| Time: | 7.30pm | Place: | Committee Room 1, Council Offices, Gernon Road, Letchworth Garden City |
| PRESENT: | Councillor M.E. Weeks (Chairman), Councillor Julian Cunningham (Vice-Chairman), Councillor John Booth, Councillor Bill Davidson, Councillor S.K. Jarvis (substitute) and Councillor Frank Radcliffe (substitute). |
| IN ATTENDANCE: | Norma Atlay - Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance Andy Cavanagh - Head of Finance, Performance and Asset Management Vaughan Watson - Head of Leisure and Environmental Services Tim Neill - Accountancy Manager Nigel Schofield - Committee and Member Services Officer Phil Westerman - Engagement Lead, Grant Thornton |
| ALSO PRESENT: | Antonio Chiampa - Group Accountant |
| Item | Description/Resolution | Status | Action | |
| PART I | ||||
| 50 |
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE An apology for absence had been received from Councillor Lawrence Oliver and in accordance with NHDC regulations Councillor S.K. Jarvis advised the Chairman that he would be a substitute for Councillor Oliver. An apology for absence was received from Councillor Ian Mantle and in accordance with NHDC regulations Councillor Frank Radcliffe advised the Chairman that he would be a substitute for Councillor Mantle. |
Agreed | ||
| 51 |
MINUTES Minutes RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Finance, Audit and Risk Committee held on 5 December 2013 be confirmed as a true record of the proceedings and be signed by the Chairman. Minute 45 (4) - SECOND QUARTER REVENUE BUDGET MONITORING 2013-2014 The Head of Finance, Performance and Asset Management advised the Chairman that he intended to report back to this Committee at the meeting scheduled for 19 March 2014 on the issues raised on the Costs of Democracy Budget - additional printing costs as part of the third quarter revenue budget monitoring report. |
Agreed | ||
| 52 |
NOTIFICATION OF OTHER BUSINESS There was no other item of business tabled. |
Noted | ||
| 53 |
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting, to Councillor Frank Radcliffe to his first meeting of FAR and to Antonio Ciampa - Group Accountant and reminded Members that, in line with the Code of Conduct, any Declarations of Interest should be declared immediately prior to the item in question. |
Noted | ||
| 54 |
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION There was no public participation. |
Noted | ||
| 55 |
'INVEST TO SAVE' HITCHIN SWIMMING CENTRE DEVELOPMENT AND EXTENSION TO THE CAR PARK Report Declaration of Interest: Councillor Frank Radcliffe advised the Chairman that he was a member of Archers Health and Fitness Club but did not consider that this had any bearing on this agenda item. The Head of Leisure and Environmental Services (HLES) reminded the Committee that at the meeting held on 5 December 2013 (Minute 46(4) refers) there was a request for clarification of this ‘Invest to Save' scheme and the Extension to the Car Park at Hitchin Swimming Centre. The HLES addressed the Car Park Extension Issue first as at the last meeting of this Committee there had been a request made for an update on the proposed extension to the car park at Hitchin Swim Centre. The HLES confirmed that there had been a capital provision to extend the car park. However, access for a roadway for such an extension would encroach onto land owned by the Cow Commoners. Such work had been agreed by the Cow Commoners in principle but agreement on legal terms required the approval of the Charities Commission and as yet this approval had not been forwarded by the Cow Commissioners to NHDC. Fortunately alternative vehicle parking was available at Hitchin Town Football Club and the space was much used during the 14 weeks of summertime opening of the outdoor pool. The HLES advised the Committee that careful consideration would be made as to the ongoing need to commit capital to this scheme and whether a much better use for this capital sum could be found. The HLES advised the Committee that ‘Invest to Save' was not a new concept for NHDC as investment of Capital Funds in 2000 for the construction of Archers Health and Fitness Club had seen a significant reduction in revenue costs since the original investment. An Invest to Save project may show in the early part of the scheme items that were over budget but would by the end of the scheme not have a negative financial impact on NHDC. Archers was now in its 13th year of operation and the Swimming Centre in its 23rd year and the outdoor pool had been in use since the 1930s. The Hitchin Outdoor Pool was one of the few remaining outdoor pools in use in the UK and required a high level of subsidy. By way of more background detail the HLES confirmed that Stevenage Leisure Limited(SLL) were awarded a new contract in 2011 (for seven years, with an option for another seven years) which gave more significant savings to NHDC with additional savings from Non Domestic Rate Relief due to the charitable trust status of SLL. For the contractor to recover their costs and for NHDC to receive the financial benefits from ‘Invest to Save' the payback period must be over at least ten years, with this extension the payback period would be completed in March 2014. In outline terms this Invest to Save' scheme gave some additional £532,000 over 120 months to NHDC against an initial capital investment of £1,100,000. The HLES referred the Committee to Appendix 2 which provided more detail on the payments schedule against the capital payments. With annual interest on capital employed of about six per cent the Council would also obtain a capital asset of £1M in the form of the multi - functional rooms at no residual cost to the Council and which SLL had confirmed a commitment of £1.1M to the initial capital to cover the cost of the multi functional rooms. The report to the meeting of Cabinet held on 26 March 2013 (Minutes 144 and 152 refer) as part of the Part 2 Report included Appendix A and Appendix 2 of this report. This identified SLL's commitment to an increase in costs and payments in excess of £720K and up to a maximum of £1.1M. However, the repayment schedule presented at Appendix 2 showed that further interest payments would be shared on a fifty per cent basis, with the additional payment reducing (£42K per annum at £720K investment reducing to £16K per annum on a £1.1M capital investment). The HLES confirmed to the Committee that the financial risk was with SLL who recognised the need to operate a range of classes that maximised the use of fitness equipment (good for the next 15 to 20 years) and appropriate income from the classes. The extension to the swim centre was completed and handed over on 22 January 2014. The Chairman thanked the Head of Leisure and Environmental Services for the explanation of the concept of ‘Invest to Save' and the application to Hitchin Swimming Centre and that the Council would receive income following capital investment. Also, for the update on the extension to the Car Park and the access road along the side of Butts Close. In response to a question on why there was an increase in costs of the project the HLES advised that SLL had proposed an initial cost of £720,000 but on assessment by a Quantity Surveyor the cost estimate rose to £1.1M following new specifications raised by SLL. The HLES conceded that there was some £25K less income per annum to NHDC compared to the £720K proposal but stressed that the final outcome should be measured in the long term over 120 months where NHDC would receive £532,000 on an investment of £1.1M and that the interest paid by SLL was six per cent against the potential 1.5 per cent paid on deposit. In addition, NHDC would be the ultimate owner of the asset and SLL would repay the £1.1M plus interest. Members were very supportive of the Invest to Save schemes but the request for a report was purely to receive clarification of the financial position as presented in the Second Quarter Capital Monitoring Report for 2013-2014. The Committee were concerned that costs had risen steeply and that there had not been sufficient information explaining why this had occurred and that the increase in costs were not covered by the Council. The HLES advised that it was not possible to have an accurate costing until the tender specifications were issued and assessed, also that the Council did not wish to have any further delays to the project and all aspects of the bids were very carefully reviewed. These costs were within limits set by Cabinet and that there had been no cost to NHDC and there had been a reduction in annual costs for NHDC. The HLES agreed that this was a very good model for ‘Invest to Save' the benefit to residents was well known and that the outturn of an ‘Invest to Save' scheme must show positive results for NHDC. A Member commented that in the long term these works would translate into a health benefit for the users of the Fitness Centre. A Member was concerned that a similar increase in costs would not to be encountered by the Council when the further development of Letchworth Crematorium took place as the cost estimate was in a very wide price range, and if such an item was not accurately costed why was this included in the budget for next year? RESOLVED: (1)That the information in the report be noted; (2)That the Head of Leisure and Environmental Services be thanked for the report and the clarification of the financial issues concerning the development of Archers Health and Fitness Club. REASON FOR DECISION: For the Finance, Audit and Risk Committee to note the clarification of the costs applicable to the development of Archers Health and Fitness Club and the financial benefits to the Council with ‘Invest to Save'. |
Noted | ||
| 56 |
GRANT CERTIFICATION REPORT FOR NORTH HERTFORDSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL Introduction Report Mr Phil Westerman, the Engagement Lead at Grant Thornton wished to place on record on behalf of Grant Thornton the apologies for the non attendance by himself and the Audit Manager at the last meeting of FAR held on 5 December 2014 and the very unfortunate issue of three versions of the Annual Audit Letter for 2012-2013. This was not an example of good practice, the quality control system was at an unacceptable standard and was an indication of the problems when preparing Annual Audit Letters for several Local Authorities at the same time. Errors had been made and would not occur again. Mr Westerman (EL) referred the Committee to Minute 41 and confirmed that although it was good practice, Grant Thornton would seek to attend all FAR meetings where possible it was in fact not a contractual requirement to do so. Mr Westerman presented the Grant Certification Report for 2012-2013 which confirmed that both grant claims were submitted for audit in advance of the draft national deadline and related to expenditure of £84.6M in 2012-2103 which represented a final and important part of the Council's entitlement to funding. Mr Westerman was pleased to advise the Committee that for the third year running neither claim return was submitted with an accompanying qualification letter, and thanked the Finance Team for the provision of comprehensive paperwork in time for the audit. The EL was pleased to advise that the audit had gone very smoothly. The EL referred the Committee to Appendix A which gave details of all claims and returns subject to certification and to Appendix B which gave recommendations for improvement. The EL advised the Committee that with regard to the Housing and Council Tax Benefit Claim there had been a credit to the Council of £30.86K as a result of manual adjustments posted by the Council after the draft claim was submitted to the DWP and accordingly Grant Thornton recommended that manual adjustments should be performed prior to the submission of the draft claim. The Chairman thanked the Audit Manager for the Grant Certification Report and welcomed the non qualifications made. The Chairman invited comments and or questions. In response to a question the Engagement Lead advised that the colour symbols in the Executive Summary were green and that future presentations would have the word of the colour typed in i.e. green, amber or red. The EL also confirmed that he would meet soon with the Strategic Director for Finance, Policy and Governance and the Head of Finance, Performance and Asset Management to discuss the service levels to be supplied by Grant Thornton to this Authority. RESOLVED: (1)That FAR accepted the apology tendered by Grant Thornton for the manner in which the Annual Audit letter for 2012-2013 had been presented to FAR at the meeting held on 5 December 2013; (2)That the details in the Grant Certification Report from the external auditor be noted; (3)That the non qualification opinion on the Grant Certification Report be welcomed and noted. REASON FOR DECISION: For the Committee to note the outcomes of the Grant Certification Report for 2012-2013. |
Noted | ||
| 57 |
CORPORATE BUSINESS PLANNING - BUDGET 2014-2015 Report Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 Appendix 6 Appendix 7 Declaration of Interest: Councillor Michael Weeks advised the Committee that he was employed by Lloyds Banking Group plc (Lloyds Bank) in the Asset Finance division which had no connection to the Commercial activities of Lloyds Bank. Consequently he did not consider that this had any bearing on this agenda item and would remain in the room. The Accountancy Manager (AM) presented the report of the Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance which will be presented to Cabinet on 28 January 2014 and FAR were requested to note the report and comment if appropriate. The final grant settlement was still awaited from government and there might be a delay in setting the budget as there had been no notification of the Council Tax threshold and if this ceiling was to be reduced to below 2 per cent. The AM advised that a possible announcement date would be sometime in February 2014. Capitalisation of the Pension Fund had been allowed at £2.4M but must be taken up before 31 March 2014 and details of this capitalisation would be presented to Cabinet as an Addendum Paper on 28 January 2014. The AM advised the Committee that since the meeting held on 5 December 2014 Efficiency Savings E1, E6 and E7 had been removed from the 2014-2015 budget calculations. Savings from staff restructuring had increased from £62K to £149K, and the Letchworth Leisure Centre management had been awarded with an annual cost reduction of £500K. There would be a part year effect in the contribution of increased parking charges to the revenue budget due to the need for a tariff review and implementation of the new tariffs. The banking contract had been renewed with a saving of £10K (previous cost was £25K per annum) and a £20K allowance had been made as the Council's contribution towards a joint recruitment of an Economic Development Officer. The AM proceeded to give a summary of the budget proposals for 2014 - 2015 which included factors that contributed to the Council Tax that would be charged in 2014-2015 with Cabinet recommending the appropriate level of Council Tax to Council on 13 February 2014. The AM reminded Members that the Council's Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) had been adopted by Council on 5 September 2013 (Minute 56 refers) and that the MTFS provided the financial background to the Corporate Business Planning Process for 2014-2015 including the setting of Council Tax. The key messages to be considered in the preparation of the budget were: Funding, with a projected reduction of 4.5 per cent from Central Government for 2014-2015 and a further reduction of 4.8 per cent in 2015 - 2016. The AM referred the Committee to Table 1 for details of the provisional settlement for 2014-2015 and indicative for 2015-2016. The AM advised that there were uncertainties about the future of the New Homes Bonus and Housing and Council Tax grant from 2015-2016; The AM next described the main factors in preparing the next budget: General Fund, minimum balance of £2M proposed with other reserves totalling about £3.5m at 31 March 2014; Collection Fund, anticipated to remain in a surplus position at 31 March 2014 but there would need to be regular monitoring for the first year of the Council Tax Reduction Scheme and the retained business rates scheme; Strategic Priorities. Any investment proposals must be linked to the three strategic priorities or be an ‘invest to save' project.; Efficiency and Investment Proposals, the reduction in expenditure and income generation proposals for 2014-2015 totalled £1.514M, with growth pressures of £150K for 2014-2015; Budget Estimates, a net budget of £15.9M for 2014-2105 which was a net reduction of £765K on the budget for 2013 - 2014; Other considerations included: Income from the Hertfordshire Waste Partnership could increase in the next financial year but was less certain in future years, a lump sum payment to the pension fund could ease the future burden on the general fund The AM referred the Committee to Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 for further information and reviewed in some detail all the contributing factors for the 2014-2015 budget. In particular the expected efficiencies that had arisen from previous decisions as described at Table 6 which totalled £1.346M and achieved the budget gap for 2014-2015 which the AM advised were amplified in more detail in Appendices 3 and 4. The AM stressed to the Committee that employee costs remained one of the major areas of Council expenditure and that savings had been made since 2008-2009 and that £63K would be saved from 2013 - 2014 to 2015-2016. The AM concluded his report with a cautionary note on any increase in Council Tax and any subsequent referendum should a. the increase be more than 2 per cent or b. if a lower threshold was set by Government. The AM advised that a referendum would cost in the order of £85K for North Hertfordshire and should there have to be a re-billing of Council Tax demands then that extra cost would be £35K, however, these cost estimates did not include costs for communicating with residents prior to a referendum and were not included in the general fund estimates. The Chairman thanked the Accountancy Manager for the clarification of the budget for 2014-2015 and invited comments and or questions from the Committee. There ensued a long debate on the 2014-2015 budget report and specific questions were made, several of which would be answered by officers outside of this meeting. 1. Table 5 included nine key factors against a stated ten key factors in Paragraph 9.4.3. Officer reply outside the meeting. 2. When were the factors last reviewed as the score for Income Generation at 4-7 seemed high. The Head of Finance, Performance and Asset Management advised that the Income Generation score was revised during the MTFS in the summer of 2013. 3. The Inclusion of New Homes Bonus (NHB) was now included as part of the Council's spending power and where did the NHB fit into the spending at NHDC? Was the government settlement mostly made up of the NHB and therefore at risk? The Accountancy Manager confirmed that this scheme was now a key element in the council's spending streams and a Government review on the New Homes Bonus was expected in the Spring of 2104 and this could impact on the 2015-2016 financial budget. The Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance advised this scheme had been identified as a secure payment scheme for six years totalling £2.4M that would support general fund expenditure but could not be guaranteed. The Accountancy Manager stated that the spending power assessment from government included several various items of which the NHB was one. 4. Has the departure of St. Mungos Trust from the Sanctuary for the Homeless in Nightingale Road, Hitchin affected the budget? Officer reply outside the meeting 5. Will an increase of a staff award great than one per cent affect the budget? The Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance advised that the budget assumed a one per cent pay award for staff and this was based on information provided by the Local Government Association. Also, if a higher award were made, it would have an impact on the budget. 6. Was the Council Tax freeze grant payment a permanent feature in the budget calculations? The Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance (SD) confirmed that the Council Tax Freeze Grant would be paid in the overall settlement from government but could not be considered to be a permanent feature because the overall settlement was being reduced year on year. The SD also advised that following an increase in Council Tax the income was regarded as firm year on year. The SD also advised that it was difficult to assess specific amounts and derivation within the settlement grant. It was noted by the Committee that should the Council Tax threshold be reduced then there would be less additional potential income following an increase under the threshold and that the costs of a referendum would place additional burden on the budget. A follow up question was raised about the impact on the funding of the Council Tax Reduction Scheme and in particular if the surplus on the Collection Fund was due to the underspend on the scheme. The AM confirmed that the Council Tax Reduction Scheme was dealt with in the Collection Fund. To be supported by an expanded officer reply outside the meeting. 7. Was the large amount of reserve held in the Collection Fund as stated at Paragraph 9.3 necessary? The Accountancy Manager stressed that it was very important to consider the NNDR and Council Tax elements of the Collection Fund separately. The AM advised that the District's element of the surplus with regard to Council Tax was estimated at just £55K and that until a full financial year had been experienced of the business rate retention scheme it was not advisable to be over confident about the estimates for the position at the year end relating to Business Rates. 8. What will the consequences be for the Council if all appeals against Business Rate Assessments were adjudicated against the Council by the target date of 2015 as some £29M of rateable value would lost? The SD advised that some £40M was collected by NHDC in Business Rates and for every £1 collected the authority retained 6.5 pence and that the General Fund would absorb the costs of any successful appeals. 9. What is the position if an appeal by the business rate payer is lost and the money due is collected by NHDC? The SD advised that during an appeal Business Rates should be paid until an appeal was adjudicated. Any monies due would be split as 50 per cent direct to government and the balance divided between Herts County Council and NHDC. 10. At Appendix 4 Income Generation I1 - Grounds Maintenance. Why was this item included when there was no evidence of a business case assessment and no cost estimate prepared for the new crematorium at Wilbury Hills. The SD advised that this item had been raised at the September 2013 Member's Workshop and the request to include in the budget was agreed. 11. At Appendix 7 Risk FR18 - Vehicle Parking Town Wide Review. As there is no Transport Officer in post why is there a provision for a Town Wide Review of Car Parking. Officer reply outside the meeting. 12. At Appendix 7 Risks FR2, FR4, FR5 - Careline. There are three risks/items concerning Careline, why not include all together as one risk? and that a loss of income of £170K was not easy to absorb. These risks are different with different risks and potential outcomes. Also, there was some funding from HCC to the Public Health Scheme which was a separate issue. Risks for Careline were mitigated to reduce costs with a medium risk of 25 per cent assumed. 13. At Appendix 7 FR25 - Additional Payroll Costs. Why are these costs identified as a risk? The savings will be achieved by outsourcing the payroll function and the risk is there to monitor the achievement and that there was no other choice of contractor. 14. At Appendix 7 FR 12 - The Local Plan. Was the amount of £120K a justifiable medium risk and was the reserve sufficient? This had been considered by Officers to be justified and reflected the uncertainty around this issue making it difficult to profile a budget accurately. 15. At Appendix 7 FR 56 - Personal Searches. Has there been some double counting since this is a reserve and a risk identified. The earmarked reserve represented the known claims already outstanding and had been partly funded by a government grant. The risk represented the fact that there could be future claims. 16. At Appendix 7 FR 8 - Domestic Homicide Review. Why is there not more reserve as this aspect of family life has been on the increase? Officer reply outside this meeting. Members questioned whether the allocation of risks as presented at Appendix 7 and the discounted values actually masked the true costs of the risks and commented that the list of earmarked reserves seemed to get longer each year and was this a sensible approach to the management of reserves. The SD advised that the reserves ‘list' was reduced two years ago but as a result of a change of accounting requirements, small grant items had to be shown as earmarked reserves. A Member opined that where there was a genuine need for a reserve then the risk and reserve should be listed. The Member also questioned how the risks were measured into the High, Medium or Low. The AM confirmed that each Manager had to assess the risk value and likelihood and there was involvement of the Risk and Performance Manager (including Insurance) into the process. More options on the level of risks could be used but this would then be more difficult and could also be more arbitrary. The Chairman thanked Members for the time taken to raise questions on the 2014- 2015 Budget and thanked officers for the replies to each question and the replies to be made outside of the meeting. The Committee was pleased to note the report and that having made a referral on the Draft Budget for 2014-2015 at the meeting held on 5 December 2014 (Minute 48 refers) there were no additional matters of referral to Cabinet. RESOLVED: (1)That Officers be thanked for the report and the responses to Member's questions; (2)That the report to Cabinet be noted. REASON FOR DECISION: To allow the Finance Audit and Risk Committee comment and question the information provided in the Corporate Business Planning - Budget report for 2014-2015. |
Noted | ||
| 58 |
CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2014 - 2015 ONWARDS Report Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C The Accountancy Manager (AM) presented the report of the Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance that would be presented to Cabinet at the meeting to be held on 28 January 2014. The AM advised the Committee that there were new investment proposals with a significant level of investment and that Cabinet would be requested to approve the capital programme for Tenant Cash Incentives, Housing Association Grants, Disabled Facility Grants and Private Renovation Grants. The AM referred the Committee to Appendix A which detailed the funding source and the available funds. The AM reminded the Committee that the largest assumed source of funding was from Council resources using capital receipts or set aside receipts and that the use of set aside receipts would reduce the amount of cash available for investment. A Member referred to Appendix B and the sum allocated for the refurbishment of the District Council Offices and the sum paid for the acquisition of the District Council Offices and then also the sum paid for energy efficiency measures and the Head of Finance, Performance and Asset Management advised that the projected cost for 2013-2014 was £10K and the full year budget for 2014-2015 would be £50K and that the energy efficiency measures scheme related to NHDC owned buildings and not just the District Council Offices. The refurbishment project of the Offices would also consider energy efficiency measures as part of the overall scheme. The Committee was pleased to note the report and there were no matters of referral to Cabinet. RESOLVED: (1)That Officers be thanked for the report; (2)That the report to Cabinet be noted. REASON FOR DECISION: To allow the Finance Audit and Risk Committee comment and question the information provided in the Capital Programme report for 2014-2015 onwards. |
Noted | ||
| 59 |
TREASURY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR 2014-2015 Report Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Declaration of Interest: Councillor Michael Weeks advised the Committee that he was employed by Lloyds Banking Group plc (Lloyds Bank)in the Asset Finance division which had no connection to the Commercial activities of Lloyds Bank. Consequently he did not consider that this had any bearing on this agenda item and would remain in the room. The Accountancy Manager (AM) presented the report of the Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance that would be presented to Cabinet at the meeting to be held on 28 January 2014. The AM advised the Committee that there were no significant changes to the Treasury Management Strategy for 2014-2015 to that reported to the last meeting of this Committee held on 5 December 2013. The AM referred the Committee to the Treasury Management Statement for 2014-2015 to Appendix C with notice of one change from the 2013-2014 Statement which was the inclusion of Property Funds. This option was included to provide an alternative for longer term investments and there would be rigorous review before any funds were committed. The Annual Treasury Management Audit resulted in a clear reference to using Pillar 3 reports published by Building Societies before investment with a Building Society and that credit ratings of existing counterparties should be monitored on a monthly basis. The AM advised the Committee that Sector (now named Capita Asset Services) would not likely to be used in the 2014-2015 following the Financial Services Value for Money review but this was subject to contract review. The AM was pleased to advise the Committee that Lloyds Banking Group had been appointed to provide general banking services with a saving of £10K in a full year. In response to a question on investments and the rate of return and income received the Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance confirmed that established long term deposits had a good rate of interest but when at the end of term the funds were re invested the current rates of return were lower. A Member enquired about the effect of residents opting to Change Council Tax Payments from a 10 month schedule to a 12 month schedule and the cash flow income. The AM confirmed that funds had been borrowed over the Christmas period due to the substantial changes to cash flow this year. It was thought that the changes to the payment of council tax was part of the reason. Discussion took place next on the use of Property Funds for income purposes and how did NHDC justify the inclusion of potential income from a property fund. The Head of Finance, Performance and Asset Management (HF) advised that there very few property funds that might be suitable, but this potential addition would provide another option for diversifying the portfolio. The HF confirmed that only UK based property funds would be considered for use and this narrowed the possible funds to a small number. A Member questioned the need to invest in and the use of property funds and if the two year investment period was maintained then property funds would not be appropriate and the investment period should be extended to five years or longer. The SD replied that the use of property funds gave an alternative option but a full feasibility study and business case would be undertaken before any investment. The Grant Thornton Engagement Lead confirmed that there was a huge diversity in the risk profile of Property Funds and that Grant Thornton could provide advice if required. The Chairman thanked Officers for the report and Members for the interest in Treasury Management and the investment of funds to provide additional income to the Council. There were no referrals to Cabinet. RESOLVED: (1)That the contents of the report be noted; (2)That the issues raised by Members on Treasury Management be noted. REASON FOR DECISION: To allow the Finance, Audit and Risk Committee assess the proposals for earning interest and acknowledge capital risk. |
Noted | ||
| 60 |
FUTURE MEETINGS - POSSIBLE AGENDA ITEMS The Chairman proposed and it was agreed that the Head of Finance, Performance and Asset Management should present a report to the meeting scheduled for 19 March 2014 on the use of surplus income raised from parking charges for on street parking and off street parking and income from the issue of Fixed Penalty Notices. |
Agreed | ||