 Ie ddweud o'i gyddon am fawr, cynyddiol yn cyd-dweud i'r ffagliau ar y cyfryd y ffiliadau ar y gyfan y ffiliadau ar gyfer rydych yn ei wrth. Gweld y byd erbyn... ...awtodd o'r Llywodraeth i'r gyffredinol ei gael, ac yna'r Llywodraeth ei gael ar y mynd... ...gweld bwyd i'n amser tydd yn ychydig yn du olyg mewn ychydig yma. Mae'r brydau'r cyffredinol yn gallu yw broadcast, mae'r ymarfer yn cynnig yr ymarfer ar agor, mae'r dweud yn gyda'r cyfrifiad o yn dweud o bydderu yn gynllenio. Dysgrifon Gwylwedd, yn gweithio ar y yrhyw, plau'r cyfrifiad yn ddod o'r cyfrifiad yn y cyfrifiad o'r cyfrifiad yn gweithio ar yr hyn, mawn i'n frefgfaeth y cwrs pan mae'r cyfrifiad yn cael ei gwyfod trafnol. Bydd yn defnyddio allan i gyfrifiad, a fofyn iawn o'u cyfrifiad o'r cyfrifiad, dweud o地 o flynyddiad ar eich chiarfeydd. please switch off or silent any other devices. Please use a headset when speaking and hold a microphone close to your mouth and when you are invited to address the meeting, please make sure your microphone is switched on. When you've finished addressing the meeting, please turn your microphone off immediately Speak slowly and clearly and do not talk over or interrupt anyone. Thank you for attending this extraordinary meeting of the Committee to review the Ie, ymethai'r gwahanol y llinig yn ymwneud. Y gweithio dros southwyr rydyn ni o'r gweithio ar gyfer y cangwyd, os ymarfer cyffredin. Mae'n mynd i ni weld yn y cyffredin, Cymru? Mae'n mynd i wedi'u gyrthwyniad ar gyfer y cyffredin, fel ar gyfer y nursefodol yma o'r cyfru sy'n sicrhau hynny. Mae'n ei gyrddio i fynd i'i gyrddwniad ar dyfodol. Mae'n yn ymwneud. Thank you. The minutes of the previous meeting we will defer until the next full schedule meeting on 23 March unless anyone strenuously objects. So item four, the substantive item for this meeting is completion of accounts for 2019-20. Could I please ask Mr Maddick, chief public officer, to please present this report which was provided in a supplementary pack and the accounts. Thank you. Thank you, chair. So the audit has been progressing and we think we've now finally got to the end of everything. It was going right to the 11th hour so I have to apologise that we have a further change to the accounts that we've published with the agenda. But what I'll do is I'll go through the change that was published, i.e. the change between the original draft set that was approved back in September, I think, and the set that was presented. And then I'll go on to the further change that I have to report and we've agreed this final change with the auditors yesterday. So you'll see Appendix B, there's a balance sheet comparison and that there, the major change there relates to property, plant and equipment and that change has the effect of, well, that change has the effect of a 570,000 reduction in the values shown compared to the original draft accounts back in September. So it's quite difficult to flip from one document to the other, but if you look at the accounts at Appendix A, you'll see that the figure is shown on the balance sheet. Apologies for interruption. Peter, would you be able to guide us by way of the page number in the... So page, yes, so the balance sheet is page 18. Is that the little numbers or the big numbers? So the number I'm referring to is the top line on page 18. We're showing a figure now of 549195 and that's changed by 570,000 since the draft accounts were published back in September. And that was as a result of the work that the auditors carried out. So we made that change as a result of the work that carried out on the accounts. Is there any questions on that particular point? So... Sorry, can you... Is it possible just to give any further detail? I'll just remind the committee what the nature of that adjustment is. I may have to turn to one of my colleagues because I can't... I mean, I appreciate this. I mean, it's less than, you know, it's 0.1% of the value of the fixed app at the PPE, so it's not a major issue. I think it was to do with a couple of beacon properties that weren't valued when the value did his report. I don't know whether one of my colleagues online can provide a bit more detail. James or Sunjif? It's James here. I think Sunjif would be better able to assist with that one since he went through the adjustment with Tracy Flagg. Hello. Hello, it's Sunjif here. The adjustment relates to some beacon properties which were transferred from assets under construction, and they were missed in the final valuation when they were done. So the adjustment was to do with the valuation of those beacons. So there was a drop in value when they were transferred from the assets under construction into the final council dwellings account. Continue with any other changes you want to highlight? So that's the only substantive change. There are a number of disclosure changes when the change things dramatically, so I wasn't proposing to go through that. So if we now go on to the further change, so there's an additional paper here. So there's additional paper here, and this is the core statements to the accounts when we updated figures. So within the draft accounts, there was an item showing as a provision in relation to the Nall Stoke project. The provision was shown within the CIS as part of the cost of services, and that was in relation to the Housing General Fund. So what in discussions with the auditors we've reached the conclusion that it doesn't actually meet the full definition of a provision. So in agreement with the auditors, we've changed the classification of that. So the effect of that, and the amount we're talking about is 2.386 million. So the effect of that is to increase the surplus on the comprehensive income and expenditure statement to 48.577 million, and that's on the original version that would have been 2.386 million. Thank you. I wonder perhaps that Mr Russell from Ernst and Young, do you have a comment? I'll come to you in a moment, Councillor Williams. Are you now satisfied that this item is being treated appropriately? I'm aware it's been under discussion for some time, so perhaps a quick update from you just on this final change. Yes, thank you, Chair. So yes, we've agreed with Peter that that should be adjusted to remove it as a provision from the financial statements. So the reason why it was, I guess, raised in the first place was because the 2.3 million was the council's funding gap between the amount they'd have to spend for Section 106 related responsibilities versus the funding that we're going to receive. So that doesn't constitute a provision. That's obviously a funding gap. So quite rightly, the council have now moved that out of provisions and created an earmarked reserve to reflect the difference in funding that they're going to get. So obviously, when that becomes realised and the expenditure is made, then the gap will be funded out of the earmarked reserve that Peter and his team have now created. So we're happy with the position of the accounts. Thank you. Councillor Williams, you wanted to come in. Thank you. So what's just been discussed to be clear to the public is absolutely no cash consequence at all. It's simply where it appears. I think it can be argued both ways. I think it's a pedantic citing of where one person says, I think equally it could be the other way around as well. So I do hope we've not been charged too much for this. But on a procedural basis, Chair, this paper that's in front of us that we've got this three sheet isn't as a supplement on the website. Can we have your assurances that if we were to proceed and go ahead and go, this will be put as a supplement on there for transparency purposes. So people know what we're discussing. I think it's very important we make that very clear. And then if we can please sign these off, I'd be happy to move that chair. Thank you, Councillor Williams. Yes, I'm sure we'll have the supplementary and then perhaps also the final status accounts. I've just checked for my own sanity that indeed the overall effect on the general fund balance is at full zero as you'd expect because it's, as you say, can move to an earmark reserve instead. So page 16 of the published agenda shows the surplus being 46191 and it's now 48577. But then when you get to the movement in reserve statement, it reverses out that difference because you're transferring the amount into the earmark reserve. So the effect on the general fund balance is nil. And then when you go to the balance sheet itself, which is page 18 on the agenda and the third page on the additional piece, you'll see that the balance sheet total has changed both at the top and the bottom half of the balance sheet by that 2.386 million. So the overall effect of the changes are to remove it from the line provisions, which relates to note 19, and to put it into usable reserves on the bottom half of the balance sheet and you see those totals have moved by 2.386 million. So we're basically moving the item from the top half of the balance sheet into the bottom half. Thank you. Are there any further questions from members of the committee, either on this final change or indeed on the rest of the papers that were provided for this meeting? Thank you. Councillor Williams has suggested we move to approve these statements and I'm happy to second that. Are there any objections to me approving these as the final audited accounts for 1920? Fantastic. I will sign all the bits of paper after the meeting as required and we'll make sure that everything is put online for the public in as clear a manner as possible. I think we don't even have a final item for this meeting is the date of the next meeting, which is our regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, the 23rd of March at 10 o'clock in the morning.