|
The attached map taken from the county GIS shows that Fairfield Estates, outlined in orange, consists of 30 properties with 18 homes at present. The map shows the addresses of the homes with the street names abbreviated. I felt it was important to give all the homeowners the opportunity to participate in the discussions since their taxes will pay for the mailboxes. Sixteen of the 18 homes are on the email list. I’ve talked to people at the two remaining homes, 8081 FC and 5689 PV. They were enthusiastic about having mailboxes but have not yet sent me their email address. (I just looked on Zillow, and 8081 FC was listed for rent in 2017 so it may not be owner occupied.) I’ll summarize progress to date. The problem is that the Fairfield Estates Road Maintenance and Improvement District (FERMID) doesn’t own any land that the cluster mailboxes can be installed on, thus the boxes must be installed on the easement of properties adjacent to Fairfield Cir or perhaps on property even beyond the easement. I have not been able to find any information on the easements of properties adjacent to Fairfield Cir. I have an appointment with the District lawyer, Nathan Williams, next Monday, March 8th at 10 am to discuss this problem. Anyone interested should join me. Four possible sites have been suggested. #1 On Fairfield Cir near 3 Canyons Rd (property of the Palominas School District) #2 At or near the intersection of Fairfield and Palisades (property of the Vista Del Oro HOA) #3 Eller property at the corner of Fairfield and Paso Venado (see map) #4 Castle and Cook property across the road from #3 (see map). This would obviously be the most expensive site but might be seriously considered if the other three sites are unavailable. I don’t see any point of discussing the pros and cons of these sites or prioritizing them until we know more about the easements of these properties and our legal rights. I hope to know more in a week. Ken
|
|
In preparation for the meeting with Nathan Williams next Monday, I went to the county offices in Bisbee today and actually make some progress learning about the easements. It’s pretty cumbersome trying to get information. The Assessor office supposedly has the information on documents pertaining to the property, but the documents are in the Recorder office. The Recorder office can’t give you any information unless you have a document number from the Assessor office. So, there’s a lot a running back and forth. Some of the document number for a parcel are shown on the Assessor parcel map book, which is right out of the 19th Century! It’s literally cut and paste (or scotch tape)! Attached are a couple photos from the Assessor parcel map book, one showing the School District parcel and the other showing an area in Fairfield Estates. The Assessor was able to give me the “Easement Recording Number” for the school district parcel. That document number, 960511148, is shown on the photo of the map, and I got a copy of the document from the Recorder. That parcel has a 40ft easement along the west side, that is adjacent to Fairfield Cir. The easement is for “ingress/egress and utility purposes”; it says nothing about mailboxes. The woman at the Assessor office couldn’t find the easement recording number for the Eller property at the corner of Fairfield and Paso Venado because it’s not on the map (parcel 52A). However, from looking at the map, she said that it appears that all the properties adjacent to and east of Fairfield Cir have a 40 ft easement. I’m going back to the county offices tomorrow or Friday and do my best to get the easement document for the Eller’s property. So, my guess at this point is that if Williams can make a case for the mailboxes being a utility, then we can legally put them wherever we want along Fairfield Cir. If not, then we will need permission of the property owner.
|
|
Easement for the corner of Fairfield and Paso Venado
Thursday, I went to Bisbee and finally got the document number for easement agreement for the Eller property at the corner of Fairfield and Paso Venado. It turns out the document is on the web, and you can view it if you want. Goggle Cochise County Recorder, open the website, then “Recorder Information”, “Document Search”, select state and county, then “Reception Number”, 2011-20509. You may recall that the Road District owns a 40ft wide strip of land from near 3 Canyons Rd to the boundary of Fairfield Estates. In Fairfield Estates the road, Fairfield Cir., is on the easements of private properties. The easement for the Eller property is described 2011 agreement between a previously owner of the property and the Road District. The agreement is broader than simply “ingress/egress and utility purposes”. It doesn’t specially mention mailboxes; however, there may be a better case for installations of mailboxes than on the School District easement. But, and there is always a but, the easement is only 40ft wide. As far as I know, the surveyors have never come out, but they told Jim that the property line was near the fence on the west side of the road. It’s 38 ft from the fence to the east edge of the road, which means that there is only a few feet of easement east of the road; not enough space for the boxes on the easement. If the boxes were east of the road, they would need to be on private property beyond the easement. However, there is 18 ft between the fence and the west edge of the road. That is all in the easement and is sufficient for the mailboxes and pull-out parking area. In any case, that easement agreement was the last document that I know that I need for the meeting with Nathan Williams on Monday. Ken
|
|
How to use FairfieldEstatesMailBoxes@groups.io
2
Hi All, I feel that all homeowners in Fairfield Estates should have the opportunity to participate in the discussions regarding the mailboxes because this involves their tax dollars and because they will be visiting the mailboxes almost daily. I now have email addresses for 17 of the 18 homes. About two-third have joined groups.io. If you haven’t joined and want to, just reply to the invitation that you received last Monday, March 1. Don’t write anything, just tap the reply button and send. If you can’t find the invitation, I’ll have another sent. If you have trouble joining, let me know and I’ll deal with the problem. I will continue sending emails to those not in groups.io to keep them up to date regarding developments. But if you haven’t joined groups.io and want to send an email to those in the group, then you will need to email me, and I will forward your message to the group. The groups.io email list is far simpler to deal with that the previous list. If you want to send an email to the group, then all you have to do is send the message to one email address. Previously you had to “reply all” to a message or to cut and paste the entire list of email addresses from some past email. Furthermore, you can view all past groups.io messages on the web. This simplifies things for me because in the past I had to send new members past emails to bring them more or less up to date. Basic instructions for groups.io. (1) How to send a message to the group: Send the email to FairfieldEstatesMailBoxes@groups.io and the message will go to everyone in the group. (2) How to read past messages: All email messages are stored as “Topics” on our groups.io website, and the Topics are label with the subject line of the email. To read past email messages you must go to the website. There are at least two ways to do that and I’ll refer to them as (2a) and (2b). (2a) The simplest way to read past messages is to go directly to the website. Its URL (web address) is /g/FairfieldEstatesMailBoxes I have that bookmarked on my browser. (2b) Alternatively, you can go to the website from any email that you receive from the group. At the bottom of any email from the group you will see a list of options that include: View/Reply Online | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute This Topic | New Topic. To go to the website click on “View/Reply Online” and that will take you that message on the website. Now you must navigate from that message to the list of Topics. How you do it will depend on if you are on a computer or cell phone. If you are on a computer, to the left of the current message on the web is a list of options and one of those is “Messages”. Click on Messages, and you will see a list of all past Topics which contain all past email messages. If you are on a cell phone (at least an iPhone), at the top of the message on the website you will see a button labeled “Single”. Press “Single” then “Topics” and you will see the list of all past Topics and email messages. Ken
|
|
Mailboxes
Great job Ken! Well done and thanks the the time and energy you put into this project.
|
|
Results thus far
2
Those of you who haven’t joined FairfieldEstatesMailBoxes@groups.io 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
|
|
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
|
|
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.
|
|
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?) https://www.budgetmailboxes.com/16-door-usps-approved-cluster-mailbox https://www.budgetmailboxes.com/13-door-cbu-mailbox https://www.budgetmailboxes.com/outdoor-parcel-locker-with-pedestal-stand-2-parcel-lockers https://www.budgetmailboxes.com/4-door-parcel-locker-cluster-mailbox
|
|
Does the USPS pay for cluster mailboxes?
6
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." https://www.newhomesource.com/learn/what-to-know-about-cluster-mailboxes/ 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
|
|
Authorization
3
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
|
|
Hi Again All, Believe it or not, I really don’t enjoy sending all these emails, and I apologize that this is in part repetitious for those of you at the meeting Thursday night. But I think that it’s important for the community to understand the constraints and why the mailboxes end up sited wherever (and if) they are sited. Sharon and I are leaving for the summer in late May, and my personal goal is to have the mailboxes installed by the time I leave. I started working on this last September. Installation of the mailboxes by late May, nine months from last September, doesn’t seem like an unreasonable goal. But this timetable maybe too ambitious, and I may be more impatient for results than the rest of the community. At least three things should be considered in evaluating potential sites: legality, spaciousness, and convenience. Legality is by far the most important and most time consuming, thus I propose that we work on the legality of three sites simultaneously. I see nothing to gain by writing a letter to one landowner and waiting for their decision before contacting the next landowner. We will just lose momentum. If more than one landowner gives us permission to install mailboxes, that will be fantastic. Then we can pick the site that is most spacious and convenient. But, I suspect that we won’t have many legal options. I have no favorited site; I just want to have mailboxes. The land situation and compass directions are key. Regarding the compass, just remember that east is downhill towards the San Pedro River and west is towards the mountains on the other side of Hy 92. The Road District own a 40 ft strip of land from near 3 Canyons to the beginning of Fairfield Estates (FE) (attached map). In FE the district doesn’t own the land the road is on, rather it’s on the 40ft wide easements along the west side of private properties. This is important because in FE there are easement agreements specifically between the Road District and the property owners. The Road District has no such easement agreements with property owners outside of FE. Most important, the road is about 17 ft wide, and it runs along the east side of the Road District property and the easements in FE. This means that south of FE the Road District owns only a few feet of property east of the road and that in FE there is only a few feet of easement east of the road. Legally, the sites on the west side of the road are the simplest to deal with regarding mailboxes because the Road District either owns the land or has an easement agreement with the landowner in FE (e.g. #3 attached map). But these sites are problematic because the surveyors haven’t been out, and we don’t know the exact location of the property line. We have been told the property line is near the fence, and the distance between the fence and road varies from about 15 to 23 ft. If the property line is more than a few feet from the fence, then the sites on the west side of the road may be too narrow to accommodate the mailboxes and parking. Sites on the east side of the road must be on the easements of the Palominas School District (site #1) or Vista del Oro HOA (site #2) (or in FE, beyond the easement and on private land). The Road District has no easement agreements with them. The easement documents for the school district and VDO HOA are very generic, allowing for “ingress and egress and underground utilities”, and are not as broad and permissive as the agreements between the road district and ES landowners. The easements for the school district and VDO HOA properties are attractive because they are 40’ wide, and we might negotiate a more spacious site than at #3, if somewhat less convenient. Nevertheless, they are more problematic legally than site #3, and we will need permission (e.g. good will) of either the school district or VDO HOA to install mailboxes on their easements. I propose that we deal with the legal issues of sites #1, #2, and #3 simultaneously. In fact, this has already started for sites #1 and #2. Jim and Jimmy are contacting Palominas School District regarding site #1 (s
|
|
School District
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: Re meeting Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2021 08:39:59 -0700 From: Jim Ruby <jeruby@...> To: Ken Cameron <rocks@...> thank you! I was surprised at the turnout as well. It’s good to have participation and I believe we can finally move forward, not like it was before! Jimmy and I went to the county yesterday and contacted the school district. Nathan said that was not something he could help with. We are waiting for a few call backs! The Surveyor is going to try to fit us in sometime mid April. On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 10:27 PM Ken Cameron <rocks@...> wrote: Jim, I just want thank you for doing an excellent job of hosting and running the meeting last night, and for re-starting the Road District. I was surprised that the turn out was so good and that everyone was on the same page on potentially contentious issues like money and taxes. Well Done!
|
|
To: Vista Del Oro HOA Board From: Ken Cameron, Fairfield Estates Road Maintenance and Improvement District Re: Installation of Cluster Mailboxes Hi Neighbors. We are exploring potential sites for cluster mailboxes for Fairfield Estates. There is a 40 ft wide easement along the west side of the Vista Del Oro property adjacent to Fairfield Cir road, and we would like to discuss the possibility of installing mailboxes on this easement with you. The site would probably have to be about 16 ft deep to allow room for the mailboxes and parking, but we don’t have any specific location along the easement in mind. Thank you for considering this request. Ken
|
|
Cluster Mailboxes for Fairfield Estates (One more thing)
Lynn, Thank you very much for the documents, and I will certainly bring the agreement regarding chip sealing to the Boards attention. No, the road isn't centered on the 40' easement. It runs closer to the east side than the west. I greatly appreciate your time and comments. Ken
|
|
Hi All, To review, what is an easement? It is a right for non-property owners to do certain things on some specific area in someone else’s property. Typically, these rights are to enter and exit (ingress and egress) and install utilities, but these rights can be much broader in specific easement agreements. When I first went to the Assessors office some months ago, the woman at the counter told me that there was a 40’ easement along the west side of the Palominas School District and Vista Del Oro HOA properties. She told me this based on the Assessors map book (see attached IMG_4981_web.jpg, IMG_4983_web.jpg). It’s taken me sometime to realize that the map is at least a decade out of date. It turns out that those 40’ easements were sold or deeded to the Road District in 2011. Those former easements are now owned by the Road District, and is the land the road is on. Attached is the document showing the land transfer that the President of the Vista Del Oro HOA sent me last Sunday (2011-01-20 Deed (VDO to Fairfield).pdf). The easement for the School District is a little more complicated, but the important documentation is attached (School District Docs001.pdf). I’ve been told that the 3 Canyons HOA gave the property to the School District, I suspect in 1996. The first document, 960511148, in the pdf is an easement agreement between the School District and 3 Canyons defining the easement as 40’. The second document, 981237679, is the last page of the pdf, and it is a quit-claim deed where the School District sold the 40’ easement to 3 Canyons in 1998 for $4,964. (I don’t know the reason for that transaction.). In 2011 the Road District obtained that land from 3 Canyons, but I don’t have the documentation for that. On the attached Figures 20 and 21, notice that the Road District land actually consists of two parcels. Parcel 10417002Z is the former School District easement and parcel 10417049C is the former Vista Del Oro easement. Clearly there is no longer an easement along the west side of the School District and Vista Del Oro properties, so we have no rights on their land. However, they could give us permission to install mailboxes on their property. The President of the Vista Del Oro HOA said, “I’m pretty sure that VDO would choose not to relinquish any additional property for this project.”. I believe that Jim is pursuing permission from the School District, but I’ve heard nothing. Ken
|
|
Request to send letter to property owner of site #3
4
Jim, The email exchange with the President of the Vista Del Oro was both informative and I think predictable. The documents he sent shows that they did transfer the 40’ easement along the west side of their property to the Road District. Apparently, there is no longer an easement there. To get the finally answer to that may require both a lawyer and surveyor, but in any case, the HOA doesn’t appear interested in giving up any more land. I took another look at copy of the Quit-Claim Deed I have for property the road is on adjacent to the school district land. It’s dated 1998 so it’s probably been superseded by a document I don’t have a copy of. But I suspect the situation is the same as with Vista Del Oro. That is, what was a 40’ easement along the west side of the school district property is now the land owned by the Road District. I request that Nathan be authorized to send the letter ASAP to the property owner of site #3. We won’t start installation of the mailboxes at site #3 until we receive a reply from the school district and have the surveyor define the property line. But let’s not waste time waiting for reply from the school district before sending the letter. Thanks, Ken
|
|
Nathan Williams, the Road District attorney, and I had a very productive meeting this morning. Attached is a copy of the agenda, and he is cc on this email. Nathan looked at the easement documents for sites #1 (On Fairfield Cir. near 3 Canyons Blvd.) and #3 (on Fairfield near Paso Venado). He said that from a legal point of view, # 3 was preferred for the mailboxes because the easement agreement is actually between the Road District and the previous landowner, and the agreement was broader in scope that the easement document for the Palominas School District property adjacent to site #1. In fact, he says that we don’t need the owner’s permission at site #3 so long as the mailboxes and parking area are in the easement. He can write a letter to the property owner telling them that the Road District intends to install mailboxes and give them 30 days to respond. As I mentioned in a previous email, the easement is 40ft wide and the road, Fairfield Cir., is on the east side of the easement. There isn’t enough space on the easement east of the road for the cluster mailboxes, thus they must be on the west side of the road. See the attached diagram and photos for the location and site plan of the mailbox area. A major physical advantage of site #3 is that we can take use the existing partly graveled gate entrance immediately south of the site and the partly graveled “pull-out” across the road for parking and making turns. Those areas make the site relatively spacious. This is your opportunity to give a thumbs up or down to site #3. I’ll assume that everyone checks their email at least every other day, so if you are going to respond, I will expect you to do so by midnight Wednesday, March 10. If you give the site a thumbs down, please justify your response, propose a reasonable alternative site, or state that you don’t want mailboxes. The Road District is a hugely important asset of Fairfield Estates, and I know from discussions with my neighbors that many of us wouldn’t be living here if the main roads weren’t paved. Five roads or portions of roads remain to be paved, but they total less than three-quarters of a mile. The Road District also is a significant tax burden. Look at your property tax bill, and you will find that it’s probably costing you about $1,000/yr. in taxes. Nathan told me that there is a governance document for the Road District although he doesn’t have a copy. He said that special districts are usually governed similar to HOAs. I assume that means there should be an annual meeting of the members (taxpayers) and an annual financial statement and budget. Does anyone have a copy of the Road District governance document? If not, I’ll get a copy from the County Recorder Office after the mailboxes are history. Ken
|
|
Comments on Jimmy's emails
2
Hi All, I first contacted the 3 Canyons Master Design Committee regarding installation of cluster mailboxes for Fairfield Estates on September 20, 2020, so this has been a long haul for me. With the meeting two weeks ago and with Jimmy’s two emails yesterday, I feel we’ve made some progress. As I’ve said many times, I don’t care where the mailboxes are located; I just want to have mailboxes. Frankly, the main objective of my suggesting a deadline was to stir the pot and get some action happening. The mailboxes are going to be in place for our lifetimes, so I’m in complete agreement that waiting on decisions regarding the legality of sites is more important than deadlines. With that background, let me address specific points in Jimmy’s emails. “We think #1 is the best option for these reasons. 1. The mailboxes would be located on the east side of the road which is convenient. 2. The pull out is on private property. If we lose access to the pull out, where will we park? “ I don’t understand why the east side of the road is more convenient. Perhaps that’s true if you’re approaching the boxes from the gate but not from the houses. Also site #3 is more convenient to the houses than site #1. Depending on where the property line is, there could be ample parking on the west side of the road at site #3. But of course, we don’t yet know where the property line is because the surveyors haven’t been out. If there isn’t ample room, then we wouldn’t site the boxes there. I agree the “pull-out” question is important because wherever the boxes are located, we need room to safely make U-turns both for the postal carrier as well as homeowners. I would consider site #1 east the best option if the school district allows us to have a more spacious site than #3 west, so it’s critical that there is a written agreement regarding the exact size and location of the site. The site should be large enough to allow a U-turn. “the postmaster has the ultimate say in where mail boxes go.” True, the postmaster must approve the site. Before I understood all the easement issues, and based on conversations with several neighbors, I thought that site #3 east (the pull-out) would be the most logical site. I discussed this with the postmaster, Doug Hoover, and he came out and looked at the site. He thought the location was fine but suggested a “drive around” site like they have at Vista del Oro. He told me to write an approval letter and he would sign it. That was done in January (copy attached). I did that mainly to “get the ball moving”, and I never considered it as the final decision on the site. The final decision rests with the community. I think Doug is a very reasonable guy, and I’m sure he will approve any safe site along Fairfield Cir. “If you would like we can assign a deadline to consider this option (site #1) exhausted.” As I said above, my talk of deadlines was to get some action happening. I have no authority to set deadlines. That is up to the Board and community. “Why do we need to have an attorney write a letter where a friendly conversation can take place?” I think a friendly conversation should have taken place months ago, but I have had no authority to contact the landowner. Also, friendly conversation isn’t a legal agreement. We must have an attorney write the agreement, and it needs to be recorded in the Recorder Office so some future landowner doesn’t demand that the boxes be removed. Personally, I think that the cost issues Jimmy discusses in the “Second:” and “Third:” topics should be relatively minor compared to the entire budget of the Road District. Even if some costs are unknown at present, it shouldn’t keep us from moving forward. The District should be able to afford it. The next topic is very relevant to this. Jimmy’s “Fourth:” topic brings up a can of worms that I have been avoiding. I strongly agree with his statement, “Everything needs to be documented and publicly available”. The following may lead to a painful, but I think ultimately healthy, conversation. It’s important because it involves a lot of our money. I haven’t see
|
|
Hi All, I talked to the Post Master, Doug Hoover, this afternoon, and he said no regarding free cluster mailboxes. Jimmy may have overlooked my email of March 13 regarding cost estimates so that information is copied below. This estimate should be good wherever the boxes are located. There was a story in the WSJ last week about reorganization and redirection of the Post Office, and they are moving towards an emphasis on package delivery rather than just mail. So looking forward, I strongly recommend the 13-door mailboxes and at least one 4-door parcel box. I think the site prep is the biggest unknown, but I see no reason why the Road District can't afford the boxes. Parking and making U-turns will be important in evaluating sites. I did some measurements for the area needed for U-turns in my Suburban. I ideally we need at least 30' x 50' either to one side of the paved road, or that area in total to either side of the road not counting the road. This is something a group of interested people should measure and agree on. I don't want that responsibility alone. Best, Ken Below is the email from March 13, that is on the website. 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?) https://www.budgetmailboxes.com/16-door-usps-approved-cluster-mailbox https://www.budgetmailboxes.com/13-door-cbu-mailbox https://www.budgetmailboxes.com/outdoor-parcel-locker-with-pedestal-stand-2-parcel-lockers https://www.budgetmailboxes.com/4-door-parcel-locker-cluster-mailbox
|
Image Name
Sat 8:39am
Sat 8:39am