BALTIMORE'S MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
A Case Study
This final report (SW-49c) describes work performed
for the Federal solid waste mangement programs under contract No. 68-03-0041
to APPLIED MANAGEMENT SCIENCES, INC.
and is reproduced as received from the contractor
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1973
-------
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, ncr does mention of commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government.
An environmental protection publication (SW-49c)
in the solid waste management series
n
-------
FOREWORD
Solid waste management systems are an integral part of the environ-
ment of nearly every citizen in the United States. Yet until recent
years, these systems have not received the attention other visible
residential services have enjoyed. This historical neglect has resulted
in systems which may not be cost-effective, especially with respect to
the rising cost trends encountered in solid waste management activities.
These trends arise from two principal factors:
* Environmentally sound disposal methodology is being enforced
or strongly encouraged; as a result, disposal sites and needed
equipment are now expensive to procure and operate; and,
* The collection function is highly labor intensive. Thus, the
costs of unskilled labor, which have been rising to meet >ocio-
economic demands, have had enormous impacts on local agenv/
budgets.
This rise in cost pressure has forced all levels of governmental
organizations to consider more closely the management and costs of
solid waste management activities.
Because efforts to upgrade solid waste management practices are
in their infancy, there is still an obvious lack of data bases for
evaluative and comparative analyses. This case study is one in a
series of case studies of solid waste management systems which has
been conducted under the sponsorship of the Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Kenneth
Shuster and Cindy McLaren served as EPA project officers on the case
study reported herein., The purpose of these case studies is to fill
in this data gap with actual case histories of how cities are handling
their solid waste problems,
Concerned agencies at all government levels, as well as private
firms, will be able to access information of the following types:
* The management and operating characteristics of public
sector solid waste management systems.
* The institutional forces which give rise to these
characteristics.
* Those techniques that have been or are being applied to enhance
the measures of product!vitys aesthetics, level of service, and
environmental control.
Hi
-------
These agencies and firms can then use these comparisons to upgrade
their systems according to the norms achieved in other cities of similar
size, geographical location, and operational and institutional charac-
teristics.
--ARSEN J. DARNAY
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator
of Solid Waste Management
Office of Solid W^ste Management Programs
1v
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION ABSTRACT 4
3 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - MAJOR PROBLEM
AREAS 10
3.1: Lack of Adequate Storage Facilities 10
3.2: Lack of Citizen Cooperation 12
3.3: Disposal Problem 13
3,4 Rising Cost Pressures 14
3.5 Labor-Management Relations 15
4 BACKGROUND OF THE SYSTEM 19
4.1: Location, Geography, Demography, and Climate . • 20
4.2: Form of Government and Organization 21
4.2.1: Form of Government 21
4.2.2: Organization 22
4.3: Solid Waste Management System History 22
4.4 Agencies Impacting Baltimore's Solid Waste
Management System 26
4.4.1: State Level 26
4.4.2: Regional Level 28
4.4.3: Local Level . -. 29
5 SOLID WASTE SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS 33
5.1: Collection Services of the Sanitation Division .... 33
5.1.1: Mixed Refuse Collection 34
5.1.2: Gang Cleaning 39
5.1.3: Beat Patrols 42
5.1.4: Bulky Articles 43 '
5.1.5: Ash Collection ' 44
5.1.6: Market Collection , 44
5.1.7: Other Collection Functions 45
5.2: Solid Waste System Productivity and Quality
of Service 46
5.2.1: Productivity of Collection 46
5.2.2; Quality of Service 51
5.3: Turnover and Absenteeism 52
5.4: Inner City 53
5.5 Disposal Methods - Present and Planned, 56
5.6 Equipment Description 61
v
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Chapter
5.6.1: Equipment Financing and Cost 62
5.6.2: Maintenance Policy 65
5.6.3: Fquipment Replacement Policies 65
5.7: Financial Aspects of the Baltimore Solid
Waste System 66
5.7.1: Sources of Revenue 67
5.7.2: Expenditures 72
5.8: Different Views of the Baltimore Solid Waste
Management System 80
5.8.1: Groups Internal to the Baltimore Government ... 80
5.8.2: Groups External to the Baltimore Government ... 86
APPENDICES:
APPENDIX A: Baltimore City Sanitation Code
APPENDIX B: Model Cities Sanitation Services
vi
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Title Page
1 Data Sources and Information Types 3
2 Problem Area Connectivity „ . . . „ . J7
3 Municipal Organization - City of Baltimore 23
4 Public Works Organization - City of Baltimore . „ 24
5 Division of Sanitation Organization - City of Baltimore ... 25
6 Ten-Year Disposal Timeline 57
7 Average Annual Repair Costs Determined From the
History of Twenty Load Packers Purchased in
the Fiscal Year 1965-66 64
8 Breakdown of the Motor Vehicle Rental Charge
by Expenses 76
vn
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
.1 Collection System Characteristics Summary 6
2 Disposal System Data 9
3 Solid Waste Manpower and Equipment
Allocations by Function and District, 1971 ....... 37
4 Baltimore City Census of Housing, 1970 . . „ 38
5 Efficiency/Productivity Data for Baltimore
Solid Waste System . „ „ 47
6 Average Mixed Refuse Collection per Stop . „ '18
7 Average Daily Mixed Refuse Collection per Truck . . <, 48
8 Street-Alley Data for Baltimore 49
9 History of "Requests for Services" . 52
10 Refuse Disposal Data - Quantities and Costs 60
11 Lifetime Operating Costs for Various Pieces
of Equipment 62
12 Operating Cost Per Hour for Two Classes
of Load Packers, 1967-71 63
13 Operating Budgets by Function and
Source of Funds - 1967-73 „ 68
14 Operating Revenue (Other than Property Tax)
Allocated to Solid Waste Collection and Disposal
Within the General Fund (1969-71) . „ 68
15 Assessable Base and Tax Rate (1961 to Fiscal 1963) . . 69
16 Apportionment of General Property Tax for
Sanitation and Waste Removal 70
17 Operating Budget Breakdown of Expenditure by Function 73
JL.C Total Personnel Cost for Activities Split by
Collection Source of Funds, 1969-73 74
19 Workmen's Compensation Expenses and Hospitalization
Payments for Division of Sanitation . „ 75
20 Annual Expenditures for Waste Collection, the Amount
and Percentage in Excess (or Deficit) of Budgeted Fund
by Activity and Source of Funds, 1967-72 78
21 Annual Expenditures for Waste Disposal Activities by
Disposal Operation and General Cost Accounts, 1970-72 79
viii
-------
INTRODUCTION
The solid waste management system operated by the City of Baltimore,
Maryland is designed to respond to the characteristics unique to the metro-
politan area. There are a number of significant pressures affecting both
the collection and disposal functions and, consequently, the system is highly
adaptive.
Presently, the collection function is orientated so that in the event that
additional services are required, the manpower and equipment allocation is
adjusted to meet the new demand. This characteristic is especially apparent
in the shift of collection personnel and equipment from point collections to
street cleaning activities. There-is a rapidly growing litter problem in the
city due to citizen apathy and inadequate waste storage, and the city has
responded to these factors by increasing solid waste management activities
rather than by more effective regulatory control. Due to the prevailing
socioeconomic and political climate, this type of response is the only realis-
tic alternative. However, system management personnel recognize the nature
of the problem and are seeking alternate methods of solution.
The disposal function has also been hampered by local conditions common
to many larger and older urban areas . Baltimore is entirely bounded by
more affluent suburban communities. Under this circumstance, it is not
feasible to secure suitable disposal sites in these suburban areas and it is
very difficult to even transport waste to more remote sites by passing through
these communities. Consequently, the disposal function in Baltimore has
-1-
-------
become an intricate balancing process. This problem, however, appears to
be on the verge of solution due to the success of an application to the
Environmental Protection Agency for a resource recovery grant. The new
disposal system that will result from this grant will have facilities for ener-
gy recovery by means of pyrolysis and ferrous material recovery by the use
of magnetic separators. The energy, in the form of steam, will be sold to
the company that provides heat for many downtown buildings. Other recov-
ered materials will be sold to suitable markets.
If the new disposal facility is as successful as projected, a significant
pressure will be removed from the solid waste management system. This
condition may result in greater freedom for the system management to address
other pressing problems associated with the collection function. It is likely
that the next problem to be addressed will be control of the accelerating
litter problem, an expensive collection operation for the city.
This case study of Baltimore, Maryland was performed by using a
carefully structured data gathering technique. Initial contacts were made
by both Office of Solid Waste Management Programs and Applied Management
Sciences personnel and interviews were scheduled to be convenient for the
city personnel. During these interviews, notes were taken and tape recordings
were made after obtaining the permission of the interviewees. Extensive
efforts were taken to require a minimum of city personnel time and whenever
possible, existing docamentation was solicited to support the general dis-
cussions. Figure 1 presents the titles of the people interviewed in Baltimore,
the dates of these interviews, and the types of information obtained.
The structure of this report consists of five chapters, including the
introduction. Chapter 2 is a systems description abstract which synopsizes
the characteristics of the city and the collection and disposal systems.
Chapter 3 presents the findings of the case study effort and identifies poten-
tial problem areas. Chapter 4 is a description of the city in terms of those
parameters which can affect solid waste management operations. Finally,
Chapter 5 reports tho characteristics of the solid waste system in considera-
ble detail. All aspects of the system are discussed and appropriate tabular
da.Lr. are presented.
-2-
-------
W
£H
INFORMATION T
W
H
rt
"S
rt
CO
S-l
O
G
O
• r-^
(!)
Lrector, Div
P
Some Manpower Data
0
0
LT)
00
Per sonnel
10
6
o
.£5
PH
tn
C)
^
o
a
CO
r-H
(/}
a
to
Q
|
Manpower, Collection Specifics
u
O
LO
0)
l^_(
0
6
i»
•H
• r-*
P
e Assistant,
dministratrv
i n i t a t i n n
< (T
tn
a>
M
3
-4-)
•r-J
T3
Financial Data; Budget & Expen
u
0
LO
oo
i>
£
Q
4-1
ement Analys
60
rt
G
/5
>
0
c
u
O
1 — i
^0
^
•*-J
r-H
rt
(D
£
M-i
O
4_>
G
co
a
p
0)
0
a
r-H
rt
cQ
rt
Ixl
ij
!
i
i
j
Specific Equipmert Data
O
00
P,
irector ,AD
Q
I
Interface of City and Union
o
oo
issioner
abor Comm
J
I
oo
a
j_j
60
O
£
tn
0)
'^
U
O
!
d
o
.
4-J
3
a,
CJ
P
Injury Frequency & Cost Data
>
o
00
^
rrt
iu
tu
M
3
PQ
G
0
•r^
rt
tn
G
0)
D-
a
0
U
c
0
"C
til
H-f
M
S
H
Z
O
I— 1
H
5
PU
o
i— i
Q
^,
CO
W
U
DATA SOUR
FIGURE 1:
-------
2
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION ABSTRACT
City: Baltimore, Maryland
Contacts: Robeit Deitrich
Edward Moore
Thelma Miller
Sally Murphy
- Technical Services
- Director, Division of Sanitation
- Public Works Personnel
- Administrative Assistant, Division of
Sanitation
Theodore Stockus
Frank Mucha
Wallace Shindler
Thomas Ostendorf
Raymond Clarke
Eric Fredrick
Dr. Farber
Harold Tall
Robert Hillman
Mrs. Innes
Lloyd Mitchner
Tom Miller
Dates Visited:
- Senior Management Analyst, DPW
- Director, City Accounting
- Training, DPW
-Assistant, M. V. and Mechanical Shops
- President, Local #44
- Division Chief, M. V. and Mechanical Shop
- Head, Baltimore Department of Health
- Director, ADP
- Labor Commissioner
- Former President, Women's Civic League
- Deputy Director, Model Cities Program
- Head, Workmen's Compensation Bureau
October 24, 25, 27, 31; November 2, 1972
Population Demography: 1970 - Total - 906,000; White - 53.5% Other - 46.5%
1960 - Total - 939,000; White - 65.3% Other - 34.7%
1950 - Total - 950,000; White - 76.2% Other - 23.8%
Area: 78. 3 Square Miles
-4-
-------
Density: 11,568 residents per square mile
Mileage: Roads - 2000 miles
Alleys - 500 miles
Collection: Table 1
Miscellaneous: The manpower allocation to mixed residential collection
and street sweeping activities are abcut 400 and 800
men, respectively. The size of the street sweeping
staff is said to be necessary because of an apparent
rise in street litter. The stated lack of sufficient con-
tainers in the city supports this reason. The Department
of Health has prohibited the use of plastic refuse con-
tainers which may contribute to this problem.
Disposal: Table 7.
Miscellaneous: The Monsanto Pyrolysis machine is expected to come
on line in 1975. The newer of the two existing incinera-
tors will be upgraded. Regional disposal plans have
not met with popular acceptance.
-5-
-------
O
3 K
n u
< ^
H w
H
to
to
O
H
U
W
O
o
bn
<1 ,.
'rt 6
d •;;
*~ * l\\
O r"<
_£U
>< .rt
rt ^
^ (,j
0
o
d* «
1 p-*
'o
0
C
Q
3t!
P V
CQ ;=:
o
o
c
r-t u
0 £
^ n
-*~*
ri •-*
n rt
P4 3
-M T3
rt r
u >
M T)
Jri
"c?
BO.S
C .C
>
w ^
cfc
o£
"O S
l«
c /
o /
•*•' /
o /
g /«,
C»H / r *
c1 /
t> / ''J
1' / p-
¥ I
/ :<^
/ u
i-H
U)
w ^:
- 2
0 4J
r- -1
-< 10
"p
oo
00
^
t/1
111
"3
o
d
4)
ft
§
X
'U
u
.^"c
UJ O
rt M
S o
6 /-.
SO
' O
*~l +J
in
vO
CO
+.
O
O.
p.
3
-"o
S
"a
a.
o
'S
V
m g
* DJ
'3
4)
0
fM
•t-
^J< CO
, I
fi
a>
CO
3
o
3
cr
0)
M
PH
3
n)
O
1
~^
*f
»-i
^,
3
U
M
O
3
U
,a
3
O
h
O
11
c
o
•r^
U
H)
"o
O
*n
o
'o
PH
JJ I/I
•-« o.
^ 1
O *^
f* rj £
** j^ O
«
'u
3
t)
id
O
I~*
•o
a
^
(0
3
M
H
a>
4^
n)
tm
ij
3
CO
c
'p. >>
O rP
£ X «
w •*-* 2
C 60 u
K "o o
"d
«t
bo
.S c
o ^
w c
T)
4>
S 'o
0 °
c^
0
-4J *
U
r-H
"o
O
O
•o
o
u
^
to
c
o
V*
|<9
u
o
1 1
vO
60 "OO
C C
bo P'
C P.
rt O
J3 ^
o 2.
Ul
c!
• r-l
-------
o
U
3
Wl
K
••H rj
« 0
(W .|H
0) *J
*— t U
4-> ^Q
^ _„
*«
3 rt
£
1 t5
o
U
0
•rH
•* tl
p^J
m~
o
(.1
"c"
! Q)
o g
Id —i
pj 5j
oj .2;
«|
V
b*.S
C X
•g"
CD 5
Q> c
* v
w •*
oo "2
c S
n) ^
o£-
flJ
"S w
X >H
H K
J
O /
U /
£j /w
( j / "
« / 'rt
O / .M
0 / «
0 / >
U/ -2
/ **
/ U
0 ^ U
OJ O P.
(0
E 3
H ^
G 4)
H p.
to
C
'p.
o
w J>
rt tO
•sl
a
O
v ?. "3
i- -- -a
* o n i-<
»- a s
t; TS >-."
C (a 4^ CJ
w (H h
TJ H O 01 O
•H fj p >/ -4-*
M g, Q ^, W
«; v ° ~^ "~ ~ ""' r »
be " " '"'
^) (Xi «
> 11)
0 >
^ ^
C) -"
on?
£ SK*
~; to
rt S
• s
£.-«
^
§
t,
n)
t-t
a>
C
O
(U P
r-1 ~
-H *<
,a *"
> S
O oj CJ
4J « 40
2 v £
S ^ 5!
aj £
7J o
.;, ^
x >«
w „
> 0
- c
o S ID
-*->,"-*-»
O > n)
*H CJ -4^
A >-. CO
•§
3
1-H
^^
rt
OJ
C
m
O
CJ
o
>H
O
W
•a
U
p.
tn
C
O
in n)
oo" >.
m
•a
rt
r** *H •
^ ^>
sO QJ
rJ P.
0)
•g
(d
p- r*
°^ ^
CO V
>O f^l
bO
C
4J P.
•M Q;
? 5
•tf W
M M
w O
« 2
^ ,C pj
rt (/)
^> 4-t
O QJ p-j
CO O T*
o-i a E?
Q
p.
H
o
in
-1
«.
a
oo
C
c
0
H
co in ^*
in rJ **
co' co* co*
1 I I
C
n)
C n n
*"• 4.* iy
O 'h (U
h QK
CO ^*
in -H
CO CO
to-<^
i i
O 4)
t> P.
•r-4 r— 4
DE
co • oj oO "g
l^-So-5
CO O
IT) O4
ro CO
1 1
4) CJ
> P.
•t-t r— 1
Q K
•5;
T!
M
O
ffi
CO
i— 4
a
o
w
CJ
60
flj
rt
W
a>
g
«J
W
§
n)
W
V
s
(t)
W
OJ
g
n)
W
H ZE
o ^
CiO )
ta o
< ^
U)
0
$
CO
*+-4
o
r-J
D
t>0
-7-
-------
•a
D
3
C
.*j
O
U
to
C
'(1 c
S 2
0) i3
.— • u
U O
•rt .r< j^
<> T3 n.
tnf , O « "'
[• fi 0 1-. -M
ca JJ
Oi-
•o g
« .1
X M-l
"-^ <1)
R /
o /
4J /
O /
1 /$
y / "^
4> / r*
'"* /
o / o
/ 4^
/ "
/ fj
/ °
1 O
. rt ™
v> "w PQ
o
•-H
•1-4
2
r-j
in
O
U
(M
'•(\
f\
<•>
01
III
s s °
>2 § .M
<" ° o
£ o E
H C «!
t
^ " c
** 4) O
y) O _, j^ '^
—" & o o rt
C .S P^
>« (M y ..C -JJ •*
w ^ .S -o |H .2 :
.
O)
r!
4)
fi
E
o
o
,
to
V4
O
4)
60
-B-
-------
H
<
Q
n
<
<
8
m
*
CO
(VI
1-1
•2 /
•H /
W /
/
rt /|
S/ o
a/ _<
m/ n)
& 0
1 -H
/ Q
i— (
r-4
•H
T3
s
d
•i-*
NH
id
C
rt
-I
>— i
1
S
CJ
e
IV
n)
M
(1)
C
•1-1
Q
^
6
•i-i
15
»H
!,
0 0
m m ro
•fr
P Q
Pi PH
H H <;
o o £
0 0
t> t-
*
P P
OH ft
H H +0
o o
O U">
0)
g
1L>
ft) *
bO MH
fi *r{
^3 ^
^ g |
'o ^ t>
(t! rH 0
a
<3 rrt 1>
"o nj
O iJ
£
•*p to
00 -L
^ ^ ®
^ ^ •> S
r-_ z t> K
tsj O rt
4j\ pQ ^J]
-d
•H
*
M <
>• M
^ <\J
"~1 *d "^
vo" ft rt
10 *
w to
n OT
U 0
bo u
•S §• §
rt " £
rM ^ «l
0) h O
a, rt o
O W J
ri
o
o
ro
ni
O
IU
w
nJ
-9-
-------
3
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - MAJOR PROBLEM AREAS
The present solid waste management system of Baltimore has evolved
through a series of issues, which have served to shape and structure the
system. While these issues and events may appear to be mutually exclusive,
they are in fact quite interrelated. For Baltimore City, the following prob-
lems or issues have been identified as having a major impact upon the present
solid waste management system,,
e Lack of adequate storage containers
• Lack of citizen cooperation
• Disposal problem
• Rising cost pressures
• Labor management, relations
Each of these problem areas will be developed individually so as to more
fully describe the total impact of each area on the system.
3.1: Lack of Adequate Storage Containers
The Baltimore City Code (Sec. 3, Article 23, Appendix A) limits the amount
of mixed refuse to the contents of four twenty-gallon containers and all straight
garbage in containers of ten gallons or less, at any one stop. This Ordinance
was originally passed to protect the workmen from lifting excessively heavy
trash containers^, Another important restriction, promulgated by the city's
Department of Public Health in 1957, required that all containers be made
out of metal and have tight-fitting covers. Plastic containers were rejected
by the Department because their kiboratory and field tests demonstrated
- 10-
-------
that hungry rodents could gnaw their way through the container's sides.
Therefore, in the interest of public safety and health they outlawed plastic
containers. These two constraints, individually and collectively, have
had a profound influence upon the amount of waste collected by the mixed
refuse crews and the level of services provided by the city.
The statutory limit on the size of trash containers forces residents
to purchase more containers than would otherwise be necessary. This
has had its harshest effects upon inner city residents who can ill afford
to purchase many containers at today's inflated prices. The price of an
average twenty gallon metal container ranges between five and nine dollars.
Thus, the cash outlay for an average size family could range anywhere
between $5 (one of the cheapest containers) and $36 (four heavy duty
containers). The Department of Public Health's ruling has added to this
problem., By eliminating a potentially lower-priced and more durable prod-
uct, the plastic container, it has increased citizen cost. At the same time
the tests run in 1957 have come under attack. Other, more recent tests
have shown plastic containers to be equally resistant to rodent attacks as
metal cans. In addition, the plastic lids generally fit tighter than metal
tops after continuous use because of their greater flexibility.
The result of these decisions, as well as other sociological and
demographic factors, has been a large increase in the amount of vagrant
waste (street refuse) over the past few years. While the amount >of mixed
refuse collected hag remained at approximately the same level for the past
five years, the amount of vagrant waste has increased significantly. This
has forced the city to form additional street crews to handle this problem.
(The types of crews and their functions are discussed in Chapter 5).
Associated with the vagrant waste problem there has been an increase in the
rodent population of the city. As will be shown in the next section, these
problems are particularly acute in certain areas of the city0
-11-
-------
3.2: Lack of Citizen Cooperation
The apparent apathy and lack of cooperation by segments of the populace
is evidenced by the lack of proper storage containers in certain areas of the
city,. The Director of the Division of Sanitation estimates that in certain
areas of the city there are only forty containers for every sixty dwelling
units --a ratio of less than one container per dwelling. While collection
does occur twice a week, this situation is far from being adequate
or sanitary. Also it helps to explain the large amount of vagrant waste
which is found in these areas as citizens, lacking proper storage containers,
discard their waste in the alleys and streets.
The Model Cities Program of Baltimore, recognizing the need for in-
creeised sanitary conditions in the very low income areas of the city, has
funded the Division of Sanitation to provide additional sanitation services to
Model Cities areas. These additional services include:
1, Handsweeping and cleaning three times per -week of all
street gutters, sidewalks, and all public and private alleys;
2. Collection once per week on a regularly scheduled day of
all bulky items of trash set out for removal without need
for special request to the Sanitation Division (usually
made by phone calls);'
3. Cleaning as needed of all vacant lots, many of which are
city owned;
4, Mechanical flushing once per week of all streets;
5, Emptying four times per week of all corner trash receptacles
(i. e» , wire baskets).
While these services have generally improved the living conditions
in the area, major problems still remain, A few blocks within these areas
have achieved what may be designated as "block pride". They have attempted
to maintain a proper sanitation level by encouraging their residents to practice
sound waste storage techniques. At the same time, however, other citizens
take advantage of the system's additional services. They discard their
wastes (trash, garbage, and bulky items) directly in the alleys, knowing it
will eventually be picked up by the sanitation crews. Also, residents have
- 12-
-------
been found to make unfair requests of the men at times, by asking them to
perform special tasks for which they are not responsible,, These negative
aspects of the program, however, do not overshadow the sanitation and
health benefits which this program provides to the community.
One other program, which runs congruent with the sanitation program,
is an attempt to educate the residents of the area to the problems of sanitation
and healtho Members of the Model Cities Program have tried to illustrate
the direct correlation between unsanitary health conditions and the vermin
population but they have met with very limited success,, Many residents
are apparently unconcerned about scattered trash and improper storage
facilities. Unfortunately, these residents directly influence the living con-
ditions and sanitation level in the entire neighborhood.
3.3: Disposal Problem
A significant problem area facing Baltimore is its disposal of solid
wastes. There are two incinerators (forty and sixteen years old) and three
landfill sites. The newer incinerator will be upgraded to meet air pollution
standards but the older machine is beyond salvage. The landfill sites are
rapidly nearing their capacities. The city is ringed by suburban communities
that are not enthusiastic about the potentiality of being used as disposal sites.
Furthermore, the transportation of solid waste across jurisdictional boundaries
is also proscribed.
There are two events that have affected disposal planning in the city.
The first of these is the approval of plans to construct a 1000 TPD pyrolysis
incinerator using federal, state, and city funds. This plan will dispose of
nearly half of the city waste by 1975 with the remainder being incinerated
in the upgraded machine (900 TPD) and landfilled (150 TPD). The second
event is the state requirement to produce a Regional Solid Waste Manage-
ment plan. Such a plan may result in either the procurement of disposal
sites in surrounding areas or the implementation of a rail haul system to
remote sites.
- 13-
-------
Baltimore we.aid probably be receptive to a regional disposal plan at
this time because it would save the city the cost of the repair and refit
necessary to upgrade their newer incinerator. However, if there is con-
siderable delay in the implementation of such a system, the city would be
forced to carry cut their original plan and would not wish to add to their
costs by regional involvement.
Either way, however, the waste will be disposed. The question of how
and the costs to do so have yet to be resolved. It is evident that the new
pyrolysis plant has taken considerable pressure off the city and the remain-
ing decisions to be reached will be made with careful thought as to their
long-range impacts.
3.4: Rising Cost Pressures
A critical issue is a problem familiar to many central cities in our
overstressed economy. The tax base in many cities is dropping while costs
continue to rise0 Revenue sharing may ultimately provide relief to our
central cities, but currently they generally face severe financial pressures.
Baltimore is no exception to this common situation. A complete description
of the tax base and property tax rates is presented in the financial section
of Chapter 5, but it is necessary to note that the city has financial difficulties.
The rising cost of labor and capital has forced the city to trim its
budget. The mixed refuse collection expenditures ran a deficit of approxi-
mately $300, 000 in the fiscal year 1971-72, yet the same budget was trimmed
for the fiscal year 1972-73. Earlier, in the fiscal year 1968-69, the city
diverted Motor Vehicle funds into its street cleaning budget in order to
alleviate the cost pressures in the sanitation budget. The source of these
M<->tor Vehicle Funds are state-collected gasoline taxes, titling fees, and
license plate fees,, This fund has become the major source of revenue for
the Sanitation Division.
Because of the cost pressure, the Division of Sanitation has had
fairly heavy reliance on federal and state funds for major capital expendi-
tures. The new pyrolysis disposal plant is an example where the
Federal Government sxipplied $6 million dollars and state aid accounted
-14-
-------
for $4 million dollars of the proposed $13-$14 million dollar project. On
a much smaller scale, the Environmental Protection Agency funded a
study on the feasibility of installing a transfer station in the northwest
section of Baltimore. The actual funding for the proposed transfer station
was achieved through a recently passed bond issue,
3.5: Labor-Management Relations
Prior to 1968, labor did not present a problem to Baltimore's solid
waste management system. The four-day strike in September 1968, changed
the previously placid relationship between labor and management. The
strike resulted in a 7. 5 percent wage increase for blue collar workers
(white collar stayed at 5. 0%) and, more importantly, the unions gained the
rights to collective bargaining.
Since the strike, AFSCME has been able to gain further benefits from
the city. Wages have increased considerably and the city now pays for
nearly all medical and health benefits. In the upcoming negotiations, the
union will try to obtain free annual medical examinations for the sanitation
workers, an increased annual wage, and total payment of pension premiums
by the city.
The current relationship between the union and the Sanitation Division
management is very good with both sides still respecting and trusting the
other. There exists both a formal and an informal grievance procedure for
airing any disputes. Generally, both union and management prefer to use
the informal procedure. A prime reason for the use of the informal pro-
cedure is the amount of time it takes to have a formal complaint processed.
This can take up tc one and one-half months during -which the worker may be out
of work and thus without pay. A second reason, no less important, is the
background of the Chief of the Sanitation Division. He started as a general
laborer with the mixed refuse crews. Consequently, he is sympathetic to
the worker's problems and the union feels they will gain fair treatment
by him.
-15-
-------
While a generally harmonious relationship exists between the two
opposing camps, there are many minor irritations which exist. One par-
ticularly distressing problem to the Sanitation Division is the high turnover
and absenteeism rate. The continual absence of a portion of their work
force compels management to carry a larger labor force than would other-
wise be necessary. It also increases the indirect costs of labor as sick
leave costs and Workmen's Compensation costs are high. Management
believes that Workmen's Compensation has been abused in the past few years.
A review of the cost figures for the past two years has shown a substantial
increase in these figures, all of which cannot be attributable to increased
medical costs. One program instituted to cut back on the amount of sick
leave taken allows a worker to exchange 3 days of sick leave for one day's
pay with a maximum of 12 sick leave days per year. This program has had
only limited success.
A potential source of labor problems is the current city policy of turn-
ing back unskilled laborer jobs in the street cleaning activities. This process
is being performed by attrition rather than by large scale lay-offs, and the
union has stated that they are not particularly distressed about this matter.
This may not be realistic inasmuch as a loss of constituents will affect
union finances and, perhaps, union influence.
Another source of labor discontent is the alleged condition of the
equipment -which they are forced to use. The union feels that the equip-
ment is inadequately prepared and maintained. At the same time, however,
management complains that the workers do not take proper care of the
equipment. Central garage officials voiced the opinion that the workers abused
the trucks and other equipment. This dispute has not been resolved, but
undoubtedly the claims of both sides have some degree of merit.
At present, the wages and benefits appear to be reasonable remuneration
for the work performed,, It is clear, however, that as costs increase and
budget constraint trends continue, the union may be less inclined to be
cooperative and the demands may put more financial pressure on solid
-16-
-------
waste management activities. Such a condition works negatively in that
higher demands make the adaption of innovative technology less likely until
crisis situations force resolution of the issues,. Fortunately, it appears
unlikely that catastrophic failure of operations is an impending event
because the principals of both the union and the Division of Sanitation have
a good working arrangement. A gradual deterioration of good will is more
likely.
The most probable system, given no internal or external changes, will
be one in which an equilibrium of sorts will be reached. The workforce will
continue to shrink by attrition but the costs per unit labor will rise so that
the total labor costs will remain relatively constant. The result of this
process is likely to be a lower level of service.
On the other hand, the system will probably not be immune to changes.
For example, a decision could be reached concerning the container problem
resulting in a reduction of street wastes. In this case, the equilibrium
suggested in the preceding paragraph would not result in a reduction of the
level of service.
The relationships between these major problem areas are illustrated
by Figure 2.
Citizens
(Containers
I
Cost Pressure
^™
--- ^___
Labor Disposal
FIGURE
PROBLEM AREA CONNECTIVITY
Major relationships are represented by solid lines and indirect relationships
by dashed lines. There is certainly a link between "citizens" and "disposal",
but at this time it is strong only when residents exterior to the city limits
are included. Similarly, there is a relationship between "containers" and
- 17-
-------
"cost pressure", but again, it is strong only in the sense that cost pressure
can be reduced by proper containerization. The stronger link would be
through labor. It is clear that a shift in policy in any problem center will
have significant effects on the others. For the most beneficial effects, the
question of which problem to address needs to be answered.
Of the five problem areas identified, the citizen apathy and the storage
situation seem to be the most important at this time. The solution of either
or both will significantly reduce the vagrant waste found in the city. The
solution to citizen apathy will have the greatest beneficial impact, but because
the burden of implementation is mostly external to the solid waste manage-
ment system, it may be the most difficult to initiate. The remaining problems
have considerable inertia and solutions to these will yield results that will
take time to observe,, The amount of lead time available to the city is not
known, but is suspected to be less than a decade.
-18-
-------
4
BACKGROUND OF THE SYSTEM
Incorporated in J797, Baltimore is an old middle eastern city which
is the hub of Maryland's economic activity. It lies on the -western shore of
the Chesapeake Bay, midway between northern and southern extremes, and
forms one corner of a major metropolitan triangle with Washington, D. C. ,
and Annapolis, Maryland, Regionally, the Baltimore Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area consists of over 2 million people living within the city and
in the counties of Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, and Howard.
Baltimore City's boundaries include the nation's third largest port in terms
of tonnage and provides living space for 902, 000 people, the largest city
population in the state. It is the largest financial center in the area and
has a heavy concentration of research and development facilities, Baltimore
is the site for diversified manufacturing markets, including ships, missiles,
steel, electronic devices, and transportation equipment,. It is noted for its
textiles, clothing, spices, processed foods, and alcoholic beverages. It
is also a center for the processing of copper and bichromate,,
While Baltimore lies at one end of a rapidly developing corridor
which stretches to Washington, it is not a city without major difficulties.,
The population has dropped by 47, 000 since 1950, and there is growth in its
black population with an accompanying suburban population shift. Thus,
the tax base is weakening, while the demand for services and related labor
costs has increased. It is the site of extensive model city program efforts
to rebuild and revitalize the city. Downtown Baltimore is experiencing a
rebirth keyed around the Charles .Center and the City Hall Plaza. Virtually
-------
all of the central business district will eventually be rebuilt. Not the least
of Baltimore's problems center on sanitation. There is a solid waste dis-
posal problem cheated by insufficient incineration and landfill sites, in-
creasingly stringent pollution controls, and the inability to procure disposal
sites outside the city limits. The Sanitation Division also has problems in
the areas of employee turnover and a lack of chauffeurs (truck drivers).
Finally, population shifts, packaging trends, insufficient storage, and other
physical constraints have created a marked increase in street refuse, making
it more difficult for Baltimore to maintain its relatively clean appearance.
4.1: Location, Geography, Demography, and Climate
The corporate limits of Baltimore include seventy-nine square miles
of land area and seven square miles of water. The city was separated from
Baltimore County in 1851 and received a home rule charter in 19180 The
Port of Baltimore is the nation's third largest in terms of foreign trade
(:onnage.
The City of Baltimore has experienced significant population shifts in
recent years. As in many major metropolitan areas, the more affluent
have moved from the city to suburban areas. The white population decreased
by 259,100 while the black population rose 211,400 between 1950 and 1970,,
While the SMSA as a whole has increased in population from 1,457,200
in 1950 to 2, 097, 900 in 1971, Baltimore's population has declined from
949,700 to 902,000 in the same period. During this interval, real estate
tax rates for Baltimore have risen from $2. 88 per $100 of assessed
valuation to $5. 650 Also, receipts from state funds have increased sig-
nificantly. Employment for Baltimore has increased by 21.7 percent
siij'-e 1950; however, employment growth for the SMSA has increased
52,7 p ..rcent in the same period. The number of companies within the
city fell from 1, 629 to 1, 385 during this interval. Unemployment has
remained relatively stable at about 5. 2 percent, Baltimore has designated
six square miles of "Community Action" Areas because of low income,
crime, and unemployment factors. These areas include-most of the older
parts of Baltimore and ring the central business district.
-20-
-------
For the SMSA as a whole, Anne Arundel County's population increased
by 161 percent,, Baltimore County by 133 percent, Carroll County by 58
percent, Harford County by 132 percent, and Howard County by 182 percent.
The white exodus to the suburbs, as well as the normal population growth,
have clearly defined the suburban area as the site of future and continued
growth. The developing City of Columbia in Howard County, for example,
Is indicative of the recent and future growth patterns --an escape from the
blighted urban centers.
Baltimore's climate is moderate. Rainfall is uniformly distributed
throughout the year and averages 40.20 inches. Snowfall averages 25.25
inches per year and is heaviest in December, January, and February.
Snowfalls over one inch average only nine days per year. Glaze or freezing
rain occurs two to three times per year. Temperatures average a high of
88 during the summer and a low of 24 during the winter. In general, the
weather is not severe in either summer or winter.
4.2: Form of Government ancl Organization
4.2.1: Form of Government
The elected leadership of the City of Baltimore is comprised of a
Mayor, the Comptroller, the President of the City Council, and 21 members
of the City Council. The first three officers are elected city-wide, while
there are three Council members elected from each district,, In Baltimore,
the charter, as modified in 1967, establishes a strong mayor-weak council
form of government,, The Mayor now has the authority to make over 300
appointments, which includes the heads of city departments and the members
of the boards and commissions that govern city agencies.
The Board of Estimates formulates and determines the city's
Ordinance of Estimates, or budget. The Board is comprised of the Mayor,
the Citv Solicitor, the Director of Public Works, the Comptroller, and the
President of the City Council,, Since the Mayor appoints both the Solicitor
and the Director of Public Works, he essentially controls the city's financial
policy. The Board of Estimates is also responsible for awarding contracts,
supervision of purchases, and the establishment of salaries and wage rates.
-21-
-------
The Mayor controls the Commissioners of Finance,, This Commission
has the authority to issue and sell bonds, make temporary loans, control
the City Sinking Fund, and select depositories for city funds. The Mayor
may also veto legislation of the City Council and can be overridden only
with a three-fourths vote of the entire membership.
4 .2.2; Organi zation
The municipal organization (Figure 3) illustrates a normal organi-
zation structure for large cities. Various commissions oversee the
activities of "line" departments. The Department of Public Works' organi-
zation is shown in Figure 4. The Department was organized in 1925, but
its present form, a consolidation from ten bureaus into five, was created
in 1968 by passage of a City Ordinance in 1967 which approved a City
Barter change and resulted in the strong-mayor form of government.
The Department of Public Works has five Bureaus under the authority
f the Director of Public Works, who is also one of the five members of the
Board of Estimates. The Department is the only "line" or services-oriented
department represented on this powerful Board. The Sanitation Division is
also the largest city employer in terms of manpower. The Sanitation
Division (Figure 5) is one of three divisions in the Bureau of Utility
Operations,, Its chief, appointed in 1966, has been with the Division for 35
years. It is interesting to note that, besides assistant superintendents for
collection, street cleaning, and disposal, there are also superintendents for
the Model Cities area and for the Central Business District.
4.3: Solid Waste Management System History
By 1959, the current collection and disposal operation of the Sanitation
Division were essentially fixed. Two incinerators plus landfills were in
existence. The two existing incinerators are in the Eastern and South-
western sections, yet the bulk of the residential population is in the
Northwest section,, In November of 1962, voters rejected, by a 3 to 1 vote,
a referendum for a bond issue for a new incinerator. In December of 1962,
-22-
-------
Board
Estimate;'
Comptroller
Ma
Department, Department
of ~1 of
Audits [Real Estate
1 Harbor j Municipal |
Master j Post Office
•
j Muni cipal j
— Telephone 1
1 Exchange
1 J
jartment Department
of of
essmentSj 1 Aviation | [
jartment j Dept. of
of j j Legislative
Law | [ Reference
Dept. of
Jruonc
Works 1
Consumer
Services
• Engineering
Utility
Operation
' Inspections
„..,,, . 1 Department
Civil Service ,
Commission 1 „, ,.
1 [ Education
i
1
Dept. of 1 Dept. o
4ousingfcCom Municipa
Development Zoning A
f
1 &
PPj-j
1
i
Dept. of Dept. of
Transit fe the
Traffic Treasurer
Various Boards, Bureaus, etc.
Created by Mayor fc City
Council
City
y°r Council
Office of
Financial
Rev.
Model Cities
Agency
Department „. Dej
Finance Department j
Department Dept. of _
of Recreation ~f
Planning and Parks
D"pt;.a01£ Civil Center J?'
_S?Cial Commission _Ec
Sciences Dev(
Municipal functions
control supported in
part by city
~l
>artment Departmen
of of
lealth Hospitals
... Community
Itimore Action
^ Jai1 Agency
i
;pt. of Office of
onomic Disaster
jlopment Control
beyond city
whole or in
runds
FIGURE 3: MUNICIPAL ORGANIZATION - CITY OF BALTIMORE
-23-
-------
DIRECTOR
Deputy Director
Director's
Staff
Bureau of
Consumer Services
Bureau of
Utility Operations
,'jjiicdtions
Licenses Division
Highway
Maintenance
Division
l_
Customer
Accounts
Division
Sanitation
Division
Customer Service
Division
Utilities
Maintenance
Division
Bureau of
Engineering
Bureau of
Inspection
Highway
Engineering
Division
Bureau of
General Services
Public
Building
Construction
Division
Surveys and
Records
Division
Abandoned
Vehicles
Division
Tests
Division
Building
Operations and
Maintenance
Division
Utility
Construction
Division
Motor Vehicle
and
Mechanical Shops
Division
Waste Water
Division
Water
Division
FIGURE 4: PUBLIC WORKS ORGANIZATION - CITY OF BALTIMORE
-24-
-------
EH
fil
o
fe;
r«—i
CK
o
O
2
5?
H f
^
1«
0
K
cn
CO
to
[
« H i PM io
3 c/n I :o ! pq
*i <3 CO <<
E3 La L±
^
rts-
CO
00
E-* -ir-
00^ o
LXJ
§
CT*
?fi
H§
^C^
0 M
>
M
Q
H
t',
Ul
i7M
"i
r>
CO
14 (-
S <
O tf
.
H
LO
<
t- CO
H W
X £
i^ ^
o o
n a
>
Si
(-LI
rO
^O
"
CNI
ffi
0
-•f
c^
•^
.
£
CO t--
o
5 E-1'
re -^
0 '-C'
OT
CH
Q y
f3 £
S fi
rtt s
M E-
^ c
iCO ^
C;
UJ
cr
&
Cfi
a;
rH
l"\
CJ
, 1
M . . . «-
Q
^
' a
CO)
CO
m -=-
,T
£-
ft
tag
r3
££)
rr
Ir.
\,
ir
§
CO
M
g-
3
CO
f^
ON
r°\
O
CO
%
w
rt
o
cq
O
H
U
i
O
i—i
H
O
«
o
H
i— i
55
LO
W
«
P
O
- 25-
-------
the Metropolitan Refuse Disposal Committee (Baltimore City, Baltimore
County, and Anne Arundel County) was formed to study area-wide disposal
system alternatives. The committee1 s 1963 report concluded that collection
should remain a local function but that cooperation for disposal was required,,
Of the three governments, Baltimore City was most in need of addi-
tional disposal facilities, and it alone needed cooperation in refuse disposal.
Further consideration of jointly operated incinerators based in Baltimore
County were made during June of 1965. In 1968, these ideas were still
active, and a plan for a Southwest Materials Reduction Center near the
Reedbird incinerator was submitted to Baltimore County. It was never built
due to political problems,, Efforts to rail-haul wastes to Western Maryland
and Virginia have been planned but never implemented.
Baltimore is currently planning to upgrade one of its incinerators
n meet air pollution requirements. This renovation is to be funded by
1ioncls authorized in a 1971 referendum. Baltimore is also involved in a
city/state/federally funded program to build a new $14 million, 1000-
ton-per-day pyrolitic incinerator at the old Reedbird incinerator site.
Finally, the state and political subdivisions (5 counties and the city) funded a
study by a private consulting firm to investigate various disposal alternatives,
including rail-haul and recycling options.
4.4; Agencies Impacting Baltimore's Solid Waste Management System
4.4.1; State Level
State Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Environmental Health
Services (EHS), Division of Solid Waste
This Division existed prior to the formation, in 1970, of the
Maryland Environmental Service (MES). The Division's role is still significant
because i he legislation for the MES stipulates a continuing and interdependent
relationship between the EHS and the MES. The Division has four sections:
Technical Advice and Assistance (TA&A), Monitoring and Surveillance (M&S),
Hazardous Wastes and Special Projects, and Planning and Evaluation (P&E).
-26-
-------
TA&A helps counties design sanitary landfills. M&S keeps track of waste
disposal facilities and makes sure they do not break laws or revert to
open dumps. P&.E has recently completed a 10-year Comprehensive Solid
Waste Plan for the State and is coordinating and supervising the county
solid waste plans due by January, 1974. The Division has been found to be
lacking in awareness of current technology due to its understaffed condition.
The Division has been described as hopelessly undermanned for its responsi-
bilities, as compared to other Divisions concerned with air and water quality.
It is the only State agency other than the MES concerned with solid waste
management „
State Department of Natural Resources, Including the Department of Water
Resources (DVrK) and the Maryland Environmental Service (MES)
This Department has two divisions responsible for solid waste activities;
the Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the Maryland Environmental
Service (MES). The DWR enforces water quality standards with respect to
industrial waste discharge. The MES, created in 1970, is to investigate
and establish regional facilities and solutions for a variety of environmental
areas including solid waste management. The MES is a state corporation
formed to provide for the purification and disposal of liquid and solid wastes
with a broad set of activities and responsibilities,.
The MES has potentially unlimited financial support and will charge
fees for its services. It is a State agency which can work on state, regional,
and local projects and is eligible for Federal planning, demonstration, and
training funds. MES can float bonds for construction of facilities, with its
customers paying it back over an established time period.
Baltimore City has received EPA funding for the Monsanto pyrolysis
plant; the original proposal to EPA was refused, but a combination of State
and local funding resulted in the Federal contribution. The MES is the
agency most likely to have a major impact on Baltimore's long-range
solution to solid waste management problems.
-27-
-------
4 . 4 ., 2: Regional Level
Baltimore Regional Plannin ; Council (RPG)
The RFC is composed of 22 voting members; 18 are elected officials
from Baltimore City and the surrounding five counties (SMSA), and the other
four are state representatives. A staff of professional planners is responsible
for carrying out the work program for local agencies, ^ The RFC began in
1954 on an ad hoc basis and became official in 1963. Other analyses of the
RFC indicate that it shows little concern for implementation of its plans,
The implication is that the planning being done does not deal with the region's
most pressing problems. Its two solid waste efforts are in the development
of a solid waste transportation model ($23, 930 with $15, 953 from the EPA)
and a state and locally funded contract for solid waste planning consultant
efforts ($96, 000). The transportation model deals with collection aspects
of solid waste systems.
The State Legislature has required all counties to create comprehensive
solid waste plans by 1974. The RFC will do this for its six jurisdictions as
a combined effort with the Maryland Environmental Service (MES), which also
has a solid waste planning requirement. RFC has hired consultants for this
effort. RFC staff feel that solid waste management efforts should be left
to the MES.
Metropolitan Area Council (MAC)
The MAC was created in 1965 and is composed of Baltimore's Mayor,
the County Executives of Baltimore and Anne Arundel Counties, the President
->f the Baltimore City Council, and the Chairmen of the County Councils of
the Kvo counties. In 1970, the MAC appointed a Water, Sewer, and Solid
Waste Committee to develop a program for the needs of Baltimore to the
year 2000. The Committee had 15 members and was chaired by Baltimore's
Director of Public Works, Its report, submitted in 1971, recommended
that the State Legislature create a Greater Baltimore Metropolitan Sanitary
Authority to include all the counties in the SMSA and Baltimore, The report
• 28-
-------
is still with the State Legislative Council for revision and correction of
legal technicalities,, The implication of the report i? that the city and
county offit ials have a preliminary commitment to work towards a. regional
solution of environmental problems,
4,4.3; Local Level
Bo Itimore City Department of Planning
This Department, responsible to the Planning Commission (see City
Organization Chart), has no activities concerned directly with solid waste
management. Solid waste plans devised elsewhere are rarely reviewed
here unless they conflict with other plans. The Commission, however,
can and has refused to approve proposed landfill sites. As a result, local
solid -waste planning has fallen to the Department of Public Works. City
planners tend to feel that eventually solutions for solid waste problems will
be regional in nature and are thus the responsibility of the MES and the RPC.
Baltimore Department of Publi- Works (DPW)
Reorganized in 1968 from ten bureaus to five, the DPW has two
internal groups which impact on its Sanitation Division. These are the
Technical Services Division (TSD) and the Customer Services Division (CSD).
The TSD has the responsibility for investigating technical and technological
options for solid waste management, as well as other Department activities.
TSD also develops and coordinates the Capital Improvement Program for the
Department. The CSD maintains a hot line which connects incoming citizen
calls for all Public Works services.
The DPW is intimately aware of its solid waste management problems
in terms of increasing wastes generation, the need for final volume reduction,
the shifts in population characteristics, and the resultant needs for more
services. The DPW has been relatively innovative given the restrictions,.
New technologies have been investigated and are being implemented. Federal
funds have been actively sought. Consultants and the MES have been used.
Several city-county arrangements have been attempted. ' Special services
-29-
-------
are provided to the Model Cities area, and efforts to computerize data
are underway. Witnin its constraints, the DPW has been creative and
supportive in its efforts to irr>prove its solid waste management system,,
B.alfimore Dcpart'inont of Hcalt h
The Sanitary Services Division of the Department of Health impacts
the Division of Sanitation in two ways. First, it is responsible for approving
solid waste storage containers, and enforces the use of approved containers
with enforcement officers. Second, it is concerned with the evaluation of pol-
lutants emitted by incinerators. The Department's major impact has been
its unwillingness to approve plastic containers for household refuse storage.
AFSCME Local 44
On September 1, 1968, the city offered a 2-1/2 percent pay increase
(-Q blue collar workers and a 5 percent hike to other employees. As a
result, the blue collar laborers, most of whom are Sanitation Department
rmployees, went on strike for four days to protest this wage policy discrim-
ination. In actuality, the strike was a result of severe inter-union competition
and the -wage issue was the hair trigger of the fight for representation. As
a result of this crises, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 251 on
September 6, 1968. This ordinance provided for: the appointment of a Labor
Commissioner; the method of designating a collective bargaining organi-
zation; the means of resolving impasse situations; and other relevant
mechanisms. The blue collar employees also won a 7-1/2 percent pay
increase, and subsequent elections in 1968 and 1969 led to recognition of
AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Council No, 67 and Local No, 44, 3.3 the bargaining
agent for blue collar workers in Sanitation as -well as other city departments.
Since the city is currently prohibited from entering into legally binding
union negotiations, the city has entered into a "Memorandum of Under-
standing" with the union,, This Memorandum has been supplemented each
year since 1968 for each set of blue collar workers represented by Local 44.
Since the '68 strike, it is claimed by the union that there has been a
90 percent increase in blue collar wages. Uniforms are now provided to
-30-
-------
sanitation laborers. The city has picked up a larger portion of the health
L-.Gurance and pays a hazard premium to certain employees. Multi-step
grievance procedures have been set up for each bargaining unit, although
' ; y are rarely used in the Sanitation Department as both sides prefer to
/i-:solve grievances on an informal basis. There is also a city-wide
apprenticeship training program for blue collar -workers.
Labor-management relationships have now stabilized,, The issue of
union organization has been resolved. The fears that the union would run
the city have proven false. No further strikes have occurred, and current
negotiable issues revolve around safety training programs, equipment
maintenance priorities, and union security agreements, which are still
prohibited by statute.
Supervisory personnel and white collar workers are represented by
the Classified Municipal Employees Association, which won this representa-
tion during the 1968 election.
Women's Civic League
The Women's Civic League was founded in 1910 to focus on conditions
affecting health and sanitation in Baltimore. From 1911 to 1923, its Refuse
Disposal Committee was active in efforts to clean up the city. In I960,
the Department of Sanitation requested the League to act as "-watch dog"
for the city's environment. League members inspected collection efforts
and received and reported complaints. The League also presents awards
to outstanding refuse collection and street cleaning crews.
The League currently feels that the city does a good job of providing
sanitation services within the framework of inadequate disposal facilities,
increasingly negative citizen attitudes toward the responsibility of storage
of trash, and budget constraints. The League favors the use of plastic
garbage containers0
-------
Private Contractors
The major portion of industrial and commercial -wastes are collected
by four private firms: Robb Tyler, Modern Trashmoval, Frank Bohager
and Sons, and H. C. Robertson. There are also 50 smaller firms in the
area* Tyler uses its own landfills and the county landfill, Trashmoval
uses Tyler's fills and some others. Bohager uses commercial landfills
and Baltimore's incinerators. Private firms also collect most of the
hi^ardous and toxic liquid wastes, at least those which are not illegally
disposed.
The lack of future landfill sites and the creation of the MES will
probably impact the private sector as well as the public. MES may eventually
be a competitor to the private sector, or it may be in a cooperative role,
depending upon the private sector's inclinations to focus on collection only
or on collection and disposa.1 functions.
-32-
-------
SOLID WASTE SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS
The solid waste system that operates in Baltimore is somewhat
different than thoso- that have been studied in other cities. The level of
service provided is very high and the collection/sweeping operations are
multifunctional. Even at the costs associated with high levels of service,
the city's appearance with respect to solid waste is not exceptional.
This chapter describes aspects of the customers, the collection
system, and the disposal operatiors within the city of Baltimore. The
collection function and the customer sector are treated in detail because
this interface is the heart of all solid waste management systems.
Additionally, because Baltimore has a recognized Inner City problem, a
separate section is provided to discuss this issue. Similarly, the city has
a long history of disposal site procurement problems and a section has been
set aside to discuss this activity. The chapter concludes with sections dealing
with equipment policies and data, system financing, and different views of the
system. In the latter section, the problems and issues confronting the
Baltimore solid waste management system are presented from different
perspectives, both internal and external to the city government.
c i. -Collection Services of the Sanitation Division
-* . -*-» i I. i. . i
Solid wastes are removed from the streets and residential areas of
the city by the Sanitation Division through the operation of six different
collection functions - mixed refuse, gang cleaning, beat patrol, bulky
articles, ashes, and market refuse. Also, the Division is-responsible for
-33-
-------
the collection of ail refuse from closed corner litter containers and open
wire litter baskets maintained by the city and strategically located in
business and commercial areas, at all street corners where Mg T0 A.0
buslines intersect, schools, etc. In addition, the Division is responsible
for a portion (about 20%) of the city's snow and ice removal. The major
responsibility for this tasl< lies with the Highway Maintenance Division.
The Sanitation Division currently contracts for the removal of waste oils
and greases,,
5 . I „ 1 : Mixed Rcfusn Collection
A principal activity of the Sanitation Division is mixed refuse collection,
with more than 80 cents out of every dollar from the General Fund which is
allocated to collection services going to this effort,
Description of Duties and Level of Service
The responsibilities and duties of mixed refuse collection employees
'..':>i stipulated in Section 3, Article 23 of the Baltimore City Code (see
Appendix A ). The Sanitation Division must collect all mixed refuse not to
exceed four twenty-gallon containers and all straight garbage in separate
containers not larger than ten-gallon capacity from each residential unit.
The Division is restricted by law from collecting mixed refuse from
commercial establishments, and it will not accept demolition materials of
any kind because they cannot be burned in the city-owned incinerators.
Proper containers for both mixed refuse and garbage are specified by City
Ordinance and have been in effect since 1948:
"Receptacles must be of metal or other durable
material not affected by weather conditions, with
handles and close-fitting covers. A capacity of not
less than three and not more than ten gallons is spec-
ified for garbage only, and not more than twenty
gallons for mixed refuse. "
City law restricts the use of heavy plastic containers as a result of
a ruling by the Health Commissioner that such material was unable to
prevent rats from gnawing through them. Baltimore has a pervasive rat
oroblem which has spread from tha harbor area to every section of the
-34-
-------
city during the past fifteen years. However, debate continues over the
.merits of the plastic container; and, at the present time, a law suit has
been filed by a city resident in an attempt to have the ban against plastic
< '. rrtariers lifted.
In 1971, approximately 65 percent of all mixed refuse collection was
made in alleys and 35 percent at curbsides0 There is some carry-out
.orvice performed in the Roland Park section of Baltimore. No special
services are offered by the Sanitation Division in its mixed refuse
collection function, and no direct user charges are assessed.
Frequency of Collection and Manpower /Equipment Allocations
Mixed refuse collection crews consist of a truck driver -oreman (who
also collects) and two or three collectors,, The equipment for this function
consists primarily of 13 and 20 cubic yard rear-loading packer trucks
supplemented by several front-end-loading packers. The front-end loading
packers, and some of the rear-loading packers equipped with overhead hoist-
ing units are used at housing pro;-, cts, markets, and public buildings where
bulk birs have been installed.
Because of the narrow-alleys and secondary streets in Baltimore,
several of the loadpackers have been custom-built (ma.de narrower and,
in some cases, shorter) in order to access the backyards through alleys
in residential areas. The Sanitation Division first used the low-loading
rear packer trucks in 1948.
Baltimore has a slightly unusual mixed refuse collection procedure.
The Division operates (his collection function six days a week. On Mondays,
Tuesdays, and Wednesdays (the heaviest collection days), the truck driver
foreman is assisted by three laborers. On Thursdays, Fridays, and Satur-
days, on]y two laborers work with the truck driver.
i *
There are currently c/2 —' mixed refuse collection routes in Baltimore
(down from 105 routes two years ago. ) The Sanitation Division has divided
the city i.ito five operating districts - Northeast, West, East, Northwest,
-' C.;t '.-".ok to <;0 cr-v-T, i onrly 1973.
-35-
-------
and Central. Within districts there are boroughs, and approximately 9
collection crews are assigned to each borough receiving service. The
equipment and manpower allocations for 1971 are shown in Table 3.
Because collection must be made on scheduled days and trucks must
have full crews, it is frequently necessary for the Sanitation Division to
transfer employees from other collectio'h functions (usually beat patrol
or g.Mig cleaning) in order to replace mixed refuse personnel who are sick,
absent, or temporarily disabled. As a result, the Division has had difficulty
in adhering to its planned schedules for other collection/cleaning functions.
Schedules
Mixed refuse is collected twice weekly, except on legal holidays,
according to the following schedule:
1. Monday and Thursday
2. Tuesday and Friday
3. Wednesday and Saturday
No collections are made on the following 10 holidays:
• New Year's Day
• Lincoln's Brithday •
• Washington's Brithday
• Good Friday
• Memorial Day
• Independence Day
• Labor Day
• Colurrbus Day
• Thanksgiving Day
• Christmas Day
-36-
-------
cq
.2
2 * c »
fi O
-------
Although the "official" workday is eight hours, from 7:00 to 3:30 with
one-half hour for lunch, the mixed refuse collection crews operate on a
task incentive system. Division management believe this incentive is a
necessary policy, given the wage scales and the cost of living. Consequently,
many crews begin their workday at 5:00 a.m. and finish before 1:00 p.m.
For some, the early start enables them to hold a second job. According to
management, moonlighting is prevalent among laborers. The impact of
this policy on absenteeism, turnover, and injuries is not clear.
Community Characteristics
Baltimore is a city of row houses. These single-family, attached
residential units (called by the recently popularized euphemism "townhouses")
represent 49 percent of all year-round housing units in the city according
to the 1970 Census of Housing (Table 4).
TABLE 4
BALTIMORE CITY CENSUS OF HOUSING, 1970
All year-round housing units 305, 109
Units in Structure:
1, detached 36, 959
1, attached (row house) 149, 973
2 37,436
3 and 4 26,366
5 or more 54, 199
Mobile home or trailer 1 76
The vacancy rate for Baltimore is relatively high at 9, 712 units or
3. 2, percent. The Sanitation Division claims that it collects from 100, 000
residential units per day; or, operating three different schedules, the
Division reports that its crews remove mixed refuse from a total of
300, 000 different housing units twice per week. It is obvious from the
above data that this figure may be high. Taking into consideration vacancy
-38-
-------
and apartment dwelling units not served by the Division, a more reasonable
estimate would be about 230,000 units or 77,000 "stops" per day. All
efficiency and productivity calculations are based on the reported figure of
300,000 units; however, it is necessary to point out that 300,000 is probably
an upper limit.
According to management, the biggest single problem facing the
Sanitation Division within the City is the overall "carelessness of the people. "
In recent years there has been a marked trend toward less mixed refuse
being placed in containers and more in streets and alleys<> Management
estimates that approximately 30 percent of the population (mostly in the
inner-city) dc not use containers. Consequently, the Sanitc '.ion Division has
been forced to increase its street cleaning budget in order to operate more
open trucks for the collection of street and alley -wastes. This phenomenon
is reflected in the fact that although residential solid waste generation in
Baltimore is increasing, the mixed refuse collection budget has been cut
significantly in recent years.
Recent Developments
Although no major changes in this function are planned, the Sanitation
Division is seriously considering the construction of a transfer station in
the Northwest district in order to reduce the time and cut the inefficiency
resulting from thu, Z to 4 trips that loadpacker trucks make to the #4
incinerator and the far-eastern part of the city.
5.1,2; Gang Clearing
Gang cleaning comprises the largest portion of the Sanitation Division's
street cleaning effort. As mentioned in Section 1.1, gang cleaning is be-
coming an ever more important function as the percentage of solid waste
found in streets, alleys, and open lots continues to grow. More dollars are
now committed to gang cleaning than to mixed refuse collection in Baltimore.,
-------
The Sanitation Division is responsible for cleaning over 2000 miles of
streets and 500 miles of alleys in the City. This task is performed by two
collection functions -- beat patrol (staffed primarily by push cart operators)
and gang cleaning. Gang cleaning crews (consisting of a labor gang leader,
a truck driver, and two or three laborers) travel scheduled routes and are
responsible for the removal of all wastes found in vacant lots, alleys,
and on right-of-ways. The mechanical sweepers are also assigned to
the gang cleaning operation and have specific routes to service.
In addition to the sweepers, mechanical-flushing and leaf-loading
operations come under the jurisdiction of the gang cleaning function. The
mechanical-flushing operation primarily serves the six markets operated
by the City as well as the streets in the central business district and other
primary streets. Leaf-loading begins soon after Labor Day and continues
rrt.il all leaves are collected, usually by Thanksgiving.
As mentioned before, gang cleaning personnel are sometimes called
upon to serve as mixed refuse collectors. Because of the random nature
of this employee transfer between the gang cleaning and mixed refuse
collection functions, the Sanitation Division has frequently been unable to
maintain its schedule in the street cleaning operation. This problem has
become even more acute as both absenteeism and the demands for street
cleaning have increased,
One additional complicating factor is that during snow storms, gang
cleaning crews are called upon not only to "double" as mixed refuse collectors
but also to serve as snow removal teams. Of course, with snow on the ground,
rlreet cleaning is impossible. Therefore, it is logical to use these men to
remove the snow first,,
As in mixed refuse collection, no special services are offered by the
gang cleaning crews.
Frequency of Collection and Manpower /Equipment Allocations
Gang cleaning crews consist of 4 or 5 men and collept wastes from the
city's streets which are placed in large open dump trucks, either 5 or 8
-40-
-------
cubic yard capacity. The equipment available to the crews are shovels,
push brooms, plastic garbage bags, and related items. The working crews
operate daily except Sundays. In residential areas, gang crews operate
five days a week, Monday through Friday. Residential streets are
•theoretically" patrolled twice weekly and alleys at least once weekly;
but this level of service very frequently is not achieved.
Residenti; 1 areas farther away from the central business area (known
as the "residential annex") are supposed to have their street and alley wastes
collected by the gang cleaning crews twice a month. Because these areas
are relatively cleaner than the inner-city, they have the lowest priority.
Consequently, when there are budget cuts or personnel transfers to mixed
refuse collection, the first gang cleaning crews pulled are those assigned
to the annex areas. Interestingly, this practice meets with little citizen
complaint. Pride motivates these residents to personally see to the cleaning
of their streets and alleys. As a matter of fact, there is a section of eastern
Baltimore (Highlandtown) where the residents will not allow gang cleaning
crews or beat patrols to operate because their service does not meet the
residents' standards for street and alley cleanliness.
Another section of the City (the Roland Park area) is not served by
the Sanitation Division. This upper-income neighborhood is served by a
private firm, the Roland Park Company, which is under contract to the ^ ity
to perform street cleaning operations.
Table 3 details the manpower/equipment allocations made by the
Sanitation Division for the gang cleaning function.
Community Characteristics
Several factors complicate street cleaning operations in Baltimore.
First, the City is old and streets are relatively narrow. Second, the
metropolitan area is highly industrialized and soot presents a significant
street cleaning problem. (Bethlehem Steel has a major sheet metal and
shipbuilding facility just outside the City limits at Sparrows Point. ) Third,
-41-
-------
the high percentage of row houses results in high density on-street parking.
And finally, Baltimore has undertaken a major urban renewal effort; and,
consequently, streets {particularly in the inner-city and central business
district) are constantly being repaired. Otherwise, the terrain and climate
present no unusual problems to gang cleaning crews.
5.1 . 3: Beat Patrols
The balance of the Sanitation Division!s street cleaning effort is the
beat patrol. Staffrd primarily by Hokey (push) cart operators, the beat
pai.rol deposits street and alley wastes at specified collection points where
it is picked up by truck crews assigned to this duty.
Descripti<'n of Duties and Level of Service
In the central business area, the beat patrol operation is handled by
tru Hokcy cart operators who follow established routes continuously through-
out the day, 5 days a week. In the residential areas, Hokey cart operators
ir, responsible for sweeping alleys and gutters and are assisted by truck
crews. Not all residential areas receive beat patrol service, particularly
•.he residential annex areas. Those residential areas which do have beat
patrols are supposed to be visited by the Hokeys and truck crews on the
same schedule as the gang cleaning operation. The beat patrol offers no
special services to city residents or business establishments and makes
no special user charges.
Frequency of Collection and Manpower/Equipment Allocations
Collection of street litter arid other wastes by Hokey cart operators
is continuous; in many cases, a route is traversed many times a day in
tii«=! downtown areas. While residential areas are patrolled less frequently,
the service is more dependable than that offered by the gang cleaning crews
since t/te beat patrol is not called upon as often to substitute for mixed
refuse collectors.
The equipment used by the Hokeys consists of a cart which is nothing
more than a large trash can on wheels, a shovel, a push broom, a dustpan,
and a "paper picker" (a stick with a nail at one end). The beat patrol crews
-42-
-------
working with the Ilokey cart operators consist of a laborer-chauffeur fore-
man u.nd two laborers. Hokeys remove litter from the sidewalks and cvirbs
and place collected wastes in their carts which are lined with plastic bags.
Once filled, these bags are left by hokeys at street corners and are collected
by the beat patrol crews as they canvas their assigned area of the city in
the dump truck , Their equipment includes a large open dump truck
(5 or 8 cubic yards), shovels, brooms, and plastic trash bags. Detailed
manpower/equipment allocations are shown in Table 3.
The trucks also serve to transport Hokeys and their carts from district
headquarters to the areas which they patrol. There are approximately 15
pushcarts to each dump truck.
5.1.4: Bulky Articles
Bulky article collection is the only service performed on request only
and provides for the removal of all residential wastes too large to be handled
by mixed refuse crews.
Description of Duties and Level of Service
Apparently, no limitation is placed on the size or weight of items
collected. The Sanitation Division is required to remove all bulky items
upon request up to a limit of three items per household per call. This
restriction is seldom enforced because if articles are put out by the res^-
dents, the crews will generally collect all of them.
Bulky items are taken to one of the landfill sites operated by the
city for disposal. No special charge is made for th.s service.
Frequency of Collection and Manpower /Equipment Allocations
Bulky article collection routes are scheduled so that the crews are
available to remove items from each residential unit requesting service
twice a month. The crews work an eight-hour day, Monday through Friday.
The manpower/equipment allocations are quite simple, consisting of one
driver and two assistants on each liftgate truck. Table 3 summarizes
the information obtained from the Sanitation Division.
-43-
-------
5.1.5: Ash Collection
Ash collection is very similar to the combined waste collection oper-
ation except, of course, that the wastes removed by the ash collection
crews are the non-combustible residues from the furnaces in apartments,
tenements, and private dwellings.
Description of Duties and Level of Service
City ordinance requires that the Sanitation Division collect up to
c-ixteon ten-gallon containers from each housing unit per week. No more
rnat, eight ten-gallon containers will be collected on any pick-up unless the
Immediately preceding scheduled collection day was a holiday, in which
case sixteen containers will be taken. By law, the containers must be made
_i riela] or other durable metals arid have close-fitting covers and handles.
In addition, ash containers must be at least three but no more than ten
gallons in capacity. Here too, no special service is offered by the Division.
j-equency of Collection and Manpower/Equipment Allocations
During the "winter" months (mid-October to mid-April), collections
are made twice a week on schedules similar to those worked by mixed
refuse crews. During the remainder of the year, collections are made
once a week. Although similar to combined waste collection, ash collection
is more labor-i tensive. This is due in part to the relatively small size
of the collection receptacles and the increased number of receptacles which
must be collected. Once again, the reader is referred to Table 3 for
details on the number of men and equipment assigned to this function.
-. .J.6: Market Collection
The city operates six: markets, and there is one which is privately
owned - fhe Lexington market. Mixed refuse collection of all seven markets
and the sweeping and washing of the city-owned markets is the responsibility
of the Sanitation Division.
Description of Duties and Level of Service
All city-owned markets are washed on market days, Saturday nights,
and tiie evening before a holiday when weather permits. All city-owned
..44-
-------
markets arc cleaned daily except Monday. One exception is the Fish Market,
which is cleaned every day. Mixed refuse collection is facilitated through
the use of dumpsters at all markets and collection is made daily.
Manpower / Equipment Allocations
Market i efuse collection represents the smallest function operated
by the Sanitation Division. Two loadpacker trucks and crews are used to
Collect garbage wastes from individual booth operators. All other mixed
refuse is collected by the division's two front-end loaders. Table 3
details this function's manpower and equipment level.
5,1.7: Other Collection Functions
In addition to the above, the Sanitation Division is responsible for
several oilier collection operations. Of these, two most important are
the collection of str-»y dogs and dead animals, and the removal of waste oils
and greases.
Animals
Almost 20, 000 stray dogs and 30, 000 dead animals are collected by
the Division each year from the streets of Baltimore. Stray, 10-day-bite,
unwanted, sick and injured dogs are kept at the Municipal Animal Shelter.
Collection of both live and dead animals are made with five specially designed
vehicles and two-man crews. In addition, there is an emergency truck w'th
one driver/collector that operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Waste Oils and Greases
The Sanitation Dix'ision does not collect the wa^te oils and greases
from filling stations andother commercial establishments in Baltimore;
however, the Division is responsible for the supervision of the removal
of these liquid wastes. Up to the present time, the Division has been able
to obtain the services of a private contractor for collection. The Chief of
the Sanitation Division expressed some concern during the interview that he
might not be able to obtain this service in the future. Last year, there
was only one bid submitted for this operation.
-45-
-------
5.2: Solid Wnste System Productivity and Quality of Service
Most of the data presented in this section appear in the published
reports of the Sanitation Division on the Department of Public Works.
Unfortunately, the Sanitation Division is currently in the process of
preparing its 1972 Annual Report; and, consequently, the most recent
collection data for 1971-1972 was not made available to our investigating
te.im cince the data were still being tabulated.
5.Z.1: Productivity of Collection
For clarity and comparative purposes, productivity and efficiency
data for the collection functions performed by Baltimore's Sanitation
Division are piesented in Table 5.
Mnxed Refuse Collection
Several items stand out in the data for Baltimore's mixed refuse
collection function. First of all, the annual per capita cost ($5.00) and the
jimual cost per residential unit ($15. 25) are relatively low for an old,
large, industrial city, even though per capita solid waste generation in
Baltimore is about average ett 2. 4 pounds per day. The cost per ton
collected is also very low at $11. 36.
Baltimore's Sanitation Division has achieved remarkably high productivity
from its collection crews: The average crew is reported to make 1100 stops
per day, and the daily collection rate is approximately 4. 2 tons per man or
14,, 4 tons per truck.
Management estimates that mixed refuse from residential units in
Baltimore consists of approximately 90 percent trash and 10 percent garbage.
l>;e total amount of mixed refuse collected in FY 1970-1971 from residential
units was just over 400,000 tons or 888 pounds per citizen per year. A
yearly tola] of 400,000 tons of mixed refuse is equivalent to just under 35
pounds per stop, on the average (Table 6). Collections during the months of
June, July, August, and December are the heaviest, approximately 10 peroent
above the monthly average ceilculated from the total annuaj. tonnage collected.
- 46-
-------
r
H
H
P
- 47 -
-------
TABLE 6
AVERAGE MIXED REFUSE COLLECTION PER STOP
Annual residential mixed refuse collection 400,000 tons
Number of occupied residential units 300,000 units
served by the Sanitation Division
Number of collection days p«r year per residential unit 101 days
A /erage Mixed Refuse per Slop 26, 5 Ibs
Although the Sanitation Division reported an average of 12 tons of
mixed refuse per truck per day, the data suggest that the amount is closer
tc. 14 tons (Table 7).
TABLE 7
AVERAGE DAILY MIXED REFUSE COLLECTION PER TRUCK
Daily Residential Mixed Refuse Collection 1,320 tons
Number of routes 92 —
Number of trucks per route 1
Average collection per truck per day 14.4 tons
Collecting an average of 14 tons (about 55-65 cubic yards) per day
necessitates each truck making 2, 3, and in some cases 4 trips to the in-
cinerator. While the truck makes the round trip to the incinerator (which
usually takes one-half hour to 45 minutes), the laborers use the time to
eat lunch or to move containeis from backyards into the alleys in advance
of the truck. This set-out procedure significantly increases the speed of
collection, which is a benefit to both residents and collection crews.
Although management claims to employ routing procedures "developed1
through years of experience, " questioning revealed that, in reality, very
little is done except to monitor the "return" times of the crews in the
afternoon. This approach may act as a negative incentive, for if a crew.
to 90 crews in early 1973
-48-
-------
is efficient and comph I.es the collection route early (say at 1:15 p.m.) then
management might reassign it to a longer, more difficult route. However,
this problem has never developed to the. best of management's knowledge.
Although ro data is reported, an estimate of the average route
length can be made given the information on miles of streets and alleys and
percentages of curb and alley pick-up (Table 8).
TA BLE 8
STREET-ALLEY DATA FOR BALTIMORE
Number of miles of streets
Number of miles of alleys
Percentage alley collection
Percentage curbside collection
2,000
500
65
35
Assumptions: (1) Each alley mile corresponds to two street miles
(2) 90% of the a)leys can accommodate the collection
trucks
( 3) 20% of city streets do riot border residential units
Number of alley miles served (. 9 x 500)
Number of street miles corresponding to the
served alleys (2 x 450)
Remaining street miles (2000-900)
Mileage of these streets with residential units
(. 8 x 1100)
= 450 miles
= 900 miles
= 1100 miles
Total miles collected (450 + 880)
Number of collection schedules =
Miles per collection schedule (1330 -^ 3) =
Number of collection crews =
Average distance per collection crew (445 -=- 92) =
= 880 miles
- 1330 miles
= 3
= 445 miles
92
4. 8 miles
The Baltimore mixed refuse collection system is, of course, labor
intensive with all of the inherent inefficiencies resulting from sickness,
absenteeism, disability (genuine and otherwise) and turnover,, In 1971,
-49-
-------
the cost of the mixed refuse collection function was about 4-1/2 million
dollars, for which just over 73 percent was labor costs.
Gang Cleaning and Beat Patrol
The street cleaning operation (the gang cleaning and beat patrol
fxinctions) presents the greeite.st costs and, it seems, the greatest
inefficiencies in Baltimore's ->olid waste system. The per capita cost
($6. 57) and the annual cost pt r residential unit ($20. 03) are 31 percent
higher than mixed refuse costs,, This is due primarily to the manpower
requirements (742) which are almost 80 percent greater than mixed refuse
(414), Man and truck productivities are also lower than those achieved by
R.ixed refuse crews.
On the average, gang cleaning crews remove approximately 23,000
u .-" ic ya,rds of litter and other materials from the streets and alleys of the
cit\ each month; and there is very little seasonal variation. The absence
ot any significant variation is surprising and is probably due to either
inaccurate measuring/reporting techniques by the Sanitation Division or
a relative constant litter ::ate in a city of the size of Baltimore.
This monthly estimate of gang cleaning operations is equivalent to
13. 7 cubic yards per day per truck and 2. 2 cubic yards (approximately
450 pounds) per laborer per day. The volume of street wastes necessitates
the average crew making 2 or 3 trips to the disposal site per day.
In 1970, just over 19:, 000 cubic yards of leaves were collected by the
Division, vising 24 vacuum-type leafloader trucks. Over a three-month
period, this is equivalent to slightly more than 11 cubic yards of leaves
per leafloader per day.
Gang cleaning, unlike mechanical street sweeping, mechanical flush-
ing, and leaf-loading where costs are split about evenly between equipment
and labor, is very labor-intensive with more than 82 percent of the operating
costs tied to labor.
-50-
-------
The Sanitation Division reported that Hokoy cart operators
sweep eight to twelve cans of litter each day depending on the area. It is
also reported that the street cleaning operation (gang cleaning and beat
patrol) collects aJLnost 340, 000 cubic yards of waste. Using the known truck
distribution between the gan« cleaning and beat patrol operations, a calcu-
lation indicates Lhc.t ^i, average Ilokey cart operator picks up about 1 cubic
yard of waste per day. This value agrees well with the total number of cans
swept up.
The beat patrol, is as might be expected, the most labor-intensive
collection function. Almost 85 percent of its operating costs are direct
i?J>or expenses.
Bulky Articles, Ash, and Markets
Very little may be said concerning the remaining three functions
{bulky articles, ash, and markets) except to point out that these operations
represent only a small portion of the Sanitation Division's annual budget
($795, 000 or 7 percent) and manpower requirements (86 or 6. 9 percent).
Bulky trash collection crews picked up almost 64, 000 cubic yards of
waste material in FY 1970-1971 which necessitated, on the average, almost
four trips per day to the disposal sites by the collection trucks.
Over 26, 000 cubic yards of ashes \vere collected by the Sanitation
Division during FY 1970-1971. Of course, ash volumes exhibit seasonal
fluctuations, reaching 1100 cubic yards per week in December-January and
about 175 cubic yards per week in mid-summer. Winter peaks necessitates
four to six trips per day to the disposal site by the. collection crews. During
the summer, only one disposal trip is required.
i>.Z,2; Quality of Service
In addition to the relatively high level of service offered to the
citizens in Baltimore, the quality of service appears to be excellent.
Table 9 presents annual "requests for services" data for the last four
years. Only the columns entitled Missed Collections, Difly Streets, and
-51-
-------
Dirty A] Leys can be taken as complaints because the remaining columns
are really requests for additional servic c.
In view of the street and alley cleaning activities in the city, it is
no surprise that complaints about these functions are few and relatively
constant over time, Missed collection complaints have been on the
rise, but the number oi calls received in 1971-1972 ( 13,000) represent
only ,042 percent of the total number of services performed that year.
This is exceptionally lo\\,
TABLE 9
HISTORY OF ''REQUESTS FOR SERVICES"
Y£-'\x
iV71 72
'.970- 71
l'-»&9-70
1968-69
TOiAL ., j.
OF REQUESTS
137, 464
US, 369
104, 569
.87, 371
JvUi-SKD
COLLECTIONS
12, 976
11,103
7, 05b
iiULiv
REFUSE
~
88, 297
74,003
61.343
DIRTY
STREETS
4,449
5. 029
5., 377
5,431
DIRTY
ALLEYS
6,097
5, 744
6,283
6, 713
ASHES, BRUSH
ETC.
<
19,831
20, 210
16,374:
65, 777
ANIMALS
5, 794
12,275
8,156
9,450
* INCLUDES MIXED REFUSE, BULK, AND MISSED COLLECTIONS
5.3; Turnover and Absenteeism
The City of Baltimore does not keep any tabular data regarding Turn-
over and Absenteeism.— The city does regard these problems as significant;
but apparently it has been decided that under the current constraints, any
corrective measures would be too difficult to implement.
During the course of the interviews, it was stated that Turnover is
now employee-initiated in most cases. There is a policy of attrition that
is being practiced to reduce unnecessary staff. For the month of September,
the following employment figures for skilled and unskilled workers were
provided:
I/
The solid waste s/slem management initiated a data keeping effort for
absenteeism shortly after the city was visited. Records now extend
back to and include September Ity'tt.
-be.',-
-------
«• Employment at beginning of month: 1174
• Employment at end of month : 1152
• Number of terminations : 26
• Number of entries : 4
If September is assumed to be a normal month, then Turnover is quite
low at about 27 percent. Unfortunately, there is no other data to compare
with this value.
Absenteeism was also stated as severe in the sanitation work force.
Recent data indicates that s.n average of 12. 5 percent of the scheduled work
force is either absent without leave or sick on any given workday. The fraction
of this value which is attributed to sickness is normally significantly smaller
than that for uncxcused absences. The absenteeism rate is particularly
acute on Saturdays and Mondays which is an observation not unique to solid
waste management systems. The Director of the Sanitation Division would
like to find a solution to this problem inasmuch as it is costly to the city.
5 . 4: Inner City
The Baltimore inner city area does not receive special treatment from
the Division of Sanitation directly. This area is, however, provided with
increased sanitation services through the local Model Cities Program.
This program, financed through the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, has greatly increased the solid waste collection activities
in this area, A full discussion cf the program, its cost, and routing
structure is presented in Appendix B. Highlights of the major aspects
of the program are presented below.
The sanitation program was designed to serve three interrelated
problems within the Model Cities community. First, the program was
intended to increase the sanitation services available to the area. This
was accomplished by providing the following aid to the community:
A. Handswceping and cleaning three times per week of all street
gutters, sidewalks, and all public and private alleys;
B. Collection once per week on a regularly scheduled day of al!
bulky items of trash set out for removal without need for '
special request to the Snnitation Division (usually made by
phone calls);
-53-
-------
C. Cleaning as needed of all vacant lots, many of which are
City owned;
D. Mechanical flushing once per week of all streets;
E. Emptying four times per week of all corner trash receptacles
(i. e. , wire baskets).
The Model Citres Program operates 31 pieces of equipment to com-
plete these duties. This includes thirteen large open dump trucks, two
flushers, four lift gate trucks, five cars, and two sweepers. This equipment
was purchased independent of the Division of Sanitation but is maintained
by the Motor Vehicle and Mechanical Shops. The Model Cities Program pay
*hc shops for this service similar to the arrangement with the Division of
Sanitation. It is interesting to note that, unlike the Division of Sanitation
which depreciates its equipment and establishes a sinking fund for purchasing
new equipment, the Model Cities Program does neither. The reason for
dvls is that the Model Cities Program has a limited life of only five years.
Thus, the equipment will be used and, as the program currently stands, not
replaced.
The second problem was the large amount of unemployment which
existed in the Model Cities area. When the program was initiated in 1970,
the unemployment rate in this area was 13 percent. To combat this problem,
the sanitation program required that all workers be. residents within the
Model Cities community. If sufficient manpower or adequately trained
personnel could not be obtained within the area, then the program would
allow workers from other areas to be employed. This segment of the
program has been very successful as 200 men are now currently employed.
This figure is even more striking when the socio-economic characteristics
of these workers are examined. The median educational level of a worker
is only the ninth grade, with only about 20 percent of the employees
completing high school. Previous to their employment in the program, the
median length of unemployment for these workers was one year. The
significance 01 this figure increases greatly when one considers that 80
percent of the employees have one or more dependents to support.
-54-
-------
While the program lias been measurably effective by cleaning up the
area and increasing employment, it has had limited success to date in
tackling the third problem of educating many of the model neighborhood
residents to the importance of proper sanitation techniques. The program
i.iaj attempted to educate the residents, but the citizens have generally been
unresponsive. This problem is especially of concern, because the cleaning
~nd employment programs can achieve only limited success •without an
enlightened and educated group of residents. When the model cities project
is over, the first two programs are over and it is the third program that will
continue in effect.
One way in which the program could possibly improve the appearance
of the area would be by giving, or selling at cost, waste containers to the
residents. As was pointed out earlier, a basic problem within the city
is the lack of waste containers for the storage of mixed refuse. This
program would cut down on vagrant refuse and perhaps help eliminate the
rodent problem in the area. While Model Cities officials have contemplated
action of this type, they have been extremely slow in implementation.
-55-
-------
5.5: Disposal Methods - Present and Planned
As discussed briefly in other sections, the disposal of Baltimore's
solid waste has been and is now a significant problem. This problem
results from the dwindling areas available for sanitary landfill, the impact
of water and air quality laws, and the inability of the city to procure
suitable landfill sites beyond the corporate boundaries.
There are no\v five sites being used for municipal solid waste
disposal. Two are incinerators, each designed for 700 tons per day and the
reclaming are landfill sites \\i;h rapidly approaching lifetime limits.
Although the aggregate incinerator capacity is 1400 tons per day, the
older incinerator has been on line for forty years and is being operated
at half its rated design. The heat content of the waste has risen
significantly since it was built. The other incinerator, which is 16 years
old- is being run at its design limit.
Air quality legislation has forced the city to schedule the refitting
of Lhe newer machine with gas cleaning equipment to meet the standards
in 1975. The older installation will be shut down in the same year
because of its design limitations and the high cost of modifying it to
meet projected pollution laws.
To sati: f y the current and forecast disposal demands of the city,
the Department of Public Works submitted a 10 year plan to the Mayor's
office in April of 1972. This document proposed a sequential order
of events to be followed to assure disposal capabilities while complying
with environmental legislation. Figure 6 is a Gantt chart presenting
the proposed schedule.
There are two principal factors in this timeline. The first is the
r-'duction in disposal demand at the newer of the two incinerators to
allow for the installation of $8,000,000 of gas cleaning equipment. — Landfill
sites are planned to absorb the difference. This will continue to May of
1974 when the repair and refit operation is scheduled to be completed. The
— At the lime that the case study was performed the cost to upgrade the newer
incinerator was $t>, 000, 000. Now, however, two new furnaces and additional
electrostatic prccipitatoi s have added $2,000,000 to Hie original estimate.
- 56-
-------
r-J
CO
o
r— 4
OO
1 — 1
o
oo
i — 1
OO
r— 1
r— I
r-
r— i
o
i — i
s
r— i
0s
i — i
(M
r-
r— <
/
/
/
fn /
rt /
S^ /CD
/ "^
/ r^
/
/ ' — '
/ D
OOe
OOe
'
009
009
001 OOS
^
. — i
mj •— < i-
'S Vn iJ
nj T) T
t_J ^
lu
uo i— 1 •-
SLl
SLl
SZ5
$Z$
0 3 K
0 ~J T^
M t* 'fr
ost
OSf'
006
006
006
OOA
I
001
ose
ose
ooz
ooz
OSS
OSI
OSI
OSI
OOOTpST
000,
0001
OOOT
ooe
ooe
OSS
OSi
ooz.
^
trt O ["{ "-* 1^ ••-'
H ™ •*-> jrj Jtj C rg
^ IU 2 T3 fl r^! S
3 -S ^ S ^ frt 'i
T? ° -S J *3 *
T ^ " U * C3 '^ "*~*
J " C « 0 « w
| 1 1 1 1 fill
o r
U cr; P
rs n ^ di ,§ b-t
q K PH ^;
•
Q
ft
fl
•r-<
-t->
•tH
CO
0)
"o
.1-1
r-H
>^
i — (
•r-l
4->
O
f >
(1)
-------
second is the plan to build a major volume reduction center to come on
the line in June of 1975. The form of this method has recently been
determined to be a pyrolysis technique which was designed by Monsanto
Enviro-Chem Systems, Inc. and is funded by EPA, Maryland, and Baltimore
contributions. In addition to offering a disposal site, a byproduct of the
process will be the generation of heating steam to be sold to the Baltimore
Gas and Electric Company.
The major disposal method projected to be employed at the
termination of the 10 year plan is incineration. The probability of
occurrance of this event cannot be determined because of the possibility
of the implemention of a regional disposal plan. An analysis is being
performed by a private consulting firm to explore a variety of approaches,
but it is thought that a rail haul operation would be the most feasible long
term solution to disposal problems.
Rail "hnul proposals have not met with much success because of the
constraints imposed by local governments regarding the transportation
of solid waste across jurisdictional boundaries. For this reason alone,
Baltimore officials have regarded rail haul as desirable but improbable.
Since the City cannot wait for its neighbors to cooperate, it has chosen
to dispose within the city limits. Money has been appropriated, plans
for incinerator modifications have been approved, and the pyrolysis
disposal unit is now a fiscal reality. The implementation of a rail haul
system would force the city to consider the termination of operations
at the upgraded incinerator site, which after an expenditure of millions
of dollars, would seem to be an improbable choice.
If this choice were to be forced, the answer would hinge on the
operating costs of each method and the guarantee for long term use.
It has been noted that the current disposal costs to the city are not
excessive for incineration and it is clear that rail haul would have to be
very competitive. Since there are no figures available for comparison,
any concltisions reached at this time would be premature. Similarly, the
contractual guarantees for extended disposal arrangements have not been
reached.
-------
The most recent operational data from the Division of Sanitation was
published for the fiscal year 1970-1971. Table 10 presents the quantity
of wastes and their respective disposal costs as a. function of source. The
incineration costs are reasonable at about $5. 00 per ton, but cannot be
exactly compared with the cost of landfill operations because wastes going
to those sites are measured in cubic yards and tons and does not include
incinerator residue. However, these figures can be compared with tonnage
values presented in the Solid Waste Master Plan submitted to Mayor Schaefer
on April 13, 1972. In this document, it was reported that the two incinerators
disposed of an average of 1150 tons per day with an additional 1125 tons per
day being landfilled c~t three sites. The latter figure includes an estimated
450 tons per day of wet incinerator residue.
Subtracting the incinerator residue from the total daily landfill tonnage
yields an average of 700 tons per day of waste being landfilled,, This value
compares reasonably well with the total annual landfill volume (945, 513 cu.
yards) when computed on a daily basis (3151. 7 cu. yards) — and converted
to tons (630. 3) assuming 400 pounds equals one cubic yard.
On this basis, the unit cost was $. 23 per yard, which in terms of tonnage
is $1, 15 per ton. This is relatively inexpensive as landfill operations go and
does not include the wet incinerator ash disposal. Including this additional
landfill load, the unit cost drops to $. 66 per ton which is a remarkable figure.
The disposal operations currently employ one general superintendent,
two superintendents, two supervisors, two weighmasters, six crane loaders,
seventy-two skilled furnace operators, and eighty-four laborers. For the
latter two categories, 68 are assigned to the older incinerator whereas the
remaining 88 are assigned to the more modern facility. The landfill site
manpower requirements are staffed from the incinerator sites and are
not formally kept separate as a cost factor. This fact contributes significantly
to the very low landfill disposal costs inasmuch as personnel costs for such
operations are approx;mately half of the total costs.
— Assume a 300 day year.
-59-
-------
TABLE 10
REFUSE DISPOSAL DATA - QUANTITIES AND COSTS
DISPOSAL
LOCATION
#3 Incinerator
#4 Incinerator
Landfill
MATERIALS
RECEIVED
Mixed Refuse (Tons)
City
Private
Market Refuse
Street Dirt
Total
Mixed Refuse (Tons)
City
Private
Market Refuse
Street Dirt
Total
Mixed Refuse
(Cu Yds) LI
Street Dirt (Cu Yds)
Ashes (Cu Yds)
Bulky (Cu Yds)
Leaves (Cu Yds)
Mechanical Sweepers
(Cu Yds)
Total (Cu Yds)
QUANTITY
114,344
11,540
6,240
1,642
133,766
194,626
11,242
2,301
-
208,169
466,645
336,497
26,329
63,978
19,241
32,823
945,513
COST
670,636
1,056,147
213,584
UNIT COST
5.01
5.07
.23
II
The city reported a collection of 93, 329 Tons. This has been converted
assuming that one yard equals approximately 400 pounds.
-60-
-------
5.6; Equipment Dcscri pLion
The mixed refuse collection division of the Division of Sanitation in
Baltimore currently utilizes 162 rear load packers and 2 front loaders.
Only 92 pieces of this equipment are operated for mix< 1 residential
collection on any single collection day with the remaining vehicles being
used for street cleaning activities, held in reserve for replacement of
damaged equipment, and in the shop for routine maintenance. In addition,
a small proportion of this force is carried in the books but in reality is
set aside waiting to be auctioned. Two Dempster Dumpsters are operated
by the Sanitation Division in the neighborhood market areas. A limited
number of open dump trucks are also employed in the market area and for
other minor operations„
The streets division also employs a relatively large amount of equip-
ment. The Sanitation Division has 103 open dump trucks available for service
with four trucks being used for disposal activities, another small number
being utilized by the mixed refuse division, and the remaining dump trucks
are used by the street division for gang cleaning and Hokey Cart wastes.
For the remaining street cleaning activities, the division operates twenty-
five street sweepers and nine flushers. Twenty-four leaf loaders clean
the streets of leaves and twigs in the Spring and Fall.
The disposal iunction of the division utilizes fifteen pieces of mobil
equipment. At the landfill sites six heavy pieces of equipment are operated
for excavation purposes. There are also five landfill compactors employed
at these sites. The incinerator residue is hauled to the landfills in four
large dump trucks.
In addition to the collection and disposal fleet, the Sanitation
Division also uses a variety of other vehicles, which include: thirty-six
automobiles, three pick-ups, one panel truck and three vans. These
vehicles arc used by management personnel and the supervisors who
patrol the collection districts of the city. The Animal Shelter, which is
operated by the Division, uses six paneled dog trucks in'their activities.
'-61-
-------
5.6.1: Equipment Fif-ncing and Cost
As discussed in the financial section, the Sanitation Division rents
their vehicles from the Motor V.-hiclc and Mechanical Shops. The actual
cost breakdown on various pieces of equipment is shown in Table 11. As
can be seen, the actual cost has a wide variance with respect to the average
cost for all pieces of equipment and is considerably less than the $5. 50
per truck-hour charge for all equipment.
TABLE 11
LIFETIME OPERATING COSTS FOR VARIOUS PIECES
OF EQUIPMENT
Refuse Collection
.Load Packers & Chassis
Dempster Durnpste.r
Average
Refuse Disposal
Landfill Excavation Equipment
Compaction Equipment
Large Open Dump Truck
Average
Street
Lcirge Open JJump Trucks
Leaf Loader
Street Sweeper
Flusher
Average
Other Vehicles
Autos
Pick-ups
Panel Truck
Vans
Paneled Dog Trucks
Average
Total All Pieces
Number
162
2
164
6
5
4
15
..
99
24
25
9
157
36
3
1
3
6
49
386
Operating Cost
Per Hr. Per Item
$ 4.68)
5. 128
4.686
$ 8.747
7. 582
21.090
11.650
$ 2. 145
8.328
6. 739
11.005
4.330
$ . 101*
1.172*
1.012*
1.097'v
2.016*
.481
$ 4. 24
* In term;- of cost per miK
SOURCE: Central Garage Master Cost Listing, Report Date September 30, 1972
-02-
-------
Tht- basic reason for this cost difference is that the depreciation
schedule does not adequately reflect the cost of replacing old equipment.
Rather, a separate fund entitled Reserve for Life is established which is
a sinking fund for the replacement of depreciated equipment. The sources
of revenue for this fund are the allocated depreciation expense and the
excess revenue from the rental of the equipment. In reality a more
rigorously constructed depreciation schedule would produce the same
results.
Table 12 gives a further breakdown of the lifetime operating
expenses for two different types of load-packers, based upon the year in
which they were purchased. For the first three years of operation the
operating cost within each class appears relatively constant. For vehicles
older than three years, however, the cost increases fairly substantially
as the vehicles presumably nec»' major repairs. The cost differential
between the two types of load-packers basically reflects the difference
in the original purchase price and thus the depreciation expense.
TABLE 12
OPERATING COST-/ PER HOUR FOR TWO CLASSES OF
LOADPACKERS, 1967-71
Year
Purchased
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
Number
Vehicles
24
--
19
17
2
2 /
Cost 107-11 Loadpackers —
Per Hour Operated
5. 57
4. 92
4. 90
4.80
Number
Vehicles
2
20
4
14
13
Cost 108-11 Loadpackers
Per Hour Operated
4.01
4.37
3. 37
3.55
3.64
i'Total Cost =
2/
Gasoline, oil, materials, insurance, tires, accident,
outside repair, depreciation, labor, and service charge.
— 107-11 and 108-11 are two different makes of loadpackers.
Source: Central Garage Master Cost Listing - Report Date September 30, 1972
-------
Finally, data was provided on the average annual repair cost for
twenty load packers purchased in the Fiscal Year 1965-66. These figures
reflect 11.o cost of labor and parts to repair the vehicles and are presented
in Figure 7.
19'j5-66 1964-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70
Fiscal Year
Source: Chief, Division of Motor Vehicle and Mechanical Shops
FIGURE 7: AVERAGE ANNUAL REPAIR COSTS DETERMINED FROM
THE HISTORY OF TWENTY LOAD PACKERS PURCHASED
IN THE FISCAL YEAR 1965-66
-b 1-
-------
A comparison of the cost figures in Table 12 and Figure 7 would
not be a valid comparison. The tv o illustrations are for two different data
sets and represent substantially different time horizons. Table 12
represents the operating costs at one moment in time whereas Figure 7
represents the average costs over the lifetime of a vehicle.
5.6.?: Maintenance Policy
The daily operating maintenance of the vehicles is performed at
the garages where the vehicles are kept. Each truck is thoroughly washed
inside and out -when it returns to the garage at the end of the workday.
Gasoline and oil are also provided at these sites.
Once a month each vehicle is inspected at the central garage for
any major mechanical defects. At the same time a major lubrication is
performed on the hydraulic system and most moving parts. This once
a month check-up also constitutes the major vehicle safety program em-
ployed by the city. It is the opinion of the central garage chief that this
program is not sufficient to deter major mechanical failures. A more
complete daily servicing would be required to lowej the number of major
mechanical repairs. All vehicles that incur major breakdowns are towed
into the central garage or private repair shops.
5.6.3: Equipment Replacement Policies
The Sanitation Division works closely with the Motor Vehicle and
Mechanical Shop Division when replacing existing rolling stock or expand-
ing the fleet. The decision to replace existing vehicles is made by the
Chief of the Motor Vehicle and Mechanical Shops. No elaborate procedures
are used to reach this decision. A very simple economic rationale is
employed: when the cost of repair exceeds the depreciated value of the
vehicle, it is replaced. A five year economic life is considered normal
with discarded vehicles being sold at auctions. The Chief of the Sani-
tation Division is notified of the vehicles needing replacement and he writes
specifications for the new equipment. The specifications are delivered
to manufacturers who must respond with sealed bids.
-65-
-------
The decision to increase the size of the fleet is made by the Chief of the Sani
tation Division. The expenditure for additional equipment must be appropriated
through the operating budget as a separate expenditure, The same formal
bidding procedure is followed for this equipment.
5.7: Financial Aspects of the BaltimoreJSolid Waste^System
The municipal solid waste system of Baltimore has a very unusual
method of funding. There are two basic sources of funds: General
Funds and Motor Vehicle Revenues, each of which is assigned to a
particular function within the system. The General Fund finances mixed
refuse collection and all disposal activities and is generated prirnaily
through property taxes. Motor Vehicle Revenues, on the other hand,
are used exclusively for street related activities, primarily the beat
patrol and gang sweeping operations. The revenue of this fund is derived
from state collected taxes, fees, and licenses related to highway
activities.
The Division's budgetary process is, on the surface, not very complex.
Requests for upcoming budgetary needs are sent to all division heads at
approximately the beginning of October for the July 1 fiscal budget. These
requests are returned, processed by the Accounting Department, and
a preliminary budget is delivered to the Division Chief by the first of
the year. It is his responsibility to develop the final Division budget
before it is sent to the Director of Public Works who approves it before
submission to the Mayor and Board of Estimates. It is interesting to
note that while the Division Chief is responsible for developing both the
operating and capital budgets, it is the operating budget which receives
the largest amount of attention. The Division's rolling stock expenses,
both operating and replacement, are included in the operating budget,
therefore the capital budget is very minor in most years. Items included
in the capital budget are generally limited to new disposal sites or
disposal plants. After the budget is approved by the Director of the
Department of Public Works it is sent to the Board of Estimates for final
approval before submission to the City Council.
-66-
-------
In this section we identify each revenue source, presenting historical
information wherever possible, including information on capital budget
financing. Next, the level and types of expenditures made from each
fund for each collection and disposal activity are examined. Expenditures
are broken down in as much detail as was available and for presentation.
5.7.3: Sources of Revenue
As Table 13 illustrates, the mix of funds flowing into the Division
of Sanitation's Operating Budget over the past six or seven years has
changed considerably. Motor Vehicle Revenues now play a dominant
role in the financing and significantly supplement the City's General
Funds available to the Division. As a percentage of the total Motor
Vehicle Revenues allocated to the city, the Sanitation Division's share has
also increased considerably during this period. During the same period
there have been only two capital budgets. Both of these occurred in the
past two years (1971-72, 1972-73) and both were ior disposal efforts. A
discussion of the budget will be clearest, however, if eac : of the revenue
sources, General Funds, Me,tor Vehicle Revenues, Bonds, and Subsidies/
Grants are individually discussed.
General Fund
The property tax is the backbone of the General Fund for the
Division of Sanitation. As Table 14 illustrates, the proportion of revenue
generated by other sources and allocated to the Division has been very
small. These other revenues are basically charges to private companies
for incinerator use and income from the sale of animals by the animal
shelter.
-67-
-------
TABLE 13:
OPERATING BUDGETS BY FUNCTION AND SOURCE
OF FUNDS; 1967-73
Year
1972-73
1971-72
1970-71
1969-70
1968-69
1967-68
1966-67
General Fluids
Collection
Dollar
n
5,21 1 ,504
5,528,852
5,642,009
5,490,615
4,902,060
7,052,835
6,777,532
ft i>
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.5
2.3
2.5
Disposal
Dollar
2,274,659
2,323,383
1,874,234
1,967,836
1,567,781
1,548,556
1,333,088
%
.5
.6
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
Total General
Fund Budget
• ^ f «**•) "» / ri
tio ,t iZ, mo
406,304,604
386,643,000
359,961,151
325,474,956
304,094,727
266,687,619
Motor Vehicle Funds
Collection
Dollar
6,705,722
6,103,898
5,790,409
5,73b,855
4,085,909
610,000
292,000
MVF
16.9
18.0
16.5
16.3
13.8
2.7
2.5
Total Motor
Vehicle Fond
39,480,791
33,771,539
34,882,252
35,116,485
29,423,028
22,184,517
11,364,898
1. Anticipated Budget Deficit of $741.715 ,
2. As a percentage of the total General Fund available to the City
3. As a percentage of the total Motor Vehicle Funds available to the City
SOURCE: Baltimore Budget in Brief, Issues 1967-68 through 1972-73
TABLE 14:
OPERATING REVENUE (OTHER THAN PROPERTY TAX)
ALLOCATED TO SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL WITHIN THE GENERAL FUND; 1969-71
Year
1970-71
1969-70
1968-69
Other
Revenues
176,000
99, 000
51,000
Total General
Fund Collection
and Disposal
7, 710, 000
7, 283, 000
6, 936, 000
Other Revenues/
as % of Total Frorr
the General Fund
2.3%
1 .4%
. 7%
The tax base for the city of Baltimore has grown very little over the
past ten years and at the same time there has been a net emigration of
the populace. Table 15 illustrates the absolute level and rate of growth
-6H-
-------
TABLE 15: ASSESSABLE BASE AND TAX RATE (196' to Fiscal 1963)
Year
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
Fiscal 1967
Fiscal 1968
Fiscal 19(>9
Fiscal 1970
Fiscal 1971
Fiscal 1972
Fiscal 1973
ASM i.- jlj|<- }\..*e
Valviat ion
Z, 757, 866, 348
2,719. 056, 478
2, 757,224,628
2.808,508, 768
2,856, 747, 818
2, 912, 121, 718
2, 954, 411, 758
3,030,470, 188
3,062, 638,008
3,072,009, 978
3,097,243, 148
3. 116,051,078
Increase (Decrease)
Over Pritir Yr. interesting to note that while this pattern did not con-
tinue, the amount of Motor Vehicle Revenues as a percentage of the total
operating budget hat, increased from 47 percent to 57 percent during this
period.
-69-
-------
TABU'? 16: APPORTIONMENT OF GENERAL PROPERTY TAX FOR
t SANITATION AND WASTE REMOVAJ,
j Property Tax Rate±-'
Apportionment
1973
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
. 188
. 198
. 192
. 168
.095
. 125
Apportionment of
V$l. 00 of Property
.032
.035
.036
.034
. 020
.028
each
Tax
— This means that 18.8 cents of the $5.86 Property Tax Rate is apportioned
to the Sanitation Division in 1973. This represents 3. 2% of total tax rate.
Motor Vehicle Revenues
The source of Motor Vehicle Funds are state collected taxes and fees
related to the use of motor highways, including motor vehicle fuel taxes,
titling fees, and licensing fees. .Baltimore is currently allocated .17.5
percent of these fees by the State. The city decides how it will
allocate these funds among its departments, but they can be used only for
street related activities. Prior to 1968-69 these funds did not contribute
to the funding of manual street cleaning activities. However, on May 7, 1968,
the Governor approved the enabling legislation for such a transfer of funds.
Section 33, article 56 of the Annotated Code of Maryland now reads, "The
monies distributed to Baltimore city under the provisions of section 38A
shcj.ll be used. . . 3) to pay the costs incurred in other highway related
activities of such city (Baltimore) in lighting highways, providing for storm water
drainage of said highways, and providing for street cleaning not to include
the cost of collection of garbage, trash, and refuse. . . " Subsequently, as
Table 13 indicated, Baltimore City shifted a large percentage of their
allocated Motor Vehicle Funds j.nto the street cleaning operation of the
Sanitation Division.
-70-
-------
Bonds
For major capital projects, the Division of Sanitation relys on bonds
as a method of financing. Prior to 1971-72 there was no capital budget.
However, in the past fiscal year and in the current fiscal year there have
been capital projects to repair and modernize existing disposal sites and
acquire additional landfills. Last year (1971) a six million dollar capital
budget based on a voter-approved bond issue was included in the Division
of Sanitation's tota1 budget. At this time no bonds have yet been sold.
For the current fiscal year (1972-73) the appropriated capital budget
was 4. 6 million dollars. The residents of Baltimore approved the
following projects by a vote of 107, 588 to 30, 368 on November 7, 1972:
1. Resource Recovery Facility - to recover iron and
glass from the residue of the incineration pro-
cess. The recovered material will be used by the
city or will be sold $1,000, 000
2. Northwest Transfer Station - for more efficient
and economical use of collection crews and trucks
working in the northwest section of the city. Now
each filled truck must travel across town to be
emptied, and then return. TransportatJ on^of re-
fuse from the Transfer Station to its destination
will be by large hauling truck or by train.
Scheduled for funding in Fiscal 1973 $1,500,000
3. Pennington Avenue Landfill - to replace the
now filled Reedbird Landfill and the Bowley's
Lane and Cold Spring Landfills which are near
capacity, Scheduled for funding in Fiscal 1973 $1, 700, 000
4. Demolition Debris Landfill - Private haulers
will pay a fee to dispose of their demolition
debris here. The fees should cover operating
costs. Scheduled for funding in Fiscal 1973 $ 400,000
All bonds issued by the Dc-partmc nt of Public Works are general
obligation is.sues.
-11-
-------
Subsidies /Grants
The final source of funds involves Federal and State grants to the
city. The Environmental Protection Agency recently awarded Baltimore
a six million dollar demonstration grant for the construction of a new
pyrolysis disposal plant. The balance of the cost of construction,
approximately $7-8 million will be shared by the Maryland Environmental
Service and the city. The city plans to fund its share of the project from
internal sources. Revenue gained from the sale of Friendship Airport
to the state is one possible source of funds. This money is unallocated and
goes into the Mayor and City Council Real Property Account. The
pyrolysis plant is expected to be completed by 1975 or 1976 and will be
capable of handling 1, 000 tons of waste per day.
r> 7 . ?: Expenditures
The expenditures of the Division of Sanitation are monitored by means
of regular monthly accounting statements distributed to each superintendent
within the Division. There are three different levels of this report, each
describing total expenditures at varying degrees of detail. The level I
report merely describes the total expenditures by the division for the
month. The level II report breaks th<. se expenses down by the activity
performed and major expense categories under this heading. For solid
waste collection activities operating under the General Fund, the level II
report would include mixed refuse collection, market-jail refuse collection,
ashes, bulky trash, waste oils and grease, garage properties, and the
repair shop. A similar breakdown is available for street collection
activities. The expenses broken out correspond to those shown in
Table 17. The major expense items for both collection and disposal
are the direct and indirect wage expense and contractual services. A
more complete discussion of these accounts is presented later. The final
accounting report, level III, records all expenditures made by the department
in the past month. These records are backed by the receipts of each
expenditure to ixccount for all cash flow.
-12-
-------
r5
O
n
H
U
r^
P
h
>-•
pq
W
rt
Q
Z,
W
ft
X
W
h
O
Z,
£
O
Q
W
<
W
rt
'j
H
W
a
Q
D
w
o
r5
W
ft
O
W
r-l
H
a. u
Ef}
>— 4
a. rt
rt G
U rD
4)
y
JO '>
V rl
D w
w
T3 M
a u
rt -H
CO *H
.^
rt a
a10
t! -4
S rt
C Q
0.5
• «-« -.-t
3 -a
w" d
fi 8
a. u
'3 rH
O* Q*
w <•£
co m
"3 •"
rt •-<
•r-4 t— (
M * a,
o °^ rx
•S w
r-4
rt oj
4-1
rt •>
-*-> QJ
C . -
o UJ
0
(0
4->
« °
P-4
r-l
!_. 'r"'
fC rH
C.' "*•*
< __
in oo
r-4 CO
h- PO
- 1
r-4 Tj<
r^ ro
o
r*-
PO
1 ' ro
vO
^
« ' 1
O
o
1 °
« *
00
PO
o in
vO ro
0s ro
1
O O 0
o m m
•* PO ro
ro 00 O
•31 t*- in
O*" CO CO
xt4 *-H rO
« » »
rj* j^- pj
tTj *-H CT*-
PO oo ro
^
^
\O Cx *~*
to >- ro
c^ -o" o*
P- o rsi
*-T> r*- rvj
t**- CT1- LfJ
^v ip| (V^
^ LTI r»
O^1 ro LA
o •-, Tr
^j4 in *—i
"rt
V in
» ti o
COI 1) (y (X
f-^J ^M . ^
J « « Q
P !
^
00
. 1 1
00
PO
^r*
PO
CO
PO
1 ' r-"
r-
ro
I i I
O
O
o
0
r-
i i i
in o o
PO o in
CO ^O f^*i
in in in
rH r-i in
PO O O
f*~ rO °^O
(\1 0s *~*
M » *
0^0
0s CsJ lO
•^ O^ fO
^
•^
sO O 0**
^ O r-l
r-l f~ r- *
ro* PO" o"
OO r-4 ID
*T '-Tl r—*
^o oo PO
in vo r-
00 ro OO
ro m o
O -O ro
^" ^" r-7
*rt
D m
in 0 O
^l £ v a
o-J W ^ .S
rnl Ci [/} Q
1 1 1
00
ro
fj\
1 ' o"
CO
v rH
1 > t
O
in
i—
ro
O
OO
1 1 1
CO-
ro
CF*
1 ' ro
CO
-1
1 1 1
o
o
•"C
PO
oo
1-1
o o
in in
^ ; "° ^
1 i
O O O
in o T
<-i in oo
00 00 r-4
r-4 r-4 N£
0 O O
o r- in
00 t^ 00
» » >
CO in r-H
fsi *& vO
rH SO PO
r-4
^ CO r— 1
O ro TT
PO r— r^
co r~- o
f— vO ^*
m vn — •
O r-l in
in o ro
CO TT ro
r-l CO T}<
PO fO r-4
o in ro
rO ^f r-l
r— 1
rt
-
r- in
i i i
o o 2
0 PO 9
oo o ^
in oo JT>
rH rH Is-
O PO 0
if i PO ^*
oo r- o.
» » »•
rH in PJ
vD PJ PO
O •* PJ
rH
rH sO rH
in *o ^}*
o t~ •«!<
PO PJ O
ro O^ O
-T M rH
O —4 PO
m o ^O
fO O rH
O rH vO
PO 0s f^*
rO rH O1
ro ro
"rt
4) B>
10 U O
(T- 3 j, D.
vO **^ ». Ui
rn rt w Q
1-1
ffl
.s
"S
CQ
U
«
D
O
-73-
-------
The- expenses of the collection and disposal units are significantly
different. To more adequately define th- expenditures for both collection
and disposal, each activity will be separately discussed,
Collection Activities
As Table 17 indicates, the major item of expense for both mixed
refuse collection and street cleaning is the direct wage expense. For street
cleaning the wages comprise 76-77 percent of the total budget. The
comparable figure for mixed refuse collection is only slightly less at approxi-
mately 70 percent. An interesting fact is noticed when the total wage bill
for collection activities is compared over the years. As Table 18
indicatc-s, street cleaning (Motor Vehicle Funds) now reprer-ents a larger
portion of the total wage bill than mixed collection.
TABLE 18
TOTAL PERSONNEL COST FOR
ACTIVITIES SPLIT BY COLLECTION
SOURCE OF FUNDS, 1969-73
Year
1973
197Z
1971
1970
1969
Type of
Fund
General
Motor Vehicle
General
Motor Vehicle
General
Motor Vehicle-
General
Mo* or Vehicle
Gcnernl
Motor Vehicle
Salaries and
\Vat;e8
4.094,997
5, 135,519
•1,038, 956
4,453,668
3.9.21.850
4.538.401
3,866.230
-1.313,884
3.320,359
3.191,901
Other Person-
nel Costa
579.368
706,796
483, 146
51Z.700
578.209
567,738
498,270
518,231
432,051
392.766
Total Wage
Bill
. 4,674,365
5,842,335
4,522, 102
5, 166,368
4.500,059
5, 106.13')
4,364,500
4,832,115
3,752,410
3,584,667
Fund %
of Total
44.4%
55.6
46.7°/i
53.3
4i..8%
5i.2
47.5% .
52.5
51.1%
48.9
-74-
-------
Other Personnel Costs are also a major segment of the operating
budget for each activity, running well in excess of half a million dollars
for each of the last three years. The Other Personnel Costs include
payments of Federal Insurance Contributions Act (F.I. C.A. ), Retirement,
Health Insurance, Workmen's Compensation, and Health and Welfare.
One particularly interesting component of this total is the payment for
workmen's compensation which has averaged about 30 percent above the
Division's allocated budget,, As Table 17 indicates, the Division of '
Sanitation has made payments for workmen's compensation and hospital-
ization which have aveiaged approximately 30 percent of the city's total
expense for these items for all employees. At the same time, the Division
employs only 1, 500 of approximately 37, 000 full and part-time city employees.
TABLE 19:
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION EXPENSES AND HOSPITALIZATION
PAYMENTS FOR DIVISION OF SANITATION
Year
1971
1972
Activity
Collection
Dispo^-al
Collection
Disposal
Amount
Paid
Workmen's
Compensation
168,400
30, 679
225,043
39, 130
Amount
Paid
Hospitali-
zation
48, 007
16,251
74,520
16, 787
Total
Each
Division
216,407
46,930
299,563
55,917
Total
Sanitation
Dept.
263,337
355,480
Total City
Expense
Workmen's
Compensation
848,691
1,095,912
SOURCE: Workmen's Compensation Officer, City Hospital of Baltimore
The major portion of the contractual service expenditure is paid to
the Motor Vehicle and Mechanical Shops. The Division of Sanitation pur-
chases the rolling stock and then gives the vehicles to the shops for main-
tenance, repair and replacement. The Division then rents the equipment
from the garage at a set rate, currently $5. 50 per truck-hour. A
breakdown of the items which compose this rate and their share of this
rate is shown in Figure 8. Depreciation accounts for approximately 50 per-
cent of the total rental cost. The current depreciation period for the collection
-75-
-------
vehicles is six years. However, within the past year the depreciation
period was shifted from an eight year schedule. Straight-line depreciation
is used as there is no financi.il incentive to employ rapid depreciation
schedules. The accumulated depreciation expense is placed in a sinking
fund for replacement of vehicles. The decision to replace existing vehicles
is made by the Chief of the Motor Vehicle and Mechanical Shops.
Insurance -
Material and
labor for repairs
28. 9%
Depreciation (6 yrs
47. 9%
Gas and Oil
Tire Cost
Overhead
FIGURE 8:
BREAKDOWN OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE RENTAL
CHARGE BY EXPENSES
The remaining expenditure categories are very minor for the collection
i
sector of the Division of Sanitation. However, a fact should be noted con-
cerning the expenditures for additional equipment. A decision to increase
the size of the existing fleet is made by the Chief of the Sanitation Division
and the expenditure for these vehicles is appropriated and made through
the operating budget. Thus, there are no capital expenditures as there
is no capital budget for the Division. Rather, what could be considered
capital expenditures for additional rolling stock are contained in the annual
operating budget and expensed as operating costs.
-76-
-------
One final item of information is the surplus or deficit of each budget.
In Table 20 these figures are presented for each year since 1967 by the
type of fund. Interestingly, the General Fund budget generally runs a
deficit while the Motor Vehicle Revenue budget has never been overrun.
The last columns present the total surplus or deficit for the entire collection
department. Motor Vehicle Revenue cannc t be used to eliminate any
General Fund deficit. Any surplus is transferred back to the general
highway Motor Vehicle fund for reallocation.
Disposal
The disposal phase of Baltimore's solid waste management system
is the least expensive phase of the operation. Referring back to Table 13,
the allocated budget for the current fiscal year is $Z, 274, 659, representing
16 percent of the total solid waste budget.
A breakdown of annual expenses by the type of disposal activity is
presented in Table 21. An examination of this table presents an
interesting picture of the disposal activities. The only disposal activity
which currently has debt service is incinerator §4. The large increase in
this value for 1971-72 results from the $6, 000,000 capital expenditure
for repairing and modernizing the incinerator.
The direct wage expense is a smaller percentage of the operating budget
for disposal activities than for collection activities. For the past three
years, the direct wage expense has averaged approximately 60 percent for the
disposal operating budget. This is considerably less than the 70-75 percent
direct labor expense in either of the two collection functions.
The contractual expenses for the two incinerators differ significantly
for all three years. However, the #3 incinerator also has a landfill on the
grounds, which explains the magnitude of this difference. For fiscal
year 1970-71, the cost of renting motor vehicles alone was $2,452 for
incinerator #3 and $97, 228 for incinerator //4. The latter figure depicts
the cost of transporting the residue from incinerator //4 t,o a landfill.
-77-
-------
W
TABLE 20
RES FOR WAS'
D PERCENTAC
JDGETED FU1X
E OF FUNDS,
o
0)
>4
M
+J
T)
c
0)
Q.
^
W
r-H
n)
.•-i
O
H
is ion
• rH
Q
•I-*
V
t>
t-i
4-*
OT
C
O
Divisi
Refuse
*H
«J
O
?H
o
10 4J
11 —1
.-i O
rl- * l£
JH 0^
£ 0
i
"5
382
H *B
Ht4
U]
5 •-
H»^ °
«to£
3 V
W Q
t£
Surplus
or
[Deficit
*
A
0)
>. T5
rs 3
°h
O
S
General .
Fund
§ A
a* .2
^ Olfl
3 «
w Q
,0
^ 4.1
^ . 0
s-s^g
c^ Q
*
^
a>
>-d
S§
1^
S
"5*2
S §
S^M
o
\
CO
(M
00
ON
co
(S)
co
OO
O
so
NO
in
o
i— t
r— i
r-H
in
in
ro
m,
co
ro
-t
NO
O
O
O
1
ON
m
ro
r-
t— t
t-
CXJ
CO
i
in
CM
0
NO
in
CO
— .. m
f*
ro
t-
0
i
r-H
r-
!>•
O
c\T
f/j
in
(M
t^
O
0
O
m
0
m
p— t
r-*
r-H
ON
o
••a-
r~
o
o
o
CO
CO
t^-
m
i
^r
»-H
f— 1
O
o
o
1^-
1
o
0
o
CO
ro
t--
m
»— <
t~
vD
O
l~
t~-
O
Tf
O
r~
TT
0
m
in
o
0
o
r-
r~
•>r>
o
f— 4
CO
r-
m
m
CO
A
0^
1— t
•*
0
o
o
t^-
f-4
CO
m
i
•*
(M
in
•— *
o
o
CO
r-«
1
O
o
o
' o
o
CO
m
o
r-
vD
I
O-
vO
t--
1— <
ro
r-H
CO
0
p— (
co
rJ
o
0
O
cr-
>£>
(M
0
CO
(Vj
CT-
O
o^
(O
f— 1
.— 1
o
o
o
M
[—
cr-
CO
fv
1
rH
CO
o
•<*•
cr-
Tf
o^
to
1
o
o
o
f-
0s
rJ
m
CT"
sO
-^>
1
CO
vD
0
in
r~-
f-4
r-H
ro
in
^
00
in
o>
ir>
r-H
r-H
CO
O
O
O
O
o
o
o
r-H
NO
IfO
CO
o
•t
PJ
in
vO
(V3
f
vO
m
t^-
r-H
r— 1
CO
in
3.
1
M
o
I-H
CT~
ro
in
CO
•*
CO
vD
vO
r~-
vO
t^
m
•*
co"
to
o
r~
•-H
CO
O
r-
m
vO
CO
CO
r-
t~-
vO
r-4
ON
'J'
«
O
r-H
O
O
in
rg
f-
(N]
00
ro
•*
•*
r-
m
vO
(VJ
o
m
ro
0
M
in
vD
CO
CO
.
CO
CO
vO
O
m
t
-r
r~
o
•^3
(
v£>
vO
t^
4>
00
•o
3
JO
4) *4H
4J
n)
M
4>
IH
3
•a
M
i
00
c
0)
a
r-| J)
n) "S
O ^
&• 3 "2
cd
03 n
1 20
«£*
ftf n ^,
S-S.S
• H (8
m o
O
•0 ^
§ §
"-1 ?
r- 6
M
rt
a
0)
O
DO
•a ..
1 -
o
t-
NO
ON
00
NO
ON
NO
ON
O
Q.
4)
tf
i—i
rt
g
fi
<
•d
c
•o M
-------
The demolition landfill was originally set up to handle all construction
waste by-products. It should be self-supporting but, as seen in Table 21,
this has not been the case.
Table 21
ANNUAL EXPENDITURES FOR WASTE
DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES BY DISPOSAL
OPERATION AND GENERAL COST ACCOUNTS,
1970 - 72
Year
1971-72
1970-71
1969-70
Disposal
Operation
!l 3 lac .
£•: Inc.
Landfill
Pom. Landfill
#3 Inc.
V4 Inc.
Landfill
Dem. Landf.JI
13 Ir.c .
i 4 (nc .
Landfill
Dem. Landfill
Salaries
£<
Wages
SOB, 5-45
593,409
116.600
18,624
514,533
556,380
98,688
16,006
483,854
536,089
93,8<,0
5.1M
Other Per-
sonnel Costs
87 ..483
97,494
14,381
Z.460
90,043
78,949
11,574
1,707
62,307'.
55,758
12,027
502
Contractual
Services
16,723
175,867
72, 193
30,941
18,641
154.313
80,604
29,834
13,793
116,72-!
100, 1C
10,64i
Materials
&
Supplies
• 17,690
37,283
48
1.205
20,263
38,667
-
314
16.522
29,918
19
166
Equipment
Replacement
1.879
-
-
15,064
89
-
-
117
3,686
-
•
Equipment
Additional
113
67,163
-
27
-
14,978
-
.
-
-
-
Debt
Service
.
480.582
-
.
108,938
-
-
„
183,938
-
-
Total
632,438
1,451,7°3
203,222
53,230
658,571
937,341
205,844
47,361
576,593
926,113
206,040
16,424
1) Deino. tion Landfill
SOURCL: Level II Accounting statements for June 30. 1970-71-72.
-79-
-------
5.8: Different Views of the Baltimore Solid Waste Management System
A variety of personnel who represent different i?iferest groups in
Baltimore were interviewed, and their perspectives of the general solid
waste management system were found to be fairly uniform. Different
emphasis, however, was fouru.1 for each group on the variety of solid waste
management issues of importance within the city. For the most part,
interviews were internal to the city government. Several important
factors were uncovered. Two groups external to the city government,
but representing important viewpoints were AFSCME Local 44 and the
Women's Civic League.
5.0.]; Groups Internal to the Baltimore Government
Department of Public. Works
The Department of Public Works has the ultimate responsibility for
the collection and disposal of solid waste. At the same time, however, it
is also responsible for the maintenance of many other city services, and
consequently the Sanitation Division represents only a small fraction of
its total responsibilities.
However, since the collection and disposal of solid waste is an issue
in the city, considerable time and effort have been devoted to these problems
by members of the Public Works' senior staff. These thrusts are not
directed at the operational levels as these tasks are the responsibility
of the various division heads that affect solid waste management activities.
Consequently, the day-to-day picture of solid waste management activities
appear to be of minor interest to upper-level management.
The major interest of the Department of Public Works is to secure
funding for solid waste management activities. There has been remarkable
success in this endeavor. The most immediate event was the successful
effort to fund a new disposal site by principally external sources. This
facility is estimated to cost $14 m Llion dollars, with $6 million being
supplied by the Environmental Protection Agency and $4 -million coming
-30-
-------
from state fund.-.. The remainder will corne from Hie Mayor and City
Real Property Account. Additionally, the new disposal facility will have
an offsetting source of income, because the w.i'.te will be used to supply
steam to the local gas company.
Of comparable importance was the apparent ability to secure state
funds (Motor Vehicle revenues) to support the street cleaning activities
in the city. This event is somewhat less clear because the Motor Vehicle
revenue was an existing fund soxirce of the Sanitation Division prior to the
year in which the billing procedure was changed. However, it is notable
that, while this revenue source doubled for the city as a whole between
FY 1 968-) 969 and FY 1969-1970, the share for sanitation activities
(street cleaning) rose by a factor of about six. At the same time, the
city's sanitation budget dropped from in excess of $7 million to about
$5 million. Since that time city support ff activities related to solid
waste collection have remained essentially constant, whereas State support
for street cleaning has risen by almost $2. 5 million.
The Department of Public Works is now considering several other
projects related to solid waste management. Of paramount interest is the
Regional Solid Waste Management Plan which must be submitted to the State
by July 1 of 1973. In view of the historical difficulties of disposal site
procurement and the recent disposal site windfall, the city must take care
during the negotiations that will produce this document. Concurrently,
the Department of Public Works is planning for a transfer station located
in the proximity of the Northwest sector. An installation of this type will
reduce the travel time for collection vehicles working that area and
respectable cost savings are expected. The city is also exploring
recycling technology as another means to defray costs, but implementation
is not viewed as immediately probable.
Division of .Sanitation
The Division of Sanitation has the specific responsibility for the
collection and disposal of the solid waste generated in the city. There are
-81-
-------
a variety of problems that the Chief of the Division of Sanitation has
st.vtcd as importa; t. Foremost among these is the observed shift of
the waste source from mixed residential to vagrant (street) wastes.
The Chief feels that the people of the city are not responding to the needs
of the division by proper containeri?;ation and storage methods and are, in
fact, becoming more casual in their attitudes regarding these points. On
the statement that "EPA is considering major technical assistance for
those cities that. . . ", his response indicated that a "program to educate
residents" is what is needed. This statement has some merit, as this
viewpoint was reiterated by other interviewees. In support of this conclusion,
it was offered that the residents have far fewer storage containers (40
twenty-gallon cans per sixty-dwelling units) than were required. In view
of the prescribed ordinances, he was asked if the maximum of 4 twenty-gallon
container/dwelling unit rule was observed. The response was "no. "
To be effective, his personnel arc informally instructed to pick up waste
stored in whatever container is used. To summari/.e this point, the
management of the Division of Sanitation feels that the improper storage
of solid waste result's directly in the rise of vagrant waste and that this
critical problem requires a solution.
A second problem area that was stressed by the Division of Sanitation
was the rising incidence of absenteeism, turnover, and abuse of Workmen's
Compensation by personnel in the mixed residential collection function.
The first two difficxilties are not uncommon in waste collection activities,
while the "Workmen's Compensation abuse appears to be a new problem.
Additionally, it was stated that the "task" incentive system was required
to keep personnel reasonably satisfied. An additional policy is that the
mixed residential refuse collection has priority, thus any lack of personnel
to perform this function is made up from the street sweeping personnel.
During the course of case study interviews, it was determined that
the staff requirement for street sweeping activities was very large. This
fact suggested that the city had accepted the roK of "employer of last
-K2-
-------
resort" and public job support (PJS) was being practiced. When this
issue was approached, the Chief of the Sanitation Division said that this
was not the c >c and the kirge staff was required to maintain an acceptable
level of cleanliness in the streets, In support of the question on PJS he
also said that the strff performing the street cleaning operation was being
cut back by attrition and that there were now 200 less personnel than at
the beginning of the year.
This condition suggested that there may be future problems with the
union representing the blue collar workers. However, questioning along
this line revealed that this was not so, as union officials were realistic
about staffing and budget issues. In fact, it was stated that there was an
excellent working agreement with the union. This arrangement is further
supported by the real grievance procedure in operation. Although there
is a formal procedure, this is not generally used and matters of involuntary
separation of employees are resolved between appropriate union and sanitation
personnel. The price that the city apparently must pay for the flexibility
is that staff reductions are performed by attrition.
The Division of Sanitation currently recognizes three pressures
which affect its operations. The city Department of Health, by its ruling
on plastic storage containers, appears to have contributed to the rise of
street waste. Although this factor is not regarded as the principal cause
of street waste, the Division is maintaining a low-key dialogue with the
Department of Health to find a solution to the ban on plastic containers.
A second pressure is the aggregate of the surrounding counties which
have forced Baltimore to solve its disposal problems within the city
limits.
A third and very significant pressure is the financial process within
the Department of Public Works. It appears that the Division of Sanitation
is given a budget limit prior to submission of their budget estimates. This
constrain! 1171 plies that priority items receive funding and other problems
are set aside for the following years. This situation doe's not allow for
-------
flexibility and is a deterrent to innovative approaches to improve the
level of scrvi e and maintain costs.
Motor Vehicle and Mechanical Shops
The purpose of the Division of Motor Vehicle and Mechanical Shops is
to maintain existing city equipment and replace items v%'hen necessary.
The city owns about 2500 pieces of equipment, of which about 380 are
assigned to the Sanitation Division.
There are two problems regarding the sanitation operation that are
of particular interest to the Division of Motor Vehicle and Mechanical
Shops. Of prime concern is the depreciation schedule for collection vehicles
of 72 months as compared to the real equipment lifetime of approximately
60 months. This problem is particularly important for the packer vehicles.
The Division is currently restructuring the depreciation schedule to
reflect more realistic equipment lifetimes.
The second problem is the treatment that the vehicles receive at
the "lands of their operators. It is felt that the equipment facr s premature
failure because of the lack of adequate training and the careless attitudes
of the drivers and the helpers. There is no apparent strategy planned to
ameliorate this situation.
Training Officer. Department of Public Works
The training provided for personnel within the Division of Sanitation
has two major thrusts, neither of which is directly related to job safety.
There are supervisory training programs given to supervisory
personnel to teach them the basic management skills required for the job.
These ;>re said to be 20-hour courses given off-the-job but during working
hours. Somewhat related to this effort was an adult education program that
was provided for minority personnel to enable them to acquire the reading
proficiency required to take the Civil Service examination for a supervisory
job.
-84-
-------
The second major training program is administered at the skilled
and. unskilJ.d levels. This is a skills -or irnled effort and provides information
required for the proper and safe operation of the different equipment
utilized by the Division of Sanitation.
Personal safety is emphasised in neither of these programs although
It is felt that proper equipment operation is, by definition, safe. This
may not be, as is reflected by the rising costs of Workmen's Compensation.
It was reported that the Department of Public Works has been authorized
a Safety Officer position but that it has not been filled and this is felt to-
be a. problem.
Safety Director. City of Baltimore
The Safety Director of the city considers the waste collection effort
to be very unsafe. He '."eels no real safety devices are provided on the
city's equipment and that cost constraints prohibit the Division from
purchasing safer equipment. To dramatize the need for such equipment,
he pointed out that a manufacturing concern wculd be closed immediately
if they operated a device similar to the swinging gate on rear loaders
without providing safety features to the workers.
One provision which they have tried several times to have implemented
by the Division is for all workers to wear safety shoes. This would at
least provide protection to the workers' feet. Cost constraints, on both
the Division and workers, have prevented this proposal from gaining
acceptance. Their general impression of the Division is that safety and
associated costs are traded off against cost pressures, continually forcing
safety factors to be neglected.
Department of Health
The Department of Public Health has two main interests in solid waste
management activities. The first of these is the method by which waste is
stored for collection. The second relates to aspects of disposal.
-85-
-------
In 1957, it was demonstrated that rodents could chew through the
walls of plastic garbage containers being marketed. Since rat problems
are of prime concern, such containers were banned. The Department of
Health currently maintains a laboratory to test different plastic containers
as they appear on the market. Field tests are also performed. It was
stated tha'. no containers have passed either test. The conclusion is that no
plastic storage container is deemed impervious to hungry rats. This
result may be biased, since test areas are cleaned up and the subsequent
reduction in the food supply forces the rats tc attack the plastic.
For the same reason, the use of plastic bags as the primary storage
container is also banned. The exception to this rule is that plastic bags
can be used as liners for rnctal containers. This it not widely practiced.
The head of the Department of Health is aware that the no-plastic ban
is impacting the solid waste management system, and he. maintains some
contact with the chief of the Division of Sanitation. This has yet to be
fruitful. However, he has stated that the Department is open to any
suggestion that will satisfy the rat-proof requirement.
The second concern of the Department of Health relates to pollutants
airising from disposal practices. In particular, there is some concern
over the disposal of chlorinated hydrocarbons as these materials are
being found in increasing quantities in solid waste. A specific item
mentioned was the transparent meat containers that are now being used with
increasing frequency by chain stores. These trays are said to be fabricated
from polyvinylchloride which, when burned, gives rise to chlorine
radicals in the combustion products. Similarly, if landfill is used,
there is some concern over the biodegradability of this material. The
Department of Health has not yet acted on these problems.
5.8.Z: Gr< -ps External to the Baltimore Government
Representatives of (wo groups were interviewed for their views
of solid waste management activities in Baltimore. AFS,CME Local 44
_P6-
-------
provided necessary information from the union's perspective and the
Women's Civic League was contacted for the nonpartisan citizen
perspective.
AFSCME Local 44
As suggested in the section dismissing the view of the Sanitation
Division, there is a good working arrangement between the city and the
union. This is a matter of convenience for both, as there is considerable
give-and-take on both sides. This may be a result of the youth of the
agreement as well as the fact that the principals of both groups worked
their way up through the same ranks.
Both the Sanitation Division and the union share several opinions
regarding the operation. Significantly, the union also claims that public
job support is not . n issue and the current staff is required for the variety
of collection and disposal activities. Additionally, however, it was stated
that prior to the loss by attrition of several hundred laborers, the system
was about 20 percent overstaffed, The reasons for this condition were
said to be the existence of the spoil system (patronage of sorts) and the
problem with compensation for absenteeism.
The union was asked to comment on the "task" incentive system that
is currently being utilized in the mixed refuse collection function. It was
stated that this incentive is necessary due to the arduous nature of the
job and that without such an incentive, staffing problems would increase.
Absenteeism and turnover were discussed as issues. The union feels
these problems have roots in several factors, the principal one being the
difficulty of the work. Of comparable importance is that many workers
have another job in addition to solid waste collection and that this is very
tiresome over long periods of time.
There are two immediate problems that the union feels are important.
Primarily, there is the goal to increase the net wages of their constituents
by persuading the city to finance a greater portion of the retirement fund
payments. This would result in a net increase of about 10 percent in the
-87-
-------
take-horn i pay of a worker. A second, factor which is disturbing to the
union is the lack of safety training provided to personnel by the city. It
is felt that the high accident rate stems from this neglect and could be
significantly reduced with proper safety programs. Additionally, it is
felt that the condition of the transportation equipment is poor which
contributes to this problem.
Women's Civic League
The Women's Civic League has had an ongoing interest in the solid
waste management activities of Baltimore for over sixty years. Of
particular interest to this organization is street appearance, disposal
problems, and recycling efforts.
Of significance is Die fact that the League shares the opinion of
the Division of Sanitation regarding citizen attitudes. It was stated that
public attitude has been on the decline and that this fact is responsible for
the rise in street litter. It was suggested that the high level of service
offered in some sectors of the city was a contributing factor. For example,
the propei- storage of waste is not encouraged if the city is willing to
cleanup people's thoughtless discards. Similarly, the shifting roles of
packaging technology and the rise in concentration of carry-out food
establishments have contributed to the problem. Lastly, it is felt that the
city is too lax in enforcement of existing litter laws and that such action
would help reverse the trend of rising street litter.
The question of the use of plastic storage containers was discussed,
and the League is in favor of promoting their use. The reason for this
opinion is that plastic containers are far more durable and will, therefore,
require less frequent replacement. The League is also aware of the fact
that th<"'To is an insufficient number of containers serving the needs of
the city.
Another interest of the Women's Civic Leagxie is the concept of
recycling. Their opinion is that this practice represents the most sound
-------
disposal policy, and they arc attempting to encourage its implementation.
Several problems have been observed, again related to citizen attitudes.
Primarily, it has been found that many citizens are not willing to expend
any effort to sort and transport the waste fractions to the recycling
centers. It is felt that there is no immediate solution to this problem. Of equal
importance is the fact that recycling centers have been targets of vandals,
and at least one center was shut down because of extensive damage.
The League has always been aware of the disposal problem. Although
it does not appear to have significant impact on the operations of disposal,
it has been helpful to the city by advertising the disposal problem.
The most recent solution, the pyrolysis machine, is felt to be a milestone
and is an attractive approach because of the energy recovery aspect.
-39-
-------
APPENDICES
-90-
-------
APPENDIX A: BALTIMORE CITY SANITATION CODE
-91-
-------
REPRINT
of
ARTICLE 23
of
THE BALTIMORE CITY CODE
-------
731
ARTICI.I; 23
Article 23
SANITATION
1. Duties
2. Collcc lion of .v.hcs.
3. G.iib.igc and mixed refuse;
rcc( plat Irs.
4. Same; li.mdlin;;
5. Same; col!( c tion
6. Same; definitions.
7. Same; other mallei.
8. Kcfptac' 's on collection
days.
9. Ncjjlcrt of duty.
10. Penalty pro\ isiom
11. Fees for '•ollretion of refuse.
Markets
12. Collection of lefusc.
13. Provisions.
.- Refuse
14. Unlawful to leave.
15. Burning.
Vehicles
16. Dead animals.
17. Coverings.
18. Construction.
19. Drivers, employees.
20. Loads.
21. Penalty provisions.
22. Private vehicles
Water
23. Flushing streets.
Engineer
City Code, 1893, art '18, sec. 187. 1927, ait. 4-1, sec. 3; 1950, art. 31, sec. 1.
Orel. 6, Feb. 21, 1882; Orel. 21, Apri! G, 1887;
Ord. 478, 1909-10; Old 402, 1948-49.
1. Duties.
The Sanitary Engineer shall liavc charge of the following serv-
ices in so fa- as such sen-ices or any of them are authorized or
required lo be done by the City;
I. The denning of the public sticcts, lanes, alleys and markets;
2. The collection and removal of ashes, garbage, rubbish and
street diit;
3. Such other municipal services as may be assigned to the
Bureau of Sanitation by the Director of Public Works from
time to lime.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the Sani-
tary Engineer lo remove snow or ice from the sidewalks binding
on school or pan. properties.
Jialtinioic v. H.nnpton Court Co., 120 Md. 311.
City Code, 1927, ail. -11, sec. 4; 1950, art. 31, see. 2. Ord. 55, 1915-16;
Ord. &55, 1919-50, sec. t;Oid 578, 1952-53, sec. 2(a).
2. Collection of ashes.
(a) I)tilii'\. it .skill be the dul) of the Sanitary Engineer to
collect all asln s fumi duelling IIOHM'.S, apartment houses and tene-
ment houses, not CM reding the contents of sixteen ten gallon con-
taineis pet wick fiom each such house, as heieinaftcr provided.
-93-
-------
SANITATION 735
The aOi contents of eight ten-gallon containers shall be collected
from each dwelling house, ajiartn. nl house or tcncrw it house on
cacli of two dill'eicnt din1; dining each \\eck, except when a rcgulai
collection day falls on a holiday and no collection is made on lliat
day, and in tlial event, (lie ash contents of sixteen ten-gallon con-
tainers shall he collected on the next regular collection day. Foi
the purpose of this section the word "week" shall be taken to
mean "MoncHy to Sitiifdiy. both inclusive, in each calendar
\\eek." \ViK.ii t'if. IKxt regular collection day fa!!--, in the following
calendar \\ecl-, as herein defined, the aggregate (|uantity to he col-
lected in said following week shall he. the ash contents of twenty-
four ten-gallon containers, the first collection to he the contents of
sixtee, containers and the second collection to he the contents of
eight lonlainei:. l'io\idcd, however, that it shall not be the duty
of the Sanitaiy Enj'inccr to collect any ashes from any place other
than a dwelling house, an apartment hou.se or a tenement house
(b) Receptacles. All ashes which are to be collected by the
Sanitaiy Engineer shall he placed in separate receptacles made of
metal or ollu-i durable material not affected by weather condi-
tions, with handles and close-fitting Covers, having a capacity of
not less than three galloi s nor more than ten gallons, and shall be
so constructed that the contents may be removed therefrom easily
and without delay.
Baltimore- v. Hampton Court Co., 126 Md 341.
City Code, 1930, art. 31, see. 3. Ord. 955, 1919-50, sec. 5.
3. Garbage anil mi:;ed refuse; receptacles.
Occupants of dwelling houses, proprietors of boarding houses,
hotels, restaurants and other p'aces where garbage or mixed refuse
is accumulated, and owners, agents and occupants- of apartment
or tenement houses shall provide for the vise of such premises a
sufficient number of icceptacles to contain all garbage or mixed
refuse which may accumulate on said premises during the usual
interval between the collections of garbage or mixed refuse there-
from, and shiill keep such receptacles at all time in good repair.
Each receptacle shall be made of metal or other durable material
not affected by \\eather conditions, with handles and close-fitting
covers, having a capacity of not less than three nor more than ten
gallons if g.nhage only is placed theieiu, and not more than
twenty gallons if mixed icfmc, as hereinafter defined, is placed
theicm, and shall be so con>tiucted that the contents may be re-
moved theiefroiu easily and uithout delay.
-94-
-------
736 AIUICLE 23
C^ty Cod.-, 1879, art. 23, -,tc 92; 1393, art. -18, src. 189; 1927,
art. 41, scr. 8; 1950, ::rl. 31, sec. 4. Ore). 138, 1915-15;
Ore'. 551, 1918-19, c
placed in such position as to be easily accessible to the collector, or
in such mrtnnei and at such time or times as may be designated
by the Sanitaiy Engineei. All garbage and mixed refuse shall,, at
all timca, be kept as fiec from dishuater and as dry as practicable.
City Code 1950, art. 31, sec. 5. Ord. 955, 19-19-50, sec. 7 ;
Ord. 578, 1952-53, sec. 5; Ord. C72, 19C5-6G.
5. Same; col!;< tu»is. The alxn.c limit.ilions of eight twenty-gallon
containeis pei \veek or four twenty-gallon containers per collection*
day may be exceeded by the Sanitaiy Engineci for ceitain multiple-
-95-
-------
SANITATION 737
family structuies, other than apailincnt structuics originally built
as apaitmcnt .structure-?, provided he is authored to do so by the
Board of Estimates which "hall base such authorization upon con-
sdcralion of jjiiblic health, safety and welfare.
City Cuuc, 1S27, .in, •! {,!...<.. I>, 5350, ml. "3, sec. C. OK'.
564, IS 18 1?, n-r. 9C; Ord. 9:.5, 19-19-50, sec. 8.
6. Same; definitions.
(a) Garbage. The term "garbage" as used in this Article shall
be held to include every accumulation of animal, fruit or vegetable
food waste gcr.ciatcd by or resulting from the decay, deterioration,
storage, preparation or handling of animal and vegetable matter
in any place or at any point where food is prepared or served for
human consumption, including all kitchen and dining refuse pro-
duced by households, hotels, restaurants, lunch rooms, clubs, hos-
pitals or any other source whatsoever existing in Baltimore City.
(b) Mixed refuse. The term "mixed refuse" shall be held to
include garbage a; herein defined, mingled with any one or more
of the following: paper, pasteboard, rags, mattresses, furniture,
clothing, shoes, rubbers, leather, carpets, broken glass, crockery,
bottles, str.v.v, excelsior, metal, packing boxes and barrels, broken
parts thereof, tin cans, Christmas trees, leaves and grass cuttings.
City Code, 1927, art. -14, sec. 10; 1950, art. 31, sec. 7. Ord.
564, 1918-19, sec. 9r5; Ord. 955, 1949-50, sec. 9.
7. Same; other matter.
It shall be unlawful to place or cause to be placed with garbage,
or mixed refuse, any ashes, plaster, yard or garden dirt, and where
such mixture is found in any receptacle, it shall be the duty of the
occupant of the pn iviscs properly to scpaiate the ashes, plaster,
yard or garden dirt from the other contents.
City Codr, 1950, art. 31, sec. 8. Ord. 473, 1948-49.
8. Receptacles on collection days.
It shall not be lawful for any person or persons to have, keep
or maintain upon any sticet, lane, alley or other public place
within the limits of this City, any box, bin, barrel or other re-
ceptacle for the reception of garbage, ashes, litter, or rubbish of
any sort, except that in oidcr to facilitate the removal of garbage,
ashes, litter, or rubbish on the regularly scheduled collection days,
it shall be lawful for the occupant of any premises to place upon
the sidewalk in the rear of such premises, or in front, or on the
side, of premises to which rear entrance is not accessible to the
drivers of the collection vehicle, suitable receptacles as prescribed
by ordinance containing garbage, ashes, litter, or rubbish, and to
-96-
-------
738 ARTICI.I: M
allow the same to remain until such gaibage, etc., has been duly
collected; pio\ided that nci such receptacle, whether filled or empty,
shrill be placed or pei milted to >emain on any such sidewalk for a
longer period ih.in necessary under the circumstances at any par-
ticular property Any pei>on violating the pto\isions of this sec-
tion shall bo pull) ol a misdemeanor and, upon conviction there-
of, shall be subject to a fine of not more than twenty-five dollars
($25.00) for each such violation.
ioif ..* oo . , „ no. ion*j -.« x o „„,. or\o. 100*7 ->r» 44
Lj It*'.', HIL. ...', S^ . •* *' ) I "J *> *J } «l I V • ^*> Jl*v_ . .. v~. , I ..-.., ». I.. » - ,
src. 31 ; 1950, :>n 31, io\ Kions.
Any person violating the provisions, of this subtitle shall, upon
conviction thci ( of, be subject to a penally of not more than
twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each such violation.
Ord. 159, 1959-60, Ord. 3-il, 1960-61.
11. Fees for collection of refuse.
The Sanitaiy Engineer may receive at incinerators of the Mayor
and Ci'.y Council of Baltimoic, between the hours of 8 a.m. and
4 p.m., on days on which the Mayor and City Council shall col-
lect refuse and mixed leftisc, refuse and mixed refuse collected by
persons other than the Mayor and City Council of Baltimoic and
use, or pcimil the use of, such incinerators for the dumping,
burning or other disposal of the same. A charge for receipt of
such jefuse and mi\cd refuse at the late of ten cents (10^) per one
hundred (100) pounds, or fraction thereof, with a minimum
charge of one dollar ($1.00) for each single delivery, shall be col-
lected by the Mayn and City Council of Baltimore in such man-
ner as shall he appio\cd by the Treasurer. 1'iovided, however,
that lefusc and mixed icfuse dclnnrd to the afoiementioned
incinciatois by indi\iduals l>y means < >f private passenger auto-
mobiles shall be exempt from any chai",e. Any moneys collected,
diieclly, by the Sanitaiy Kngincci shall he accounted for and paid
to the Ticasuicr, a1 such intcixaK as the Tieasmrr may piesciibc.
-97-
-------
SAMTA-HON 739
Maikcfs
City Cot'o. ID.' 7, nrt H, r,c. 17; 19 JO, art. 31, we. 12. Orel. 375,
!9^>-:'i;Ord. 736, IfMl-lU; Oul. 1)20, 1919-50.
12. Ccllii-fbn of icfiisc.
It shall bo the duty of all ikiupants c»f MalK in tlic Cit) maikets
to place c>r have placed in rc< epiaclcs or containers, all vegetable
and aiiiin.il offal or icfurr1, paper and oilier refuse; the .said
rpceptae' 01 ( o'itain>"i<' si). ill he nlarrrl near (he stalk ni in
places deMgnaud by the. Maikct Master. It shall be unlawful for
any person to ilnow foodstuff-, garbage, trash, paper, or other
refuse, on any stiecl running through or bordering on any of the
City inaikfl',. Any poison neglecting or lefusing to comply with
or violating an)' of the provisions of this section shall be liable to
a penalty of not lesi than ten dollais ($10.00) nor more than
twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each and eveiy ofTcnse. .
Penalties
CityC -.dc, 1927, art. 41, n-c. 16; 1950, ait. 31, sec. 13.
Ord. 5C4, 1918-19, sec. 9G.
13. Provisions.
Any person \iolaiing an\ of the provisions of ihii Article shall,
on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not less than one
dollar noi more than twenty-five dollars.
Refuse
City Code, 1927, art. sited, scattered or left, in or
upon any sheet, avenue, alley, highway, footway, sidewalk, park-
ing, vacant lot or open space, public or private, in the City of
Baltimore, any dead animal, oflal, garbage or putrcscible matter
of any sort, or any other matter 01 thing injurious to public health.
City Code. 1927, art. 41, .set . 14; 1950, art. 31, sec. 15. Orel.
564, 191!!-) 9, sec. 91'.
15. Burning.
No person shall bum, consume with fire, or cause to be burned
or consumed \\iili die, any dead arpjii.il, oflal, gaihagc, putrescible
mallei of any soil, likely to piodnte nauseating, vile or offensive
smoke or vapoi s.
-96-
-------
7-10 ARTICM- 23
Vehicles
City Code, 1079, ait. 23, sec. 96; 1093, art. 18, see. 193; 1927, art. 14,
scr '.>'>; 1930, :ut. 3I,src 16. Ord. 1397, 1950-51, sec. 22.
16. Dead animals.
The Saniiary Engineer is authorized to have dead animals lying
jn tin' street-;, lan^s or alle\s removed and to cause the vehicle used
in their jeinoval to he so constructed as to have covers and to be
closed at all thru-?, except when such dead ariimak arc actually
being jj.ucv: ju ilic \i-iiiilis, a:> in ins judgment may bi: deemed
most advisable.
City Code, 1879, art. 23, »cc. 96; 1893, art. 48, sec. 194; 1927, art 44,
sec. 23, 1950, ait. 31, sec. 17. Ord. 1397, 1950-51, sec. 23.
17. Coverings.
All vehicles used or employed by the city for the collection of
ofTal and coal and other ashes, shall be covered with heavy can-
vas or other substantial material, so as to prevent dust or other
materials from escaping from such vehicles while being driven
along the streets. Ian, =; and alleys of the city.
City Code, 1C93, art. 40, sec. 190; 1927, art. 44, sec. 25; 1950,
art. 31, sec. 18. Ord. 30, April 28, 1891.
18. Construction.
All carts or .-chicles for canying noxious or offensive substances,
boxes, tubs and receptacles in which any noxious or offensive sub-
stance may be, or may be carried, shall be strong and tight, and
the sides shall be so high above the load or contents that no part
of such contents or load shall fall, leak or spill therefrom, and
cither the cart, vehicle or vessel carried by it shall be so covered
as to be inofi'ensht;.
City Code, 1893, art 8, sec. 197; 1927, art. 44, sec. 26; 1950,
art. 31, sec. 19. Ord. 38, April 0, 1891.
19. Drivers, employees.
No driver of such cart or vehicle, nor any person having under-
taken or being engaged about the loading or unloading thereof;
nor person engaged about the cleaning or employing or having
undertaken to empty or remove any garbage, offal or any noxious
or offensive substance, shall do or permit to be done about the
same, or in connection therewith, that which shall be needlessly
offensive or filthy in icspect to any person, street, place, building
or premises.
-99-
-------
741
City Code, Iff) 3, ait -1:"', sec. 198; 1927, art. -1 i, frc 27; 1050,
ait. 31, see. 20. C)ii vehicle 10 be so fully loaJeu
or being in such l>.,ci condition of icpaii or of sue], fnully con-
sliuction, or being so improperly cli.uvn or managed, that any
ofl'onsi\r liquid or any garbage, rubbish, offal, dirt or material
thovror; shall frill '.ivon or in arn 'trcct, Innc, I'llfv^ nlarf* or
premises; and it shall be the duty of every such person to at once
replace on such vehicle and remove \vhnt has so fallen.
City Code, )89'i, ait. 48, sec. 199; 1927, art. 4-1, sec. 28; 1950,
art. 31, sec. 21. Oul. 38, April 28, 189); Ord. 97, 1905-06.
21. Penally provisions.
Any person who violates disobeys, omits, neglects or refuses to
comply with, or resists any of the piovisions of Sections 18-20 shall
be subject to a fine of not more than twenty dollars ($20.00) for
each offense; said fine to be collected as other fines for violation of
City Ordinance.', aic collected; provided, that said sections shall
apply to the iemo\ul of stable inanuie only so fai as o\erloauing
and spilling on UK- streets.
City Code, 1879, art. 23, sec, 98; 1893, art. 48, sec. 200; 1927,
art. 44, sec. 29; 1950, art 31, fee. 22. Ord -101, 1948-19.
22. Private '-chicles.
The owner of every vehicle employed in removing or carrying
any sand, ashes, dirt, gravel, loam, earth, manure, filth, stone,
brick or coal, over any of the streets, lanes or alleys of the City,
shall have and keep ihc same in such tight and secure condition f.s
that such ashes, sand, diit, gravel, loam, earth, manure, filth,
stone, brick or coal or any liquids dripping or flowing from such
vehicle, shall not be si.ittercd or suffered to fall on any of the
streets, lanes or allies afoiesaid, under the penalty of twenty-five
dollars for each offense.
City Code, 1893, art 18, sec. 20); 1927, ait. 44, sec. 30; 1950, art. 31,
sec. 23. Ord. 102, May 1 1, 18CO; Ord. 400, 1940-49.
23. Flushing
The Sanitary Knginccr is empowered to use the water from fire
plugs subject to the rules and regulations of the Water Engineer,
in older to flu>h (he <,ulteis, slieels, lanes, alleys and markets.
- JOO-
-------
APPENDIX B: MODEL CITIES SANITATION SERVICES
-101-
-------
;}ODF.L CIJI.F.S
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
WORK PROGRAM AND BUDGET FOR SUPPLEMENTARY GRANT ACTIVITY
PROJECT: Neighborhood Sanitation Services No: HP-8
NAME AND ADDRESS OF DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
OPERATING ENTITY: Bureau of Utility Operations
Sanitation Division
1200 American Building
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
TYPE OF ENTITY: City Department
A. WORK PROGRAM
1 - ASSESSMENT OF THIRD ACTION YF.AR;
The major problem still remains the education of many of the Model Neighborhood
Residents of the importance of keeping the area clean. Some progress has bee:
made in this direction but not nearly enough. Emphasis is still placed on
educating the people in the field of sanitation. During the Third Action Ye"ar,
the Coordinator worked very closely with the Community Councils, Residents and
many community organizations. The thrust of these meetings was to get the
Residents to cooperate with the Sanitation Department to make sure that once
the area is clean it will remain so. Since we are aware that garbage is a
form of Pollution, we also stressed that good health depends on how clean
we can keep the area.
Sanitation laborers are now enrolled in classes set up by the Model Cities
Lighted House Project (M-2) for upgrading purposes. Release schedules have
been worked out and they have received priority in accordance with the Resident
Employment Plan.
Although Enforcement Officers were added in the Third Action Year, this
component, ss of this writing, has not yet been implemented. However, fay the
end of this calendar year it is expected that some progress will have been
seen in this area.
2. MAJOR CHANGES;
None
•3- DESCRIPTION OF SCQPF AND CONTENT:
The nature of this project is to provide increased sanitation services
throughout the Mou'el Cities area, such as were not being provided in the programs
operated by the Son!tat ion Division of the Department of Public Works prior to
its implementation. Essentially, these increased services are to consist of the
fol low) rig:
-i'JZ-
-------
A. Handr.weepi ng find cleaning three times per week of all street
gutters, sidewalks and all public and private alleys;
B. Collection once per week on a regularly scheduled day of all
bulky items of ttc-sh set out for removal without need for
special request to the Sanitation Division (usually made by
phone ca ! 1 s) ;
C. Cleaning as needed of all vacant lots, many of which are
City owned;
D. Mechanical flushing once per week of all streets;
E. Emptying four times per week of all corner trash receptacles
(i.e., wi re baskets) .
^ ' PURPOSE AMD OBJECTIVES: '
These services represent thrice the services previously provided by the
Sanitation Division in the Model Cities Area. Under the Maintenance of Effort
guidelines of the: Model Cities Program, the Sanitation Division of the
Department of public Works would continue to pay approximately one-third of the
total amount of these services (See attachment for description and frequency
and scheduling of services by Council area}.
The Neighborhood Sr*1"? • t£?t ion Services Proorarn (HP~8) y/ould o'v^rste six
days per week. In brief, this proposal has required purchase of 31 pieces of
equipment: 13 large open dump trucks, two flushers, four liftgate trucks,
five cars, tv.o mechanical sweepers and five radio units.
Employment in the Model Citie: Sanitation Program will be designed to
achieve a "career ladeer", with most employees entering as laborers, many
moving almost immediately into Truck Driver and Gangleader positions. With
further training and experience, some who came in at the bottom of the ladder
will become supervisory personnel.
5. TIME TABLE;
This project is already in operation.
6. ADM I KM STRATI ON AND ORGAN I 7AT I ON;
The Neighborhood Sanitation Services Project is administered by the City's
Department of Public Works. The Sanitation Division will operate the program,
following prescribed guidelines as to personnel recruitment and hiring, community
participation ai.ci technical assistance described herein. Emphas is-.on. the ."career
ladder" provisions, training and coordination through the Project Coordinator
and Community Councils, the Model Cities Agency and the Sanitation Division-must
be recognized as the key to the success of the project; otherwise, the program Is
-.doomed to provide a fev/ dead end jobs to a limited number of residents and
/another futile otten.pt to clean up the inner city.
I - ' "
-103-
-------
ip-3 - 3 -
T 11 for c uinc n t 0 f ' f i c ' r s
Experience has shown that a major problem area is In maintaining an
adequate level of cleanliness in the neighborhoods, once the area has been
cleaned. Thus, the current need is for a wide range educational and en-
forcement program to eliminate thir, problem. At present, the Divison of
Sanitary Enforcement within the Baltimore City Health Department provides
s.uch a service: however, the limited scope of service precludes the possibility
of an adequoLe enforcement program in the Model Neighborhood Area.
Thus, 6 enforcement officers have been provided for. They are directly
«-iir»<-»»-»/ 5 •-/-. H ;>.. i-f^^ u~-,it-t, n -.-. -^ -*- --. ^ <->•<- i - n :..;,-; ^ ,-. ^c c -%-.;<---•• C „•£«.-,-,-,.*„„*- «-u _..
^*>^|>wlt/|owb0 *^ y Ullv I H_-C« I X- I < L^v^pUIVI.H-.ll. J L* I V I .* I W II *~* I *>C4 I t I L Ci I V l-tl(WIW^Mt4-IIU, 1. t I I t-l
close and clearly defined coordination with the Model Cities Sanitation personnel.
Their duties and training are identical to that of existing City sanitary
enforcement officers, excp.pt that their duties will be confined to the Modp.l Cities
>,!„ ; ,.t-.u~_i --- . r\ . _j _ „ :~ - : .1. . . c~ _ . — i, ------- *. ;_ A.I ---- „ __..;*.«. --- r_ .. :. --- >._ u_J^i
Hi— • y liuvji I l-JVJU UIIM ^Jt |i_»l 4ty IV-
-------
B. BUDGET
JU
0)
(2)
*
(3)
CO
-
(5)
(CO
(7)
A. COST CATEGORY
•
PERSONNEL
coxsuLTA>rrs AXD
CONTRACT SERVICES
TRAVEL
SPACE COSTS
CONSUMABLE SUPPLIES
B. ESTIMATED COS;
• •
$ '1,058,^7.03
•
.
• 30,000.00
*
I
RENTAL, I, EASE OR
PURCHASE OF
EQumn-XT
OTHEK COSTS
"
10-2,019.60
5,525.00 ' . •
G; MCA SUAP.K
(if cost is
•' being shared'
vith others)
*
.
•
•
, «
.
.
•
TOTAL
1,195,931.63
2. . 1ET1103) OF /M.LOCATTON:
'-LOS-
-------
3. BUDGET JUST in CAT I ON FOR PCRSOtlHEl (COST CATEGORY 1)
'y-in i tr ry • Enf orcCT^ntL_Qf f i car
-iQO.
12
TOTAL
PLUS IPS FRINGE DENEFITS
TOTAL PERSONNEL
i?
"
1 ' - --- •• — -
POSITION OR TITLE
Super i ntendent
Coord ', nator
Superv i sorfj
•
Mechanical Sweeper Operators
C
-------
BUDGET JUSTIFICATION 2 THROUGH 7
AMOUNT OR VALUE
DESCRIPTION OF M Dl AND BASIS FOR ESTIMATED COST OF ITEM
Rental of Model Cities Garage and Yard for
one year - 1870 N. Gay Street $ 30,000.00
(6) Rental a Lcaso^and Purchase of Equipment;
13 Large Open Dump Trucks (^5 Hours per/wk.
ea. •• 52 weeks @ $2.20 hr. . $ 53,539.20
2 Flusher;; (2k hrs. per week - 32 wks. @ $8.10 hr. 9,953-60
k Liftgate Trucks (45 hrs. per/wk. ea . 52 wks.
§ $2.35 hr. 17,536.80
5 Cars (800 miles per car per month @ 12c per/mi. 5,760.00
2 Sweepers (23 hrs. ea. per week - 50 weeks @ $8.00 hr,) 1^,720.00
5 Radio Units ($90 per unit - flat rate) ^50.00
$ 102,019.60
(7) 0lher C
T-shirts - summer uniforms $ 230.00
Rental of winter uniforms 2,200.00
Rental of Vtelk-off mats for office - 200.00
Polaroid Film 100.00
Paper hays for hokey carts 1,000.00
Brooms, handles, shovels, etc. 600.00
Janitorial supplies 100.00
Office supplies 75.00
Telephone Services _ 1 ?j)20.00
^ 5,252.00"
-107-
-------
1: frequency and scheduliruj of proposc-d Neighborhood Sanitation Services in
the Hodci Ciltes area, PROJECT HP-8
• STREET AND ALLEY 'CLEANING
' STREETS AND ALLEYS CLEANED THREE TIMES A WEEK, ALSO SIDEWALKS
HElGimORHOOD COUNCIL AREAS
A - 1 open truck 2 routes
B - 3 •_'«.'<•-'•• fTijr.!s-=; 6 rOL'tCS
D - 3 open trucks 6 routes
C - 2 1/2 open trucks, 5 routes
F - 3 1/2 open trucks 7 routes . '
G - B open, trucks 16 routes
/
ffoirtc_s _fc>X Hokey Hen - C1 ean Eyery Day
'L Hokcy Hen on Pennsylvania Avenue - North Avenue to Franklin Street
2 Hokey Hen on Baltimore Street - Paca Street to Hcnroe Street
2 Hokey Hen on Washington Boulevard - Paca Street to Honroe Street
1 Hokey Han on Edmondson Avenue - Fremont Avenue to Monroe Street
1 Hokey Han on Eutaw Place - dorth Avenue to Dolphin Street
1 Hokey Han on Gay Street - Fa 11 sway to Monument Street - Monument Street - Broadway to
Ensor Street - Ensor Street - Monument Street to Gay Street
DULKY TRASH COLLECTION
COLLECT WEEKLY
COUNCIL
A -
B
D
E
F
G
AREA
Monday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
-102-
-------
HP-8
ATTACHMENT 1 - Page 2
LOT ClFAN ING
AS NEEDED
1 Open Truck for Council Areas A~B and D
1 Open Truck for Council Areas E-F end G
FLUSHERS
FLUSH WEEKLY
COUNCIL AREA
A - Monday and Thursday
B - Tuesday and Friday '. .1 plusher
D - Wednesday and Saturday
COUNC ! L AREA_
E - Monday am' Thursday
F - Tuesday and Friday 1 Flus.-er
G - Wednesday and Saturday
CITY CORNER CANS
CORNER CANS EMPTIED FOUR TIMES A WEEK
COUNCIL ARE:A
A - • Packer on Monday and Thursday Open TRuck V/ednesday and Saturday
0. - Packer on Monday and Thursday Open Truck Wednesday and Saturday
D - Packer on Monday a-nd Thursday Open Truck Wednesday and Saturday
E( - Packer on Monday and Thursday Open Truck Wednesday and Saturday
K - Packer on Monday arid Thursday Open Truck Wednesday and Saturday
G - Packer on Tuesdayond Friday Open Truck Wednesday and Saturday
-109-
-------
P-G
ATTACHMENT 1 - Page 3
McCulloh Street
Druid Hill Avenue
Pennsylvania Avenue
Fremont Avenue
Fulton Avenue Islands
Monroe Street
Frank!in Street
Hu'i berry Street
Saratoga Street
Fayette Street
Baltimore Street
Washington Boulevard
FalIswoy
Gay Street
Aisquith Street
•
Harford Avenue
Greensnount Avenue
Ensor Street
STREET SV/rPT BY_MECMAHICAL SWi'rPER - MAIN ARTERIAL STREETS
TWO-TIMES PER WEEK -*Z SWEEPERS
B-S 4: p.m. to 6:30 p.m. -- North Avenue to Eutaw Street
B-S 7: a.m. to 10: a.m. — North Avenue to Eutaw Street
V/-S 7'• a.m. to 10: a.m. —
E-S kip.m. to 6:30 p.m. -- North Avenue to Franklin Street
V/-S 7: a.m. to 10: a.m. -- Pennsylvania Avenue to Russell Stre
E-S 4: p.m. to 6:30 p.m. — Pennsylvania Avenue to Penn Street
Anytime — North Avenue to Edmondson Avenue
7: a.m. to- 10: a.m.
k: p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
-- North Avenue to Wilkins Avenue
— North Avenue Lo'Wilkins Avenue
B-S -- Paca Street to Fremont Avenue
B-S -- Paca Street to Monroe. Street
S-S 7: a.m. to 10: a.m.
N-S A: p.m.. to 6: p.m. — Monroe Stieet. to. Green Street
N-S 7- a.m. to 9: a.m. ~- Greene Street to Frtmonl Avenue
B-S ^i: p.m. to 6: p.m. — Fremon' Avenue to Monroe Street
B-S 7: a.m. to 9: a.m. — Monroe Street to Paca Street
S-S J: a.m. to 9: a.m. -- Russell Street to Monroe Street
N-S k: p.m. to 6: p.m. -- Bayard Street to Monroe Street
B-S 7:30 a.m. to 10: a.m. -- Baltimore Street to Mt. Royal Avei
E-S — Anytime
Y/-S -- 7: a.m. to 10: p.m.-- Monument Street to North Avenue
W-S 7: a.m. to 10: a.m. -- North Avenue to Biddle Street
B-S k: p.m. to 6:'p.m. — Diddle Street to North Avenue
E-S .?: a.m. to 10: a.m.
W-S 4: p.m. to 6: p.m.
Forrest Street to North Avenue
W-S 7' a.m. — Hoffman Street to North Avenue
B-S 7: a.m. -- Biddle Street to Colvin Street
I
4
-110-
yo902
------- |