Agenda published for the September 3, 2025 Economic Advisory Board meeting

The agenda can be viewed/downloaded at the town website. The evening’s topic includes a survey of economic development goals found in the latest Comprehensive Land Use Plan and identification of where to go next. Be alert for suggestions on how developers intend to market the idea of high density housing which has not been popular with Edgewood residents in the past.

Future meetings are scheduled for:

• October 1, 2025
• November 5, 2025
• December 3, 2025

Legal status of the Campbell Ranch Master Plan?

A rumor which has circulated in Edgewood for many years without being publicly challenged until recently says that, an unnamed state district court judge on an unspecified date, ruled that the Development Agreement between Campbell Farming and the Town of Edgewood must be followed without modification. I am not the only person who has investigated this assertion, but failed to find any evidence that such a thing ever happened. The question, then, needs to be re-framed: What did happen?  

• In late 2001 and early 2002 following the annexation and subsequent approval of the development agreement, then town council member Robert Stearley, candidate Paul Hoffman, and Linda Sparling considered filing a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the annexation and, by extension, the development agreement. However, the contemplated lawsuit was probably never filed, or may have been withdrawn before being placed on a court schedule. There have been no court records found to date indicating that such a case was ever heard.  
• Following the March 2002 municipal election, Stearley was re-elected, and Hoffman joined him on the town council. 
• Had the proposed lawsuit gone forward, neither Stearley nor Hoffman would have been able to vote on any Campbell Ranch matters such as creation of the Public Improvement District (PID) or subdivision applications. This situation would most likely have resulted in former town council member Donzil Worthington, who had opposed the annexation, voting one way, and Chuck Ring another, thereby allowing then Mayor Howard Calkins to break a tie vote. It was assumed that since both Calkins and Ring were openly supportive of the town assuming responsibility for Campbell Ranch, that their combined two votes would have resulted in approval of any Campbell Ranch matters that might have come before the town. 
• Furthermore, Santa Fe County did file suit challenging the annexation. It was believed at that time that the county had a strong case, making Stearley’s plan redundant. 
• However, Santa Fe County’s challenge to the annexation was eventually denied in state district court on the grounds that the County lacked standing. An appeal was later dismissed for the same reason in July of 2004. Santa Fe County decided against any further appeals.
• The ramifications of the county’s failure to prevail have been misrepresented since that time either through a misunderstanding of the law, or a desire to shape the narrative by making it seem that the denials were affirmations of the annexation and the development agreement.
• When a lawsuit is denied because of a “lack of standing” that is the end of the matter. The Campbell Ranch annexation in 2001 and subsequent approval of the development agreement in 2002 were allowed to remain in place, but without comment as to the merits of either the annexation or the development agreement. 
• If a state district court judge or appeals court had ever issued any additional stipulations beyond dismissals for lack of standing, then there would be some record of the action. However, no record of such an action has been found to date.
• It is possible that the people spreading the misinformation have confused the challenge to the Campbell Ranch Master Plan with the challenge to the approval of the Hillcrest Master Plan which was settled after an out- of-court agreement was reached. The agreement on Hillcrest was later confirmed by a detailed “stipulated settlement order” issued by the judge in that case which took place in late 2003 through early 2004.

What, then is the legal status of the Campbell Ranch Annexation and Development Agreement? 

• Neither has ever been successfully challenged, making Campbell Ranch part of Edgewood, and administration of any future development will be the responsibility of the town. 
• As such, Campbell Ranch has achieved vested right to the master plan zoning category for the property. The assigned zoning cannot be modified without the consent of the owners unless the town were to show cause that a compelling reason exists to revisit the matter. In order to revisit the zoning as Master Plan, the town would have to convene a public hearing under that portion of the Zoning Ordinance governing zone changes. 
• What having Master Plan Zoning does not establish, is vested right to actual development; that comes later in the process and is established through compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance.

Is it possible to change Master Plans once they have been approved?

• The Town of Edgewood’s Zoning Ordinance contains provisions for amending master plans by the Planning & Zoning Commission during a public hearing. An interesting addition to the current Zoning Ordinance’s table assigning responsibilities with regard to land use ordinances would appear to give the Town’s P&Z director power to approve Master Plan amendments administratively. However, the ordinance itself does not describe such an action.  
• Approved Master Plans are modified from time to time, as has been the case for both the Hillcrest and Section 16 Master Plans. 

2025 Municipal Election filings for candidacy have been posted.

UPDATE: All candidates listed below who filed for municipal office are now showing as having been qualified, but Jerry Powers later withdrew. 

The NM Secretary of State’s candidate portal lists the following candidates for the Town of Edgewood as having filed on Tuesday. The status will be shown as “pending” while awaiting verification of eligibility.  

D-1 Adrian L. Chavez Sr.; Kenneth Donald Brennan

D-2 Devon L. Taylor; Jerry Dean Powers (now showing as having withdrawn) 

D-4 Filandro R. Anaya; Stephen M. Murillo

D-5 Michael E. Rariden 

Municipal Judge: William H. White

D-3, (currently filled by Patrick Milligan) will appear on the ballot in 2027)

Town Commission Agenda & Packet for August 26, 2025

The packet can be viewed/downloaded at the town website. With several items listed for the closed session, it may be a long meeting.

Planning & Zoning Commission meeting August 21, 2025

Update: The meeting can be viewed on YouTube, and lasted just under an hour. The subdivision was unanimously approved with the condition that the Water Will-Serve letter from EPCOR be updated to specify that both lots can be served. The PZC will hold at least one meeting in September which is scheduled for the 18th.

The PZC is scheduled to meet tomorrow evening before taking time off from regular meetings until October 16, 2025 as reflected in the meeting agenda’s calendar update. The agenda and meeting packet can be downloaded from the ToE website. 

The brief agenda features (1) approval of previous meeting minutes, (2) a combined preliminary/final subdivision hearing with a listed project address of # 65 Edgewood 7, and (3) a continuation of in-house training. 

August 16, 2025 Town Commission Meeting Summary

The meeting lasted just over an hour and a half and can be viewed on YouTube. It was more or less routine with the only remarkable information coming from several “asides” during the course of the meeting:

• Commissioner Murillo, who was appointed to fill a vacancy, announced that he will file as a candidate in the upcoming election. 
• Clerk-Treasurer interviews had been conducted earlier in the day and were reported to have gone well; the interim Clerk announced during the meeting that she had withdrawn her application. Instead, she plans to remain in her current position.
• The AYSO storage shed at Venus Park was approved with some adjustments following admonitions from the Town Manager about making the project compliant with state law. (Unlike in the town’s early years, no “wigs on the green” moments erupted at the mention of “anti-donation” considerations.)
• The latest scheme for organizing the Parks and Recreation Department is to separate responsibilities between two employees with one to focus on parks and the other on trails.  
• There will be adult beverages available at the upcoming Labor Day Bash. The vendor who appeared before the Commission suggested scaling back multi-day celebrations due to attendance patterns.  
• The Lodgers Tax Advisory Board recommendations were approved with little discussion. I cannot say with certainty exactly what was done as the specifics of the applications were not made available to the public.  
• The Commission approved payment of certain unspecified legal fees. Apparently this was the result of the policy allowing Commissioners to freelance on obtaining legal advice. Commissioner Anaya offered to pay it himself, as it was he who had incurred the expense.  The Town Manager informed the Commission that either way, the situation will eventually show up as a finding on an upcoming audit. So, the taxpayers will foot the bill for Anaya’s individual legal research. Anaya had announced his intent to file for re-election at an earlier meeting.  
• Yet another proposal for access to Section 32 has been abandoned. However, don’t despair: town staff has been instructed to look for another option. This is another example of the town’s history of annex it now; we can sort the details later.  
• The roads update item was deferred: presumably this would have been where the public heard an explanation of the more than 400 K paid to Albuquerque Asphalt. (The supporting documentation in the packet shows vendors and amounts paid out. I found no information on income for the same period.)
• This meeting, originally scheduled for August 12, was delayed because the agenda was not posted in a timely manner. The ostensible reason for moving meetings from Wednesdays to Tuesdays was to allow more people who attend Wednesday Night Bible Study/Prayer meetings to attend town meetings. Given the fact that only a handful of people routinely attend town meetings, it might be time to return to a more sensible schedule. This would allow more time at the end of the week prior to regular meetings for agendas to be finalized and more complete packets published.
• The Commission will be hosting an appreciation BBQ for employees just as preparations for the next elections are getting underway. Despite the good intentions, the timing is not ideal. Given the ominous rumblings on social media, Commissioners should be ready for threats of complaints filed under the Governmental Conduct Act. 
• The multiple ongoing investigations hinted at earlier are still ongoing. It appears that tactics similar to those used against the Mayor and Town Council from 2019-21 are coming into play again with rapid-fire complaints to the state about finances along with attempts of various kinds to intimidate employees and other town officials.

 

Edgewood in the News: Campbell Ranch Subdivision Denied

Kevin Hendricks’ article summarizing the July 24, 2025 appeal hearing provides good information about the hearing itself as well as some history and context of the subdivision application. 

Providing news coverage of issues relevant to the East Mountain region of New Mexico is difficult, and many of the issues facing individual residents and local governments are complex. If you are looking for a more efficient way of keeping up with a variety of current events, the nm.news subscription page is a good place to start.  

August 16, 2025 Special Town Commission Meeting

The meeting originally scheduled for August 12 was cancelled: a packet for Saturday’s special meeting is available at the ToE website. The home page contains a link for watching those meetings which are live-streamed.  

Items of interest on the agenda

• Payment of legal fees: There are several items which may pertain to this agenda item in the bills paid section of the packet. (Six results can be found using the search criterion “P.C.”) 
• Draft Minutes for the Special Meeting of July 24, 2025: (Campbell Ranch Subdivision Appeal. The draft appears to have been prepared by legal counsel.)
• Draft Minutes for the Special Meeting of August 7, 2025: (Town Manager and lease negotiations for Section 32; the minutes indicate that Commissioner Milligan’s reason for not participating in the first two of the three listed closed session items is related to a tort claim he has filed against the Town,)
• Private property lease negotiations for access to Section 32: (This item did not appear on the published agenda for August 12; ongoing negotiations may have been the reason for rescheduling.)

Page Update: Campbell Ranch

I have updated the Campbell Ranch page to incorporate dates with brief descriptions of the latest decisions by Edgewood’s Town and P&Z Commissions. You will find a link to the Order of Decision signed on July 31, 2025 posted at the Town of Edgewood’s website. I would encourage anyone who wishes to keep a copy for future reference to save the document promptly as content at the town’s website tend to appear and disappear without notice. 

This usually happens after elections make significant changes in the makeup of the governing body as newly elected town officials often try to leave their mark on the website in the mistaken belief that the changes will be easy. Given that four of the five Town Commission positions will be on the ballot in November, expect more changes following January 1, 2026. Save any town documents of interest before that date. I have posted a summary of the decision in an earlier post.  

Campbell Ranch Notice of Decision (dated July 31, 2025)

Edgewood has issued a Notice of Decision following The Town Commission’s hearing on the appeal of P&Z’s second approval of a Campbell Ranch request for a “bulk plat subdivision.”

The Town Commission granted the appeals filed by opponents of P&Z’s decision, and reversed and denied P&Z’s May 15, 2025 subdivision approval. Taken as a whole, the document is a clear indication for a review of the Planning and Zoning department’s policies and procedures which needs to be followed by corrective actions. The problems began with the town staff’s failure to correct obvious deficiencies in the application prior to submitting it to The P&Z Commission on November 21, 2024. 

The Town Commission issued several findings: 

• The  application was not consistent with the 1999-R Subdivision Ordinance’s requirements on platting, infrastructure, and water supply.
• The application was not consistent with the 2001 Development Agreement, or current Zoning Ordinances, and the Applicant has not established vested rights which would exempt it from current regulations. 
• The record as presented to the Town Commission was incomplete and deficient. 
• [With regard to P&Z’s approval,] there were procedural irregularities, and required findings were absent.  

The Town Commission also issued a series of requirements for any future applications which must: 

• Comply fully with relevant portions of 1999-R (or any successor ordinance in effect at the time of the application).
• Provide clear and convincing evidence of adequate water supply, infrastructure, and compliance with Master Plan and Zoning Ordinances.
• Be supported by a complete and reliable record. 
• Include all required documentation and public input. 

Economic Advisory Board meets this evening.

It should be noted that the numerous disclaimers about maintaining Edgewood’s rural character seem to be less prominent in the current version of the ToE website. In 1999, many of the  people promoting the creation of a new layer of government appeared to genuinely believe that we could “have our cake and eat it too,” but 25 years on it is not possible to pretend any longer that adding more government has not had a profound effect on Edgewood’s essential character. Whether this is a good thing or not is a subjective assessment. 

• This meeting has some interesting items in the agenda/packet available at the town website. If the meeting is live-streamed, there is usually a link to watch on the ToE home page for those who cannot attend in person. 
• One welcome procedural innovation is that the Town Commission has firmly shut the door on earlier attempts to reconstitute and then allow the group to operate out of public view.
• The SWOT analysis discussion will give a snapshot of where this latest in a long line of the town’s “economic development” efforts is headed. One new trend seems to be convincing people to accept high-density housing projects. 
• What to watch for on higher residential densities: Do the proposed locations make sense within the town’s past and present Comprehensive Land Use Plans, or are the locations chosen on the basis of who owns the land? 
• Another possibility to consider: Locations where the town has exercised its recently created administrative resolution of code violations which, in turn, appears to have opened the way for public/private re-development projects. 
• While many people initially thought this mechanism would be a good way to resolve some bad situations, the first discussion of the solid waste ordinance served to reveal that it has morphed into a “cottage industry” which could, if not properly managed, drag the town into federal lawsuits.
• Using this mechanism to skirt due process and equal treatment considerations and side-stepping the lawful authority of the elected Municipal Judge was not good idea. The Town Commission needs to take a second look at how the policy has been used, and either put some restrictions in place or do away with it altogether. 
• The Santa Fe County Tax Assessor’s website would be a good place to begin researching the above-mentioned topics. 

• The other issue to watch is the new Water Ordinance (text included in packet) which seems to portray a new innovation in town official documents: A shiny foil seal is affixed to the signature sheet. One thing to keep in mind on this issue, like all town ordinances, it is a tool. 
• The use to which this one will be put is dependent upon who administers it and to whom any presumed costs and benefits will accrue. It could be used as first step to secure local control of the town’s water supply, or it could be used to tax Edgewood residents in order to subsidize a for-profit corporation which sends money out of Edgewood. 
• The CORE group which served as a tool to facilitate the change from Mayor/Council to a Commission/Manager form of government, seems to have fragmented. However, its voluminous social media posts have preserved a number of interesting insights. Many of their assertions have since been shown to be projections of their own intentions onto their political opponents. 
• One of the more curious assertions was that former Mayor John Bassett was scheming to “…send your water to Campbell Ranch!” No evidence was forthcoming in support of the assertion, and the original post was later deleted.  
• However, this begs the question of how such a project might be brought into being. How indeed? Take a close look at this water ordinance: Who wrote it, who promoted it, and who voted for it? John Bassett certainly cannot be either blamed or credited with this latest innovation. 
• Four of Edgewood’s five Town Commission Seats will be on the November ballot. Water should be a major topic, but I expect lots of emotional appeals and very little in the way of specific policies.