Civic Administration Building
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, 9 September 2019 |
Time: |
10.30am |
Venue: |
Landmarks Room Ground Floor Civic Administration Building Lyndon Road East Hastings |
Subcommittee Members |
Chair: Mrs S Maxwell Mr N Dawson and Mr M Lester Councillors Kerr, Lyons, Heaps and Redstone (Quorum=4) |
Officer Responsible |
Group Manager: Asset Management – Craig Thew |
Democracy & Governance Services Advisor |
Christine Hilton (Ext 5633) |
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, 9 September 2019
VENUE: |
Landmarks Room Ground Floor Civic Administration Building Lyndon Road East Hastings |
TIME: |
10.30am |
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 General Counsel or the Democratic Support Manager (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 10 September 2018.
(Previously circulated)
5. Hearing of presentation of applications for funding (contained in separate agenda document - scheduled from 10.30am).
4. Rural Halls - Update on Condition of halls and the implications of the Building (Earthquake -prone Buildings) Amendment Act 5
5. Rural Halls Fund 2019/2020 Funding Round (Item 5 continued - for consideration of applications presented earlier in meeting) 19
6. Additional Business Items
7. Extraordinary Business Items
File Ref: 19/833 |
|
REPORT TO: Rural Halls Subcommittee
MEETING DATE: Monday 9 September 2019
FROM: Parks and Property Services Manager
Colin Hosford
SUBJECT: Rural Halls - Update on Condition of halls and the implications of the Building (Earthquake -prone Buildings) Amendment Act
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA
1.1 The purpose of this report is to update the Rural Community Board (RCB) on the status of rural halls in the district in terms of their overall condition and requirement for maintenance and the implications of meeting the newly adopted earthquake standards.
1.2 This report contributes to the purpose of local government by primarily promoting social and cultural wellbeing through the maintenance of rural halls that serve the diverse cultural and social needs of the community.
1.3 This issue arises from the RCB’s desire to better understand the condition status of our rural halls and the likely funding implications to meeting the Building Act 2016, Subpart 6A – Special provisions for earthquake-prone buildings (commenced 1 July 2017).
1.4 This report concludes by recommending that the RCB agree to utilise the Rural Halls fund to fund Detailed Seismic Assessments for seven rural halls as per the priority listing outlined in the report and that an additional $15,000 pa be made available to advance the programme
1.5 In summary, this report seeks to provide a proactive plan for Council and the rural community to look after rural halls to make them safe and fit for use, by all. Its key recommendations are as follows;
· Prioritise the spending of ratepayers funds on halls that are in the poorest state while integrating earthquake assessments to coincide with other remedial or improvement actions
· Request Council to consider making an additional $15000 pa available to ensure legislative timeframes for earthquake proneness assessments are met.
3.0 BACKGROUND – TE HOROPAKI
3.1 The Parks and Property Services Team has been requested to undertake an audit of all rural halls and report back with a plan for the Rural Community Board to assess priorities and expectations for rural hall partners to ensure that rural halls are fit for purpose.
3.2 Council and the community have been investing time and resources into meeting legislative requirement that seek to improve the condition of public buildings, to protect the health and safety of users and the wider community.
3.3 There are 21 rural halls in the Hastings District Council. While they are not all directly owned and managed by Council, many are on public land and all play an important role as community facilities that support local rural communities. The following table identifies each hall, the building owner and the land owner.
Hall Name |
Hall Owner |
Land Owner |
Haumoana Hall |
HDC |
HDC |
Farndon Park Hall |
Farndon Domain committee of management |
HDC |
Kaiwaka (Tareha) Hall |
Hall Committee |
HDC |
Matapiro & District Recreation Hall |
Hall Committee |
HDC |
Patoka Memorial Hall |
Hall Committee |
HDC |
Puketitiri Hall |
Hall Committee |
HDC |
Te Awanga Community Hall |
Hall Committee |
HDC |
Te Pohue Hall |
Hall Committee |
Maungaharuru Tangitu |
Tutira Hall |
Hall Committee |
HDC |
Waikare & Districts Sports Club |
Hall Committee |
HDC |
Waimarama Maraetotara Memorial Hall |
Hall Committee |
HDC |
Clive Community Hall |
Clive Civic Committee |
Private |
Kereru Hall |
Kereru Hall Society Incorporated |
Private |
Maraekakaho Church Hall |
The Maraekakaho Church Hall Trust Board |
Private |
Pakowhai War Memorial Hall |
Pakowhai War Memorial Hall Committee |
Private |
Poukawa Community Hall |
Education Ministry |
Private |
Raukawa Hall |
Raukawa Hall Incorporated |
Private |
Sherenden Hall |
Sherenden Hall Society Inc |
Private |
St Therese |
St Therese Hall Whakatu Trust |
Private |
Twyford & Raupare Memorial Hall |
Hall Committee |
Private |
Waikoau Hall |
The Crown |
Private |
Table 1.
3.4 As many of the halls are on Council land, Council has an obvious moral obligation to assist in their care and management on behalf of the community.
4.0 DISCUSSION - TE MATAPAKITANGA
4.1 The new building legislation for earthquake prone buildings is now in force and Council and the community need to progress work in order to comply with its legislative requirements.
4.2 Officers seek to clearly present the requirements of the new legislation to the RCB and Rural Hall Sub-Committee (RHSC) and suggest how the rural community and Council together might best address a forward upgrade programme in an affordable way.
4.3 Council has an existing rural halls funding allocation which makes $50,000 pa available, of which $20,000 is earmarked for maintenance and $30,000 for engineering assessment and strengthening works.
4.4 The key issues before the Rural Hall Sub-Committee are to;
· Identify the new legislative requirements for EQP assessment and for undertaking any upgrade works
· Identify a priority listing for works on the halls and timelines to complete
· Estimate of costs of upgrades
· Identify funding arrangements to undertake necessary works.
5.0 What does the new legislation mean
5.1 Council must identify potentially earthquake-prone buildings within its district using the Earthquake-prone building (EPB) methodology set by the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE).
5.2 Council needs to have identified these buildings by 30 June 2022.
5.3 Where Council have identified a building is potentially earthquake-prone, owners are required to provide an engineering assessment within one year after being notified. There is also provision for an additional extension of up to one year. Thus Council/community has potentially until 2024 to complete the detailed engineering assessments, dependant on when notification is received.
5.4 Following completion and acceptance of an engineering assessment, buildings determined to be earthquake-prone[1] by Council, will be required to be remediated within 7½ years for priority buildings, and 15 years for other non-priority buildings. As no rural halls are priority buildings, this allows 15 years to undertake the remedial work.
5.5 The EPB methodology sets out criteria for Council to use as profile categories of buildings which are potentially earthquake-prone.
5.6 The criteria is based on characteristics like age of the building, the type of construction and common building features.
5.7 A brief summary of profile categories of buildings that are potentially earthquake-prone is:
· Category A - Unreinforced masonry buildings
· Category B - Pre-1976 buildings that are either three or more storeys or 12 metres or greater in height
· Category C - Pre-1935 buildings that are one or two storeys.
5.8 Of the 21 halls, 13 halls are excluded from the need to upgrade due to either their age, construction type or their rating satisfies the legislation. See Attachment 1.
5.9 Prior to the introduction of the new legislation, Council had assessed rural halls that are either owned by Council or are built on Council land.
5.10 Seven rural halls were identified as being potentially earthquake prone under the new legislation and actions around this will require this Subcommittee’s and Council’s direction. In addition, Haumoana Hall is now confirmed as being earthquake-prone and will be included in Council’s own workstream. Thus it is not included in the table of rural halls requiring action.
5.11 Officers are also aware of issues with the Maraekakaho Church Hall which is technically excluded, but because of its level of use by the local school, the hall committee has been requested to give assurance that it meets 67% NBS. Their initial engineering assessment indicate that the building is potentially earthquake-prone. For these reasons, officers have included it in the table of rural halls that require further remedial actions.
5.12 The following table summarises each of the eight rural halls’ status and required actions in terms of engineering assessment and potential remediation, if known.
Hall name |
Detailed Eng Ass req’d |
When by |
Estimated Cost Eng cost (excl gst) |
Estimated Remediation Cost (excl gst) |
Priority |
Tutira Hall |
Yes |
2024 |
$15,000 |
$40,000 |
1 |
Waimarama and Maraetotara Memorial Hall |
Yes |
2024 |
$15,000 |
$40,000 |
1 |
Matapiro & District Recreation Hall |
Yes |
2024 |
$15,000 |
$25,000 |
1 |
Kaiwaka (Tareha) Hall |
Yes |
2024 |
$15,000 |
$25,000 |
2 |
Pakowhai War Memorial Hall |
Yes |
2024 |
$15,000 |
Unknown |
2 |
Sherenden Hall |
Yes |
2024 |
$15,000 |
Unknown |
2 |
Kereru Hall |
Yes |
2024 |
$15,000 |
Unknown |
3
|
Maraekakaho Church Hall |
Yes |
2024 |
$15,000 |
$100,000 |
1 |
Total (excl gst) |
|
|
$120,000 |
|
|
Table 2
5.13 In summary, to fully satisfy the new legislation requirements Council and the rural hall community, first need to complete the detailed engineering assessment for the above listed seven halls before 2024 at the latest. On the above estimates this will require $30,000 pa which aligns with the Rural Hall Fund allocation of $30,000 pa however this will not allow any room or flexibility to undertake remedial if the assessment programme is rigidly followed.
5.14 Officers believe the first priority is to progress the detailed engineering assessments in order to meet the most urgent legal timeframes, before undertaking remediation, as remediation work has a longer timeframe for completion.
6.0 Rural Halls Building Condition
6.1 However the issue of the co-funding of the ongoing maintenance of the halls also has a bearing on priority works. There is certainly no appetite to proceed with a general maintenance upgrade of a hall, to find out that required strengthening work might lead to the maintenance work being a waste of time and money.
6.2 The current and future use of a hall will also help determine the priority for advancing maintenance funds and the work programme.
6.3 Officers have carried out a condition survey late last year to help the RCB and hall committees to better understand the current condition and performance of the rural halls.
6.4 In general, the halls are in a good to average condition. Some more urgent tasks have been identified namely in relation to structural integrity and weather tightness.
6.5 The three most obvious priorities identified are;
· Waikaou and Districts Sports Club Hall (internal gutters)
· Waimarama Hall (exterior repairs and repaint)
· Te Awanga Hall (Roof rebuild)
· Maraekakaho Church Hall
6.6 Attachment 1 details the condition and status of halls.
6.7 The rural hall fund currently has five applications under consideration. (see accompanying officer report) They are collectively seeking approximately $26,000 this year to undertake non earthquake related improvement tasks.
6.8 The five current applications relate to Waimarama, Twyford, Sherendon, Matapiro and Clive Community Halls. When adding these current requests into the mix officers suggest the most prudent approach that ensures good money isn’t spent after bad is to follow the priority programme for EQP assessment and building works as listed in table 3 below.
6.9 This table sets recommended priorities for assessments for detailed seismic assessment (DSA). This is based on hall usage, applications in train for hall funding and any critical upgrade needs already identified in the condition assessments. As reported above, Maraekakaho Church Hall is included in this due to its obvious historic high community demand, and its now obvious structural shortcomings.
Hall name |
Estimated Cost Detailed Eng Assessment |
When by |
Estimate Remediation Cost |
Estimate General Maintenance Cost |
Priority |
Maraekakaho Church Hall |
$15,000 |
2024 |
$100,000 |
$8,000 |
1 |
Tutira Hall |
$15,000 |
2024 |
$40,000 |
$0 |
1 |
Waimarama Maraetotara Memorial Hall |
$15,000 |
2024 |
$40,000 |
$100,000 |
1 |
Matapiro & District Recreation Hall |
$15,000 |
2024 |
$25,000 |
$30,000 |
1 |
Kaiwaka (Tareha) Hall |
$15,000 |
2024 |
$25,000 |
$5,000 |
2 |
Pakowhai War Memorial Hall |
$15,000 |
2024 |
Unknown |
$3,000 |
2 |
Sherenden Hall |
$15,000 |
2024 |
Unknown |
$8,000 |
2 |
Kereru Hall |
$15,000 |
2024 |
Unknown |
$3,000 |
3 |
Total excl gst |
$120,000 |
|
|
$254,000 |
|
Table 3
6.10 Officers note that the costs to remediate are likely to exceed the amount of funding available and will prove difficult for rural communities to raise their nominal 50% share. Once the assessments are complete in three years, on the current funding regime $30,000 pa will become available. This amount is relatively small given the cost of building work in the current market and the uncertainty of what might be revealed once the engineering assessments are complete.
6.11 The subcommittee might consider recommending an additional $15,000 be made available in future years to help build up a fund that can be reasonably responsive to assisting rural communities.
6.12 It is likely that other funding streams will be available but having a good seed funding allocation available will help communities realise their fund raising aspirations.
6.13 The other already compliant or excluded halls may have general maintenance requirements that would be dealt with as business as usual by the hall fund. It also is based on the availability of $60,000 pa continuing to be available in the Rural Halls fund for assessments, strengthening and general maintenance work.
6.14 While the above assessments are based on the current status of hall use, it is noted that any future change of use or new building consent applications are likely to trigger engineering assessments and upgrades for other halls that are currently excluded. Officer can only speculate on what this might cost. It is felt the Sub-committee will need to be flexible enough to consider applications as and when they arise.
7.0 Recommended Approach
7.1 In summary there are 21 rural halls in the district. 13 halls are already excluded form requiring assessment by virtue of compliance with new legislation or being excluded. Nine require assessment of which one is a fully Council owned asset that will not require rural hall funding. The remaining eight require assessment and would likely need to have work undertaken.
7.2 Officers recommend that the Rural Halls Subcommittee adopt the priorities as listed in Table 3 to advance this project utilising the funds as allocated.
7.3 None of these are urgent except for the priority 1 halls that seek to do improvements that prudent financial management says the seismic assessments should precede any maintenance work.
7.4 Officers recommend that the rural hall fund cover the costs of all the assessments over the next three years, to ensure legislative requirements are met and to ensure that Council and the rural communities are aware of safety concerns, legal obligations and any cost implications that might affect the future of the halls.
7.5 Officers also recommend that the Rural Hall Subcommittee consider requesting the fund be increased from $60,000 to $75,000 pa to help progress and support local rural communities, within the discussed timeframe.
7.6 Finally, officers are aware of the current applications for funds from the maintenance fund and that funding stream need not be affected by these recommendations.
OPTIONS - NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA
Option One - Recommended Option - Te Kōwhiringa Tuatahi – Te Kōwhiringa Tūtohunga
8.1 Adopt a prioritised approach to rural hall improvements. Officers recommend that the allocation of the rural hall funds be prioritised to meet the most important safety needs while ensuring funds are prudently managed. It also recommends that the fund be moderately increased to assist in meeting the building legislation timeframes.
Advantages
· A more responsive fund that can meet the aspirations of rural communities
· Improved ability to upgrade halls to provide safer more resilient community facilities
· Prioritised building work that ensure improved fiscal responsibility and prudent work programming
· Gives much higher certainty to hall committees as they plan their fundraising and remedial programming
· Provides strong leadership to rural community and enables hall committees to proactively tackle building issues
Disadvantages
· Requires an increase in rate funding of $15,000 per annum
· It may require some lower priority buildings to wait longer to access funds.
Option Two – Status Quo - Te Kōwhiringa Tuarua – Te Āhuatanga o nāianei
8.2 Option two is to continue with the current regime of rural hall funding. This entails halls applying for funds on a first come first served basis which may or may not provide the best outcome for the rural community.
Advantages
· No need to change current LTP funding streams
Disadvantages
· Current system is unlikely to meet building legislative requirements and timelines
· Current system does not give guidance in prioritising building safety nor align work streams for prudent financial management
9.0 NEXT STEPS - TE ANGA WHAKAMUA
9.1 Should the committee adopt the recommendations, they will need to be considered and endorsed by the Council.
· Additional funding of $15,000 pa will need to be included in the 2020/21 Annual Plan
· Officers will need to meet with the hall committees of the Priority 1 buildings to discuss options and offer management assistance
· Hall committees will need to commence their respective fundraising
1⇩ |
Rural Hall Earthquake and Condition Report |
CG-14-31-00016 |
|
SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS - HE WHAKARĀPOPOTO WHAIWHAKAARO
|
Fit with purpose of Local Government - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te Rangatōpū-ā-rohe
The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as set out in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to enable democratic local decision-making and action by (and on behalf of) communities, and to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.
|
Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te rautaki matua This proposal promotes the Local Infrastructure well-being of communities in the present and for the future through the delivery of safe fit for purpose rural community halls.
|
Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori Tangata whenua are key members of the District’s rural community and their wellbeing is enhanced where safe fit for purpose rural halls are promoted and funded by Council.
|
Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga The prudent care of community facilities in a timely prioritised way helps ensure the sustainable management of these assets.
|
Financial considerations - Ngā Whaiwhakaaro Ahumoni This report recommends that the Rural Hall Committee and Community Board request additional funding of $15,000 be allocated in future years to carry out the prioritised work programme. As with other funding requests, this increase will need to be considered alongside Council’s other competing requests for funding.
|
Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga This decision/report has been assessed under the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy as being of minor significance in terms of financial thresholds. However the role of rural halls is of importance to the rural community and officers have worked with hall committees to help address their concerns and aspirations.
|
Consultation – internal and/or external - Whakawhiti Whakaaro-ā-roto, ā-waho Officers have undertaken inspections of the rural halls and worked alongside the hall committees in identifying issues and challenges.
|
Risks: Legal/Health and Safety - Ngā Tūraru: Ngā Ture / Hauora me te Haumaru Council has a clear requirement to meet the legislative requirements of the Building Act. This report recommends a course of action that will see Council and community meeting their obligations in a timely manner.
|
Rural Community Board - Ngā Poari-ā-hapori This report has been requested by the Rural Community Board as an issue of importance to it.
|
|
REPORT TO: Rural Halls Subcommittee
MEETING DATE: Monday 9 September 2019
FROM: Community Grants Advisor
Kevin Carter
SUBJECT: Rural Halls Fund 2019/2020 Funding Round
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA
1.1 The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from the Rural Halls Subcommittee on the allocation of funds to applicants to the Rural Halls Fund 2019.
1.2 This report contributes to the purpose of local government by primarily promoting social wellbeing and more specifically through the Council’s strategic objective by ensuring that the District heritage is conserved for future generations
1.3 This report concludes by recommending that specific grant allocations are made to eligible applicants to the Rural Halls Maintenance Fund 2019.
3.0 BACKGROUND – TE HOROPAKI
3.1 Rural Halls are important to the communities around them because they provide a venue for social and cultural events, and are a focal point or meeting place for the rural community. Council is responsible for 21 halls in the plains and rural district of Hastings, which must be for the benefit of the rural community.
3.2 The Rural Halls Fund has an annual allocation of $50,000 (excluding GST) to be distributed as grants to rural halls of Hastings District, this is an annual funding round which opens 1 April each year, for allocation in the subsequent financial year.
3.3 The annual Rural Halls Fund budget is split
· $20,000 for Council contribution to maintenance projects per year
· $30,000 for Council contribution to earthquake assessments and subsequent strengthening work per year
3.4 The Rural Halls Fund Policy 2017 (Attachment 1) outlines the administration of the fund which includes involvement by the Property Assets Team to inspect each applicant hall and provide comments on relevant matters to the Rural Halls Subcommittee for their consideration.
4.0 DISCUSSION - TE MATAPAKITANGA
4.1 The officer comments (Attachment 2) is an objective guide for the Rural Halls Subcommittee to consider along with the applicant presentations to the Subcommittee on 9 September 2019. The presentations to the Subcommittee are an opportunity to ask questions of the applicants where information may be unclear.
4.2 The full applications are contained (Attachments 3-7)
4.3 The applications are listed in order of date received
4.4 The current Rural Halls Fund available budget is $117,800.00 and is made up as follows:
Rural Halls Fund Maintenance 19/20 |
$20,000.00* |
Rural Halls Fund Reserve Maintenance |
$37,800.00* |
Rural Halls Fund Earthquake assessment and strengthening 19/20 |
$30,000.00* |
Rural Halls Fund Reserve Earthquake assessment and strengthening |
$30,000.00* |
Total Available |
$117,800.00* |
4.5 The two reserve funds build from carry-forwards of unused funds each funding round and can be used to fund projects which may have been delayed from previous funding rounds, or priority projects where the funding requested exceeds the annual available budget in any year.
4.6 There are five applications totalling $26,001.10 to the 2019 Rural Halls Fund with an maintenance focus, as outlined below:
Hall |
Brief Project Description |
Request |
Twyford and Raupare Memorial Hall |
Carpeting walls to reduce damages and provide better heating and improve the acoustics |
$6,950.00 |
Sherenden Hall |
New water pump and cylinder to ensure constant water supply to kitchen and bathrooms |
$808.18 |
Waimarama Maraetotora Memorial Hall |
Replace main switchboard. |
$10,435 |
Matapiro |
Redecorate bathrooms areas to encourage more people to use the facility |
$3,110.00 |
Clive Community Hall |
removal and replacement of kitchen units and kitchen benches |
$4,697.92 |
|
TOTAL |
$26,001.10 |
4.7 There are zero applications totalling $0.00 to the 2019 Rural Halls Fund with an earthquake assessment and strengthening focus:
Hall |
Brief Project Description |
Request |
|
TOTAL |
$0.00.00 |
5.0 OPTIONS - NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA
5.1 Option One - Recommended Option - Te Kōwhiringa Tuatahi – Te Kōwhiringa Tūtohunga
Option One is to fund the five applications which have been inspected by the Property Assets Team, This is the preferred option because these projects will progress the maintenance that is required to enable continued use of these halls. The projects have been recommended for approval by the Council’s Property Assets Team and by the associated rural communities. There is available budget to action this option
5.2 Option Two – Status Quo - Te Kōwhiringa Tuarua – Te Āhuatanga o nāianei
Option Two is to not fund any applications to the 2019/20 Rural Halls Fund.
5.3 Option Three – Te Kōwhiringa Tuaturu
Option Three is to fund some of the applications to the 2019/20 Rural Halls Fund. Each application is an individual application, any combination of applications can be accepted.
6.0 NEXT STEPS - TE ANGA WHAKAMUA
6.1 If approved a funding agreement will be drawn up between each of the groups and council outlining the roles and responsibilities of each party
6.2 Upon receiving the signed funding agreement and invoice from the group payment will be made in line with the council’s finance policy
6.3 At the end of the project the group are required to submit an accountability report to ensure the funds where spent correctly as per their funding agreement
1⇩ |
Rural Halls Fund Policy |
COP-01-9-6-19-7 |
|
2⇨ |
Summary of Funding Applications |
COP-01-9-6-19-14 |
Under Separate Cover |
3⇨ |
Twyford and Raupare Memorial Hall (1) |
COP-01-9-6-19-8 |
Under Separate Cover |
4⇨ |
Sherenden Hall (2) |
COP-01-9-6-19-9 |
Under Separate Cover |
5⇨ |
Waimarama Maraetotara Memorial Hall (3) |
COP-01-9-6-19-10 |
Under Separate Cover |
6⇨ |
Matapiro Hall (4) |
COP-01-9-6-19-11 |
Under Separate Cover |
7⇨ |
Clive Community Hall (5) |
COP-01-9-6-19-12 |
Under Separate Cover |
SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS - HE WHAKARĀPOPOTO WHAIWHAKAARO
|
Fit with purpose of Local Government - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te Rangatōpū-ā-rohe Refer to paragraph 1.8
|
Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te rautaki matua Refer to paragraph 1.8
|
Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori There are no known impacts for Tangate Whenua:
|
Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga Refer to paragraph 5.1
|
Financial considerations - Ngā Whaiwhakaaro Ahumoni Refer to paragraph 4.4
|
Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga The matters within this report do not trigger the thresholds within Council’s significance policy.
|
Consultation – internal and/or external - Whakawhiti Whakaaro-ā-roto, ā-waho Internal engagement with the Parks and Property Services Team There has been no external engagement
|
Risks: Legal/ Health and Safety - Ngā Tūraru: Ngā Ture / Hauora me te Haumaru There are no risks linked to this report
|
Rural Community Board - Ngā Poari-ā-hapori This report id for the Rural Halls Subcommittee
|
Rural Halls Fund Policy |
Attachment 1 |
Rural Halls Maintenance Fund Policy 2018
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Hastings District Council (Council) endeavors to plan in a mutually appropriate way with the rural community in the District. This includes contributing to good quality infrastructure, i.e. rural community halls, so these facilities can meet the current and future needs of rural communities.
1.2 The rural halls in the Hastings District are important to the communities around them in terms of providing a venue for social and cultural events, and a focal point or meeting place for the community.
1.3 The Rural Halls Maintenance Fund has an annual allocation of $20,000 to be distributed as grants to the rural halls of Hastings district for maintenance projects.
1.4 Unspent funds accumulate in a separate reserve fund and these funds are used to fund hall inspections, and to top up the annual maintenance allocation in any given year where priority requests exceed annual allocation.
1.5 In December 2016, the Hastings District Rural Community Board introduced an increase in funding of an additional $30,000 per annum to commence in the 2017/2018 budget year, for earthquake assessments and related strengthening work. This funding is to be kept separate from the rural halls maintenance budget and can only be applied to Priority 1 applications to the Rural Halls Maintenance Fund (Earthquake Prone Assessment & Strengthening).
1.6 This is an annual round which opens 1 April and closes 31 May, prior to the commencement of the financial year, i.e. 1 July, and in time for the September allocation meeting.
1.7 Applicants generally have 12 months to uplift their grants, unless their project completion will take longer and they have informed Council of the reasons why.
2.0 Priorities for funding from the Rural Halls Fund
2.1 The Rural Community Board has adopted the following priorities of work for building maintenance, to use as a guideline in assessing applications to the Rural Halls Maintenance Fund:
Maintenance Priority 1: Health & Safety
Please note: In 2018/2019 Council will be providing a template for each hall to complete a basic operational Health & Safety Plan covering off responsibilities and simple processes for identifying and resolving health & safety issues.
Work required for the maintenance or restoration of Health and Safety elements of the building. This includes work to the structure to remove hazards, and work to soil drainage and effluent disposal systems. Other examples include:
· Improvement or treatment of contaminated water supply
· Replacement of dangerous wiring
· Work on unsanitary plumbing
· Work to provide compliance with safety from falling
· Installation of fire alarm and monitoring system
· Maintenance of food preparation surfaces in kitchens
Maintenance Priority 2: Weather Tightness
Work required to maintain weather tightness and protect internal and external fabric from deterioration, for example:
· Replacement of roofing and external cladding or other work to render the building weatherproof
· Exterior repainting or repairs to exterior cladding especially timber cladding and joinery
· Repiling
· Replacement of rainwater disposal systems
· Work to provide heating to a space where this is inadequate or absent, e.g. installation of heat pump
Maintenance Priority 3: Ablution areas and Kitchens
Work required to ablution areas and kitchens to maintain imperviousness of floor and walls to service areas including
Please note: Work to food preparation surfaces would be included in Priority1.
· Replacement of vinyl flooring to service areas
· Painting of internal walls, ceilings to service areas
· Replacement of fittings and flooring
Maintenance Priority 4: Other Spaces
Work to maintain appearance in other spaces including
· General flooring replacement
· General repainting and redecoration
2.2 The Rural Community Board has adopted the following priorities of work for earthquake strengthening, to use as a guideline in assessing applications to the Rural Halls Earthquake Strengthen Fund:
Earthquake Strengthening Priority 1: Assessments
Work required to complete a detailed earthquake assessment.
Earthquake Strengthening Priority 2: Physical Works
Work required that would come from the detailed earthquake assessment required to ensure the building is safe and complies with earthquake regulations and standards
3.0 Fund Administration
3.1 The Fund is administered and reported on by the Community Grants & Projects Advisor, within the Community Facilities & Programmes Group.
3.2 The Property Assets Team have responsibility for:
i. advising and assisting with technical building and related information for the completion of funding applications, and
ii. inspecting each applicant hall and providing comments on relevant matters to the Rural Halls Subcommittee for their consideration, and
iii. inspection of completed projects, and
iv. where necessary, working with Hall management committees for prioritising the maintenance and upgrade of all rural halls in use by the community.
3.3 Any matters regarding the Building Act 2004, Subpart 6A-Special provisions for earthquake prone buildings are the responsibility of officers from Council’s Regulatory Services Team.
3.4 Maintenance grants are funded from the $20,000 annual allocation plus the Reserve Fund where priority projects exceed funds available. The reserve fund also provides up to $500 per hall for the advice and assessment provided by the Property Assets Team.
3.5 All earthquake assessment/strengthening requests are funded from the $30,000 annual allocation, and any carry forward of unused funds from this budget.
4.0 Eligibility for the Fund
4.1 The Rural Halls Maintenance Fund is designed to assist with building maintenance of halls in the rural and plains areas of the Hastings District. It does not cover ongoing operational costs or capital development.
4.2 To be eligible for the Fund, the applicant hall will be located within the rural and plains area and boundary of Hastings District, be a legal entity, have current insurance cover, and be for the benefit of the rural community and not private owners.
5.0 Requirements
5.1 The policy for funding is, as a general rule, that applications for more than $500.00, a maximum of 50% of the project cost will be funded. It is expected that the applicant will fund the other 50%. This may include voluntary labour and donated materials.
5.2 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.
5.3 For projects requesting less than $500.00 as a maximum of 50% of the project cost, it is up to the discretion of the rural halls Subcommittee as to what portion of the monies will be granted.
5.4 Applications will need to include copies of quotes, and any receipts related to work as supporting documentation.
6.0 General information
6.1 Application forms will be posted to the Secretary of each Rural Hall in March each year, and are also available on the HDC website:
http://www.hastingsdc.govt.nz/rural-halls-maintenance-fund
6.2 Late applications will not be accepted.
6.3 It is important that each Hall secretary advises the Community Grants & Projects Advisor via the Hastings District Council Customer Service Team CustomerServiceTeam@hdc.govt.nz or 871 5000, of any change in contact details for the relevant Rural Hall, so that application forms can be sent to the correct contact person each year.
6.4 Applications for retrospective funding may be considered if the work carried out needed to be undertaken urgently and if there are funds available.
7.0 Application Process & Timeline
Date
|
Activity |
March |
Application forms sent out to Hall secretaries*
|
1 April |
Funding round opens
|
31 May |
Funding round closes
|
July-August |
· Applications assessed · Applicant halls inspected by Property Assets team · Budget reconciled · Report prepared for Rural Halls Subcommittee
|
September |
Rural Halls Subcommittee makes recommendations to Council on the allocation of the annual Rural Halls Maintenance funds (maintenance grants and earthquake strengthening/assessment grants)
|
October |
Applicants advised of grant allocation
|
Within 12 months |
Grant to be uplifted via invoice to HDC
|
*Hall secretaries are to advise HDC CustomerServiceTeam@hdc.govt.nz or 871 5000 of any change in contact details.
[1] An earthquake-prone building (or part of a building) is essentially a building (or part) which has a structural performance of less than one third (<34% NBS) of that of a new building at the same site, which if it were to collapse in a moderate earthquake, would be likely to cause injury or death to people, or damage to other property.