Agenda item

Decision:

1.     Approved the removal of the following schemes from the capital programme:

·        Albury closed burial grounds £57,000 in 2022/23

·        Mill Lane Flood Protection works - £16,000 2022/23 and £200,000 2023/24

·        Merrow & Burpham surface water study - £15,000 in 2022/23

2.     Recommended to Council at the meeting to be held on 6 December 2022,

·        That the capital and investment outturn report be noted.

·       That the actual prudential indicators reported for 2021/22, as detailed in Appendix 1 to the committee report, be approved.

Reason(s):

1.     To comply with the Council’s treasury management policy statement, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) Code of Practice on treasury management and the CIPFA Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities.

2.      As per the treasury management code although the scrutiny of treasury management (and indeed all finance) has been delegated to CGSC ultimate responsibility remains with full Council this report therefore fulfils that need.

Other options considered and rejected by the Executive:

1.     To have invested in lower credit quality investments, but this would have increased the Council’s risk exposure.

2.     To have borrowed longer-term for the Council’s capital programme but would have suffered a cost of carry due to the slippage in the programme.

Details of any conflict of interest declared by the Leader or lead councillors and any dispensation granted:

None.

The annual outturn report included capital expenditure, non-treasury investments and treasury management performance for 2021-22.

The comments arising from the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee held on 29 September 2022 were set out in the Supplementary Information Sheet.

The Lead Councillor for Resources introduced the report.

There had again been slippage on capital projects and there was a Capital Programme outturn of £40 million compared to the original budget of £148 million and a revised budget of £142 million. Consequently, there was a reduction in the minimum revenue provision of £1.38 million against a budget on £1.5 million. At year end there was £152 million in investments compared to £309 million in borrowing.

Overall, there was a satisfactory performance with some high returns. The lower yield on investments was offset by higher interest accrued by retained cash due to programme slippage.

The Council had taken out its first Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) local infrastructure rate loans for Weyside Urban Village of £22.8 million. The interest rate on those loans would be capitalised so that the borrowing could be repaid from capital receipts from land sales as a part of the scheme. 

Some Housing Revenue Account (HRA) reform loans had become payable, and the Council had repaid a £45 million loan from the HRA reserves.

Part of the Council’s M&G funds had been redeemed with a gain of £1.4 million which had contributed towards balancing the 2021-22 budget.

Given there had been slippage again on capital projects it was proposed there would be a more pragmatic approach to budget setting in anticipation of what might realistically be achieved alongside a regular monitor of expenditure throughout the next financial year. Consequently, the Executive,

RESOLVED:

(1)       To approve the removal of the following schemes from the capital programme:

·       Albury closed burial grounds £57,000 in 2022/23

·       Mill Lane Flood Protection works - £16,000 2022/23 and £200,000 2023/24

·       Merrow & Burpham surface water study - £15,000 in 2022/23

(2)    To recommend to Council at its meeting to be held on 6 December 2022,

·       That the capital and investment outturn report be noted.

·      That the actual prudential indicators reported for 2021/22, as detailed in Appendix 1 to the report, be approved.

Reasons:

(1)       To comply with the Council’s treasury management policy statement, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) Code of Practice on treasury management and the CIPFA Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities.

(2)        As per the treasury management code although the scrutiny of treasury management (and indeed all finance) had been delegated to the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee, ultimate responsibility remained with full Council - this report therefore fulfilled that need.