Ord 1999-056 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r ':lIE D~ u w~ :!~ 0 l~1.; ~ ~ - - 1'- 121 >-:g 0:: u ;=:<UJ:::\iE €3'~ l,;Ua ~- ~"'*' -=1" Iii,,: g'00" ORDINANCE 1999 - 56 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS, TEXAS, AMENDING CHAPTER 82, ARTICLE 4, STOPPING, STANDING, PARKING, OF THE SAN MARCOS CITY CODE BY ADDING A PRESUMPTION REGARDING OVERTIME P ARKlNG AND AMENDING PROCEDURES FOR RECLAIMING IMMOBILIZED VEHICLES; INCLUDING PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS; AND PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES. RECITALS 1. The City has received numerous complaints about the lack of available parking in the downtown area. In addition to the limited number of parking spaces, stricter enforcement of parking ordinances was identified as a method of increasing parking availability. 2. The San Marcos Police Department has aut01r.~ted the enforcement of parking violations and the creation of a presumption, regarding ve;.iclC'<.: parked in the same space, is needed to efficiently implement the Department's new enforcement techniques. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS, TEXAS: SECTION 1. Chapter 82, Article 4, Sections 82.156,82.178,82.179, and 82.180 of the San Marcos City Code are amended as follows (underlining indicates added language; all 0 v e! st! ike indicates deleted language): Sec. 82.156. Presumption~ regarding person who parked vehicle and overtime parking. W In any prosecution charging a violation of any law governing the standing or parking of a vehicle under this chapter, proof that the vehicle described in the complaint was standing or parked in violation of the law, together with proof that the defendant named in the complaint was, at the time of the violation, the registered owner of the vehicle shall create a prima facie presumption that the defendant was the person who caused or permitted the vehicle to stand or be parked at the point where and for the time during which the violation occurred. A defendant may introduce evidence, as a defense, to show that the vehicle was parked by a person other than the defendant as charged in the complaint. .Gll In any prosecution charging a violation of any law governing time restricted parking of a vehicle under this chapter. proof that the vehicle described in the complaint was parked in the same parking space creates a prima facie presumption that the vehicle was continuously parked in that space. A defendant may introduce evidence. as a defense. to show that the vehicle was not parked in the same space for a continuous period of time. Sec. 82.178. Execution of immobilization order. (a) Any city police officer or parking technician may immobilize a vehicle under a municipal court order by the installation or attachment of a device designed to restrict the normal movement of a vehicle. (b) When a vehicle is immobilized, the person executing the order shaH will conspicuously attach to the vehide a written notice on a form provided by the city, worded substantially as follows: (1) The vehicle has been imnlolJilized pursuant to court order, and any attempted movement may cause dam~ge to the vehicle; (2) It is unlawful for any person t:l tamper with, deface, damage, or attempt to remove an immobilization device when it has been attached to a vehicle; (3) Instructions on having the vehicle released may be obtained by calling the