It has been said several times during the ongoing debate about the decision to dump the Princess Royal Sports Arena - and thus write of the the equivalent of ten times the gross domestic product of Butterwick - that councillors are not accountants, architects or builders. They are just ordinary folk who trust and rely on the professionals employed by the authority to tell them the direction known as up.
And what a pile of paper sits before the Audit Committee at tonight's meeting.
The meeting comes just as David Cameron's Chancellor George Osbourne is expected to target public sector workers in his bid to tackle the nation's record £155 billion deficit.
At the weekend, the Prime Minister said that whilst there was no agenda against public sector workers ... "There are three large items of spending that you can't ignore and those are public sector pay, public sector pensions and benefits. We revere and want to stand up for people working in the public sector. There is no animus against people because they work in the public sector. It is just a question of how do we best deal with this budget deficit in a way that is fair."
So, given Cameron's reassurances, expect public sector workers to be squeezed until their pips squeak.
Having said that, we note that even though the number of staff employed at Boston Borough Council has reportedly been cut from 355 to 295 since the BBI took power, there was a significant increase in the council’s pension fund net liability.
Whilst the estimated assets value rose by 25%, estimated future liabilities rose by over 50%, resulting in the doubling of the pensions liability and pensions reserve figures on the balance sheet.
This is when we start to lose touch, as the report goes on.....
The net worth of the Council at the year end was (£7.034m), a decrease of £18.486m on the restated position at the end of 2008/09. The main contributing factor to this reduction is the increase in the estimated net Pension Fund liability, which increased by £16.952m over last year. This increase reflects changes in the assumptions made by the Fund’s independent actuary, and although the value of investments held by the pension fund increased in the year, the liabilities increased by a much greater sum due to changes in the discount rate and mortality figures. This does not immediately impact upon the Council’s resources, as sums payable to the Fund are assessed on a three yearly basis, the next revaluation being in March 2010 with any change to ongoing budgets being effective from 2011/12. This is explained further in note 34. In addition, the annual asset revaluation exercise, coupled with adjustments to the classification of a small number of fixed assets following a review of their treatment, meant that the carrying value reduced by £3m. Again, this does not have an impact on taxpayers as the reduction is accounted for within the Revaluation Reserve and Government Grants Deferred balances, therefore not affecting the General Fund Balance.We don't like the sound of the the phrase "this does not immediately impact on the council's resources" - and fear that it may well be the next time bomb of financial disaster to follow the PRSA and join the million pound loan debacle.
All we know is that it sounds like a lot of money, and something that needs addressing as a matter of urgency.
Never mind, in the meantime the gravy train goes rolling along.
Although we are told that the number of senior posts has been reduced, the returns show that in 2009 - 2010, six officers earned between £50,000 and £95,000 a year, the same as in the previous financial year - with the exception that last year there were two in the £55-£60 thousand whereas the year before one of those was in the £50-£55 thousand category.
In 2009/10 the borough employed one Strategic Director on £82,000, another on £78,500 and an Assistant Director and Assistant Director & S151 officer on £57,300 - presumably the same post advertised as Director of Resources & Section 151 Officer at £87,500 during the year.
In the council's rope manufactory section, we note that former Chief Executive Mick Gallagher, who departed the council within a week of a highly adverse Audit Commission report on Boston Borough Council was paid £114,663 including employers pension contributions of £21,382 in 2008-09.
We can find no mention of any payoff being made to Mr Gallagher, but as this is the public sector, where such payments seem obligatory and excessive, we are sure that one must have been made.
The total of Members’ Allowances payable for 2009/10 was £121,179 - which isn't bad considering, and was in fact less than the previous year - although one or two councillors in particular seem to do little, if anything to earn their attendance money.
The year has been one of gains and losses of another kind.
Between March 2009 and March 2010, the borough has gained a "conferencing system." Presumably this was the £28,000 sound system designed to help hearing impaired members of the BBI pay more attention at council meetings. If so, then we should ask for a refund.
We've gained 11 items of street cleaning plant - and hopefully we'll start using them at some point so that the streets will look a little cleaner.
We've gained one "miscellaneous" property, and lost one public facility building.
Bad debt provision increased by £13,799 in the year, resulting in a total bad debt provision at the year end of £223,000.
But the good news is, Boston's family silver is safe.
Our historic collection of artifacts and civic regalia - valued in part only for insurance purposes at £1.4m - has been deemed to be a community asset with "a strong presumption" against disposal, to be held in perpetuity, they have no determinable useful life and there are restrictions on their disposal.
Hopefully we need not anticipate their appearance in the window of one of the town's burgeoning gold dealerships in the foreseeable future?
You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.
Read the borough's accounts in full by clicking here.
No comments:
Post a Comment