MIRAMAR TRAMS.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 780, 1 April 1910, Page 4

MIRAMAR TRAMS.

? — THREE YEARS' LOSS, £829. THE RETURN DISPUTED. ' "The pith of the whole matter is," said • the Mayor (Mr. C. J. Crawford), "that our. tramways in three years have made a loss of .£829, including interest, running charge, and everything." This was the Mayor's brief summary of a report on the financial position of the Miramar tramways -which, according to request, was laid on the table at the meeting of the Borough Council last evening. A number of the councillors disagreed with the return, holding that'it should ■ have' contained details of a second loan and other particulars. The full text of the report was as follows:— . ' .' "In accordance with instructions, a statement of the position of the borough tramways has been prepared showing the results of the working from the opening of the tramways to date. In ascertaining the capital cost of the tramways, tho amount expended by the tramways engineers, and certified to by them as tha actual cost of construction was taken, and to this has been added the amount ot the improvement loan expended for the benefit of the tramways on the tramway shelters—.£soß. Included in the amount is the cost of straightening the line on Broadway. The tramway capital account, therefore, while showing, the I whole expenditure on tramways, only shows the tramways as an asset-at a §rice which might bo realised if it. were esired to sell the tramways within the borough in the same manner as the portion of tho line within the city was sold. . The cost of the roadworks and cost of the Seatoun tunnel have not been included. Tho Seatotin tunnel was included in the loan proposal for the establishment ot a ferry service at an estimated cost of £10,000 (including other small items), and cannot' be considered. as a tramway asset The track arc lighting is not included in ,- the tramway statement. In the city tho . Tramways Department charge the street lighting account with: the cost of the aw lights, and the cost is borne by the general rate. The amount expended out of- the tramway loan on the streets over which the tramways run was .£12,632 (including/Seatoun tunnel 48802). The cost of installation of the track arcs was £480. The annual cost of lighting streets along the tramway routes was for 1909-10, £247 12s. Id., including Seatoun' tunnel. : The : annual cost of lighting the tramway shelters was £30 6s. 6d. The figures in the statement are substantially correct, and the details showing the manner in which the figures are arrived at can be given .as soon as the basis on which the.statement is prepared is approved. Details of Balance-Sheet". Revenue uoount for the borough tramways;—Dobit: Running loss, 1908-09, .£761; interest, 1908-9, .£1075; iunning loss, 1!'09-10, J8714; interest and sinking fund, 1909-10, Mill; total, £3864. Credit: Running gain, 1907-08, £35; bahace (being net running loss to.dire), £3329; total'£3B64. ' Balanw-sheet, 31st March, 1910.- L;abilities—Lians, £23881; subsidies towardi construction, £15,500; . sinking funds, £239; district fund, 43829; less subsidy towards running cost (£3000), £829; total, £10,449. Assets-Tramways, £27,3P2; Citv Council, £10,529; less instalment! paid, £2105, £5134; preliminary expenses, £1549; ; sinking fund investments, £2345;-net running loss. £3829; less subsidy (£3000), £829; total, £40,449.

. Councillors Take Exception. The Mayor, having summarised the re-: torn m the words with wh'ch (his report opaas, said ho thought that members should be furnished with copies of/the return, so that they might have an opportunity of discussing r it at a subsequent meeting, if tho cunncil desired. ■• _ Councillor Bowie objected to the rata n, chiefly on the ground that.i Eeeoud loan was not incl'.idtfi. He moved that, before the report was circulated, it should be "corrected.". 'It's not use giving us misleading ugure3 altogether.. You only have to refer to the balance-sheet to show what the loans are." ' '. ' ■"-'The Mayor, protested : tint Councillor Bowie was quite out of ordir in suggesting that the statement was not absolutely correct. There-might; be differences of opinion as to whether it was properly_ set ■out--but it mmt not be ; suggested that it was a false statement. , Mr. Crawford explained that he.was in no way responsible for the return. The council nad trdeTed its production, and he had seen ••'. for the first'time that afternoon. Councillor Brbdie thought that councillors should have an opportunity of going, through the .statement before tbey passed judgment :on }t. . . .'' ... In the course of further discussion, the Mayor suggested that Councillor Bowie was confusing what was Bet out in the report as loan, and what was set out as subsidy. This Councillor Bowie denied. Councillor Mleod : suggested that the motion should be expressed as follows: "That .the form in which the balancesheet is compiled be not assented to, and be discussed in committee." Councillor Bowie said he wanted_ to include the total tramway loans in- the return. ■'.■'.-. . . The motion, as Councillor MXeod had worded it, was then put and carried, a. proposal that the amended .balance-sheet' be discussed in open council being negatived. .Several of the councillors were of opinion that the return should not be given to the press, but the Mayor ruled that as it had been Tead in .open council it could not be withheld from publication. "Then it must be made clear that w* disagree with it," observed a councilkr.