The Rural Halls
Subcommittee addressed the agenda report and Officers responded to questions that
were raised.
The main issues that were addressed or
raised in response to questions from the Subcommittee included:
· $30,000
per annum only for earthquake strengthening should be clearly identified and kept
separate from the funding for maintenance, with the Rural
Halls Maintenance Fund Policy being updated to reflect this fact.
· The
earthquake strengthening work, in regard to rural halls, needed to be brought
up to speed to meet the time requirement within which this work had to be
completed.
· This
strengthening work would be covered by a separate note in the Funding Policy.
Councillor
Heaps joined the meeting at this point.
Further issues
that were suggested or raised in response to extensive questions
from the Subcommittee included:
· Officers could approach the people who looked after the rural
halls to discuss the Rural Halls Maintenance Fund with them; their
responsibilities in respect of this fund; and the process to be followed in
making an application.
· A certain number of halls could be addressed in this way each
year.
· Information should be sent out to those people so that they
received it prior to the normal funding round to give them time to obtain
quotes to be sent in with their applications for work at their hall.
· People needed a point of contact to see where their respective rural
hall stood in regard to compliance with the earthquake strengthening
requirements.
· The
Officer to contact, currently, was Gerard van Veen, Building Consents Project
Manager. The Subcommittee asked for an appropriate Officer to be
present at the next Rural Halls meeting to respond to questions on this
matter.
· How could the Subcommittee be more proactive regarding the rural halls?
· It was felt that relevant staff should go out to each hall and sight
the work for which funding was being applied. While there, they could also
look to see what other priority work may be needed and give some guidance to
the hall operators.
· It was important that Officers were clear as to what was expected
of them in regard to the rural halls and when processing any applications.
· The Subcommittee asked for agenda reports to clearly state which work
was structural (e.g. earthquake strengthening work) as opposed to work that was
simply decorative (e.g. painting) and to set out why an application was
deemed to fit within a certain Priority Group.
· Tables should be used in the report to set out all the relevant
information clearly so that a decision could be readily made.
· The Subcommittee members did not want all the applications to simply
be put together as an appendix and have to read through them and sort out the
relevant information for themselves.
· The balance of the fund for 2017/18 was set out in Paragraph 3.5
of the report.
· The Group Manager: Asset Manager was responsible for the reports to
this Subcommittee – but the work associated with the rural halls was
really cross-organisational work.
· Mrs Stettner was to follow up in regard to 5.1 of the Rural Halls
Maintenance Fund Policy regarding operational matters including:
· How the applicants pay their 50% share of the total monies
involved in the work for their respective hall.
· How the invoicing process worked.
· The Subcommittee wanted Officers to be stricter in regard to late
applications that were received.
· How and when the funds would be paid out by Council.
· That the Chief Executive direct Officers to develop a priority
list for the earthquake strengthening of the rural halls based on information
held by the Council, including consideration of related issues such as:
· How much use was made of each hall.
· Which groups or organisations used each hall, and
·
The standard of each building.
The Subcommittee felt that the
applications deemed to be Priority 3 and 4 in the report should be addressed
in a further report to the next Subcommittee meeting which takes into account
any earthquake requirements.
An additional Rural Halls Subcommittee
meeting was to be set for 4 December 2017, prior to the next Rural Community
Board meeting.
Action Points
· Officers were asked to go back to the community and advise those
people who looked after the rural halls that there was funding available and
the criteria for use of those funds.
· Gerard van Veen, or another appropriate Officer, was asked to
attend the 4 December meeting and respond to questions about the
earthquake strengthening of rural halls within the district.
|