along with the district budgets.” Obviously 30 days prior can’t be met for the budget on May 5, but 24 hours prior should be able to be met with no problem. So, the meeting Wednesday should have an agenda and budget published 24 hours ahead of time. Hal’s email said, “We plan to discuss mailboxes, the recent history of the board, and financial records.”, which sounds like a good start to an agenda. If you have specific questions or items, you want added to the agenda, I suggest that you send them to Hal and that he ,following the Board Members Resource Manual, publish (via this groups.io) a more specific agenda 24 hours before the meeting. Ken

Hal, I request the following item be added to the meeting agenda for May 5. “Governance of FERIMD including procedures, accountability, elections and voting.” Thanks, Ken _____________________________________________ Below are some comments and questions I have regarding topics on the agenda. I make these comments in the spirit of cooperative governance and looking forward not backward. Topics for discussion under “Governance of FERIMD”. I suggest that the Board generally follow procedures described in the “BOARD MEMBERS RESOURCE MANUAL”. Where the Board deviates from those procedure, to do so with permission of the taxpayers. I’ve attached another copy of the manual. Specially: Manual p. 4-6, Annual Report. This is an annual financial statement. See Appendix A, p. 28-32 for the form the county requires. Much on that form is irrelevant for our small district, but we should expect an annual financial statement that includes a photocopy of the checkbook (warrant) register. Manual p. 10. Annual Budget. “All districts must publish their budget 30 days prior to the Public Hearing at a meeting to adopt the fiscal year budget.” “All warrants issued by a district must have a completed memo line with sufficient detail stating the purpose for which the warrant was issued.” Manual p. 17. Elections. Board members have staggered two-year terms. Board members serve to the expiration of that term only and then must seek re-election. Manual p. 21. Meetings. An agenda for meeting must be published 24 hours prior to the meeting. Voting procedures not in the Manual and specific to FERIMD. I think Penny hit the nail on the head as to how the Road District should be governed. On April 20 she wrote, “Personally, I think any meetings with county personnel, attorneys, surveyors, road crews, etc, should be done upon direction of the board after consultation and voting by the members.” I would expand the statement from “meetings” to cover all significant decisions regarding the Road District such as choice of roads to be paved and any preferred site for mailboxes. That is, the governance of the District should be controlled by the vote of the taxpayers and not the Board alone. When are votes required? I liked Jeff’s comment the same day about “the most democratic of our institutions”. He wrote, “I believe we had a quorum of the taxpayers at the last meeting and we all nodded as to the constitution of the board. Ballots are not needed when a majority of the parties are present and nod their heads without objection. Formalizing the next time we have to vote would be nice, but again could be done at a board meeting (similar to the most democratic of our institutions - a Town Hall)” In a town hall meeting, the community votes, not a Board alone. I agree that a nod of heads without objection is just fine for non-controversial subjects such as “we all want mailboxes and we should move ahead” and perhaps “FERIMD is governed by the vote of the taxpayers.” However, for apparently more controversial subjects such as “where should the mailboxes be located” or “which street should be paved this year”, I believe those deserve a ballot. I believe that voting on serious issues should be done by email and not done at a single meeting. Some people have other commitments and simply can’t make all the meetings. Jeff is out of state for about half the year and I’m gone every summer, but we both should be given the opportunity to vote. Voting by email will allow the broadest participation, and this has already been tested. In early March there was an email vote for thumbs up or down on the favorability of site #3 west. Five household voted that were not at the March meeting. Voting by email is efficient because it doesn’t require a meeting. Board Service: I believe that service as a Board member for at least a two-year term should be expected of all willing community members. Board positions should rotate through the community and include both women and men. It shouldn’t be a significant burden, and probably only involving a few hours a year. Other questions related

On April 19 the Board’s Treasurer made a revealing statement about power. In his reply to my email under the topic “Request for FERIMD Annual Reports and Budgets”, he wrote, “What started as you offering to help gather information for the board now appears to be your own personal power grab.” Apparently, he thinks that being on the Board is about power. It shouldn’t be about power; it should be about service. The Board should recognize that the power is in the hands of the people who pay the taxes, and the Board’s responsibility is to execute the will of the taxpayers. Being on the Board shouldn’t be about perceived power. I’ve collected all the tax information for the property our house is on from the country GIS, and those data are shown in the first attached document. This property has paid $11,276 in taxes to FERMID. Since there are 30 properties in the Road District, my guess is that the District has collected more than $250,000, probably a lot more, in taxes over the past 10 years. That’s a lot of money. We do have two paved roads, but what accountability do we have in terms of budgets and financial reports? The second attached document is a copy of Cochise County’s “Summary of FY 2019-2020 Primary Tax Rates and Levy Per District”. Notice the far-right column is tax rate “Percentage Increase”. The first line on the second page shows that the Fairfield Estates RMID tax rate increased by 1545.56% from FY 18-19 to FY 19-20! I don’t know how that was calculated, but there it is. I do know there was substantial increase in FERMID tax on our property from $53 in 2018 to $903 in 2019 (see table in first document). I still have no idea of the reason for the tax increase. The President and Treasurer have ignored repeated requests from three households for financial reports and budgets. I completely agree with what Kevin wrote on April 20, “….this in not personal nor are we here to question anyone’s or any family’s integrity……at the end of the day, this is business and we are dealing with taxpayer dollars.” This is just a weird, opaque and completely unsatisfactory way to run a District that takes tens of thousands of our tax dollars every year. Where is the accountability? Ken

First, I want to thank the board for their willingness to serve, and Jim in particular for reviving the Road District. I’m perfectly happy for this board to continue to serve. But this is the situation. Jim and Jimmy control the purse strings because they are the ones who sign the checks. However, this board has not been elected by the taxpayers, and consequently this board has no legal power to decide how the taxpayers’ money should be spent. Until a legitimate board is elected by the taxpayers, all financial decisions should be made by a vote of the taxpayers and not by the board. Does anyone disagree? Should I discuss the legality of our situation with Kim Lemons, Clerk of the Board? Ken

Jim, I went to the county this morning and met Kim Lemons, the Clerk of the Board. First, I asked for the governance document for the Road District. She told me where to find it on the web (https://www.cochise.az.gov/clerk-board/home), and I’ve downloaded it and attached it to this email. I also learned a lot about the “ROAD IMPROVEMENT & MAINTENANCE DISTRICT (RIMD)” from the attached pamphlet. Then I asked for copies of the RIMD Annual Report and Budget for the past couple years. She said the RIMD Board has those. I explained our President has been reluctant to provide us with that information. She told me to send her an email request and she would help me. Kim is obviously a knowledgeable and helpful contact. However, the District is so far out of compliance with the attached governance document (SPECIAL DISTRICTS GOVERNING BOARD MEMBERS RESOURCE MANUAL) in such areas as elections, report audits, and publication of budgets that I think it would be unwise to get her involved any more than necessary. Please provide the Board and community with the RIMD Annual Reports and Budgets for the past two years by Thursday, or I will request those documents from Kim on Friday. Thanks, Ken

Progress on finding a mailbox site seems to have stalled. In order to get a sense of what the Fairfield Estates community believes we should be doing, I composed a short questionnaire and had as many residents as I could find late this morning/ early afternoon to fill it out. I talked to members of seven of the 17 households on the groups.io email list. I went to four homes where no one was home, and honestly ran out of steam before going to all the houses. Their responses are attached, and I summarize them below. So far, the sense of the community is clear. I encourage all those who I missed to answer the questions either by email or drop your answers off anonymously at our house 8350 S. Sexton Pl. (1) Were you at the last Road District Meeting? Six Yes, one No. (2) Do you recall that it was decided at that meeting that site #1 east is the best site? Of the six who were at the meeting, no one recalls deciding that site #1 is the best. Two said they don’t recall what was decided. One said site #1 east wasn’t decided as the best site. Three said it was the site preferred by Jim. (3) Do you think the criteria for selection of the best site should be based legality, spacious and convenience? If not those criteria, what criteria? Five said yes. One was mainly concerned with legality One was flexible. (4) We need the surveyors to locate the property line, but they have been delayed since February. Would you like to know if surveyors have been asked to make a fourth survey of the entire Fairfield Estates or just locate the property line at sites #3 west and #1 west? Six said we only need information on sites #3 west and #1 west. One was in favor of a survey of the entire district in order to hasten preparation for paving. (5) Regarding site #1 east and the School District. Do you think we should wait another month for the school district to reach a decision regarding our request to install mailboxes on their easement, or we should move more quickly, meet with the School Board President, explain the situation, and answer any questions she might have? All seven think we should move quickly to get a positive decision or rule site #1 east out. (6) Do you have further comments? One suggested, as a fallback position, attempting to purchase a small mailbox site on the east side of Fairfield Cir from the owner of the first (southernmost) lot as you enter Fairfield Estates.