Judge favors city in dispute with county over Agua Fría village expansion

May 16—A judge has ruled in favor of the city of Santa Fe in its ongoing dispute with Santa Fe County over 1,077 acres just outside the city's northwestern edge, commonly referred to as Area 1B.

State District Judge Bryan Biedscheid heard arguments in the case in March and issued a ruling Tuesday overturning a county ordinance that called for some parcels of the tract off West Alameda Street to be included in Agua Fría village and remain under county jurisdiction.

The measure came in response to a petition signed by residents requesting inclusion in Agua Fría, designated as a traditional historic community, even as the city and county were negotiating a long-planned annexation of Area 1B.

The judge wrote in his order the county's ordinance was "not supported by substantial evidence" and "not in accordance with law."

Area 1B, which lies near the Santa Fe River, was one of the last parcels of county land the city intended to annex as part of a process that dates back to 2008.

Officials from the two governments had been negotiating details of the annexation deal when residents filed their petition with the County Commission asking for the village to be expanded to include their neighborhoods. They argued in part they had been living under the city's authority for years without their properties becoming part of the city and without being provided city services or being able to vote in municipal elections.

Commissioners in June approved the addition of about 60% of the area to Agua Fría but allowed parcels owned by nonprofit housing developer Homewise Inc. and others to remain outside the historic community's boundaries at their request.

The city appealed the county ordinance, calling it arbitrary, capricious and beyond the scope of the county's authority.

The city's attorney, Rebecca Mnuk-Herrmann, argued in part the County Commission heard no new evidence of qualities that distinguish Area 1B neighborhoods before finalizing the ordinance. She also said commissioners made their decision based primarily on "landowner preference."

Among the city's arguments was that Area 1B doesn't meet the criteria to qualify as a traditional historic community under state law, which would require it to be part of an identifiable community that has existed for 100 years, with structures or landmarks associated with the community. The designation also requires a community to have a distinctive character or traditional quality that distinguishes it from surrounding areas or new developments.

The judge agreed, ruling there is no substantial evidence in the record that Area 1B "represents an identifiable village, community, neighborhood or district that can be documented as having existed for more than one hundred years."

Rather, he noted, "the record supports the finding that Area 1B is primarily composed of vacant lots, and a supermajority of homes built within the last fifty years."

Biedscheid was also asked to consider whether the process under which the County Commission passed the ordinance was "quasi-judicial" or "legislative," and whether it was lawful for Commissioner Anna Hansen to vote on the ordinance after advocating for expansion of Agua Fría village.

The city argued the process of expanding the village should have been quasi-judicial and the commission violated the due process rights of parties involved. The county asserted the process was legislative and that Hansen, then chairwoman of the commission, "was not required to be disinterested."

Biedscheid determined the proceeding was quasi-judicial.

Reached by phone Thursday, Hansen — who is campaigning for the District 24 state Senate seat — said she couldn't comment because she hadn't yet had a chance to read the ruling.

Mayor Alan Webber celebrated the ruling Thursday. He said the judge's decision in the city's favor was "gratifying," but it was unfortunate a lawsuit was required to sort out the issue. Ongoing discussions between city and county officials came to a halt, he said, when Hansen decided to support residents who wanted to join the village rather than the city.

"There is a right way and a wrong way to do things," Webber said. "You can't just decide what outcome you want and pay no attention to the law."

As for what happens next, the mayor said: "I think we revisit where we left things before [the county] went down this path, which the judge has found to be procedurally and substantively unsupported by law. We'll have to sit back down and try to work something out amicably."

The Board of County Commissioners will decide whether to appeal Biedscheid's decision, county spokeswoman Olivia Romo wrote in an email Thursday.

The deadline for filing an appeal is June 13, according to Romo.

Sid Monroe — who has become an unofficial spokesman over the years for residents who wished to be included in the village — expressed disappointment in the ruling.

"The central egregious facts remain the same: It's now been 16 years, and the residents of Area 1B have never had any representation in the City," Monroe wrote in an email. "We don't vote for City offices. We do not receive City services. The Mayor and City Councilors won't give us the time of day.

"We are individual homeowners just trying to live on our properties," he added. "We can't promise big developments and lucrative fees to the City. We don't have the power or connections to lobby land use and navigate the so-called 'system.'

"In just under a month," Monroe wrote, "we will vote for our 4th County Commissioner since this ordeal began. We live, and vote, in the County, and it appears this decision puts us back under City land use while the annexation continues to be kicked down the road."