The curious case of the missing motion…

… The missing motion is neither a straightforward affirmative nor a negative motion, but a little known variant of an affirmative motion known as a converse motion. Every few years, someone comes forward to insist that the Edgewood town government must always, and without exception, offer its motions “to approve” an application because they are operating from a mistaken impression that motions “to deny” are negative motions.  The advice sounds good in theory, but in practice it sometimes turns what should have been a routine public hearing into a circus. This is yet another instance in which Edgewood’s political instability and its recurring losses of institutional memory have resulted in confusion. 

NB: What follows has been revised and edited for clarity: 

• The issue has been raised again on July 30, 2026 during the PZC’s special meeting. 
• The authority cited for this practice of “always and only” affirmative motions is Roberts Rules of Order which is a frequently used guide for discussing legislative proposals during public meetings.  The concept gets its fuel from a valid and often-cited reference to the unsuitability of offering negative motions which are awkward and typically worded to “not approve” some proposed action. A true negative motion implies an intent to take no action. [1]
• While this admonition to make only affirmative motions “to approve” makes sense when an agenda item is legislative in nature, the deliberations and motions sometimes get mired in absurdity when the matter under consideration is not legislative, but quasi-judicial. In theory, under the “affirmative motions only-and-always” rule, an unsuitable proposal may properly be allowed to die for lack of a motion and/or second. 
• However, even before a land use application is brought forward for a public hearing, considerable resources have already been expended by both the town and the applicant in order to reach that point. The general legal advice given to local governments is that once the testimony and exhibits have been presented, the deliberation phase of the public hearing should begin with a motion and second. Understandably, following all that effort neither the applicant nor the general public will find it acceptable for the proposal to simply be allowed to die without discussion.  
• Indeed, only a few people would consider this an acceptable way to conclude a quasi-judicial hearing, but by following such ill-informed advice, we have seen both Edgewood’s governing body and its planning commission fall into an abyss worthy of Charles Dickens’ fictitious character Mr. Thomas Gradgrind. 
• The most common (and ultimately ill-advised) attempt to resolve the situation of a clearly unsuitable application is to have preliminary discussion before the motion, and then for two members to offer a motion followed by a second “to approve” the application. This is often followed by further discussion and a vote. 
• Possible less than desirable outcomes may vary: One or both persons who offered the motion and second may end up voting against approval. In some instances a majority votes against the motion, and occasionally every member votes against the motion which was offered “to approve” the application.
• In its well-intentioned attempt to avoid falling into the ditch of making a “negative” motion, the public body then risks falling into the other ditch by violating the Roberts Rules injunction against offering a motion or second for which one does not intend to vote.  
• Furthermore, these convoluted discussions give the impression that members of the board are not acting in good faith. 
• Eli Mina’s practical tools for managing minutes and meetings addresses the fact that while useful, Roberts Rules was primarily intended for and is most suitable for legislative deliberations. He believes that more specialized public hearings may benefit from following different procedures. [2]
• With Mina’s commentary having raised the question of special situations, David J. Allor attempts to find middle ground by introducing a third type of motion which he calls a converse motion. By using his process, the public body can avoid falling into either ditch by allowing for a motion “to deny” the application based on legally defensible reasons which pertain to the particular application under consideration. [3]
• There is no hard and fast rule of how to handle the special situations generated by quasi-judicial hearings and their unique requirements. Each public body has to examine the options, consult with its legal advisors, and craft a policy that best fits its needs.  
• One example of how this question has been dealt with in the past can be found in Edgewood’s PZC minutes of October 24, 2011. 
• One reason that a converse motion may legitimately be described as a variant of an affirmative motion is that, unlike a negative motion which is stated in a way which signals that the deliberative body is proposing to refrain from taking action, a converse motion “to deny” implies that a deliberative body has weighed evidence and intends to take action, but that such action may be either to approve or to deny an application. Not everyone agrees with Allor’s reasoning, but his method is often found to be more straightforward than dictating that only motions “to approve” are to be used for quasi-judicial hearings. 
• In order to better understand the operational uses of terms such as affirmative, negative, and converse some basic knowledge of formal logic is helpful; specifically definitions of relevant terms and the means for converting statements from one form to another while retaining logical equivalence. It is subject which may not be of interest to general audiences, but Martin Cothran’s textbooks on Traditional Formal Logic (Volumes I and II) are resources which I have used in the past and found helpful for exploring this topic. 

[The sources which are shown below were current when a previous PZC dealt with the issue in 2010-11] 

Note 1: Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised, 10th ed. (Cambridge, Mass. Perseus Publishing, 2000).

Note 2: Mina’s Guide to Minute Taking: Principles, Standards & Practical Tools. Eli Mina; Published by Eli Mina Consulting in 2004. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Note 3: David J. Allor Planning Commissioners Journal Reprints: A Planning Commissioner Journal Special Collection. Champlain Planning Press 2010.]

26 Days and Counting…

 Because if you are wondering why the Fire/EMS JPA funds were diverted, it’s at least partly because of over-spending in several areas which are being hidden from the public on the basis of attorney-client confidentiality. 

The latest Town Commission agenda and packet (June 9, 2026) has been published and it lists three closed sessions; two for personnel and one for ongoing litigation.  

33 Days and (Still) Counting…

 …Because while this latest step of publishing the ordinance and announcing the date for its public hearing takes things in the right direction, we still don’t know where the money that should have funded the Fire/EMS JPA was spent. Nor do we know who authorized the change in policy and why that change was never publicly announced.

• The official town explanation thus far has been that the failure to announce the policy change was due to legal reasons falling under attorney-client privilege regarding pending litigation. 
• However the letter from the New Mexico Department of Justice shreds that reasoning.  [Letter can be found in the Commission Packet posted at the town website on pp. 23-26 of the packet.]
• Common sense also applies: while it is not yet established exactly when the policy change was made or who authorized it, we do know roughly when payments dropped significantly, and that happened well before Santa Fe County filed its lawsuit.  

Roof leaks at the Edgewood Library and Town Hall: What is the solution?

If the north building is no longer suitable to the town government’s needs, it may be time to move on. The lease with MESD was never intended to be anything more than a bridge between the building on Rt. 66 which the town had outgrown, and eventual construction of a new facility on land the Town has purchased further north on Section 16.

The best long-term solution would require three steps: 

(1). Move immediately to drop the predatory lawsuits in which the Town of Edgewood is the plaintiff, and where appropriate, make restitution to the defendants. The town has the authority to withdraw under those circumstances, and the new town government should do so.  

(2). For other lawsuits in which the town is the defendant, and for which it appears that the plaintiffs have a legitimate case, instruct the lawyers to make a good faith effort to settle them as the Commissioners recently voted to do for Santa Fe County’s suit.  

(3). Redirect money currently being wasted on litigation into realistic plans for use of the land already purchased from the State Land Office to build our own. Start with a basic design for administrative offices and a meeting hall which allows for future expansion. 

At the December 9, 2025 Town Commission meeting, an employee expressed frustration with the numerous roof leaks which have been experienced over the past few years. The facility which now houses the library and the town’s administrative offices was originally known as the “North Building” of the Edgewood Elementary School which closed in 2014. The best way to move forward in the short-term would be for the Commission to deal with objective reality, act like adults, and drop the lawsuit against the Moriarty-Edgewood School District (MESD).  

By looking at the town’s history it is possible to discern an unhealthy pattern in the way successive iterations of governing bodies have responded to a variety of situations. There have been many attempts at “re-inventing the wheel” in Edgewood over the past 30 years on just about everything the town has undertaken. These problems range from the larger issues such as its annexation policy and road improvements priorities, or as small as its website. Regardless of the intentions, the results have too often been wasted time, money, and political capital due to political instability. What one town government begins the next abandons; lather, rinse, repeat. 

It is time for Edgewood’s government to back off and allow MESD to move forward with its plans for buildings located on the former Edgewood Elementary School campus. The south building has long since exceeded its useful life span, The north building, while newer, is not far behind. 

If there are genuine historical sites inside the town boundary, one of the best candidates would have been the original Edgewood Elementary School building, but it was cleared off to make way for Smith’s and McDonald’s. At that time, the prevailing narrative was that the future is more important than the past. There were a few who wanted to preserve the building, but their efforts didn’t generate wide support. 

I agree with those who say that all school facilities ultimately belong to the citizens, but the State of New Mexico has placed the land and improvements of the former EES campus under the authority and stewardship of MESD. The town should respect the lawful authority of the school district. 

Some history on the different locations of the town’s administrative offices: 

• The first town offices were located in the old Edgewood Elementary School Building located south of I-40 which later housed several businesses including the Homestead Restaurant before it was demolished. However, they soon moved into a rented facility on George Court. 
• In 2003, after it became clear that the George Court location was too small and the rent too high, Council member Bob Stearley worked to buy what was known as the “Pitman Building.” At various times the site, located on NMSR 344, has hosted a private school, several businesses, a church, and later the Edgewood Community Library. Stearley’s effort failed due to infighting among the Cargo Cultists over who should (or more precisely who should not) receive commissions for brokering the deal. 
• Later, as Mayor, Stearley was successful in getting the Council’s approval to purchase the building on Rt. 66 which has since been renovated for use by the New Mexico State Police after sitting vacant for several years. 
• In 2007, after unseating Stearley following a card draw, former Mayor Howard Calkins commissioned an ambitious set of plans for a town center on Section 16 which was dubbed the Cowboy Hat Pavilion by critics. Its proposed location was roughly where First Choice Clinic and the Santa Fe County Fire Station were later built. That proposal disappeared after Stearley defeated Calkins in the 2008 mayoral election. 
• Stearley then had a more economically feasible set of plans drawn up for a different location which, in turn, disappeared following his defeat by Brad Hill in 2012. Stearley’s proposal for new town offices would also have been located on Section 16, but between the present Animal Control building and NMSR 344.
• Hill was not a fan of Stearley’s plans because he said the building would be soon outgrown and so he proposed a variety of more ambitious proposals for Section 16 which he named Edgewood Commons. The details can be seen in the current Section 16 Master Plan. It all looks impressive on paper, but Hill never got around to dealing with several important details such as road design standards and existing long-term leases.
• Former Mayor John Bassett, after looking at the depleted state of the town’s budget and the cramped building on Rt. 66 which greeted him upon his election in 2016, negotiated a lease with MESD for use of the north building. 
• Bassett was able to deal with the school district successfully by negotiating in good faith on a peer-to-peer basis without the grandstanding against the school district which we saw during the events surrounding the closure of Edgewood Elementary School. The school closure controversy spanned several years beginning in 2013 and continued on into 2014-2015. 
• The new town government which succeeded the Mayor/Council government in 2022 had campaigned against the exercise of eminent domain in 2021, but then promptly moved to enlarge the town’s eminent domain powers in a land and water rights grab disguised as a historical site preservation measure. That ordinance was then used as a pretext for its lawsuit against MESD. Is the current acrimony between tenant and landlord rooted in the personal grudges dating from the 2013 vote to close the school? If so, it’s time to get over it and move on. 
• Despite the public relations fanfare surrounding his announcement, former Commissioner Sterling Donner’s ambitious plans for a new town Community Center seem to have disappeared into the aether with little comment following the first round of elections under the Commission/Manager government. Did his plan fall victim to the infighting which saw the departure three of the original Town Commission within the first three years? Donner resigned before the end of his term, and questions about the fate of the project have been repeatedly deflected.  

Two agendas and the packet for 12/23/2025 Updated

It appears that this event has been cancelled and tentatively rescheduled to Dec. 30, 2025. The first agenda is for the 5:00 pm swearing-in ceremony of newly elected/re-elected town officials. For those who have asked why this takes place before 1 January 2026: State law calls for newly elected officials to be sworn in within a certain number of days following the town’s receipt of the official certifications of election results.  

The second agenda and packet is for the regular 6:00 pm meeting. The items of interest following the consent agenda and departmental reports include:

Item G: which consists of a series of 8 public hearings required to complete several zone changes previously approved by the Town Commission, but for which the Planning Office failed to include the important follow-up of also amending the Town’s official Zone Map. The situation resulted in a situation for property owners akin to a clouded title for a vehicle or real estate. 

Kudos to the town employee who discovered the problem in October of this year and took prompt steps to correct the oversights. Unfortunately, the town incurred more legal fees required for researching the extent of the problem and giving advice on the proper way to correct the situation.  The omission highlights the need for the town to hire qualified employees in all departments. As has been the case for much of the last four years, the new Commission Manager government tried to blame the omission as having been begun during the “The Preeeevioussss Administrashun.” That dog won’t hunt: The blunders first manifested after the change in government.  

Item H: New Business which includes the proposed purchase of new cassettes for the wastewater plant, a change order for the West Venus paving project, and recognition of service for departing Town Commissioner Filandro Anaya. There will also be a discussion and possible action regarding the town’s ongoing problems with meeting IPRA requirements.

Item I: Various legal matters to be discussed during closed session featuring two personnel matters and three of the current suite of lawsuits in which the town is currently involved (Santa Fe County, Campbell Farming Corporation, and Berg et al).  

For those who are concerned about the town’s continuing high legal bills, there are several ways the town can correct the problem by (1) avoiding cronyism and hiring qualified employees, (2) hiring a Town Manager capable of effectively overseeing the activities of each department, (3) electing at least three Town Commissioners who won’t involve the courts in their political differences of opinion, and (4) hiring a legal firm specializing in advising local governments. 

The firm of Robles, Rael, and Anaya served the town well for many years during the tenures of Mayors Calkins, Stearley, Hill, and Bassett. Unfortunately, the first iteration of the Edgewood Town Commission did not appreciate their custom of dispensing prudent legal advice, and so that bridge may have been burned.  

Upcoming Activities: Tuesday January 6, 2026 at 5:00 pm will be an opportunity for the public to meet with Town Commissioners in the meeting chambers at Town Hall.  

“Where did the $10 Million Go?”

Former Edgewood Town Councilor and Mayor Pro Tem, John Abrams, found some interesting anomalies when looking into the town government’s performance on road improvements. In this follow-up letter submitted to nm.news, he asks some important questions. (Be sure to scroll down and read the two comments on his follow-up letter.)

Some historical context: In the run-up to the change of government, mail-in ballots-only election, the town government was the target of lawsuits, numerous IPRA requests, and allegations of financial wrongdoing by various proponents of the Commission/Manager form of government. In spite of the lawfare and vicious personal attacks launched against Former Mayor John Bassett, Councilor and Pro Tem John Abrams and Councilor Linda Holle, the audits were successfully completed, and IPRA requests were handled in-house. The numerous lawsuits which appear to have been intended to cripple the Mayor/Council government were only partially successful. 

Fast forward to 2025: the Commission/Manager government dissolved into factions almost immediately upon taking office in 2022, there is currently neither a Manager nor an Interim Manager in place, the town is not processing IPRA requests in a timely way, the audits are still not satisfactorily completed, and lawsuits continue to multiply.

In modern parlance, there seems to have been a whole lot of projection going on. For those who prefer dealing with local government issues within a framework of Christian values, it’s called sowing and reaping; sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind. 

Special Meeting wrap-up for November 6, 2025

In yet another meeting consisting primarily of a closed session, the Town Commissioners voted to (1) advertise the position of Town Manager for 14 days with extensions made if needed. They also (2) voted to reject an offer to settle the Berg lawsuit, and instead maintain the town’s “neutral” status. The Berg matter, which involves former Town Commissioner Jerry Powers, is one of two major legal messes in which the Town Commissioners have voted to spend public funds to meddle in private lawsuits. Town government has no business taking sides in HOA disputes. That goes double when one or more members of the Governing Body are parties to the dispute. This one could and should have been taken off the town’s books. If it continues past January 1, 2026 the expenses and trouble will only increase. (3) No action was taken on appointment of an interim manager which usually means that the Town Clerk becomes the statutory official in charge of administrative matters. 

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.  

Neutrality, Sandia Airpark, and Rainbow Road?

New Mexico News does a good job of covering the issue in this recent story. The proposed Town Resolution was confusingly worded, which may partly explain why the Commission did not address it. The cause of the dispute is rooted in activities internal to the Sandia Airpark Home Owners Association (HOA) in which two factions are attempting to control and possibly disband the HOA. Former Town Commissioner, Jerry Powers, is a resident of Sandia Airpark and an officer in its HOA.  

Edgewood’s Subdivision regulations specifically exclude town enforcement of HOA’s which raises the question of whether the town acted properly in becoming involved in the private dispute. It appears that at least some portion of Town Commission Version 2.0 consisting of Patrick Milligan, Mike Rariden, Stephen Murillo, Kenneth Brennan and Phil Anaya is attempting to extricate the town, but may have found it necessary to compromise. 

This is not the only issue in which the Town Commission Version 1.0, made up of Jerry Powers, Audrey Jaramillo, Sterling Donner, Kenneth Brennan, and Phil Anaya, voted to involve the town in lawsuits for questionable reasons. In addition to the Sandia Airpark matter, the town government is now involved in litigation with the Moriarty Edgewood School District, and a continually evolving suite of private lawsuits against Former Mayor John Bassett and members of his family. The Town Commission Version 2.0 now finds itself in a difficult position between EMPAC and Campbell Farming as several town officials seem determined to continue the aggressive legal posture of the original Town Commission.  

[One clarification may be needed about the road in question; I’ve had several questions about the issue. My understanding is that this dispute pertains only to that portion of Rainbow Road which lies inside the Airpark. The portion between the south boundary of the Airpark and Dinkle Road is a public road which was paved by the town following the GO Bond election in March of 2014. The reasons for choosing Rainbow were two-fold: to ameliorate dust generated by traffic in and out of the Airpark, and to improve access for air ambulance flights.]

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.  

The June 17, 2015 change in Edgewood's mayor pro tem.

Following a closed session near the end of the June 17, 2015 regular council meeting, the Edgewood Town Council voted to remove Town Councilor Chuck Ring as mayor pro tem*. Mayor Brad Hill had been notified prior to that meeting that Ring had filed a notice of tort claim against the town. Upon consulting with the town attorneys, Ring was asked by the mayor to step down as mayor pro tem. Councilor John Abrams was selected to replace Ring.

[*Clarification added on 07/31/2015 after further readings of the meeting minutes; There were two votes taken subsequent to the closed session. The first called upon Ring to step down from his position as Mayor Pro Tempore. Ring voted in favor of the motion. When asked by the mayor if he then intended to step aside voluntarily, Ring declined in spite of having voted in favor of the previous motion.  The second action was a motion to appoint Councilor John Abrams as his replacement.]

[Note: The draft minutes for the meeting which were eventually approved as written can be read beginning on p. 4 of the July 15, 2015 council packet. It would appear that Ring's continuing to serve in that position would conflict with and perhaps undermine the town's response to his and other, related litigation.]

Edgewood's Comp Plan is now available at the ToE website:

A link to the current version (2008) of the Town of Edgewood Comprehensive Land Use Plan has recently been posted at the town's official website. You may read or download the document there, and a copy is also available on Drive.  A current plan is required in order for the town to be eligible for certain grants. Ideally, updates are scheduled for completion approximately every five years.

State laws governing municipalities provide the guidelines for adoption of land use plans which are referred to in the statutes as "master plans*." These documents are sometimes referred to as land use plans, comprehensive plans, or comp plans. The applicable statutes [NMSA 3-19-(9-12)] may be read at the public access site maintained by the New Mexico Compilation Commission.  However, readers should be aware that the public access site, which is provided free of charge, does not include the annotations which often contain vital information about relevant case law. 

* The term "master plan" as used in NMSA 3-19-(9-12) refers to a land use plan for the entire community.  It should not be confused with the process by which a parcel of land within a municipality may be given a zone category called Master Plan as described in Section 24 of the town's Zoning Ordinance 2014-02.  

Santa Fe County Commission Approves Sustainable Land Development Code (SLDC)

The SLDC was approved on Dec. 10, 2013 with some interesting conditions.  I would encourage readers to go to the news release which has been posted at the Santa Fe County website.

Change of Date for the Joint Meeting of the Council and the Commission:

The training session is now scheduled for Tuesday September 24 at 6:00 pm in the Edgewood Community Center.  Mr. Randy Van Vleck of the New Mexico Municipal League is expected to attend.  The meeting is open to the public.