● Public sector — Debt & local finance
AI agent for managing debt and local finance
An assistant that tracks the debt, prepares grant applications and supports budget execution — the officer and the elected member keep the decisions. Hosted in France, on a resource isolated for each authority: the financial data stays under French law. The AI agent assists, the authorising officer decides.
Hosted in France
Financial data protected
GDPR & AI Act: governed deployment
Human decisions
Updated on
Deployed in a few weeks
Local finance assistant · hosted in France
Prepare the 2027 debt repayment schedule and the ratios for the budget orientation debate.
Table prepared. Outstanding debt at 1 January: €4.2m across 9 contracts, 2027 annual payment of €512k (including €98k of interest), average rate 2.1%, debt repayment capacity of 5.3 years. One variable-rate contract reaches the end of a phase in June — flagged for review.
Charts and briefing note ready for the debate.
⛓ Source · your loan contracts + M57 accounts
Charts and briefing note ready for the debate.
⛓ Source · your loan contracts + M57 accounts
Put together the investment grant application for the energy refurbishment of the primary school.
Application assembled. Form pre-filled, balanced financing plan (grant sought at 40%, own funds, region), model resolution prepared, documents gathered: quotes, works schedule, certificate that work has not started. 2 documents missing flagged (site plan, energy statement).
Ready for approval before submission — the authorising officer decides.
✎ Action · application ready for review — the public officer approves
Ready for approval before submission — the authorising officer decides.
✎ Action · application ready for review — the public officer approves
Local inference · no data outside the EU
Data hosted in France
Sovereign by designLocal inference or hosting in France
GDPR & AI Act: governed deploymentTraceability & human oversight
TurnkeyDesigned, installed and operated for you
The authorising officer decidesThe agent prepares, it never decides alone
✦ In brief
In the finance department, a Blue Lemon Agent agent tracks outstanding debt (repayment schedules, ratios, dashboards), pre-assesses and assembles grant applications (French state investment grants such as DETR and DSIL), and supports budget execution under the M57 public accounting standard — payment orders, revenue orders, flagging discrepancies. It runs on local inference or is hosted in France on a resource dedicated to and isolated for each authority: the financial data is never exposed to a foreign service, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity. The decisions remain those of the authorising officer and the deliberative assembly. Live within a few weeks.
2 days → 2 hr
assembling a grant application (illustrative)
100%
hosted in France in the target architecture
0
transfer outside the EU in the target architecture
7
uses ready to deploy for the finance department
Illustrative markers describing our offer — to be confirmed by a pilot in your authority.
The context
Why AI matters to local finance — and why it hesitates
Between the move to the M57 accounting standard, tracking the debt, the grant application rounds and day-to-day budget execution, the finance departments of local authorities combine technical complexity and volume. Every grant application not filed in time is funding lost for the area.
! The issue
The officer is caught between deadlines that cannot be negotiated — grant application filing, loan repayments, the budget timetable — and time-consuming preparation work: debt tables, financing plans, checks on accounting allocations. Yet most consumer AI tools amount to entrusting loan contracts, the authority's accounts and investment projects to a third party, often hosted outside Europe and subject to the Cloud Act.
✓ Our answer
For public financial data, AI is only of interest if it is sovereign and confidential by design. Local inference or an isolated resource hosted in France, systematic human oversight, decisions reserved to the authorising officer and the deliberative assembly: the agent prepares decision-support material that can be checked, it takes no budget decision. The aim is not to replace the officer, but to give them back time for analysis and for advising elected members.
The decisive point
Protecting the financial data: sovereignty & compliance
Loan contracts, accounts, investment projects: an authority's finances are strategic data. Here is how the architecture of our agents protects them, authority by authority.
Local inference
The agent can run on a machine belonging to the authority: no data leaves the network, nothing passes through a cloud.
Hosting in France
Otherwise, a dedicated and isolated resource, hosted in France under French law — the financial data: processing and access within the European Union targeted by the architecture.
Reduced extraterritorial exposure
Against the Cloud Act and FISA 702, the architecture is designed to reduce the exposure of the financial data; location alone does not guarantee immunity.
One isolated resource per authority
No pooling of data: an environment strictly dedicated to your authority, guaranteeing the continuity of the public service.
Encryption & controlled access
Encryption in transit and at rest, role-based access (RBAC), strong authentication and logging.
AI Act: governed deployment
The agent is strictly in support; no commitment and no decision is automated; traceability and human oversight from end to end.
What depends on the architecture chosen These points are not general guarantees: they are settled deployment by deployment, in the quotation.
- The applicable location is that of the architecture set out in the quotation and verified before commissioning.
- Local execution is announced only for the configuration explicitly described and accepted in the quotation.
- The applicable isolation depends on the deployment mode set out in the quotation; no dedicated isolation is presumed.
- The encryption mechanisms in transit and at rest, their components and key management are those documented for the architecture chosen.
- Roles and permissions are configured and accepted for the identities and systems actually connected.
- The events logged, their content, their retention period and who may access them are defined for the deployment chosen.
For the most sensitive data, SecNumCloud and HDS options are available depending on your requirements. A single architecture is designed to answer both the GDPR and extraterritorial exposure. Designed for deployment in line with the GDPR and the AI Act, after the processing, roles and context-specific risks have been assessed.
Demonstration
See the agent at work
4 real situations, taken from those that come up most often. Pick one: the exchange unfolds as it would in your organisation.
A scripted demonstration. These exchanges show how the agent behaves — its sources, its refusals, what it leaves to your teams. Nothing is sent from this page, no model is queried here, and the matters named are fictional. That is precisely what we promise your data.
The behaviours shown here — monitoring, automation rules, routing and reminders — are configured with you during deployment, from your tools, your rules and your thresholds.
The architecture points named in these exchanges — location, local execution, isolation, encryption, role-based access, logging — are not a guarantee attached to the demonstration: they are those of the architecture set out in your quotation, and verified before commissioning.
The public body in this demonstration
Fictional public bodyVille de Roche-sur-Ancelle — town of 9,400 inhabitants (fictional local authority)
- Sector
- Town of 9,400 inhabitants: main budget of €12.18m of actual operating revenue and €3.4m of investment, one ancillary budget for wastewater, M57 accounting framework applied since 1 January 2024
- Headcount
- 112 staff, 4 of them in the finance department — a head of finance, two accounting officers and one debt and grants officer; the chief executive and the mayor, as authorising officer, close the chain
- Public served
- 9,400 inhabitants, 41 grant-funded associations, 380 active suppliers; one council meeting a month, one budget orientation debate and three budget amendments a year
- Order of magnitude
- 6,400 payment orders and 2,100 revenue orders issued a year, 9 loan contracts for €4.2m outstanding, 11 grant applications filed a year, 12 productions of debt tables and ratios
- Tools in place
- M57 finance software, debt management module, platform for sending payment orders to the public accountant, grant tracking spreadsheet, department mailbox — the agent plugs in read-only, nothing is replaced and nothing is migrated
- Who decides
- The mayor, as authorising officer, signs the payment and revenue orders and settles the orientations; the town council votes the budget, the tariffs and the borrowings; the head of finance settles every output before it is sent; the public accountant pays and collects — the separation of duties does not move
- Points for improvement
- 214 payment orders out of 6,400 come back rejected by the public accountant — 3.3 %, and each rejection costs 35 minutes of rework and nine days' delay to the supplier; the debt table for the budget orientation debate takes 9 hours and is redone twelve times a year; a grant application takes 16 hours; and two eligible applications were not filed last year for want of time before the deadline — €186,000 of funding never asked for
At Roche-sur-Ancelle, four people hold the debt, the grant applications and the budget execution of a town of 9,400 inhabitants, against a calendar that does not negotiate: filing deadlines, loan instalments, budget orientation debate, budget vote. The exchanges below cover a full financial year, from the review of the nine loan contracts to the report presented to the town council. The agent runs on local inference on a machine inside the town hall: contracts, accounts and investment projects do not leave the network. The agent prepares; the authorising officer and the assembly decide.
This public body, its figures and the exchanges that follow were invented for the demonstration. They illustrate a common situation; they describe no real service.
Local finance assistant · hosted in France
I have reread your nine loan contracts and matched them against your M57 accounts: the 2027 instalment table and the ratios for the budget orientation debate are ready, and the matching has thrown up a discrepancy the calendar never leaves time to look for.
What your debt carries at 1 January 2027: €4.2m outstanding across 9 loans, 2027 debt service of €512,000, including €98,000 of interest and €414,000 of principal, weighted average rate of 2.1 %, debt repayment capacity of 5.3 years — €4.2m over €792,000 of gross savings for 2026. Your two other benchmarks: debt service weighs 4.2 % of your €12.18m of actual operating revenue, and the outstanding debt comes to €447 per inhabitant.
The discrepancy, and one single loan carries it. The €98,000 of 2027 interest is 2.33 % of the outstanding debt, while your weighted average rate is 2.1 %. The €9,800 difference comes from loan no. 4: principal outstanding of €800,000, revisable rate, a phase at 1.15 % ending on 30 June 2027, then reverting to the index provided for in the contract, estimated at 3.60 % for the second half. Over the four years still to run, the cumulative gap comes to €39,200, and the year-by-year detail is in the document.
What I propose, and there are six months left to decide: I put three costed options on the table — let it run, ask the lender to reset the rate before 30 June, or repay early out of the surplus. You choose on amounts, not on an impression. debt-schedule_9-loans-4-2-million-euros.pdfThe 9 loans line by line, the 4 ratios, loan no. 4 and its €39,200
⛓ Sourced · your 9 loan contracts, 2026 M57 accounts, debt schedule at 01/01/2027
What your debt carries at 1 January 2027: €4.2m outstanding across 9 loans, 2027 debt service of €512,000, including €98,000 of interest and €414,000 of principal, weighted average rate of 2.1 %, debt repayment capacity of 5.3 years — €4.2m over €792,000 of gross savings for 2026. Your two other benchmarks: debt service weighs 4.2 % of your €12.18m of actual operating revenue, and the outstanding debt comes to €447 per inhabitant.
The discrepancy, and one single loan carries it. The €98,000 of 2027 interest is 2.33 % of the outstanding debt, while your weighted average rate is 2.1 %. The €9,800 difference comes from loan no. 4: principal outstanding of €800,000, revisable rate, a phase at 1.15 % ending on 30 June 2027, then reverting to the index provided for in the contract, estimated at 3.60 % for the second half. Over the four years still to run, the cumulative gap comes to €39,200, and the year-by-year detail is in the document.
What I propose, and there are six months left to decide: I put three costed options on the table — let it run, ask the lender to reset the rate before 30 June, or repay early out of the surplus. You choose on amounts, not on an impression. debt-schedule_9-loans-4-2-million-euros.pdfThe 9 loans line by line, the 4 ratios, loan no. 4 and its €39,200
⛓ Sourced · your 9 loan contracts, 2026 M57 accounts, debt schedule at 01/01/2027
Is 5.3 years good or bad? And on loan no. 4, I don't have the early repayment penalty to hand.
Two benchmarks answer that, and the first one is your own. Your debt repayment capacity was 6.1 years at 1 January 2025 and 5.7 years at 1 January 2026: you are at 5.3 years, improving for three financial years in a row, and the reason is readable — you have repaid €414,000 of principal a year without drawing any new loan since 2024. The second benchmark is the one your assembly set itself: the town council resolution of 16 December 2025 sets an alert threshold of 8 years. You have 2.7 years of headroom. As an indication, a town is commonly regarded as entering a watch zone beyond 10 to 12 years; that is a sector order of magnitude, not an enforceable rule, and I do not carry it in the note — the note quotes only your resolution, which is enforceable.
On the early repayment penalty, here is what I have and what I hand you to obtain it in two days. What I have: article 9 of your loan no. 4 provides for an actuarial penalty, with no capped figure in the contract — the amount depends on the reinvestment rate on the day of the request, and it is in no document you hold. What I have done: the request for an early repayment statement is drafted, quoting article 9, the contract number, the value date sought and the three alternative amounts to be costed — full repayment, partial repayment of €400,000, rate reset. You sign it, the lender answers within 48 hours, and I replay the three options with the real figure.
In the meantime, here is what the three options cost before the penalty, and the note is ready for the budget orientation report. budget-orientation-note_debt-structure-and-management.pdfNote and charts ready for the budget orientation report, three costed options
⛓ Sourced · loan contracts no. 1 to 9, 2024 and 2025 annual financial statements, resolution of 16 December 2025
On the early repayment penalty, here is what I have and what I hand you to obtain it in two days. What I have: article 9 of your loan no. 4 provides for an actuarial penalty, with no capped figure in the contract — the amount depends on the reinvestment rate on the day of the request, and it is in no document you hold. What I have done: the request for an early repayment statement is drafted, quoting article 9, the contract number, the value date sought and the three alternative amounts to be costed — full repayment, partial repayment of €400,000, rate reset. You sign it, the lender answers within 48 hours, and I replay the three options with the real figure.
In the meantime, here is what the three options cost before the penalty, and the note is ready for the budget orientation report. budget-orientation-note_debt-structure-and-management.pdfNote and charts ready for the budget orientation report, three costed options
⛓ Sourced · loan contracts no. 1 to 9, 2024 and 2025 annual financial statements, resolution of 16 December 2025
When does the note come out? The budget orientation debate is set for the council meeting of 12 February.
It is written, and it is waiting on your reading — not on your drafting. The calendar holds comfortably: article L. 2312-1 of the French general local authorities code requires, in towns of 3,500 inhabitants and more, that the mayor present to the council a report on the budget orientations, the multi-year commitments envisaged and the structure and management of the debt, within two months preceding the examination of the budget. You vote the budget on 26 March; the debate on 12 February is inside the window.
What the note already contains: the structure of the debt loan by loan, the split between fixed and revisable rates — 7 fixed-rate loans for €3.4m, 2 revisable-rate loans for €800,000 and €0, the second settled in March —, the instalment schedule out to 2034, the four ratios with their three-year series, and the three options on loan no. 4, costed. Four charts are built: debt run-off profile, split of principal and interest within the debt service, series of ratios, and weight of debt service in actual operating revenue.
What I propose on top, and it takes ten minutes to decide: the report says nothing today about your multi-year commitments, although the text asks for them. I have taken your three programme authorisations in progress and their payment appropriations — €2.86m of authorisations, €1.12m of appropriations entered for 2027 — and turned them into a page that slots straight in. You keep it or you drop it; either way, the note is complete the day you read it.
✎ Framework · article L. 2312-1 of the French general local authorities code · budget calendar adopted on 16 December 2025
What the note already contains: the structure of the debt loan by loan, the split between fixed and revisable rates — 7 fixed-rate loans for €3.4m, 2 revisable-rate loans for €800,000 and €0, the second settled in March —, the instalment schedule out to 2034, the four ratios with their three-year series, and the three options on loan no. 4, costed. Four charts are built: debt run-off profile, split of principal and interest within the debt service, series of ratios, and weight of debt service in actual operating revenue.
What I propose on top, and it takes ten minutes to decide: the report says nothing today about your multi-year commitments, although the text asks for them. I have taken your three programme authorisations in progress and their payment appropriations — €2.86m of authorisations, €1.12m of appropriations entered for 2027 — and turned them into a page that slots straight in. You keep it or you drop it; either way, the note is complete the day you read it.
✎ Framework · article L. 2312-1 of the French general local authorities code · budget calendar adopted on 16 December 2025
One last thing before I let you run on all this: our contracts and our accounts — where exactly do they go?
Nowhere, and that is checkable on your own machine rather than on my word. I run on local inference on a server in the town hall: the contents of a loan contract, of an annual financial statement or of an investment project cross no external network to be processed. Network egress: 0. Transfers outside the European Union: 0. Over a machine that talks to nobody, exposure to the Cloud Act and FISA 702 is reduced accordingly; location alone is not enough, and the exposure is documented for the configuration chosen.
What I read, and how you check it: the technical account through which I read has read-only access on the M57 finance software, the debt module and the supporting-document repository — insert, update and delete are refused, and the permissions display with one command. Entries produced by me in your software: 0. I prepare, you validate, your software records under your own identifier.
The five roles follow the job: accounting officers, debt and grants officer, head of finance, senior management, and the technical account. Out-of-role accesses recorded since go-live: 0. The log carries who asked for what, when, and what was produced.
And if you would rather administer nothing, the same thing runs on a dedicated, isolated resource hosted in France, under French law, shared with no other authority — the scope is exactly identical.
What I propose so that you do not have to take my word for it: a half-day dry-run exit. You switch me off, you check that the payment-order chain and the debt module work exactly as before, you switch me back on. The slot that costs you least is the Thursday afternoon of the second week of August — 11 payment orders on average in that slot, against 214 on a Monday in December. technical-framework_where-financial-data-lives.pdfLocal inference, read-only, 0 data outside the EU, 5 roles, dry-run exit
✎ Framework · local inference, technical account permissions, access log · articles 5 and 30 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679
What I read, and how you check it: the technical account through which I read has read-only access on the M57 finance software, the debt module and the supporting-document repository — insert, update and delete are refused, and the permissions display with one command. Entries produced by me in your software: 0. I prepare, you validate, your software records under your own identifier.
The five roles follow the job: accounting officers, debt and grants officer, head of finance, senior management, and the technical account. Out-of-role accesses recorded since go-live: 0. The log carries who asked for what, when, and what was produced.
And if you would rather administer nothing, the same thing runs on a dedicated, isolated resource hosted in France, under French law, shared with no other authority — the scope is exactly identical.
What I propose so that you do not have to take my word for it: a half-day dry-run exit. You switch me off, you check that the payment-order chain and the debt module work exactly as before, you switch me back on. The slot that costs you least is the Thursday afternoon of the second week of August — 11 payment orders on average in that slot, against 214 on a Monday in December. technical-framework_where-financial-data-lives.pdfLocal inference, read-only, 0 data outside the EU, 5 roles, dry-run exit
✎ Framework · local inference, technical account permissions, access log · articles 5 and 30 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679
The budget orientation debate is where we are put on the spot. What exactly do you prepare?
The preparation of the budget orientation debate and the financial notes that go with it — written and sourced, signed off by your head of finance before they reach the mayor.
What I prepare: the budget orientation report in your own template, the summary note for the councillors, and the meeting materials. The figures come from your own entries: €4.2 M outstanding across 9 loan contracts, the year's instalment contract by contract, 5.3 years of debt repayment capacity with the calculation set out above the result, the movement of real operating income over five years, and the status of the 11 grant applications filed.
What the financial notes carry in addition, and what was missing: for every table, the source of the line and the extraction date; for every variance above 5 % year on year, one sentence of explanation in plain French; and the contract whose rate changes in June, written into the note rather than discovered in the chamber — €39,200 of rate variance over the year.
What that gives back: preparing the debt table and its annexes takes 9 hours and is redone 12 times a year; reading over a prepared one takes 2 hours. More than 84 hours given back over the year on that item alone, rounded down.
What does not move: the orientations are settled by the mayor and debated by the council. The note sets out the figures, the options and what each one costs; it recommends none of them. A note that concludes in the assembly's place is no longer a financial note, it is a position — and it would be open to challenge as one.
The figure that does not flatter me: on my first preparation, 3 tables out of 14 carried an extraction date earlier than the latest budget amendment: the amounts were correct on the extraction day and wrong on the meeting day. Your head of finance caught it before it went out, not me. I now date every table to the day of the meeting and I block any output whose source is older than the last budget amendment voted: over the next 11 preparations, no date discrepancy.
⛓ Sourced · 9 hours down to 2 across 12 outputs, €39,200 rate variance written into the note
What I prepare: the budget orientation report in your own template, the summary note for the councillors, and the meeting materials. The figures come from your own entries: €4.2 M outstanding across 9 loan contracts, the year's instalment contract by contract, 5.3 years of debt repayment capacity with the calculation set out above the result, the movement of real operating income over five years, and the status of the 11 grant applications filed.
What the financial notes carry in addition, and what was missing: for every table, the source of the line and the extraction date; for every variance above 5 % year on year, one sentence of explanation in plain French; and the contract whose rate changes in June, written into the note rather than discovered in the chamber — €39,200 of rate variance over the year.
What that gives back: preparing the debt table and its annexes takes 9 hours and is redone 12 times a year; reading over a prepared one takes 2 hours. More than 84 hours given back over the year on that item alone, rounded down.
What does not move: the orientations are settled by the mayor and debated by the council. The note sets out the figures, the options and what each one costs; it recommends none of them. A note that concludes in the assembly's place is no longer a financial note, it is a position — and it would be open to challenge as one.
The figure that does not flatter me: on my first preparation, 3 tables out of 14 carried an extraction date earlier than the latest budget amendment: the amounts were correct on the extraction day and wrong on the meeting day. Your head of finance caught it before it went out, not me. I now date every table to the day of the meeting and I block any output whose source is older than the last budget amendment voted: over the next 11 preparations, no date discrepancy.
⛓ Sourced · 9 hours down to 2 across 12 outputs, €39,200 rate variance written into the note
The prefectoral DETR 2027 call for projects came out on 12 November, with a filing deadline of 31 January. I have taken your investment programme and put together the application for the energy retrofit of the primary school.
The funding plan balances: €620,000 excluding tax of works, DETR applied for at 40 % — €248,000, region at 20 % — €124,000, own funds 40 % — €248,000. The threshold of article L. 1111-10 of the French general local authorities code holds: the minimum contribution of the contracting authority is 20 % of the total funding provided by public bodies; you are at 40 %, twice that.
What is already in the file: application form pre-filled from your budgetary identity data, draft council resolution written — approval of the project, of the funding plan and authorisation to apply for the DETR —, the three contractors' quotes, the works schedule set against the school holidays, and the certificate that work has not started, which the call for projects requires before any site opening.
Two documents are missing, and I name them precisely: the site location plan — it exists in none of your files, it is requested from the planning department and supplied within a day — and the energy report, which your design office must produce; the request to them is written and waiting to be sent.
The file is ready to read. Allow two hours of reading and validation, instead of the sixteen hours it used to take. The authorising officer settles it, and the town council resolves. detr-application_primary-school-620000-euros.pdfBalanced funding plan, draft resolution, 2 missing documents named
⛓ Sourced · prefectoral DETR 2027 call for projects of 12 November 2026, multi-year investment programme voted on 24 March 2026, contractors' quotes
The funding plan balances: €620,000 excluding tax of works, DETR applied for at 40 % — €248,000, region at 20 % — €124,000, own funds 40 % — €248,000. The threshold of article L. 1111-10 of the French general local authorities code holds: the minimum contribution of the contracting authority is 20 % of the total funding provided by public bodies; you are at 40 %, twice that.
What is already in the file: application form pre-filled from your budgetary identity data, draft council resolution written — approval of the project, of the funding plan and authorisation to apply for the DETR —, the three contractors' quotes, the works schedule set against the school holidays, and the certificate that work has not started, which the call for projects requires before any site opening.
Two documents are missing, and I name them precisely: the site location plan — it exists in none of your files, it is requested from the planning department and supplied within a day — and the energy report, which your design office must produce; the request to them is written and waiting to be sent.
The file is ready to read. Allow two hours of reading and validation, instead of the sixteen hours it used to take. The authorising officer settles it, and the town council resolves. detr-application_primary-school-620000-euros.pdfBalanced funding plan, draft resolution, 2 missing documents named
⛓ Sourced · prefectoral DETR 2027 call for projects of 12 November 2026, multi-year investment programme voted on 24 March 2026, contractors' quotes
Last year we let two applications go for want of time. How do we avoid that this year?
I have costed what those two applications represented, because that is the only way to turn them into a priority rather than a regret: €186,000 of funding never asked for — €118,000 of DSIL on the gymnasium roof, €68,000 of water agency support on the Rue des Peupliers network. Neither was refusable: neither was filed.
What I have done so that it does not happen again, and it asks nothing of you: I have rebuilt the calendar of your eleven funders, with the deadline of each campaign and the build time measured on your own past applications. The calendar goes off 60 days before each deadline, with the list of the projects in your multi-year programme that fall within that funder's scope. You no longer have to remember a date: the date comes to you, with the application already started.
What the calendar has already thrown up for this year: three eligible projects that nobody had matched to a funder — accessibility works at the annexe town hall (DETR, accessibility strand, €84,000 available), replacement of the village hall windows (regional green fund, €96,000), and the play area in the park (departmental scheme, €42,000). €222,000 of potential funding, on projects already voted into your multi-year programme.
What I cost for each of the three, because that is what the decision to file rests on: the exact line of the funding rules that opens it, the floor and ceiling rates, and the last three comparable projects that funder supported in the department — with the rate they actually obtained. That last figure is the most useful and nobody publishes it: across those comparables the rate obtained sat between 28 and 34 %, where the rules advertise a 40 % ceiling. Final eligibility is pronounced by the funder, and that is exactly why I hand you its rules and its past decisions rather than an opinion of mine: an opinion cannot be filed, an application can. You decide which ones you file; I build the ones you keep.
⛓ Sourced · funding rules of the 11 funders, multi-year investment programme, applications filed in 2024 and 2025
What I have done so that it does not happen again, and it asks nothing of you: I have rebuilt the calendar of your eleven funders, with the deadline of each campaign and the build time measured on your own past applications. The calendar goes off 60 days before each deadline, with the list of the projects in your multi-year programme that fall within that funder's scope. You no longer have to remember a date: the date comes to you, with the application already started.
What the calendar has already thrown up for this year: three eligible projects that nobody had matched to a funder — accessibility works at the annexe town hall (DETR, accessibility strand, €84,000 available), replacement of the village hall windows (regional green fund, €96,000), and the play area in the park (departmental scheme, €42,000). €222,000 of potential funding, on projects already voted into your multi-year programme.
What I cost for each of the three, because that is what the decision to file rests on: the exact line of the funding rules that opens it, the floor and ceiling rates, and the last three comparable projects that funder supported in the department — with the rate they actually obtained. That last figure is the most useful and nobody publishes it: across those comparables the rate obtained sat between 28 and 34 %, where the rules advertise a 40 % ceiling. Final eligibility is pronounced by the funder, and that is exactly why I hand you its rules and its past decisions rather than an opinion of mine: an opinion cannot be filed, an application can. You decide which ones you file; I build the ones you keep.
⛓ Sourced · funding rules of the 11 funders, multi-year investment programme, applications filed in 2024 and 2025
We'll take all three. But we have already had a grant balance blocked over a non-compliant invoice — do you check the documents?
Yes, and I check them on entry rather than at balance time — that is where the correction costs nothing. I have taken the documents of your eleven applications from last year and of their balance claims: 342 quotes, invoices and certificates.
What the check found: 19 non-compliant documents out of 342, of which 7 invoices without the contract or purchase-order number required by the funder's rules, 5 quotes whose validity had expired at the filing date, 4 tax and social security compliance certificates more than six months old, and 3 invoices whose net amount did not match the line of the funding plan — a cumulative gap of €3,180.
What it cost you without your knowing: two balance claims were suspended last year, one for 11 weeks, the other for 7 — and a suspended grant is not just one more letter: it is cash waiting, and the next project sliding.
What I now do, and it fits in one sentence: every document is checked on the day it enters the file, against the rules of the funder concerned, and the letter requesting a compliant document is written straight away, for the head of finance to sign. Of the 19 documents, 17 are fixed by a simple return to the supplier; the other 2 call for an amendment, and the draft amendment is written.
What I put on the table, and it stays your decision: should the filing be held back while a document is non-compliant, or should you file and regularise? Here is the figure to decide on: over your two financial years, filing then regularising cost 18 weeks of suspension; holding back would have cost 4 days of filing delay and no suspension at all. The rule is written in both versions; the one you settle takes effect the day you sign it. document-check_11-funding-applications.pdfQuotes, invoices and certificates checked on entry, 2 applications rescued
⛓ Sourced · 342 documents from the 11 applications of 2025-2026, funders' rules, balance claim log
What the check found: 19 non-compliant documents out of 342, of which 7 invoices without the contract or purchase-order number required by the funder's rules, 5 quotes whose validity had expired at the filing date, 4 tax and social security compliance certificates more than six months old, and 3 invoices whose net amount did not match the line of the funding plan — a cumulative gap of €3,180.
What it cost you without your knowing: two balance claims were suspended last year, one for 11 weeks, the other for 7 — and a suspended grant is not just one more letter: it is cash waiting, and the next project sliding.
What I now do, and it fits in one sentence: every document is checked on the day it enters the file, against the rules of the funder concerned, and the letter requesting a compliant document is written straight away, for the head of finance to sign. Of the 19 documents, 17 are fixed by a simple return to the supplier; the other 2 call for an amendment, and the draft amendment is written.
What I put on the table, and it stays your decision: should the filing be held back while a document is non-compliant, or should you file and regularise? Here is the figure to decide on: over your two financial years, filing then regularising cost 18 weeks of suspension; holding back would have cost 4 days of filing delay and no suspension at all. The rule is written in both versions; the one you settle takes effect the day you sign it. document-check_11-funding-applications.pdfQuotes, invoices and certificates checked on entry, 2 applications rescued
⛓ Sourced · 342 documents from the 11 applications of 2025-2026, funders' rules, balance claim log
We hold back. And the resolutions — do you actually write them, or do you hand over a template?
I write them, with the citations, the recitals and the operative articles filled in from your own data — you read a text, not a form with gaps. The hold-back rule is taken into account and takes effect on your signature.
For the school application, the resolution is ready: citations of the general local authorities code and of the prefectoral call for projects of 12 November 2026, recitals taking up the energy condition of the building and the multi-year programme voted on 24 March 2026, four operative articles — approval of the €620,000 project excluding tax, approval of the funding plan line by line, authorisation for the mayor to apply for the DETR at 40 % and to sign any document, entry of the appropriations in the 2027 initial budget. The funding plan table sits inside the body of the resolution, which avoids the request for further information you had in 2025.
What I do for the three new applications: the three resolutions are written on the same model, each with its funder, its rate and its funding plan. They go into the same agenda — one item instead of four.
What stays with the town, and nothing replaces it: it is the town council that resolves, and the mayor who signs the application. A resolution exists only once voted; what I hand back is the drafting time and the certainty that the four texts say the same thing the same way. The four applications can be filed on 20 January, eleven days before the deadline.
✎ Action · four draft resolutions written, ready for the agenda of the council meeting of 12 February — the town council resolves
For the school application, the resolution is ready: citations of the general local authorities code and of the prefectoral call for projects of 12 November 2026, recitals taking up the energy condition of the building and the multi-year programme voted on 24 March 2026, four operative articles — approval of the €620,000 project excluding tax, approval of the funding plan line by line, authorisation for the mayor to apply for the DETR at 40 % and to sign any document, entry of the appropriations in the 2027 initial budget. The funding plan table sits inside the body of the resolution, which avoids the request for further information you had in 2025.
What I do for the three new applications: the three resolutions are written on the same model, each with its funder, its rate and its funding plan. They go into the same agenda — one item instead of four.
What stays with the town, and nothing replaces it: it is the town council that resolves, and the mayor who signs the application. A resolution exists only once voted; what I hand back is the drafting time and the certainty that the four texts say the same thing the same way. The four applications can be filed on 20 January, eleven days before the deadline.
✎ Action · four draft resolutions written, ready for the agenda of the council meeting of 12 February — the town council resolves
I have taken your 6,400 payment orders and 2,100 revenue orders for the year and matched them against the voted budget, your supporting documents and the public accountant's rejections. What the matching shows is not a quality problem: it is a timing problem.
What rejections cost: 214 payment orders out of 6,400 came back rejected — 3.3 %. 35 minutes of rework each, and nine days' average delay to the supplier. The five grounds, and every one of them is visible before sending: wrong accounting code 78, supporting document missing or illegible 61, payee or bank details 44, duplicate 19, amount not matching the document 12.
What I have done, and what the chain never leaves time to do: I have written four checking rules, in the language of your M57 framework, and run them over your last 24 months of entries. For each one I give you the number of flags produced, the share confirmed after examination, and what it lets through:
· Rule A — coding to an account not opened in the voted budget or inconsistent with the nature of the document: 892 flags over 24 months, 806 confirmed — 90.4 %.
· Rule B — duplicate: same payee, same amount, same invoice reference within 45 days: 214 flags, 187 confirmed — 87.4 %.
· Rule C — supporting document missing or of a nature other than the one required by the list in annex I of the French general local authorities code, referred to in its article D. 1617-19: 1,106 flags, 1,042 confirmed — 94.2 %.
· Rule D — appropriations opened at chapter level exceeded: 61 flags, 61 confirmed — 100 %.
Total: 2,273 flags over 24 months, 2,096 confirmed — 92.2 %. None of these rules takes effect without your approval, and each one is withdrawn with a word. coding-check_8500-entries-214-rejections.pdfThe 5 rejection grounds, 214 → 41, 100 hours on top of the total
⛓ Sourced · 8,500 entries for the year, 24 months of history, public accountant's rejection log, voted budget and amendments
What rejections cost: 214 payment orders out of 6,400 came back rejected — 3.3 %. 35 minutes of rework each, and nine days' average delay to the supplier. The five grounds, and every one of them is visible before sending: wrong accounting code 78, supporting document missing or illegible 61, payee or bank details 44, duplicate 19, amount not matching the document 12.
What I have done, and what the chain never leaves time to do: I have written four checking rules, in the language of your M57 framework, and run them over your last 24 months of entries. For each one I give you the number of flags produced, the share confirmed after examination, and what it lets through:
· Rule A — coding to an account not opened in the voted budget or inconsistent with the nature of the document: 892 flags over 24 months, 806 confirmed — 90.4 %.
· Rule B — duplicate: same payee, same amount, same invoice reference within 45 days: 214 flags, 187 confirmed — 87.4 %.
· Rule C — supporting document missing or of a nature other than the one required by the list in annex I of the French general local authorities code, referred to in its article D. 1617-19: 1,106 flags, 1,042 confirmed — 94.2 %.
· Rule D — appropriations opened at chapter level exceeded: 61 flags, 61 confirmed — 100 %.
Total: 2,273 flags over 24 months, 2,096 confirmed — 92.2 %. None of these rules takes effect without your approval, and each one is withdrawn with a word. coding-check_8500-entries-214-rejections.pdfThe 5 rejection grounds, 214 → 41, 100 hours on top of the total
⛓ Sourced · 8,500 entries for the year, 24 months of history, public accountant's rejection log, voted budget and amendments
90 % means one in ten for nothing. On 892 flags, that is a lot of entries to look at.
You are right to take it that way, and the figure was far worse at the start — I publish it rather than show you the reassuring version.
The first quarter of service: 2,130 entries pre-checked, 214 flags, of which 97 unfounded — 45 %. One flag in two had you looking at a correct entry.
The cause, measured and not assumed: 71 of the 97 concerned accounts opened by the town council resolution of 16 December 2025 and absent from the reference chart of accounts I was using; 18 concerned payment orders under your roadworks call-off contract, where the supporting document is the purchase order and not the invoice; the last 8 were situations with no precedent in your two financial years.
What I did with that: I rewrote rule A so that it reads your voted chart of accounts rather than a reference chart, and rule C so that it recognises call-off contract documents. I ran it again over the 24 months: 0 real discrepancy lost. Second quarter: 2,240 entries, 139 flags, 11 unfounded — 8 %.
On the 892 annual flags of the tightened rule A, that comes to 86 entries looked at for nothing over the year, one every week and a half — against 78 rejected payment orders costing 35 minutes each plus nine days to the supplier. The arithmetic is yours: 86 two-minute glances against 78 rejections of 35 minutes. And if you judge 8 % still too many, here is the test that settles it: I can raise the threshold of rule A by one notch — 594 flags instead of 892, 4 % unfounded, but 31 real discrepancies lost over 24 months. That figure is yours to weigh, and I put it on both sides. discrepancy-rules_four-rules-run-over-24-months.pdf4 rules written, tested over 24 months, 92.2 % founded, 0 real discrepancy lost
⛓ Sourced · flag log for the first two quarters, 24 months of entries rerun, resolution of 16 December 2025
The first quarter of service: 2,130 entries pre-checked, 214 flags, of which 97 unfounded — 45 %. One flag in two had you looking at a correct entry.
The cause, measured and not assumed: 71 of the 97 concerned accounts opened by the town council resolution of 16 December 2025 and absent from the reference chart of accounts I was using; 18 concerned payment orders under your roadworks call-off contract, where the supporting document is the purchase order and not the invoice; the last 8 were situations with no precedent in your two financial years.
What I did with that: I rewrote rule A so that it reads your voted chart of accounts rather than a reference chart, and rule C so that it recognises call-off contract documents. I ran it again over the 24 months: 0 real discrepancy lost. Second quarter: 2,240 entries, 139 flags, 11 unfounded — 8 %.
On the 892 annual flags of the tightened rule A, that comes to 86 entries looked at for nothing over the year, one every week and a half — against 78 rejected payment orders costing 35 minutes each plus nine days to the supplier. The arithmetic is yours: 86 two-minute glances against 78 rejections of 35 minutes. And if you judge 8 % still too many, here is the test that settles it: I can raise the threshold of rule A by one notch — 594 flags instead of 892, 4 % unfounded, but 31 real discrepancies lost over 24 months. That figure is yours to weigh, and I put it on both sides. discrepancy-rules_four-rules-run-over-24-months.pdf4 rules written, tested over 24 months, 92.2 % founded, 0 real discrepancy lost
⛓ Sourced · flag log for the first two quarters, 24 months of entries rerun, resolution of 16 December 2025
We keep 8 %. And the payment orders themselves — do you prepare them, or only check them?
I prepare them, complete, and you validate them — the authorising officer's signature remains the act that brings them into being. The threshold of rule A stays where it is.
What I build for a payment order: the proposed coding with the account, the chapter and the line of the voted budget that opens it, the payee matched against your supplier database, the amount taken from the document without recomputation, the supporting document attached and checked against the list in annex I of the French general local authorities code, and the certification of service rendered as it was given. For a revenue order: the debtor, the legal basis of the revenue — tariff resolution, agreement or contract, quoted with its date —, and the document that establishes it.
The one thing the law closes to me, and it closes it to everyone: decree no. 2012-1246 of 7 November 2012 on public budgetary and accounting management provides that the functions of authorising officer and of public accountant are incompatible. The authorising officer orders payment, the accountant pays, and no software merges the two. What that changes for you in practice, and it is a gain, not a limit: I prepare on both sides of the line without ever crossing it — the payment order built for the authorising officer, and the document pack built so that the accountant has nothing to ask for. It is that double preparation that produces the figure below.
The measurement, over twelve months: the 214 rejections fell to 41 — 0.6 % of the 6,400 payment orders. 173 rejections avoided, 100 hours of rework given back to the service, and nine days' delay spared to 173 suppliers. Your average overall payment period went from 27 to 19 days, which leaves clear headroom against the thirty-day period the French public procurement code sets for local authorities.
Those 100 hours are not counted in the year report total: the report keeps only the three items announced by the fact sheet. I measure them separately so that no hour is counted twice.
✎ Framework · decree no. 2012-1246 of 7 November 2012 · annex I of the French general local authorities code, article D. 1617-19 · overall payment period, French public procurement code
What I build for a payment order: the proposed coding with the account, the chapter and the line of the voted budget that opens it, the payee matched against your supplier database, the amount taken from the document without recomputation, the supporting document attached and checked against the list in annex I of the French general local authorities code, and the certification of service rendered as it was given. For a revenue order: the debtor, the legal basis of the revenue — tariff resolution, agreement or contract, quoted with its date —, and the document that establishes it.
The one thing the law closes to me, and it closes it to everyone: decree no. 2012-1246 of 7 November 2012 on public budgetary and accounting management provides that the functions of authorising officer and of public accountant are incompatible. The authorising officer orders payment, the accountant pays, and no software merges the two. What that changes for you in practice, and it is a gain, not a limit: I prepare on both sides of the line without ever crossing it — the payment order built for the authorising officer, and the document pack built so that the accountant has nothing to ask for. It is that double preparation that produces the figure below.
The measurement, over twelve months: the 214 rejections fell to 41 — 0.6 % of the 6,400 payment orders. 173 rejections avoided, 100 hours of rework given back to the service, and nine days' delay spared to 173 suppliers. Your average overall payment period went from 27 to 19 days, which leaves clear headroom against the thirty-day period the French public procurement code sets for local authorities.
Those 100 hours are not counted in the year report total: the report keeps only the three items announced by the fact sheet. I measure them separately so that no hour is counted twice.
✎ Framework · decree no. 2012-1246 of 7 November 2012 · annex I of the French general local authorities code, article D. 1617-19 · overall payment period, French public procurement code
The accountant, precisely: he is going to ask how these payment orders are built.
The answer fits on one page, and I have written it so that you can hand it over without having to draft it on a Friday evening.
What it says, point by point: every payment order carries the origin of each of its lines — the account and chapter of the voted budget, the reference and date of the supporting document, the payee and its identifier in your database, the certification of service rendered and its author. No amount is recomputed: it is taken from the document, at its date. No payment order is sent without a named validation: the log carries who validated what and when, and it comes out in one minute.
What the accountant gains, and that is what will interest him: the document pack arrives complete and in the order of the list in annex I, which removes the most frequent ground of rejection after coding — 61 rejections last year. Over the twelve months just ended, rejections for a missing or illegible document went from 61 to 6.
What I suggest adding to the note, and it is decided between the two of you: a quarterly thirty-minute review with the accountant, on the record of the 41 remaining rejections and their grounds. Of the 41, 29 come down to three grounds that one clarification from you would remove — the nature of the document expected for grants to associations, the treatment of supplier credit notes, and the coding of works carried out in-house. The three questions are written, each with the two possible answers and what each one changes. You and the accountant settle them; the three clarifications take effect the next day.
✎ Action · method note written for the public accountant, three points of doctrine put with their options
What it says, point by point: every payment order carries the origin of each of its lines — the account and chapter of the voted budget, the reference and date of the supporting document, the payee and its identifier in your database, the certification of service rendered and its author. No amount is recomputed: it is taken from the document, at its date. No payment order is sent without a named validation: the log carries who validated what and when, and it comes out in one minute.
What the accountant gains, and that is what will interest him: the document pack arrives complete and in the order of the list in annex I, which removes the most frequent ground of rejection after coding — 61 rejections last year. Over the twelve months just ended, rejections for a missing or illegible document went from 61 to 6.
What I suggest adding to the note, and it is decided between the two of you: a quarterly thirty-minute review with the accountant, on the record of the 41 remaining rejections and their grounds. Of the 41, 29 come down to three grounds that one clarification from you would remove — the nature of the document expected for grants to associations, the treatment of supplier credit notes, and the coding of works carried out in-house. The three questions are written, each with the two possible answers and what each one changes. You and the accountant settle them; the three clarifications take effect the next day.
✎ Action · method note written for the public accountant, three points of doctrine put with their options
Twelve months of service. The report is written, the calculation fits in three lines, and it can be redone on your own logs.
The three items, and where every hour comes from:
· Debt table, ratios and annexed statements — 12 productions a year. 9 hours each, of which 60 % gathering the nine contracts, recomputing the schedules and formatting — 5 h 24. After: 10 %, that is 54 minutes. 4 h 30 given back per production, 54 hours over the year.
· Coding and document checks on payment and revenue orders — 8,500 entries. 8 minutes end to end, of which 40 % of checking and matching — 3 min 12. After: 10 %, that is 48 seconds. 2 min 24 given back per entry, 340 hours over the year.
· Building a grant application — 11 applications. 16 hours today, entirely by hand; 2 hours of reading and validation after. 14 hours given back per application, 154 hours over the year.
Total: 548 hours a year. On the statutory basis of working time — 35 hours a week, 1,607 hours a year — that is more than fifteen weeks and more than three months of work given back. The rounding is downwards: « more than fifteen weeks », never « about sixteen ». No post was cut and none was created: these are 548 hours given back to four people, for analysis and advice to the elected members.
And 100 hours on top, counted separately so as to be counted once: the 173 payment order rejections avoided. year-report_548-hours-given-back.pdfThe calculation item by item, the unflattering figure, what the service did with it
⛓ Sourced · finance software logs, public accountant's rejection log, 2026-2027 grant applications
The three items, and where every hour comes from:
· Debt table, ratios and annexed statements — 12 productions a year. 9 hours each, of which 60 % gathering the nine contracts, recomputing the schedules and formatting — 5 h 24. After: 10 %, that is 54 minutes. 4 h 30 given back per production, 54 hours over the year.
· Coding and document checks on payment and revenue orders — 8,500 entries. 8 minutes end to end, of which 40 % of checking and matching — 3 min 12. After: 10 %, that is 48 seconds. 2 min 24 given back per entry, 340 hours over the year.
· Building a grant application — 11 applications. 16 hours today, entirely by hand; 2 hours of reading and validation after. 14 hours given back per application, 154 hours over the year.
Total: 548 hours a year. On the statutory basis of working time — 35 hours a week, 1,607 hours a year — that is more than fifteen weeks and more than three months of work given back. The rounding is downwards: « more than fifteen weeks », never « about sixteen ». No post was cut and none was created: these are 548 hours given back to four people, for analysis and advice to the elected members.
And 100 hours on top, counted separately so as to be counted once: the 173 payment order rejections avoided. year-report_548-hours-given-back.pdfThe calculation item by item, the unflattering figure, what the service did with it
⛓ Sourced · finance software logs, public accountant's rejection log, 2026-2027 grant applications
I have to present this to the council. What will I be taken to task on?
Three things, and I have the costed answer to each — that is why I publish the unflattering figure at the same level as the others.
« How often was it wrong? » First quarter: 214 flags, 97 unfounded — 45 %. Second quarter: 139 flags, 11 unfounded — 8 %. The cause was single and it is corrected: 71 of the 97 came from a reference chart of accounts that ignored the accounts you voted on 16 December 2025. An unflattering figure discovered in the meeting costs you the meeting; an unflattering figure you bring yourself, with its cause and its correction, settles it.
« Who decided what? » Automated budget decisions: 0. Payment orders sent without a named validation: 0. Loans taken out: 0 — the delegation under article L. 2122-22, 3°, of the French general local authorities code belongs to the mayor within the limits the council set, and it is not delegable to a tool. Entries produced directly in the finance software: 0.
« Where is our data? » Network egress: 0. Transfers outside the European Union: 0. Out-of-role accesses: 0 across 8,500 entries and 9 contracts. And the dry-run exit was carried out on 13 August: the payment-order chain and the debt module worked exactly as before.
What I suggest adding to the resolution, and it is worth more than a long debate: the « who decides what » table, annexed to the budgetary and financial rules. Seven lines: what the agent does, what the authorising officer signs, what the assembly votes, what the accountant pays. A written division is contested once; an oral one is contested at every meeting. what-the-agent-does-alone_and-who-decides-what.pdf3 reversible unprompted actions, the « who decides what » table for the financial rules
⛓ Sourced · flag log, validation log, access log, record of the dry-run exit of 13 August
« How often was it wrong? » First quarter: 214 flags, 97 unfounded — 45 %. Second quarter: 139 flags, 11 unfounded — 8 %. The cause was single and it is corrected: 71 of the 97 came from a reference chart of accounts that ignored the accounts you voted on 16 December 2025. An unflattering figure discovered in the meeting costs you the meeting; an unflattering figure you bring yourself, with its cause and its correction, settles it.
« Who decided what? » Automated budget decisions: 0. Payment orders sent without a named validation: 0. Loans taken out: 0 — the delegation under article L. 2122-22, 3°, of the French general local authorities code belongs to the mayor within the limits the council set, and it is not delegable to a tool. Entries produced directly in the finance software: 0.
« Where is our data? » Network egress: 0. Transfers outside the European Union: 0. Out-of-role accesses: 0 across 8,500 entries and 9 contracts. And the dry-run exit was carried out on 13 August: the payment-order chain and the debt module worked exactly as before.
What I suggest adding to the resolution, and it is worth more than a long debate: the « who decides what » table, annexed to the budgetary and financial rules. Seven lines: what the agent does, what the authorising officer signs, what the assembly votes, what the accountant pays. A written division is contested once; an oral one is contested at every meeting. what-the-agent-does-alone_and-who-decides-what.pdf3 reversible unprompted actions, the « who decides what » table for the financial rules
⛓ Sourced · flag log, validation log, access log, record of the dry-run exit of 13 August
And what do you do without asking us? That is the question that will come.
Three actions, not one more, each named, each withdrawable with a word and each reversible in both directions.
· Match the previous day's entries against the voted budget and the attached documents each night, and put the flags on your morning screen. What it does not trigger: no payment order is sent, no entry is modified. Reversible: the matching switches off with a word, and the flags already raised stay readable.
· Wake a grant application 60 days before its funder's deadline, with the documents already gathered. What it does not trigger: no filing. Reversible in both directions: a funder taken off the calendar comes back with a word, and the 60-day lead is set funder by funder.
· Rebuild the debt table the day after each instalment and each budget amendment. What it does not trigger: no transmission to the assembly — the head of finance settles every output. Reversible: the table can be frozen on request, and the frozen version carries its date.
Everything else waits on a request from the service, and it is written in the « who decides what » table.
One clarification that matters, because I will be asked: starting an early repayment, taking out a loan, awarding a grant to an association are not things I refuse to do — they are acts that bind the town, and they call for a written mandate from the council or from the authorising officer. The day you give me one, capped and dated, I carry it out within the limits you set. In the meantime, each of those acts is handed to you ready to sign — and that is what takes a decision from three days of processing to ten minutes of reading.
✎ Framework · three unprompted actions set by the head of finance, « who decides what » table proposed as an annex to the budgetary and financial rules
· Match the previous day's entries against the voted budget and the attached documents each night, and put the flags on your morning screen. What it does not trigger: no payment order is sent, no entry is modified. Reversible: the matching switches off with a word, and the flags already raised stay readable.
· Wake a grant application 60 days before its funder's deadline, with the documents already gathered. What it does not trigger: no filing. Reversible in both directions: a funder taken off the calendar comes back with a word, and the 60-day lead is set funder by funder.
· Rebuild the debt table the day after each instalment and each budget amendment. What it does not trigger: no transmission to the assembly — the head of finance settles every output. Reversible: the table can be frozen on request, and the frozen version carries its date.
Everything else waits on a request from the service, and it is written in the « who decides what » table.
One clarification that matters, because I will be asked: starting an early repayment, taking out a loan, awarding a grant to an association are not things I refuse to do — they are acts that bind the town, and they call for a written mandate from the council or from the authorising officer. The day you give me one, capped and dated, I carry it out within the limits you set. In the meantime, each of those acts is handed to you ready to sign — and that is what takes a decision from three days of processing to ten minutes of reading.
✎ Framework · three unprompted actions set by the head of finance, « who decides what » table proposed as an annex to the budgetary and financial rules
Good. What are we aiming at next year?
Three avenues, costed on your own data, and each decided in a single meeting.
· Extend the matching to the wastewater ancillary budget. 1,340 payment orders and 620 revenue orders a year, today outside the scope. At the rejection rate observed on the main budget before service — 3.3 % — that is 44 rejections a year and 25 hours of rework. The setup takes a day; there is nothing to install.
· Take the funding programme out to three years. Your eleven funders publish their rules a year ahead; your multi-year programme runs to 2030. The cross-check throws up 14 projects in your programme that fall within at least one funder's scope and that no application covers — €1.18m of potential funding. Eligibility belongs to the funders; what I hand you is the list, the lines of the rules and the departmental precedents.
· See loan no. 4 through. The lender's statement arrived on 3 March: the penalty on a partial early repayment of €400,000 comes to €11,400, against €46,800 of interest saved over the remaining years — €35,400 net. The loan would be extinguished in 2028 instead of 2030, and the €400,000 cash outflow comes from a carried-forward operating surplus of €1.04m. The decision belongs to the town council; the presentation report is written, and the draft resolution with it.
And the measure I suggest keeping on the dashboard, because it is the one that says whether all this serves any purpose: the number of eligible applications not filed. It was 2 last year, it is 0 this year. €186,000 last year; €0 this year.
⛓ Sourced · wastewater ancillary budget, 2027-2029 funding rules, lender's statement of 3 March, multi-year investment programme
· Extend the matching to the wastewater ancillary budget. 1,340 payment orders and 620 revenue orders a year, today outside the scope. At the rejection rate observed on the main budget before service — 3.3 % — that is 44 rejections a year and 25 hours of rework. The setup takes a day; there is nothing to install.
· Take the funding programme out to three years. Your eleven funders publish their rules a year ahead; your multi-year programme runs to 2030. The cross-check throws up 14 projects in your programme that fall within at least one funder's scope and that no application covers — €1.18m of potential funding. Eligibility belongs to the funders; what I hand you is the list, the lines of the rules and the departmental precedents.
· See loan no. 4 through. The lender's statement arrived on 3 March: the penalty on a partial early repayment of €400,000 comes to €11,400, against €46,800 of interest saved over the remaining years — €35,400 net. The loan would be extinguished in 2028 instead of 2030, and the €400,000 cash outflow comes from a carried-forward operating surplus of €1.04m. The decision belongs to the town council; the presentation report is written, and the draft resolution with it.
And the measure I suggest keeping on the dashboard, because it is the one that says whether all this serves any purpose: the number of eligible applications not filed. It was 2 last year, it is 0 this year. €186,000 last year; €0 this year.
⛓ Sourced · wastewater ancillary budget, 2027-2029 funding rules, lender's statement of 3 March, multi-year investment programme
Local inference · no data outside the EU
Your case is not here? That is exactly what a 15-minute conversation is for. Book the free audit →
Use cases
The uses of AI in the local finance department
Each use corresponds to an agent we deploy. All work in support, subject to the public officer's approval and the authorising officer's decisions.
Included in your agent
The 6 capabilities essential to this promise are included, at no extra cost.
From 915 € incl. VAT / month
Debt tracking & dashboards
Track loan repayment schedules, prepare debt tables and ratios (debt repayment capacity, annual payments).
Grant applications (state investment grants)
Pre-assess and assemble the applications: forms, financing plans, documents and model resolutions.
Support for M57 budget execution
Prepare payment and revenue orders, check accounting allocations and make the entries reliable before approval.
Flagging discrepancies & anomalies
Detect execution gaps, duplicates and allocation anomalies before they become rejections.
Preparing the budget debate & financial notes
Write briefing notes, budget orientation reports and material for the deliberative assembly.
Check the documents in financing and grant files
Check quotes, invoices and certificates attached to grant applications and payment orders.
Controls and safeguards
These 5 controls are built into the agent: they frame what it does, whatever plan you pick. They are not chosen and are not added to your order.
Human validation, exceptions and escalation
Status, safe closure and audit trail
Sources, access rights and handling of questions with no answer
Reconcile supporting documents, rules and accounting entries with an audit trail
Handle discrepancies and validations before any accounting entry or payment
What the agent must be connected to
This connection is required for the agent to work. It concerns your information system and is scoped during the audit.
Integrate with accounting and banking software and with approved platforms (French e-invoicing)
Need to go further?
These agents handle a different business process, with their own owner and their own price. They are added to this one.
The authority's public procurement
Preparing the consultation documents and analysing the tenders, in line with public procurement rules.
Public procurement support from 1,010 € incl. VAT / month Public procurement →Automated reporting agent
Dashboards, scheduled summaries.
Automated reporting agent from 499 € incl. VAT / month Discover the agent →Wealth management agent (reporting)
Financial data.
Wealth management agent (reporting) from 653 € incl. VAT / month Discover the agent →Campaign watch & reporting
Media/competitor watch, performance tracking and automated client reporting.
Campaign watch & reporting from 539 € incl. VAT / month Discover the agent →
Does your need fall outside this?
Book the free audit →
Build your agent
In 15 minutes we identify the agent that will give your staff the most time back — without oversizing the project.
The gain
How much time can a finance department win back?
By automating debt tables, the assembly of grant applications and execution checks, the authority can aim for a clear reduction in preparation time — reinvested in analysis and in advising elected members.
Debt table and ratios for the budget debate
Checking the allocations of a batch of payment orders
Assembling a grant application
Qualitative, non-contractual comparison: the proportions shown illustrate the shift of the work towards review, they represent no measurement. Every output of the agent is reviewed and approved by a competent person.
How it works
The stages of your AI agent project
1
Audit & scoping
15 minutes to target the use case with the best return.
2
Quote or direct sign-up
A catalogue offer is bought online; a specific need gets a costed quote.
3
Design
We design the agent and its guardrails.
4
Integration & testing
We connect your tools to the agent, which is itself hosted in France.
5
Rollout
Going live and training your team.
6
Operation
Continuous supervision and improvement.
Pricing
Three options, one agent
A local finance agent (debt, grant applications, support for budget execution), installed and operated for you. Choose according to how you are organised. Prices exclude VAT — available by direct award below the public procurement thresholds.
Agility
Setup + controlled subscription
10,580 € incl. VAT setup
then 915 € incl. VAT/month — you invest at installation and pay a reduced subscription. Ideal for keeping the cost under control over time.
- Installation, configuration and training for your teams
- Operation, human oversight, updates and support
- Sovereign hosting in France, a dedicated and isolated resource
The simplest
Serenity
All inclusive, no setup fee
1,505 € incl. VAT /month
all inclusive, immediate start. No upfront investment: a single subscription. Ideal for starting quickly and simply.
- Setup included (installation, configuration, training)
- Operation, human oversight, updates and support
- Sovereign hosting in France, managed end to end
100% Sovereign
On site, you own it
14,966 € incl. VAT setup
then 1,160 € incl. VAT/month · + hardware from 2,989 € (one-off purchase, in addition) — a sovereign computer installed on your premises, maintained remotely. Models run locally, your data returned at the end of the contract. 36-month commitment.
- Hardware installed on your premises (you own it)
- French / European AI models run locally
- Secure remote maintenance (Pro support included)
Not included in the packages: AI consumption (model tokens), re-invoiced at real cost with no margin, and tracked in real time in your client area. Maintenance and supervision subscription for an initial term of 12 months for the Agility package, 24 months for the Serenity package and 36 months for the 100% Sovereign package, renewable; support levels (SLA 72 h / 24 h / 4 h) optional. Bespoke development, additional integrations or exceptional volumes are quoted separately. Support Monday to Friday, 9am to 6pm. Prices include VAT at 20%: as a public body that is not VAT-registered, you cannot reclaim it.
AI model:
none of the AI models offered currently carries a fixed surcharge. When the selected model carries a cost, that cost is shown when you choose it, before you order, and re-invoiced at the cost incurred, with no mark-up; usage is billed at the publisher's price. Publishers' prices are published in US dollars: the amount re-invoiced is the amount in euros actually borne by Blue Lemon Agent on the publisher's invoice, at that invoice's exchange rate, with no commission or mark-up.
Included components and additional components Components included in the base offer: the Blue Lemon Agent software foundation, the AI models listed in the order journey, the standard channels (Microsoft Teams, Slack, WhatsApp Business, email, website chat, calendars, Microsoft 365 / Google Workspace, file storage, market VoIP telephony, professional social-media pages and accounts, Google Business Profile), hosting in France for the package chosen, backups, supervision, updates and support. If adapting the AI agent to your constraints, your needs or your requests requires other paid components — a third-party publisher's software licence, paid API access to one of your applications, hosting of health data, for which French law requires an HDS-certified host (art. L. 1111-8 of the French Public Health Code), SecNumCloud-qualified hosting, a speech synthesis service, particular hardware —, they are offered to you as an option or on quotation and re-invoiced at the cost incurred; nothing is committed without your written agreement. Where the artificial intelligence model you choose entails an additional cost, that cost is shown to you before you order and re-invoiced to you at the cost incurred, with no margin.
What to expect
Go-live
2 to 3 weeks
Agent designed, channels connected, team trained.
Steady state
4 to 7 weeks
After a few weeks of real use, once the agent's behaviour matches what you expect.
Indicative estimate, adjusted to the options you keep. It is not a delivery commitment.
Our commitment
Four guarantees that matter to a local authority
Financial data never leaves the authorityLocal inference or an isolated resource hosted in France; no data entrusted to a foreign third party.
Data in France, under French lawFrench hosting and native minimisation protect the financial data, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
The authorising officer keeps the decisionsThe agent prepares tables, applications and entries that can be checked; no budget decision is automated.
Human oversight & traceabilityMonitoring and logging frame the debt tracking & dashboards; compliant with the requirements of the AI Act.
Frequently asked questions
Your questions, our answers
Does the agent take budget decisions?
No: it prepares and summarises; the decisions remain those of the officer and the elected member concerned.
Is it compatible with M57 and our financial tools?
Yes: secure integration with your financial management software, defined at the design stage.
Does the agent decide the budget choices?
No: it prepares the decision-support material; the decisions remain those of the authorising officer and the deliberative assembly.
Does it integrate with our financial software?
Yes: through secure integrations defined at the design stage (M57, debt management).
How long does it take to deploy an agent?
A few weeks as a rule, after a free audit that identifies the most useful use case, then a phase of design, integration and testing before going live and handing over to the department.
Where is the financial data hosted?
In France, on a resource dedicated to and isolated for each authority. GDPR: governed deployment. Depending on the need, the agent can also run on local inference, with no data leaving the network.
Do we need a technical team in-house?
No. The agent is designed, installed and operated by us: supervision, updates and maintenance are included. The department concentrates on analysis and advice.
Related roles
Other professions in public financial management
Let's talk
Let us estimate the potential in your authority
A few minutes to identify the most useful use case — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.