Minutes:
The Committee received a presentation from the Head of Technical Services, Neighbourhood Services about the Whole of Government Accounts - Implications for Technical Services (for copy see file of Minutes).
The Head of Technical Services advised that Technical Services produce an annual valuation of the highway asset for the Whole of Government Accounts and highlighted the following:-
· Process
· Implications
· Issues and Risks
· Transport Asset Management Plan (TAMP)
· TAMP Valuation
· TAMP Investment Levels
Ms K Larkin-Bramley asked if the inventory cost was the same as the market value regarding the Valuation of the Capital Asset. The Head of Technical Services advised that it was exactly the same and that the assets when re-valued as at 31 March were based on local Durham rates. He added that there could be fluctuation but that it would be picked up. The Assistant Finance Manager, Corporate Finance said that the Asset Register was based on historic costs in the accounts. Ms Larkin-Bramley asked if it was a new accounting treatment and was advised that it was.
With reference to street lighting, Councillor C Carr asked if the replacement columns had a major effect as some columns would have still had life left in them. He was advised that it had had an impact on the valuation but was not major. The Chairman asked what was included and was advised that the definition was inclusive of all assets from highway verge to highway verge.
Ms Larkin-Bramley was informed that the inventory remains reasonably static with changes from new developments with the occasional asset being deleted.
Councillor C Carr asked if bridges were included in the valuation, especially given the recent work carried out on Milburngate Bridge as would be a huge asset to hold. The Head of Technical Services confirmed that they were and the work carried out at Milburngate would be fed into the next financial year’s budget.
Referring to the budget Councillor C Carr asked how much was received from the government and how much was met from capital. The Head of Technical Services advised that the DoT funding, including LTP and pot hole funding was £14.2m and DCC topped up with additional capital funding of £5.4m.
The Corporate Director, Resources said that the Council does give high priority to highways maintenance and that significant resources are added to it from the County Council Budget. He reported that although a lot of work had gone into the bidding process for top slicing of the formula grant, it had been a huge disappointment not to receive anything from the bid. He added that it would be flagged up in the spending review and that there would be potholes funding working through the system. The Head of Technical Services explained that the share of national funding was roughly 1% and had a huge impact on the Council.
Councillor O Temple said that looking at the figures there appears to be a shortfall every year of £4m and asked if this implied a decline in the standard. The Head of Technical Services advised that this was the case for every authority and depended upon funding from the DoT. Councillor L Armstrong asked if the actual maintenance backlog add £4m each year and was advised that the figures were based on long term averages. The condition data was calculated on a 4 year cycle and milder weather meant less deterioration.
Ms K Larkin-Bramley asked if there was a separate inventory list and was advised that there was a detailed database for highways. The new system would use accredited national systems. The Assistant Finance Manager, Corporate Finance added that the list was based on historical costs and the new system would become live in 2017/18.
With regards to valuations, Ms Larkin-Bramley asked if they were carried out internally and was informed that the CIPFA guidance was followed and that there had been a move to local rates.
Councillor C Carr said that the 30 years figure provided in the CIPFA guidance was a long period of time for highways, especially when the surface of a road would break up after 22-25 years. The Head of Technical Services said that the 30 year model did not mean that the asset only would be replaced after 30 years. It also included periodic replacement based upon a prioritisation criteria. He added that it was imperative to inspect and that highways were constructed to an adoptable standard.
The Chairman thanked the Head of Technical Services for his detailed and informative presentation.