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.  

Letter: Leadership, infrastructure and the future of Edgewood

Having been away from Edgewood for a large part of the past few years, I was disappointed to return and find that many of our roads have not been getting timely maintenance and are in poor condition. My neighbors are complaining about road improvements taking place in places where there are few houses, while they eat dust year after year. However, if you watch the town meetings you will hear a series of  glowing reports on road  projects. When mis-steps are acknowledged, they are accompanied by a series of lame excuses. 

At what point will Edgewood residents demand that its town government stop the hype and start dealing with reality? Former Town Councilor and Mayor Pro Tem, John Abrams, offers his thoughts in a recent letter to nm.news. Abrams is one of a very small group of town officials in Edgewood’s relatively short history as an incorporated municipality who has the ability to think long term, and who doesn’t try to exploit the town for personal gain. As such he is not popular with Edgewood’s cargo cult faction. Nevertheless, at several critical points, Abrams has been called on for help when Edgewood’s flashy promoters failed to complete important projects.

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.  

Roads Workshop April 22, 2025

The town’s recent roads workshop, unlike its budget workshops, is fairly short at just under 30 minutes and isn’t bogged down with too much inside terminology.  It’s worth the time needed to watch if you are (a) interested in road improvements, (b) want to understand the current dynamic among the staff/governing body with regard to this issue, or (c) wonder why the chip seal machines are not being fully utilized. 

The most important takeaway from my perspective is that it illustrates how campaigning is easy; governance not so much. If a majority of town residents were induced to vote to incorporate or to petition for annexation because they wanted better roads, then it would be logical to assume that if doing so were easy we would have seen completion of many more road projects over the past 25 years. The politicians who have been running their mouths all over town for the past five years about the delays in the repaving of South Horton, may themselves, face a backlash over failing to deliver on big promises made when the chip seal machinery was purchased. 

What seems to be missing is any mention of a long-term plan on how ongoing maintenance of equipment and previously paved roads fits into the budget. The town seems more focused on getting around the obstacles to its short term goals. Hard-surfaced roads require regular maintenance, and some of the town’s earliest paving projects are past due for maintenance. The proverbial penny has finally dropped to the obvious dismay of those Town Commissioners who promised their voters way more than the town has been able to deliver. While “silly season” has not yet gotten officially underway, the pre-election maneuvering has already begun.  

Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons?

I have had some interesting feedback on the MAP decode post. 

• First, a disclaimer: I will benefit if/when this project comes to fruition. So factor that into your analysis of this and yesterday’s posts. However, I am not holding my breath on a hard surface for Horton from Venus to Frost getting done anytime soon. (See also Church Road.)
• Horton Road has long been identified as a priority north-south road which, if paved, could serve two purposes: relieve congestion on NM 344, and act as an alternate evacuation route if 344 were to be blocked in an emergency situation.  
• One person asked how many trips per day (TPD) have been measured on different points along Horton, or even if it has been measured at all. I don’t recall hearing this mentioned. 
• Another reader confirmed that Horton traffic has been measured, but that it did not meet the threshold established as > 250 TPD. 
• There are other roads in other parts of town which probably exceed traffic on Horton, and could serve the same beneficial purposes for those areas. Were they given consideration? 
• Mayor Brennan painted a very optimistic picture of the prospects for funding. I wonder how much he understands the way MAP funding works in the real world? 
• Brennan lives near Horton, and improving it was a campaign promise. Instead of campaigning for a state office last year, perhaps he should have put in more time on this project.   
• Has the town identified any funding sources other than MAP and the “in-kind” services described by Brennan?  
• If safety considerations are so urgent, then what remedial measures is the town prepared to take while the work is in progress?
• The Clerk polling Commissioners individually via-email avoids the pitfalls of a rolling quorum, but that exigency does not substitute for full and open discussion of all the available options. 
• Once again, Commissioner Anaya was absent and so we didn't hear from him.

I don’t have a problem with the unanimous vote to apply for MAP funding to improve Horton; it’s not a bad choice. I do have a problem with the Commission’s failure to get the item on the agenda well in advance of the deadline, and the failure to discuss all the options out in the open. This is yet another instance of the transparency talk/walk not lining up. 

Special MAP Meeting Decoded

UPDATE: I have been contacted by readers who reminded me of two things: (1) Plans for improving North Horton have been around for a long time, but there remain questions about whether or not the project described is eligible for MAP. (2) After considering the furor over ill-advised paving projects in the past, a former Town Council directed P&Z to prioritize roads which required frequent maintenance, and for which it could be established had > 250 TPD (Trips Per Day).  As I began my second time at P&Z in 2019, the Commission had just finished work on delivering a set of recommendations. No followup was possible in subsequent years because of the legal furor over acquisition of EPCOR. Following the reconstitution of government, the concept seems to have been lost or intentionally discontinued. I have summarized this and more feedback to the original post here. 

Last night’s hurriedly called special meeting was explained as being required to generate a resolution to pave more of North Horton Road. It caught a lot of people by surprise. 

1. Someone in the town office missed the deadline for a recurring event. 2025 begins year four following the reconstitution of government, so the deadline to apply for Municipal Arterial Program (MAP) funds could not have been a surprise. Town staff took the blame. The latest iteration of town government must be remarkably passive because in prior years elected officials have hovered over the process in such a way that the deadline could not have been missed. (Perhaps they and town staff are too busy managing current and threatened litigation?)

2. Former Councilor Linda Holle spoke in public comment where she asked some pertinent questions about how Horton was chosen. The replies from Murillo, Brennan, and Mulligan were delivered almost in unison.  IT IS ALL ABOUT SAFETY. To be sure, Horton Road has long been a priority to fill two needs: A hard surface alternate route in case of emergency and to relieve congestion on NM 344. However, MAP funding was on an earlier agenda; why was Horton not specified then if it was an obvious choice? (Behind the scenes deal-making?)

3. Commissioner Rariden asked what measures are being taken in the meantime to make the road more passable pending completion of this project? He was assured that doing so is a waste of money. (If the situation is so dire, his question deserves a substantive reply.)

4. Commissioner Brennan expanded on the town’s plans: It seems there is a never before heard of component to meeting the MAP requirement of the town furnishing partial matching funding: The town will be allowed to furnish in-kind road work instead of handing over cash. He went on to discuss the possibility of starting with chip seal and maybe real paving down the road. This assumes that the town will be able to hire an oil truck as needed, have enough trained staff to run the town owned chip seal equipment, and that the town equipment will be ready to go after sitting idle over winter months. The window of acceptable temperatures for paving is narrow due to Edgewood’s climate. (Paving Horton was a campaign promise made by Brennan.) 

5. Town staff assured the Commissioners that District 5 DOT staff has assured the town that the application papers will be accepted. However, MAP funds are limited, and priority will likely be given to those communities who submitted timely applications.  

6. MAP funding is spread out in a sequence to (1) design, (2) engineer, and (3) build designated roads which are also required to join a state road. How will “in-kind” work be done for the design or engineering phases? 

7. Approval of any sort is not guaranteed. If the town gets anything this year it is likely to be only partial. (Church Road has used MAP funds in the past, and has been a priority for paving for well over a decade, but it’s still not done. One reason, among others, is political deal-making among the governing body which diverted funding requests to pet projects.)

8. The people who will benefit are sure to be pleased at least until they find out how long it is going to take. Those in other parts of town will be angry that they didn’t get priority. The first, and for many years only road paving project, other than Frost Road and Dinkle Road, was Skyline Drive. It was a political albatross around the neck of the town council member who lived on that road when the chip seal was laid down.  

9. In 2011, former Mayor Stearley’s fight with the council over which roads to pave resulted in some of the most tumultuous council meetings in the town’s history. The rancor generated by that fight likely contributed to his defeat by Brad Hill in 2012. 

10. In the same vein, Hill’s successful diversion of State Legislature capital outlay money from Church Road toward paving a mile of East Venus Road which contained no houses may have contributed to his defeat by John Bassett in 2016. The town matching money put up for Hill’s East Venus project meant that when the wastewater treatment plant started showing problems, his ability to deal with the situation was made more difficult. The people who signed petitions in favor of the project and were assured that the paving of mile two would be coming soon are still waiting.  

One of the deciding factors in the original vote to incorporate was improving roads. Progress has not been easy. Politicians come and go at regular intervals, and I have seen successive waves of rash promises about roads. Road improvements happen, but they always cost more (money and political capital), and take more time than anticipated. 

  

Edgewood in the news

Local Government at its finest?

This story posted in The Independent on February 14, 2025 features a call for a forensic audit of town finances with a special focus on legal expenses. Also mentioned are a need for new roads standards and the difficulty the town is experiencing in fulfilling Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) requests. Another recent story from January 30, 2025 hints at the reasons for the postponement of the Campbell Ranch subdivision appeal as being caused by problems with proper notification of the January 30 public hearing as well as appellants experiencing problems obtaining information in a timely manner.  

My thoughts: Edgewood voters were promised more transparency if they approved a change from a Mayor and Council form of government to Commission Manager. Unfortunately, the town has failed to deliver on these lofty promises during the four years which have gone by since then. The town’s website is a mess. It looks pretty on the surface, but the contents are hard to find and important documents are missing. This state of affairs forces the public to use IPRA to get access to what should be routine information. 

The town has initiated, joined in, and has become the target of an unprecedented number of lawsuits during the past four years. This has diverted money in the budget away from basic services and has increased the burden on town staff to supply documentation regarding these numerous legal adventures. What does the Commission propose? Improve the website, reduce its litigation profile? Neither. They propose to spend money to pay someone else to do the work of town employees.  

The town needs new road standards? Perhaps it would save time and money if the town staff would simply have a look at what is already on the books and see if/where changes are needed.  The “de novo” approach will cost more money and take more time.    

Work smarter or work harder? After 25 years (yea us we threw ourselves a big party) the town government still can’t properly advertise, conduct, or follow through on a simple subdivision hearing? Hint: The office of the New Mexico Attorney General has information designed to help local governments with these important tasks. It’s public information, free to download at the NMAG website, and the language is accessible to the average reader. 

Stone Mountain Estates: Clearing out an old "zombie" approval

The Planning & Zoning agenda for September 8, 2022 features an application for a zone change for a proposed development called Stone Mountain Estates. The land was annexed on June 20, 2007,  but in the matter of zoning for the parcel, the council was unable to reach agreement. There had been an earlier attempt to annex and zone the property, but the hearing ended without a decision after two members of the governing body disclosed ex parte contacts with the applicant. The second public hearing before the Town Council was tense with angry words behind the table as well as in the audience. More than one loud dispute spilled out into the parking lot of the Community Center. The hearing was concluded with a vote to annex the land with no zone designation, and the applicant was advised to consider the options available and return at a later date. Since that time, the Residential Estates (R-E) zone category has been added to the town's ordinance, and that is the request in the current application.

The applicant indicated in the original application that he intended to construct the roads in the subdivision, and would then request that the town take over maintenance. The design submitted at that time showed an entrance some distance up a graveled road on West Venus; however, those are issues which are typically determined at such time as the applicant commits to subdivision. The P&Z hearing on September 8 will be for the purpose of recommending a zone category to the governing body. 

Infill Annexation hearing:

The Municipal Boundary Commission will hold a hearing on Friday, April 22, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. in the Edgewood Community Center to consider the Town's request to bring more land inside its boundaries.  A copy of the map showing proposed infill is available at the Town's website. 

Hillcrest Master Plan page has been updated

The following information has been added to the timeline:

• March 9, 2016: The Town Council tabled the public hearing (see beginning on p. 23 of the council packet) pending suggestions to obtain more information about zone district standards for the Mixed-Use Zone Category, more information about how the changes might affect other areas in the master plan, and more information about traffic impacts as well as determining for the record who is responsible for the primary access road to Unit 2. [A link to the draft minutes for the March 9 meeting will be added when that document is published.] 

Link to council meeting audio for 09/17/2014

I've uploaded the file for Wednesday's town council meeting to Drive.  If you have difficulty, please refer to the instructions for listening/downloading or send me an e-mail if none of those suggestions work for you.

The meeting included discussions about changing the makeup of the planning commission as well as an update on the road paving projects authorized in the bond election earlier this year. 

A little over one mile of new pavement through Hillcrest

The new pavement features zero driveway cuts and no culvert where East Venus meets NM 344.  

Click on a photo to open a slide show of larger images.

NM 344 & East Venus Road

The Capital Outlay portion came from State Senator Sue Wilson Beffort

Signs on the northeast corner of the intersection

Looking east from the intersection

Continuing east on Venus Road

Continuing further down the road....

Still going east...

Homes visible beyond the end of the pavement.

Terminus approx. 1 1/8 mile from NM 344 (looking west)

Update to the Hillcrest Master Plan Page

The following item has been added to the timeline for Hillcrest:

May 15, 2006:  A pre-application conference was held in which a representative for the developer who had the land under contract at that time discussed the plans for taking responsibility for paving one mile of Venus Road and to work with NMDOT for improvements to the intersection of Venus and NM 344. 

A Rationale for Road Design Standards and Enforcement of Grading & Drainage Regulations

One of the ordinances most criticized by the local development community is ToE Ordinance 2001-1 which is usually referred to as the Grading & Drainage Ordinance.  As such ordinances go, the requirements placed upon property development in Edgewood are relatively modest, but that hasn't prevented complaints.  Requests for waivers from those requirements are frequently presented to the town's planning office.

Update and Clarification to Last Week's Post on the Council Meeting:

I've added the following information to the post Council meeting wrap-up for 11/20/2013:

UPDATE and CLARIFICATION (11/25/2013):  It appears that the difficulty with the portion of Horton Road between West Venus and Dinkle is not one of jurisdiction but a lack of sufficient easement on the west side of the road.  I am told that, in the past, the State Land Office has indicated a willingness to allow the road to be repositioned in order to make improving that portion of the road more feasible.  Repositioning the road would be expensive as would litigation to acquire the easement through exercise of eminent domain.  However, the issue will have to be dealt with at some point in order to provide safe traffic flow and good access to proposed development of lands on Section 16.]

ToE Resolution 2012-1: Planning Roadway System Priorities for Improvement

I've added a copy of the resolution to the old Roads folder on Drive which is now called Roads & Trails. Unfortunately, the planning commission stopped work on this resolution sometime after August 6, 2012 upon completion of its Road Paving Priority Report. None of the work on the other tasks set out in the resolution has progressed beyond brief outlines.

Commission Minutes which contain discussions pertaining to Resolution 2012-1
01/09/2012
02/06/2012
02/20/2012
04/02/2012
05/21/2012
06/11/2012
07/16/2012
08/06/2012

Annexations and road maintenance:

For those who have contacted me about how to find information on when land was annexed and under what terms, a good place to begin your search might be with two lists of resolutions heard by the Commission on March 25 and May 13, 2000. 

Unfortunately, there are no property descriptions included in the minutes, but the resolution number should help you narrow the field when you ask to inspect or copy documents.  The annexation/zoning resolutions listed in Commission minutes for 2000 include:

• Resolutions 2000-1 through 2000-14 heard on March 25, 2000
• Resolutions 2000-16 through 2000-24 which were heard on May 15, 2000.  

Council minutes may contain additional information, but the adopted, signed resolution will be your best source for authoritative information.  There were a number of annexations in subsequent years, so if you don't find what you want in 2000 I would suggest you focus on 2001-2004 and 2007-2008. 

It is important to understand that the town does not automatically assume responsibility for maintenance of roads upon annexation.  Information on when a road was accepted or declined for maintenance entails a search of minutes for separate agenda items regarding applications for town maintenance.  The P&Z Commission typically hears such requests and makes recommendations based on information provided by the applicant as well as staff recommendations about the impact on town resources.  The council makes the final determination on whether or not the town will take over maintenance of roads. 

Coverage of land use matters by local media:

Two stories from the Mountain View Telegraph are relevant to the current discussion of the subdivision ordinance. One, published yesterday, deals with the difficulties involved in establishing who is responsible for untangling difficult road issues.

The other, published on January 3, 2013, gives information about a dispute between the owners of adjoining properties.  It illustrates why having oversight for the subdivision of land and paying close attention to getting relevant information "present and correct" on a final plat is a desirable thing. 

Road issues form the subtext of the proposed changes to the subdivision ordinance:

Revised to add a link: 
One aspect of land use and development review that seems to show up repeatedly in any examination of old meeting minutes, both for the P&Z Commission and the Edgewood Town Council, is that of determining appropriate road design standards.  Even more difficult is the question of how to enforce those standards during the subdivision process. When reading the front page story in The Independent of May 22 about Edgewood's proposed subdivision changes, it's important to keep these factors in mind.