PARK AND CEMETERY. 
61 
Board $50,534 more taxes than had 
been called for by the levy of the 
Board. 
Certain bond issues of the South 
Park Board and of the West Park 
Board, purporting to have been sold 
above par, were really disposed of 
below par, on account of the defer- 
ring of payment of all or part of the 
purchase price for considerable pe- 
riods of time without interest. 
Practically all of the funds of the 
South and West Park Boards are on 
deposit with a single bank, officers 
of which bank are bondsmen for the 
Treasurers of these two Boards. The 
Treasurer of the South Park Board 
is one of the bondsmen for the 
Treasurer of the West Park Board, 
and vice versa. It is bad policy to 
keep all the funds of a park district 
in a single bank; and especially, to 
concentrate in a single bank prac- 
tically all of the funds of the two 
largest park districts." ‘The "policy of 
accepting personal bondsmen is" ques- 
tionable, " especially where’ there is 
inter-relationship of bondsmen and 
Treasurers who are officers within a 
single bank holding large amounts 
of public funds. 
The Lincoln Park and Fernwood 
Park Boards have sinking funds that 
are deposited in bank and drawing 
only two per cent. Authority should 
be secured to invest such funds in se- 
curities bearing a higher rate of in- 
terest. 
The Lincoln Park Board is the 
only one to adopt a budget in ad- 
vance of the making of the annual 
tax levy. The other Park Boards 
should put the budget system into 
use. 
Improvements Pending Unification. 
The great need . of the Chicago 
Park situation, of course, is the mer- 
ger of all park governments with 
the city. In the text of this report 
ways are shown how, pending uni- 
fication, the separate Park Boards 
may effect savings and bring about 
increased inefficiency. The unneces- 
sary use of automobiles and the ex- 
cessive cost of police service consti- 
tute two of the most conspicuous 
examples of waste. 
Automobiles owned by the three 
Park Boards at the close of the fis- 
cal year 1910 represented an original 
cost of $50,710. The expense of 
maintenance and operation for the 
year 1910 was $56,901, apportioned 
among the three Boards , as follows: 
South Park, $30,848; West Park, 
$16,484; Lincoln Park, $9,569. Wher- 
ever automobiles are purchased and 
maintained at public expense there 
is . a tendency to use them more than 
public business demands. A study of 
the situation indicates that the park 
automobiles are no exception. The 
automobile expense to the Chicago 
city government became so excessive 
that all city-owned machines were 
sold, except five for the use of the 
fire and police departments and the 
Special Park Commission. Automo- 
bile service has since been obtained 
by all city departments on requisi- 
tion through the purchasing agent. 
The total cost of such service to the 
entire city government during 1910 was 
only $8,195, as against a cost to the 
three Park Boards during the same pe- 
riod of owning and operating their ma- 
chines of $56,901. The Bureau believes 
that reductions might be made in the 
number of machines owned and of 
l i 
chauffeurs employed " by the Park 
Boards so as to effect a present salvage 
of approximately $S,000, and an annual 
saving in cost of maintenance and opera- 
tion of $22,000, without impairing in any 
degree the efficiency of park work. To 
prevent the misuse of public automo- 
biles, service records should be kept 
showing the necessity for use. Another 
method of keeping down expense would 
be to paint all machines owned by the 
Park Boards a distinctive color, with 
the name of the Board in large letters 
on both sides of each machine. 
The cost of park police service has 
been increasing at a rapid rate in recent 
years. The number of men on the 
police payrolls is larger than the re- 
quirements of the service call for. There 
is much needless duplication of work 
on the part of park and city policemen’, 
especially in boulevard duty. Greater 
efficiency might be had at smaller cost 
by supplying some of the park police 
with motorcycles. The saving that 
might be effected by the three Park 
Boards in cost of police service is esti- 
mated at not less than $60,000 a year. 
The efficiency of the working organi- 
zation of each system has been im- 
paired by the failure to delegate suffi- 
cient authority to department heads and 
to charge them with responsibility. Bet- 
ter results should be obtained if each 
of the three large Park Boards would 
adopt a more scientific form of organi- 
zation. A suggested plan of reorgan- 
ization for each Board is described 
and also charted in the report. 
THE UNIT SYSTEM OF PARK MAINTENANCE COST 
By Walter G. Muirheid, Secretary Hudson 
County Park Commission, New Jersey 
As the park systems of the United States increase, there 
is gradually developing a system of unit costs that is proving 
a general usefulness to all. The experience of one park 
commission cannot fail. to be of assistance to another, while 
.the. standardization of costs for the purpose of comparison 
is a. desideratum that would doubtless, prove of great benefit. 
Until a year or so ago, no park commissions figured their 
costs in units. Kansas City was the first to publish any of 
these costs, although Hudson County, New Jersey, had 
adopted the system some time prior to the publication by the 
progressive Missouri city, of their interesting cost distribu- 
tions. Following these two. instances, several other park 
.commissions have taken up th.e work, and it is likely that in 
,a few. years so many will follow the example that it will be 
a simple . matter .to make comparisons that will not only 
prove useful -but go far .toward cutting down expenses, en- 
abling the city, that finds it is high in some particular item 
to communicate with the city which shows a much lower 
unit and ascertain under what conditions and by what process 
the cost was kept down to that lower amount. 
In the matter of construction, much must be done before a 
proper system of unit costs is established. Conditions are so 
different in different localities and wage scales, material, 
trucking charges and other expenses are so varying that it 
is hard to compare two cities, while in many cases the park 
sites to be developed are so peculiar in topographic and 
other conditions as to admit of comparison with none other. 
In park maintenance, however, there, is a much easier basis 
of comparison. A park once established has practically the 
same maintenance charges as any other park. There may be 
some details in which it. may differ from others, but they are 
comparatively trivial, and for the general purpose of com- 
parison there is little or no variance. The publication, there- 
fore, of unit maintenance costs, will show the average park 
commission just about what a similar service should cost it, 
and will show it as well just where it has been economical, 
and where it has been extravagant. 
West Side Park, maintained by a County Park commis- 
sion, is the leading pleasure spot of Jersey City, a munici- 
pality of 277,679 people. The improved portion of this park 
