Laserfiche WebLink
<br />"e" 13. <br /> <br />"Q" 14. <br /> <br />"e" 15. <br /> <br />"I" 16. <br /> <br />information is unnecessarily disclosed to the City's opponents, competitors, <br />and critics, to the detriment of the citizens of Paris. <br /> <br />a. Section 33 provides that a city ordinance need not be read more than once <br />or considered at more than one session in order to be effective, except as <br />provided in Article XI of the Charter. <br />b. Article XI (specifically Section 121) deals with franchises and requires <br />three readings of franchise ordinances. <br />c. In this section, delete the reference to Article XI if the suggested change to <br />Section 121 discussed in Comment 36 below, (i.e. deletion of the requirement <br />for multiple reading of franchise ordinances) is adopted. <br />d. Changes in the law regarding franchises have essentially eliminated the <br />reasons for extended consideration of the granting of franchises, making this <br />requirement unnecessarily time-consuming for both the city and the affected <br />utility. <br /> <br />a. Article V (The Budget), and particularly Section 54, contains a deadline <br />(adoption of the budget not later than the 27th day of last month of the fiscal <br />year) that may be inconsistent with current Truth in Taxation deadlines. <br />b. Truth in Taxation provisions required by state law impose certain <br />deadlines, including a final deadline for adoption of an ad valorem tax rate <br />(which must be preceded by adoption of the budget) that may conflict with, or <br />make cumbersome, the meeting of deadlines in the Charter. <br />c. Amend Article V to provide that in the event that deadlines for adoption of <br />the budget or tax rate in the Charter are inconsistent with deadlines imposed <br />by state law, that state law shall be followed. <br />d. This amendment should be considered seriously only if City staff has <br />encountered the type of scheduling and deadline problems described. <br /> <br />a. Section 58 provides for a "contingent appropriation" of not more than three <br />percent of the total general fund expenditure, to be expended only in the case <br />of established emergencies. <br />b. If the contingent appropriation is currently a useful budgeting tool, the <br />three percent cap may be unnecessarily restrictive; if it is not a useful tool, the <br />section is superfluous. <br />c. Modify the language of Section 58 to make the contingent appropriation a <br />meaningful budgeting tool if it is not one already. <br />d. This amendment should be considered seriously only ifthe Councilor City <br />staff have determined that the contingent appropriation provision is no longer <br />meaningful. <br /> <br />a. Section 60 provides that the city budget may be amended only in cases of <br />grave public necessity "the actual fact of which shall have been certified in <br />writing by not less than one hundred (100) resident qualified voters owning <br />real property within the corporate limits. . . ." <br /> <br />5 <br />