CITY MILK SCHEME

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 304, 19 September 1919, Page 9

CITY MILK SCHEME

A RETURN FOR JUNE

SOME ADVERSE CRITICISM

Commenting upon a return furnished to the City Council lust evening, Councillor Norwood (chairman of the Milk Committee) observed that averages taken out in connection with the milk supply scheme showed that there would bo a very slight profit on the year's working, 'i'hern wns no loss going on notwithstandim: that the concern wns just now onlv in its initial stages. Tho only condition that could bring about a loss would be a serious drought, when the council would have to pay more than wns estimated, or would have to go beyond what the contracts provided for. The return showed that the revenue totalled ,£7167: working expenses, .£1463; special expenditure, nil; capital charges, £31.915;. credit balance, ml; debit balance, mi; revenue per gallon, lT.Ofld.; working expenditure per gallon per annum estimated at. 3;50d.; average cost per gallon per annum estimated at, 12.50 d.: gallons treated, 100,331. Tho Mayor congratulated Councillor Norwood and the Milk Committee upon tlity nresent state of-the municipal milk business. "I think the people of Wellimrton are now unanimous," said Mr. Luke, "as to the improvement in the milk supply of the city. The reproaches that were levelled at the supply some time ago are gone altogether now." lie was sure. lie continued, that the public now awnreeiated the fact that the scheme was providing milk tho purity of which could be relied upon. 'Councillor Forsyth asked whether the council had contracts that enabled it to guarantee the average cost and supplies for twelve months. ~.,,, Councillor Norwood replied that it hat. Councillor Forsyth found fault with the. form of the return presented. He did nnl: consider that the terms used in settins: forth the position were in keeping with the canons of good accountancy. If. the committee was making anything, whv did it not say so clearly? The milk scheme was not tho special pndo of ailV particular section of the council, and why. therefore, did not the coiuinitteo say exactly what the position was, instead of estimating averages? He would have liked a better return to be made out" with the assistance of the city treasurer, and, if necessary, the auditor. Councillor '.MMCcnziß considered that until a Tear had been completed it would bo impossible to give exact figures, llio monthly return was necessarily averaged, and the averaging was done with a knowledge of what the council was going to pav for milk during .the summer. Councillor Norwood challenged Councillor Forsvtli to deny that ho had made a statement to a man in the,street that the scheme was losing iSO a week. Councillor Forsyth: Whatif I did? Councillor Norwood pointed out that Councillor Forsyth's, criticism of the milk scheme had been consistently destructive; and never once hail it been constructive, and that in the face of the fact that time after time he had invited him to fully investigate the position. He went on to say that the return had bren made by the city auditor, and any other return that would be made Would not be worth the paper it was wrmea mi The council had suggested getting in th» citv auditor, and this was a perfectly honest report. The books were -quite- open to Councillor Forsyth. Councillor Forsyth: Where? Councillor Norwood: 'At lo Aro House." He did not wish to bring down such a return, but he had been forced to do it. Every time milk fiuayce had come before the council, Cnmir ■ ->r 1< 0"svth had criticised the whole thing adversclv. ... ■ Councillor Chapman .(nought rt was unfair to criticise the work of the committee until the scheme had been workins for :\ full year. - ... The report was adopted, Councillor Forsvth alone dissenting.