On 17 August 2009, Icklesham Parish Council held its out-of-term summer meeting. A meeting in August meeting was originally introduced expressly for the purpose of signing cheques that could not wait until September and, it was agreed that no other items should be tabled, given that August is a traditional holiday month and not all councillors would be able to attend.
This year, however, an extra item was, at the last minute, added to the agenda, "Matters relating to winchelsea.net website". Moreover, it was decided that the precise nature of these matters and the discussion of them would be confidential.
It was puzzling as to why the issue was regarded as so urgent that it could not wait just four weeks, until the resumption of normal Council business in September. Was it coincidental that Winchelsea ward councillors had earlier indicated that they would not be able to attend?
As it was, all three Winchelsea ward councillors were able to attend. One made a statement outlining the law surrounding the issue under discussion. It was clear that other councillors were totally unaware of the relevant law, despite being asked to make a decision with potentially dire financial consequences for the Council. The statement caused some consternation in the Council and subsequently one councillor complained that Winchelsea councillors "had been prepared". It transpired that members of the Council had sought external advice on the issue. However, neither the request for advice, nor the advice itself, were in writing. Indeed, the advisors concerned reportedly did not wish to give their advice in writing. With no text to consult and without the advisors being present, the Council was unable to answer fairly fundamental questions on whether the advice had addressed certain material points of law.
With the Council refusing to pass on the points raised by the Winchelsea councillors to its advisors, the issue has petered out, but serious issues of principle remain to be answered. Was the Council attempting an "ambush" of Winchelsea councillors by bringing, at the eleventh-hour, an item, supposedly of great import but not of any urgency, to the agenda of a meeting which is not intended for substantive business, which some Winchelsea councillors were expected to be able to attend and for which it was hoped Winchelsea councillors would be unprepared? Should advice on matters claimed to be so serious be sought and accepted verbally? Why were the Council's advisors not asked to attend? Should councillors make a decision on such matters when they do not understand the legal issues and financial consequences? Why did Council consider exposing itself to such a serious financial risk, instead of trying first to resolve the matter by a phone call?
Unsurprisingly, the meeting satisified no one. An unfortunate remark by the Chairman after the closing of the meeting sparked a heated exchange (and more) between councillors. Fortunately, no members of the public were in attendance or the Council would have brought itself into utter disrepute.
Wednesday 23 December 2009
Thursday 17 December 2009
Parish Council meeting, 14 December 2009
This was the second meeting to discuss the budget for 2010/11. The previous meeting, in November, saw an apparently collective determination by councillors from other wards to refuse to cut anything from the draft budget except proposals for Winchelsea (Pear Tree Marsh car park and Strand bus shelter) and attempts to block agreed projects for Winchelsea included in the current budget (Strand noticeboard and new bench).
Public Questions
The December meeting started with the now regular political expedition by members of the Corporation. Jurat Spencer berated councillors for their "demeaning and disruptive" behaviour at the last meeting.
Jurat McKinna complained about the recent petition by Winchelsea residents against the Council's expropriation of the Remembrance Sunday wreath-laying ceremony in Winchelsea. He criticised Winchelsea ward councillors for "politcising" Remembrance, and asked how a petition could be democratic, if it was not shown to people who did not wish to sign it! He also demanded to know how many people had not been shown the petition and how many had refused to sign.
Cllr Comotto pointed out that the wreath-laying ceremony in Winchelsea had been made into a political issue by a resolution tabled by Cllr Bronsdon of Rye Harbour to substitute elected ward councillors by the parish council Chairman (but only in Winchelsea). Jurat M admitted that he was unaware of this fact and had the good grace to apologise.
However, his complaint about the petition started a hare running through the thicket that is Icklesham Parish Council. Jurat M seems to have confused petitions with referenda, where it would indeed be undemocratic not to allow every voter to have their say. To be fair, such confusion is not that surprising for a member of an organisation that last flirted with democracy some five hundred years ago. No one really knew how to unravel such a convoluted misunderstanding of the democratic process. Even councillors who were inclined to support Jurat M as a matter of principle were unable to work out how to do so without looking ridiculous. In the end, as Cllr Drew pointed out, anyone opposed to the object of a petition can always organise their own. But for the information of Jurat M: it is estimated that 6,787,257,692 people were not shown the wreath-laying petition!
Budget
After the starters came the main course. A draft budget of £113,503 was put before the Council. This would have required a Precept (the parish council tax on residents) of £91,160, an increase of 31% over the current financial year.
Some councillors argued that such an increase was perfectably acceptable, given that it was equivalent to a mere £10 extra a head. Winchelsea ward councillors felt that, in current economic circumstances, a reduction would be more appropriate and that, in view of the Council's chronic and substantial underspending of its budget, any increase could not be justified. It was noted that strong opposition to an increase in the Precept had been expressed by Winchelsea residents in response to the budget consultation.
Winchelsea councillors suggested that the Council should conduct a a line by line review of the draft budget and then, if the total was too high, repeat the exercise until the budget was cut to an acceptable figure by rejecting or deferring expenditures which were not priorities.
Other councillors objected on the grounds that everything in the draft budget was a priority. This seemed to the Winchelsea projects which the Council had refused but did include £750 for a sign saying "Rye Harbour" to be put up on the outskirts of Rye Harbour. Such a sign should be erected by the County Council but they have refused. Interestingly, whenever Winchelsea has asked the parish council to do something that another body has failed to do, Rye Harbour councillors are at the forefront of objections that the parish council should not assume the functions of other bodies.
Winchelsea ward councillors expected, once again, to be simply outvoted by councillors from other wards, but the desire to automatically oppose anything suggested by Winchelsea councillors had to compete with the complete apathy of several councillors (some never spoke for the whole meeting) and the commonsense shown by Cllr Lyward of Winchelsea Beach, who felt that the Council, like other organisations in the current climate, should trim its sails.
£500 for new bins was axed, after the discovery that no one had asked for bins. £1,450 was cut from playground equipment, having been wrongly included in the first place. Amazingly, £150 was shaved from the Chairman's Allowance. £650 was cut from training, £2,155 from grants to churches for grass-cutting, £500 from the Council's own grass-cutting bill, £1,000 from the maintenance fund for repairing Smeaton's Lane in Winchelsea Beach (only just repaired at a cost of over £5,000) and £1,000 from the youth projects fund (because there are no actual projects). Winchelsea councillors offered to defer projects worth £3,010. Regretably, however, the Council refused to budget £1,750 for a communal shed requested by the plot-holders of the rejuvenated Cricket Field allotments. In total, some £13,660 was trimmed from the draft budget.
As it was, even these modest cuts were too much for Cllr Bronsdon. The breaking point for Cllr Bronsdon (who, as a resident of Rye, will not pay the Precept he was so keen to increase) appeared to be the cutting of the Chairman's allowance. This item has become a sacred cow for some councillors; a symbol of the Council's authority over tax-payers. The cut was proposed by the Chairman, after it was pointed out that, since this allowance had been drawn down as needed, rather than being taken in one lumpsum upfront, expenditure had never exceeded £144, suggesting that the budgeted sum of £450 was too much. Cllr Bronsdon objected and tried to wind back all the cuts, claiming that, as the Council had formally approved most of the budget items at its previous meeting, these could not therefore be cut or deleted at the current meeting (this presumably excluded the increase from £1,000 to £2,000 which Cllr Bronsdon was seeking for the flagpole at Rye Harbour).
The Chairman disagreed, explaining that the budget discussion was informal and no formal votes had been taken at the previous meeting, a point substantiated by the Assistant Clerk, who taken the minutes. Despite being over-ruled, Cllr Bronsdon (a former Chaiman himself) persisted in objecting and the exchange became increasingly heated. Was this the demeaning and disruptive behaviour feared by Jurat S? Obviously, the mentoring organised for Cllr Bronsdon by the Monitoring Officer has not been entirely successful.
Another little upset was caused when it was noted that the first Chairman to take an allowance (Cllr Merricks of Icklesham ward) had taken the whole amount upfront and refused to account for how it has been spent (although one year, she did claim that she had spent the money on gifts for retiring Councillors and Clerk). That councillor retorted that the Council had agreed that she did not have to account for it. She had therefore broken no rules. But then, no MPs have broken the rules with their allowances!
Surprisingly, the decision to cut the grants to churches for grass-cutting to £1,000 in total from £3,150 this year did not excite any objections. The reason appears to be that the £1,000 will be split equally, whereas the £3,150 was divided in proportion to the cost of grass-cutting for each church (so, Winchelsea got £2,000, Icklesham £500, Rye Harbour £400 and the Beach £250). Cllrs Merricks and Stanford were incensed last year because Winchelsea was getting more than other wards, even though their grass-cutting bill was bigger. Indeed, Cllr Stanford claimed that the resolution put to the Council had been for equal shares and would not accept the word of the Chairman and Clerk. As a result, the Council ended up spending over £900 on a recording machine. This time around, Cllrs Merricks and Stanford seemed happy that the churches in their wards were getting an equal share of a smaller cake than a smaller share of a larger cake.
An interesting digression from the main discussion was provided by Cllr Merricks. She had prepared a list of the expenditures put forward for each ward into the draft budget and calculated each ward's share of the total. These shares had then been compared with the proportion of voters in each ward. The logic of Cllr Merricks' arithmetic was that each ward should get a share of the budget in proportion to its share of the voting population of the parish. Given that Winchelsea councillors had proposed more projects than other ward councillors, the aim seemed to be to cut spending on Winchelsea and support the case for another £3,000 to be spent on Icklesham (specifically, on an outdoor shelter at the school).
Cllr Merricks arithmetic was dubious. She had forgotten to include several expenditures proposed for wards other than Winchelsea, had removed from the Icklesham village total the cost of the loan taken out by the Council last year to make a grant to Icklesham Memorial Trust (about £3,200 a year), and had included in the Winchelsea total a ward councillor's training request. She had also mistakenly assumed that the Precept is paid only by voters (in fact, all residents pay) and had ignored the fact that Winchelsea pays a larger Precept per head than other wards because assessments are based on property value and are not per capita. Significantly, Cllr Merricks did not do the calculations for the current financial year, when Icklesham ward received a grant for its village hall of £40,000 from the Council plus £6,000 for relaying the car park outside the village hall. Taking this into account and calculating the shares of expenditures which could be attributed to specific wards, Icklesham ward took 83% of spending, leaving the Beach with 8%, Winchelsea with 5% and Rye Harbour with 4%.
As it was, Cllr Merricks' arithmetic was largely ignored. But it did help by focusing discussion on £5,000 requested by Winchelsea councillors at the previous meeting for the provision of a water supply and the clearance of Pear Tree Marsh allotment (a project approved two years ago but one of the many still to be completed or even started). This sum had been agreed but it appeared to have been subject to a provisio that, when it came time to spend the money, it might be diverted to other wards. As Cllr Merricks' arithmetic showed the money as a sum for Winchelsea, Winchelsea councillors pressed the Council and secured agreement that the money will be dedicated to Pear Tree Marsh.
More than anything else, the discussion demonstrated that the fundamental difficulty that Icklesham Parish Council has with the budget process. Only a minority of councillors participate actively, if at all, in the discussion. Some resent having to go through the draft budget line by line and a few even believe that it should all be done by the Clerk. Most see the budget, not as a set of planned expenditures, but as set of contingency pots from which money can be drawn when the urge to do something arises later in the year.
In the end, the Council agreed a budget of £99,843 and a precept of £77,500, which represents an increase of almost 12%. More could have been removed from the draft budget, including the rest of the Chairman's allowance and £4,000 for Icklesham Recreation Ground drainage (an unnecessary project which will have consumed £36,000 against an original budget of £15,000). Councillors were assured that the Council will not underspend its budget this year, but even the estimated carry-over from this year is £20,793 (about 30% of the current precept).
Budget consultation
Before the budget debate, Winchelsea councillors attempted to inform the Council of the results of the budget consultation in Winchelsea, where 102 residents had responded by the time of the meeting to a questionnaire distributed to each household. However, there was absolutely no interest in what residents thought and no other councillors mentioned the views of their wards in the rest of the meeting. Public consultation appears to have fallen out of favour with Icklesham Parish Council as quickly as it was taken up.
Public Questions
The December meeting started with the now regular political expedition by members of the Corporation. Jurat Spencer berated councillors for their "demeaning and disruptive" behaviour at the last meeting.
Jurat McKinna complained about the recent petition by Winchelsea residents against the Council's expropriation of the Remembrance Sunday wreath-laying ceremony in Winchelsea. He criticised Winchelsea ward councillors for "politcising" Remembrance, and asked how a petition could be democratic, if it was not shown to people who did not wish to sign it! He also demanded to know how many people had not been shown the petition and how many had refused to sign.
Cllr Comotto pointed out that the wreath-laying ceremony in Winchelsea had been made into a political issue by a resolution tabled by Cllr Bronsdon of Rye Harbour to substitute elected ward councillors by the parish council Chairman (but only in Winchelsea). Jurat M admitted that he was unaware of this fact and had the good grace to apologise.
However, his complaint about the petition started a hare running through the thicket that is Icklesham Parish Council. Jurat M seems to have confused petitions with referenda, where it would indeed be undemocratic not to allow every voter to have their say. To be fair, such confusion is not that surprising for a member of an organisation that last flirted with democracy some five hundred years ago. No one really knew how to unravel such a convoluted misunderstanding of the democratic process. Even councillors who were inclined to support Jurat M as a matter of principle were unable to work out how to do so without looking ridiculous. In the end, as Cllr Drew pointed out, anyone opposed to the object of a petition can always organise their own. But for the information of Jurat M: it is estimated that 6,787,257,692 people were not shown the wreath-laying petition!
Budget
After the starters came the main course. A draft budget of £113,503 was put before the Council. This would have required a Precept (the parish council tax on residents) of £91,160, an increase of 31% over the current financial year.
Some councillors argued that such an increase was perfectably acceptable, given that it was equivalent to a mere £10 extra a head. Winchelsea ward councillors felt that, in current economic circumstances, a reduction would be more appropriate and that, in view of the Council's chronic and substantial underspending of its budget, any increase could not be justified. It was noted that strong opposition to an increase in the Precept had been expressed by Winchelsea residents in response to the budget consultation.
Winchelsea councillors suggested that the Council should conduct a a line by line review of the draft budget and then, if the total was too high, repeat the exercise until the budget was cut to an acceptable figure by rejecting or deferring expenditures which were not priorities.
Other councillors objected on the grounds that everything in the draft budget was a priority. This seemed to the Winchelsea projects which the Council had refused but did include £750 for a sign saying "Rye Harbour" to be put up on the outskirts of Rye Harbour. Such a sign should be erected by the County Council but they have refused. Interestingly, whenever Winchelsea has asked the parish council to do something that another body has failed to do, Rye Harbour councillors are at the forefront of objections that the parish council should not assume the functions of other bodies.
Winchelsea ward councillors expected, once again, to be simply outvoted by councillors from other wards, but the desire to automatically oppose anything suggested by Winchelsea councillors had to compete with the complete apathy of several councillors (some never spoke for the whole meeting) and the commonsense shown by Cllr Lyward of Winchelsea Beach, who felt that the Council, like other organisations in the current climate, should trim its sails.
£500 for new bins was axed, after the discovery that no one had asked for bins. £1,450 was cut from playground equipment, having been wrongly included in the first place. Amazingly, £150 was shaved from the Chairman's Allowance. £650 was cut from training, £2,155 from grants to churches for grass-cutting, £500 from the Council's own grass-cutting bill, £1,000 from the maintenance fund for repairing Smeaton's Lane in Winchelsea Beach (only just repaired at a cost of over £5,000) and £1,000 from the youth projects fund (because there are no actual projects). Winchelsea councillors offered to defer projects worth £3,010. Regretably, however, the Council refused to budget £1,750 for a communal shed requested by the plot-holders of the rejuvenated Cricket Field allotments. In total, some £13,660 was trimmed from the draft budget.
As it was, even these modest cuts were too much for Cllr Bronsdon. The breaking point for Cllr Bronsdon (who, as a resident of Rye, will not pay the Precept he was so keen to increase) appeared to be the cutting of the Chairman's allowance. This item has become a sacred cow for some councillors; a symbol of the Council's authority over tax-payers. The cut was proposed by the Chairman, after it was pointed out that, since this allowance had been drawn down as needed, rather than being taken in one lumpsum upfront, expenditure had never exceeded £144, suggesting that the budgeted sum of £450 was too much. Cllr Bronsdon objected and tried to wind back all the cuts, claiming that, as the Council had formally approved most of the budget items at its previous meeting, these could not therefore be cut or deleted at the current meeting (this presumably excluded the increase from £1,000 to £2,000 which Cllr Bronsdon was seeking for the flagpole at Rye Harbour).
The Chairman disagreed, explaining that the budget discussion was informal and no formal votes had been taken at the previous meeting, a point substantiated by the Assistant Clerk, who taken the minutes. Despite being over-ruled, Cllr Bronsdon (a former Chaiman himself) persisted in objecting and the exchange became increasingly heated. Was this the demeaning and disruptive behaviour feared by Jurat S? Obviously, the mentoring organised for Cllr Bronsdon by the Monitoring Officer has not been entirely successful.
Another little upset was caused when it was noted that the first Chairman to take an allowance (Cllr Merricks of Icklesham ward) had taken the whole amount upfront and refused to account for how it has been spent (although one year, she did claim that she had spent the money on gifts for retiring Councillors and Clerk). That councillor retorted that the Council had agreed that she did not have to account for it. She had therefore broken no rules. But then, no MPs have broken the rules with their allowances!
Surprisingly, the decision to cut the grants to churches for grass-cutting to £1,000 in total from £3,150 this year did not excite any objections. The reason appears to be that the £1,000 will be split equally, whereas the £3,150 was divided in proportion to the cost of grass-cutting for each church (so, Winchelsea got £2,000, Icklesham £500, Rye Harbour £400 and the Beach £250). Cllrs Merricks and Stanford were incensed last year because Winchelsea was getting more than other wards, even though their grass-cutting bill was bigger. Indeed, Cllr Stanford claimed that the resolution put to the Council had been for equal shares and would not accept the word of the Chairman and Clerk. As a result, the Council ended up spending over £900 on a recording machine. This time around, Cllrs Merricks and Stanford seemed happy that the churches in their wards were getting an equal share of a smaller cake than a smaller share of a larger cake.
An interesting digression from the main discussion was provided by Cllr Merricks. She had prepared a list of the expenditures put forward for each ward into the draft budget and calculated each ward's share of the total. These shares had then been compared with the proportion of voters in each ward. The logic of Cllr Merricks' arithmetic was that each ward should get a share of the budget in proportion to its share of the voting population of the parish. Given that Winchelsea councillors had proposed more projects than other ward councillors, the aim seemed to be to cut spending on Winchelsea and support the case for another £3,000 to be spent on Icklesham (specifically, on an outdoor shelter at the school).
Cllr Merricks arithmetic was dubious. She had forgotten to include several expenditures proposed for wards other than Winchelsea, had removed from the Icklesham village total the cost of the loan taken out by the Council last year to make a grant to Icklesham Memorial Trust (about £3,200 a year), and had included in the Winchelsea total a ward councillor's training request. She had also mistakenly assumed that the Precept is paid only by voters (in fact, all residents pay) and had ignored the fact that Winchelsea pays a larger Precept per head than other wards because assessments are based on property value and are not per capita. Significantly, Cllr Merricks did not do the calculations for the current financial year, when Icklesham ward received a grant for its village hall of £40,000 from the Council plus £6,000 for relaying the car park outside the village hall. Taking this into account and calculating the shares of expenditures which could be attributed to specific wards, Icklesham ward took 83% of spending, leaving the Beach with 8%, Winchelsea with 5% and Rye Harbour with 4%.
As it was, Cllr Merricks' arithmetic was largely ignored. But it did help by focusing discussion on £5,000 requested by Winchelsea councillors at the previous meeting for the provision of a water supply and the clearance of Pear Tree Marsh allotment (a project approved two years ago but one of the many still to be completed or even started). This sum had been agreed but it appeared to have been subject to a provisio that, when it came time to spend the money, it might be diverted to other wards. As Cllr Merricks' arithmetic showed the money as a sum for Winchelsea, Winchelsea councillors pressed the Council and secured agreement that the money will be dedicated to Pear Tree Marsh.
More than anything else, the discussion demonstrated that the fundamental difficulty that Icklesham Parish Council has with the budget process. Only a minority of councillors participate actively, if at all, in the discussion. Some resent having to go through the draft budget line by line and a few even believe that it should all be done by the Clerk. Most see the budget, not as a set of planned expenditures, but as set of contingency pots from which money can be drawn when the urge to do something arises later in the year.
In the end, the Council agreed a budget of £99,843 and a precept of £77,500, which represents an increase of almost 12%. More could have been removed from the draft budget, including the rest of the Chairman's allowance and £4,000 for Icklesham Recreation Ground drainage (an unnecessary project which will have consumed £36,000 against an original budget of £15,000). Councillors were assured that the Council will not underspend its budget this year, but even the estimated carry-over from this year is £20,793 (about 30% of the current precept).
Budget consultation
Before the budget debate, Winchelsea councillors attempted to inform the Council of the results of the budget consultation in Winchelsea, where 102 residents had responded by the time of the meeting to a questionnaire distributed to each household. However, there was absolutely no interest in what residents thought and no other councillors mentioned the views of their wards in the rest of the meeting. Public consultation appears to have fallen out of favour with Icklesham Parish Council as quickly as it was taken up.
Save Now
Wednesday 16 December 2009
Precept to increase by 12% next year
At its meeting on 14 December 2009, Icklesham Parish Council fixed a budget of £99,843 for the financial year starting on 1 April 2010. This means a precept (the tax levied by the Parish Council on residents) of £77,500 compared with £69,414 in this current financial year (the additional £22,343 in the budget will be financed mainly by £20,793 of unspent money likely to be carried over from this year).The budget discussion and the rest of the Council meeting are described in another posting. The budget (with previous year's figures in brackets) is:
Expenditures
administration
23,800 Clerks' costs (23,600)
4,750 other admin expenses (4,750)
2,000 insurance (2,000)
2,000 elections fund (0)
500 training fund (1,000)
1,500 newsletter, website fund (1,500)
300 Chairman's allowance (450)
7,500 contingency fund (7,500)
750 legal contigency fund (750)
current
7,000 grass cutting (7,000)
5,500 rubbish & dog bin collections (5,200)
2,500 street lighting in Winchelsea (2,500)
1,400 playground maintenance fund (900)
1,000 allotments maintenance fund (1,000)
1,000 Smeatons Lane maintenance fund (5,000)
500 tree maintenance fund (4,500)
3,500 fence repair fund (3,500)
4,500 other repairs, cleaning, small works fund (4,421)
capital projects
3,118 cost of loan for Icklesham Memorial Hall grant (3,118)
4,000 Icklesham Recreation Ground drainage maintenance (0)
5,000 new playground equipment in Winchelsea Beach
2,000 new playground equipment in Rye Harbour
2,000 Rye Harbour flagpole maintenance (1,000)
750 new sign for Rye Harbour
175 new bin by Strand bus shelter
5,000 Pear Tree Marsh allotment project
1,000 donations fund (1,000)
4,000 grants to village halls (4,000)
1,000 grants to churchyards (3,150)
1,500 grant to Rye Community Transport (1,500)
300 grant to Rye Harbour Nature Reserve (300)
99,843 total expenditure (108,092)
income
20,793 unspent funds carried over from previous year (36,364)
2 interest (7)
148 rent (148)
1,400 allotment rents (1,400)
77,500 precept (69,414)
99,843 total income (107,333)
Expenditures
administration
23,800 Clerks' costs (23,600)
4,750 other admin expenses (4,750)
2,000 insurance (2,000)
2,000 elections fund (0)
500 training fund (1,000)
1,500 newsletter, website fund (1,500)
300 Chairman's allowance (450)
7,500 contingency fund (7,500)
750 legal contigency fund (750)
current
7,000 grass cutting (7,000)
5,500 rubbish & dog bin collections (5,200)
2,500 street lighting in Winchelsea (2,500)
1,400 playground maintenance fund (900)
1,000 allotments maintenance fund (1,000)
1,000 Smeatons Lane maintenance fund (5,000)
500 tree maintenance fund (4,500)
3,500 fence repair fund (3,500)
4,500 other repairs, cleaning, small works fund (4,421)
capital projects
3,118 cost of loan for Icklesham Memorial Hall grant (3,118)
4,000 Icklesham Recreation Ground drainage maintenance (0)
5,000 new playground equipment in Winchelsea Beach
2,000 new playground equipment in Rye Harbour
2,000 Rye Harbour flagpole maintenance (1,000)
750 new sign for Rye Harbour
175 new bin by Strand bus shelter
5,000 Pear Tree Marsh allotment project
1,000 donations fund (1,000)
4,000 grants to village halls (4,000)
1,000 grants to churchyards (3,150)
1,500 grant to Rye Community Transport (1,500)
300 grant to Rye Harbour Nature Reserve (300)
99,843 total expenditure (108,092)
income
20,793 unspent funds carried over from previous year (36,364)
2 interest (7)
148 rent (148)
1,400 allotment rents (1,400)
77,500 precept (69,414)
99,843 total income (107,333)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)