immunity against Gay’s claims under the Tort Claims Act. To make this determination in this case, we must decide whether the complained of actions are governmental or proprietary, whether the‘actions were discretionary, and whether Gay’s claims are of the type that subject the City to liability. See McKinney v. City of Gainesville, 814 S.W.2d 862, 865-66 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1991, no writ). The functions Gay complains the City negligently performed, street maintenance and storm sewers, are classified as governmental and subject the City to liability. But this alone does not waive the City’s immunity: the City is also immune from liability under the Act for the exercise of discretionary powers. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 101.056 (Vernon 1997); McKinney, 814 S.W.2d at 865 (<HOLDING>). There is no hard-and-fast rule for
recognizing governmental interest in rehabilitation holding governmental immunity is no defense to contractual liability holding section 1010215 does not waive governmental immunity merely because a governmental action falls within the listed governmental functions thus further inquiry under the act is necessary holding that if a contract surrenders or contracts away governmental functions then it exceeds the scope of a governmental entitys powers and is void holding that the federal government does not waive its immunity where there is no private counterpart even when uniquely governmental functions are involved