Paradise Valley perspectives erupt around prospect of single-hauler contract

The Town of Paradise Valley appears poised to consider the adoption of a single-hauler trash and recyclable ordinance for resident rubbish needs later this month. (File Photo)

Editor’s note: An earlier version of this story should have said the community conversation slated for Thursday, Jan. 25 is at 6:30 p.m. at Town Hall, 6401 E. Lincoln Drive.

Facts, opinions and ethical innuendo have erupted in the Town of Paradise Valley as the local governing body is embarking upon the creation of a single-hauler trash and recycling contract that is a welcomed sight to some — and to the chagrin of others.

Paradise Valley Town Council late last year discussed the parameters of negotiated terms for a seven year, single-trash-hauler contract won by Republic Services following a bid process evaluated by a five-person panel at Town Hall.

However, a new caveat has emerged allowing HOAs more options and extended timelines to keep their contract held with existing trash and recycling carriers, town leaders contend.

The Town of Paradise Valley historically has a free-market system offering residents the ability to choose their own trash hauler, which for some is a figment of the imagination meanwhile others hold the idea close to the heart.

Today, trash outfits providing service in the Town of Paradise Valley include Area Disposal, Right Away Disposal, Republic Services, Scott Waste Services and Waste Management.

Every few years the idea of how trash is collected and carried away from the Town of Paradise Valley permeates through the minds of elected leaders whereas this latest iteration began with an April 2016 Community Conversation.

Then, a change in ordinance last October, which precipitated the issuance of a formal bid for one company to take over the municipal rubbish needs.

Paradise Valley Town Council is hosting a 6:30 p.m. Community Conversation Thursday, Jan. 25 at Town Hall, 6401 E. Lincoln Drive.

Residents reached out to the Independent to let their voices heard on where they stood on the prospect of a single-hauler trash and recycle ordinance being developed by town leaders. This is what they had to say:

‘Shock and dismay’
over single-hauler

We have been longtime residents of this wonderful town, relishing in the freedom and privacy it offers as well as the more scenic benefits for close to a quarter century.

So it is with shock and dismay that we watch as this particular town council marches along to dictate and implement a decision so intrusive to privacy and to free market enterprise — the single trash hauler proposal — without so much as a town vote held or even a voter referendum.

And, to couch the decision as a “road maintenance issue” when heavy equipment trucks, massive rock hauling trucks, and concrete trucks lumber along town roadways on an hourly basis is nothing short of deceptive. It is obvious to all that these result in an order of magnitude deterioration of our roadways in comparison.

The rush to implementation on this proposal leaves many question marks in its wake, along with heavy skepticism and a soured perception of our local leaders. I would encourage our town council to, at the very least, hold a voter referendum on a lifestyle change issue of this gravity and intrusion.

Jeanne Pavio
Parardise Valley

Thank goodness
for trash effort!

Thank goodness the Paradise Valley Town Council is finally doing something about the trash pick-up. It is long overdue.

We live on a cul de sac with five houses served by three different trash companies so we have nine trucks a week on our little street. I don’t get the “we are giving up our freedom” arguments.

All the three companies on our street pick up the trash exactly the same way so we are giving up the freedom to choose the color of our trash bins! I want freedom from the noise, traffic, pollution and wear and tear on the streets that come from having five different companies running up and down the same streets.

Pamela Hollenbeck
Paradise Valley

Concern, disappointment
over TPV single-hauler

I am writing to express my concern and disappointment with the steps the council is taking toward creating a utility monopoly that, in my opinion, exceeds the legislative jurisdiction of the town.

While I understand concerns about wear and tear on our town streets caused by truck traffic, I would certainly hope that the council’s effort to eliminate all marketplace choices in waste collection does not extend to other services that use trucks such as contractors, landscapers, pool services etc.

I do not know where the clamor for requesting such intervention by the town originated. I could understand if the council wanted to open negotiations to contract with municipal services from Scottsdale or Phoenix as we did for fire protection, but I have no understanding of forcing town residents to pay a pre-negotiated rate with a private company, which may not meet our needs and has no incentive to be competitive in quality, schedule, or service offerings.

One contract does not fit all.

Some residents are year-round, and others seasonal. Some families are large, and some residences might only have a single occupant. Some residents may be involved in activities that produce large volumes of waste, and others minimal. Schedules of waste production and of the availability to place pails and collect them vary.
Currently, residents are able to compare and contrast many service opportunities to select the best options to fit their individual needs. The RFP — Request For Proposal — seeks to end this.

I am sure that you are aware that my voice is echoed by a large throng of town residents requesting you to cancel the RFP. Such an unpopular move that instigates such an uproar deserves a larger open comment opportunity if not a direct plebiscite, as this seems to create an unprecedented taxation of the residence with payment to a private party.

One could argue that it’s not a tax, but there is not a town resident who does not require waste services, so if you live here, the town is telling you that you have to pay the money.

Please protect our freedom, our choices, and our pocketbook. Quality of life is all about choices.

Adam Prawzinsky
Paradise Valley

If it ain’t broke
don’t fix it!

We expect more of our town council.

When a member of Congress graciously offers to solve a problem that does not exist, we know what is going on. We follow the money, identify the large campaign contributors and look for the hidden agenda. But this is Paradise Valley.

We don’t have a trash hauling problem; we never did. There is nothing to solve. We did not benefit from you prohibiting pick-up on Wednesdays and we will not benefit from you taking away our service providers and increasing our prices.

So, tell us, please — what are we missing here? Where are the money flows? Who will benefit from this “solution?”

Mark Cusick
Paradise Valley

We are not for
single-hauler

The Dudley Family is totally opposed to our town council members choosing who provides our trash disposal/recycling company.

This is almost laughable. What’s next? Don’t you have better things to concentrate on for Paradise Valley?
I think residents of HOAs have the right and ability to choose their own trash collector. I don’t know what your true agenda is, but we the people are against your action!

The Dudley Family
Paradise Valley

Northeast Valley Managing Editor Terrance Thornton can be contacted at tthornton@newszap.com

You are encouraged to leave relevant comments but engaging in personal attacks, threats, online bullying or commercial spam will not be allowed. All comments should remain within the bounds of fair play and civility. (You can disagree with others courteously, without being disagreeable.) Feel free to express yourself but keep an open mind toward finding value in what others say. To report abuse or spam, click the X in the upper right corner of the comment box.

Facebook Comment