The City of Richmond is supportive of removing the inefficient “Christmas tree” effect and allowing any local government the ability to avail themselves of more affordable housing tools within the parameters detailed in the bill. Ten localities with the largest need for affordable rental units account for over 50 percent of the state’s need for affordable rental units and have experienced relatively high population growth. Four of these localities are in Northern Virginia, three are in Hampton Roads, and three are in Central Virginia.” Of these ten localities, only Fairfax County, Arlington County, and the City of Alexandria are able to avail themselves of the tools found in § 15.2-2304. The City of Richmond ranks third of the ten in having unmet affordable housing units. They would like to come under the provisions of this statute and would love to see the bill pass or minimally be studied so that it can pass in 2024.

As a Virginia resident, I urge you to vote in support of Senator Boysko’s SB1312. (1) The proposal provides important support for new EV charging, including multifamily projects where access to at-home charging is critical to EV adoption. Employees and customers also need convenient access to EV charging. (2) The proposal is consistent with localities’ regulating the number and type of parking spaces in new development through zoning, comprehensive plans and project-specific plans. (3) The proposal would not weaken or contradict anything in the current Statewide Building Code or the pending proposed “2021” updates, each of which is silent on requirements for installing EV charging. (4) Given the different rates of EV adoption around the Commonwealth, it is reasonable for local governments to have authority to adopt EV charging standards for parking areas within their jurisdiction based upon their particular local needs.

The Virginia League of Conservation Voters encourages you to SUPPORT SB1312 SB 1312 (Boysko) Requirement for electric vehicle charging stations for certain developments. Reasons to SUPPORT SB1312 This bill would allow localities to require electric vehicle charging stations as part of site approval plans for new commercial, industrial, or large multifamily residential developments. Planning for charging infrastructure on the front end is prudent, cost-effective and predictable. Localities currently lack the authority to require charging stations in large new developments. Without this authority, residents in condos and apartments could be left with limited charging opportunities for their vehicles, or burdened with large increases in rent or condo fees as adequate charging infrastructure is installed retroactively.

Comments Document

Please see the attached document for comments in support of SB1312. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best, Ben Kessler ChargePoint

On behalf of the Town of Blacksburg, I would like to express strong opposition to SB 1365, with the following justifications. - The current flow control ordinance in place with MRSWA’s members was recently upheld by the VA Supreme Court: - The ordinance allows the existing Material Recycling Facility (mrf) to operate as permitted, to accept trash and recycle it. - It just says that any residue (that’s the material left after recycling activities) must come to MRSWA. - MRSWA works on an “economy of scale”, the more waste handled the lower the fees and the less waste handled the higher the fees. - SB 1365 would “exempt” “residue” which would decrease the amount of waste handled at MRSWA. - MRSWA transfers our waste to a landfill operated by the New River Resource Authority (NRRA), so less waste would also hurt NRRA’s “economy of scale”. - The existing mrf is permitted by DEQ and is not required to recycle any specific - percentage of the waste that goes to it. - So they could recycle 1% of the material that comes into their facility, and if this bill is passed, the other 99% which would be “residue” and “exempt” from flow control would be transferred to their landfill in Lunenburg Va – which is 3 hours, one way, from Christiansburg. - Why the budget impacts – we could lose over 30,000 tons of waste because if this bill is passed this “exempt” “residue” of 30,000 tons is over a third of the tonnage we currently handle – this is lost revenue and we have operating expenses – and to offset this revenue loss would require higher fees on the existing waste members bring in - MRSWA is not just a transfer station. We also provide free cardboard recycling, free white good recycling, free household hazardous waste events, tire recycling, clean wood/brush recycling, metals recycling and oversee a closed landfill. We can offer all these services because of the fee structure in place and a positive “economy of scale”. If waste goes away, so do services and fees increase. - So, rural communities utilize Solid Waste Authority’s like MRSWA to best meet the needs of their communities and Senate Bill 1365 would hurt such authority’s.

- My name is Alan Cummins and I am the executive director of the Montgomery Regional Solid Waste Authority (MRSWA) located in Christiansburg Va. I am writing in opposition of Senate Bill 1365. - The current flow control ordinance in place with MRSWA’s members was recently upheld by the VA Supreme Court: o The ordinance allows the existing Material Recycling Facility (mrf) to operate as permitted, to accept trash and recycle it. o It just says that any residue (that’s the material left after recycling activities) must come to MRSWA. o MRSWA works on an “economy of scale”, the more waste handled the lower the fees and the less waste handled the higher the fees. - SB 1365 would “exempt” “residue” which would decrease the amount of waste handled at MRSWA. - MRSWA transfers our waste to a landfill operated by the New River Resource Authority. (NRRA), so less waste would also hurt NRRA’s “economy of scale”. - The existing mrf is permitted by DEQ and is not required to recycle any specific percentage of the waste that goes to it. o So they could recycle 1% of the material that comes into their facility, and if this bill is passed, the other 99% which would be “residue” and “exempt” from flow control would be transferred to their landfill in Lunenburg Va – which is 3 hours, one way, from Christiansburg. - So, Senate Bill 1365 would have a negative fiscal impact on each of MRSWA’s members budgets, yearly, up to: o Montgomery Co = $375,000 Blacksburg = $143,000 Christiansburg = $214,000 Virginia Tech = $145,000 - Why the budget impacts – we could lose over 30,000 tons of waste because if this bill is passed this “exempt” “residue” of 30,000 tons is over a third of the tonnage we currently handle – this is lost revenue and we have operating expenses – and to offset this revenue loss would require higher fees on the existing waste members bring in. - MRSWA is not just a transfer station. We also provide free cardboard recycling, free white good recycling, free household hazardous waste events, tire recycling, clean wood/brush recycling, metals recycling and oversee a closed landfill. We can offer all these services because of the fee structure in place and a positive “economy of scale”. If waste goes away, so do services and fees increase. - So, rural communities utilize Solid Waste Authority’s like MRSWA to best meet the needs of their communities and Senate Bill 1365 would hurt such authority’s. Thank you.

6. SB #1365 will take authority away from local governments regarding flow control power over solid waste; it is being proposed after the industry lost court battles under current law. SB #1365 will "gut" the flow control statute as a MRF can effectively operate as a transfer station (indeed, in the Montgomery/Blacksburg lawsuits the company claimed that its facility was a transfer station, even though it is licensed as a MRF). 7. The Montgomery County and Blacksburg ordinances were enacted to save the taxpayers money by maintaining the economies of scale for the regional solid waste authority – this bill would increase costs to local governments and thus to citizens and taxpayers. 8. The amendment to SB #1365 specifically exempts “residue” generated at a MRF. A MRF is built to perform recycling activities, not perform as a transfer station. Sincerely, Alan Cummins

I am the Executive Director of the Montgomery Regional Solid Waste Authority (MRSWA) located in Christiansburg Va. MRSWA was formed back in 1995 by the Towns of Blacksburg and Christiansburg, Montgomery County and Virginia Tech University to take care of all their solid waste needs. I am writing this email to express opposition to SB #1365. My discussion points are as follows: 1. As amended out of the Senate, this bill is in the nature of a substitute, which significantly changed the original bill, which may have been an attempt to avoid scrutiny of the original bill. 2. Three years ago Montgomery County and Town of Blacksburg each adopted a "flow control" ordinance under the authority of Va. Code Sections 15.2-931 and 15.2-933, to direct that trash generated or collected in those localities be delivered to the Montgomery Regional Solid Waste Authority (MRSWA) facilities. The County and the Town were then sued by a solid waste disposal company that owns and operates a "dirty materials recovery facility" (MRF) in the area and argued that its MRF should be exempt from flow control regulation. The company lost its lawsuits at the trial court level and asked the Virginia Supreme Court to review and overturn the trial court decision. The company lost at the Supreme Court level as well. The company was represented at the Supreme Court level by Senator Chap Petersen, who is a member (and I believe Chairman ) of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources, the Committee that reported out SB #1365. Senator Petersen abstained from the Committee vote, which may have been required, apparently due to his business connection with this company. 3. It is important to note that the law currently provides (and has provided for decades) that recyclable materials are exempt from flow control; the Montgomery County and Town of Blacksburg ordinances provide for this exemption. The issue is not about recycling; it is about disposal of waste that remains after the recycling process is complete (residue). The ordinances in place at Blacksburg and Montgomery County allows waste to be taken to the dirty MRF for recycling. All the ordinance says is that the residue (waste left after recycling activities are completed) be taken to the MRSWA facility. If this residue is not brought to MRSWA the result is lost tonnage and higher tipping fees. Higher tipping fees that would result in MRSWA’s members (Montgomery County, Blacksburg, Christiansburg and Virginia Tech) each paying $100,000’s more per year in disposal costs. 4. It is unnecessary, as recyclable materials are already exempt from flow control regulation; to the extent that proponents of SB #1365 claim that it would "clarify" the law concerning recycling activity that is not necessary, and has never been an issue. 5. Disposal of solid waste is historically a function of local government, carried out by local government with localities having the option of assistance from the private sector, if they wish to hire the private sector for such assistance. This is a state mandate – Va. Code Section 15.2-931 states that local governing bodies "are directed" to exercise all powers to provide for adequate trash collection and disposal. Flow control has historically been one of those powers, over many decades, that can be used by localities to fulfill the solid waste mandate. Points 6, 7 and 8 on attached.

I am the Director of the Montgomery Regional Solid Waste Authority (MRSWA). MRSWA was formed in 1995 to take care of all the solid waste needs of Town of Christiansburg, Town of Blacksburg, Montgomery County and Virginia Tech. MRSWA operates a transfer station and provides single stream recycling, along with overseeing a closed landfill. SB 1365 impacts flow control ordinances already in place and the amendments would severely impact solid waste budgets of all four members of MRSWA. MRSWA operates on “economies of scale”, the more tonnage the lower the fees. The current ordinance in place, which has been recently upheld by the VA Supreme Court, has the residue generated at the local MRF be directed to MRSWA. The added tonnage from the residue keeps the fees lower for the members. Take this residue away and fees go up. The local MRF is still allowed to accepts waste and recycle it. The local MRF would like to take the residue it creates to its landfill it owns 3 hours away. Unlike urban municipalities, rural communities utilize Solid Waste Authority’s to best meet the needs of their communities and SB 1365 would hurt such authority’s.

Points 6, 7 and 8. 6. SB #1365 will take authority away from local governments regarding flow control power over solid waste; it is being proposed after the industry lost court battles under current law. SB #1365 will "gut" the flow control statute as a MRF can effectively operate as a transfer station (indeed, in the Montgomery/Blacksburg lawsuits the company claimed that its facility was a transfer station, even though it is licensed as a MRF). 7. The Montgomery County and Blacksburg ordinances were enacted to save the taxpayers money by maintaining the economies of scale for the regional solid waste authority – this bill would increase costs to local governments and thus to citizens and taxpayers. 8. The amendment to SB #1365 specifically exempts “residue” generated at a MRF. A MRF is built to perform recycling activities, not perform as a transfer station. Sincerely, Alan Cummins

Comments Document

I am the Executive Director of the Montgomery Regional Solid Waste Authority (MRSWA) located in Christiansburg Va. MRSWA was formed back in 1995 by the Towns of Blacksburg and Christiansburg, Montgomery County and Virginia Tech University to take care of all their solid waste needs. I am writing this email to express opposition to SB #1365. My discussion points are as follows: 1. As amended out of the Senate, this bill is in the nature of a substitute, which significantly changed the original bill, which may have been an attempt to avoid scrutiny of the original bill. 2. Three years ago Montgomery County and Town of Blacksburg each adopted a "flow control" ordinance under the authority of Va. Code Sections 15.2-931 and 15.2-933, to direct that trash generated or collected in those localities be delivered to the Montgomery Regional Solid Waste Authority (MRSWA) facilities. The County and the Town were then sued by a solid waste disposal company that owns and operates a "dirty materials recovery facility" (MRF) in the area and argued that its MRF should be exempt from flow control regulation. The company lost its lawsuits at the trial court level and asked the Virginia Supreme Court to review and overturn the trial court decision. The company lost at the Supreme Court level as well. The company was represented at the Supreme Court level by Senator Chap Petersen, who is a member (and I believe Chairman) of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources, the Committee that reported out SB #1365. Senator Petersen abstained from the Committee vote, which may have been required, apparently due to his business connection with this company. 3. It is important to note that the law currently provides (and has provided for decades) that recyclable materials are exempt from flow control; the Montgomery County and Town of Blacksburg ordinances provide for this exemption. The issue is not about recycling; it is about disposal of waste that remains after the recycling process is complete (residue). The ordinances in place at Blacksburg and Montgomery County allows waste to be taken to the dirty MRF for recycling. All the ordinance says is that the residue (waste left after recycling activities are completed) be taken to the MRSWA facility. If this residue is not brought to MRSWA the result is lost tonnage and higher tipping fees. Higher tipping fees that would result in MRSWA’s members (Montgomery County, Blacksburg, Christiansburg and Virginia Tech) each paying $100,000’s more per year in disposal costs. 4. It is unnecessary, as recyclable materials are already exempt from flow control regulation; to the extent that proponents of SB #1365 claim that it would "clarify" the law concerning recycling activity that is not necessary and has never been an issue. 5. Disposal of solid waste is historically a function of local government, carried out by local government with localities having the option of assistance from the private sector, if they wish to hire the private sector for such assistance. This is a state mandate – Va. Code Section 15.2-931 states that local governing bodies "are directed" to exercise all powers to provide for adequate trash collection and disposal. Flow control has historically been one of those powers, over many decades, that can be used by localities to fulfill the solid waste mandate. Points 6, 7 and 8 are attached.