Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Interlocal Agreements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court approves interlocal pacts with San Antonio and Fort Bend on subdivision rules and post-mortem services
Summary
Atascosa County approved a mandated interlocal agreement with the City of San Antonio to place county subdivision regulations first in certain extraterritorial jurisdictions and authorized an interlocal contract with Fort Bend County for post-mortem services and consulting on the ME facility.
Get email alerts on the Interlocal Agreements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Atascosa County Commissioners Court on Oct. 15 approved two interlocal agreements: one with the City of San Antonio concerning subdivision regulations in San Antonio’s extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) within Atascosa County, and another with Fort Bend County for post-mortem services.
Assistant County Attorney Trent Rao presented the San Antonio agreement, describing it as a mandated statute requiring agreements with each city whose ETJ overlaps the county. Rao said the interlocal agreement would ensure county subdivision regulations govern development in those portions of San Antonio’s ETJ that lie in Atascosa County unless the county’s standards fall below San Antonio’s, in which case San Antonio may require a higher standard. The court moved and approved the agreement and authorized the county judge to sign.
Rao also presented an agreement with Fort Bend County for post-mortem services, noting the county’s use of Dr. Postolnick as a consultant for the county's medical examiner facility and that the arrangement would be less expensive than other options. The court approved the agreement and authorized the county judge to sign the document.
Both items were presented as recommended for approval; the court’s votes were recorded on the floor with motions and seconding statements and carried during the meeting.
The agreements are administrative and intended to clarify jurisdictional and service responsibilities; the court did not record additional budgetary appropriations tied directly to these approvals at the meeting.

