Opinion ID: 6107833
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Franchise Contract

Text: Consistent with both the common law rule and PURA, the Franchise Contract negotiated between Richardson and Oncor's predecessor dictates in no uncertain terms that Oncor must pay the costs of relocation in public rights-of-way. Specifically, the Franchise Contract incorporates the ROW Ordinance (Chapter 20, Article V of the City Code of Ordinances): If the city gives written notice, a person shall, at its own expense, temporarily or permanently, remove, relocate, change, or alter the position of person's facilities that are in the public rights-of-way within 120 days.... The Franchise Contract also explicitly defines Public Rights-of-Way to include streets and alleys. However, the Franchise Contract continues: This franchise agreement shall in no way affect or impair the rights, obligations or remedies of the parties under [PURA], or other state or federal law. Thus, the Franchise Contract should not be read as inconsistent with PURA's relocation provisions. And if any law requires Richardson to pay relocation costs, that  law would trump the Franchise Contract's inclusion of the ROW Ordinance. Oncor argues that both PURA section 37.101(c) and the Tariff are laws requiring Richardson to pay relocation costs, and thus, either controls over the Franchise Contract and the ROW Ordinance. We disagree. As discussed above, Richardson, a home-rule city, has the full power of self-government and exclusive control over its public rights-of-way. This power includes the common law right to require utilities to pay right-of-way relocation fees to accommodate changes to public rights-of-way. This power may be limited only when a statute speaks with 'unmistakable clarity.'  City of Galveston , 217 S.W.3d at 469 . Neither section 37.101 of the Utilities Code nor the Tariff unmistakably requires Richardson to bear the cost of the relocation.