My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2006-11-27-Mins-Charter Committee
City-of-Paris
>
Boards and Commissions
>
OTHER
>
CHARTER COMMITTEE
>
2006
>
2006-11-27-Mins-Charter Committee
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/21/2012 2:50:41 PM
Creation date
12/8/2006 10:50:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
Doc Name
2006
Doc Type
Minutes
CITY CLERK - Date
11/27/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
d. These suggested amendments may be technical and difficult for voters to <br />understand, which may cause the Council to determine that these types of <br />amendments are not worth pursuing. <br />"Q" 35. a. Section 120 provides that no exclusive franchise or privilege shall be <br />granted. <br />b. Exclusive franchises are prohibited by state law for certain types of utilities <br />or services. However, cities are authorized under Texas law to enter into <br />exclusive agreements with solid waste providers whereby the provider pays <br />compensation to the city in return for having the exclusive right to serve <br />residents and businesses in the city. Technically a solid waste agreement is <br />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 <br />agreements are often called franchises, and there are even statutory provisions <br />that refer to them as franchises. <br />c. Amend Section 120 to specify that for purposes of this section an <br />agreement for the provision of solid waste services in the City of Paris is not <br />considered to be a franchise. <br />d. Should the City desire to grant an exclusive right to a solid waste provider, <br />as allowed by state law, one or more other providers may challenge the City's <br />doing so, arguing that such agreements are franchises and that the current <br />charter provision prohibits the exclusive agreement. No such case has yet <br />been reported, but is very likely to arise in a city that has a charter provision <br />similar to Section 121. <br />"C" 36. a. As discussed in Comment 13 above, three readings of an ordinance to adopt <br />a franchise is required in Section 121. <br />b. In earlier years, the granting of a franchise was a matter considered to <br />require particular scrutiny from the public, whereas changes in the law in the <br />last decade have caused franchising to become more uniform or, in some <br />cases, to be totally replaced by uniform state procedures. The three reading <br />requirement may now be unnecessarily cumbersome. <br />c. Eliminate the three reading requirement. <br />d. This change is suggested for efficiency and cleanup purposes. <br />"C" 37. a. Section 121 provides that a franchise may not take effect for sixty days <br />after its adoption. <br />b. This built-in delay probably no longer serves purpose. It was included to <br />allow citizens the opportunity to petition for an election on a franchise, which <br />rarely occurs. <br />c. Delete the 60 day delay provision; consider deleting the provision for <br />election by petition. <br />d. This change is suggested primarily for cleanup and modernization purpose. <br />"C" 38. a. Section 131 is entitled "Publicity of records." <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.