<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.newrules.org" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/">
<channel>
 <title>Recently Updated Rules</title>
 <link>http://www.newrules.org/newrules</link>
 <description>Most recently updated Rules</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Development Moratorium - Tacoma, WA</title>
 <link>http://www.newrules.org/retail/rules/development-moratoria/development-moratorium-tacoma-wa</link>
 <description>On August 30, 2011, the city of Tacoma, Washingotn, adopted a 6-month moratorium on the development of retail stores over 65,000 square feet.  The city is using the time to review the economic, environmental and social impacts of large stores and to consider long-term changes its zoning law.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newrules.org/retail/rules/development-moratoria/development-moratorium-tacoma-wa&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.newrules.org/retail/rules/development-moratoria/development-moratorium-tacoma-wa#comments</comments>
 <pubDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2011 08:23:07 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>smitchell</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">3186 at http://www.newrules.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Economic Impact Review - California</title>
 <link>http://www.newrules.org/retail/rules/economic-impact-review/economic-impact-review-california</link>
 <description>In September 2011, the California Legislature pased a bill requiring cities and counties to have an economic impact 
analysis prepared before deciding whether to approve an application to 
develop a large superstore. The legislation defines a superstore as a retail store of at least 
90,000 square feet that devotes 10 percent or more of its space to 
groceries.  The law lists a range of impacts that the study must assess and quantify. &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newrules.org/retail/rules/economic-impact-review/economic-impact-review-california&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.newrules.org/retail/rules/economic-impact-review/economic-impact-review-california#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.newrules.org/category/keywords/retail/laws-and-ordinances">Laws and Ordinances</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2011 10:29:13 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>smitchell</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">3177 at http://www.newrules.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Local Purchasing Preference — Oregon</title>
 <link>http://www.newrules.org/retail/rules/local-purchasing-preferences/local-purchasing-preference-oregon</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;
In June 2011, Oregon enacted a new law (HB 3000) that allows state 
agencies and local governments to give preference to goods made in 
Oregon and services perfomed by local businesses, even if it entails 
paying up to 10 percent more than the cost of out-of-state suppliers.  
Previously, schools, prisons and other government agencies had to choose
the lowest bidder and were not allowed to consider the economic 
benefits of buying locally.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newrules.org/retail/rules/local-purchasing-preferences/local-purchasing-preference-oregon&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.newrules.org/retail/rules/local-purchasing-preferences/local-purchasing-preference-oregon#comments</comments>
 <enclosure url="http://www.newrules.org/sites/newrules.org/files/hb3000.en_.pdf" length="24472" type="application/pdf" />
 <pubDate>Sun, 19 Jun 2011 12:36:40 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>smitchell</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">3138 at http://www.newrules.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Internet Sales Tax Fairness - Connecticut</title>
 <link>http://www.newrules.org/retail/rules/internet-sales-tax-fairness/internet-sales-tax-fairness-connecticut</link>
 <description>In May 2011, Connecticut passed a law that requires  e-commerce retailers to collect and remit state sales taxes if they generates more than$2,000 in sales a year through sales affiliates based in the state.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newrules.org/retail/rules/internet-sales-tax-fairness/internet-sales-tax-fairness-connecticut&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.newrules.org/retail/rules/internet-sales-tax-fairness/internet-sales-tax-fairness-connecticut#comments</comments>
 <pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2011 08:43:16 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>smitchell</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">3133 at http://www.newrules.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Fiber Optic Network Ordinance - Ammon, Idaho</title>
 <link>http://www.newrules.org/information/rules/community-broadband/fiber-optic-network-ordinance-ammon-idaho</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Ammon, Idaho, is a community of approximately 15,000 outside Idaho Falls in eastern Idaho.  Ammon has struggled to boost economic development in part because providers in Ammon offer slower, more expensive services than are available in Idaho Falls.  For years, Ammon has sought to expand access to next generation networks, including &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.muninetworks.org/content/stimulus-denies-excellent-projects-idaho&quot;&gt;an application to the broadband stimulus program&lt;/a&gt; in 2010.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;However, it became clear that the City would have to move ahead without assistance from the federal government.  Having studying their options and existing technology for years, they were well equipped to begin building their own network and have embraced an incremental approach to building the network they need.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ammon is currently building the core of a network that will eventually connect all residents and  businesses if the vision succeeds.  In the meantime, they are expanding the open access network opportunistically to keep costs low.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newrules.org/information/rules/community-broadband/fiber-optic-network-ordinance-ammon-idaho&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.newrules.org/information/rules/community-broadband/fiber-optic-network-ordinance-ammon-idaho#comments</comments>
 <enclosure url="http://www.newrules.org/sites/newrules.org/files/2011 05 13 City Code - Fiber Optics.pdf" length="84177" type="application/pdf" />
 <pubDate>Fri, 13 May 2011 15:40:03 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">3131 at http://www.newrules.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Depositing Public Funds in Local Banks - Massachusetts</title>
 <link>http://www.newrules.org/banking/rules/depositing-public-funds-local-banks/depositing-public-funds-local-banks-massachusetts</link>
 <description>In May 2011, Massachusetts Treasurer Steven Grossman launched the Small 
Business Banking Partnership, a program that will move at least $100 
million of the state&#039;s cash reserves from large national banks to local 
community banks with the understanding that these institutions will use 
the deposits to increase lending to small businesses.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newrules.org/banking/rules/depositing-public-funds-local-banks/depositing-public-funds-local-banks-massachusetts&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.newrules.org/banking/rules/depositing-public-funds-local-banks/depositing-public-funds-local-banks-massachusetts#comments</comments>
 <pubDate>Mon, 09 May 2011 09:16:03 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>smitchell</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">3128 at http://www.newrules.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Chelan Public Utility District - Fiber-Optic Line Extension Policy </title>
 <link>http://www.newrules.org/information/rules/community-broadband/chelan-public-utility-district-fiberoptic-line-extension-policy</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Chelan is in a rural region of Washington state and was a pioneer in rural fiber networks, investing high-speed connections for citizens and businesses long before private companies saw any reason to do so. They have adopted an interesting line-extension policy that may lower the cost of the network to the PUD and allow households to take greater responsibility for connecting.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In short, the new policy is that the PUD will connect subscribers if the cost of doing so is less than $1500 (or average cost for a group of subscribers).  If the cost exceeds $1500 per subscriber, the subscribers will have to pay the difference or make alternate arrangements to lower the cost.  This alternate arrangement is where we think the rule is interesting.  A homeowner, or group of homeowners that want to trench their own property and backfill can lower the costs, benefiting everyone.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newrules.org/information/rules/community-broadband/chelan-public-utility-district-fiberoptic-line-extension-policy&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.newrules.org/information/rules/community-broadband/chelan-public-utility-district-fiberoptic-line-extension-policy#comments</comments>
 <enclosure url="http://www.newrules.org/sites/newrules.org/files/2011 Telecom LE Policy.pdf" length="143080" type="application/pdf" />
 <pubDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:53:03 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>christopher</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">3122 at http://www.newrules.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Internet Sales Tax Fairness - South Dakota</title>
 <link>http://www.newrules.org/retail/rules/internet-sales-tax-fairness/internet-sales-tax-fairness-south-dakota</link>
 <description>In early 2011, South Dakota enacted the following law, which requires out-of-state retailers to notify their South Dakota customers that they owe use taxes on their purchase.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newrules.org/retail/rules/internet-sales-tax-fairness/internet-sales-tax-fairness-south-dakota&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.newrules.org/retail/rules/internet-sales-tax-fairness/internet-sales-tax-fairness-south-dakota#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.newrules.org/category/keywords/retail/laws-and-ordinances">Laws and Ordinances</category>
 <pubDate>Mon, 04 Apr 2011 07:59:48 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>smitchell</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">3119 at http://www.newrules.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Internet Sales Tax Fairness - Illinois</title>
 <link>http://www.newrules.org/retail/rules/internet-sales-tax-fairness/internet-sales-tax-fairness-illinois</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;
In March 2011, Illinois passed a law that requires large e-commerce retailers to collect and remit 
state sales taxes if they generate more than
$10,000 in sales a year through sales affiliates based in Illinois. 
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newrules.org/retail/rules/internet-sales-tax-fairness/internet-sales-tax-fairness-illinois&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newrules.org/category/keywords/retail/laws-and-ordinances">Laws and Ordinances</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:06:16 -0600</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>smitchell</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">3108 at http://www.newrules.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Local Purchasing Preferences - Colorado</title>
 <link>http://www.newrules.org/retail/rules/local-purchasing-preferences/local-purchasing-preferences-colorado</link>
 <description>A bill (HB11-1142) submitted in Colorado&#039;s 2011 legislative session would require that, when reviewing bids for contracts of $150,000 or more, &amp;quot;the state purchasing director or the head of the purchasing agency shall consider the state economic impact of the bid as a component of the cost assessment of the bid.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newrules.org/retail/rules/local-purchasing-preferences/local-purchasing-preferences-colorado&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.newrules.org/retail/rules/local-purchasing-preferences/local-purchasing-preferences-colorado#comments</comments>
 <pubDate>Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:05:25 -0600</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>smitchell</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">3103 at http://www.newrules.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Local Purchasing Preferences — California</title>
 <link>http://www.newrules.org/retail/rules/local-purchasing-preferences/local-purchasing-preferences-california</link>
 <description>California state law grants local, independently owned, small businesses
a 5 percent preference when competing for state contracts. The law also
sets for state agencies a goal of making at least 25 percent of their 
purchases with small businesses.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newrules.org/retail/rules/local-purchasing-preferences/local-purchasing-preferences-california&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <pubDate>Thu, 17 Feb 2011 09:20:05 -0600</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>smitchell</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">3102 at http://www.newrules.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Community Impact Review — San Diego, CA</title>
 <link>http://www.newrules.org/retail/rules/economic-impact-review/community-impact-review-san-diego-ca</link>
 <description>San Diego enacted, in 2007 and 2010, two separate ordinances that 
require the city to review the economic and community impact of 
large-scale retail development proposals before deciding whether to 
approve them.  One applies to all retail stores over 50,000 square feet and the other to supercenters over 90,000 square feet.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newrules.org/retail/rules/economic-impact-review/community-impact-review-san-diego-ca&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.newrules.org/retail/rules/economic-impact-review/community-impact-review-san-diego-ca#comments</comments>
 <enclosure url="http://www.newrules.org/sites/newrules.org/files/sandiego-ordinance.pdf" length="756502" type="application/pdf" />
 <pubDate>Tue, 07 Dec 2010 15:23:24 -0600</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>smitchell</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">3086 at http://www.newrules.org</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>

