SAVE OLD SCHOOL:
Group Meeting in the Rose & Crown, Ivinghoe,
2nd July 2012 at 8.00pm
Nigel Thomson APOLOGIES: John Wallis
Carol welcomed everyone to the meeting, called to respond to a communication received from Buckinghamshire County Council in reply to our 30th May 2012 Business Plan Submission.
Ivinghoe Beacon report: Nigel was briefed as to progress, and was given an update on activities in April, May and June, for his piece in the Beacon – he shortly afterwards left the meeting.
Responses to the Buckinghamshire County Council (B.C.C.) note:
Evidence of Lease Offered last offered to Ivinghoe Parish – Carol and Bob had hard copy of the lease offered to Ivinghoe Parish on 16th June 2012 (ref. E 12/20/1 CP0002.135, sent by Fiona Bull, Legal Assistant); this lease had been offered in the sum of £1,375 per annum, not £3,600 which Bob had previously been advised verbally – this clarification to be made to B.C.C.
Only information on structural works required is that suggested in the B.C.C. Visual Survey, and referred to in Business Case Appendix 4.0 Gant Chart – this latter anticipating works being carried out by B.C.C. The meeting felt that we should ask for the Structural Survey report, as we have previously – if some of the works are deferred, then clearly we would need to reduce rental in space affected; it does appear that the suggested work could be carried out by January 2013.
We do not believe the Financial Models reveal a cash deficit, indeed they show a small cash surplus. A deficit is shown, but this is depreciation – not a cash item; we break even from Day 1. Main depreciation is on gifted assets – smaller items such as computers are subject to grant acquisition, and replacement by similar grant acquisition.
‘Real Numbers’ are used in the Financial Models, consistent with a not-for-private-profit organisation – if inflation were to be applied to income and expenditure figures, all that would happen is that the small surplus would increase. It is intended that inflation will be factored into our leases to tenants.
£16,350 income equals £15,000 rental income plus £1,350 for ‘Cyb-Org’ internet space use; the £1,200 is an anticipation of income from Community Fundraising, Children’s Parties, etc. The figure of £18,800 recharges is the amount of money estimated as being re-charged to tenants for utilities, services, refuse collection, etc.; the figure of £1,200 was included in our conservative projections of income, but not included in the Financial Models since we wished to err on the side of caution for income.
The lack of a firm undertaking from B.C.C. prevents us from seeking firm funding; a number of funding sources have been identified, and we have had an indication of support – although cannot proceed since we neither yet have a long lease, nor the freehold, for the building. We have been advised from some sources that it would be easier to obtain funding if we held the freehold.
Deficits identified in the Financial Models are non-cash depreciation – as in a previous answer.
The figure in Section 6.0 for Building Work – £54,200 – will in all probability contain overlaps with B.C.C.’s figure of £145,850 – and we feel that this latter figure contains elements which could well be carried out in our tenants’ fit-out work.
Start-up costs for tenants will be paid for by themselves.
The Architectural Heritage Fund has not yet been formally approached – they are one of a number of options available as potential funding sources. Since we may not need such a loan, no provision has as yet been shown in Financial Models.
‘Safe Cycle Storage’ reference was that of ‘seeking to provide’ the storage; this can be minimal (hoops set in paving, to which one can lock one’s cycle) or it could be a rather more expensive cycle store (but less than £1,000), in which case we would seek grant funding.
Note that the Financial Models cover Volunteers’ Costs – we anticipate that tenant groups would pay their own costs in this regard.
Alistair will look at the totals noted in the Financial Models.
The £1,600 figure is the cost in providing four computers; the figure of £16,000 is a total fit-out cost of the ‘Cyb-Org’ internet suite – additional I.T. equipment (printers, fax, telephony), tables, seating, shelving, security system, etc. This latter figure has been discussed with the BIG Lottery Fund, who have indicated support but who cannot take it further due to lack of a lease!
We anticipate breaking even from Day 1 – deficit in the Financial Models is an accounting loss in depreciation.
Maintenance allowance is the cumulative raising of funds for perhaps larger items as well as day-to-day maintenance – replacement glass in windows, doors, etc., as required in use. Single £1,200 in first month to get things up and running, £200 per month thereafter – should be in both models.
Cannot revise our timeline, since we do not know when we might obtain the building – as mentioned in earlier response, the Structural Survey is critical in works planning.
Business Financial Models – options 1 and 3 not considered as we have never considered taking on full structural maintenance in the full rent lease scenario; options 2 and 4 have been offered as Option A and Option B in our Business Case. B.C.C.’s option 5 is our preferred option of those listed, since that would allow us the freedom to seek funding from appropriate grant funding agencies.
If the value of the Property increases within a rental agreement, then the rental agreement could contain a reference to our not exercising our option to purchase – any profits would thus revert back to B.C.C.
Next Move: Bob to circulate these notes, Jane and Mike to prepare a draft formal reply to B.C.C., which will be circulated to this immediate group for comment (hopefully by 5th or 6th July); if time allows we might show it to a ‘friendly’ lawyer known to us – Carol to then formally respond to B.C.C. by 9th July 2012.
Next Meeting: To be decided.