Agenda and minutes

The Democratic Services Officer read out the procedure.

RESOLVED that a Vice-Chair was not required on this occasion.

Apologies were received from Cllr Andy Furse, Cllr Geoff Ward and John Barker. Cllr Will Sandry had been nominated to chair the meeting in Cllr Furse’s absence. Cllr Sally Davis substituted for Cllr Ward.

Members expressed their condolences for the family bereavement suffered by Cllr Furse.

At this point in the meeting declarations of interest are received from Members in any of the agenda items under consideration at the meeting. Members are asked to indicate:

(a) The agenda item number in which they have an interest to declare.

(b) The nature of their interest.

(c) Whether their interest is a disclosable pecuniary interest or an other interest,  (as defined in Part 2, A and B of the Code of Conduct and Rules for Registration of Interests)

Any Member who needs to clarify any matters relating to the declaration of interests is recommended to seek advice from the Council’s Monitoring Officer before the meeting to expedite dealing with the item during the meeting.

There were none.

Cllr Sandry noted that there was no report from the external auditors on the agenda and invited Mr Hackett to comment on this. Mr Hackett explained that whereas the Audit Commission had laid an audit plan before the Committee at this time last year, Grant Thornton followed a different procedure. They would take a preliminary look at the controls in place and would then produce a pro-tem plan, which would be brought before the Committee later in the year.

Cllr Macrae sought assurance that this procedure would not compromise the external auditors’ ability to advise the Committee on significant issues before the it was required to sign off the Council’ s annual accounts. Mr Hackett said that the pro-tem plan would be tabled at the May meeting of the Committee. The Divisional Director – Finance said that the Council’s accounts would be published in June and would be brought to the Committee for sign-off in September.

There were none.

There were none.

These were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Divisional Director – Finance presented the report. He said that the Treasury Management Strategy would be put to the Council for approval in February. He explained that limits were set on lending and borrowing by means of prudential indicators. Appendix 1 to the report set out the overall strategy and some of the indicators. Borrowing limits were set on the basis of what was affordable. Treasury management limits were set for the Council’s lending. The proposed minimum portfolio credit rating for lending in 2013/14 was ‘A’. A summary guide to credit ratings was given on page 34 of the agenda. The Corporate Finance Manager circulated an update to the Treasury Management Strategy to members. Referring to this, the Divisional Director – Finance pointed out the increased figures for fixed interest rate exposures in 2014/15 and 2015/16, which reflected the capital programme and the draft budget, which had been published today. Cllr Macrae asked what would happen if the Council rejected the budget. The Divisional Director – Finance replied that the limits should match the capital programme; he would expect the figures to be lower if a major scheme was removed from the programme.

Cllr Laming asked whether a lower return was received from institutions with higher credit ratings. The Divisional Director – Finance said that this was the case, but there were no longer as many institutions with the highest credit ratings, and the Council had to accept lower ratings than it would have done previously or it would run out of institutions to invest in. 

The Divisional Director – Finance highlighted the borrowing limits on page 17 of the agenda and the distinction between the maximum limit and the operating limit. The Council was planning to fund some schemes, such as Keynsham regeneration, from cash flow. It was possible that borrowing would be even lower than the operating limit, because it made more sense to use cash for the capital programme rather than have it on deposit at low rates of interest and borrow at high rates. He asked Members to note the economic context report on pages 18-21 of the agenda, produced by the Council’s new treasury advisors, Arlingclose, who had taken over Sterling. Councillor Macrae asked whether any differences had been noted in Arlingclose’s views and approach. The Divisional Director – Finance said that Arlingclose had retained two members of Sterling’s staff who had previously worked with the Council. The only difference noted so far had been that Arlingclose expected base rates to remain flat for a slighter longer period than Sterling had. Arlingclose was a bigger company than Sterling had been and could undertake more research.

Cllr Laming asked whether there was any contingency in the budget for an unforeseen catastrophe. The Divisional Director – Finance replied that on the capital side, most of the Council’s buildings were insured, so there would be cover in the case of a serious problem affecting a building. On the revenue side, service budgets were regularly and carefully monitored,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

The Group Manager (Audit & Risk) presented the report. He reminded Members of their involvement in the governance review process in past years. Appendix 1 summarised the Corporate Governance Environment and the timescale for the 2012/13 review was set out in paragraph 4.6-4.8 of the report. He requested the Committee’s comments on the process and their input to the review. Councillor Macrae stated his support for the continuation of existing review process based on the assurance from the Group Manager that it could be completed within the resource constraints of the Audit & Risk Team. This assurance was provided.

RESOLVED

1. To note the process and timetable for the Annual Governance Review 2012/13.