PROFITS FOR HALF-YEAR

Evening Star, Issue 19409, 18 November 1926, Page 2

PROFITS FOR HALF-YEAR

LARGE EXPENDITURE ON UNEMPLOYMENT MINUTE BY THE TOWN CLERK The profits of the various trading departments of the City Corporation for the half-year ended September 30 of this year came before the meeting of the council bet night. The report of the Finance Committee gave the net surpluses as follow: Gas ... ...£12,650 Electric ... 20,963 Tramways (including buses) ... 442 Tramways (Mornington) ... 161 Tramways (Roslyn), loss ... 2,640 Water ... 9,015 Aggregate profit after deducting loss on Roslyn line ... £40,591 Cr Taverner, in presenting the report of the committee, said the results were not quite cs they had expected, but that was to a very large extent explained by the largo amount which had been spent in the- relief of unemployment. Work had been done which would not otherwise have been done in the period. It must not be inferred that money had been thrown away. In the tramways department the charges for repairs and maintenance had been very heavv. It was to ho presumed, however, that the money was well spent, and that the benefit would he felt in the next six months. A minute by the town clerk indicated that there was reason to expect that the next half-year would snow very much better results. That, he thought, could be said quite safely. LOSS ON ROSLYN LINE. Cr Sincock asked for further information with regard to the Roslyn line. It was astonishing, he said, to see in cold print the loss on that lino. There must be some reason for it. A loss of £2,640 over the half-year represented about £4O a week. If it meant that the line were to go on as it wore going now something would have to be done, and done quickly, to remedy _ things. The leakage must be stopped in some way. Cr Taverner, in reply, said he thought the position in regard to the Roslyn line was known to all councillors. The line was purchased six years ago for £35,000. To put it mildly, the line was then in a bad state of repair. There was no renewal fund, and all repairs had to ho done out or revenue. That had cost £17,000, and up to date the line had altogether cost £52,000. Assuming that the work had been well done, and that_ the line had been put in proper order, it was not unreasonable to suppose that the deficit would he wiped out in time. It was not a question of being over-capital-ised; it was a question of spending revenue. That was all that could be said. When the Mornington line was taken over there was no renewal fund, and the council created one by transferring a certain amount each year. The report was adopted without further discussion.