The Socorro City Council on Aug. 7 voted to deny a petition that sought to remove roughly 2.689 square miles (about 1,830.4 acres) from the city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction, concluding the filing included an inaccurate legal description.

Council members made the decision after an executive session with the city attorney and a brief public comment period. City Planner Lorraine Quimiro said the petition had been received on July 17 and identified the affected tracts by county tract and block numbers during the meeting.

The petitioners’ representative, James Lundberg, a resident of Athena West, urged the council to follow the statute and allow the petition, saying the move was about property rights and neighborhood protection. “The petition requesting removal … shall be verified” under Section 42.105, Lundberg said, citing the state code as the basis for how the petition should be handled. He told councilors residents wished to keep municipal boundaries aligned with neighborhood identities and to protect agricultural and open spaces.

Council members said the denial was procedural: the application contained an inaccurate legal description. The motion to deny carried after the council returned from executive session; the record shows the motion passed by voice vote with no roll-call tally given.

Quimiro and legal staff told the petitioner and the public that statutory notice will be issued to the person who filed the petition and that the council’s action does not foreclose future filings if the legal description is corrected. Lundberg said petitioners have a 45-day window before pursuing further remedies with the county judge.

Why it matters: A release from a city’s ETJ can affect who provides services and how land is regulated. Petitioners said they brought the request to keep neighborhoods — including Angel’s Park, Athena West and Pecan Valley — within their preferred jurisdictions and to protect orchards and existing housing patterns. Council members emphasized they would not approve a flawed petition that could create legal complications for residents.

Background and next steps: The council voted after an executive session with legal counsel; no public commenters were signed up specifically for final action. Petitioners were told the city would send the legally required notices after the vote; if they wish to proceed they must correct the legal description and resubmit. The council did not set a specific date for any re-submittal or follow-up hearing.