Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Sponsored by: By COMMITTEE ON RULES <br /> <br />URL: http://www.leg.state.or.us/11reg/measpdf/hb3500.dir/hb3505.intro.pdf <br /> <br />Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation <br />Jerry Lidz CS-CMO-ATTY 3/3/2011 Pri 3 Support <br /> <br />Comments: This bill would add another exception to the definition of "gift" in the government ethics statutes; <br />giving a public official (including employees) admission to a retail or outlet store to buy goods at <br />discount would no longer count as a "gift" limited to $50 per year. <br />The bill appears to be a response to a recent Ethics Commission opinion about a National League <br />of Cities program that connects local government employees to a Government Employees <br />Marketplace program. <br />Because this protects an NLC program that benefits municipal employees, it's worth our support. <br />Because it's not a policy issue, I recommend priority 3. We should coordinate with LOC. <br /> <br /> <br />HB 3516 <br /> <br />Relating Clause: Relating to solar energy generation by retail electricity consumers. <br /> <br />Title: Authorizes installation and use of solar photovoltaic energy system on residential or commercial <br />structure in zones in which residential or commercial structures are authorized. <br /> <br />Sponsored by: By Representatives CANNON, BAILEY, J SMITH; Representatives BOONE, GARRARD, <br />GARRETT, KRIEGER, MATTHEWS, MCLANE, Senators BOQUIST, DINGFELDER, <br />GEORGE <br /> <br />URL: http://www.leg.state.or.us/11reg/measpdf/hb3500.dir/hb3516.intro.pdf <br /> <br />Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation <br />Katharine Kappa PDD-ADM 2/24/2011 Pri 3 Oppose <br /> <br />Comments: The current zoning code would permit solar systems on developed residential and commercial <br />lots in Eugene. For this reason, the bill is consistent with our current code. However, we oppose <br />the bill due to Section 3 and subsections 3a and 3b. Section 3 prohibits the application of required <br />setbacks for these facilities. This would be inconsistent with our zoning code. Section 3a limits <br />our ability to cover our costs by collecting fees for zoning review of these facilities (evaluating <br />the setback and height). And Section 3b limits our ability to adequately review the facilities since <br />we would need elevation drawings to determine if it meets height allowance. Also Section 3b <br />limits our ability to request vegetation surveys or contour maps. In some areas of the city, we <br />would need vegetation/tree surveys or contour maps to verify that the facilities are not proposed <br />in "protected resource areas" that may exist on a lot. It is our understanding that the LOC may <br />also oppose this bill for similar reasons. If Section 3 were removed from the bill, we would be <br />neutral. <br /> <br />Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation <br />Steve Nystrom PDD-ADM 2/25/2011 -- -- <br /> <br />Comments: Concur with Katharine. <br />7 | Page <br />March 16, 2011 IGR Committee Meeting <br />