Parish end of Year Accounts

We are now in the period when the annual accounts for Betley Parish Council can be examined.  Last year (223/24) the Internal and External Auditors noted 'significant weaknesses' in the AGAR forms submitted - ie in the accounting and governance procedures, which appear not to have been followed correctly or as prescribed by the financial rules and regulations advocated by JPAG for local councils.

Although requests for expenditure should be placed on the agenda to be discussed and approved by the council (good practice), they seem to appear, instead, under Chair's Reports or in Expenditure to be approved (as if they had been discussed already).  Under this item councillors are asked to approve items which have no figure beside them.  And then there is Urgent Business.  

Numerous requests have been made for the monthly accounts to be more clearly expressed so that expenditure against budget can be more clearly noted, especially when there is an overspend in a budget line.  Such requests have been ignored and instead construed as harassment  or 'bad behaviour'.  Some such overspends have had to be covered by the reserve fund or taken from underspent budget lines, we are told.  There is no policy for reserve funds ( although this had been suggested - but was ignored) and nothing had been earmarked as far as could be seen.  This raises questions about large amounts kept in reserve, and how far the precept needs to be increased each year.   At the moment the Parish Council  appears to spend only half of its precept.   amounts could be earmarked for the gates project and for footpath clearance, and/or even pavements and flooding. 

There is no cap on Parish Council precepts re how much can be charged, which might account for the year on year increases.

At the moment the Parish Council is liable to pay for the recent Hearing (so called) - not assessed as a risk factor in the annual accounting return.  There is an outstanding debt of £2000 for the community run around not to mention around £17,500 of the missing fund for the same facility.  The S 106 commuted sums for the Bluebell development (around £47,000 reputed to have been spent elsewhere and not in Wrinehill) and the S106 sum outstanding for the former garage site e development.   

This later sum was earmarked for the resurfacing of the Village Hall car park.  It has yet to be claimed and the issue of the Parish Council 'working out' a project with the Village Hall to spend the money has been deferred by both the Parish Council and the Finance and Audit Committee.  Had this not happened, then the Parish Council would have been subjected to another External Audit.  

Fast forward to this year's accounts where £8000 has been earmarked to cover the cost of an election should one actually take place.  The Parish Council has already advertised the  vacancy for a seat on the Parish Council  which will be in the form of yet another co-option.   It would appear that other councils charge between £200 - £800 to cover such an event.  So perhaps it needs to be explained why Betley is envisaging £8000.                            

It might be that the time has come to introduce participatory budgeting whereby residents are given the opportunity to have a say in how the precept is spent.  This was suggested and raised in Council two years ago but was given very short shrift. 

And so we stumble on to 2026 and both a general and to local elections, when hopefully a root an branch change will take place.