Intervention Sophie Saint Amour at the City Council on 3/12/2010 sanitation budget Intervention 
At the Finance Committee on 8 November 2010, you presented the draft of Sanitation budget for 2011.
The estimates were then reported an amount of € 1,846,000 in operating section and € 1,744,000 in investment section
Given a total budget of consolidation which was 3.59 million €
To date, a new budget is presented to us that has nothing to do with the one considered in Committee of Finance. This budget will be submitted to a vote presents a change from the BP 2010, while this did not seem to be turning to the agenda a month ago!
Indeed, the estimates for 2011 tonight, have been 1 936 000 € in section operations and € 1,923,400 in investment section
The Total Sanitation Budget submitted to a vote tonight
is € 3,859,400
a difference of 269 400 00 € compared to what was originally planned.
If we go into detail we can easily see which lines these differences are and what choices were made.
Under operating
In expenditure, there is provided a transfer to the investment section of an amount of € 758 500 representing an increase by € 69 500 compared with 2010 and 90 000 € compared to your project budget.
On the revenue side, we see an increase in revenue related to Chapter 70 - Income from services in the field, various sales - estimated at € 1,711,000 for 2011.
a gap of 90 000 € over your project budget.
This is surely the estimated revenue rising from the water treatment levy funds (that is to say, the fixed premium subscription to the municipal sewerage surcharge paid by taxpayers). This choice is conservative because the variable is related to consumption is the risk of exploitation.
It had been planned in November this recipe down to € 30,000 compared with 2010 (€ 960,000 in 2010 and € 930,000 available in November).
This budget proposes an increase of the estimated revenue for 2011 at € 1,020,000 (or 60 000 more than € 2010 and € 90 000 more than the project budget).
Like all financial documents that relate us back to municipal charges proposed for 2011.
Reading the rates of tax consolidation, the report is as follows:
Tonight, we proposed the vote:
- fixed premium (subscription): € 38.27 ex VAT / year, so that it was 37, 34 € HT
in 2010 - Part variable (consumption): 0, € 8502 HT/m3 either the status quo compared to 2010.
However during the commission you had chosen to increase the fixed premium but in return for lowering the share variable HT/m3 0.8077.
In section Investment
A forecast of capital expenditure which is certainly down compared to 2010 but larger than 150 000 € compared to the draft budget.
Moreover, it is provided almost 100 000 € to increase spending on borrowings.
Total amount of real investment expenditure of € 1,726,000 to which is added expense associated with the order that gives us a total of € 1,923,400
There was a significant decline in investment income including grants (FCTVA liquidated?) but also in all other chapters of this section (borrowings, financial assets).
Thus the actual receipts of investments amounted to € 514 900 when they amounted to € 2,560,580 in 2010.
Thanks to transfers of orders and including € 758,500 from the operating section that helps balance the investment section.
How do you explain this difference amounts to both the project report submitted to the Finance Committee, but also the differences with the PB 2010?
At the Finance Committee, Mr. Mayor, you've made a general observation about the state of public service delegation from operations voted in early 2008. Which brings us to question ourselves.
We are well aware that the benefits of exploitation and therefore the burden on the farmer has changed since the extension of the treatment plant, which has doubled its capacity.
However, different contracts, the public works contract for the station and the lease contract related to the operation were concluded in 2008.
Where are we today?
Also, I was convened twice to commissions of public service delegation who, subject to "collective sanitation Amendment No. 1". However, they have both been postponed to a later date unknown to date.
But today, it is voted on budget consolidation and the municipal rates for 2011, which bind the city for a year. But we have no information concerning this addendum, the amount, we hope the economy will not change the contract.
It seems unreasonable to pass the budget consolidation in the state.
Would he not have been more rigorous to postpone the vote on the budget consolidation in anticipation of a more stable situation for a real prediction and flexibility in budgetary choices for 2011?
Therefore, tonight and for the first time since the beginning of the mandate, the opposition group would vote against this budget primitive sanitation.
For the group together and otherwise.
Sophie Saint Amour
