03111982 Emergency Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

89 MINUTES OF THE EMERGENCY MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS, TEXAS, MARCH 11, 1982 PRESENT: Mayor Emmie Craddock Council Members Karl W. Brown Robert L. Cavazos Berry R. James John A. Kreczmer Elida A. Mendez Tess Norris City Manager City Secretary City Attorney City Planner A. C. Gonzalez Janis K. Womack Barbara Edwards Joe Garza Also Present: John Stokes, Andrew Gary and others. Mayor Craddock called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Mayor Craddock introduced for consideration approval of an Ordinance on first reading, said Ordinance being read in its entirety, which caption reads as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS, TEXAS, ANNEXING TO SAID CITY A CONTIGUOUS TRACT OF LAND CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 135 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, LOCATED WITHIN THE EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF SAID CITY AND LYING ADJACENT TO PRE- SENT CITY BOUNDARIES; APPROVING A SERVICE PLAN FOR SAID TRACT; EXTENDING THE BOUNDARY LIMITS OF SAID CITY SO AS TO INCLUDE SAID TRACT; GRANTING TO THE INHABITANTS OF SAID TRACT ALL THE RIGHTS AND PRIVI- LEGES OF OTHER CITIZENS OF SAID CITY; BINDING SAID INHABITANTS BY ALL OF THE ACTS AND ORDINANCES, RULES AND REGULATIONS OF SAID CITY AND DECLARING AN EFFECT- IVE DATE. Mrs. Norris moved to approve the Ordinance on first reading and Mrs. Mendez seconded the motion. John Stokes stated the Council was go- ing against the recommendations made by the City Staff in annexing this property and that it would not be for the good of the City. Andrew Gary, representing the Thornton family, addressed the Council. Two things he wants to point out to the Council are the advisability of taking in this land and the adequacy of the plan. Two liabilities that the City will incur are, first the City must comply with the statute on City's annexations, and second the potential liability in connection with tort liability, injury liability. The liability to the City in connection with furnishing of services has not been clearly established in the law, because we have a new statute on this. The liability in connection with maintaining the road and bridge the Council has been apprised of the case of Jesek vs. City of Midland, 605 S.W.2d 544, 549 (Tex. 1980), which is a similar situa- tion wherein an undedicated road became public by use and has been in- corporated into a City. Judgment was for over a million dollars against the City, as there was no limitation on the tort liability because it was proprietary the City maintain the road. If the City annexes this property they become responsible for the safety of the road and bridge. In connection with the service plan, it has not been tested or defined by the Courts, I suggest there is a possibility that the City's pre- sent policy of annexation utilities is in conflict with this statute. The statute specifically says the plan has to provide for distinction of municipal services into each area to be annexed. Taking the pro- perty you seek to annex, I believe it is conceded it is not antici- pated there will be any additional extension of utilities whatsoever. City Manager Gonzalez said that was correct. Mr. Gary said a major portion of this property is not in the floodway, a portion of the pro- perty lies adjacent to River Road. The only sewer line that is on that side of the property is a 20-inch force main and Mr. Gary previously requested the City Staff to furnish in writing the requirements for