Laserfiche WebLink
<br />a manner that gives a city added protection. For example current debates about when a <br />utility must pay the cost of relocating its lines when a city project requires that it do so could <br />be resolved, in the City's favor, by amending the charter to specify when the utility must pay. <br />c. If the Council is interested in exploring changes to these sections, I will provide more <br />detailed suggestions. <br />d. These suggested amendments may be technical and difficult for voters to understand, <br />which may cause the Council to determine that these types of amendments are not worth <br />pursumg. <br /> <br />35. a. Section 120 provides that no exclusive franchise or privilege shall be granted. <br />b. Exclusive franchises are prohibited by state law for certain types of utilities or <br />services. However, cities are authorized under Texas law to enter into exclusive agreements <br />with solid waste providers whereby the provider pays compensation to the city in return for <br />having the exclusive right to serve residents and businesses in the city. Technically a solid <br />waste agreement is not a franchise (which is a grant to use public property for a private or <br />commercial purpose) and is, instead, a contract. Nevertheless, solid waste agreements are <br />often called franchises, and there are even statutory provisions that refer to them as <br />franchises. <br />c. Amend Section 120 to specify that for purposes of this section an agreement for the <br />provision of solid waste services in the City of Paris is not considered to be a franchise. <br />d. Should the City desire to grant an exclusive right to a solid waste provider, as allowed <br />by state law, one or more other providers may challenge the City's doing so, arguing that <br />such agreements are franchises and that the current charter provision prohibits the exclusive <br />agreement. No such case has yet been reported, but is very likely to arise in a city that has a <br />charter provision similar to Section 121. <br /> <br />36. a. As discussed in Comment 13 above, three readings of an ordinance to adopt a <br />franchise is required in Section 121. <br />b. In earlier years, the granting of a franchise was a matter considered to require <br />particular scrutiny from the public, whereas changes in the law in the last decade have <br />caused franchising to become more uniform or, in some cases, to be totally replaced by <br />uniform state procedures. The three reading requirement may now be unnecessarily <br />cumbersome. <br />c. Eliminate the three reading requirement. <br />d. This change is suggested for efficiency and cleanup purposes. <br /> <br />37. a. Section 121 provides that a franchise may not take effect for sixty days after its <br />adoption. <br />b. This built-in delay probably no longer serves purpose. It was included to allow <br />citizens the opportunity to petition for an election on a franchise, which rarely occurs. <br />c. Delete the 60 day delay provision; consider deleting the provision for election by <br />petition. <br />d. This change is suggested primarily for cleanup and modernization purpose. <br /> <br />38. a. Section 131 is entitled "Publicity of records." <br /> <br />9 <br />