Item 13: Wreckers- City Marshal

[COSM_Admin]

Consider approval of Ordinance 2024-31, on the first of two readings, amending Chapter 90, Article 4, Wreckers, of the San Marcos City Code for the purposes of modifying signage requirements, placing responsibility for administering the wrecker rotation system with the city marshal, improving safety equipment requirements, increasing the response time allowed for wreckers, improving impound and inventory requirements, expanding the locations for storage facilities to include the extraterritorial jurisdiction, increasing maximum fees for all types of tows and related services, creating a duty for storage facilities to report vehicles received to the police department and providing new fines and penalties for violations; including procedural provisions; and providing an effective date.

 

[JHughson]

Sec 90.226 Why is the signage in b-1and c to be deleted? Same for 92.240 b-1 and c, but this section seems odd. It's entitled Rotation System, but everything underneath is a copy of 90.226.
Is there a substitute for the signage somewhere else?

Sec 90.250 (a) if "the tow is to be reported to the TxDot CRIS crash reporting system." is a valid reason for not completing the form, how do we know there is a report to the TxDOT CRIS?

Sec 90.274 - Why is the inspection to be done by the DEPUTY Marshal? Everything else is the City Marshal? Why wouldn't this be the City Marshal who can authorize someone else to do the inspection?

Regarding "Sec. 90.291. Limits on fee amounts (a) Category A wreckers:" I see that "a police officer determines that" additional services or needed. If that is deleted does that mean these fees can be charged without anyone authorizing them?

 

[COSM_Admin]

Response provided by Jade Huffman, City Marshal:
Sec 90.226 Why is the signage in b-1and c to be deleted? Same for 92.240 b-1 and c, but this section seems odd. It's entitled Rotation System, but everything underneath is a copy of 90.226.
Is there a substitute for the signage somewhere else?
B1- This was a request made by the wrecker companies due to there being excessive issues with people coming to collect their vehicles. Many times, they believe that the tow will be a flat rate, but do not account for other fees (such as storage) that are associated with the tows. Having the price on the sign, is misleading as the cost is not always the same cost depending on when it is picked up.

C-This signage is unnecessary if there is already signage posted in accordance with TDLR regulations.

Sec 90.250 (a) if "the tow is to be reported to the TxDot CRIS crash reporting system." is a valid reason for not completing the form, how do we know there is a report to the TxDOT CRIS?
The officer will complete a crash report in CRIS which goes directly to TxDOT. Dispatch will also note in the call notes who towed the vehicle and if a crash report is being completed.

Sec 90.274 - Why is the inspection to be done by the DEPUTY Marshal? Everything else is the City Marshal? Why wouldn't this be the City Marshal who can authorize someone else to do the inspection?
We followed the same verbiage as used in the rest of the ordinance, this equates police officer and Deputy Marshal.

Regarding "Sec. 90.291. Limits on fee amounts (a) Category A wreckers:" I see that "a police officer determines that" additional services or needed. If that is deleted does that mean these fees can be charged without anyone authorizing them?
Police officers do not often know what is required to perform a tow. They often tell the wreckers to do what they need to, in a sense allowing them the ability to gauge what needs to be performed.

Should this be an issue, this can still be reported in a formal complaint that can be investigated if there are issues with the services rendered. Yes, wrecker companies will be able to perform services as needed, without permission from officers.