Last night’s special meeting of the Town Commission didn’t get far…

The video speaks for itself. Make of it what you will. It has been apparent for some time that the Glorious Revolution of 2021 which brought us the Commission/Manager form of government has been less than successful. It degenerated into factions and infighting almost immediately, but the worst problems only became visible to the public with the removal of Audrey Jaramillo as mayor.  Whatever lens through which it is viewed, town government is not looking good. 

The architects of the grand plan were able to pull off the first two steps of their little adventure with the Hegelian Dialectic, but the third? Not so much. They nailed the manufactured crisis element and did a competent job of managing the reaction. However, the promised solutions have not manifested. Promoting a culture of dishonor, destroying the town government’s institutional memory, and giving precedence who those willing to tell “itching ears what they want to hear” was not a recipe for long term success.  

To those who have presumed in the past to instruct citizens in what they declare to be God’s Laws, I would suggest focusing on the concepts illustrated in Deuteronomy 20:19 and then making appropriate changes. However, it may be that Edgewood’s experiment in municipal government, which was not built on a sound foundation, has finally run its course and is collapsing under its own weight. 

PZC wrap-up for Thursday September 18, 2025

Items of note from last night’s meeting:  

• The P&Z Commissioners seem to be finding their way towards restoring the proper balance between the PZC and town staff. The presence of legal counsel at the meeting appears to have been helpful. 
• The audio quality left a lot to be desired: The PZC could be heard clearly, but staff and legal counsel could not.  
• The subdivision application which was the focus of my attention was withdrawn. This was a good decision, as there were several items on the application which were incomplete. 
• One question I’m asked from time to time is why it is best to either have the applicant withdraw or for staff and the PZC to send incomplete applications back for more work. The best reason I can give is that whenever there is a need for more than 3-4 conditions it is an indication that the application is not ready for a public hearing. 
• Another related question is why do incomplete applications make it onto agendas? There are usually two reasons why this can happen. The most common reason is that an application has gone out for public notice, but expected documentation from a third party does not arrive in time. The second reason is that if an applicant disagrees with a staff recommendation, the applicant has the right of appeal to the PZC for its review and possible decision. 
• The PZC seems eager to review and recommend changes to the town’s Subdivision Ordinance. Their desire is commendable. However, given the obvious difficulty experienced by the PZC in understanding the basics of the generic subdivision process, and their seeming lack of understanding of the relationship between the zoning and subdivision processes during the Campbell Ranch hearings, it might be too soon to move forward with this task. 
• Also, personnel issues at P&Z during the past year have had a profound impact on the PZC’s work. I would suggest that, for now, individual Commissioners review training materials, state statutes governing municipal land use issues, and gain a better understanding of the current land use ordinances before proposing changes.  
• One Commissioner mentioned using an AI tool to analyze the subdivision ordinance. His remarks seemed to get mixed reviews from the rest of the board. AI can be a good tool, but such tools are no substitute for engaging with the material individually and in discussion among the PZC. There is no Royal Road to Geometry; the same may be said of understanding land use issues.    
• ADDITIONAL POINTS: Hat tip to a regular blog reader who questioned the PZC Chair’s advice to the subdivision applicant to forego comment. Unfortunately, The PZC has not been given accurate information in the past which it needs in order to properly evaluate the “ex parte” issue and to balance that element with “due process” concerns.  The town’s legal counsel needs to weigh in on which should take precedence, and how the PZC should respond.  
• Technically speaking, Mr. Ralph Hill’s remarks, had he been allowed to speak, would not have been considered “ex parte” so long as they were delivered on the record in a public meeting. The only caution, specific to last night’s conditions, was that the only people who could be clearly heard via live-stream were the P&Z Commissioners.  This problem with the audio has been ongoing and it is an OMA/Due Process issue which the town needs to address promptly.  
• In order to balance Constitutional “due process” issues with procedural OMA concerns about “ex parte” communications, the usual “best practices” advice is to allow a person to speak so long as it is in public and can be heard in the room and over any media used to broadcast/record the meeting. 
• However; in deference to OMA procedural considerations, persons offering such comments should merely be thanked for offering comment, and the PZC should not offer substantive comment or make any kind of gesture in response which might be interpreted in a subjective way.  

Updated information for the Hillcrest Master Plan page

At this time, I do not have a reliable link to relevant documents which have been issued in the ongoing legal case between the following parties:

HILLCREST, LLC, a New Mexico limited liability company,  

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant,

V.

HIGHLAND STOCK FARM, LLC, a limited liability company,

Defendant/Counterplaintiff/Third-Party Plaintiff,

V. TIM ODEN, 

Third-Party Defendant.

The case description offers only hints at the complexity of the case, but it is possible to view a detailed timeline of what has transpired so far at  https://nmcourts.gov/ using the “case lookup” option and the following case number: D-101-CV-201900682

Background information: The complicated ownership issues first came to my notice when serving on Edgewood P&Z from September 2008-February 2012. Tim Oden appeared frequently before the PZC asking for modifications to the Hillcrest Master Plan. In 2011, he attempted but failed to convince the PZC to make a recommendation to the Mayor and Council that, like Campbell Ranch, Hillcrest should also be allowed to use the 1999-R Subdivision Ordinance. One of my former PZC colleagues described our attempts at evaluating the series of Hillcrest applications as being like untangling a string of Christmas lights. The timeline of the ongoing litigation confirms that description.  

Addendum for those not familiar with the history: Highland Stock Farm LLC was originally held by several members of the Hill family, but it did not include Brad Hill or his immediate family. In the years since the company was formed, there have been several changes resulting from inheritances and buy-outs within the original group. Hillcrest LLC denotes a corporation having several investors, including Tim Oden, who served as the public face of Hillcrest.  

To the person who emailed yesterday about the blog:

Unfortunately, your e-mail went to the Spam folder and promptly disappeared which was probably due to a PEBKAC error. I was only able to read a short preview. If you care to try again, please re-send.

Edgewood P&Z meeting: Thursday September 18, 2025

Hat tip to the regular reader of the blog who suggested I take time out from other things to review the latest PZC publication.  

You can download or view the agenda/packet at the town website. The packet for this meeting is more substantive than those published in the past few years. In another change reflective of best practices advice, the town appears to have resumed publishing staff reports in advance of meetings.  

For those whose land use interests include the subdivision process and Edgewood’s early love affair with Master Plan Zoning, this agenda ticks several boxes. It appears that the applicant’s packet is not complete, so I would suggest focusing attention on possible discussion by the PZC regarding a conditional approval of the subdivision application. 

Unlike the Campbell Ranch MP, the Hillcrest MP is governed by the current Subdivision Ordinance despite an attempt in 2011 to persuade the town to allow Hillcrest to also use the 1999-9 Subdivision Ordinance. [Although discussions for approval of the Hillcrest MP had begun during the time when 1999-R was in force, a new zoning ordinance was adopted prior to final approval. The 2011 request to use the 1999-R Subdivision Ordinance was rejected on legal grounds: (1) a newer Subdivision Ordinance had been adopted since the MP was approved, (2) neither the approved Master Plan, nor the Stipulated Settlement Order mention use of 1999-R, and (3) the Zoning Ordinance in force at the time Hillcrest was approved called for subdivision applications being processed according to the subdivision ordinance in force at the time an application was submitted.]

The next regular PZC meeting is scheduled for October 16, 2025. 

Packet posted for tonight’s pre-Commission meeting workshop.

 The draft solid waste ordinance is available to view or download from the town website.  

Latest news from EMPAC

Comparing the levels of creative engagement exhibited by residents along the North 14 Corridor, to the general lack of interest among Edgewood residents only reinforces my observation that Edgewood’s 1999 incorporation was not the product of a grass-roots effort. It is not widely known among newer residents that during the time Edgewood was trying to incorporate, residents along North 14 also considered incorporation, but ultimately rejected the idea in the belief that governance by Bernalillo County is more suitable to life in the East Mountains. 

Many Santa Fe County residents in the Edgewood area had similar feelings following the “bridge” annexation which culminated in approval of the Campbell Ranch Master Plan, but Bob Stearley’s 2002 slate of three candidates “rug-pulled” nascent disincorporation sentiments. If the next municipal election cycle continues Edgewood’s well established pattern of political instability, and the campaigns are run in the same vein as the town elections of 2018, 2021, and 2023, a preference for county governance might re-emerge in Edgewood. My first thought after reading the petition list which led to the 2022 change in the form of government was that it would devolve into bitter infighting, institutional amnesia, incompetence, more litigation, and scandal. The biggest surprise? It took far less time than I expected for the new government to turn sour. 

Town Commission Agenda & Packet Sept. 9, 2025

The agenda and packet can be viewed/downloaded at the town website. Again, there are several closed session items; expect a long evening.  The town manager’s report indicates that the Campbell Ranch appeal was received on Sept. 3. The regular meeting will be preceded by a 5:00 pm workshop on the proposed solid waste ordinance, and a presentation on fleet maintenance. At this time only an agenda has been posted for the workshop.