Minutes:
The Director of Finance presented
a report on Capital Strategy. The
Capital Strategy 2022/2023 Mid Year Update Report provided a high-level
overview of how capital expenditure, capital financing and treasury management
activities contributed to the provision of local public services at the
Council. In addition, an overview of how
the associated risks involved were managed and the implications for future
financial sustainability were provided.
The Capital Strategy report for
the Council covered the following areas:
• How
the Investment Strategy was funded.
• The
relevant Prudential Indicators to monitor the performance, affordability and sustainability of the capital
expenditure being proposed in line with the requirements
of the prudential code.
• Treasury
Management arrangements in place for investing surplus funds and borrowing to fund capital
expenditure.
• The
types of investments the Council made as part of managing its cash balances – the Annual Investment
Strategy.
• Minimum
Revenue Provision policy – including outlining how much the Council set aside to re-pay debt built up to
fund prior year’s capital expenditure in the Borough.
The Director drew the Committee’s
attention to the following:
The table at paragraph 8 of the
submitted report showed the Council’s capital expenditure, how this was
financed and the amount of borrowing.
There had been a significant amount of slippage in this year’s programme
and therefore approximately £20 million less borrowing compared to the
budget. The cost as a percentage of
revenue budget was 8.9% which was below the guideline of 10% and allowed some
headroom if any emergency works were required.
The forecast overall total long
term external debt at the end of 2022/23 was expected to be around £250
million. This should be compared with
the estimated Capital Financing Requirement (the underlying value which the
Council needed to borrow to fund capital activities) of £283 million. The Council therefore had an expected
under-borrowed position of circa £33 million or 12%, which had provided some
annual savings in interest payments, as other revenue and capital cash had been
used in lieu of borrowing.
On local authority borrowing,
there had been much interest from both regulators and the media in recent
months around individual councils taking significant amounts of long-term debt
from the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) for the sole purposes of commercial
activity – generally property investment.
Under the Prudential Code, local authorities had lots of freedom to
conduct and self-regulate their own borrowing and investment activities. The Director confirmed that Middlesbrough did
not use PWLB funding for property investment.
Increasingly local authorities
were moving to an annuity basis of Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) provision
which catered for lower debt repayments in earlier years, with the consequence
of greater amounts in later years, recognising that interest paid was higher in
the earlier years. It was proposed that
the Council moved to an annuity basis of MRP provision on unsupported debt from
2008. This was the significant part of the Council’s capital financing
requirement.
The impact of the MRP change
would be to improve the management of the revenue budget for capital financing
and to smooth the total cost of capital financing over many years. Under regulation the Council was unable to
backdate the policy for prior financial years and would continue to hold MRP
already provided on the balance sheet.
Only future charges would be
influenced by the new policy. The
Director confirmed that the decision could be reversed if required.
In response to a question about
the Council’s level of debt in comparison to other Local Authorities, it was
clarified that Middlesbrough was in the bottom quartile of the CIPFA financial
sustainability index that was referenced annually.
AGREED as follows that:
1. The report was received and noted.
2. The proposed change on Minimum Revenue Provision was endorsed by the Committee.
Supporting documents: