Item 3: Ratification of Unanimous and Non-Uanimous IGR Actions

Home Browse Search

Sponsored by: Printed pursuant to Senate Interim Rule 213.28 by order of the President of the Senate in conformance with pre-session filing rules, indicating neither advocacy nor opposition on the part of the President (at the request of Governor John A. Kitzhaber for Department of Transportation) URL: http://www.leg.state.or.us/11reg/measpdf/sb0100.dir/sb0131.intro.pdf Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation Steve Gallup PWE 1/12/2011 Pri 3 Support Comments: This change makes consistent with majority of the other states. Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation Tom Larsen PWM 1/12/2011 Pri 3 Support Comments: ODOT studied this issue at legislative request several year ago. 48 states and the Uniform Vehicle Code take this "allowed unless signed to prohibit" approach to U turns. Oregon and one other state continue to have the "prohibited unless signed to allow" U turn law. This change makes us consistent with Washington, Idaho and California. Impact to the city will be minor as a small number of intersections now allow U turns. If the bill is passed a small number of intersections will have signs prohibiting U turns. SB 0146 Relating Clause: Relating to the Residential Service Protection Fund; creating new provisions; amending section 7, chapter 290, Oregon Laws 1987; and declaring an emergency. Title: Extends scope of Residential Service Protection Fund surcharge to include fixed interconnected voice over Internet protocol service and prepaid telecommunications service. Declares emergency, effective on passage. Sponsored by: Printed pursuant to Senate Interim Rule 213.28 by order of the President of the Senate in conformance with pre-session filing rules, indicating neither advocacy nor opposition on the part of the President (at the request of Governor John A. Kitzhaber for Public Utility Commission) URL: http://www.leg.state.or.us/11reg/measpdf/sb0100.dir/sb0146.intro.pdf Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation Pam Berrian CS-ISD 1/11/2011 Pri 2 Support Comments: I would Support, Priority 2 (if OPUC wishes our support), if not than Priority 3 as it is consistent with current position that VOIP is more like a telephony product than not, especially since the FCC has not ruled on what VOIP is but has said they are not pre- empting (at this point) local or state authority. For sure, the FCC has not ruled VOIP to be an Information service like Internet Access. At the same time, Verizon has (in 07) sought to pre-empt fees and taxes on VOIP alluding it is just another form of Internet service, etc. So passage of this legislation may dissuade Verizon from continuing that line of thinking. Also regarding prepaid service like TRACFone. All in all, as technologies converge, and new service terms emerge, there will be increased activities to treat the 22