Socorro City Council voted on Oct. 6 to resume and complete the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental study for the Arterial 1 project rather than formally withdraw from the project.

City Manager Adriana Rodarte told the council that withdrawing from the project now could carry “significant consequences,” including the need to repay approximately $3,400,000 that has already been spent on the project through federal and state grants. Rodarte said the only way to formally document a “no build” option is to complete the NEPA study.

The decision followed a long public comment period in which residents repeatedly said the proposed arterial would not benefit the majority of Socorro residents, would increase traffic and pollution, and would threaten privacy and farmland. Rodolfo Rodriguez, a resident who spoke during public comment, said he did not see how the arterial would relieve traffic for Socorro residents and warned it would mainly serve development at the city’s edge. “It doesn’t go to I‑10,” Rodriguez said in his remarks, expressing concern about the road’s usefulness to local drivers.

City Attorney Juan Martinez told council members that the city’s agreement with TxDOT is structured as a Local Project Advanced Funding Agreement (LPAFA). Martinez said TxDOT routinely treats its up‑front disbursements as advanced funds and that, if the city cancels, the federal/state sponsors could require repayment.

After discussion, Councilmember Alejandro Garcia moved to complete the NEPA study. The motion carried (recorded opposition by Councilmember Roxas). Council did not approve construction funding; the vote addresses only whether the environmental/design study should proceed to completion so the city can document alternatives and avoid an unresolved project limbo.

Council and staff repeatedly emphasized that completing the NEPA study does not authorize construction and that a separate funding and approval process would be needed for any future right‑of‑way acquisition or construction.

Clarifying details: the staff report and public statements identified $3.4 million already spent and cited a total estimated project cost figure discussed in public comments (approximately $6.4 million for study/design; full construction costs were not finalized and were described in discussion as substantially higher and not yet funded).

What’s next: staff will resume the NEPA process as directed; the council can consider outcomes and next steps after the study is completed.