Tonight’s Town Commission meeting has been cancelled.

Reason given is lack of a quorum due to two Commissioners being out of town and presumably unable to call in. I’ve taken advantage of the lull to catch up on reading. 

First, a brief wrap-up for the previous meeting: 

• It appears that salaries and benefits for two of the three positions mentioned on the agenda have already been accounted for in the budget. 
• The Animal Control position will require some reshuffling of finances. 
• The Commission is still trying to pretend that holding individual Commissioners responsible for remarks made on the record during meetings is not only indecorous, but that attempts to hold them accountable constitute impermissible “personal attacks” which will not be tolerated. 
• Meanwhile, we are waiting to see the Commission’s choice to fill the vacancy in District 5. It seems there is no shortage of applicants, but how many of them are even minimally qualified and live in the district?  

I’ve heard a lot of questions about the so-called “leak” of confidential information regarding the Berrenda Pipeline proposal on social media. 

• The town’s reaction is typical of local government caught out in an embarrassing situation: Discredit the messenger and ignore the pertinent substantive questions raised by the leak. 
• Who leaked the information, by what means, and for what reason?  
• Edgewood’s town government has a long history of shooting itself in the foot; this situation may be nothing more than the nasty intra-factional quarreling which erupted soon after epCorE’s Glorious Revolution of 2021. 
• It is a long, difficult, and expensive road between buying paper water rights and water out of taps; it is way too soon to either fully embrace or reject the proposal.
• When Commissioners characterize legitimate questions as attempted sabotage, then the public has every right to question not only the proposal but the Commissioners’ motives.  

From my current Edgewood-specific reading list:

• This profile of the town’s fifth town manager in five years, Kelly Hamilton, makes for interesting reading. 
• I will leave it to readers to draw their own conclusions, but the latest agenda/packet for the Lodger’s Tax Advisory Board also contains information about the news outlet which published the profile of the current Town Manager. 
• And, last but not least, this July 22 update from Reboot Edgewood helps explain why the questions about the feasibility of returning to county governance continue to gain support.  

Upcoming meetings (updated with links added)

The Agendas and Minutes page at the Town website is currently showing four upcoming Meetings:

• July 8: Two advisory Committees: Parks & Rec and the Economic Advisory group  both of which have posted agendas.
• July 14: Town Commission meeting. [Agenda & Packet link]
• Also on July 14: The Town Commission meeting will be preceded by an informational meeting on the Berrenda Pipeline proposal. [Agenda] 
• July 16: the Planning & Zoning Commission has a preliminary agenda which was posted well in advance of several land use public hearings which appear on it. [Agenda] [Packets: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3]
• My take on the FAQ section at the bottom of the Berrenda Pipeline page is that the language has been curated so as to tease and create a bandwagon effect; it conceals more than it reveals. 
• Based on its past performance and now some chatter from the usual sources, I have little confidence in this governing body’s ability to get past the inevitable hype that always accompanies such proposals.
• While not as immediately urgent as was the Fire/EMS JPA, this proposal could either be a much needed advance for the area, or just another in the long series of the pipe-dreams which have beguiled Edgewood’s Cargo Cult since before 1999. 

Hey, Mabel, we’re gonna be RICH!

Or as we recently heard, “In a few years, you won’t recognize Edgewood!” The latest buzz is called the Berrenda Pipeline. The hype which is already building and promises to be unleashed on July 14, 2026 will not surprise anyone except those who moved here recently. After the effects of the 2008 mortgage crisis began to manifest in Edgewood around 2010, new commercial development slowed considerably. Those who moved here after that time have not had many opportunities to see Edgewood’s Advertising & Promotion faction in all its glory. It’s almost as good as a 4th of July fireworks show.

I would suggest that readers go to the town website and examine old minutes from Edgewood P&Z and the Town Council in order to see the narrative of Edgewood’s development review process that those minutes reveal, but somehow, the geniuses who brought us the Commission/Manager government seem to have entirely lost some documents, and most have disappeared from the town website. Some of the entries at the town website labeled Planning & Zoning are actually old Town Council Minutes. 

I do have a link to copies of most of the old town minutes and assorted other documents from 1999 up to about 2015 in the right-sidebar. I stopped routinely uploading copies of town documents in 2016 because I lacked the time needed to continue the project, and I foolishly believed that all the work done from 2016-2021 on establishing a searchable database for town documents would carry over to the new form of government. Unfortunately, it did not.  

Every new proposal that comes in should be considered on its own merits, and it would be unwise to dismiss the Berrendo water pipeline proposal without looking at more information. However, there is one thing which needs to be clearly understood: this project is not ultimately about Edgewood and won’t be controlled by Edgewood. There will be a number of larger stake-holders involved, and I do not trust the current town government to protect local interests.  

Local governments are approached all the time with many ideas which never come into public view as this latest one has. To add some historical perspective, I’ve listed some of the larger development proposals from past years which actually made it into the public record. It is important to note that of those listed (1) most never happened at all, (2) those which were built usually worked out differently than promised, and (3) many of the benefits claimed for some developments have turned into liabilities. 

• A Water Co-op Proposal from 2001-2002 to keep control of the Edgewood Water Company in New Mexico never happened, and it was opposed by some of the same people who later opposed the buyout of EPCOR.
• Section 16 Master Plan versions 1, 2, and 3
• Campbell Ranch Master Plan
• Hillcrest Master Plan
• Liberty Square, which has been partially built out, but on a much smaller scale than proposed.
• Equestrian Park Estates has been largely built out, but not in the form envisioned by the original owners. 
• The small commercially zoned adjuncts to Equestrian Park Estates near Frost and NMSR 344 designed so that residents of the area would not need to drive into “Lower Edgewood” have never yet manifested. 
• Walmart (This one of two projects which actually came to fruition as promised, and funds a significant percentage of the town’s budget.)
• Comfort Inn (The other proposal that was actually built out as expected. The town’s enactment of a Lodger’s Tax imposed on its guests currently funds advertising for a variety of local events and services.)
• Turning Sandia Airpark into an air-freight hub was another proposal that evaporated when the town official who tried to promote the concept was fired by the next Mayor.
• Then, too, there was the  state-of-the-art welding plant that was going to launch Edgewood into the tech age. (It was built but later re-purposed.)
• There was also a revolutionary soil treatment scheme which we were assured by a local elected official would do away with the need for chip-seal and road paving for most of Edgewood! Unfortunately, when rain combined with local soils, the process turned the roads into a gelatinous glue which one of my former P&Z colleagues named “That stupid road-snot project.” [For those who love to hate on Santa Fe County, the town was saved the embarrassment of a costly mistake because the County had the foresight to insist that the company do some tests on county roads before signing an agreement.]
• A trucking terminal proposed near the SE corner of the intersection of NMSR 344 and Dinkle Road.
• A large cinema-plex to be built alongside NMSR 344 within the Hillcrest Master plan; a representative for the company suggested that if that suggestion were to be turned down, an automotive parts assembly plant was their back-up plan. 
• There was a proposal for a water pipeline from SE New Mexico that would have co-located along the rights-of-way owned by EMW Gas. (There was lots of buzz about that idea for some time, and then it went silent due to lack of funding and jurisdictional complications.)
• The proposal for the Town to buy the old Edgewood Water Company back from EPCOR.
• For those who enjoy historical lore: Decades ago when the FAA was thinking about moving the airport away from Kirtland AFB, Edgewood was listed as a possible site for the relocation!
• Also, there was a series of proposals coming out of Torrance County that were going to spark a housing boom in Edgewood because as Edgewood Realtors reminded us, who wants to live in Moriarty? And, yes, some of them really did say that in public, and more than once.  (We were told that the racetrack and casino located in Albuquerque were going to move to Moriarty. Later, a tech giant bought some land in the same area and we were assured that the development would eventually turn the East Mountains into Rio Rancho East: Sure thing, Mabel, this time it’s gonna happen!)

Meeting wrap-up for 2026 06 23

Last night’s meeting highlights:

• In case there were any remaining doubts about the unfortunate P&Z meeting last Thursday, the public comment section of last night’s agenda made clear what has gone wrong, and there were some excellent suggestions on how to fix the problems. Stay tuned: Because like all the other problems facing the town, the only way out is to work through them. Overhauling the town’s development review process will require some Edgewood developers to let go of several faulty, long-cherished assumptions.  
• It appears that Commissioner Rariden will stay on as Commissioner for the present which is a good thing. He functioned as the town’s balance wheel during the collapse of the Fire/EMS JPA. His earlier announcement of his intention to resign altogether set off unseemly behavior among some of his possible replacements.  
• The Commission approved Rariden’s motion to name recently elected Commissioner, Devon Taylor, to take on the role of mayor. 
• The Commission also approved Commissioner Ken Brennan as the new mayor pro tem. 
• Neither move was ideal: Taylor is new to the commission, but while he lacks understanding of some critical elements of Edgewood’s history, he has demonstrated a willingness to learn and, so far, has not been afraid to ask difficult questions. 
• It is also true that Taylor has many family and work obligations which might make serving as Commission Chair difficult, but that will also make it unlikely that he will be tempted to push the boundaries of what is essentially a ceremonial position beyond what the job actually calls for. 
• Commissioner Milligan’s lawsuit against the town makes it impractical for him to assume a leadership role. 
• The questions about Commissioner Brennan’s part in both the collapse of the JPA while he served as mayor, and later during the town’s response made it politically unwise for him to resume functioning as the  Commission Chair. 
• Commissioner Murillo’s behavior in (1) attempting to undermine formation of a new Fire/EMS JPA, (2) his clumsy attempts to hasten Rariden’s departure, and (3) his subjection of both the Town Manager and the Deputy Manager/Town Clerk to a public “humiliation ritual” made it impossible for him to continue as Pro Tem. He still has three and a half years to grow into the job of being Commissioner; I hope he will make the most of the opportunity.  
• Last night’s closed session yielded two important action items. The acceptance of the Deputy Administrator/Town Clerk’s resignation was regrettable, but not surprising. The town can consider itself fortunate that there were not two resignations.  
• The announcement following the closed session about possible acquisition of water rights will be explored in more detail at the upcoming July 14, 2026 meeting.  One swallow does not a summer make, and given the Town Commission’s propensity for “shooting itself in the foot” I am cautiously optimistic with the emphasis on “cautiously.”
• Finally, lest it become lost in the shuffle, the mystery agenda item regarding utility billing revealed that the town has fallen far behind in collecting wastewater connection/service fees. The reconciliation of past-due amounts will likely be painful for local businesses and politically embarrassing for the town. Since it was the town which failed to do its part, I hope that there will be no late fees assessed and that ample time will be allowed for compliance.  

13 Days and Counting…

 …Because Edgewood’s current town government expresses no reservations whatever about the driving distance of 1,723 miles to Edmonton, Alberta, but the prospect of  driving 50 miles to Santa Fe in a time when many county services are available online or in the satellite office at the Edgewood Senior Center? 

Quelle Horreur! 

A Look Back at the Campbell Ranch Annexation: Part 2

[A news report from 2002 saying that Campbell Ranch offered to de-annex.] 

The only definite source I can find for the claim that Campbell Farming had ever offered to go away in exchange for money following the vote to annex the land in December of 2001 comes from a story in The Independent dated  May 8, 2002. It is possible that town correspondence still exists somewhere in the Planning Office’s permanent files or perhaps the personal files of former members of the governing body which might provide more information. [See also the separate pages for the Campbell Ranch Master Plan and the Hillcrest Master Plan with timelines of significant events.] 

March 2002:  A coalition of town council candidates made up of incumbent Robert (Bob) Stearley, former P&Z Commissioner Donzil Worthington, and Paul Hoffman campaigned as a group proclaiming “No Campbell Ranch” during the municipal election season. They soundly defeated the pro-annexation coalition made up of incumbents Gary Chemistruck and Frank Lasky who were joined by Bradley (Brad) Hill.  The town council had voted 3-0 to annex Campbell Ranch in December of 2001 during a special Saturday meeting held at a time when Stearley was unable to attend. At that time, Stearley had not yet retired, and his work entailed significant travel time.  

May 2002: Council member Bob Stearley, newly re-elected and serving as Mayor Pro Tem, is quoted in The Independent story as saying that the $1.1 Million as reported in the headline might eventually be twice or three times that amount. Regardless of which, if any amount were to be considered, the town could not have afforded to buy its way out of the situation. In an unexpected pivot from having campaigned against the annexation only three months earlier, Stearley appears to contradict opinion of the then town legal counsel, David Henderson, who believed that there might be a way to undo the annexation. 

Henderson’s theory about how that might happen depended upon the fate of the lawsuit filed against the annexation by Santa Fe County.  It appears that at the time this story was written, the Town of Edgewood had already filed a motion to dismiss the County’s lawsuit; the filing may have taken place before the 2002 municipal election which altered the balance of power of the Governing Body.  The story also notes that Campbell Farming Corporation had filed an intervention in the case which further complicated the legal situation. 

Stearley’s change in tactics was based on his estimation (which eventually turned out to be correct) that Santa Fe County’s appeal would not succeed, thus leaving the annexation intact. Therefore, he saw no reason to delay changing tactics. His preference, given the realities of state laws and the legal situation, was to find a way for the young town to manage the unpopular master plan. His principal focus at that time was on challenging the validity of Section 4 of the development agreement between the Town of Edgewood and Campbell Farming Corporation. He also proposed changing town ordinances to place a moratorium on building golf courses and codifying a one acre minimum for residential lot sizes. 

Given the information available to him at the time, Stearley’s change of course appeared reasonable. However, it was not politically expedient. His actions angered three important groups, and the consequences of their disillusionment are still relevant: 

(1)  Those who had supported his re-election to the Town Council specifically because of his opposition to the the town’s expansionist annexation policy in general (and it’s annexation of Campbell Ranch in particular) were inclined to be sympathetic, but they felt that he gave up too much, too soon.  

(2)  The group which had begun printing petitions calling for an election to disincorporate the newly formed town government before the Stearley, Worthington, and Hoffman coalition members announced their candidacy were less inclined to give Stearley the benefit of the doubt. Their take was that he was too closely allied to the local real estate faction, and they believed that Stearley had not campaigned in good faith.  

(3) Of greater long-term political consequence, he alienated several members of the Hill Family, who at that time were in the beginning stages of creating what eventually became the Hillcrest Master Plan. Their ambitious plan, which has been modified several times since it was approved, allowed for a wide mix of residential lot sizes as well as commercial development areas with at least one golf course. Stearley’s plans for changing town ordinances were viewed as a threat to their efforts.

2004-2007: Despite the validity of his arguments, Stearley’s pivot created the impression within his coalition and among the wider public that he was not dependable. [ETA: Santa Fe County’s challenge to the annexation was dismissed first by a district court and later by the state’s court of appeals for lack of standing in July of 2004; the dismissal was not appealed to the state’s highest court.] Stearley’s controversial decision in 2006 to appoint Brad Hill to fill a vacancy on the Town Council did not have the calming results he expected. 

The overall result of Stearley’s decision to drop his opposition to the annexation was to give Howard Calkins the means to make a credible challenge in the 2004 mayoral election despite his having been a vocal advocate for the still unpopular annexation. While Stearley was originally declared the winner and sworn into office, Calkins challenged the results. A state district court eventually declared the close race a tie. Stearley decided against appealing the decision, and after he lost the highly publicized card draw held in late 2007, Calkins returned briefly as mayor.  

Summary: There have been many questions asked in the years since 2002 about the fate of Stearley’s plan to change the Campbell Ranch development agreement. It would appear that while Stearley hoped to modify the development agreement where his primary focus was on modifying Section 4, it never happened. He also proposed significant changes to town ordinances and land use policies designed to rein in some of the most problematic features of the proposed development.  

Stearley was successful in making some good changes in several of the town’s ordinances and land use policies during his time in town government; some of them remain in place to this day. However, I can find no mention in the public record that there was ever any real attempt to modify the original development agreement. There is some indication in meeting minutes from January 2005 for both P&Z and the Town Council that several conceptual changes were made to the Campbell Ranch Master Plan. 

Because the changes were deemed “minor,” the Zoning Ordinance in place at that time did not require a public hearing which means that discovering exactly what changes were made would depend on consulting the development review documents which should still be available in the permanent files of the town’s Planning Office. However, it is not required that the town preserve every scrap of paper generated for land use matters; meeting minutes provide some hints at what changes were presumably made. 

Partly because of the turmoil surrounding the controversy over who should be mayor, heated debates over the Hillcrest Master Plan application, and the dismissal of Santa Fe County’s challenge of the annexation, Campbell Ranch brought no significant development proposals forward until late 2007.

Future actions? The Town already has sufficient legal authority over zoning matters to clean up the mess. Whether or not the current governing body possesses the level of expertise and political will to do so remains to be seen.

Because the original development agreement does make provision for future changes, perhaps the time has come for the parties to re-examine both the Campbell Ranch Master Plan and the general provisions of the town’s Master Plan section of its Zoning Ordinance.  None of the three major Master Plans, all of which were approved in Edgewood’s early years, have performed as advertised. 

Perhaps Master Plans, like preliminary subdivision plats, should carry an automatic expiration date with provisions made for possible extension if conditions warrant doing so. Of course, the interval should be significantly longer for master plans. Edgewood’s Cargo Cult faction has had great success in seeding the town map with lands bearing Master Plan Zoning for which no plans have ever been presented. The town needs to take another look at the zoning on those parcels as well.  

Coming soon: A look back at the Campbell Ranch Annexation Part 2

[Part 1 (below) sets the stage: The May 8, 2002 edition of The Independent serves as a time capsule for looking at the municipal government’s early years.]

A few things have changed, mostly the dramatis personae, but the fundamentals have not. Meanwhile, I suggest a visit to EMPAC’s homepage featuring a slide show where one image shows Edgewood’s Great March North along with the Bride and Groom at the top of the wedding cake: Campbell Ranch.  

While looking for something else, I found an old paper copy of The Independent (May 8, 2002 Volume 4, No. 19). The front page (above the fold) features the headline Campbell price to leave Edgewood: $1.1 million followed by a detailed story on the offer written by Theresa M. Oderman. Bracketing the Campbell headline is a larger one Drought, export imperil water under which Kevin Bean outlines Export on the left with Drought on the right. One of the best things about reading The Independent in those days was venturing into lower Edgewood, picking up a paper copy, and analyzing how the staff employed all of the classical rhetorical canons week after week. (The advent of the e-mail pdf version was still several years in the future.)  

Campbell Ranch update

EMPAC and Bernalillo County have filed a motion to intervene as interested parties in Campbell Ranch’s suit against the Town of Edgewood. Campbell Ranch filed suit in State District Court after the Edgewood Town Commission vacated the Planning & Zoning Commission’s approval of a “minor subdivision.”

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

Page Update: Campbell Ranch

I have updated the Campbell Ranch page to incorporate dates with brief descriptions of the latest decisions by Edgewood’s Town and P&Z Commissions. You will find a link to the Order of Decision signed on July 31, 2025 posted at the Town of Edgewood’s website. I would encourage anyone who wishes to keep a copy for future reference to save the document promptly as content at the town’s website tend to appear and disappear without notice. 

This usually happens after elections make significant changes in the makeup of the governing body as newly elected town officials often try to leave their mark on the website in the mistaken belief that the changes will be easy. Given that four of the five Town Commission positions will be on the ballot in November, expect more changes following January 1, 2026. Save any town documents of interest before that date. I have posted a summary of the decision in an earlier post.  

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.

June 24, 2025 Town Commission meeting recap

In no particular order, last night’s meeting was significant in many ways. Former President Ronald Reagan used to tell a joke that started out, “It’s ok, we’re from the government and we are here to help you!” 

• Top billing should go to the Water Utility Ordinance discussion which starts at about 30 minutes into the meeting. Do not worry, dear citizen, about that scary eminent domain language. It’s just in there because that’s the template required by the state government according to Mayor Kenneth Brennan. Linda Burke did add an important qualification: it won’t be used immediately. Passed 5-0 with no substantive discussion. 
• The ordinance isn’t all bad: It lays the groundwork for eventually achieving important goals of former Mayors Bob Stearley and John Bassett by requiring a 40 year water plan, and if properly implemented, would allow the town to sidestep the primary factor which has hindered economic development in the past. If it’s mishandled, the town could end up in yet another convoluted legal morass.  
• In keeping with the current administration’s now familiar habit of proclaiming transparency but doing the opposite, Commissioners had been provided with late breaking changes to the proposed solid waste disposal ordinance which were not made available to the public. Fortunately, due to Brad Hill’s concerns that the language threatens the viability of his widely acclaimed nuisance abatement program, the Commission immediately postponed the hearing pending a workshop on the subject. 
• The solid waste ordinance is going to be unpopular; the version made available to the public was garbage (pun intended), and so I wonder if this was some kind of Trumpian opening gambit designed to make version 2.0 less odious. Nevertheless, it raises the specter of yet another town official hired for overseeing the vital task of monitoring citizens’ feeble ability to manage their own trash. Of course, dumpster snooping will be allowed only by a government-approved Sanitary Officer. Freelance dumpster divers would be subject to prosecution. Penalties for such reprehensible, anti-social behaviors have yet to be determined. 
• The social media policy discussion was hilarious. Its adoption will pit boomer-tier, rulebook grammarians against cyberpunk pranksters. My money says that cyberpunks rule with the eventual outcome being the town’s social media accounts devolving into the pointlessness of a sanitized echo chamber. 
• The evening concluded with the termination of an employee upon recommendation of the Town Manager. 
• It is clear that following the departure of three of the original Town Commissioners from Commission Manager version 1.0, most traces of Edgewood’s vaunted hyper-libertarianism are gone. Version 2.0 sees the Commissioners lining up with only occasional token objections to jumping through the hoops necessary for accessing state and federal funds. Stay tuned: This is an Election Year. Commission Manager Version 3.0 will debut come January 1, 2026. If it contains new faces, then the dynamic will change again. Even so, it is clear that Republican or Democrat, Edgewood is learning to embrace big government.  

Edgewood P&Z conjures something from nothing?

Last night’s P&Z remand hearing managed to achieve two things during a meeting lasting more than six hours: (1) A bulk plat land division mechanism was conjured from a long outdated ordinance in which no such process exists. (2) The Commission's lack of understanding of land use issues was displayed in excruciating detail. 

This prodigy sprang fully formed like Athena from Brad Hill’s side during the hearing. The staff report appears to be nothing more than series of opinions dressed up as immutable legal facts, it was unveiled at the last minute, and it was swallowed whole by the Commissioners. The vote was unanimous; no conditions attached. In choosing the least defensible of the options available to it, the Commission has all but guaranteed that resolution will take years. 

Edgewood in the News: More on Campbell Ranch

A recent headline at Edgewood News reads Water Planning Committee expresses concerns about Campbell Ranch. As an illustration of the subject’s complexity, I tried to include a selection of the blog’s many existing labels; even a partial list exceeded the allowable character limit. Some of the contributors to the news story speculate that the Edgewood town government is motivated by greed in the form of adding new property taxes. 

The question is legitimate insofar as that was one of the “benefits” touted by Howard Calkins, Chuck Ring, Gary Chemistruck, Frank Lasky and their supporters when the original annexation and development agreement were under consideration. However, the general wisdom holds that residential development, especially at the densities proposed in the Campbell Ranch Master Plan, will cost the town more in providing services than the development will provide in property taxes. 

The Public Improvements District (PID) agreement with Campbell Corporation which was crafted and signed after the annexation and development agreement calls for installation of infrastructure to be paid for by the developer(s). The town will eventually become responsible for maintenance.  Edgewood already has provisions for imposing a Special Assessment District (SAD) by vote of affected property owners in specific geographic areas. The SAD mechanism or some variation of the concept may eventually need to be mandated as part of any future development within the Campbell Ranch Master Plan. 

However, given the town’s numerous lapses in development review for one “minor subdivision” which did not even address the question of infrastructure installation, skeptics would be wise to question whether or not Edgewood is willing or able to deal with complex issues. The town government appears to have other priorities at the present time. Edgewood voters continue a well-established cycle of occasionally waking up, voting some leaders out and a new group in before again going dormant. 

Formally incorporated bedroom communities are notoriously difficult to govern, and Edgewood has some added complications including its expansive territorial aspirations and its early love affair with master plan zoning. To those who have asked how our local version of the proverbial Gordian knot might be loosened, there are several ways it might be done. Although, I would add that my preferred method for doing so would be a less dramatic but more practical solution such as that described by Plutarch rather than the depictions often found in popular literature.  

Edgewood in the News: Questions from EBWPC

More questions about water and the proposed Campbell Ranch subdivision in this story at Edgewood News. Edgewood does not currently have representation on the Estancia Basin Water Planning Committee. Why not? Perhaps a good question to ask Commissioners Brennan, Anaya and Milligan as they have been in office long enough to have answers.

Appeal hearing March 6, 2025

Here is a link to yesterday’s public hearing following which the three governing body Commissioners who were present voted to remand Campbell Ranch’s application for a “minor” subdivision to P&Z for reconsideration.  

Several comments suggested by the testimony and cross-examination:

Like the appellants, I have been puzzled by the Town’s attempts at merging a quasi-judicial public hearing with an appeal which, in this circumstance, should have been advertised solely as an “appeal of record” hearing as stipulated in the town’s own ordinance. 

It appears that someone on town staff is trying to use the “quasi-judicial” umbrella incorrectly. Regardless of intent, the result has been that public input in this matter has been hindered.  

Quasi-judicial hearings are not mysterious, nor to they require “deciders” to live in a sack prior to hearings. The New Mexico Attorney General’s office provides free training and reasonable suggestions on how to comply with IPRA/OMA statutes. 

The town’s failure to properly distinguish between a quasi-judicial hearing and an appeal of record hearing did a disservice to the Town, its P&Z Commission, the Appellants, and not least to the original Applicant. 

Because the procedure followed yesterday after the closing of testimony was to (1) state a motion, (2) conduct deliberations, and then (3) go to a vote I would suggest that, in future, the presiding officer ask the Clerk to restate the original motion immediately prior to the roll call vote. This ensures that those voting are voting with a clear recollection of the original motion; it is especially important when a hearing is controversial, or when the original motion has been amended. 

If it is true that there were delays in P&Z officers signing paperwork after the November 2024 hearing, then it needs to be made clear that in the past, P&Z commissioners were expected to be available to make a quorum, and that in order to serve as an officer, their also being available to promptly sign paperwork following public hearings was expected. 

This was routine practice when P&Z Commissioners served on a volunteer basis, and also later when they were given a stipend to cover printing, and mileage costs. Those former expectations should be requirements now that the town is paying salaries.  

In fairness to Brad Hill, he was speaking without having time to consult notes; however, he offered testimony on several items which I believe to have been incorrect:

1. He appears to have conflated those who are entitled to give testimony with those who are entitled by town ordinance to receive written notice of applications which are going to appear before the P&Z Commission. 
2. If the P&Z Commission is limiting testimony to only those entitled to receive written notice of upcoming hearings, then that is a new policy put into place after December 31, 2021
3. I can state from personal knowledge that prior to 2022 the town’s P&Z Commission relied upon training which was very clear in advising that any person claiming to be an “aggrieved party” be allowed to offer testimony, and that the Commissioners could then filter the testimony as needed.  It was customary to allow those entitled to receive written notice to testify first, but I do not remember any attempt to limit testimony to only those persons. 
4. My recollection of Mr. David Henderson’s of advice to the town’s former Mayors and Councilors as well as to its P&Z Commissions is in conflict with Mr. Hill’s recollection. My primary recollection is of Henderson in a particularly controversial Zone Change hearing citing examples of case law and stating that the safest practice for the town was to allow all those wishing to offer testimony to do so. This was suggested in order to protect the town’s interests in case of an appeal. 
5. If Hill’s recollection that a former town counsel ever gave the advice he described at the hearing, I would suggest that it may have come from someone other than David Henderson. The town has gone through several legal firms since 1999.
6. The limitations placed on this relatively liberal policy have, in the past, been that repetitive testimony need not be listened to at length, but people who wish to do so should be allowed to enter a brief statement for or against an application and the grounds for their statement. 
7. During the years when the town’s legal counsel came from Robles, Rael, and Anaya they offered the same advice. 

These matters are (or should be) included in Land Use 101. People cycle in and out of town government regularly; the land use issues are more durable and the town needs to do better at handling transitions between elections. I find it troubling that after more than 25 years, errors such as those observed and described in yesterday’s hearing are still allowed to occur. It appears, that the 2022 form of government reset has also wiped the town’s 25 year history of land use matters; if this is the case, then retrieval of missing land use documents and re-training in OMA/IPRA compliance needs to be made a top priority. The preservation of documents relevant to land use hearings is required by state law.   

Link added for EMPAC

I’ve added EMPAC (East Mountains Protection Action Coalition)to the links list located the sidebar at the left side of the page. The page was created by our neighbors in the far northwest part of Edgewood who are directly impacted by Edgewood’s decisions on the Campbell Ranch Master Plan.  However, this group is not single issue and it is monitoring information on other land use questions which are of interest to the East Mountains. 

ETA:I will not be opening the blog to comments again any time soon. Moderating comments adds yet another layer to maintenance. For now, new material and updating links is challenge enough.  Feel free to contact me via email. 

Master Plan Spotlight: Edgewood circles back to 1999 with Campbell Ranch decision

This latest decision from Edgewood Planning & Zoning is interesting. Unless the governing body overturns or sends it back for reconsideration, the precedent could work itself out in ways that some of the planning commissioners do not appear to have fully considered. The town’s first subdivision ordinance from 1999 has been amended several times and mostly for good reasons. Opening the door to revert to old standards may affect future applications in other parts of Edgewood zoned Master Plan. It is long past time for the original development agreement to be reconsidered.  

Because Edgewood’s most ardent proponents of serial subdividing are aware that such practices are generally regarded as negative, the concept was rebranded and marketed as a “minor” subdivision. The maneuver is akin to the habit of describing the original annexation of Campbell Ranch as having been accomplished by a “bridge” instead of a “shoestring” because New Mexico law does not permit shoestring annexations. 

The people most affected by this decision would do well to keep an eye on the town’s actions, but there may be less going on here that it seems. Unless and until Campbell is able to secure sufficient paper water rights, and then puts in place the delivery system needed to convert those paper rights into “wet water” Campbell’s applications amount to little more than moving and reorganizing puzzle pieces. The Campbell Ranch MP has accomplished very little in the time since the plan was first approved other than play “kick the can” with successive iterations of town governments.  

Edgewood’s first town government was enamored with Master Plans to the extent that they approved three large ones early on: Hillcrest, Campbell Ranch, and Section 16. Section 16 is the only one of the three which has achieved any significant results. That is because it is state land developed by the NM State Land Office. The town does have some input but the SLO is the ultimate authority on development. Section 16 has its own meme magic component in the form of a name change from Section 16 to Edgewood Commons which was launched with great fanfare but promptly forgotten.  

The Hillcrest MP once appeared to be fairly active, but after an initial burst of activity in 2008 when a group of investors sought to buy the land, things went quiet. The sale fell through at some point, and the land along with 50% of the water rights reverted to Highland Stock Farms. Publicly available information is sketchy, but it appears that sometime between 2008 and 2013 the other 50% of the water rights were transferred to EPCOR. 

Two somewhat strange outcomes of Edgewood’s love affair with master plan zoning are the numerous plots scattered around town which are zoned Master Plan but for which no plans exist. In addition, it is possible under Edgewood’s current ordinance to master plan parcels as small as 10 acres. Neither of the above are practical in the real world, but they do exist on paper.  

Spotlight on the Comp Plan: Appendix D

Question 37 from page 30 may explain why Appendix D seems to have gone missing from the Town's website, and why the town wants a Comp Plan do-over without the assistance of the Mid-Region Council of Governments. Question # 37 in particular doesn't support the current highly politicized narrative. However, there are numerous other questions and individual comments which are far more damaging; when examined closely, they explain the inherent weakness that has been evident from 2000 on. The town government was grafted onto an existing community which was, at best, lukewarm to the idea. Some 20 years on, it's apparent that outside a few core issues such as roads, the competing ideas of what Edgewood should be (and become) have not resolved into a working consensus.

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?