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

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.

Update on Yesterday’s Cargo Cult Post

I was unable to attend the meeting, but have discussed what transpired with individuals who did. The town’s official explanation is that the email* was a hoax, and that the meeting scheduled to take place on the town calendar was, in fact, an organizational meeting for the town’s latest reboot of an economic advisory committee. So, while it appears that the e-mail’s hints that there would be a town meeting for discussion of the merits of the Campbell Ranch annexation, no such item appeared on the town calendar or agenda. That said, the meeting time, date, and place as stated in the email did point to a meeting of Edgewood’s cargo cult, but it should be taken in a more general than specific sense. 

The town has gone through several prior efforts at forming an Economic Development Board (proper noun) all of which eventually folded primarily because they could not meet the legal definition and requirements as found in state statutes, and secondarily because their meetings eventually degenerated into what is best described by an idiom dating to the late 19th and early 20th Centuries as “gobble, gabble, and tog.”

The most recent attempt has been presented as advisory in nature, which is more accurate. However, the town is still trying to assert (as it has tried and failed to do in the past) that this latest version is exempt from Open Meetings Act (OMA) or Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) requirements. 

Calling the group a Committee instead of a Board would be a more accurate representation of its actual resources, nature, and purpose. To call such a group a Board is, in effect, nothing more than the latest in the town’s history of failed attempts at credential inflation which will convince no one familiar with the subject. 

A summary of what attendees were told at last night’s meeting:

1. The individual(s) who had provided their contact information at the “ghost website” which appeared just prior to the remand hearing on the Campbell Ranch subdivision application, and who later received an email purporting to come from that organization touting a town meeting for discussion of the merits of the Campbell Ranch annexation were informed that they were victims of a hoax. 

2. Edgewood town officials claimed that meetings of its newly reconstituted Economic Development Advisory Committee are not subject to the Open Meetings Act (OMA) or Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA), but failed to provide any legal basis for the exceptions. 

3. Binders were handed out to the committee members, but not made available to the public who attended the meeting.  

4. Town Commissioner Mulligan was present in his capacity as the governing body’s representative.

* Details from the email:

The header information on the email forwarded to me shows it being sent the morning of June 10, 2025 from a group calling itself Save South Mountain Project and pointing back to info_at_save_south_mountain [.] org  

The subject line reads: What the Campbell Ranch Development Really Means for Edgewood Resident (sic)

The body of the email is a rehash of talking points listed at the website and the mailing sent to various households (including mine) in the Edgewood zip code.  

It includes announcement of a meeting time and date billed as an Edgewood Town Meeting which was at the same date, time, and place as the ToE Economic Advisory Board meeting.  

The address at the bottom of the email is shown as 113 Cherry Street # 96728; Seattle, WA 98104-2205

Groundhog Day: Edgewood Style

What if Rita Loy Simmons, Chuck Ring, Sherry Abraham, John Abrams, and John Bassett supported the acquisition of EPCOR and Thunder Mountain Water Company assets for a very good reason? Most of us pay substantial amounts of state and federal taxes in various forms. State and federal governments re-invest some of that tax money into community owned water and wastewater systems; other towns in NM have taken steps recapture some of that money to benefit their citizens. Why should Edgewood not do the same, particularly since EPCOR management has made it clear that it sees no advantage to making improvements to water quality? 

What if Edgewood could offer EPCOR and Thunder Mountain customers a better deal? EPCOR's infrastructure is an aging patchwork which will eventually require extensive replacements/improvements; how will EPCOR (or a succeeding for-profit entity) pay for the improvements and preserve their profit margin other than by increasing rates?

The image of a locomotive on fire speeding into the abyss is a curious choice on the part of the CORE postcard author. Why the hurry? EPCOR certainly knows the value of it's assets. Does it fear that the assessor's report will cause some wavering in it's two solid “no” votes? What if the 2A supporting councilors who succumbed to to EPCOR's “shock and awe” campaign were to wake up and understand that eminent domain and firearms have a lot in common; neither are inherently evil and both are tools which can be used for good or ill.

CORE is holding out the promise of a new form of government which will wave a magic wand and make any laws the public doesn't like disappear. It's not a promise they can deliver, but who cares? If they get their hands on the levers of power, they can always plausibly plead legal exigencies for their failure to perform. The group backing CORE has let its mask slip enough to lead me to conclude that this isn't just about John Bassett. It's the same group that did whatever it could to prevent former Councilor and Mayor Bob Stearley from crafting a water policy for the town. Bassett and EPCOR weren't part of the picture then so there is obviously something else in play. I suspect it's nothing particularly earthshaking only some sad, tired Boomers who are afraid if Edgewood grows too much they won't be the big fish in the little pond anymore. This isn't the first time the town has inexplicably shot itself in the foot when it had a breakthrough opportunity.  

I've been looking back to the first announcements about the town's decision to look into acquiring EPCOR and its Thunder Mountain assets. Setting aside all the conspiracy theories and character assassination which is churned out in regular installments by the newly minted [EP]CORE group I'd like to put out a series of questions to consider-especially for those who plan to attend their rally on Thursday:

1. What has this supposed watchdog group done in the past 20 years; why did they suddenly rise up and begin to strain gnats whilst having quietly swallowed many camels for two decades?
2. When do they plan to offer actual facts to support their numerous allegations? 
3. If John Bassett and his family intended to make a quick buck off the wastewater plant why haven't they taken advantage of the access along Church Road which has been available to them for the past 10 years?
4. Why has the group dropped EPCOR's slick corporate PR and reverted to crude agitprop which employs a narrative voice which will be familiar to anyone who remembers Edgewood's tumultuous early years?
5. Why have they revived the questionable practice of grooming unsuspecting, well-intentioned church members to spread their message?
6. Has the group been infected with a virulent strain of Bassett Derangement Syndrome, or is this just a mutated version of an older sickness that pre-dates John Bassett's tenure as mayor and EPCOR's purchase of Edgewood Water Company?
7. EPCOR's infrastructure is an aging patchwork which will eventually require replacement/improvement; how will EPCOR or another for-profit entity pay for the improvements and preserve their profit margin?
8. Why has EPCOR kept its assets separate from those acquired from Thunder Mountain?
9. The public/private partnership between Clovis, NM and EPCOR has been touted as a better solution than a takeover; would the proponents of such a partnership be willing to tax residents to pay for water improvements as Clovis is doing?
10. Edgewood is largely dependent on Hold Harmless funds for revenue and that source will eventually end; how will the town replace that income?
11. While many have said over the past 20 years that they are in favor of using economic development to make up the shortfall, when it comes to actually doing what's required the consensus always falls apart; can the town prosper on a property tax base augmented by retail GRT?
12. The first town government promised citizens to pursue economic development before property taxes; has that consensus run its course?  

Water & Wastewater discussions

With the economy improving, land use applications coming into Edgewood's planning office are, at long last, beginning to increase. Last night's meeting of the Governing Body saw a lot of public comment on water and wastewater issues after Edgewood Mayor, John Bassett, read a statement outlining the Town's intent to explore the feasibility of acquiring portions of EPCOR's water service located in Edgewood.

In a sense, Edgewood is looping back to its early days as a formally incorporated municipality. The Council Meeting minutes for November 3, 1999 reflect what many Edgewood residents remember as similarly lively discussions about the proposed sale of Edgewood Water Company to New Mexico American Water Company. Part of that discussion included proposals that the town should buy the company in order to keep the business local and add a revenue source into the equation. While wastewater provisions are a necessary part of the water equation, the plants usually require subsidies. [NMAW did buy EWC which it eventually sold to EPCOR. EPCOR currently serves both the original service area of EWC/NMAW plus the customers inherited when it acquired Thunder Mountain Water Company in 2013.

I've had several requests for information about the history of Edgewood's wastewater plant, and since this blog was started for the purpose of facilitating the sharing of information, I'm hoping to resume regular posting along with updating broken links and evaluating content for relevance. I'm also planning to add a page dedicated to water/wastewater issues, so bear with me while the page is under construction. I will rely primarily on my collection of old Council Meeting Minutes for the years 1999-2013 which I've stored on Google Drive.  From 2008-2012 the Town posted agendas and meeting minutes separately at its website. Due to the constraints of the website purchased in 2013, the agendas and minutes have been published as part of the meeting packets which makes extraction of individual documents tedious and time consuming. There are plans to launch a new, updated version of the website which I hope will contain agendas and meeting minutes posted separately from the larger information packets.

GO Bond question on the ballot in November

Voters in Santa Fe County will see several GO Bond questions on the ballot for the 2016 General Election in November. One of the questions involves proposed funding for two medical clinics, one of which would be located in Edgewood. Area residents will have two opportunities to attend informational meetings. The first Edgewood meeting will be held on Friday October 14, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. and the second on Saturday October 22, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. Both meetings will be held in the Edgewood Community Center located at 27 East Frontage Road. (East of Dairy Queen at the intersection of Cactus Road and the Frontage Road.)

Town Meeting Information

The September 15 public (re)hearing for several requested variances initially considered by P&Z on August 18, 2015 has been rescheduled to September 22, 2015.  The change was made in order to allow sufficient time for advertisement and notification of the hearing.

The agenda and packet for the September 9, 2015 Town Council meeting is available at the town website. I have placed a copy on Drive.  The numbers below refer to page numbers of the packet which is supplied as a single PDF:

1.    Agenda
2.    Draft Minutes Town Council August 5, 2015
9.    Draft Minutes Town Council August 19, 2015
17.  Draft Minutes Town Council August 22, 2015 (Special Meeting)
19.  Draft Minutes P&Z August 18, 2015
25.  Draft Minutes P&Z September 1, 2015
29.  Document from Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee concerning appointment of new members.
30.  Town of Edgewood proposed ordinance 2015-07 concerning an economic development project for a Comfort Inn; providing for infrastructure and associated costs.
33.  Project Participation Agreement pursuant to Ordinance 2015-07
43.  Section from the Personnel Ordinance 2003-5 regarding hiring procedures
44. Section from August 6, 2014 Council minutes regarding hiring procedures
45. Letter regarding the hiring of Ms. Rebecca Sanchez as town Secretary-Receptionist
46. Letter regarding a recommendation to hire Saul Urbina as a police officer.
47. Letter from Rick Lopez, Director of the Local Government Division of the State of New Mexico Department of Finance and Administration.  Note the cautionary paragraph near the end of the letter: "Due to estimated expenditures and transfers exceeding estimated revenue, the General Fund cash balance is being depleted. Careful monitoring and aggressive revenue collections is recommended to avoid financial problems in the future."

A preliminary Town Council Agenda for September 16, 2015 is also available with packet information to follow at a later date. A copy can be found on Drive. 

The audio from the September 1, 2015 P&Z meeting is now available for listening/downloading at the town website. 

Upcoming public hearings

September 9, 2015: The Town of Edgewood Governing Body will hold a public hearing to consider proposed Ordinance 2015-07 the text of which is not yet available.  I will post the information if/when it is made available.  The informal word is that it concerns a project which is dependent upon the town's approval of the variance request on Marietta Court.

September 15, 2015 September 22, 2015: The Planning & Zoning Commission will revisit the public hearing of August 18, 2015 for the variance request on Marietta Court due to errors and omissions during the notification process for the original public hearing.   

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.

New page added:

I've added a new page named Economic Development which currently has information about the town's economic development activities, Senate Bill 175, the MESD reorganization plan, and Lone Pine Ranch. 

Name changed and information added to one of the portal's pages:

The Information Portal page which was formerly called Santa Fe County SLDC has been shortened to Santa Fe County. I made the name change today after adding links to the Santa Fe County draft Economic Development Plan and other information from the county website's Hot Topics list.

New Folder Added to Drive

I've created a new folder for various topics related to economic development and have included it in Links to ToE on Drive located in the right sidebar. The folder has copies of documents pertaining to Senate Bill 175, and I hope to eventually add information about SB175's possible successor as well as other topics.

The perils of a short session!

Unfortunately, today's House calendar does not include SB 175, which was a bill intended to be an incentive for software development firms to locate in the area.  Senator Beffort's office confirmed the bill's omission from the House Calendar this morning.  The bill encountered few negative comments during it's journey through the Senate and the House, and I was told it will be re-introduced at some point.

Today's page showing the bill's location and progress:
Actions: (Key to Abbreviations)
[2] SCC/SCORC/SFC-SCC [4]germane-SCORC [10] DP-SFC [11] DP/a [15] PASSED/S (33-4) [13] HTRC/HAFC-HTRC [14] DP-HAFC

Hot Topics from the Santa Fe County website

For those who follow the adjudication of water rights in New Mexico, Santa Fe County is scheduling public meetings regarding Aamodt Public Outreach Information and Reports.

The page devoted to the Santa Fe County Economic Development Plan is also on the list of hot topics.  The page contains a link to the body of the draft version of the plan as well as a separate document containing the appendix.

A schedule for implementation of the Zoning Map for the Santa Fe County Sustainable Land Development Code (SLDC) is also available at the county's website.