Agenda and minutes
PDF 184 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN
Contact: Ross Pike
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
Minutes: Apologies were received from Bill Chapman and David Ivison. Ben Carasco attended as a substitute for Bill Chapman.
It was noted that the membership list on the front page of the agenda was incorrect, and should show Steve Cosser as the Chairman of the Board and Denise Saliagopoulos as a member. David Munro was no longer a member of the Board.
|
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING: 13 APRIL 2016
To agree the minutes as a true record of the meeting. Minutes: The Minutes were approved as an accurate record of the meeting. |
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests from Members in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.
Notes: · In line with the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012, declarations may relate to the interest of the member, or the member’s spouse or civil partner, or a person with whom the member is living as husband or wife, or a person with whom the member is living as if they were civil partners and the member is aware they have the interest. · Members need only disclose interests not currently listed on the Register of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests. · Members must notify the Monitoring Officer of any interests disclosed at the meeting so they may be added to the Register. · Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest. Minutes: In relation to the Shareholder Board Annual Report (Item 9), Colin Kemp declared that he was a member of the Cabinet at Woking Borough Council and was therefore involved in decisions relating to Bandstand Square Developments, one of the companies overseen by the Shareholder Board. |
|
|
QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
To receive any questions or petitions.
Notes: 1. The deadline for Member’s questions is 12.00pm four working days before the meeting (Thursday 26 May 2016). 2. The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (Wednesday 25 May 2016). 3. The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and no petitions have been received. Minutes: There were no questions or petitions. |
|
|
RESPONSES FROM THE CABINET TO ISSUES REFERRED BY THE SCRUTINY BOARD
There are no responses to report. Minutes: No issues were referred by the Board at its last meeting, so there were no responses to report.
|
|
|
RECOMMENDATIONS TRACKER AND FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME
The Board is asked to monitor progress on the implementation of recommendations from previous meetings, and to review its Forward Work Programme. Additional documents: Minutes: Key points raised in the discussion:
Recommendations Tracker
·
It was noted that the actions from 1 October and 5 November 2015
relating to the Carbon & Energy Policy and the HR&OD
Service had been completed and information would be circulated as
part of the next Council Overview Board Bulletin.
Forward Work Programme
· It was agreed that the Municipal Bond Agency item would be considered at the meeting in July 2017 even if it was not felt necessary to call in the Cabinet decision, as this was an issue of interest to Members.
· The Chairman would consider the addition of an item on the Council’s Asset Management Strategy to the Board’s forward work plan.
·
It was agreed that the Board would add an item on consultations to
its September meeting. · The Chairman would report back to the Board on the proposed next steps in relation to the Transformation Sub-Group. |
|
|
RESIDENT EXPERIENCE BOARD TASK GROUP SCOPING REPORT
Purpose of the report: For Council Overview Board to review and approve the scoping document as appropriate.
Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interests: None.
Key points raised during the discussion:
1 The Board was supportive of the proposed Task Group to review the Libraries Strategy for 2010, and requested that the following issues be taken into account as part of the review:
·
The need for the overall purpose of libraries to reflect changing
requirements and optimise new opportunities. ·
The findings from previous Library Service reviews. · The need to obtain the views of residents not currently using the service.
· The scope of work being undertaken by the New Models of Delivery Network on library transformation.
· The role of libraries in providing IT access for residents receiving Universal Credit.
2 It was also agreed that the list of witnesses should include those involved with running community partnered libraries.
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
Resolved: That the scoping document for the review of the Libraries Strategy for 2020, amended to take account of the points in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, be approved. Action by: Dominic Mackie
Board Next Steps: The Board to be kept informed of progress and outcomes as appropriate. |
|
|
TRUST FUND TASK GROUP REPORT
Purpose of the report: This report provides Members with the findings of the Council Overview Board Task and Finish Group who were reviewing the management arrangements of the Council’s Trust Funds, with the aim to bring them into effective use. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interests: None
Witnesses:
Kevin Kilburn, Deputy Chief Finance Officer
Key points raised during the discussion:
1 The Chairman introduced the
report and thanked the members of the Task Group and the supporting
officers for their work in achieving a successful
outcome. 2 The proposed management arrangement for management of the trusts through the Community Foundation for Surrey was in line with Charity Commission recommendations, and the Foundation would continue to work closely with the Charity Commission as the arrangements progressed to ensure that, as far as possible, the trust funds were spent in accordance with the their original objectives.
3 It was agreed that it was important to ensure that arrangements were in place to prevent the Council becoming the sole trustee of dormant funds again in the future, and it was noted that it had been the intention of the Task Group to include a recommendation to this effect. It was therefore agreed that a further recommendation would be made to the Cabinet to ensure that any future bequests which resulted in the Council to becoming a sole trustee for a trust fund should be managed by the Community Foundation for Surrey under the proposed new arrangements.
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
RECOMMENDED (to Cabinet):
a) That trust funds for which the County Council is the sole trustee, excluding the Lingfield Guest House and Looked After Children funds, be transferred to the Community Foundation for Surrey (CFS), and that officers be authorised to begin the liaison with the CFS to ensure this is actioned at the earliest possible date.
b) That a further report outlining the proposals in relation to those trust funds where the Council is not the sole trustee be submitted in due course, following discussions with the other trustees.
c) That, where a new trust fund is bequeathed to the Council, the presumption should be that the trust fund is transferred - under the same principles recommended for the current trust funds - to the Community Foundation for Surrey.
Board Next Steps:
Subject to Cabinet agreement to the above recommendations, the Council Overview Board will monitor these arrangements on an ongoing basis and make recommendations to the Cabinet as appropriate.
A progress report to be submitted to the Board in December 2016.
|
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE SHAREHOLDER BOARD
Purpose of the report: For the Council Overview Board to call the Shareholder Board to account for decisions it has taken in relation to any company for which the Council is a shareholder and for any returns it is making.
Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interests: Colin Kemp declared that he was a member of the Cabinet at Woking Borough Council and was therefore involved in decisions relating to Bandstand Square Developments Ltd, one of the companies overseen by the Shareholder Board. He remained in the room but took no part in the discussion on that part of the report.
Witnesses:
David Hodge, Leader of the Council Peter Martin, Deputy Leader of the Council Julie Fisher, Deputy Chief Executive Susan Smyth, Strategic Finance Manager
Key points raised during the discussion:
1 It was noted that it was the role of the Investment Advisory Board to make recommendations about whether or not to invest in opportunities which arose, whereas the Shareholder Board took a strategic view of the investments and reviewed the financial performance of the companies in which the Council owned shares. Both Boards were effectively sub-groups of the Cabinet, and final investment decisions were taken by Cabinet. The directors of individual companies decided on the support they required, including finance officer support.
2 The Council Overview Board’s role was to scrutinise the Cabinet decisions and the work of the Shareholder Board, but it was not able to directly scrutinise the performance of individual arm’s-length companies in which the Council was a shareholder. This was an issue which the Board would discuss further as part of the review of the ‘scrutiny in a new environment’ item at its next meeting.
3 It was felt that the presentation of the financial information in Annex C could be improved, including the addition of a column showing the return on the investment/capital.
4 In relation to Surrey Choices, it was reported that the Shareholder Board had deferred its scheduled review of the company’s business plan review at its last meeting following the resignation of the Managing Director. No decision had therefore been taken in relation to the provision of additional funding for Surrey Choices. The Leader of the Council reported that the reasons for creating the company were sound, and that the organisation had delivered better services for residents. It was commented that the company summary on page 48 of the report didn’t list loans provided by the Council, and it was agreed that this would be addressed in future reports. The Board also commented that the assertion that the company was providing services at a lower cost than the previous arrangements needed to be verified.
5 A question was asked about why Halsey Garton Property Ltd invested in property outside Surrey, and it was noted that a key objective was to achieve a broad spread of investment types to optimise returns and resilience, and that could not be achieved by only investing within the County.
Bob Gardner left the meeting at 11.25am and returned at 11.27am.
6 It was noted that there was a need to review the business strategy of Babcock 4S Ltd as a result of academisation. Further details were requested about the company’s unrealised pension liability loss, and it was agreed ... view the full minutes text for item 41/16 |
|
|
EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
Recommendation: That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information under the relevant paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act. Minutes: RESOLVED: That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information under paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.
|
|
|
INVESTMENT STRATEGY: PROPERTY PORTFOLIO
Purpose of the report: To provide an update to the Board on the Investment Strategy, noting the context of the Council’s total portfolio of land & buildings. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interests: None
Witnesses:
David Hodge, Leader of the Council Peter Martin, Deputy Leader of the Council Julie Fisher, Deputy Chief Executive Susan Smyth, Strategic Finance Manager John Stebbings, Chief Property Officer
[NOTE: THE BOARD CONSIDERED THIS ITEM IN PRIVATE AT THE MEETING. HOWEVER, THE INFORMATION SET OUT BELOW IS NOT CONFIDENTIAL.]
Key points raised during the discussion:
1 The revenue target from investments had been scaled down to reflect the competition from institutional investors in the market, but the key driver remained to provide a source of income to assist in the Council’s aim of financial sustainability in the long-term. Whilst the total returns so far had not been in line with the original expectations, progress was being made. Capital gains were not a key driver for investment decisions, as the capital values varied over time according to the length of tenancies and the condition of buildings. The Investment Advisory Board looked at scenarios for each potential investment, taking into account the age of the building, timing of refurbishment and the length of tenancies, prior to making any recommendations to Cabinet.
2 It was reported that the level of detail in the Investment Advisory Board and Cabinet reports on investments was the same, and Members of the Board were encouraged to look at the Cabinet papers in order to gain a full understanding of individual investments. However, the Board did not feel that the figures reflected in the confidential annex were easy to understand without a comparison. It would therefore be helpful to have a clear analysis of what the Cabinet had originally anticipated in terms of income and what had been realised on a year by year basis.
Ben Carasco left the meeting at 12.25pm.
3 In relation to consideration of individual investment decisions, a lower return may be accepted on a Surrey-based scheme which provided regeneration benefit, but it would still need to be viable in terms of its contribution to the Council’s long-term income-generation target. Whilst the aim of achieving a balanced portfolio was noted, it was queried why there had been no investment in residential properties. It was reported that the provision of key worker housing was an important consideration for the Council, and there was an opportunity to make provision for this as part of a mixed development with two of the properties purchased.
4 In conclusion, the Board supported the principle of a broad portfolio of investments to provide a revenue stream for the Council, but expressed some disappointment with the returns achieved to date. It was felt that the information on investment returns should be presented in a more transparent and accessible way to ensure rigorous scrutiny could be undertaken by the Cabinet. It was therefore
RECOMMENDED (to Cabinet): That a report be presented to the Cabinet on an at least annual basis with a transparent and accessible summary of actual income compared to anticipated returns, to enable the Cabinet to review the performance of the investments made and consider ... view the full minutes text for item 43/16 |
|
|
INVESTMENT STRATEGY: PROPERTY PORTFOLIO
This is a Part 2 annex relating to Item 9. Minutes: This Annex was considered at the meeting in conjunction with Item 10. |
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Board will be held at 10:00 on Wednesday 6 July 2016. Minutes: Noted that the next meeting would be held at 10.00am on Wednesday 6 July 2016. |