Civic Administration Building
Phone: (06) 871 5000
Fax: (06) 871 5100
M I N U T E S
Rural Halls Subcommittee
Monday, 11 September 2017
Minutes of a Meeting of the Rural Halls Subcommittee held on
Monday, 11 September 2017 at 1.00pm
Table of Contents
Item Page No.
HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE Rural Halls Subcommittee
HELD IN THE Landmarks Room, Ground Floor, Civic Administration Building, Lyndon Road East, Hastings ON
Monday, 11 September 2017 AT 1.00pm
Present: Chair: Mr Kay
Councillors Heaps, Lyons, Kerr and Redstone
Mr N Dawson and Mrs Maxwell
IN ATTENDANCE: Executive Advisor/Manager, Office of the Chief Executive (Mr M Maguire)
Team Leader Strategy & Projects (Mrs L Stettner)
Committee Secretary (Mrs C Hilton)
That an Apology for Absence from Mr M Lester and an Apology for Lateness from Councillor Heaps be accepted.
It was noted that the Community Grants and Projects Advisor, Ms V Berkahn, had been unable to attend this meeting.
2. Conflicts of Interest
There were no declarations of conflicts of interest.
3. Confirmation of Minutes
There were no previous minutes to be confirmed.
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.
· 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.
A) That the report of the Community Grants & Projects Advisor titled “2017 Funding Round and Policy Amendment” dated 11/09/2017 be received.
B) That the Rural Halls Maintenance Fund Policy be updated to ensure that the $30,000 per annum component for earthquake strengthening be kept separate from the funding for maintenance.
C) That the Chief Executive ensure that Officers review applications as appropriate, including:
i) Inspection of the premises by appropriate Officers as required, and
ii) Ensure such relevant matters are addressed in the report, for consideration by the Subcommittee.
D) That the following Priority 1 grants be allocated from the 2017/2018 Rural Halls Maintenance fund:
E) That Officers report back further to the Rural Halls Subcommittee with respect to the three Priority 3 and 4 applications that had been received, taking into account any earthquake requirements.
F) That the following policy amendments are approved and applicable to future funding rounds:
Priorities for Funding
Priority 2: Completion of detailed earthquake assessments, and subsequent strengthening work;
Eligibility for the Fund
To be eligible for the Fund, the applicant hall will be located within the rural and plains areas of Hastings District, and be a legal entity, and be for the benefit of the rural community and not private owners.
In December 2016, the Hastings District Rural Community Board introduced the ability of the Rural Halls Subcommittee to consider a greater Council contribution than 50%, in particular relating to costs for detailed earthquake assessments and subsequent strengthening work.
G) That the Rural Halls Subcommittee request the Chief Executive direct Officers to develop a priority list for earthquake strengthening for the rural halls, based on information held by the Council.
With the reasons for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute to meeting the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, i.e. rural halls.
5. Additional Business Items
There were no additional business items.
6. Extraordinary Business Items
There were no extraordinary business items.
The meeting closed at 1.52pm