(1) At least eighteen (18) months before the expiration of any franchise acquired under
or prior to the present Constitution, the legislative body of each city shall provide
for the sale of a new franchise to the highest and best bidder on terms that are fair
and reasonable to the city, to the purchaser of the franchise and to the patrons of the
utility. The terms shall specify the quality of service to be rendered and, in cities of
the first class, the price that shall be charged for the service.
(2) If there is no public necessity for the kind of public utility in question and if the city
desires to discontinue entirely the kind of service in question, or if, in the case of
cities other than those of the first class, the city owns or desires to own and operate
a municipal plant to render the required service, this section shall not apply.
Effective: October 1, 1942
History: Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky.
Stat. secs. 2741-m, 3037d-1, 3037d-4, 3037d-6.
Notes of Decisions
Berea Coll. Utils. v. City of Berea, 691 S.W.2d 235 (Ky. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 8× “On appeal, the utility argues that § 164 of the Kentucky Constitution and KRS 96.010 do not permit municipalities granting a fran *236 chise or privilege to impose a minimum bid requirement as a precondition to awarding a public utility franchise.”
Seaton, Mayor v. Lackey, 182 S.W.2d 336 (Ky. Ct. App. 1944).
· cites it 3× “KRS 96.010 recites: “Sale of public utility franchises by cities.”
F. M. Vanmeter v. City of Paris, 273 S.W.2d 49 (Ky. Ct. App. 1954).
· cites it 3× “010 after the 1936 amendment) mandatorily directed the legislative body of the city to offer a franchise for sale before the expiration of the existing franchise for the performance of the same service. And in the Seaton opinion we held that since the granting of the renewal…”
City of Nicholasville v. Blue Grass Rural Elec. Coop. Corp., 514 S.W.2d 414 (Ky. Ct. App. 1974).
“To the extent that KRS 96.010(2), as applied in the instant situation, would mean that Nicholasville does not have to offer a franchise and may serve the consumers in question by its own plant, it must be considered to have been impliedly repealed by KRS 96.”
Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. City of Paris, 299 S.W.2d 811 (Ky. Ct. App. 1957).
“This early action was necessary because KRS 96.010 requires that at least eighteen months before the expiration of a franchise, the legislative body of each city shall ■provide for the sale of a new franchise.”
Clay v. Catlettsburg, Kenova & Ceredo Water Co., 192 S.W.2d 358 (Ky. Ct. App. 1946).
“We said that after the expiration of the franchise the company had •only the right to remove the property within a reasonable time, and we may add, or apply for a new franchise, and since 1926 (Acts 1926, Ch.”
Mt. Vernon Tel. Co. v. City Of Mt. Vernon, 230 S.W.2d 451 (Ky. Ct. App. 1950).
“KRS 96.010 provides: “* * * the legislative body of each city shall provide for the sale of a new franchise to the highest and best bidder on terms that are fair and reasonable to the city, to the purchaser of the franchise and to the patrons of the utility.”
Vanmeter v. City of Paris, 257 S.W.2d 909 (Ky. Ct. App. 1953).
“The city also owns a municipal electric plant, which operates in competition with the private utilityi *910 Under KRS 96.010, a city is required to provide for the sale of a new franchise at least 18 months before the expiration of an existing franchise; however, the statute by…”
Momarc Utils. Corp. v. City of Salyersville, 323 S.W.2d 568 (Ky. Ct. App. 1959).
· cites it 2× “Although the statute, KRS 96.010 (2), uses the word “desires,” we think the legislature contemplated, something more than mere wishful thinking or a passive mental attitude as a basis for refusing the sale of a franchise and compelling the discontinuance of operation’s by an…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 96.010(2) — 2 cases
City of Nicholasville v. Blue Grass Rural Elec. Coop. Corp., 514 S.W.2d 414 (Ky. Ct. App. 1974).
“To the extent that KRS 96.010(2), as applied in the instant situation, would mean that Nicholasville does not have to offer a franchise and may serve the consumers in question by its own plant, it must be considered to have been impliedly repealed by KRS 96.”
Momarc Utils. Corp. v. City of Salyersville, 323 S.W.2d 568 (Ky. Ct. App. 1959).
“Although the statute, KRS 96.010 (2), uses the word “desires,” we think the legislature contemplated, something more than mere wishful thinking or a passive mental attitude as a basis for refusing the sale of a franchise and compelling the discontinuance of operation’s by an…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.