Sent: May 9, :47pm via

Transcription

1 This is the correspondence that we have had with Sen. Denis since April 12 th when we became aware of this bill. We made several attempts to communicate with Sen. Denis and asked for a meeting. We were basically ignored and turned away until the last 3 hours before the 5pm amendment deadline, of which the proposed revised language does NOT address any of my concerns. Sent: May 9, :47pm via tahoerager@sbcglobal.net Senator Denis, I appreciate your attempt at amending but I do not appreciate a last ditch effort under a time crunch when I communicated with you over a month ago and again 9 days ago without a response for a meeting. It does not appear that the proposed amendment would ease any of my concerns. I already interpreted the current proposed language that contractors would be allowed to dispose of recycle materials at recycle centers or a MRF. The language you added just clarifies that fact. I am opposed to the other consideration of applying in counties where 2 or more MRFs exist. Currently according to Waste Mgmt website- 2 of their facilities are already considered MRFs, plus the Ecocenter being built-makes 3, plus Nevada Recycling and Salvage could easily become a clean MRF with some equipment changes. Thus more than 2 MRF s will easily exist in Northern Nevada in less than 2 years, probably sooner. My further concerns are also the following: 1. The costs of disposal at the MRF s will be drastically increased from current rates- which will make it cost prohibitive for small haulers and small construction companies to operate. 2. This amendment does not address the transportation issues regarding surrounding communities that this would effect and add significant costs and time constraints. 3. There is no language regarding the police powers of this proposal. You cannot ask Waste Mgmt and other owners of these MRF s to be the policing power since policing will directly benefit their facilities. This bill has more negative consequences than positive. People, contractors, and businesses already recycle (if they choose to)--- government has no place in mandating recycling when it has a definite and monetary consequence to thousands of businesses, contractors, and homeowners in Nevada. This bill is bad for Nevada, business, and contractors. 1

2 Empire Contractors 896 Southwood Blvd #1 Incline Village, NV From: Mogensen, Julie Sent: Thursday, May 09, :33 PM To: Subject: Amendment to SB316 Matt, Very nice speaking with you! The amendment to SB316 is attached. It allows contractors the option of taking recyclable materials to recycling centers instead of MRFs if the material is sorted and not co-mingled with other construction debris. The amendment also exempts soil, stone and asphalt from the provisions of the bill. Senator Denis is willing to consider another change to the bill, making it applicable only in counties where there are two or more MRFs. Please let me know if the attached amendment as well as the second idea would help ease your concerns. Thanks, Julie Mogensen Office of Senate Majority Leader Mo Denis (775) (o) (775) (f) Sent: Thursday, May 09, :25 AM To: Subject: FW: response to concern regarding SB316 Here is Sen. Moises response to our early April and our request for a meeting. As of today May 9 th we have not gotten a response. Janna Rager Sent: Wednesday, May 01, :16 PM KK-2 2

3 To: 'Denis, Moises Senator' Cc: 'Matt & Janna Rager' Subject: RE: response to concern regarding SB316 Sen. Denis, I appreciate your response but I would love to get 15 minutes of your time later this week or early next week to discuss further. I tried yesterday to set an appointment with your assistant but she said appointments have to be pre-approved by you first. I have included my home (which goes to my phone) for easier correspondence. I look forward to meeting you. Empire Contractors Inc. From: Denis, Moises Senator [mailto:moises.denis@sen.state.nv.us] Sent: Monday, April 22, :35 AM To: janna@empirecontractors.com Subject: response to concern regarding SB316 Mr. Rager, Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. I understand your concerns and would be apprehensive, as well, if I were in your position. We agree that what is appropriate in Southern Nevada is not always appropriate elsewhere in the State. As SB 316 was being developed, I did contemplate one of your concerns. With regard to concern #3, I looked into the distance criteria as it would apply outside of Southern Nevada and concluded that, while there are differences in terms of terrain, seasonal driving conditions (weather), and other considerations (both north and south), 30 miles is 30 miles, so everyone is subject to the same distance standard. Relative to concern #1, I found no information and received no input indicating that the provisions in SB 316 would put local disposal facilities out of business. If you have quantitative data supporting this assertion, I would be glad to review it. Finally, regarding concern #2, I was unaware a Materials Recovery Facility is being built in two to three years in Reno. I did consider as the distance standard was contemplated that facilities might eventually be built outside of Las Vegas Valley, but I didn t think about a monopoly situation. Fortunately, you indicate that a facility in Northern Nevada will not be a reality in the immediate future so that allows time for adjustment if it becomes necessary in the next regular legislative session. The interim between sessions will also afford time to evaluate the effectiveness of SB 316 (should it pass) in Southern Nevada and amend the law next session if there are any unintended consequences. Again, thank you for sharing your concerns and I particularly appreciate being informed of the potential issue of a monopoly. If SB 316 is enacted, I will monitor its impact and will also follow the development of Materials Recovery Facilities outside of Las Vegas Valley. KK-3 3

4 Mo Denis Sent: Thursday, May 09, :24 AM To: Subject: FW: SB316-proposed Amendment (Correspondence) Jessica Here is the first correspondence when bill was in Senate Sent: Friday, April 12, :22 AM To: 'Settelmeyer, James Senator'; 'Kirner, Randy Assemblyman'; Subject: SB316-proposed Amendment Senators and Assemblymen, I, am the owner of and Empire Contractors in Northern Nevada. The proposed legislation in SB 316 as currently written would have detrimental impacts on small haulers and all contractors in Northern Nevada. Waste Management is in the process of building a Material Recovery Facility in Reno within the next 2-3 years. The current draft may work and be wanted in Las Vegas; however this draft and its requirements does NOT work in Northern Nevada due to transportation issues, mountain roadways, weather, and the multiple disposal sites that are currently available at reasonable prices for disposal. As currently written you would force contractors and haulers to use Waste Management s facility since it is within 30 miles of a majority of activity in Northern Nevada. This would a) shut down local disposal facilities 2) WM would be free to increase prices to whatever they choose 3) direct contractors to use a facility that --- could be out of the way; not practical; more expensive, etc.- thus effecting the cost of construction in Northern Nevada. I ask you to consider a simple amendment to the effect: This will only apply to Clark County or This will apply to municipalities with a population over 750,000 I appreciate your consideration and would strongly urge a friendly amendment to SB 316. This bill may be good for Clark County but it is NOT good for the rest of the state. I look forward to your response and hope that an amendment can be introduced today during the 2 nd reading. Empire Contractors Inc. 896 Southwood Blvd #1 Incline Village, NV KK-4 4

5 NV#50491 CA# KK-5 5