Issue - meetings

RESOLVED: That the Accounts for the financial year 2005/06 be noted and that the Executive Leader and the Chief Executive be authorised to sign and date page 13 of the Accounts, approving the Statement of Internal Control.

REASON:      In accordance with statutory requirements.

[See also under Part A minutes]

Members considered a report which asked them to review and comment upon the Statement of Accounts for the financial year 2005/06 and to refer the Accounts to full Council for approval before the deadline of 30 June.  Copies of the pre-audit version of the Accounts had been circulated separately to Members.  In accordance with new requirements, a specific “Statement of Internal Control” had been included, at pages 6-13 of the draft Accounts.

Under the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) scoring system, a higher score could be given if the Accounts had been subjected to a “robust” scrutiny before approval.  For that reason, the draft Accounts had also been considered by the Audit and Governance Committee on 26 June.  The Committee’s comments were reported at the meeting.  It was also reported that, due to changes in the guidance from CIPFA some amendments had been made to the draft Accounts.  Copies of the amended pages (page 29 and pages 58-60) were circulated at the meeting.

The report summarised the constituent parts of the Accounts and discussed key points to note.   Members raised questions about:

• Schools balances – how did these consistently remain at the £5m level, unlike other Council reserves?  Officers responded that the balances were reducing now that “clawback” arrangements were in place.
• The HRA reserve surplus – was it at a prudent level and what scope was there for its use?  Officers responded that most HRA reserves were being set aside for capital works to support the Decent Homes standard.
• The current state of the pensions liability – what was being done to reduce it and mitigate risks?  Officers conceded that this was a worrying issue but the next valuation of the pensions fund was almost certain to be higher.  City of York was paying in over £4m more per year than was needed to stand still and was paying off its share of the deficit over 24 years.  The outcome of government discussions with unions would also have a significant effect on the future of the fund.

Comments JL - Following on from Cllr Galloway's comment at the Executive yesterday should the bullet point about the capping costs be clarified?  From memory he wanted the cost of rebilling separating from the loss of income from reducing the amount we can charge tax payers.  Peter Steed would be in a better position to provide the necessary amendment.