HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolutions (R-87-344)-10/21/1987
1
2
3
4
5 I
I
6 I!
7 I!
II
8 II
II
9 II
II
10 II
11
12
13
14
15 II
II
16 II
17 I
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
. f\) r,f. \ ~n
\
RESOLUTION R-87-344
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 17 ON THE
NOVEMBER 3, 1987 GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT
WHEREAS, the Texas Legislature has passed and the Governor
has signed historic tort reform measures; and
WHEREAS, those tort reform measures are highly advantageous
for Texas cities and will provide a large measure
of predictability and stability with regard to
municipal liability; and
WHEREAS, one of those tort reform measures has caused the
following proposed Constitutional amendment to
be placed on the November 3, 1987 general election
ballot:
"The constitutional amendment
authorizing the legislature to
define for all purposes the
governmental and proprietary
functions of a municipality;"
and
WHEREAS, such proposed amendment shall appear on the ballot
as Amendment No. 17; and
WHEREAS, the passage of Amendment No. 17 is needed to ensure
meaningful and lasting tort reform for Texas cities;
and
WHEREAS, the Texas Municipal League has endorsed passage
of Amendment 17;
I
I
I
I
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by
City Council that the Council
passage of Amendment N. 17.
the City of
vigorously
Colleyville
support the
);
,J./ (day
to d--.. on this the
A--
of
of
October,
ATTEST:
CITY OF COLLEYVILLE
LaVada Johnson
City Secretary
J. R. "Buck" Hubbard
Mayor
Amendment Number 17 -
Tort Reform
When Texas voters go to the polls on November 3, they will face twenty-five
proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution, as well as two referenda.
Several of the 25 proposed amendments, particularly Amendment 17, are extremely
important to Texas cities.
Amendment 17 was pi aced on the ballot when Senate Joint Resolution 26 was
passed by the 70th regular session of the Texas legislature. S.J.R. 26 was an
integral part of the TML-backed tort reform package.
Amendment 17 would authorize the legislature--not the courts--to define the
"governmental" and "proprietary" functions of Texas cities. The distinction
between these two kinds of muni cipal functions is important from the standpoint
of municipal liability exposure.
A governmental function is generally understood to be one which a city performs
as a political subdivision of the state and which benefits, directly or
indirectly, all citizens of the state. A proprietary function, on the other
hand, is one which a city undertakes purely for the benefit of its municipal
citizens.
When a city is engaged in a governmental function, its potential liabi I ity is
limited. When it is engaged in a proprietary function, however, there are no
limits to its potential liability. The distinction between the two kinds of
functions, then, is a key determinant of a city's potential exposure to
Iiabi I ity cl ai ms.
Until the 1987 session of the legis I ature, state law did not provide lists of
governmental and proprietary functions. As a result, the courts have decided,
on a case-by-case basis, which municipal functions are proprietary <rid which
are governmental. These court decisions have resulted in a crazyquilt of
municipal I iabil ity. For example, proprietary functions--according to the
courts--include street and sidewalk construction and maintenance, storm sewers,
provision of water and electricity, parks <rid recreation activities, <rid more.
I n other words, the courts had found that these functions were not governmental
functions, <rid limited liability did not apply to them.
To add to the confusion, maintenance of traffic signals has been held to be a
governmental function, though street maintenance is proprietary. Provision of
wastewater service is governmental, though water service is proprietary.
Sanitary sewers are governmental, but storm sewers are proprietary. The
operation of garbage trucks is governmental, but the repair of garbage trucks is
proprietary. The examples go on <rid on.
Tort reform measures passed this year will change that. S.B. 5, Fir st Called
Session, actually lists governmental and proprietary functions. What's more,
many functions which S.B. 5 lists as governmental had previously been classified
by the courts as proprietary. In fact, the list of proprietary functions, for
which a city has unl imited Iiabi I ity, includes only three activities:
o Operation and maintenance of a public utility (but not water or
sewer systems, which are classified as governmental);