PARK FINANCING 



505 



Miscellaneous Revenue Bearing Facilities or Activities 



Year 



San Francisco, Calif. 

 Children's quarters 



Hartford, Conn. 

 Skating . . . 



Sheepbakes 



Picnics 



Oakland, Calif. 1 

 Summer camps 



1921 



1922 



1923 



1924 



1925 



1923-1924 



1922-1923 



1921-1922 



1920-1921 



1919-1920 



1923-1924 



1922-1923 



1921-1922 



1923-1924 



1922-1923 



1921-1922 



1921-1922 



1922-1923 



1923-1924 



1924-1925 



Operating Cost 



65,362.39 



76,505.46 



56,003.37 



84,675.88 



60,863.89 



2,548.66 



2,017.39 



2,993.07 



4,052.61 

 2,939.08 



15-33 

 56.92 



6,043.00 

 10,735.00 

 iS,SSi-oo 

 11,788.00 



Income 



75,372-39 

 72,088.10 

 76,241.06 

 86,676.76 

 69,979.16 



4,035-45 

 3,358.68 

 5,824.74 

 5,738-45 

 613-85 

 4,293-30 

 2,557-50 

 1,017.05 



23-75 



97-25 



412.40 



3,936.00 



7,749-oo 



16,099.00 



12,379.00 



Gain or Loss 

 10,010.00 Gain 



4,417.36 Loss 

 20,237.69 Gain 



2,600.88 Gain 



9.115.27 Gain 

 1,486.79 Gain 



1.341.28 Gain 

 2,831.67 Gain 



240.69 Gain 

 381.58 Loss 



8.42 Gain 

 40.33 Gain 



2,107.00 Loss 



2,986.00 Loss 



548.00 Gain 



591.00 Gain 



Concessions versus Direct Municipal Management. 



It should be adopted, as a general principle, that all facilities and 

 activities for which a fee is admissible should be operated by the municipal 

 authority directly responsible for such service. The concession plan is wrong 

 in principle for the reason that it capitalizes public properties and public 

 good will for the personal profit of an individual or a corporation, and the 

 concessionaire is more likely to be interested in the volume of the profits 

 than in the quality of the service. The prime consideration in the handling 

 of all kinds of facilities for which fees may be charged is to provide the 

 best quality of service at the lowest possible cost. This can be done only 

 when the element of profit for the sake of profit alone is more or less entirely 

 eliminated. In general the only excuse for a public park authority charg- 

 ing fees is to cover the cost of operation and maintenance, although it would 

 be quite proper to include extension of service, depreciation and replace- 

 ment of structures and equipment, and, in some cases, capital outlays for 

 landed properties. In any case there is no real justification for the public 

 authorities to operate public recreation facilities on the profit theory and 

 principle that governs the commercial and industrial world. 



Retention of Revenues by Park Departments Desirable. 



A great step forward in the development of the fee system in connec- 

 tion with the operation and maintenance of recreation facilities would be 

 the universal adoption of specific authority for the park and recreation 

 governing authorities to retain the revenues derived therefrom in the park 



1 For the first two years the operating cost includes cost of developing the camps. 



