Tonight’s Town Commission meeting has been cancelled.

Reason given is lack of a quorum due to two Commissioners being out of town and presumably unable to call in. I’ve taken advantage of the lull to catch up on reading. 

First, a brief wrap-up for the previous meeting: 

• It appears that salaries and benefits for two of the three positions mentioned on the agenda have already been accounted for in the budget. 
• The Animal Control position will require some reshuffling of finances. 
• The Commission is still trying to pretend that holding individual Commissioners responsible for remarks made on the record during meetings is not only indecorous, but that attempts to hold them accountable constitute impermissible “personal attacks” which will not be tolerated. 
• Meanwhile, we are waiting to see the Commission’s choice to fill the vacancy in District 5. It seems there is no shortage of applicants, but how many of them are even minimally qualified and live in the district?  

I’ve heard a lot of questions about the so-called “leak” of confidential information regarding the Berrenda Pipeline proposal on social media. 

• The town’s reaction is typical of local government caught out in an embarrassing situation: Discredit the messenger and ignore the pertinent substantive questions raised by the leak. 
• Who leaked the information, by what means, and for what reason?  
• Edgewood’s town government has a long history of shooting itself in the foot; this situation may be nothing more than the nasty intra-factional quarreling which erupted soon after epCorE’s Glorious Revolution of 2021. 
• It is a long, difficult, and expensive road between buying paper water rights and water out of taps; it is way too soon to either fully embrace or reject the proposal.
• When Commissioners characterize legitimate questions as attempted sabotage, then the public has every right to question not only the proposal but the Commissioners’ motives.  

From my current Edgewood-specific reading list:

• This profile of the town’s fifth town manager in five years, Kelly Hamilton, makes for interesting reading. 
• I will leave it to readers to draw their own conclusions, but the latest agenda/packet for the Lodger’s Tax Advisory Board also contains information about the news outlet which published the profile of the current Town Manager. 
• And, last but not least, this July 22 update from Reboot Edgewood helps explain why the questions about the feasibility of returning to county governance continue to gain support.  

Town Commission Agenda and Packet for 2026 08 11

 The agenda and packet for Tuesday’s meeting have been posted at the town website. 

• As has become customary, the agenda features multiple items for the closed session (Agenda Items I.1-4): Two concerning lawsuits (MESD I.1, Bassett I.4) and two land acquisition proposals for a park (I.3) and the proposed firing range site for the Edgewood Police Department (I. 2).
• There are proposals for adding two full-time employees; one for the Police Department and the other for Animal Control. (Agenda items G.1 and G.3)
• There are also proposals to reduce the size of the Economic Development Advisory Board (Agenda item H.1) and another to enter into an agreement between MESD and the town to fund a School Resource Officer (Agenda item G.2)
• Item G.6 concerns filling the vacant District 5 position and the packet includes a proposed set of questions to be asked of applicants.  However, none of them pertain to the specific experience and skills most needed for the position. The question on views about the U.S. Constitution is not new; in the past it has been interpreted as a thinly-disguised effort at inserting a narrow interpretation of partisan politics into town government.
• Agenda item G.5 concerns creating a new position in the financial department. It is not clear from reading the agenda request form whether this proposal would add a new employee or re-assign a current employee.    

The curious case of the missing motion…

… The missing motion is neither a straightforward affirmative nor a negative motion, but a little known variant of an affirmative motion known as a converse motion. Every few years, someone comes forward to insist that the Edgewood town government must always, and without exception, offer its motions “to approve” an application because they are operating from a mistaken impression that motions “to deny” are negative motions.  The advice sounds good in theory, but in practice it sometimes turns what should have been a routine public hearing into a circus. This is yet another instance in which Edgewood’s political instability and its recurring losses of institutional memory have resulted in confusion. 

NB: What follows has been revised and edited for clarity: 

• The issue has been raised again on July 30, 2026 during the PZC’s special meeting. 
• The authority cited for this practice of “always and only” affirmative motions is Roberts Rules of Order which is a frequently used guide for discussing legislative proposals during public meetings.  The concept gets its fuel from a valid and often-cited reference to the unsuitability of offering negative motions which are awkward and typically worded to “not approve” some proposed action. A true negative motion implies an intent to take no action. [1]
• While this admonition to make only affirmative motions “to approve” makes sense when an agenda item is legislative in nature, the deliberations and motions sometimes get mired in absurdity when the matter under consideration is not legislative, but quasi-judicial. In theory, under the “affirmative motions only-and-always” rule, an unsuitable proposal may properly be allowed to die for lack of a motion and/or second. 
• However, even before a land use application is brought forward for a public hearing, considerable resources have already been expended by both the town and the applicant in order to reach that point. The general legal advice given to local governments is that once the testimony and exhibits have been presented, the deliberation phase of the public hearing should begin with a motion and second. Understandably, following all that effort neither the applicant nor the general public will find it acceptable for the proposal to simply be allowed to die without discussion.  
• Indeed, only a few people would consider this an acceptable way to conclude a quasi-judicial hearing, but by following such ill-informed advice, we have seen both Edgewood’s governing body and its planning commission fall into an abyss worthy of Charles Dickens’ fictitious character Mr. Thomas Gradgrind. 
• The most common (and ultimately ill-advised) attempt to resolve the situation of a clearly unsuitable application is to have preliminary discussion before the motion, and then for two members to offer a motion followed by a second “to approve” the application. This is often followed by further discussion and a vote. 
• Possible less than desirable outcomes may vary: One or both persons who offered the motion and second may end up voting against approval. In some instances a majority votes against the motion, and occasionally every member votes against the motion which was offered “to approve” the application.
• In its well-intentioned attempt to avoid falling into the ditch of making a “negative” motion, the public body then risks falling into the other ditch by violating the Roberts Rules injunction against offering a motion or second for which one does not intend to vote.  
• Furthermore, these convoluted discussions give the impression that members of the board are not acting in good faith. 
• Eli Mina’s practical tools for managing minutes and meetings addresses the fact that while useful, Roberts Rules was primarily intended for and is most suitable for legislative deliberations. He believes that more specialized public hearings may benefit from following different procedures. [2]
• With Mina’s commentary having raised the question of special situations, David J. Allor attempts to find middle ground by introducing a third type of motion which he calls a converse motion. By using his process, the public body can avoid falling into either ditch by allowing for a motion “to deny” the application based on legally defensible reasons which pertain to the particular application under consideration. [3]
• There is no hard and fast rule of how to handle the special situations generated by quasi-judicial hearings and their unique requirements. Each public body has to examine the options, consult with its legal advisors, and craft a policy that best fits its needs.  
• One example of how this question has been dealt with in the past can be found in Edgewood’s PZC minutes of October 24, 2011. 
• One reason that a converse motion may legitimately be described as a variant of an affirmative motion is that, unlike a negative motion which is stated in a way which signals that the deliberative body is proposing to refrain from taking action, a converse motion “to deny” implies that a deliberative body has weighed evidence and intends to take action, but that such action may be either to approve or to deny an application. Not everyone agrees with Allor’s reasoning, but his method is often found to be more straightforward than dictating that only motions “to approve” are to be used for quasi-judicial hearings. 
• In order to better understand the operational uses of terms such as affirmative, negative, and converse some basic knowledge of formal logic is helpful; specifically definitions of relevant terms and the means for converting statements from one form to another while retaining logical equivalence. It is subject which may not be of interest to general audiences, but Martin Cothran’s textbooks on Traditional Formal Logic (Volumes I and II) are resources which I have used in the past and found helpful for exploring this topic. 

[The sources which are shown below were current when a previous PZC dealt with the issue in 2010-11] 

Note 1: Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised, 10th ed. (Cambridge, Mass. Perseus Publishing, 2000).

Note 2: Mina’s Guide to Minute Taking: Principles, Standards & Practical Tools. Eli Mina; Published by Eli Mina Consulting in 2004. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Note 3: David J. Allor Planning Commissioners Journal Reprints: A Planning Commissioner Journal Special Collection. Champlain Planning Press 2010.]

All the lights are on: Is there anyone at home?

I’ve held off posting recently for a variety of reasons. The most relevant for the blog’s readers is that I have been waiting to see what (if anything) the Town Commission might have learned from the Fire/EMS JPA fiasco. 

• Unfortunately, it seems that the heads have gone back into the sand with regard to making sensible plans for the town government’s future.  
• Instead, the Commissioners are casting about for someone, anyone who will “tell their itching ears what they want to hear” while complaining against the people trying to tell them what they need to know.  
• Last night’s complaints about Reboot Edgewood missed the point entirely: Reboot Edgewood is not the cause of the town’s dysfunction. It is a legitimate, rational response to the current system-wide state of dysfunction. 
• The meeting started late and featured only two seats occupied by Commissioners: District 5 is vacant, Commissioner Taylor was absent, and Commissioner Murillo attended via an abysmal phone connection. 
• As has been the case since 2022, the meetings feature too many closed session agenda items with the closed sessions lasting way too long. More than half of last night’s meeting was spent out of public view with no action following. 
• The bad financial news continues as well.  
• Town Commissioners bragged about completing new road paving projects, yet none of them appear willing to deal with the almost insurmountable costs of reducing a backlog of deferred maintenance on existing pavement and chip seal. 
• More ominous are the complaints by department heads about the cutbacks to the budget. Bottom line: expect more Budget Adjustment Requests (BARs) in the coming fiscal year which is not yet a month old.  
• The town’s Planning & Zoning department is still in transition. Even though the July 16 meeting showed a few signs of improvement, it ran way too long and the decision-making process for the evening as a whole showcased the P&Z Commission’s habit of relying on an “arbitrary and capricious” decision-making process. 
• To their credit, unlike the Town Commission, the P&Z Commissioners are making an effort to deal with the world as it actually exists. Town Manager Hamilton’s decision to bring in a consultant is making a difference, but progress may take time.  

Edgewood’s Three Maps

For those who have not seen it, I suggest reading this essay called  Map of Edgewood, Before and After Incorporation published on June 14, 2026 at the Reboot Edgewood website. It features a current boundary map with the outlines of Santa Fe County’s long-recognized traditional community of Edgewood superimposed in purple. The essay contains an excellent analysis, but I immediately thought of a third, obsolete map which may help newer residents understand the brief diversion which led from the original, historic map to the present version.  

• The original Edgewood is the area outlined in purple which is superimposed over the current boundary map. That version of Edgewood existed long before 1999, and had been recognized by Santa Fe County as a distinct community for many years.  
• The second, short-lived version of Edgewood, is represented by a different map: The actual incorporation map from 1999 which was much smaller than the historic definition of Edgewood. That swiss-cheese, gerrymandered version lasted only two years, because the little town’s new government had big ambitions and a relentless expansionist mentality.
• The third Edgewood is represented by the current boundary map. With the exception of Section 32 and later a hotly contested infill annexation in 2015, the overall outline we see today was already mostly in place by the end of 2001. 

The three maps can serve to illustrate how we went from being an informal, geographically compact community prior to 1999, to the much smaller patchwork of neighborhoods clustered around I-40 which incorporated in July of 1999. When the annexation spree which had begun soon after incorporation finally ended in 2001, the Edgewood of today had already started to take shape.

Why did those who worked to incorporate the town fail to use Santa Fe County’s well-established outline for the incorporation? They did try. However, the further away the group canvassed from their real estate offices clustered along I-40 and NMSR 344, the more resistance they encountered. The idea was so unpopular that sections of neighborhoods and large agricultural tracts had to be excluded in order to gather enough votes to qualify for a municipal government charter. 

The town started out with a “buy now-pay later” mindset in 1999. In 2022 the newly minted Town Commission doubled down on the concept. In 2026, with the town essentially broke, Town Commission Version 4.0 is going to have to start paying now. Raiding the Fire/EMS JPA is no longer feasible, and with the federal funds inherited by Town Commission 1.0 also spent, some tough choices will need to be made. 

Upcoming meetings (updated with links added)

The Agendas and Minutes page at the Town website is currently showing four upcoming Meetings:

• July 8: Two advisory Committees: Parks & Rec and the Economic Advisory group  both of which have posted agendas.
• July 14: Town Commission meeting. [Agenda & Packet link]
• Also on July 14: The Town Commission meeting will be preceded by an informational meeting on the Berrenda Pipeline proposal. [Agenda] 
• July 16: the Planning & Zoning Commission has a preliminary agenda which was posted well in advance of several land use public hearings which appear on it. [Agenda] [Packets: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3]
• My take on the FAQ section at the bottom of the Berrenda Pipeline page is that the language has been curated so as to tease and create a bandwagon effect; it conceals more than it reveals. 
• Based on its past performance and now some chatter from the usual sources, I have little confidence in this governing body’s ability to get past the inevitable hype that always accompanies such proposals.
• While not as immediately urgent as was the Fire/EMS JPA, this proposal could either be a much needed advance for the area, or just another in the long series of the pipe-dreams which have beguiled Edgewood’s Cargo Cult since before 1999. 

Hey, Mabel, we’re gonna be RICH!

Or as we recently heard, “In a few years, you won’t recognize Edgewood!” The latest buzz is called the Berrenda Pipeline. The hype which is already building and promises to be unleashed on July 14, 2026 will not surprise anyone except those who moved here recently. After the effects of the 2008 mortgage crisis began to manifest in Edgewood around 2010, new commercial development slowed considerably. Those who moved here after that time have not had many opportunities to see Edgewood’s Advertising & Promotion faction in all its glory. It’s almost as good as a 4th of July fireworks show.

I would suggest that readers go to the town website and examine old minutes from Edgewood P&Z and the Town Council in order to see the narrative of Edgewood’s development review process that those minutes reveal, but somehow, the geniuses who brought us the Commission/Manager government seem to have entirely lost some documents, and most have disappeared from the town website. Some of the entries at the town website labeled Planning & Zoning are actually old Town Council Minutes. 

I do have a link to copies of most of the old town minutes and assorted other documents from 1999 up to about 2015 in the right-sidebar. I stopped routinely uploading copies of town documents in 2016 because I lacked the time needed to continue the project, and I foolishly believed that all the work done from 2016-2021 on establishing a searchable database for town documents would carry over to the new form of government. Unfortunately, it did not.  

Every new proposal that comes in should be considered on its own merits, and it would be unwise to dismiss the Berrendo water pipeline proposal without looking at more information. However, there is one thing which needs to be clearly understood: this project is not ultimately about Edgewood and won’t be controlled by Edgewood. There will be a number of larger stake-holders involved, and I do not trust the current town government to protect local interests.  

Local governments are approached all the time with many ideas which never come into public view as this latest one has. To add some historical perspective, I’ve listed some of the larger development proposals from past years which actually made it into the public record. It is important to note that of those listed (1) most never happened at all, (2) those which were built usually worked out differently than promised, and (3) many of the benefits claimed for some developments have turned into liabilities. 

• A Water Co-op Proposal from 2001-2002 to keep control of the Edgewood Water Company in New Mexico never happened, and it was opposed by some of the same people who later opposed the buyout of EPCOR.
• Section 16 Master Plan versions 1, 2, and 3
• Campbell Ranch Master Plan
• Hillcrest Master Plan
• Liberty Square, which has been partially built out, but on a much smaller scale than proposed.
• Equestrian Park Estates has been largely built out, but not in the form envisioned by the original owners. 
• The small commercially zoned adjuncts to Equestrian Park Estates near Frost and NMSR 344 designed so that residents of the area would not need to drive into “Lower Edgewood” have never yet manifested. 
• Walmart (This one of two projects which actually came to fruition as promised, and funds a significant percentage of the town’s budget.)
• Comfort Inn (The other proposal that was actually built out as expected. The town’s enactment of a Lodger’s Tax imposed on its guests currently funds advertising for a variety of local events and services.)
• Turning Sandia Airpark into an air-freight hub was another proposal that evaporated when the town official who tried to promote the concept was fired by the next Mayor.
• Then, too, there was the  state-of-the-art welding plant that was going to launch Edgewood into the tech age. (It was built but later re-purposed.)
• There was also a revolutionary soil treatment scheme which we were assured by a local elected official would do away with the need for chip-seal and road paving for most of Edgewood! Unfortunately, when rain combined with local soils, the process turned the roads into a gelatinous glue which one of my former P&Z colleagues named “That stupid road-snot project.” [For those who love to hate on Santa Fe County, the town was saved the embarrassment of a costly mistake because the County had the foresight to insist that the company do some tests on county roads before signing an agreement.]
• A trucking terminal proposed near the SE corner of the intersection of NMSR 344 and Dinkle Road.
• A large cinema-plex to be built alongside NMSR 344 within the Hillcrest Master plan; a representative for the company suggested that if that suggestion were to be turned down, an automotive parts assembly plant was their back-up plan. 
• There was a proposal for a water pipeline from SE New Mexico that would have co-located along the rights-of-way owned by EMW Gas. (There was lots of buzz about that idea for some time, and then it went silent due to lack of funding and jurisdictional complications.)
• The proposal for the Town to buy the old Edgewood Water Company back from EPCOR.
• For those who enjoy historical lore: Decades ago when the FAA was thinking about moving the airport away from Kirtland AFB, Edgewood was listed as a possible site for the relocation!
• Also, there was a series of proposals coming out of Torrance County that were going to spark a housing boom in Edgewood because as Edgewood Realtors reminded us, who wants to live in Moriarty? And, yes, some of them really did say that in public, and more than once.  (We were told that the racetrack and casino located in Albuquerque were going to move to Moriarty. Later, a tech giant bought some land in the same area and we were assured that the development would eventually turn the East Mountains into Rio Rancho East: Sure thing, Mabel, this time it’s gonna happen!)

Meeting wrap-up for 2026 06 23

Last night’s meeting highlights:

• In case there were any remaining doubts about the unfortunate P&Z meeting last Thursday, the public comment section of last night’s agenda made clear what has gone wrong, and there were some excellent suggestions on how to fix the problems. Stay tuned: Because like all the other problems facing the town, the only way out is to work through them. Overhauling the town’s development review process will require some Edgewood developers to let go of several faulty, long-cherished assumptions.  
• It appears that Commissioner Rariden will stay on as Commissioner for the present which is a good thing. He functioned as the town’s balance wheel during the collapse of the Fire/EMS JPA. His earlier announcement of his intention to resign altogether set off unseemly behavior among some of his possible replacements.  
• The Commission approved Rariden’s motion to name recently elected Commissioner, Devon Taylor, to take on the role of mayor. 
• The Commission also approved Commissioner Ken Brennan as the new mayor pro tem. 
• Neither move was ideal: Taylor is new to the commission, but while he lacks understanding of some critical elements of Edgewood’s history, he has demonstrated a willingness to learn and, so far, has not been afraid to ask difficult questions. 
• It is also true that Taylor has many family and work obligations which might make serving as Commission Chair difficult, but that will also make it unlikely that he will be tempted to push the boundaries of what is essentially a ceremonial position beyond what the job actually calls for. 
• Commissioner Milligan’s lawsuit against the town makes it impractical for him to assume a leadership role. 
• The questions about Commissioner Brennan’s part in both the collapse of the JPA while he served as mayor, and later during the town’s response made it politically unwise for him to resume functioning as the  Commission Chair. 
• Commissioner Murillo’s behavior in (1) attempting to undermine formation of a new Fire/EMS JPA, (2) his clumsy attempts to hasten Rariden’s departure, and (3) his subjection of both the Town Manager and the Deputy Manager/Town Clerk to a public “humiliation ritual” made it impossible for him to continue as Pro Tem. He still has three and a half years to grow into the job of being Commissioner; I hope he will make the most of the opportunity.  
• Last night’s closed session yielded two important action items. The acceptance of the Deputy Administrator/Town Clerk’s resignation was regrettable, but not surprising. The town can consider itself fortunate that there were not two resignations.  
• The announcement following the closed session about possible acquisition of water rights will be explored in more detail at the upcoming July 14, 2026 meeting.  One swallow does not a summer make, and given the Town Commission’s propensity for “shooting itself in the foot” I am cautiously optimistic with the emphasis on “cautiously.”
• Finally, lest it become lost in the shuffle, the mystery agenda item regarding utility billing revealed that the town has fallen far behind in collecting wastewater connection/service fees. The reconciliation of past-due amounts will likely be painful for local businesses and politically embarrassing for the town. Since it was the town which failed to do its part, I hope that there will be no late fees assessed and that ample time will be allowed for compliance.  

Agenda and Packet for 2026 06 23

If the agenda and packet are reliable indicators, it seems that with the public aspects of the JPA fracas behind us, town meetings are falling back into the usual pattern.

• The agenda is fairly short and seems innocuous but with this Commission you never know. 
• Approval of minutes, departmental reports, two closed sessions (water and personnel), and a mystery item called “utility billing presentation,” but as we have come to expect for the past few years there is no supporting documentation in the packet for the mystery item.  
• The important item will be the selection of someone to sit in the coveted seat of “Mayor” which could be routine if they’ve already made the decision, or entertaining if they have not.  
• It will be interesting to see if attendance remains high as it has for the past few months or returns to the usual few sitting in the back. 

Meanwhile, the wheels on the Planning & Zoning bus have fallen off.

It’s not just Fire/EMS services that were targeted by the “Hey Edgewood, forget about SFCo, we can DIY this!” crowd. It became obvious even to casual observers that the wheels were loose beginning in November of 2024 when P&Z approved a Campbell Ranch subdivision application twice and were twice overturned by the Town Commission. 

What the Town Manager needs to do next is to secure support of the governing body to reboot Edgewood’s Planning & Zoning Department and return to sound development review practices. If he does not succeed, then Reboot Edgewood will be able to list another reason why Edgewood’s town government lacks the institutional depth needed to manage its own affairs.  

• I watched only parts of last Thursday’s PZC meeting which mercifully ended after more than three hours of confusion on the part of the PZC and town staff, and with dismay of applicants, their representatives, and the public.  
• Yesterday afternoon former P&Z colleagues recommended that I watch the following YouTube video from one of the applicants (beginning at 35 minutes; 57 seconds), and suggested that it should become mandatory viewing for all the town’s elected/appointed officials.
•  The video shows two things: (1) What is currently wrong with the town’s development review process, and (2) How development review looks to applicants and the public who see the process from “the other side of the table.” 
• One of the main reasons for incorporating a town government was to gain the ability to take control of development review away from Santa Fe County and make decisions locally.  
• However, beginning with the changeover to Commissioner/Manager government in 2022, the town abandoned earlier policies of hiring planning staff who either already had or committed to earning credentials from the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP). 
• Edgewood’s advertising and promotion faction loves to brag about the large town map and how Edgewood is unique among New Mexico’s municipalities, but they never have understood that with all that complexity comes more responsibility. 
• Going forward, hiring qualified professionals in planning and zoning should once again be viewed as essential in managing those responsibilities. 
• What kind of town do we want to build? How the town looks and functions on a day to day basis is decided over time and in small increments. 
• One of the foundational exercises in “definition and division” with regard to the development review process involves understanding the differences between a town’s actual land use plan (sometimes called its master plan) which is based on the objective criteria of cumulative land use decisions, as opposed to the “hopes and dreams” contained in the more familiar document bearing the title “Comprehensive Plan.”
• It is important to note that while both types of comprehensive plans may be cited in making land use decisions, the former should take precedence over the latter. [ETA: The actual land use (master) plan is preferred because it is more legally defensible; it rests on precedent instead of subjective goals and objectives.]