The Chicago Waste Commission’s report says that efficient service can be obtained by contract when the work is specified and the requirements are such as to obligate the contractor to furnish the desired service. The contractor, it asserts, must maintain an effective organization, sufficiently equipped and managed to be able to render proper service. Under this method, it points out, a rigid inspection is necessary on the part of the city and full compliance on the part of the contractor in carrying out his agreement. The report also says that efficient service can be obtained by a municipal collection when the city conducts the work with its own teams and equipment and the men employed on the work are directly responsible to their superiors who in turn are responsible to the public for the service rendered. It gives the following advantages of this method:
(a) The service is rendered as desired. It is not necessary to specify how and what work is to be done, but the work can be conducted so as to meet conditions as they may arise.
(b) The work comes directly under the control of the officials whose chief object is to render satisfactory service at a reasonable cost.
(c) Better equipment can be provided and the work planned on a more systematic basis when investments are permanent.
(d) Municipal operation eliminates the tendency on the part of the contractors (when the work is done by contract) to obtain the largest remuneration possible at the least cost.
It is impossible, says the report, to develop efficient organization or to render the best service in collection with hired teams where the driver receives his pay from the employer, who in turn receives his pay from the city for furnishing the team and driver.
In the majority of cities in the United States, the collection is done by the city, which owns its equipment and conducts the work under the supervision of its officials. It has been the experience of these cities that the results of municipal operation have, in most cases, proven satisfactory.
John H. Gregory, sanitary expert, believes that as a general rule the best results may be expected from municipal ownership and operation of collection equipment. A similar opinion is expressed in the report of the Special Commission on the Collection of Municipal Waste, Worcester, Massachusetts.
Grand Rapids, Michigan, reports that under the municipal system, the cost per householder is $1.63 a year, while under the private contract system the cost was $3.00 a year.
Whatever system and method are selected to make it successful a city must (1) provide sufficient appropriation; (2) secure or insist upon an efficient organization; (3) have or require sanitary and economical methods of work, and (4) secure and foster cooperation on the part of the public.