Meeting documents

63 EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROCEDURE

The Chair(person) drew attention to the emergency evacuation procedure as set out on the Agenda

64 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972

There were no declarations of interest made.

65 TO ANNOUNCE ANY URGENT BUSINESS AGREED BY THE CHAIR(PERSON)

There were no items of urgent business.

66 QUESTIONS AND STATEMENTS

The Friends of the Rec had submitted 6 questions: the Chair referred the meeting to the responses which had been circulated in the public gallery.

Statements were made by the following people (where provided, copies have been placed on the Minute book);

o Bob Calleja

o Worthy Gilson page1  page2  ImageFile1  ImageFile2  ImageFile3  ImageFile4  ImageFile5

o Tony Hooper  page1  page2

o Jill McGarrigle

67 MINUTES: WEDNESDAY 8TH OCTOBER 2008

On a motion from Councillor Vic Pritchard, seconded by Councillor David Hawkins, it was

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 8th October 2008, including the exempt minute of the same meeting, be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair(person)

68 BATH RECREATION GROUND - 2007/08 OUTTURN AND BUDGET 2008/09 (Report 7).

The Chair took a question from the floor regarding the detriment to the Trust if income from the Rugby Club was not to continue. The Chair responded that the Charity Commission had made clear their view that the financial benefit was to be considered of limited value when looking at the broader issues in perpetuity.

Neil Jackson asked a question regarding income from the Leisure Centre and, specifically, regarding the income from the car park and whether this could not be of more benefit to the Trust. The Chair responded that the Trust were becoming more rigorous about requiring income from those who were using the ground for commercial gain. With regard to the Leisure Centre, the Chair responded that the Leisure Centre trades at a loss but that, in light of the fact that it delivers up to a million leisure activities a year and that the Council is prepared to do this at a loss, the Trust did not require the Council to make a contribution to the Trust.

Worthy Gilson asked who were the Trust's independent auditors, and whether the accounts had been cleared by the Inland Revenue. The Trust's Financial Adviser responded that the Trust was not required to submit their accounts to the Inland Revenue. The accounts were audited by District Audit, on behalf of the Audit Commission.

The Financial Adviser gave a brief introduction to the report and highlighted a number of issues; - he explained that there was a long standing deficit due to the Charity Commission's requirement to appoint a Receiver/Manager from 2003 - 05. Of the £220,000 loan from the Council, approximately £64,000 had been used to improve the turnstiles, and the rest had been required for the Strategic Review. If the current difficulties continued, the Trust would be running into deficit again, and may wish to consider approaching the Council for further finances.

The Chair explained that the Trust now had 3 options, broadly speaking;-

1. increase income by £25,000;

2. reduce costs by £25,000; or

3. ask the Council to increase the loan by £25,000

Councillor Vic Pritchard hoped that the Trust would be able to manage within existing budgets and needed to focus on resolving the current difficulties at the earliest possible opportunity.

The Chair expressed his preference for not relying on any one particular option. He acknowledged that as they looked further into some of the leases, it was clear that there were subsidies to explore.

On a motion from Councillor Chris Watt, seconded by Councillor Vic Pritchard, it was

RESOLVED

(1) To approve the final accounts for 2007/08;

(2) To note the current spend on the Strategic Review and drawdown on loans;

(3) To approve the budgeted position for 2008/09 as a draft position, subject to any further consideration that may be required following a further financial report to the next meeting in March; and

(4) To request the Trust's officers to produce a report to be brought to a Board meeting in March with a detailed appraisal of the arrangements for all users of the Rec in terms of costs to the Trust and revenue received, and, in preparing the report, to consult the Parks section to identify any opportunities for increasing the income from bookings. The report should also include an indication of the financial implications of the various possible outcomes that could arise.

69 UPDATE ON PROGRESS WITH CHARITY COMMISSION (Report 8).

In introducing this report, the Chair explained the current situation in which the Trust found itself. He also explained that, due to a number of commercial sensitivities, it would not be in the interests of the Trust to discuss their negotiating position in public and, for that reason, they would be moving into exempt session later in the meeting.

The Chair explained that they were currently considering the basis of the Charity Commission assessment. The Trust have until 9^th April to respond to the Charity Commissions and their options are; -

1. Do nothing;

2. Ask for a decision review; or

3. Submit altered proposals

The Chair explained that the Trust have acted in the interests of the beneficiaries in attempting to secure long term benefits regarding structural improvement to the Rec. This has not been helped by the current financial circumstances. However, the Chair explained that the Charity Commission do not view the present economic climate as being very significant. Option 2 would continue to be pursued until it became clear that it was not possible for all parties to agree proposals that were acceptable to the Charity Commission.

The Chair then opened up the meeting for questions regarding the process/timescale. There was a question from the floor regarding plans for the East Stand. The Chair responded that the Commission's view was that the situation regarding the East Stand was tolerable while negotiations were ongoing (as to not renew would effectively remove option 2). However, the Charity Commission's letter had halted the `live' process so they could not now be expected to renew the lease on the basis under which they have previously been asked to do so. The process willl become `live' again if, before 9^th April, the Trustees either request a decision review or submit changed proposals.

Neil Hamilton asked for an indication of any cost implications of going for a review. The Chair responded that he didn't see the process costs of either option to be markedly different and neither would be prohibitive.

Bob Calleja asked whether, if there was any other way of addressing the East Stand issue, this could be pursued. The Chair responded that they were engaging in discussions around the longer term that they hoped would bear fruit:other short term limited options remained in the frame but would not be pursued until it was clear that the situation with regard the long term was unresolveable.

On a motion from Councillor Watt, seconded by Councillor Hawkins, it was then

RESOLVED

that, in accordance with the provisions of Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business because of the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act, as amended.