| Posted: Sun Feb 28th, 2010 09:43 pm |
|
1st Post |
GSBill
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | In Town |
| Posts: | 684 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Community-Wide Garbage/Recycling Services At its Jan. 20 meeting, the Queen Creek Town Council approved a contract with Right Away Disposal (RAD) for community-wide trash and recycling services. Services are anticipated to begin in September 2010.
If you have questions about the trash and recycling service after reading the information below, please call 480-358-3831 for additional details.
Details of Services
Item Description Refuse (96 gallon container) 1x per week, curbside Recycling (96 gallon container) 1x per week, curbside Bulk Item Collection 1x per month, curbside Electronics Recycling 1x per year, drop-off Tire Disposal 1x per year, drop-off Christmas Tree Disposal 2 weekends per year, drop-off Reduced Self-Haul Rates Included in contract Neighborhood Drop-Off Recycling Sites Included in contract Monthly Cost $15.41
If you were paying 47 bucks per month you will save some money bap1636..for starters at least. The kicker is the 900 thousand dollar "buy" into this program.
Town Website
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 28th, 2010 09:36 pm |
|
2nd Post |
bap1636
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 25th, 2010 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Taxing us to death is the only way politicians can work. We have to budget, why can't they. When "they" get into office it seems like they consider our fees and taxes like monopoley money, just part of the game.
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 28th, 2010 09:31 pm |
|
3rd Post |
bap1636
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 25th, 2010 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
In all liklihood, we will have problems getting a refund. Seems like everything is a hassel these days.
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 28th, 2010 09:29 pm |
|
4th Post |
bap1636
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 25th, 2010 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Excuse me, but this is the amount paid monthly. Check with Waste Management. I may be old buy am not senile.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 25th, 2010 09:38 pm |
|
5th Post |
GSBill
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | In Town |
| Posts: | 684 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
I wonder how long the sweetness of low pricing will last for some residents. Once higher pricing sets in the bitterness will last forever. The extra 2% on that 900k won't cover the lost value on the cans we purchased. Used garbage cans ain't worth very much. I didn't see any plan that addressed the life of the cans. How long will they last and how much money was figured in to replace the old worn out, stolen, damaged cans...weighed against that 2% more in interest. Don't worry. The taxpayer will cover any lost money. We always do.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 25th, 2010 08:16 pm |
|
6th Post |
CSI_QueenCreek
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 367 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
bap1636 wrote: Right now I'm paying $47/mo for twice a week trash pick up, no recycling. I'm a widow and don't fill the cans up now and I have very little to recycle. Not only are we going into more debt to buy new cans when used ones would serve, I'll be paying $15. more for less pick up and recycling I don't need plus 4% tax. What a deal!!!!!! I'm for voting these folks out of office. Is there an upside to this? If so, I sure as heck don't see it.
I think you mean you are paying $47 every quarter (3 months) which is $15.66 per month. The town service will be $14.66 per month.
You are correct that we are going into debt of over $900,000 for new cans. Jeff Brown was the only council member who voted against this. The others are all leaving anyway, except Craig Barnes and Robin Benning who both voted for this monstrosity.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 25th, 2010 06:35 pm |
|
7th Post |
bap1636
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 25th, 2010 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Right now I'm paying $47/mo for twice a week trash pick up, no recycling. I'm a widow and don't fill the cans up now and I have very little to recycle. Not only are we going into more debt to buy new cans when used ones would serve, I'll be paying $15. more for less pick up and recycling I don't need plus 4% tax. What a deal!!!!!! I'm for voting these folks out of office. Is there an upside to this? If so, I sure as heck don't see it.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 4th, 2010 04:16 pm |
|
8th Post |
clu
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | TOQC |
| Posts: | 593 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
I wonder if I am going to have trouble getting a refund from my current trash-pickup provider when the TOQC trash-pickup starts. I hope I don't end up like those poor souls with Rural/Metro.
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 27th, 2010 08:13 pm |
|
9th Post |
GSBill
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | In Town |
| Posts: | 684 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Energized wrote:
Cities are in business all over the world anxious to bring revenue into their coffers by cutting deals and building arenas and stadiums for events. Queen Creek residents should be grateful that you are not serving them or making decisions for them.
Have you talked to all your town leaders face to face about your concerns? You need to be challenged but not by an outsider like myself (winter visitor), before you ruin the town with your symbols and comments coming up on Google. That's how I discovered you.
http://www.azcentral.com/community/mesa/?source=nletter-breakingnew
Mesa news about deal making and building stadiums, benefiting their residents and their local business's for many many years. I'm a Cubs fan. No Cubs in Arizona means this fan will go elsewhere to spend my money. To attract and keep me means the city of Mesa will have to invest money to build a new stadium in order to stay in that business and keep people like me in their town. Basic economics. The tourism revenue will eventually pay for it because we eat, drink and spend money in Mesa's businesses. If the Cubs leave and we follow them, Mesa will lose $138,000,000. With your new arena, you should be able to do the same thing in bringing in revenue and tourist dollars. Everyone expects their city to provide them with a good quality of life even during difficult times. Tourists also expect it. You can't afford to be on hold even during harsh economic times. Other cities will take your place in the grab for revenue by borrowing, pledging and securing funds to compete. Maybe you can check out a book on economics so you will understand just how a city works, or talk to your town manager and finance director. Google it. Your comments tell me you're way out in left field.
Cubs choose Mesa as spring training home
Many of us are involved. This forum is an extension of that for most of the regular posters. That economics book probably tell you that when your town has the highest debt per capita in the state, you should try and pay that down before spending/borrowing more money. Taxing the people with fees only takes away expendable dollars that could be used on other things that fund a town in better ways, like sales tax revenue.
The taxpayer comments are not ruining our town. Our town has a carefully crafted plan approved by its voters that has been and continues to be discarded. Our town has been tekking us for nearly 2 years how broke it is. Our town has cut back a lot and will continue to cut back even more due to teh bad economy. Jobs were cut. People let go.
We have trash and recycling as we speak here. Government should be paying off debt before entering into new endeavors. Whats your economy book say about going to any business with out all the equipment you need to do business. In other words, should a trash collection company own cans and trucks?
Does your economy book give advice on buying equipment, like trash cans? Does it explain how they will depreciate? Does it warn about risky endeavors that include borrowing money to buy depreciating assets and calling that an investment?
Tell us all how a city works? Tell us all how government can do better than the private sector. Show us all the successful examples to illustrate your point.
We'll keep an eye on our local officials. You keep an eye on yours. Send us some legal hookers from Vegas to help off set the cost for them trash cans we are buying. I'll pay extra to have hookers pick up my trash.Last edited on Wed Jan 27th, 2010 08:14 pm by GSBill
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 27th, 2010 07:37 pm |
|
10th Post |
Energized
Member
back to top
|
Cities are in business all over the world anxious to bring revenue into their coffers by cutting deals and building arenas and stadiums for events. Queen Creek residents should be grateful that you are not serving them or making decisions for them.
Have you talked to all your town leaders face to face about your concerns? You need to be challenged but not by an outsider like myself (winter visitor), before you ruin the town with your symbols and comments coming up on Google. That's how I discovered you.
http://www.azcentral.com/community/mesa/?source=nletter-breakingnew
Mesa news about deal making and building stadiums, benefiting their residents and their local business's for many many years. I'm a Cubs fan. No Cubs in Arizona means this fan will go elsewhere to spend my money. To attract and keep me means the city of Mesa will have to invest money to build a new stadium in order to stay in that business and keep people like me in their town. Basic economics. The tourism revenue will eventually pay for it because we eat, drink and spend money in Mesa's businesses. If the Cubs leave and we follow them, Mesa will lose $138,000,000. With your new arena, you should be able to do the same thing in bringing in revenue and tourist dollars. Everyone expects their city to provide them with a good quality of life even during difficult times. Tourists also expect it. You can't afford to be on hold even during harsh economic times. Other cities will take your place in the grab for revenue by borrowing, pledging and securing funds to compete. Maybe you can check out a book on economics so you will understand just how a city works, or talk to your town manager and finance director. Google it. Your comments tell me you're way out in left field.
Cubs choose Mesa as spring training home
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 27th, 2010 05:01 am |
|
11th Post |
CrimeFighter
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1864 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Time for somebody local to run for office with the agenda of divesting the town from all of the burdensome and stupid endeavors. Get out of the water business, trash business, horse event business, and any other business that doesn't involve basic government obligations.
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 27th, 2010 04:34 am |
|
12th Post |
MuzzledinQC
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | TOQC, Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 396 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
"Ya left out the fact that once purchased our 700 thousand dollars worth of plastic cans will be worth maybe half on a good day."
It is probably more like 40% the day we take delivery, then 20% a month later. After that the TOQC would be selling them on Craigslist for $15 each if we liquidated them. In fact, why didn't TOQC shop the detroit craigslist to buy these cans? There have to be lots of them for sale there. The problem with decisions like this, made in this way, is that you head down a path you can't return from. We're all in the trash business now. Except if it does well we won't get a check. If it does poorly, you can bet your a$$ we'll get a bill.
It doesn't take buying more than 2 things brand new to understand the folly of this endeavor. We are essentially vesting ourselves in a trash company that we don't own. And to sweeten the pot, some lucky bid winner whom I am absolutely certain is 10 steps removed from this deal (*puke*) gets the benefit of 'our' investment. If this paper or any other wants a good story, dig into this deal. Where are the journalists?
Why wasn't more consideration given to a contractor that was willing to provide the investment in exchange for a medium term, volume based, and renewble service contract?
Why, at a time when even our own progressively represented (McCain), yet largely conservative State, would we be doing locally what is failing and being rejected nationally? Shouldn't we be leading by example? Perhaps there's an idea for a town 'tag line' there. Maybe even a logo? Iconization seemed to work well in the last national election.
Last edited on Wed Jan 27th, 2010 04:35 am by MuzzledinQC
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 26th, 2010 09:56 pm |
|
13th Post |
GSBill
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | In Town |
| Posts: | 684 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
allowmeanonymity wrote:
You can direct your questions and concerns to the town. They will explain it to you. HOW ON EARTH IS CHARGING YOUR RESIDENTS FEES TO MAKE A PROFIT CONSIDERED AN "INVESTMENT"?
John Kross, AICP
Town Manager
Town Hall
22350 S. Ellsworth Road
Queen Creek, AZ 85242
Phone: 480-358-3000 480-358-3000 480-358-3000 480-358-3000
Fax: 480-358-3189
Patrick Flynn, asst. Town Manager
I did that and only two people replied. One made sense the other really didnt.
Do you live in QC? Are you OK with the new 4% trash tax? If so why? If so explain the difference between investments, taxation and leveraging as you see it.
While you're at it can you explain how you think government can do a better job at competitive pricing for any service than the private sector can? Then give us all examples supporting your opinion.Last edited on Tue Jan 26th, 2010 10:00 pm by GSBill
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 26th, 2010 09:32 pm |
|
14th Post |
allowmeanonymity
Member
back to top
|
You can direct your questions and concerns to the town. They will explain it to you. HOW ON EARTH IS CHARGING YOUR RESIDENTS FEES TO MAKE A PROFIT CONSIDERED AN "INVESTMENT"?
John Kross, AICP
Town Manager
Town Hall
22350 S. Ellsworth Road
Queen Creek, AZ 85242
Phone: 480-358-3000 480-358-3000 480-358-3000 480-358-3000
Fax: 480-358-3189
Patrick Flynn, asst. Town Manager
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 26th, 2010 07:20 pm |
|
15th Post |
GSBill
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | In Town |
| Posts: | 684 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
allowmeanonymity wrote:
Villager wrote: We better get two full size garbage cans for recycling and trash, not one of those dinky recycle bins. First our leaders shove something the majority of the residents dont want (think horsepark) it better at least serve our needs. If not, I am going to start dropping my recyclables and garbage off at the horsepark. What a joke of a council. Thanks Jeff for staying the course and listening to the residents you serve!
Trash
Community-Wide Garbage/Recycling Services
At its Jan. 20 meeting, the Queen Creek Town Council approved a contract with Right Away Disposal (RAD) for community-wide trash and recycling services. Services are anticipated to begin in September 2010.
If you have questions about the trash and recycling service after reading the information below, please call 480-358-3831 480-358-3831 for additional details.
Details of Services
Item
Description
Refuse (96 gallon container)
1x per week, curbside
Recycling (96 gallon container)
1x per week, curbside
Bulk Item Collection
1x per month, curbside
Electronics Recycling
1x per year, drop-off
Tire Disposal
1x per year, drop-off
Christmas Tree Disposal
2 weekends per year, drop-off
Reduced Self-Haul Rates
Included in contract
Neighborhood Drop-Off Recycling Sites
Included in contract
Monthly Cost
$15.41
- Rates for service in East Valley cities range from $15.07 to $26.80. With the contract with RAD, Queen Creek will have the lowest rate ($15.41) in the East Valley other than the City of Chandler ($15.07).
- Residents may request an extra 96-gallon container for an additional $7 per month.
- Residents who wish to request extra 96-gallon containers for disposal of dried and bagged manure may do so at an additional cost of $11 per month for a container that is 50% full, or an additional $15 per month for a container that may be filled 100% full.
- An enforcement and inspection program will be implemented in accordance with Maricopa and Pinal County regulations.
- Ensures compliance with proper storage, disposal and collection of solid waste and recycling materials.
- Includes substantial public education including the process for determining compliance
- Will be accomplished through the collaborative efforts of the Town’s inspector and the contractor’s experienced drivers.
more. http://www.queencreek.org/Index.aspx?page=571 Council and Staff “This is an important addition to quality of life in the community.”
http://www.queencreek.org/Index.aspx?page=165
Ya left out the 4% tax on residents that is mandatory.
Ya left out the bleak economic outlook over the next few years. Council even recognized that as they sold out to developers in the same meeting.
Ya left out all the cuts QC made over the past few years due to a bad economy.
Ya left out the future cuts QC will have to make due to the bad economy.
Ya left out the big gamble QC took with cash reserves. The gamble being state shared revenue may be taken away. Watch the news...AZ is flat broke.
Ya left out the fact that once purchased our 700 thousand dollars worth of plastic cans will be worth maybe half on a good day. In other words 350k out the window.
Not included is what happens over time, say the 10 year period when cans need replacing due to use. How much will that cost? What will our rate be then? How does the 4% return figure in to replacing cans?
Let me add this...HOW ON EARTH IS CHARGING YOUR RESIDENTS FEES TO MAKE A PROFIT CONSIDERED AN "INVESTMENT"?
That is not investing...That is called taxation.
leveraging, leverage - investing with borrowed money as a way to amplify potential gains (at the risk of greater losses)
HA!Last edited on Tue Jan 26th, 2010 09:00 pm by GSBill
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 26th, 2010 04:31 pm |
|
16th Post |
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 14th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 652 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Point-Counter point.
I read this interesting abstract relative to your town taking over the trash collection service and considered it worth sharing. Studies show that contract collection (contract collection is where the city hires one or more firms to perform the work and pays them directly)is much more efficient than municipal or private collection.
Abstract
Although competition is a time honored means of satisfying consumer demands for efficient and effective provision of goods and services in the marketplace, it was rarely used deliberately in providing government services directly to the public. Recently, however, this approach has been instituted and it deserves examination. In a number of cities, both the municipality and one or more private firms provide the same "public" service to residents, namely, residential refuse collection. This study reviews the origins of such competitive systems and examines them in six U. S. cities, addressing the reasons for their introduction. It goes on to compare and contrast the six systems, and compares the relative performance of the public and private sectors within each city. The study reaches the conclusion that as a matter of local government policy, competitive systems merit more widespread use in delivering public services.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/975723
It might be worth your time to request the study.
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 26th, 2010 03:55 pm |
|
17th Post |
allowmeanonymity
Member
back to top
|
Villager wrote: We better get two full size garbage cans for recycling and trash, not one of those dinky recycle bins. First our leaders shove something the majority of the residents dont want (think horsepark) it better at least serve our needs. If not, I am going to start dropping my recyclables and garbage off at the horsepark. What a joke of a council. Thanks Jeff for staying the course and listening to the residents you serve!
Trash
Community-Wide Garbage/Recycling Services
At its Jan. 20 meeting, the Queen Creek Town Council approved a contract with Right Away Disposal (RAD) for community-wide trash and recycling services. Services are anticipated to begin in September 2010.
If you have questions about the trash and recycling service after reading the information below, please call 480-358-3831 480-358-3831 for additional details.
Details of Services
Item
Description
Refuse (96 gallon container)
1x per week, curbside
Recycling (96 gallon container)
1x per week, curbside
Bulk Item Collection
1x per month, curbside
Electronics Recycling
1x per year, drop-off
Tire Disposal
1x per year, drop-off
Christmas Tree Disposal
2 weekends per year, drop-off
Reduced Self-Haul Rates
Included in contract
Neighborhood Drop-Off Recycling Sites
Included in contract
Monthly Cost
$15.41
- Rates for service in East Valley cities range from $15.07 to $26.80. With the contract with RAD, Queen Creek will have the lowest rate ($15.41) in the East Valley other than the City of Chandler ($15.07).
- Residents may request an extra 96-gallon container for an additional $7 per month.
- Residents who wish to request extra 96-gallon containers for disposal of dried and bagged manure may do so at an additional cost of $11 per month for a container that is 50% full, or an additional $15 per month for a container that may be filled 100% full.
- An enforcement and inspection program will be implemented in accordance with Maricopa and Pinal County regulations.
- Ensures compliance with proper storage, disposal and collection of solid waste and recycling materials.
- Includes substantial public education including the process for determining compliance
- Will be accomplished through the collaborative efforts of the Town’s inspector and the contractor’s experienced drivers.
more. http://www.queencreek.org/Index.aspx?page=571 Council and Staff “This is an important addition to quality of life in the community.”
http://www.queencreek.org/Index.aspx?page=165
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 26th, 2010 02:21 pm |
|
18th Post |
MuzzledinQC
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | TOQC, Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 396 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
The recycle company we use now allows you to put as much stuff as you need to at the curb and they will take it all. That's very convenient as we discard recyclable materials 3 to 1 compared to trash. Somehow I doubt that this will be the case with the new service. I would much rather pay the $10 / month than to figure out how to become a human trash compactor.
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 26th, 2010 02:16 am |
|
19th Post |
Villager
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 91 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
We better get two full size garbage cans for recycling and trash, not one of those dinky recycle bins. First our leaders shove something the majority of the residents dont want (think horsepark) it better at least serve our needs. If not, I am going to start dropping my recyclables and garbage off at the horsepark. What a joke of a council. Thanks Jeff for staying the course and listening to the residents you serve!
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 25th, 2010 06:32 pm |
|
20th Post |
GSBill
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | In Town |
| Posts: | 684 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Ummm! P Flynn is boasting about a great return on this 1 million dollar "investment" in the trash biz.A 4% return on towns investment. Sweet! Except for one thing. This isnt a savvy investment move. Its a new tax on us the taxpayer, the taxpayer which is forced to pay for this service.
Wouldnt we all like loan money to people that are forced to pay it back with interest by buying our products and services?
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 25th, 2010 05:04 pm |
|
21st Post |
UnNamed_Sources
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 15th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 70 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
GSBill wrote: Is Queen Creek paying 8.5 million dollars per year in interest on loans? If so what percentage of the towns gross income is that? Unamed...do you know? How much do we owe? How do long do we owe?
I don't know, it didn't say in the AARP bulletin or in the council meeting I watched. Sure don't want to go back and watch it again either, it will just make me more mad.
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 25th, 2010 04:31 pm |
|
22nd Post |
GSBill
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | In Town |
| Posts: | 684 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Is Queen Creek paying 8.5 million dollars per year in interest on loans? If so what percentage of the towns gross income is that? Unamed...do you know? How much do we owe? How do long do we owe?
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24th, 2010 03:20 am |
|
23rd Post |
UnNamed_Sources
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 15th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 70 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Recap is we have $50m in the reserve fund, but John Kross says we need $8.5m per year to cover debt service. While the recession and high unemployment is going to last for at least a couple more years with deep cuts to revenues from sales tax.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24th, 2010 03:10 am |
|
24th Post |
UnNamed_Sources
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 15th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 70 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Look at this from AARP.
http://bulletin.aarp.org/states/az/2010/2/articles/legislature_preview.html
Jan. 10, 2010 (McClatchy-Tribune Regional News delivered by Newstex) --
When East Valley cities go before the Legislature this year, they'll have only one major request: Don't take our money.
Communities fear Arizona's multibillion-dollar budget crisis means lawmakers will take funds that, by a voter-approved measure, are required to be shared with cities and towns.
But lawmakers have threatened to take that money even in better times. Cities have mostly torn up their longstanding wish lists this year, dropping normally important requests.
This year, their focus is simple.
"Any and all things having to do with watching our money," said Queen Creek Town Manager John Kross.
Mesa knows not to ask for money or expect lawmakers will have the time to address many issues beyond dealing with the state's budget crisis, Mesa lobbyist Scott Butler said.
"We'll be really modest in our expectations there," Butler said.
Cities aren't sure if lawmakers will launch a serious effort to take stateshared revenue. But Rep. John McComish, R-Ahwatukee Foothills, said history demonstrates cities should be concerned.
"You're not paranoid if somebody is really out to get you," McComish said. "Cities are a little worried about state-shared revenue because in the past, somebody has been out to get it."
Cities could be forced to make draconian cuts to services if the state took funds.
Mesa receives 25 percent, or $105.1 million, of its budget from state-shared revenue. Queen Creek counted on the revenue for $3.8 million of its $20 million general fund budget this year.
Gilbert is expecting to get $36 million in state-shared revenue, almost a third of its general fund total. Chandler officials say state-shared revenue accounts for more than 30 percent of the city's operating budget.
Kross said he hoped legislators have a strong understanding of the intent behind the voter-passed measure.
"For towns like Queen Creek, we use a good portion of (state-shared revenue) to supplement our public safety program, namely our sheriff's contract, and our streets maintenance and parks maintenance, which are quality-of-life issues," Kross said.
McComish said he supports preserving the funds that cities receive.
"All we would be doing is shuffling the burden from one government entity to another," McComish said. "I don't think that's the right way to go."
MESA
The city's only other significant priority is getting legislative help to keep the Chicago Cubs in Mesa. The baseball team is expected to announce this month whether it will move spring training to Florida or stay in Mesa, and the team wants a roughly $80 million training facility to stay here.
The legislature would likely need to approve of a way to tap into tourism funds to help pay for the Cubs complex even as Mesa and the team would share costs.
The Legislature will likely make time in a busy year to address the Cubs, Mc-Comish said, given the team's high profile and economic power.
Mesa estimates the team brings $52 million a year to Arizona.
"Because of the economic impact of it, I think we'll have to make time, like we're making time for other economic development issues," McComish said.
QUEEN CREEK
Last year, one of Queen Creek's biggest concerns was a potential moratorium on impact fees, which developers pay to help fund projects like sewer lines and streets to accommodate growth.
By the end of the session, the moratorium became a freeze on how much cities can charge.
"That's something we can live with for the time being and certainly understand the reasons for that," Kross said. "But if that were to change to a moratorium, that would be devastating for us."
Queen Creek depends on impact fees to pay for $8.5 million in debt service each year, Kross said.
GILBERT
Town Manager George Pettit said the effect of the better-than-expected building permit numbers on Gilbert's bottom line could easily be dimmed by vanishing state-shared revenues.
More commercial projects are in the talking stages, he said, so "there's positive things going on at the local level, but we don't know when they're going to happen, and it's all overshadowed by the ongoing financial condition of the state."
He said town officials will also be closely watching trends in environmental regulation, which could determine how much water is available to them or lead to new fees that would ultimately be passed down to local taxpayers.
CHANDLER
The focus for the upcoming year in Chandler is on jobs, said state Sen. Jay Tibshraeny, R-Chandler.
In fall 2009, the state Legislature, working at the behest of cities like Chandler, enacted provisions to give tax incentives to solar power (OTCBB:SOPW) companies in an effort to attract firms to Arizona, as opposed to competing states like Oregon. Chandler officials have put significant effort into attracting such firms and the high-paying jobs they bring to the city.
That collaboration between state and city officials is a model that should be recreated next year for other high-paying industries like biotechnology and renewable resources, Tibshraeny said.
"We need to sit down collaboratively and talk about other areas we can work together on to attract industry to Arizona," he said.
Last edited on Sun Jan 24th, 2010 03:17 am by UnNamed_Sources
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24th, 2010 12:11 am |
|
25th Post |
QCAdvocate
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 155 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Queen Creek's elected government has failed. Queen Creek has maintained reserve funds collected from taxing the residents one way or another. Now Queen Creek is going to loan themselves that money, which it earned by taxing the residents, to set up a business that will charge residents fees to use it, which will include a profit of 4%.
Queen Creek we have been had. We have just been dealt a 4% hidden tax to fund the government elected to represent the taxpayer. My Gosh! How can this be allowed to happen? They must think we are all imbeciles. Queen Creek has insulted each and every one of it's residents.
Mr. Brown I applaud your efforts. I feel sorry for you having to work with people like Mr. Barnes who didn't even know how much this would cost. I am appalled. Mr. Barnes should go off quietly into the beautiful Arizona sunset.
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 22nd, 2010 01:22 pm |
|
26th Post |
GSBill
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | In Town |
| Posts: | 684 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Now we know..QC wants this "investment" because it will generate income for our town. I'd venture to say rates will climb sooner than later. We are one click closer to "like everybody else".
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 22nd, 2010 02:01 am |
|
27th Post |
CSI_QueenCreek
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 367 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
From the Arizona Republic.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/01/21/20100121gr-qctrash0122.html
Queen Creek Council OKs trash-recycling services
by Astrid Galvan - Jan. 21, 2010 07:38 AM
The Arizona Republic
Queen Creek will offer town-wide trash and recycling services for the first time in its history after council members approved an almost $907,000 contract with a local company Wednesday.
The 4-1 decision, coming at the end of a six-hour council meeting, means that Right Away Disposal will start providing service in September for a flat rate of $15.41 per month for once-a-week solid waste and recycling pickup and monthly bulk collection of up to six cubic yards.
"In my opinion, it's the right time because we won't get a better deal in six months, six years or 60 years," said Council member Robin Benning. Residents currently contract their own waste services with private vendors, and pay anywhere between $9.50 and $28 a month.
Most Southeast, except Apache Junction, have had trash pickup services for years, town staff said.
But not everyone approved the move.
Resident Shane M. Leonard, one of three residents who spoke out against it, said:
"This appears to be a solution looking for a problem. The town is removing choice."
Councilman Jeff Brown , who cast the only dissenting vote, called the measure an unnecessary financial burden.
"If it's simply reinventing the wheel, then I have a problem with it," he said.
But Assistant Town Manager Patrick Flynn said Queen Creek has more than enough funds to cover the cost of launching the program, and officials expect the program will pay off the almost $907,000 debt in 10 years.
"The bottom line is we're taking $1 million of our $50 million reserve," he said. "I just thought this was a good investment in terms of our community resources."
Providing town-wide services will also make Queen Creek a safer community by eliminating the traffic generated by five private waste companies, Flynn said.
Queen Creek Chamber of Commerce president Rustyn Sherer said the services would help attract new residents.
"Having this type of program is really progressive in nature," Sherer said.
For current residents, the subject of a town-wide program has been a contentious debate for more than two years.
Some residents with large farms worried the town's weekly services would just not fit their needs. Others worried about how the manure from their livestock would be removed.
A survey conducted by staff showed 87 residents were in favor of a town-wide trash service while 63 were against it.
When the issue came before Council in November, public support for the program was still minimal, and council members were deadlocked.
So council instructed staff to create an exemption[/url] policy for large lots and research the manure disposal issue.
The contract allows owners of lots two acres or larger, or those with livestock, to get an exemption from waste collection; they must pay the $6.65 monthly recycling cost.
Last edited on Fri Jan 22nd, 2010 02:03 am by CSI_QueenCreek
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 22nd, 2010 01:52 am |
|
28th Post |
CSI_QueenCreek
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 367 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
The story got updated.
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/149756
Q.C. approves townwide trash pickup
Amanda Keim, Tribune
January 21, 2010 - 11:33AM , updated: January 21, 2010 - 12:52PM
Queen Creek residents will have townwide garbage and recycling pickup for the first time after the Town Council approved a contract with Right Away Disposal early Thursday morning.
The council approved the contract on a 4-1 vote just before 1 a.m. after a more than five-hour meeting. Councilman Jeff Brown dissented, and council members Jon Wootten and Joyce Hildebrandt were absent.
Residents will pay $15.41 a month for once-a-week trash and recycling pickup, once-a-month scheduled bulk pickup and other services including electronics recycling.
Residents can stop the service for up to six months if they're out of town for an extended period of time. Large livestock owners or homeowners on lots greater than two acres may also opt out, although those residents will still be required to pay $6.65 a month for recycling service.
Service for most homes will start in September, although some neighborhoods will be phased in later as their current contracts expire.
The vote ends a years-long discussion on whether the town should institute curbside trash pickup for all residents after the county landfill at Riggs and Hawes roads closed in 2007. Currently, residents must haul their own garbage, enter an individual contract for curbside pickup or depend on their homeowners associations' contracts for the service.
An informal survey in 2008 indicated most residents supported the town negotiating a curbside trash and recycling contract.
Reaction to the proposal was been mixed once details came out in recent months. Since October, 87 households in town said they liked the idea and 63 indicated they were against it.
A petition opposing the service represented 66 households.
Shortly before the vote, Councilman Craig Barnes pointed to comments in support of curbside service the town had received over the years.
"The only other city in the Phoenix area that doesn't do this (curbside waste pickup) is Apache Junction," Barnes said. "When we talk about this, we constantly hear from people, 'Why doesn't Queen Creek do recycling? Why do I have to figure out what to do with my trash?'"
Three residents spoke against the program Wednesday. Shane Leonard described curbside pickup as a "solution looking for a problem."
"This is removing choice," Leonard said. "Some of us have a solution that does work. Why should we be forced to give that up?"
Chamber of Commerce President Rustyn Sherer was the only person to speak up in favor at the meeting.
"This is a local company that's interested in making a long-term investment in Queen Creek," he said of Right Away.
Councilman Jeff Brown said he couldn't support the program because of a philosophical issue about the role of government. Private companies already offer curbside trash and recycling in Queen Creek, Brown said.
Brown was also concerned about cost.
Queen Creek is using $906,660 from its investment funds to lend the program for waste containers and other startup costs.
But with the economy still weak and the town having cut 64 jobs and about $10 million out of its general fund budget over the past three years, Brown said that money should not be spent to start a garbage program right now.
"We're looking to cut another $4.1 million out of the $20 million budget" this year, Brown said. "Why are we reinventing the wheel?"
But Assistant Town Manager Patrick Flynn said it was a good investment in a new community resource.
On average, the town has about $50 million in investments, Flynn said. The garbage plan will take about $1 million from those funds, which are currently receiving about a 2 percent return. The program will pay back the investment funds at 4 percent over 10 years, he said.
Councilman Gordon Mortensen said the idea makes sense from a safety standpoint, since fewer trucks will be on the roads. And he said it makes recycling more cost-effective.
He also thought it was a good business investment.
"Anyone who has savings or a cash position now in the economy can make some great investments in business and real estate," Mortensen said. "We're in the position to make that kind of business decision right now."
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 22nd, 2010 01:29 am |
|
29th Post |
GSBill
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | In Town |
| Posts: | 684 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
CrimeFighter wrote: Time to sweep out the old wood on council. Obviously, they don't care about what the residents want or they wouldn't have approved this monstrosity.
The mayor said the QC Trash Co. will be a money maker for QC after the loan gets paid back. My cost went up from the get go just as my water bill has gone up quite a bit.
Call in on the radio show...Sanders is on right now...Look at the link Supervisor Martyn posted.
Last edited on Fri Jan 22nd, 2010 01:30 am by GSBill
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 22nd, 2010 01:22 am |
|
30th Post |
CrimeFighter
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1864 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Time to sweep out the old wood on council. Obviously, they don't care about what the residents want or they wouldn't have approved this monstrosity. Last edited on Fri Jan 22nd, 2010 01:23 am by CrimeFighter
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 21st, 2010 10:09 pm |
|
31st Post |
CSI_QueenCreek
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 367 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
MuzzledinQC wrote: Where would we find the voting records on this?
In the article, "The council approved the contract on a 4-1 vote just before 1 a.m. Councilman Jeff Brown dissented, and council members Jon Wootten and Joyce Hildebrandt were absent."
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 21st, 2010 08:59 pm |
|
32nd Post |
GSBill
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | In Town |
| Posts: | 684 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
MuzzledinQC wrote:
Where would we find the voting records on this?
Easy...One no vote...Brown..4 yes votes.
Hildebrandt was absent.
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 21st, 2010 08:48 pm |
|
33rd Post |
| Posted: Thu Jan 21st, 2010 08:42 pm |
|
34th Post |
GSBill
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | In Town |
| Posts: | 684 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Lisa Coletto-Cohen wrote: Yippee! More government I didn't want or need! Hopefully you were smart enough to include an opt out for large lot owners but I am sure that was too much to ask. So now, you have managed to half my level of service for more money than I currently pay. Good job! Maybe if you all had better negotiating skills, you could have actually provided a cost savings (A novel idea, I know).
I had a long talk w/Barnes. He says some residents will save. For example Queen Land Manor doesn't have any sort of agreement with Waste Management. I know a few folks that live here that pay quite a bit more than I do with the same outfit. Barnes claims he pays more than many for his trash collection. Barnes didnt know the full amount of this endeavor which is about 900 thousand. Scary! Barnes also he had no info regarding the economic forecast for our area over the next few years. How can that be? Local governments get those reports.
The rub in all of this is what all of our elected officials know about the economic forecast over the next few years. It's not that great. More cuts, less revenue means less cash to go around. Now we go and take over 700 THOUSAND DOLLARS and buy plastic trash and recycling cans so we can hire our favorite contractor(who is in the biz....but doesnt have/cant buy cans). The day after we pick those up I'd bet they are worth half of what we paid. Money gone! Then town staff tells us the trash collection will be self sufficient(heard that before(water company?)) even thouigh the money looted from our cash reserves as a loan will earn us back 4% over time...I think its 10 years.
Follow along now. How will we pay back the lost value of the plastic cans unless the new trash collection arm of government in QC realizes a profit? I bet the cans lose way more than 4% of their value as used trash cans. Anybody know how much used trash cans go for?
Does anybody really know how this will all work out? Does anybody have a solid reason why we would lay out nearly 1 million dollars for a feather in our town's cap knowing the economic forecast is bleak for 3 to 5 years out?
I guess we could sell the purchased "assets" if we need money later on! Ha! Are used trash cans considered assets if one owns them and not one single trash collection truck?
This is disgusting. Especially after all the rant about how broke we are and how bad things are. Go look at archived council meetings and count how many times staff has played the no money card.
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 21st, 2010 08:01 pm |
|
35th Post |
MuzzledinQC
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | TOQC, Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 396 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Lisa Coletto-Cohen wrote: Yippee! More government I didn't want or need!
I'm with you on that one. It makes one wonder who the owner(s) of the new collection company are related to.
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 21st, 2010 07:37 pm |
|
36th Post |
Lisa Coletto-Cohen
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 14 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Yippee! More government I didn't want or need! Hopefully you were smart enough to include an opt out for large lot owners but I am sure that was too much to ask. So now, you have managed to half my level of service for more money than I currently pay. Good job! Maybe if you all had better negotiating skills, you could have actually provided a cost savings (A novel idea, I know).
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 21st, 2010 06:37 pm |
|
37th Post |
CSI_QueenCreek
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 367 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/149756
Q.C. residents get town trash pickup
Amanda Keim, Tribune
January 21, 2010 - 11:33AM
Queen Creek residents will for the first time have garbage and recycling pickup after the Town Council voted early Thursday to approve a contract for garbage service with Right Away Disposal.
The council approved the contract on a 4-1 vote just before 1 a.m. Councilman Jeff Brown dissented, and council members Jon Wootten and Joyce Hildebrandt were absent.
Residents will pay $15.41 a month for once-a-week trash and recycling pickup, once-a-month scheduled bulk pickup and other services like electronics recycling.
Pickup for most residents will start in September, although some neighborhoods will be phased into the service later as their current contracts with private companies expire.
The vote ends a years-long discussion on whether the town should institute trash pickup for all residents after the county’s landfill at Riggs and Hawes roads closed in 2007. Currently, residents must haul their own garbage, enter an individual contract for the service or depend on homeowners associations for garbage pickup.
Last edited on Thu Jan 21st, 2010 06:38 pm by CSI_QueenCreek
|
|
