This post is for the benefit of the Edgewood Town Commission to provide some background missing from the statements made by the SAEPOA Board president and vice-president at the Town Commission meeting on 10 June 2025.
Why should Sandia Airpark continue to own its roads?
The Sandia Airpark roads are owned by SAEPOA (Sandia Airpark Estates Property Owners Association), although they are also designated for public use/access as established by plat and nearly 40 years of historical existence. The Airpark is open to the public and we regularly see neighbors from outside the Airpark enjoying the scenery and tranquility of the space. We also see onlookers who enjoy seeing aircraft activity and it allows easy access for community events such as flights for youth and the annual Santa Fly-In.
Most importantly, Sandia Airpark is an airpark, and its residents count on the roads as taxiways to move airplanes to the runway. Many of us believe the roads must remain private for the following reasons:
- To ensure continued access to the runway via taxiing aircraft. Although we understand that, if the Town took over the roads, the Town would likely “grandfather” our right to taxi, we are concerned that that right could be denied by a future commission or perhaps a state agency. This would be extremely destructive to lifestyle, on-airpark business, and property values.
- To provide for proper upkeep to the roads so that they are suitable as taxiways. To prevent propeller damage and preserve engines, the roads must be maintained smoother and free of debris and gravel to a degree that is greater than many common roads. We are aware that the Town budget is stressed and has many high-priority roads requiring paving and maintenance. We are prepared to pay for our roads and their upkeep and prefer to do it ourselves. (Our current board refuses to do any such maintenance, although the funds are available in the coffers, but that’s another matter we can fix with a future board.)
What’s the relationship of road ownership to the status of the Sandia Airpark HOA (SAEPOA)?
A) The board’s desire to dissolve the HOA and dispose of the assets (roads) in a way likely favorable to themselves.
It’s no secret that our current HOA board is trying to dissolve the association that they lead.
– In January, the Board held a meeting in which they declared all HOA governance illegal from 1995 on (without the required member vote). Based on this, they claimed that they must refund dues. Then they claimed that the organization needed to be dissolved since it was broke. (Since January, the board has changed its mind and has decided that their decision only applies to dues, since reverting all governance would have also required that Mr. Powers immediately step down from his board position.) To date, no dues has been refunded.
– In the same meeting, the Board stated that we needed to dissolve because, back in 1995, a much earlier board had sought and gained approval from the IRS to classify our HOA as a 501(c)(3) charititable organization. According to our Board, we were liable to problems with the IRS, perhaps millions of dollars of fines, although various accounting audits and member inquiries with the IRS have not verified the board’s position. The board further stated that it could do no HOA work. This included paying bills for access fees owed to the runway owners, as well as any road maintenance, cleaning, etc.
– On 10 February, a lawsuit was filed by a group of Airpark residents, all associated with the “Working Group” founded by Mr. Powers and Mr. Baker, petitioning a court to force dissolution of the Airpark (Case #D-101-CV-2025-00448). The relationship between the 12 plaintiffs and the defendants (HOA board) is very close, and the wording of the legal complaint mirrors wording used by the Board vice president. Furthermore, the plaintiffs used the same attorney who also has served as personal attorney to one of the defendant board members. The board kept the lawsuit secret from the members until 12 April, when it announced that it would seek a dissolution resolution at a board meeting in two days! (The bare minimum notification required by law).
– Unsurprisingly, on 14 April, the board voted to seek a dissolution vote. In preparing for the vote, the board decided to disregard state law that required them to get a 2/3 vote of the full membership (because it is in the Articles of Incorporation), and instead decided to disregard that section of the law and only require a 2/3 vote of members present in a meeting. The board also put out its own proxy form for people to vote with confusing (and arguably biased) instructions. Further, the board (and, curiously, the plaintiffs suing them) mailed similarly worded letters to each member urging them to vote for dissolution.
– At the same meeting on 14 April, the board voted to pay an attorney up to 25K in CY2025, violating our bylaws which require member approval per the bylaws.
– Also at the same meeting, the board stated that it could do no charitable work since it was an HOA. Thus, since they had already decided that they could do no HOA work because they were a charity, they essentially stated that they could do no productive work of any kind. However, they could pay attorneys and pay “administrative” expenses that are now in the thousands of dollars.
– On May 22, the board’s attempt to dissolve the association failed to meet even their lowered criterion of a 2/3 vote of those present at a meeting (including proxies).
Many of us have wondered why our board is so intent on ending their own association that has served the residents for over 35 years. We believe that a key reason is that, once dissolved, the board will remain in control of assets (namely the roads), but without any accountability to the membership. Thus, they could “donate” the roads to the Town (if the Town were to accept), or transfer them to a nonprofit run by the current board members (something hinted atby them). Either way, the residents lose control and are at risk of losing the benefits that were the reason for moving to the Airpark.
B) The lawsuit for “quiet title” by a group of airpark residents
Given the board’s interest in placing the roads either in the hands of another nonprofit, or into Town of Edgewood ownership, a group of residents has filed suit for “quiet title,” meaning that they are asking a judge to interpret the law and settle any questions about ownership (Case #D-101-CV-2024-01191). When the board refers to a “small minority” of residents (not really small–18 plaintiffs) “suing the town to stop paving Rainbow Road”, this is what they are referring to. It’s important to note that, although the Town is named in the lawsuit along with the HOA, the suit seeks no damages. In effect, this group of members is seeking a judge to prevent the the board from simply opposing what appears clear in the documentation–that the roads belong to the Association.
What do the documents submitted by Mr. Jerry Powers to the town commission represent?
During the 10 June Commission meeting, Mr. Powers, the HOA board vice president, presented approximately 40 pages into the record with the implication that this would back his claim of public ownership of the Sandia Airpark roads. These documents do not prove Mr. Powers’ points at all. Rather, they contain largely irrelevant information, and many statements that would back the claim by those seeking quiet title that the roads belong to the Sandia Airpark HOA. For more detail, see the review at: https://kloudcraft.com/blog/2025/06/17/review-of-40-pages-submitted-by-mr-powers-to-town-commission/
Should the commissioners fear Mr. Powers apparent threat that they could be found in violation of the New Mexico constitution?
No. Mr. Powers specifically referred to Article IX, Section 14 of the New Mexico Constitution, prohibiting donations from the public to private entities. This assumes that the Airpark roads have previously belonged to the public–an absurd idea. Mr. Powers’ assertion is particularly absurd since he had previously attempted to get the Town to pave the portion of Rainbow Road inside the airpark while it was (and still is) considered private property of the HOA. If Mr. Powers had gotten his wish, that would have clearly been a donation, and Mr. Powers, who was a town commissioner at the time was completely untroubled by this.
In the end, however, the Commission cannot be held liable for donating what the Town never owned.
Will the Town of Edgewood be expected to maintain the airpark roads if it takes possession?
During the 10 June meeting, Mr. Powers stated that he, representing the airpark board, had no intention of seeking help from the Town to maintain the roads. However, as recently as January, Mr. Powers, as board vice president, told the members that if they voted for dissolution and gave away the roads that then the town would accept them and pay for paving and all maintenance. Thus, no one would have to pay dues for the sake of road upkeep. Later, when it was pointed out by members that the town may not accept the roads, Mr. Powers modified this statement to indicate that the members would likely have to accept a PID bond to pay for it. In short, Mr. Powers does not have a clear plan, and he has previously indicated a desire for the Town to perform road maintenance, such as the paving of the private (North) portion of Rainbow Road. It is, in fact, those who brought suit for quiet title who are working to assure that Town that the Town will have no responsibility for road maintenace within the Airpark, and that the residents accept responsibility for their condition and upkeep.
Is the Town at risk of the Airpark Roads being blocked with a gate?
No. The vote was taken in error as the plat clearly specifies the roads a public access, and therefore such a gate would have to remain permanently open. The board is well aware that the vote for a gate failed in 2018, and that many of those who back private ownership of the roads also voted against the gate.
Does the board and its supporters have any significant conflicts of interest that color its advice and position?
Yes, perhaps substantially so. The board’s leadership also founded what is known as the Sandia Airpark “Working Group”, which includes those with extensive investments on the North side of the runway, perhaps all of it, as well as multiple speculative lots on within the current Sandia Airpark Estates. Although it is hard to know the exact nature of these investments and how they affect the board’s actions, we know the following:
– One board member owns real estate in the subdivided area directly north of the fueling area. He refuses to share with the general membership how extensive his holdings are. At times, he has said that he owns “only a few lots to protect his view”. At other times, he has offered to provide a 50-foot easement down the length of the runway for a parallel taxiway. This offer would not be possible if he owned only a “few lots”. The bottom line is that we have no idea how extensive his investments are on the North side, however, we do know that, if the Town took over Rainbow Road within the Airpark, he would perhaps be within 50 feet of it from his holdings on the North and could perhaps use some technique of imminent domain to cut accross the runway. He refuses to answer when asked about any such conflicts.
– The same board member has joined other investors in attempting to purchase other properties around the Airpark, and we can’t get a clear explanation of this board member’s vision, nor how his desires (transferring roads to the public, or dissolving the HOA) would affect his investments.
– Other members of the working group own the remainder of the real estate to the North of the runway. These investors have sued the HOA for dissolution, which is also the clear desire of the board (with its own unknown investments).
– We simply can’t get answers as to the direction and purpose of the actions proposed by the board.
Who are the community-minded people within the Airpark?
Frankly, these are the people that our board spoke of during the meeting. Unfortunately, the board used very negative terms such as “obnoxious,” “bully”, “drying your brain out”, “raise hell”, “sick of it”. The board even said, “one of them is even a retired bureaucrat from California”, as if this is some sort of crime.
What is the offense of these people? They are trying to protect the private status of the roads in the airpark against the wishes of the current board.
Something should be said about these people, however: They are the ones who participate and contribute to the community. Let me give two examples:
* Every year, we hold the Santa Fly-In event for all children in the Edgewood area. This year, we were well represented by those people that the Board denigrates. On the other hand, there was not a single participant from the Board, nor any of its proponents within its “Working Group.”
* We recently hosted a “Young Eagles” flight event for young people in the Airpark. Again, there was ample participation from the “bullies”, as our board refers to them. There were no participants from the Board, nor their “Working Group.”
* We regularly advertise community or neighborhood events, open to all. We seldom get any participation from board members or their associates.
* Members outside of the board’s associates (the “Working Group”) are not typically invited to social gatherings where the Board is present.
* The board no longer holds regular face-to-face meetings with the membership, but rather seeks only meetings via Zoom with limited interaction from the membership.
Perhaps those who disagree with the board are not bullies and they are the ones that the Town can work with effectively.
Deborah and I would like to personally invite anyone from the Town Commission or staff to reach out to us. I can be reached anytime at (505) 803-2684O
