Campbell Ranch Subdivision Application: What Went Wrong?

1.  Town staff’s attempt to process the application “under the radar” as revealed by the emails with legal counsel was a very bad idea and tainted everything that has followed. 

2. The egregious mistakes made by the town in the advertising and conducting of both the original and appeal hearings demonstrate a level of sloppiness that needs to be addressed by the governing body.

3.  Future press releases on land use matters need to come directly from the planning office; preferably by someone who either already holds or is working on AICP (American Institute of Certified Planners) accreditation. If there is no one in the planning office who meets those qualifications, then achieving that goal needs to become a condition of employment in that department.  

4. The Planning & Zoning Commission exists primarily to specialize in land use and take some of the burden off the governing body. It also serves as an extra layer to help prevent contentious applications going straight from the governing body into state district court. In order to fulfill its mission (and justify its salaries and perks) it needs to pay more attention to getting the details right.  

5. However, P&Z operates only on the authority delegated to it; the governing body needs to be ready to handle appeals in a competent manner and to exercise its authority over the planning office when necessary. The March 6, 2025 appeal hearing made it all too clear that the current governing body is not comfortable doing the former, and has failed in the latter. 

6. Putting up that Welcome to Edgewood sign in the “far northwest” part of town was not a good move. Was the intent some kind of territory-marking exercise? The effect has been to energize anti-Edgewood sentiments; not a good move for a town government that depends heavily on Gross Receipts Taxes.  

7. Commission meetings are business meetings, and need to be conducted as such. Information pertinent to land use hearings should be prepared and made available to the public no later than the state law deadline regarding posting of the agenda for an upcoming regular meeting. If large amounts of information are submitted later, that is an indication that a postponement may be in order. Edgewood is a small town, but it has annexed its way into big responsibilities for land use matters. 

Correction to the Understanding Edgewood Land Use page

I have made the following correction to the page so that the Campbell Ranch section now reads as follows:

After the county appeal of that decision was denied in 2004 (due to lack of standing), the town commenced work on the development agreement and the Public Improvements District (PID). Correction: While the town government in 2004-5 considered revisiting the development agreement, it appears that the effort may have been dropped due to objections by Campbell Farming. At this time, the town government was caught up in the turmoil surrounding the contested mayoral race of 2004.  

Draft minutes for the March 6, 2025 Appeal of Subdivision Hearing

This draft is available at the town’s website. I have no words to adequately describe them. The charmingly informal minutes prepared in the town’s earliest years were models of clarity by comparison. Even after viewing the hearing via Internet, it is all but impossible to decipher this draft. The appellants and/or the applicant will probably need to request a verbatim transcript. The entire “minor subdivision” application has been a mess beginning with the Town of Edgewood’s previously documented attempt to proceed “under the radar” prior to advertising the P&Z hearing last year.  

Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons?

I have had some interesting feedback on the MAP decode post. 

• First, a disclaimer: I will benefit if/when this project comes to fruition. So factor that into your analysis of this and yesterday’s posts. However, I am not holding my breath on a hard surface for Horton from Venus to Frost getting done anytime soon. (See also Church Road.)
• Horton Road has long been identified as a priority north-south road which, if paved, could serve two purposes: relieve congestion on NM 344, and act as an alternate evacuation route if 344 were to be blocked in an emergency situation.  
• One person asked how many trips per day (TPD) have been measured on different points along Horton, or even if it has been measured at all. I don’t recall hearing this mentioned. 
• Another reader confirmed that Horton traffic has been measured, but that it did not meet the threshold established as > 250 TPD. 
• There are other roads in other parts of town which probably exceed traffic on Horton, and could serve the same beneficial purposes for those areas. Were they given consideration? 
• Mayor Brennan painted a very optimistic picture of the prospects for funding. I wonder how much he understands the way MAP funding works in the real world? 
• Brennan lives near Horton, and improving it was a campaign promise. Instead of campaigning for a state office last year, perhaps he should have put in more time on this project.   
• Has the town identified any funding sources other than MAP and the “in-kind” services described by Brennan?  
• If safety considerations are so urgent, then what remedial measures is the town prepared to take while the work is in progress?
• The Clerk polling Commissioners individually via-email avoids the pitfalls of a rolling quorum, but that exigency does not substitute for full and open discussion of all the available options. 
• Once again, Commissioner Anaya was absent and so we didn't hear from him.

I don’t have a problem with the unanimous vote to apply for MAP funding to improve Horton; it’s not a bad choice. I do have a problem with the Commission’s failure to get the item on the agenda well in advance of the deadline, and the failure to discuss all the options out in the open. This is yet another instance of the transparency talk/walk not lining up. 

Special MAP Meeting Decoded

UPDATE: I have been contacted by readers who reminded me of two things: (1) Plans for improving North Horton have been around for a long time, but there remain questions about whether or not the project described is eligible for MAP. (2) After considering the furor over ill-advised paving projects in the past, a former Town Council directed P&Z to prioritize roads which required frequent maintenance, and for which it could be established had > 250 TPD (Trips Per Day).  As I began my second time at P&Z in 2019, the Commission had just finished work on delivering a set of recommendations. No followup was possible in subsequent years because of the legal furor over acquisition of EPCOR. Following the reconstitution of government, the concept seems to have been lost or intentionally discontinued. I have summarized this and more feedback to the original post here. 

Last night’s hurriedly called special meeting was explained as being required to generate a resolution to pave more of North Horton Road. It caught a lot of people by surprise. 

1. Someone in the town office missed the deadline for a recurring event. 2025 begins year four following the reconstitution of government, so the deadline to apply for Municipal Arterial Program (MAP) funds could not have been a surprise. Town staff took the blame. The latest iteration of town government must be remarkably passive because in prior years elected officials have hovered over the process in such a way that the deadline could not have been missed. (Perhaps they and town staff are too busy managing current and threatened litigation?)

2. Former Councilor Linda Holle spoke in public comment where she asked some pertinent questions about how Horton was chosen. The replies from Murillo, Brennan, and Mulligan were delivered almost in unison.  IT IS ALL ABOUT SAFETY. To be sure, Horton Road has long been a priority to fill two needs: A hard surface alternate route in case of emergency and to relieve congestion on NM 344. However, MAP funding was on an earlier agenda; why was Horton not specified then if it was an obvious choice? (Behind the scenes deal-making?)

3. Commissioner Rariden asked what measures are being taken in the meantime to make the road more passable pending completion of this project? He was assured that doing so is a waste of money. (If the situation is so dire, his question deserves a substantive reply.)

4. Commissioner Brennan expanded on the town’s plans: It seems there is a never before heard of component to meeting the MAP requirement of the town furnishing partial matching funding: The town will be allowed to furnish in-kind road work instead of handing over cash. He went on to discuss the possibility of starting with chip seal and maybe real paving down the road. This assumes that the town will be able to hire an oil truck as needed, have enough trained staff to run the town owned chip seal equipment, and that the town equipment will be ready to go after sitting idle over winter months. The window of acceptable temperatures for paving is narrow due to Edgewood’s climate. (Paving Horton was a campaign promise made by Brennan.) 

5. Town staff assured the Commissioners that District 5 DOT staff has assured the town that the application papers will be accepted. However, MAP funds are limited, and priority will likely be given to those communities who submitted timely applications.  

6. MAP funding is spread out in a sequence to (1) design, (2) engineer, and (3) build designated roads which are also required to join a state road. How will “in-kind” work be done for the design or engineering phases? 

7. Approval of any sort is not guaranteed. If the town gets anything this year it is likely to be only partial. (Church Road has used MAP funds in the past, and has been a priority for paving for well over a decade, but it’s still not done. One reason, among others, is political deal-making among the governing body which diverted funding requests to pet projects.)

8. The people who will benefit are sure to be pleased at least until they find out how long it is going to take. Those in other parts of town will be angry that they didn’t get priority. The first, and for many years only road paving project, other than Frost Road and Dinkle Road, was Skyline Drive. It was a political albatross around the neck of the town council member who lived on that road when the chip seal was laid down.  

9. In 2011, former Mayor Stearley’s fight with the council over which roads to pave resulted in some of the most tumultuous council meetings in the town’s history. The rancor generated by that fight likely contributed to his defeat by Brad Hill in 2012. 

10. In the same vein, Hill’s successful diversion of State Legislature capital outlay money from Church Road toward paving a mile of East Venus Road which contained no houses may have contributed to his defeat by John Bassett in 2016. The town matching money put up for Hill’s East Venus project meant that when the wastewater treatment plant started showing problems, his ability to deal with the situation was made more difficult. The people who signed petitions in favor of the project and were assured that the paving of mile two would be coming soon are still waiting.  

One of the deciding factors in the original vote to incorporate was improving roads. Progress has not been easy. Politicians come and go at regular intervals, and I have seen successive waves of rash promises about roads. Road improvements happen, but they always cost more (money and political capital), and take more time than anticipated. 

  

Correction to the Featured Post

 I have corrected an error and updated some information in the Featured Post which has a link in the upper left column. The original was posted in 2022.  

New Commissioner Appointed to replace Sterling Donner

The Independent News has this story about the Town’s newly appointed Commissioner, Mike Rariden. The appointment was done by Commissioners Brennan, Mulligan, and Murillo who voted unanimously to appoint Rariden. The discussion featured a confusingly worded abstention by Commissioner Anaya who was participating via telephone, and a motion by Commissioner Murillo to appoint the other finalist which did not receive a second. Following the vote, perpetual candidate Commissioner Brennan, commenced to solicit votes in the next council election while sitting as presiding officer. Hard to tell if he was in earnest or trying to leaven the proceedings with some humor.  

Edgewood News coverage of Campbell Ranch subdivision appeal

 You can see Andrea Vasquez’ coverage of the hearing which was published today.  

Two additions to the links list.

I have added links in the left sidebar: The first is to Campbell Farming which is the official website for the Campbell Ranch proposed master plan development. There is also a link to a description of the master plan located at Kellenberg Studio’s website:   “Kellenberg Studio is a boutique urban planning and urban design firm…”

Appeal hearing March 6, 2025

Here is a link to yesterday’s public hearing following which the three governing body Commissioners who were present voted to remand Campbell Ranch’s application for a “minor” subdivision to P&Z for reconsideration.  

Several comments suggested by the testimony and cross-examination:

Like the appellants, I have been puzzled by the Town’s attempts at merging a quasi-judicial public hearing with an appeal which, in this circumstance, should have been advertised solely as an “appeal of record” hearing as stipulated in the town’s own ordinance. 

It appears that someone on town staff is trying to use the “quasi-judicial” umbrella incorrectly. Regardless of intent, the result has been that public input in this matter has been hindered.  

Quasi-judicial hearings are not mysterious, nor to they require “deciders” to live in a sack prior to hearings. The New Mexico Attorney General’s office provides free training and reasonable suggestions on how to comply with IPRA/OMA statutes. 

The town’s failure to properly distinguish between a quasi-judicial hearing and an appeal of record hearing did a disservice to the Town, its P&Z Commission, the Appellants, and not least to the original Applicant. 

Because the procedure followed yesterday after the closing of testimony was to (1) state a motion, (2) conduct deliberations, and then (3) go to a vote I would suggest that, in future, the presiding officer ask the Clerk to restate the original motion immediately prior to the roll call vote. This ensures that those voting are voting with a clear recollection of the original motion; it is especially important when a hearing is controversial, or when the original motion has been amended. 

If it is true that there were delays in P&Z officers signing paperwork after the November 2024 hearing, then it needs to be made clear that in the past, P&Z commissioners were expected to be available to make a quorum, and that in order to serve as an officer, their also being available to promptly sign paperwork following public hearings was expected. 

This was routine practice when P&Z Commissioners served on a volunteer basis, and also later when they were given a stipend to cover printing, and mileage costs. Those former expectations should be requirements now that the town is paying salaries.  

In fairness to Brad Hill, he was speaking without having time to consult notes; however, he offered testimony on several items which I believe to have been incorrect:

1. He appears to have conflated those who are entitled to give testimony with those who are entitled by town ordinance to receive written notice of applications which are going to appear before the P&Z Commission. 
2. If the P&Z Commission is limiting testimony to only those entitled to receive written notice of upcoming hearings, then that is a new policy put into place after December 31, 2021
3. I can state from personal knowledge that prior to 2022 the town’s P&Z Commission relied upon training which was very clear in advising that any person claiming to be an “aggrieved party” be allowed to offer testimony, and that the Commissioners could then filter the testimony as needed.  It was customary to allow those entitled to receive written notice to testify first, but I do not remember any attempt to limit testimony to only those persons. 
4. My recollection of Mr. David Henderson’s of advice to the town’s former Mayors and Councilors as well as to its P&Z Commissions is in conflict with Mr. Hill’s recollection. My primary recollection is of Henderson in a particularly controversial Zone Change hearing citing examples of case law and stating that the safest practice for the town was to allow all those wishing to offer testimony to do so. This was suggested in order to protect the town’s interests in case of an appeal. 
5. If Hill’s recollection that a former town counsel ever gave the advice he described at the hearing, I would suggest that it may have come from someone other than David Henderson. The town has gone through several legal firms since 1999.
6. The limitations placed on this relatively liberal policy have, in the past, been that repetitive testimony need not be listened to at length, but people who wish to do so should be allowed to enter a brief statement for or against an application and the grounds for their statement. 
7. During the years when the town’s legal counsel came from Robles, Rael, and Anaya they offered the same advice. 

These matters are (or should be) included in Land Use 101. People cycle in and out of town government regularly; the land use issues are more durable and the town needs to do better at handling transitions between elections. I find it troubling that after more than 25 years, errors such as those observed and described in yesterday’s hearing are still allowed to occur. It appears, that the 2022 form of government reset has also wiped the town’s 25 year history of land use matters; if this is the case, then retrieval of missing land use documents and re-training in OMA/IPRA compliance needs to be made a top priority. The preservation of documents relevant to land use hearings is required by state law.