Description: COAT-ARM Hastings District Council

 

Civic Administration Building

Lyndon Road East, Hastings

Phone:  (06) 871 5000

Fax:  (06) 871 5100

WWW.hastingsdc.govt.nz

 

 

 

 

Open

 

A G E N D A

 

 

Rural Halls Subcommittee MEETING

 

 

 

Meeting Date:

Monday, 4 December 2017

Time:

1.00pm

Venue:

Landmarks Room

Ground Floor

Civic Administration Building

Lyndon Road East

Hastings

 

Subcommittee Members

Chair: Mr P Kay

Mr N Dawson, Mr M Lester and Mrs S Maxwell

Councillors Kerr, Lyons, Heaps and Redstone

(Quorum=4)

Officer Responsible

Group Manager: Asset Management – Craig Thew

Committee Secretary

Carolyn Hunt (Ext 5634)

 


Rural Halls Subcommittee – Terms of Reference

A Subcommittee of the Rural Community Board.

Fields of Activity

The Rural Halls Subcommittee is responsible for assisting the Rural Community Board by:

·         Reviewing applications for grants from the Rural Hall Community Fund,

·         Recommending the allocation of grants within the funding available,

·         Recommending changes in criteria for grants.

Membership

Chairman – Chairman of the Rural Community Board

Rural Community Board Members

2 Heretaunga Ward Councillors

 

Quorum - 4 Members

 

Delegated Powers

·         Reviewing Application for Grants from the Rural Hall Maintenance Fund. 

·         Recommending the allocation of grants within the allocated funding. 

·         Recommending changes in criteria for grants from the Rural Hall Maintenance Fund.

 


 

HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL

 

Rural Halls Subcommittee MEETING

 

Monday, 4 December 2017

 

VENUE:

Landmarks Room

Ground Floor

Civic Administration Building

Lyndon Road East

Hastings

TIME:

1.00pm

 

A G E N D A

 

 

 

1.         Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.

2.         Conflict of Interest

Members need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arises between their role as a Member of the Council and any private or other external interest they might have.  This note is provided as a reminder to Members to scan the agenda and assess their own private interests and identify where they may have a pecuniary or other conflict of interest, or where there may be perceptions of conflict of interest. 

If a Member feels they do have a conflict of interest, they should publicly declare that at the start of the relevant item of business and withdraw from participating in the meeting.  If a Member thinks they may have a conflict of interest, they can seek advice from the Chief Executive or Executive Advisor/Manager: Office of the Chief Executive (preferably before the meeting). 

It is noted that while Members can seek advice and discuss these matters, the final decision as to whether a conflict exists rests with the member.

3.         Confirmation of Minutes

Minutes of the Rural Halls Subcommittee Meeting held Monday 11 September 2017.

(Previously circulated)

4.         Allocation of Grants for Priority 3 and 4 applications to the Rural Halls Maintenance Fund 2017/2018                                                                                  5

5.         Additional Business Items

6.         Extraordinary Business Items 

 

 

     


File Ref: 17/1020

 

 

REPORT TO:               Rural Halls Subcommittee

MEETING DATE:        Monday 4 December 2017

FROM:                           Community Grants & Projects Advisor

Vicki Berkahn

SUBJECT:                    Allocation of Grants for Priority 3 and 4 applications to the Rural Halls Maintenance Fund 2017/2018         

 

 

1.0       SUMMARY

1.2       The purpose of this report is to obtain recommendations from the Rural Halls Subcommittee on the allocation of remaining funds from the 2017/2018 Rural Halls Maintenance fund, and to update the Committee on the responsibilities for Council and hall owners under the  Building Act 2004, Subpart 6A-Special provisions for earthquake-prone buildings.

1.3       This request arises from the meeting of the Rural Halls Subcommittee, September 11, 2017, where the non-priority 1 applications were deferred to be considered with additional information on earthquake strengthening requirements and hall usage.  This meeting also had suggestions around the process of the rural halls maintenance fund, including allowing enough time for the applications to be assessed by the Property Assets Team.

1.4       The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost–effective for households and businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.

1.5       The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is to contribute to good quality infrastructure, i.e. rural community halls, so these facilities can meet the current and future needs of rural communities.

1.6       This report concludes by recommending that the Maraekakaho Hall is allocated a grant of $12,938 from the remaining 2017/2018 Rural Halls Maintenance Fund for painting of the hall roof exterior; and that the Rural Hall Policy amendments and update regarding the Building Act 2004, Subpart 6A-Special provisions for earthquake-prone buildings are received.

2.0       BACKGROUND

2.1       Recommendations from the Rural Halls Subcommittee meeting held 11 September 2017 included the following actions:

 

            i)       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.  The policy has been amended to reflect this (Attachment One, section 1.4).

ii)      That the review of funding applications includes inspection of hall premises by appropriate Officers as required, and that relevant matters are addressed in the report for consideration by the Subcommittee. The tables in 3.2 include the Property Assets Team comments on the three applications, and the policy has been amended to reflect this (Attachment One, section 3.2).

 

iii)  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. The tables in 3.2 include the status of each applicant hall with regard to the Building Act 2004, Subpart 6A-Special provisions for earthquake-prone buildings and review with the EPB Methodology (earthquake –prone building methodology).

 

iv)  That Officers develop a priority list for earthquake strengthening for the rural halls.  The EPB Methodology update for all rural halls is contained in Attachment 2.

 

 

2.2  The new national system for managing earthquake-prone buildings came into effect 1 July 2017 and Territorial Authority earthquake-prone building policies no longer apply.  Council is now responsible for identifying potentially earthquake-prone buildings within its district using the EPB methodology set by the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE).

 

2.3  The EPB methodology includes ‘profile categories’ for buildings based on characteristics like age of the building, the type of construction and common building features. Buildings that fall within the profile categories are identified by Council as potentially earthquake-prone buildings unless an ‘exclusion’ is also applicable (as described in the EPB methodology).

 

2.4  Buildings which do not fit within the profile categories (or are excluded) are outside the scope of the EPB methodology and no further action is required under the Building Act 2004 (Subpart 6A-Special provisions for earthquake-prone buildings).

 

       Note:  Buildings defined as outside scope or excluded may still be potentially earthquake-prone, however the EPB methodology is only focussed on identifying and remediating buildings with the highest safety risk.  Council may at any time (separately to the EPB methodology) identify a building as potentially earthquake-prone if there is reason to suspect a building may be earthquake-prone.

 

2.5  Attachment 2 contains ‘Table One – Hastings District Rural Halls – Summary of Usage and Earthquake Prone building Methodology EPB methodology update’.  This table identifies 3 categories of rural halls as follows:

 

A.    No Further Action:

 

       Halls with no further action required because they have been assessed at above 34% of New Building Standard (7 halls);

 

B.    No Further Action – Outside of Scope:

 

       Halls that have not yet been assessed however are regarded as outside the scope or excluded after applying the EPB methodology and no further action is required under the Building Act (7 halls).

 

C.   Halls assessed as below 34% NBS:

 

       These halls are considered potentially earthquake-prone buildings.  Council regulatory staff will be working through the process of reviewing each engineering assessment received against the legislative criteria in order to determine whether or not the halls are earthquake-prone buildings.  If determined as earthquake-prone then an EPB notice will be issued to the owner.

 

       Owners of earthquake-prone buildings have 15 years to remediate, i.e. strengthening or demolition of all or part of the building so that it is no longer earthquake-prone. The timeframe starts from the date an EPB notice is issued.

 

       Owners of certain earthquake-prone buildings may apply for exemption from the requirement to carry out seismic work.  Council will only grant an exemption if satisfied the building or part of the building has the prescribed characteristics set out in the regulations (refer Attachment Four – Regulations Excerpts – s10 and Schedule 4).  

3.0       CURRENT SITUATION

3.1       There is $12,938 remaining in the 2017/2018 Rural Halls Maintenance Fund following allocation of funds to the Priority One applications at the meeting of 11 September 2017, i.e.:

 

Opening balance as at 1 July 2017                                                 $36,036

 

Less grants to be uplifted from September 2017        $23,098

 

Balance available for Priority 3 and 4 requests                                  $12,938

 

3.2       This remaining amount excludes the $30,000 budget component for earthquake strengthening.

3.3       The three remaining applications for priority 3 and 4 maintenance are attached separately.  These applications amount to $33,620 and are as follows.  Please note that the amount requested exceeds the available budget of $12,938.

Hall & Usage

Earthquake prone status

Project

Property Assets Team comments:

$ Request

Sherenden

2-3 times per month for schools, community, emergency purpose

23% NBS

Potentially earthquake-prone building

Sand and apply polyurethane to walls and windows in the entranceway and main body of hall.

Priority 4 work.

Delay of interior work should be considered until the extent of structural work is known.

4,135

3.4       This is a priority 4 request for a hall which has been assessed at 23% of the new building standard, and strengthening work is likely to include work to the interior. There is insufficient budget to fund priority 4 requests this funding round.

Hall & Usage

Earthquake prone status

Project

Property Assets Team comments:

$ Request

Pakowhai

Monthly mountain safety, firearms safety courses, church groups

24% NBS

Potentially earthquake-prone building

Repaint and seal of interior walls

Most of the stage 1 work has now been completed.  Repainting of interior is Priority 4.

9,885

3.5       This is a priority 4 request for a hall which has been assessed at 24% of the new building standard. Delay of interior painting should be considered until extent of structural work is known.

3.6       There is insufficient budget to fund priority 4 requests this funding round.  Pakowhai Hall received a $1,500 grant for its stormwater upgrade in the September 2017 funding round.

 

 

 

 

Hall & Usage

Earthquake prone status

Project

Property Assets Team comments:

$ Request

Maraekakaho

 

15-20 times per month for early childhood, school groups and emergency purposes

Excluded from EPB  methodology

Painting of iron roof;

painting of timber exterior;

Painting of interior

The paint is in very poor condition and there is rot to timber work – urgent.

7,925

 

8,250

 

3,425

(19,600 total)

3.7       This funding request contains priority 3 and priority 4 requests. The painting of the iron roof and timber exterior is priority 3 and regarded as urgent work by the Property Assets Team.  The interior painting is a priority 4 request.

3.8       Maraekakaho Hall has not been assessed for earthquake proneness, however it is a timber frame building so it is now excluded from the legislation applicable to earthquake prone buildings.

3.9       There is insufficient budget to fund priority 4 requests this funding round, however there is budget to contribute to the priority 3 requests of $16,175.

3.10    With regard to 2.1 recommendation iv) which requests prioritisation of earthquake strengthening for rural halls, Attachment Two has been prepared for the Hastings District Rural Halls.  This table provides a summary of hall usage and an EPB methodology update.  Attachment three provides an EPB methodology update as at 10 November 2017.

3.11    The table provides information on the outcome after applying the EPB methodology.  Please note that there is no difference to the building owner (i.e. no further action is required under the Building Act) if the hall is ‘outside scope’ or ‘excluded’.

4.0       OPTIONS

4.1       Option One is:

a)   to receive the Rural Hall policy amendments; and

b)   receive the information regarding the update on the Building Act 2004 provisions and EPB methodology review; and

c)   decline the Priority 4 requests; and

d)   partially fund the Priority 3 funding request from Maraekakaho Hall because there is limited budget and Maraekakaho Hall is excluded from the EPB methodology.

4.2       Option Two is to receive the information regarding the update on the Building Act 2004 provisions and EPB methodology review, and decline all the funding requests.

5.0       SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1       The matters within this report do not trigger the thresholds within Council’s significance policy.

6.0       ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS (INCLUDING FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS)

6.1       The option one recommendation to receive the Rural Halls Policy amendments is important because it confirms the $30,000 budget is exclusively for earthquake strengthening, and it communicates changes to the funding round timelines to accommodate assessment of applications by the Property Assets team.

6.2       The option one recommendation to receive the information provided on EPB methodology is important because it is providing an update of Council’s and rural hall building owner’s responsibilities under the Building Act 2004.

6.3       The option one recommendation to decline the Priority 4 requests is the only option because there is not sufficient budget to consider funding these applications.  The Property Assets team recommends delay on these requests until the extent and timing of any structural work is known.

6.4       The option one recommendation to partially fund the Priority 3 funding request from Maraekakaho Hall is appropriate because there is remaining budget available in the 2017/2018 rural halls maintenance fund, and this request is the highest priority request from the 3 outstanding applications, and Maraekakaho Hall is excluded from the EPB methodology, therefore no further action is required with regard to earthquake strengthening under the Building Act 2004.

6.5       The option two recommendation to receive the information on the update on the Building Act 2004 provisions and EPB methodology review, and decline all the funding requests is not recommended given there is budget available to consider funding the priority 3 application from Maraekakaho Hall.

7.0       PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

7.1       Option One is the preferred option because there is budget remaining in the 2017/2018 Rural Halls Maintenance budget, and this will allow the highest priority funding application to be supported.

 

8.0       RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A)        That the report of the Community Grants & Projects Advisor titled Allocation of Grants for Priority 3 and 4 applications to the Rural Halls Maintenance Fund 2017/2018 dated 4/12/2017 be received.

B)        That the amendments to the Rural Halls Policy are received.

C)        That the Maraekakaho Hall is allocated a grant of $12,938 from the remaining 2017/2018 Rural Halls Maintenance Fund, for painting of the hall roof exterior.

 

D)        That the Priority 4 requests from Maraekakaho Hall, Pakowhai Hall and Sherenden Hall be declined as:

·    there is insufficient budget to consider funding these applications; and

·    the Property Assets team recommended delay on these requests until the extent and timing of any structural work is known.

 

E)  That the update regarding the Building Act 2004, Subpart 6A-Special provisions for earthquake-prone buildings is received.

 

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.

 

Attachments:

 

1

Rural Halls Maintenance Fund Policy - Revised 2017

COP-01-02-17-951

2

Hastings District Rural Halls as at October 2017

COP-01-02-17-954

3

Earthquake Prone Buildings - Rural Halls List – EPB Methodology Update as at 10 November 2017

REG-2-9-17-2885

4

Earthquake Prone Buildings - Regulations Excerpts - s10 and Schedule 4

REG-2-9-17-2884

5

Application - Sherenden Hall

COP-01-9-4-17-1

6

Application - Pakowhai Hall

COP-01-9-4-17-7

7

Application - Maraekakaho Hall

COP-01-9-4-17-8

 

 

 


Rural Halls Maintenance Fund Policy - Revised 2017

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Hastings District Rural Halls as at October 2017

Attachment 2

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Earthquake Prone Buildings - Rural Halls List – EPB Methodology Update as at 10 November 2017

Attachment 3

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Earthquake Prone Buildings - Regulations Excerpts - s10 and Schedule 4

Attachment 4

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Rural Halls Maintenance Fund - Round 2017 - Application - Sherenden Hall

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Rural Halls Maintenance Fund - Round 2017 - Application - Pakowhai Hall

Attachment 6

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Rural Halls Maintenance Fund - Round 2017 - Application - Pakowhai Hall

Attachment 6

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Rural Halls Maintenance Fund - Round 2017 - Application - Pakowhai Hall

Attachment 6

 

PDF Creator


Rural Halls Maintenance Fund - Round 2017 - Application - Maraekakaho Hall

Attachment 7

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Rural Halls Maintenance Fund - Round 2017 - Application - Maraekakaho Hall

Attachment 7

 

PDF Creator


Rural Halls Maintenance Fund - Round 2017 - Application - Maraekakaho Hall

Attachment 7

 

PDF Creator