Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Etj Release topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Socorro council denies resident petition to release large area from city ETJ, cites statutory shortfall
Summary
The council voted to deny a petition seeking to remove roughly 1,830 acres from Socorro's extraterritorial jurisdiction after staff and the city attorney said the submission did not meet the statutory thresholds for voter or land‑value majority.
The Socorro City Council on Dec. 4 denied a petition asking the city to release about 1,830.4 acres (≈2.689 square miles) of land from the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction. The petition covered multiple subdivisions — including Vista Bonita, Pecan Valley Estates, Grijalva, Athena West, Angels Park and San Elisario Grant — and was the subject of extended public comment and debate.
City Attorney Jim Martinez told the council the applicable Texas statute provides two narrow, ministerial ways to compel a release: a petition signed by a majority of the registered voters in the area or by owners holding a majority of the land value as determined by the appraisal district. Martinez said the application before the council did not meet either test and warned that approving the petition without meeting those statutory criteria would be legally tenuous. "A petition requesting release under this subchapter must be signed by more than 50% of the registered voters of the area described by the petition, as indicated by the tax rolls of the applicable central appraisal district," Martinez read aloud when explaining the law.
Petition organizers disputed the staff analysis. One petitioner said the group had 519 verified signatures from roughly 900 registered voters they contacted and expressed frustration with apparent differences between their list and county records. Council members and staff said their assessment—based on El Paso County election rolls—showed roughly 44–45% of registered voters in the area, short of the statutory 50% threshold. Council offered to meet with petitioners to compare and reconcile the lists but noted that, under current Texas law, there is no waiting‑period restriction preventing petitioners from trying again after amending their submission.
After discussion the council amended and then approved a motion to deny the petition (motion and second recorded in the minutes as Miss Rojas and Mr. Garcia), and the denial carried by voice vote.
The council encouraged petitioners to coordinate with staff and the county to reconcile voter and owner lists if they wish to resubmit a corrected petition in the future. No formal penalties or additional conditions were imposed by the council at the time of the denial.
