Anna, I commend you for asking some of the right questions. The answers from the city, however, don't add up. These are the 'pat answers' warned about before--they sound kinda sensible (especially viewed separately) but they don't tell the real story and they don't add up to the bottom line.

Right now we pay $106.50 per quarter. With HALF the curbside pickups, apparently some big savings on ending regular bulk trash days (for scheduled pickups) and apparently big savings on ending leaf vacuuming (in favor of bagged leaves only), that quarterly bill will supposedly drop a whopping 12 bucks, the city claims.

Okay, let's believe that for a minute. So, how much of that $12 is the big savings on bulk trash and leaves? If it's only $2 on each, that's $4 of the $12. Meaning, for cutting HALF the weekly trash curbside pickups, we are only actually saving $8/quarter. That's absurd. If it's REALLY only $8/quarter more to pick up twice a week, LET'S KEEP IT! IT's A STEAL at that price!

Has anyone asked what the new contractor, Bates, would charge for doing pickups twice a week? If it's more than the current cost with city employees, why not keep the city employees?

The reality is that some costs are going up, WAAAAY UP, for what you get in return. Either what is paid to the trash collectors, or the price per pound to dump, or something.

The only REAL answers are seeing in the ACTUAL numbers. Anna, we need the numbers, not vague answers that don't add up.

Further, the business about the trucks being depreciated is nonsense. We need numbers. The depreciation doesn't matter one bit--it just means we aren't making payments on them anymore. It doesn't speak ONE IOTA to the cost of keeping them in service. It's a NON-ANSWER.

What is happening to the employees is also largely a non-answer. So, if they all go work for Bates AND the city doesn't add new hires to payroll, that could mean we save money. But if the trash men move to new jobs in the city, THOSE ARE NEW JOBS THAT COST US MONEY. So what are they, and what do they cost? And how likely is a person on the street to be able to compete for those jobs, compared to city employees who used to be trash collectors?

But the big thing is the dumping cost. Who are we paying? And how much is that changing? And why? WE HAVE A CITY LANDFILL, RIGHT? So, what are the costs associated with that?

A mere six years ago, the quarterly trash removal bill was $66. And we had twice a week pickup. And people probably dumped about the same weight in trash each year. Now, six years later, the same thing costs $106.50. And with the curbside pickups cut in HALF, that's still going to cost at least $95.

WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING? WHAT IS THE REAL BREAKDOWN OF THE COSTS? You can bet the salaries and/or benefits of the trash collectors, and/or dumping costs, and/or profits are going WAAAAY up. The "savings" is a smokescreen.

WE NEED A PUBLIC AUDIT OF ALL THE $$.

Put another way, the cut to once-a-week pickup, scheduled bulk trash, and ending leaf-vacuuming is a way of keeping us from making an apples-to-apples cost comparison.

IF we had bids from Bates and the City both, to keep all services the same, you'd see the new bill was going to jump from $106.50/quarter to something much higher. THAT would be obvious to the public, if, say, it rose to $130 or something.

So, instead, they are playing a shell game with the services so it's harder to see that in reality, you are paying LOTS more per unit for trash removal. In salaries, in benefits, in dumping cost per pound, whatever.

The way to expose the truth is to get to the REAL numbers. And we don't have any of those.

I believe Mike's point are good ones and I commend the discourse, however, I am not convinced there is a city conspiracy here. I also would like to see the fees lowered because they are ridiculously high, but if the responses from the city are correct, the lower fees should be apparent in the long term.

Further, if you really want the numbers, why don't you go down to City Hall and get them? Or even try a search of the web site? There is a lot of information there. I'm sure that the budget calculations and the numbers are part of the public record. You can post them here when you do the comparison.

The real issue here is the cost of living in Maryland. The dump fees are high because of the population density and the (good) environmental regulation. Combined with the laissez-faire attitude of the average citizen (i.e., they make no effort to cull their trash into portions that can be recycled or composted at home), the rest of us are left with that high trash bill (not to mention high taxes and fees across the board). Don't forget to add in the isolating effect of the Federal govt.'s non-stop spending that keeps the local economies relatively contraction proof.

Ham, I was simply encouraging the paid journalists among us to dig past the city's press releases, rather than parroting them. ("Hey, your trash removal costs are going down," etc. That's worse than useless. Journalism means digging deeper than that.)

I doubt City Hall would give me any numbers. Be interesting to find out. Be more interesting to get paid for doing the real journalism if I did.

You say the dump fees are "high" for various reasons, but you don't address why dump fees might be HIGHER than they were before.

Again, my point is that in 2006, the quarterly bill (with twice a week pickup and bulk trash and leaf vacuuming) was $66. Now it's $106.50 And with pickups cut in half, and other cuts to service, it's only dropping twelve bucks (maybe).

That means SOME components of the cost structure have, and are continuing to, rise a LOT. WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING, EXACTLY? Up to now, we've had a bunch of pat, vague answers that don't reconcile with the numbers.

As for 'conspiracy', that's an abused word. If you're talking about a cabal to take over the world by way of our city trash, you are over-inferring. If you are talking about *multiple people deliberately* spinning the numbers and pitching an apples-to-oranges package so that they can more quietly increase taxes and/or take care of their special interests, then yes, it is a 'conspiracy'. But I'd appreciate your being clear on the particular meaning of the word that you intend.

We sell the trucks to Bates and get rid of the employees. Then it will be hard for the City to get back into the trash business if any problems arise. Then the next contract cost go up since they are no longer competing with the City staff.

Doing bulk trash on request is not efficient and will double the amount of bulk trash. Currently having everyone put out bulk on the same day allows for about half the bulk trash to be picked up/recycled by scavengers that pick through the bulk items, allowing only the true bulk trash to be left for the landfill. Then the Trash is bulk trash is picked up efficiently by trash crews doing it in one day verses on demand.

So tipping fees go up, and our little savings is gone.
We should also assume those losing their jobs will be offered either nothing or a pay cut., so the City's unemployment insurance rate will rise.

During the winter months, these crews also help with snow removal, but since they will no longer be employeed, we will hire more contractors to remove snow.

Also in an urban area with trash sitting outside longer do we create a health issue? will this increase the rodent/roach population? Will spoiled trash smell?

since money is made on recyling, Would twice a week recycling increase the amount of recycling we collect and reduce the amount going to the landfill? Would this option save the City money.

If trash costs must be be covered in full on our trash bills, the City saves no money contracting it out.

So what is the real reason the City is turning it over to a contractor?

Anna, regarding your 7/13 2:02 comment, thanks, I look forward to seeing the real numbers when you get there.

Regarding your 7/13 2:05 comment, that subject can get interesting, and is another way the shell game can be played. Many governments operate nearly continuously with lots of "unfilled positions." If they're necessary, why aren't they filled now and how are we doing without them? And it certainly costs more if they are filled.

When the pols want to say they cut something, they can eliminate a bunch of positions, usually without anyone mentioning that they were not filled to begin with. Payroll doesn't drop and the taxes to support it don't either.

When the pols want to bring people onto the payroll and expand the government, they can do so at any time and claim they didn't change anything--they just filled existing positions that had been vacated. But government gets bigger taxes go up.

There's not much way to know what is happening in this specific case right now without getting into the details of the jobs themselves, the pay, and how it is shaking out. But somehow I doubt the average person on the street has anywhere near the same shot at the work as any of the former city trash collectors.