64 Days and Counting…

 …Because restoring the Fire/EMS JPA is of paramount importance, yet tonight’s agenda is loaded up with frivolous elements. It’s past time to start working on the budget. But instead, the Commission continues to waste time re-inventing the wheel on a myriad of issues, presuming to set themselves up as moral arbiters for the citizenry, and sending the staff on an endless series of futile inquiries. 

It’s one thing to send credulous underclassmen out to “hunt snipe” on a moonless night: However, experienced professionals can’t be expected to cater to the Commissioners’ big egos forever.  

• Do these Commissioners not understand the fundamental reasons why previous inquiries into a 24/7 medical facility have not come to fruition? Consider this: It’s not for lack of trying by other, highly qualified people. The fundamental realities of income, tax base, and population have not changed substantially since it was looked at in the past. 
• How many times to we have to revisit the real versus artificial turf question? Has it not occurred anyone to look back at the minutes of meetings when the first field was built?  
• Why is the Church Road paving project still not finished despite decades of appearing on the ICIP, and the fact that is the entry point from the east to one of the town’s best income generators?  Perhaps look at the town’s history of political instability.
• Why did previous town governments not jump right in to buy chip-seal equipment, and why has the town not met projections after this one did take on the project? Could it be that previous town governments were better grounded in reality and looked at the short window dictated by our weather, staff turnover rates in the road department, and had conducted more than one cost/benefit analysis on future maintenance? 
• Does the town need a separate Public Information Officer? The Commissioners need to stop wasting time and money on lawsuits, pursuit of vanity projects which the tax base cannot support, and let senior staff actually do the jobs for which they were hired. If that were to happen, release of official information would be more routine and less time consuming.  

Special Meeting Posted: Roads (Re-arranged with additional information included)

The Town Commission will meet on May 5, 2025 to consider one item: A request for an extension on LGRF grants for Horton Road from (1) Venus to Frost, (2) W. Venus from Horton running east for approximately 0.75 miles, and (3) Nugent Road from Horton to NMSR 344.  

History, Details and Precedent Matter: 

West Venus: In the town government’s early years there was talk of having the developer of Stone Mountain Estates pave W. Venus from NMSR 344 past Horton as far as the ingress to the proposed development. However, that project has been delayed for many years over zoning issues. [ETA a clarification suggested by one of the blog’s original readers: The first section of W. Venus (approx. 0.25 miles) was eventually paved as part of the improvements agreement which was required by Santa Fe County of the developer who built the Hermosa Montaña Subdivision across from Edgewood Middle School.]

A town paving project for paving more of W. Venus to Horton was suggested by former Mayor Bob Stearley in 2011, in order to mitigate dust generated from heavy traffic coming from Horton Road on the way to Edgewood Middle School. There had been numerous complaints from parents about the poor condition of the road and the fact that large amounts of dust was settling on students during early morning and afternoon practice sessions on the athletic fields. 

The Town Council chose West Hill Ranch Road instead even though three of the four Council Members at that time stood to benefit from the project (Brad Hill, Rita Loy Simmons, John Abrams). The argument in favor of choosing Hill Ranch over W. Venus was that this would benefit more residents while the worst effects on W. Venus were only of limited duration on week days. 

[ETA: I checked with former Councilor and Mayor Pro Tem, John Abrams, who was able to offer more information. He gave permission to use his name and added the following additional considerations which influenced his choice of W Hill Ranch: (1) A petition bearing >300 signatures gathered from people who used the road by volunteers who stood at a stop sign at the intersection of Horton and Hill Ranch. (2) A traffic counting machine survey showing an average of just under 500 TPD on the road. (3) Complaints by the road crews that they could not keep up with maintenance due to heavy traffic. Abrams also added that the paving on W Hill Ranch is beginning to fall apart and that if not repaired soon the remediation costs will only increase.] 

My note: Councilors Abrams, Simmons and Hill all disclosed at the time that they stood to benefit. However, it was clear that many more residents also benefitted. Former Mayor Stearley believed that the three had conflicts of interest, and therefore insisted that W Hill Ranch should not have been chosen for that reason. One person who collected signatures asked Stearley a good question: why she should be penalized simply because two of the three (Abrams and Hill) lived in the area and a third (Simmons) owned land there? 

East or West Venus? In 2013, Mayor Brad Hill waved off the option given to the town by former Governor Martinez and the late State Rep. Stephen Easley to spend its 2013 Capital Outlay funds to complete the remaining 0.75 mile paving of W. Venus to Horton instead of Hill’s preference to pave just under a mile on E. Venus.

The E. Venus project ran through the Hillcrest Master Plan. At that time, members of the Hill family were still responsible for property taxes, and the OSE showed that the family-owned corporation (Highland Stock Farm) retained 50% of the original water rights.) 

The remedy for a questionable decision in this case was political as reflected by results of the 2016 town elections. People who were eating dust in their neighborhoods were not amused by the finished project  nor were they impressed with the quality of work which failed to address the poor drainage where E. Venus meets NMSR 344. (See also Town Council minutes from February 6, 2013.)

Horton and Nugent? The paving of Horton from the I-40 Frontage Road to Frost has been listed in a succession of Comprehensive Land Use Plans as a priority in order to establish an alternate evacuation route, and also a means for relieving congestion along NMSR 344.  Nugent Road has long been identified as a generator of “fugitive dust” and residents in the area will benefit from improvements as will the owners of vehicles who use the road.           

Today, the current projects listed on the agenda lie in the town’s “Shoestring/Bridge” annexation. Does the fact that a few current and former town officials stand to benefit from these projects make them in any way illegal? The answer is no unless it can be objectively demonstrated that there was a failure to properly disclose potential or actual conflicts of interest, or that the projects solely (or primarily) benefited one or more town officials at the expense of the wider community.  

Something the current town government might want to keep in mind is that for over 25 years, the town has established a body of legal precedent in such matters which may serve to undermine its arguments for the propriety of Edgewood’s intervention in current litigation.  

2025 Capital Outlay Overview

See this post for the version signed by the Governor. 

Update: It appears that a lack of discipline by the governing body is nothing new as shown in this Edgewood News story from January 11, 2024.  

Edgewood’s governing body has long faced difficulties in crafting its yearly ICIP (Infrastructure Capital Improvement Plan) submission to the state legislature. There are three underlying problems it faces: lack of awareness about town how government functions among the general public, seemingly unresolvable differences over what programs should be funded, and Edgewood’s perennially toxic elections. The governing body can’t please everyone, and the ICIP is where Edgewood’s many sub-groups which give the town its unique character become a liability.  What the town gained by changing the timing of elections in the area of budget preparation, it lost with the timing of the ICIP so don’t expect improvements this fall.* The terms of Commissioners Brennan and Anaya expire this year, and as appointees, Commissioners Murillo and Raridan will stand for election should they wish to continue to the end of the term for those seats. 

The Commission Manager government seems to have thrown in the towel last fall and sent a very long wish list for consideration. The search parameters at the state legislature’s website can be adjusted to show Edgewood’s requests as well as those from towns of similar size elsewhere in the state. When compared to neighboring towns, Edgewood comes off as greedy.  What the wish list suggests is that the Commission gave heed to several pet projects and failed to make any effort at prioritizing requests. State legislators are busy during sessions. It is possible for towns to slip questionable projects through without disclosing all the relevant facts, but any victories thus gained usually end up being a one-off deal. Burn a legislator once and you’re done with that person until someone new takes the seat.   

Planning for the town’s requests for Capital Outlay funds usually begins in late summer after the budget has been approved and accepted by the State. The usual process is to hold a series of public hearings and then have an on the record discussion among the governing body about which projects should be at the top of the list and why they should be chosen. The final product, usually consisting of the top two or three items, is placed into the ICIP report. Submissions are expected to be received no later than October for consideration in the following year’s legislative session. 

Ideally, a town’s lists remain relatively stable over time, and as the top choices are funded others move to the top. Edgewood’s political instability has made this difficult, but until recently it was able to make a credible showing during most (but certainly not all) legislative sessions.

2025 Requests for projects which have received previous Capital Outlay funding:

1. 1.8 million  Church Street
2. 900 k trails
3. 12 million Drinking Water
4. 850 k Wastewater
5. 1.890 million trails 
6. 200 k upgrade road equipment 

2025 Requests for projects which had not received previous Capital Outlay funding:

1. 465 k BMX Park
2. 617 k Rt. 66 sewer line design 
3. 1.2 million wellness center PD 
4. 4.1 million Horton Road 
5. 1.2 million Steeplechase 
6. 450 k various roads 
7. 1.64 million Section 16 development projects
8. 975 k  Community Center
9. 310 k motor grader 
10. 800 k WiFi expansion 

Funding to Edgewood sent for the Governor’s signature as part of the complete Capital Outlay legislation:

1. 617 k Rt. 66 sewer line design (full funding included in final bill; Senator Thornton)
2. 138 k Wellness center PD (partial funding included in final bill; Senator Thornton)

The Town Commission’s failure to prioritize means that none of the requests which have received previous funding received additional help this year.  Community Wellness Centers appear to have been popular requests this year, and partial funding for Edgewood’s Police Department center will likely be put to good use. 

The Rt. 66 Sewer line design item is interesting and deserves a closer look. The Rt. 66 corridor is already well served with wastewater lines. The problems encountered by the wastewater plant led to a change in priorities for extending the service area beginning in 2014-15 after it became obvious that the system needs more residential customers to balance Walmart and the commercial customers along Rt. 66.   

* One of the most important benefits of the town’s decision to move elections away from local control and onto the general elections calendar run by County Clerks is that newly sworn-in members of the governing body have a breathing space before what is far and away its most important function: budget preparation. The old March election calendar meant that newly elected town officials were thrown into the deep end with regard to budget preparation. Even the best prepared candidates from past years have found the experience difficult. The ICIP is important, and the timing in election years is difficult, but the budget process is the more important consideration. [One additional benefit to the change is that town-run elections are expensive, they create distractions to day to day operations, and they place an undue burden on employees. That is especially true when races are hotly contested or the subject of legal challenges.] 

State Government page and ToE on Drive sidebar updates:

The State Government page has been updated to add links to the 2015 Capital Outlay requests submitted by Edgewood's legislators.  I've also added a State Legislature folder to the ToE on Drive sidebar.

Public input for the ICIP has been rescheduled:

According to the Council agenda for June 18, 2014 the discussion of the Infrastructure Capital Improvement Plan (legislative appropriations wish list) which was originally scheduled for the July 2 meeting will be held on July 16. 

Capital Outlay: A Primer

While looking for information about Senate Bill 175*, which is sponsored by New Mexico Senator Sue Wilson Beffort, I found this Information Bulletin from the New Mexico Legislative Council Service. In order for municipalities to apply for capital outlay funding, priorities in the form of an Infrastructure Capital Improvements Plan (ICIP) must first be adopted by resolution during a public hearing and then reported to the New Mexico Department of Finance and Administration.

*The title of the bill is: SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT GROSS RECEIPTS 

Land Use in the News 09/12/2013

From this week's  The Independent:

• A proposed retail development project in Moriarty (page 1);
• Coverage of last week's Q&A forum on the proposed EMW Water System (page 1);
• Pipeline construction and the local economy (page 4);
• Edgewood's legislative wish list discussion for the ICIP (page 5);
• Tijeras' legislative wish list discussion for the ICIP (page 5);
• Plans for expanding First Choice Community Healthcare (page 5); 
• Drought, trees, and bark beetles (page 18);
• Legal notices:  There are no legal notices listed for the Town of Edgewood.  The Santa Fe County Commission has three notices; one for a regular meeting, another concerning a meeting of the ethics board, and notice that the Commissioners and the City of Santa Fe Council will attend an Extraterritorial Land Use Authority meeting (p. 22).

Edgewood's legislative wish-list will be voted on during Wenesday's council meeting:

The Mayor has published a proposed set of priorities for the Council's approval on Wednesday.  You might want to attend the meeting and contact the governing body in advance of the meeting if you have questions about these requests.  The Infrastructure Capital Improvement Plan or ICIP is a long name for the wish lists presented by local governments to the legislature for funding.  The council will vote on Resolution 2013-20 and the accompanying list of prioritized requests during the September 4, 2013 Council meeting. That night's agenda shows that a representative from Santa Fe County will be present to discuss its priorities for the ICIP. 

Council packet information for July 3 is now available:

The documents uploaded to the Council Packets folder include:

• Council Minutes from the 06/19 meeting; 
• The text of the recently approved subdivision ordinance revisions;
• The 2014-2018 ICIP also known as the town's legislative wish-list; 
• ToE Resolution 2013-12 on severe drought conditions;
• A copy of a letter printed last week in the Forum of The Independent.  

I did not include a copy of what appears to be a copyrighted advertisement for Microsoft's Office 365 security features which is intended for the use of customers; it may be viewed at the town website.