The Mayor provided an update on the events and engagements that she had attended since the last Council.

To confirm and sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the following meetings of the Council:

·       7 December 2023 (special meeting)

·       7 December 2023 (ordinary meeting)

The minutes of the following meetings of the Council were confirmed and signed as a correct record:

·         7 December 2023 (special meeting)

·         7 December 2023 (ordinary meeting)

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Davies, Gill and Singh.

If Members have an interest in an item, please complete a member interest form and email it to Democratic.Services@runnymede.gov.uk by 5pm on the day of the meeting. Members are advised to contact the Corporate Head of Law and Governance prior to the meeting if they wish to seek advice on a potential interest.

There were no declarations of interest.

In pursuance of Standing Order 12.1, speaking or questions from members of the public are not permitted at this meeting.

There were no public questions.

To receive any petitions from members of the Council under Standing Order 19.

There were no petitions.

a) Question from Councillor Peter Snow to the Leader of the Council

“My question is with regard to the bad press we recently received from the Surrey Advertiser on the 5 January.  The article related to a warning by Suzanne Clarke from the DLUHC which referred to a "Best Value Notice".  Can the Leader please confirm whether the article was factual or not and how we have addressed the concerns that are now being raised by all Runnymede residents since the article was published. Specially can the Leader clarify whether the less than ONE percentage is correct or the figure of 4.1 % is the actual figure as recorded?”

(a) Councillor Peter Snow asked the Leader of the Council the following question:

“My question is with regard to the bad press we recently received from the Surrey Advertiser on the 5 January.  The article related to a warning by Suzanne Clarke from the DLUHC which referred to a "Best Value Notice".  Can the Leader please confirm whether the article was factual or not and how we have addressed the concerns that are now being raised by all Runnymede residents since the article was published. Specially can the Leader clarify whether the less than ONE percentage is correct or the figure of 4.1 % is the actual figure as recorded?”

The Leader replied in the following terms:

“I can confirm that the article was not factual in respect of reporting a less than one percent return. I would like to take this opportunity to ensure there is an unambiguous understanding of our finances.

Within the line “investment property” we include all those assets in which we primarily sought a return to provide the borough with stable cash flows during the period when a number of our established town centre assets were regenerated, as well as the assets that have been delivered through that regeneration, namely Addlestone One, Magna Square and the Egham Orbit.

Factoring in all costs other than interest and Minimum Revenue Provision and excluding revenue derived from residential units, we receive an income of just over £26mn against assets valued at just under £540mn, for a return of 4.9%. When we factor in borrowing costs our total net revenue from our investment property comes to £11.2mn, for a net return of 2.1%.

Without wanting to pre-empt the budget items coming forward shortly, I would point out that this compares to our core spending power of £10.4mn and provides this Council with the financial stability and capability to maintain its broad range of discretionary services and support to its residents.

In terms of the steps that were taken following the publication of the story, a correct presentation of our returns was immediately made available to the two media outlets that ran the story online. One corrected their record immediately, the latter however took several days in which time an additional version of the story was published in the 12 January 2024 edition of the Surrey Advertiser.

Following further discussion with the newspaper’s editor, the 19th January edition contained the corrected record in the form of a letter from me. I would note that when the article was being prepared by the journalist, the Council was not contacted to present its view up front or offered the right of reply to the quotes made in the article.

To describe the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

The receipt of the non-statutory Best Value Notice was also reported to the Corporate Management Committee on 18 January 2024 and the Standards and Audit Committee on 23 January 2024.

The receipt of the non-statutory Best Value Notice was noted.

The report associated with this item was circulated to all members with the agenda for the 11 January 2024 Environment and Sustainability Committee.

Following Full Council approval in June 2023 to commence the process of designating Guildford Street, Chertsey as a Licence Street to enable opportunities for markets and events, a consultation exercise had been undertaken, which had yielded no response from the police or public, and no issues identified from Surrey County Council as highways authority.

The Committee were therefore asked to recommend to the next Full Council meeting that Guildford Street, at the junction of Riverdell close and Heriot Road, and the junction that meets Windsor Street and London Road, be designated as a Licence Street.

The committee were supportive of the proposal and positive about the impact on the local economy of regular markets and the vibrancy this would create.

Responding to questions about the possibility of setting up similar arrangements in Addlestone town centre, it was advised that the design of Addlestone was more complex and would likely require a road closure order for Station Road, impacting bus routes and businesses.  Smaller-scale markets had been possible on previous occasions as they took place outside the Civic Centre on land owned by the Council.  It was therefore the intention to focus on Chertsey and consider other locations options at a later date when the full impact could be better understood.

The terms and conditions for market operators would be updated and presented to a future committee, but it was confirmed that the vast majority of professional market operators were extremely ethical in their processes and this would be a major consideration in the vetting process.

It was resolved that the following be recommended to the Council:

That the Council resolves that:

1.    All previous resolutions of the Council made pursuant to paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 to the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1982 (the Act) be hereby rescinded

2.    Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 to the Act, that as from the date when this resolution takes effect, all areas of land within the Borough of Runnymede which are “streets” within the definition of that term contained in Paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 to the Act shall be designated as prohibited streets with the exception of any streets referred to in resolution 3 below.

3.    The streets and parts of streets set out below be designated as Consent Streets and Licence Streets, as defined in Schedule 4 to the Act:

Consent Streets

·         Broadway, New Haw - at the eastern service road adjacent to the street from the northern boundary of the Black Prince Public House for a distance of fifteen (15) metres in a northerly direction

Licence Streets

·         High Street, Egham

·         Station Road North, Egham

·         Guildford Street, at the junction of Riverdell close and Heriot Road, and the junction that meets Windsor Street and London Road

After the Environment and Sustainability Committee met, officers identified the need to set a commencement date for the  ...  view the full agenda text for item 80a

It was proposed (by Councillor Coen), seconded (by Councillor Cunningham) and resolved that:

1.    All previous resolutions of the Council, made pursuant to paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 to the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1982 (the Act), be rescinded.

2.    Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 to the Act, that as from the date on which this resolution takes effect, all areas of land within the Borough of Runnymede which were “streets” within the definition of that term contained in Paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 to the Act, be designated as prohibited streets with the exception of any streets referred to in resolution 3 below.

3.    The streets and parts of streets set out below be designated as Consent Streets and Licence Streets, as defined in Schedule 4 to the Act:

Consent Streets – Broadway, New Haw - at the eastern service road adjacent to the street from the northern boundary of the Black Prince Public House for a distance of fifteen (15) metres in a northerly direction

Licence Streets – High Street, Egham; Station Road North, Egham; Guildford Street, at the junction of Riversdell Close and Heriot Road, and the junction that meets Windsor Street and London Road.

4.    The designation come into effect on 30 March 2024.

The report associated with this item was circulated to all members with the agenda for the 18 January 2024 Corporate Management Committee.

The use of the Council’s RIPA powers now had to be reported on annually.  This opportunity had also been taken to refresh the Council’s policy to ensure that it was compliant with the most recent guidance.

It was resolved that the Council be recommended to:

1.    Note that the Council had not used its RIPA powers during the period 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2023 and further note that such powers had not been used since 2011.

2.    Adopt the proposed revised policy to govern the use of RIPA powers for the period 9 February 2024 to 7 February 2025.

It was proposed (by Councillor Gracey), seconded (by Councillor Willingale) and resolved that:

1.    The Council note it had not used its RIPA powers during the period 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2023 and that the Council further note such powers had not been used since 2011.

2.    The revised policy, to govern the use of the Council’s RIPA powers for the period 9 February 2024 to 7 February 2025, be adopted.

The report associated with this item was circulated to all members with the agenda for the 10 January 2024 Housing Committee.

The Corporate Head of Finance outlined the Housing Revenue Account estimates for 2024/25. He explained the variances in the current financial year could be attributed to the Parkside scheme, central heating, the Decent Homes programmes and changes in the contributions into the Major Repairs reserve. This had led to an additional cost of £117,000 in the current year. This meant that the estimated HRA balance at the end of the year was expected to be £35.6 million compared to the £23.6 million originally forecast. This would reduce the following year as the programmes caught up.

The major works programme for the following year would total £9.3 million and would include major upgrades to central heating, kitchens and bathrooms, roofing and various other works that were required to comply with the Decent Homes Standard. There would therefore be insufficient funds in the Major Repairs Reserve the following year, which would require a further transfer from the HRA balances.

The next section on debt charges and depreciation was noted, with the next repayment of HRA loans in 2027 forecast to be met from a combination of set aside receipts and HRA reserve. It was also proposed to transfer £30,000 of HRA funds to top up the Discretionary Housing Payment pot for which Secretary of State permission would be sought.

Proposed fees, charges and rent levels for the following year were discussed. The Regulator for Social Housing has confirmed that the maximum rent increase limit allowable would revert to CPI + 1%. CPI in September was 6.7% meaning the Council can increase rent by up to 7.7%. This would be applied from April 2024, and would also apply to rents for mobile home pitches and the services charges paid by the Council’s Independent Retirement tenants. Rents paid for properties bought under the shared ownership scheme would be subject to a 5.8% increase based on the November RPI + 0.5%.

It was resolved that the following be recommended to the Full Council:

1.    The draft revenue estimates for 2024/25 as set out in Appendix A be approved as submitted, and that the Full Council be requested to make provisions accordingly.

It was further resolved that the proposed changes in rents and charges (including those for Housing General Fund services) for 2024/25, as set out in pages 47-49 of the Estimates, be approved to be effective either from the first rent week of April 2024, or 1 April 2024 as appropriate.

It was proposed (by Councillor Nuti), seconded (by Councillor Hulley) and resolved that the revenue estimates for 2024/25, as set out in Appendix A of the officer’s report, be approved, and that provisions be made accordingly.

The report associated with this item was circulated to all members with the agenda for the 14 December 2023 Corporate Management Committee.

The report was welcomed by Committee, some of whom expressed regret that it had not been forthcoming earlier.  It was stressed that the approach would entail a more compassionate and personalised approach to debt recovery, with more leeway for payment and additional support for care leavers, Ukrainian refugees and properties affected by flooding.

It was resolved that the following be recommended to the Council:

1)    That with effect from 1 April 2024, the following discounts continue:

·       Care leavers

·       Ukrainian Refugees

·       Properties affected by flooding

2)    That the Council Tax Discount for unoccupied and unfurnished dwellings be reduced from 100% for up to 3 months to 100% for up to 28 days (Class C of the Council Tax (Prescribed Classes of Dwellings) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2012).

3)    That with effect from 1 April 2025:

·       In accordance with Section 11B of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Act 2018, the additional amount payable for Council Tax be increased from 50% to 100% for dwellings that are unoccupied and substantially unfurnished for more than one year.

·       The additional amount of Council Tax to be increased from 50% to 200% for properties that are unoccupied and unfurnished for more than five years.

·       The additional amount of Council Tax be increased from 50% to 300% for properties that are unoccupied and unfurnished for more than ten years.

It was proposed (by Councillor Gracey), seconded (by Councillor Willingale) and resolved that:

1.    With effect from 1 April 2024, the following discounts council tax continue:

• Care leavers
• Ukrainian refugees
• Properties affected by flooding

2.    The council tax discount for unoccupied and unfurnished dwellings be reduced from 100% for up to 3 months to 100% for up to 28 days (Class C of the Council Tax (Prescribed Classes of Dwellings) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2012).

3.    With effect from 1 April 2025:

a)    In accordance with Section 11B of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Act 2018, the additional amount payable for council tax be increased from 50% to 100% for dwellings that were unoccupied and substantially unfurnished for more than one year.

b)    The additional amount of council tax be increased from 50% to 200% for properties that were unoccupied and unfurnished for more than five years.

c)    The additional amount of council tax be increased from 50% to 300% for properties that were unoccupied and unfurnished for more than ten years.

The report associated with this item was circulated to all members with the agenda for the 14 December 2023 Corporate Management Committee.

In picking out the salient points in the report, the Chief Executive highlighted that inflation pressures that resulted in a higher pay increase to staff last year were still in existence but revised figures gave confidence that a tapered reduction could now be put in place.  However, it was stressed that the figure was the total budgeted figure from which the pay award would be funded and did not predetermine what that award would be.  It also included work to change the salary banding in line with the national living wage coming into force in April 2024, however it was noted that this would be part of a broader review to decompress some of the grades and posts affected.

It was felt that the modest number of growth items were considered essential and unavoidable, whilst it was stressed that the c£1m taken out of the staffing budget was a technical accounting piece designed to ensure reconciliation between the HR and finance systems and was not the removal of any existing job posts.  This would ensure that the council’s resources were appropriately allocated.

A cautious approach had been taken to the savings identified, with only savings included that had a defined savings plan and were not subject to outside factors such as a democratic vote or contractual agreement.

The Leader confirmed to a member that webstreaming council meetings remained an aspirational growth item, but would be brought forward at the appropriate time to ensure it synchronises with work to the council chamber and ensures the best value for money.

A member highlighted that the report should be viewed in the wider context of the risk appetite recently agreed by full council, whilst another member felt that they could not support the MTFS, partly based on previous decisions on the Council’s asset base, along with the perceived lack of security central government provides local government around rate reviews and funding settlements making it impossible for the council to provide the full range of services that residents require.

It was resolved that the Full Council be recommended to approve the Medium-Term Financial Strategy.

The Corporate Management Committee also resolved that:

1.     The growth items as set out in Appendix 4 for approval and inclusion in the budget for 2024/25 be presented to the January Corporate Management Committee.

2.     The Head of Paid Service (Chief Executive) be authorised to enter into pay negotiations with staff and Union representatives within the total provision set out in the report.

It was proposed (by Councillor Gracey), seconded (by Councillor Willingale) and resolved that the Medium-Term Financial Strategy be approved.

A named vote was requested on this resolution, with the voting recorded as follows:

In favour of the resolution (23)

Councillors Saise-Marshall, Bromley, Balkan, Clarke, Coen, MD Cressey, MK Cressey, Cunningham, Darby, Dennett, Furey, Gracey, Howorth, Hulley, Lewis, Mann, Mavi, Nuti, Prescot, Snow, Walsh, Willingale and Wilson.

Against the resolution (15)

Councillors Berardi, Burton, Gates, Gillham, Harnden, Jenkins, Kettle, A King, R King, Mullens, Ringham, Smith, D Whyte, S Whyte and Williams.

Abstentions (0)

The report associated with this item was circulated to all members with the agenda for the 18 January 2024 Corporate Management Committee.

Following the meeting of the Corporate Management Committee, where clarification was sought on car parking income, further information is attached.

The draft budget for 2024/25 had been developed, following the agreement of the Medium Term Financial Strategy and Medium Term Financial Forecast at the previous Corporate Management Committee.  The proposed budget also acknowledged other factors such as the Capital Strategy (considered as part of another agenda item at this meeting).  The budget report sought to convey the scale of the financial challenges facing Runnymede Borough Council over the coming years, which could if left unaddressed, result in the expiration of the Council’s balances during the 2028/29 financial year.

The main features of the budget were presented to the Committee.  These features included the proposal to increase Council Tax by the maximum amount possible without needing to undertake a referendum, and the maintenance of a minimum level of reserves.  Members’ attention was drawn to the statutory statement of the Council’s Chief Financial (s151) Officer, which provided commentary on the risks associated with the proposed budget.

The Committee discussed the proposals.

Some members felt that the proposed budget was pragmatic and made good progress towards addressing the budget deficit.  It also maintained the Council’s commitment to responding to climate change.

Some concern was expressed about the level of remuneration for staff, with particular reference to the recruitment and retention challenges being experienced by the Council.  It was noted that the upcoming pay award would be subject to negotiations with the staff union.

It was stated that the car parking income discussed by the Environment and Sustainability Committee was not accurately reflected in the budget before the Committee.  Officers agreed that the presentation of this element could be reviewed.

The inclusion of two years of growth for tree works was queried. It was noted that the growth covered additional works required while a full condition survey was being carried out, which would then inform the level of budget required in future years.

A query was raised about the report’s commentary around the Council’s assets, in particular the undesirability of disposing of them at a loss and the resultant impact on the Council’s revenue budget in servicing the outstanding debt.  The level of optimism around the performance of the Council in obtaining tenants for its assets was also questioned.  It was noted that the Property and Assets Member Task Force was keeping the performance of the Council’s assets under close review.

Clarification was provided around limiting the number of future growth items.  Such items would only be considered if they were needed to support the delivery of an essential service or to fulfil the Council’s strategic aims.  The initial expectation was that internal savings would need to be identified and then transferred via a virement.

A named vote was requested on the proposed resolution, with the voting noted as follows:

For  ...  view the full agenda text for item 80f

It was proposed (by Councillor Gracey) and seconded (by Councillor Willingale) that the recommendations, as put forward by the Corporate Management Committee be agreed.

It was proposed (by Councillor R King) and seconded (by Councillor D Whyte) that the amendments to the budget from the Labour, Co-operative and Green Group, the Liberal Democrat Group, and Runnymede Independent Residents and Englefield Green Independent Group be agreed.

[Councillor A King left the meeting at this point due to ill health.]

[The meeting adjourned between 8.50pm and 8.57pm.]

The proposed amendments to the budget were put to the vote and FELL.

A named vote was requested on this resolution, with the voting recorded as follows:

In favour of the amendments to the budget (15)

Councillors Berardi, Burton, Gates, Gillham, Harnden, Jenkins, Kettle, R King, Mullens, Ringham, Smith, Snow, D Whyte, S Whyte and Williams.

Against the amendments to the budget (22)

Councillors Saise-Marshall, Bromley, Balkan, Clarke, Coen, MD Cressey, MK Cressey, Cunningham, Darby, Dennett, Furey, Gracey, Howorth, Hulley, Lewis, Mann, Mavi, Nuti, Prescot, Walsh, Willingale and Wilson.

Abstentions (0)

The substantive proposed motion was put to the vote and was CARRIED.

It was resolved that:

1.    The Revised Budget for 2023/24, and Budget Estimates for 2024/25, as set out in the officer’s report and at Appendix D of said report be agreed.

2.    An increase to the Band D Council Tax level of 2.99% (£5.53) from £184.92 to £190.45 be agreed.

3.    The maintenance of the minimum threshold for the General Fund Working Balance at £5m be agreed.

4.    The transfers to and from reserves, as set out in the officer’s report, be agreed.

A named vote was required on the resolution, with the voting recorded as follows:

In favour of the resolution (22)

Councillors Saise-Marshall, Bromley, Balkan, Clarke, Coen, MD Cressey, MK Cressey, Cunningham, Darby, Dennett, Furey, Gracey, Howorth, Hulley, Lewis, Mavi, Nuti, Prescot, Snow, Walsh, Willingale and Wilson.

Against the resolution (14)

Councillors Berardi, Burton, Gates, Gillham, Harnden, Jenkins, Kettle, R King, Mullens, Ringham, Smith, D Whyte, S Whyte and Williams.

Abstentions (1)

Councillor Mann.

[This item was considered after agenda item 9i - Capital and Investment Strategy 2024/25 to 2027/28 - recommendation from the Corporate Management Committee.]

It was proposed (by Councillor Gracey), seconded (by Councillor Willingale) and resolved that formal approval of the Council Tax Resolution be deferred to a meeting of the Standing Council Tax Setting Committee, in accordance with its existing delegation, to be held once all precept notifications had been received.

The report associated with this item was circulated to all members with the agenda for the 18 January 2024 Corporate Management Committee.

The proposed Strategy had been prepared with consideration given to a number of recent regulatory changes, as set out in the officer’s report.  These included the requirements of various codes of practice, and the implications of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023.  Additionally, changes to the Minimum Revenue Provision guidance were anticipated in April 2024, following a lengthy series of consultations.  There were also changes to the accounting treatment of lease arrangements arising from the transition to International Financial Reporting Standard 16 (IFRS16).

It was resolved that the Council be recommended to agree:

1.    The proposed 2024/25 Treasury Management Strategy which also encompassed the Annual Investment Strategy.

2.    The Prudential and Treasury Management Indicators for 2024/25.

3.    That the Authorised Limit for external borrowing by the Council in 2024/25, be set at £723,443,000 (this being the statutory limit determined under Section 3 (1) of the Local Government Act 2003).

4.    The MRP Policy for 2024/25 as set out in paragraph 7.15 of the officer’s report.

It was proposed (by Councillor Gracey), seconded (by Councillor Lewis) and resolved that:

1.    The proposed 2024/25 Treasury Management Strategy, which also encompassed the Annual Investment Strategy, be agreed.

2.    The Prudential and Treasury Management Indicators for 2024/25 be agreed.

3.    The Authorised Limit for external borrowing by the Council in 2024/25 be set at £723,443,000 (this being the statutory limit determined under Section 3 (1) of the Local Government Act 2003).

4.    The Minimum Revenue Provision Policy for 2024/25, as set out in paragraph 7.15 of the officer’s report, be agreed.

The report associated with this item was circulated to all members with the agenda for the 18 January 2024 Corporate Management Committee.  Members are reminded that Appendix B to the officer’s report contains exempt information.

The key proposed changes to the policy were presented to the Committee.  There was uncertainty around the level of government funding in future years, the recent receipt of a non-statutory Best Value Notice and the associated CIPFA report.  These dictated the need for a moratorium on investment in new debt-funded assets.

It was reported that the availability of capital receipts was expected to become an issue in 2027.  The Council would therefore need to identify new capital receipts around this time.

The new requirements in relation to leases were described to the committee.

Some members felt that the proposed strategy represented a prudent yet pragmatic approach.  It was however hoped that some aspirational schemes would still be possible in the future, where funding permitted this.

Questions were asked about some elements of the strategy – it was reported that the proposed Addlestone One internet upgrade was only ever a provisional scheme in the previous strategy; and the sum allocated for replacement vehicles was for the lifespan of the strategy and not a single block purchase.

Disappointment was expressed over the removal of the borough’s contribution to the Surrey traveller scheme.

A named vote was requested on the proposed resolution, with the voting noted as follows:

For the resolution (7)

Councillors Gracey, Howorth, Coen, Cressey, Nuti, Snow and Willingale.

Against the resolution (2)

Councillors R. King and Ringham.

Abstentions (3)

Councillors Gates, Gillham and D. Whyte.

It was resolved that the Council be recommended to agree, subject to the typographical error at paragraph 3.6 of the officer’s report being corrected:

1.    The Capital and Investment Strategy at Appendix ‘A’ and the Capital Programme at Exempt Appendix ‘B’.

2.    A moratorium on any new debt-funded asset investment in light of the requirements of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023.

3.    The “low value” limit for IFRS16 reporting purposes be set at £10,000, subject to the agreement of the external auditor.

[The proposed amendment to the capital programme was determined as part of the agenda item relating to the 24/25 Budget - recommendation from the Corporate Management Committee.]

It was proposed (by Councillor Gracey), seconded (by Councillor Walsh) and resolved that:

1.    The Capital and Investment Strategy at Appendix ‘A’ and the Capital Programme at Exempt Appendix ‘B’ be agreed.

2.    A moratorium on any new debt-funded asset investment, in light of the requirements of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023, be agreed.

3.    The “low value” limit for IFRS16 reporting purposes be set at £10,000, subject to the agreement of the external auditor.

A named vote was required on the resolution, with the voting recorded as follows:

In favour of the resolution (22)

Councillors Saise-Marshall, Bromley, Balkan, Clarke, Coen, MD Cressey, MK Cressey, Cunningham, Darby, Dennett, Furey, Gracey, Howorth, Hulley, Lewis, Mavi, Nuti, Prescot, Snow, Walsh, Willingale and Wilson.

Against the resolution (9)

Councillors Berardi, Burton, Kettle, R King, Ringham, Smith, D Whyte, S Whyte and Williams.

Abstentions (6)

Councillor Gates, Gillham, Harnden, Jenkins, Mann and Mullens.

[Councillor A King rejoined the meeting.]

To receive and consider any notices of motion from members of the Council under Standing Order 15.

No proposed motions have been received.

There were no notices of motion.

To consider any item of minority group priority business registered under Standing Order 23. Any item of such business will be circulated separately with this summons.

No minority group priority business has been received.

There was no minority group priority business.

To consider any items so resolved at the meeting.

There was no exempt business.