Agenda of Community Services Committee

Community Services Committee Minutes - 11 June 2020

Minutes of a meeting of the Community Services Committee

Held in the Council Chamber, Civic House , 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson

On Thursday 11 June 2020, commencing at 10.08a.m.

Present: Councillor M Lawrey (Chairperson), Her Worship the Mayor R Reese, Councillors Y Bowater (Deputy Chairperson), T Brand, M Courtney, J Edgar, K Fulton, , B McGurk, Councillor G Noonan, R O'Neill-Stevens, P Rainey, R Sanson and T Skinner

In Attendance: Group Manager Community Services (R Ball), Group Manager Strategy and Communications (N McDonald), Governance Adviser (J Brandt) and Governance Support (K McLean)

Apologies : Nil

Karakia Timatanga

An opening karakia was given.

1 Apologies

There were no apologies.

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

The Chairperson noted that the meeting would receive the minutes from the previous meeting later in the meeting.

3. Interests

There were no updates to the Interests Register, and no interests with items on the agenda were declared.

4 Public Forum

3.1 The Salvation Army Nelson Tasman Bays - Housing First Project

Mr Jaap Noteboom and Ms Ros Vercoe presented on the Housing First Project, noting their contribution to housing the homeless during the COVID-19 lockdown period, which saw 74 homeless people housed during this period. The project provided wrap around services in partnership with other organisations such as the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board (NMDHB), Te Piki Oranga and the Male Room.

Mr Noteboom and Ms Vercoe answered questions about solutions for housing homeless people post COVID-19, and the ongoing need for Housing First services in this region.

3.2 Soroptimist International Nelson Incorporated, Habitat for Humanity (H4H) and Community Action Nelson (CAN) - Lack of Emergency Housing for Women and Children

Ms Megan Riddell, Mr Nick Clark and Ms Joanna Thompson gave a presentation. They spoke about the assistance they provide to help women, children and vulnerable families and individuals into emergency accommodation, transition housing and long term housing solutions, noting the challenges they face in the Nelson area. They answered questions about working in collaboration with other groups.

3.3 Youth Health and Wellbeing Trust (Whanake Youth) - Stoke Community Hall

Lee-Ann O’Brien gave a Powerpoint presentation (A2401474). Esther Walters and Youth Councillor Nathan Dunn spoke in support of Whanake Youth.

Ms O’Brien answered questions about plans for Stoke, funding agencies Whanake Youth has contracts with and/or intends to apply to, and the number of Whanake Youth employees.

Attachments

1 A2401474 - Whanake Youth Powerpoint presentation to Community Services Committee 11Jun2020

Attendance: The meeting was adjourned from 11.46a.m. to 11.52a.m. during which time Councillor Skinner left the meeting.

4 Nelson Festivals Trust six-monthly Update (Agenda Item 7)

Brent Thawley, Board Chair, and Padma Naidu, Festival Director, from the Nelson Festivals Trust presented their six-monthly update with a PowerPoint presentation (A2400390). Mr Thawley noted that Nelson City Council funding for 2020/21 had been confirmed since the presentation was prepared.

Mr Thawley noted the impacts of COVID-19 and subsequent challenges such as substantial decreases to income and a fast changing environment.

Attendance: Councillor Skinner returned to the meeting at 12.02p.m.

Director Padma Naidu spoke about events currently in the planning for Nelson and answered questions about the Mask Parade, the Trust’s human resources, and views about future large scale events.

The Deputy Mayor thanked Mr Thawley for stepping up as an arts advocate for the region during COVID-19.

Attachments

1 A2400390 - Nelson Festivals Trust presentation for Community Services Committee 11Jun2020

5. Stoke Community Hall – Lease (Agenda item 8)

Document number R13710, agenda pages 18 - 33 refer.

Principal Parks and Facilities Activity Planner, Andrew Petheram, presented the report.

Mr Petheram answered questions about the name of the facility, the site including the parking area, options officers had explored to find a suitable site, proposed lease charges, as well as past and future funding to activate this part of Stoke for young people.

It was noted that there was an error in the facility’s name in clause 2 of the recommendation wording, which was subsequently corrected to read ‘Stoke Community Hall’.

A correction to agenda page 20 was noted in section 4.5 of the report, which should refer to 4.4, not 4.5.1.

Councillor Noonan raised a Point of Order against Councillor Rainey who had stated that the discussion by Elected Members about the future use of the site was out of scope. Councillor Noonan noted this was a misrepresentation, as item 4.4 of the report referred to the development of a future youth park, therefore making it relevant. The Point of Order was upheld.

Recommendation

That the Community Services Committee

1. Receives the report Stoke Community Hall - Lease (R13710) and its attachment A2351330; and

2. Allocates the lease of the Stoke Community Hall to Whanake Youth for a period of three years starting July 2020; and

3. Allows an extension to the lease for a further period of five years subject to Whanake Youth meeting the outcomes specified in the lease agreement.

Fulton/Edgar

The meeting was adjourned from 12.59p.m. to 1.45p.m. during which time Councillor Rainey and Councillor Fulton left the meeting.

6 Public Forum continued (Agenda item 3)


Resolved CS/2020/012
	*That the Community Services Committee* 1. Records a vote of thanks to Housing First and all organisations involved in supporting vulnerable populations with their housing needs in the Nelson region for their work during COVID-19.
Her Worship the Mayor/Lawrey Carried

6 Apologies (Agenda item 1) continued


Resolved CS/2020/013
	*That the Community Services Committee* *1. Receives and accepts the apology from Councillor Rainey for early departure.*
Sanson/Bowater Carried

7. Confirmation of Minutes (Agenda item 2)

7.1 12 March 2020

Document number M7762, agenda pages 6 - 14 refer.

Resolved CS/2020/014

That the Community Services Committee

1. Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Community Services Committee, held on 12 March 2020, as a true and correct record.

Courtney/Edgar Carried

8. Chairperson's Report (Agenda item 6)

Document number R18053, agenda pages 15 - 17 refer.

Councillor Lawrey presented his report, noting the significant changes the community had experienced moving through different COVID-19 alert levels. He noted positives, such as the Digital Heritage Festival which was still available on YouTube, and ongoing work to create a hub for housing the homeless.

Councillor Lawrey thanked officers for stepping up during COVID-19. A correction to the report was made, noting that Group Manager Community Services, Roger Ball, during his secondment as Nelson Tasman Group Controller, had assisted the National Civil Defence Controller in Wellington.

Attendance: Her Worship the Mayor left the meeting from 1.51p.m. to 1.54p.m. and Councillor Edgar left the meeting at 1.53p.m.

Discussion took place about the portacom unit that had been used to assist with housing the homeless during COVID-19. It was noted that if the portacom would continue to be used for the homeless post-COVID-19, replacement of the unit needed to be considered for its original use and that the delegation for this matter sat with the Sports and Recreation Committee.

Mr Ball answered questions regarding available funding for the hub through the Community Partnerships Fund.

Attendance: Councillor Edgar returned to the meeting at 2.11p.m.

Resolved CS/2020/015

That the Community Services Committee

1. Receives the report Chairperson's Report (R18053).

O'Neill-Stevens/Courtney Carried

9. Fees and Charges relating to Community Services

Document number R14833, agenda pages 34 - 41 refer.

Manager Parks and Facilities, Rosie Bartlett, and Financial Accountant, Margie French, presented the report. Ms Bartlett answered questions about the timeframe for increases for fees and charges.

Resolved CS/2020/016

That the Community Services Committee

1. Receives the report Fees and Charges relating to Community Services (R14833) and;

2. Notes there are only Nil or CPI increases for Community Services fees and charges for activities included in Report 14833 commencing 1 July 2020.

McGurk/Skinner Carried

10. COVID-19 Update Report: Implications for Community Services

Document number R17018, agenda pages 42 - 47 refer.

Team Leader Arts and Heritage, Shanine Hermsen, presented the report. Manager Libraries, Sarina Barron, answered questions about library visits post-COVID-19. Ms Hermsen answered questions about plans for the upcoming Matariki celebrations in July 2020.

The Chairperson asked that thanks be expressed on behalf of the Committee to Nelmac for carrying out pall bearer duties for burials during the COVID-19 lockdown.

Resolved CS/2020/017

That the Community Services Committee

1. Receives the report COVID-19 Update Report: Implications for Community Services (R17018)

Noonan/Bowater Carried

There being no further business the meeting ended at 2.42p.m.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

Chairperson Date

Item 8: Providing a Homeless Hub at the Male Room

Community Services Committee

30 July 2020

REPORT R18120

Providing a Homeless Hub at the Male Room

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To confirm Council support and contribution for the development of a homeless hub at the Male Room.

2. Summary

2.1 Social agencies have identified a need to support the homeless community by providing a ‘hub’ with bathroom, computer and laundry facilities, with the Male Room as a preferred location.

2.2 The project is led by the Male Room. Mr Philip Chapman from the Male Room will be in attendance to answer questions.

2.3 The Male Room has requested Council assistance with planning and feasibility, followed by a contribution to the build or install costs for a portacom, or alternatively modification to the existing premises.

2.4 An earlier proposal to relocate a Council portacom from Tāhunanui now appears more complicated due to the impact on the Tāhunanui sporting codes. The options suggested are to purchase a new portacom or modify the existing premises. The Male Room favours and intends to progress the new portacom option.

2.5 This report proposes that Council makes a $30,000 commitment to planning and build costs to be sourced from existing Community Partnerships budgets. Costs above this would be sourced by the Male Room from other funders and/or community fundraising.

3. Recommendation

That the Community Services Committee

1. Receives the report Providing a Homeless Hub at the Male Room (R18120); and

2. Approves funding of up to $30,000 from existing Community Partnerships budgets for hub facilities at the Male Room consisting of:

· Up to $10,000 towards project planning, a feasibility report and consent fees; and

· Up to $20,000 contribution towards build or install costs, with this portion contingent on partner or community funding to cover the residual costs; and

3. Notes that Council’s financial contribution to the Homeless Hub is capped at $30,000, excluding staff time.

4. Background

4.1 Prior to the COVID-19 lockdown, there were an estimated 50 to 100 people living rough in Nelson Whakatū. While collaborative activities by Housing First, Salvation Army, the Male Room, the Ministry for Housing and Urban Development (MHUD) and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) have placed many in alternative accommodation, there will be a significant and continuing need to provide facilities for the homeless for the foreseeable future.

4.2 The need for facilities for those living rough has been prioritised by agencies. Placing the hub at the Male Room is preferred to other locations as it creates opportunities by the Male Room to provide social supports and interventions alongside the hub facilities. There are opportunities to either:

(a) move an existing portacom from the Tāhunanui playing fields; or

(b) purchase and install a new portacom; or

(d) do nothing.

4.3 The Male Room does not have the required building or project management expertise and has requested Council support with planning, consents, and a feasibility report. As project lead, the Male Room is eager to engage other agency and community funders to contribute to the build costs. Initial estimates of project costs are up to $90,000 depending on the option chosen, and there appears to be an appetite from other funders to contribute.

4.4 Initially it was considered that financial support to a project of this nature could be considered under existing officer delegations and budgets. However due to changes in scope and cost, and to ensure there is Council support for such an initiative, this matter has been brought to the Committee for a decision.

5. Discussion

The hub

5.1 During the COVID-19 emergency a homelessness work stream was established, initially under the umbrella of the Nelson Tasman Civil Defence Emergency Management Group, and with significant investment from partner agencies and community groups. Despite significant numbers of homeless now being accommodated at motels, the interagency group considers providing hygiene and social supports at the Male Room is crucial as this meets a different need to motel accommodation and provides an opportunity for the Male Room to provide wrap-around support services.

5.2 Providing bathroom facilities for the homeless at locations such as the Montgomery Square Superloo is not recommended due to impacts on other users and the lost opportunity to provide the social interventions available at the Male Room.

5.3 This project is being led by the Male Room, which will be providing social support for the homeless who visit. Consequently, it is proposed that Council should support the Male Room rather than directly manage the project, however the Male Room does not have the expertise to project manage an infrastructure project of this nature and is looking to Council for support. This project differs from and complements the upcoming Habitat for Humanity work at the former Suburban Club as Habitat for Humanity is focused on providing houses rather than meeting the needs of the chronically homeless and providing wrap-around services.

5.4 The vision from the Male Room is to establish a unit to be named 'Whare Haumaru' (A safe haven, risk free). Whare Haumaru is linked with the Housing First initiative, providing rapid housing and wrap around supports for people experiencing long-term homelessness. The approach is aimed at supporting vulnerable and isolated people, through a coordinated and well supported system using a recovery approach, assisting clients in engaging with their peers and with professionals, inevitably resulting in improved outcomes for the homeless.

5.5 Council support for project management does not pre-empt the need to obtain any necessary Council consents or permits. The Male Room would need to apply to Council for any consents and permits in the usual way. Council’s assistance via the Community Partnerships team, with funding for project management would assist the Male Room in meeting this.

5.6 The proposed hub is for both men and women. The Male Room works with female clients and isn’t an exclusively male service.

Portacoms v building modifications

5.7 The four options for the Male Room are to utilise the existing Tāhunanui portacom, purchase a new portacom, modify the existing building or do nothing. These are described below.

5.8 Option 1 – Utilise the existing Tāhunanui portacom. While initial indications were that this portacom could be installed at minimal cost, further investigations estimate costs of around $50,000 (excl GST) to move and install the existing facility. The costs are predominately due to site preparation and service provision such as water and electricity in what is considered to be a difficult site. A detailed breakdown and estimate would be prepared as part of the feasibility plan. Under this option the portacom would be owned by Council and provided to the Male Room for a peppercorn lease.

5.9 The $50,000 estimate (excl GST) is based on:

· Coordination activities – $4,572

· Other consultancy costs – $4,650

· Actual works – $17,200

Subsequent to the original estimate, costs were updated to include;

· A foundations estimate increase as piles are likely to be needed +$1,000.

· Installation of a window to portacom +$5-7,000.

· A 25 square metre deck is required to access three sides +$8,200.

· Plumbing work costs have increased due to the water main being under a concrete stair and ramp +$1,500.

· A fire rated wall is required on the rear wall of the portacom +$2,500.

· Improvements to some fire protection features are required, which will incur cost and could require an annual Building Warrant of Fitness.

· Small contingency of $3,500

5.10 The Tāhunanui portacom is extensively used by sports teams as follows:

· Consistent use by five men’s senior football and two senior rugby teams during the winter for games and practice sessions. Occasional use by football division two and three.

· Summer weekday use by the American Football League.

· Training sessions by the Tāhunanui football senior women’s team, and weekend games for the women’s and youth modified games.

5.11 It is important to provide separate changing facilities for men’s and women’s teams. If the current portacom was removed, feedback from Tāhunanui Football is that it would request a replacement facility before next season to avoid tensions between the rugby and football codes.

5.12 The Tāhunanui portacom was purchased to serve as a temporary changing facility while the Greenmeadows Community Centre was under construction. Once Greenmeadows was completed the portacom was relocated to the Tāhunanui reserve where it was used to resolve changing room tensions between rugby and football. The portacom was never identified as surplus, however it was considered as a possible solution for a more urgent need to provide facilities for the homeless.

5.13 Consequently officers do not recommend moving the Tāhunanui portacom due to the impact on sports groups and the potential costs of installing replacement facilities.

5.14 Option 2 - Purchase and install a new portacom. The Male Room is considering the option of purchasing a new portacom for installation at their premises. The approximate cost of a new portacom is $40,000 (excl GST) plus transport and delivery, based on the previous portacom design. This would bring the total project costs to an estimated $90,000 (excl GST) for this option. The Male Room would own the portacom in this scenario. Option 2 is preferred by the Male Room.

5.15 Option 3 – Modifications to the existing Male Room building. Given the increasing costs of purchasing and installing a portacom, the Male Room also considered a modification or extension to their existing building. This will require a site assessment from an appropriately qualified builder or drafts person and permission from the building owner, Kāinga Ora.

5.16 After consideration the Male Room decided that an extension to the existing building was not the right option for their clients and have favoured further investigation into the portacom options.

5.17 Option 4 – do nothing. Either the Male Room decides not to continue with the project, or rely totally on community and other agency funding, meaning no further support from Council will be required.

5.18 Option 2 is the recommended option from officers, as it has no impact on Tāhunanui sports groups and is preferred by the Male Room based on what would best suit their clients.

Investment and partner support

5.19 A feasibility report is required to enable the Male Room, Council (and any other funders) to move forward and confirm a preferred option. It is recommended that Council fund this feasibility, compliance and planning work up to $10,000 to allow the project to progress in a robust and timely manner.

5.20 The Male Room will engage with community and agency funders once a preferred option and costing have been selected. Officers have been in liaison with partners and initial indications are that MHUD and Kāinga Ora may consider funding.

5.21 There has also been interest in supporting the project from local Rotary Clubs.

5.22 Housing First has previously indicated it could consider assisting with staffing.

Budget

5.23 It is recommended that Council contribute $10,000 to the planning, feasibility and consent costs, with the remainder $20,000 to the build costs contingent on the residual build costs being met by other funders and/or community fundraising. Council’s total financial contribution would therefore be up to $30,000.

5.24 The budget is to be sourced from the existing Community Partnership Fund budget for the current financial year. This fund is to support community social development, for ‘Community Partnership Projects’ where there are opportunities for Council to partner and support the work of community groups to focus on community wellbeing.

6. Options

Option 1: Agree to contribute up to $30,000 towards the Homeless Hub – preferred option
Advantages	· ‘Kick starts’ fundraising by the Male Room and encourages commitment by other agencies. · Limits Council’s exposure to cost over-runs. · Helps to advance a project to relieve pressure on homelessness issue.
Risks and Disadvantages	· The Council contribution could be inadequate. · Lost opportunity to use the funding to support community activities in other ways. · Could create an ongoing expectation of Council support.
Option 2: Increase Council contribution to the Homeless Hub
Advantages	· ‘Kick starts’ fundraising by the Male Room and encourages commitment by other agencies. · Helps to advance a project to relieve pressure on homelessness issue. · Reduce the need for community fundraising
Risks and Disadvantages	· Lost opportunity to use the funding to support community activities in other ways. · Could create an ongoing expectation of Council support. · A higher level of Council funding from existing budgets will impact on resourcing for other Community Partnerships projects.
Option 3: Decrease Council contribution to the Homeless Hub
Advantages	· Cost saving to Council. · Opportunity to use the funding to support community activities in other ways.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Creates a greater reliance on other funders. · Fundraising time extended before the install can commence.
Option 4: Do nothing
Advantages	· Cost saving to Council. · Opportunity to use the funding to support community activities in other ways.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Creates a greater reliance on and could discourage other funders. · Difficulty for the Male Room to continue the project. · Reputational risk as Council has already indicated support.

7. Conclusion

7.1 The issue of homelessness in our community has been in the spotlight during COVID-19 and there is an opportunity working with other agencies to reinforce positive moves towards housing and supporting homeless people. This project has been identified as a practical option for Council to offer support to a highly vulnerable and marginalised population.

7.2 Supporting the community sector in this project will enable the homeless community to best access much needed services and support for long term positive change.

7.3 The project is led by the Male Room and relies on the commitment of funding from other partners following a feasibility report, to fund and support the development of a hub on the Male Room site. The Male Room favour the purchase a new portacom. This report proposes that Council steps forward to make a substantial commitment to support the project.

8. Next steps

8.1 Council funds a feasibility report to determine estimates for installing a new portacom.

8.2 Based on the option chosen by the Male Room, the Male Room will engage other funders. Council to provide remaining funding up to the $30,000 cap when the project is fully funded.

8.3 Once the facility is installed, the Male Room will provide social services alongside the hub facilities.

8.4 The Committee will be kept informed of progress via the quarterly report.

Author: Scott Tambisari, Community Partnerships Adviser

Attachments

Nil

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

This decision enables Council to continue to assist activities and groups that support community wellbeing and vulnerable communities by contributing to the development of a Homeless Hub.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

This project supports Community Outcomes:

· Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient

· Our Council provides leadership and fosters partnerships, a regional perspective, and community engagement

3. Risk

There is a risk that the project may not be fully funded through the partnership model. This is mitigated as the project build will not start until there is a firm commitment from project partners, and Council’s total contribution is capped.

The feasibility report may uncover issues that make the project unviable due to complexity or cost.

4. Financial impact

This project has a one-off Council contribution cost and a commitment of ongoing officer in kind support through to the end of the project from the existing Community Partnership Fund project budgets.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance to the community as the project will impact only on the small homeless community. Therefore engagement has been with relevant agencies and non-government organisations.

6. Climate Impact

This report will have no impact on the ability of Council to proactively respond to the impacts of climate change now or in the future.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report.

8. Delegations

The Community Services Committee has the following delegations to consider homelessness

Areas of Responsibility:

· Community Development, including youth issues, ageing issues and social well-being

· Community Facilities, including public toilets

Delegations:

· The committee has all of the responsibilities, powers, functions and duties of Council in relation to governance matters within its areas of responsibility, except where they have been retained by Council, or have been referred to other committees, subcommittees or subordinate decision-making bodies.

Item 9: Stoke Memorial Hall Strengthening

Community Services Committee

30 July 2020

REPORT R17000

Stoke Memorial Hall Strengthening

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To provide an update to elected members and confirm the preferred approach for the Stoke Memorial Hall so that design can commence in 2020/21 as budgeted for.

2. Summary

2.1 The Stoke Memorial Hall is earthquake prone and is currently closed. A business case has been prepared looking at the different options for the building.

2.2 This report presents options and makes a recommendation for the strengthening approach and level of improvements required.

2.3 An application has been made to the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) for funding to support the project.

2.4 This report seeks to bring the budget forward and increase the total amount in the budget so that, if Council is successful with the PGF application, the project can proceed, while taking advantage of external funding and providing economic benefits to the Nelson community.

3. Recommendation

That the Community Services Committee

1. Receives the report Stoke Memorial Hall Strengthening (R17000) and its attachment (A2383503); and

2. Approves commencement of design for seismic strengthening the Stoke Memorial Hall to 67% of the New Building Standard (Importance Level 3) and undertake basic improvements/maintenance as outlined in Option 2 of report (R17000); and

3. Notes that an application to the Provincial Growth Fund for $500,000 has been sought for the work for strengthening the Stoke Memorial Hall.

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1. Approves the total allocation of $1.2M in 2020/21 in capital expenditure for seismic strengthening the Stoke Memorial Hall to 67% of the New Building Standard (Importance Level 3) and undertake basic improvements/maintenance, with the project to commence in 2020/21, subject to the success of the Provincial Growth Fund application, as set out in the table below;

	Capex	Comment
2020/21	$120,000	Existing
	$458,000	Brought forward from 2024/25
	$500,000	Potential Provincial Growth Fund (to be confirmed)
	$120,000	Unbudgeted funding
	$1.2M	Total 2020/21

and

2. Notes that a successful Provincial Growth Fund application for strengthening the Stoke Memorial Hall will also require a further commitment to $440,000 of unbudgeted operating expenditure and $420,000 of unbudgeted capital expenditure in 2021/22 to be considered for approval as part of the Long Term Plan 2021-31; and

3. Agrees that, if the Provincial Growth Fund application for strengthening the Stoke Memorial Hall is unsuccessful, Council will still proceed with the design work for the project, with physical works timing to be confirmed in the Long Term Plan 2021-31.

4. Background

4.1 The Stoke Memorial Hall was assessed in 2014 as being 24% of New Building Standard (NBS) at Importance Level 2 (IL2). The building, being less than 34% NBS, was deemed to be an Earthquake Prone Building. The Earthquake Prone Building Notice required that the building be strengthened or the hazard removed by 2029.

4.2 Budget was allocated through the Long Term Plan 2018-28 for strengthening of the Hall in 2024/25, at a cost of $458,000. This report identifies that this amount is inadequate for the amount of work required.

4.3 The building was closed on 29 March 2020 and users were relocated to other facilities that were a mixture of Council-owned and private. Council approved in March 2020 unbudgeted expenditure in order to pay the difference in the rental rates at other facilities in the interim.

4.4 A workshop was held with elected members in June 2020 to discuss future options.

4.5 Potential external funding is available through the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF). Council has made an application and if successful, the PGF would potentially provide a grant of up to $500,000. Council would need to pay for the remainder. The PGF criteria requires Council to move ‘at pace’ with the project, with the intent to provide jobs and economic activity to the region as soon as possible. The announcement of the PGF funding opportunity came as Council was underway with deliberations on the Annual Plan 2020/21, so was not considered during Annual Plan.

4.6 Officers will provide a verbal update on the application at the meeting if further information is available.

4.7 This report seeks to bring the budget forward and increase the total amount in the budget so that if Council is successful with the PGF application, the project can proceed in a timely way as required.

4.8 If the application is successful, physical construction work will need to commence in 2020/21. If the application is not successful, it is recommended the work still be carried out, with finalisation of dates to be confirmed in the Long Term Plan 2021-31.

About the Hall and users

4.9 The Stoke Memorial Hall, on Main Road Stoke, was built in the early 1950s as a memorial to soldiers killed at war. It was constructed using community volunteer labour. A memorial plaque is set into the stone surrounds of the adjacent memorial gates (separate from the building) and there are plaques with names on them within the Hall.

4.10 The Stoke Memorial Hall has local community significance though is not heritage or locally listed in the Nelson Resource Management Plan and is not currently proposed to be listed in the Nelson Plan. Some members of the community have, in the past, expressed the desire to retain the Hall, but other members of the community have also expressed a desire to stop using ratepayer funding to support the Hall.

4.11 The Hall is a bookable venue, managed under contract.

4.12 When the Greenmeadows Centre/Pūtangitangi opened, the majority of Stoke Memorial Hall users stayed at the Hall because the regular activities require a wooden floor and high ceiling that Greenmeadows Centre/Pūtangitangi does not have.

4.13 The Hall was being used regularly by 10 groups prior to its closure in March 2020 with other one-off bookings on top of this. In 2018/19, the Hall had 1,850 hours of use from events and bookings, which equates to approximately 35 hours per week. The revenue from the use of the Hall is approximately $23,000 per annum.

4.14 Regular users and one-off users that had booked already were relocated to other venues, not all of which are Council owned. The costs of hire for these other facilities are often comparable for user groups. Council subsidised the hire costs at other venues for six months where the costs were higher.

4.15 The table below lists the regular users and where they moved to when the Hall closed in March 2020. The Hall was also used by one-off users.

User	Facility they have moved to
Dancing group (early Monday evenings)	Stoke Methodist Hall
Badminton (later Monday evenings)	Nayland College
DSS Disco (monthly)	Greenmeadows Centre/ Pūtangitangi
Kendo (Tuesday evenings)	Jack Robins Stadium
Badminton (Tuesday mornings)	Richmond Badminton Hall
Badminton (Wednesday evenings)	Cancelled
Ballroom and Latin American dance (two sessions on Thursdays)	Enner Glynn Hall
Pretty Smart Sale (monthly)	Hope Hall
Bingo (from Stoke Community Hall)	Greenmeadows / Pūtangitangi Centre

Feedback about the Hall

4.16 $120,000 for design was put into the draft Annual Plan 2020/21, and later confirmed through the final Annual Plan 2020/21 when it was adopted in June. There were eight submissions to the Annual Plan 2020/21 that discussed the Stoke Memorial Hall. Submitters raised a range of issues and concerns both in support of and opposing the expenditure and/or development for a variety of reasons.

4.17 These Annual Plan submissions are attached to the report at Attachment One (A2382193) for information.

4.18 All users were re-located when the building was closed. The users have provided feedback that they support the building being strengthened. Some users thought there was a need for improvements, but other users were content using the Hall as it was.

4.19 Users were contacted recently to see whether they would want to return to the Stoke Memorial Hall in the future. They are generally very keen to return to the Hall once it has been strengthened.

4.20 Many users from the Stoke Memorial Hall were unable to re-locate to the Greenmeadows Community Centre/ Pūtangitangi because of the requirement for the timber floor, high ceiling and/or stage for the activities they hold in the Hall, features that are not available in the Greenmeadows facility.

4.21 Clearly users of the Hall find it suits their needs and others such as the Celtic Band, which is not currently a user, have expressed an interest, if the Hall was more acoustically treated, to make this their home.

4.22 Feedback from the Council workshop in June 2020 was that elected members valued the Hall, recognised the community association with the Hall and considered it was an asset that they wished to retain, but sought further information about the various options available.

Seismic Rating and strengthening required

4.23 Peer review of the seismic assessment was undertaken in 2019 and recommended the Hall be considered as Importance Level 3 (IL3) under the Building Act, due to its size and potential occupancy of over 300 persons.

4.24 This resulted in the lowering of the prior indicated percentage seismic performance level which was based on Importance Level 2 (IL2).

4.25 The Hall is now determined likely as having a 17% rating against NBS, lower than the 24%, previously determined in 2014 reporting. Although a full revised Detailed Seismic Assessment has not been undertaken, the design for the strengthening will take the IL3 assumption and current building capacity/performance and design a solution that meets 67% of the NBS. The design to be completed will need to consider a greater level of strengthening required than would be required under IL2.

5. Options discussion

Option 1: Seismic strengthening

5.1 If the building is retained, it must be strengthened to at least 34% NBS by 2029 at the latest. This will remove the current Earthquake Prone Building notice. It is however preferred that the building be strengthened to a greater level, above 67% of NBS, to reduce the risk to occupants during a seismic event and to provide some margin if standards increase again in the future.

5.2 As such, if the Hall is to reopen, a significant investment would be required, with an approximate cost of $1.2M to strengthen the building to 67% of the NBS, including 40% contingency.

5.3 The strengthening option would likely include the following, although the exact details and best method of strengthening will be determined through the design process:

5.3.1 New foundations against the existing column foundations to the exterior and interior of the building

5.3.2 New reinforced concrete columns to the outside face of the existing concrete columns

5.3.3 Remove masonry infill panels and replace with lightweight timber walls

5.3.4 Additional bracing and connection strengthening.

5.4 In addition $100,000 has been allowed for asbestos removal/management of the soffit and roof space as part of the strengthening. Although a survey has been undertaken, there is a risk that more asbestos is present than expected and additional work may be required to address it.

5.5 If the building was strengthened to 34%, it would likely require securing the infill panels only and would cost approximately $800,000 including contingency.

5.6 If the building was strengthened to 50%, it would likely require a similar solution to the 67% solution, but without the interior foundation improvements. It would cost approximately $1.08M including contingency.

5.7 Because of the design of the building, it is unlikely to be possible to strengthen to 100% or greater of the NBS, without a significant amount of work and cost. Based on this, the early cost estimates and concept designs for strengthening work from the consultant have not provided a 100% NBS (IL3) design option.

5.8 Improvements for fire and accessibility will be required when the strengthening occurs, regardless of the other maintenance items.

5.9 Once strengthened, the Hall can re-open and continue to make income from users.

5.10 The Returned and Services Association (RSA) has provided a letter in support of Council’s PGF application for the Hall’s strengthening.

5.11 Officers support strengthening the building to 67% NBS (Importance Level 3), with the specific solution dependent on the outcomes of the design and any further investigations.

5.12 A 40% contingency has been applied to the estimates.

5.13 The option of strengthening to 67% (NBS) only is shown in the options table in section 7 as Option 1.

Other maintenance and renewals

5.14 If the building is being strengthened, there is a variety of other work that could be done at the same time to take advantage of the Hall being closed, and economies in building and design work and other costs such as scaffolding.

Option 2: Seismically strengthen and undertake basic improvements/maintenance (preferred option)

5.15 Maintenance was deferred at this Hall for a period while the future was uncertain. There are a number of items requiring work.

5.16 It is considered that the following items are required as basic maintenance, as a minimum. Option 2 is therefore a combination of seismic strengthening (Option 1 above) and the work below.

· Roof painting and basic leak fixes (opex)

· Window maintenance and minor repairs (opex)

· Painting exterior walls (opex – note, some will be required regardless following strengthening)

· Painting interior walls and ceiling (opex – note, some will be required regardless following strengthening)

· Rewiring and new switch board (capex)

· Toilet upgrade (modernise, some new fittings) (capex).

5.17 It is expected that these items will cost approximately $860,000 including design and contingency, although this is a high level estimate that may vary when design is completed. These costs exclude strengthening.

5.18 Included in this is $100,000 has been allowed for asbestos removal/management as part of the basic maintenance/improvements. This is in addition to the asbestos costs for the strengthening. The areas with asbestos include the vinyl flooring and bathroom partitions.

5.19 There are some improvements required following a barrier free assessment to make the Hall more easily accessed for all members of the community that would also be considered in this option.

5.20 This work enables the Hall to be used again as a community Hall, but does not make any significant improvements to it or change how it can be used. Some items may need more work in the future if there are decisions on upgrades and improvements in addition to what is there already.

Option 3: Seismically strengthen and renew elements of the Hall

5.21 This option addresses the renewal of elements that are known to be required or that users have suggested over the years. This item has more detailed renewals of the items listed below. Option 3 is therefore a combination of Option 1 and the following:

· Replace roof

· Insulate roof

· Painting exterior walls

· Painting interior walls and ceiling

· Renew ceilings

· Replace floorings (vinyl and carpet)

· Provide acoustic treatment to walls

· Refurbish and renew worst condition windows to Hall

· Install heating and ventilation

· New toilets and showers and re-configure the area

· Timber flooring repair and re-varnish

· Commercial kitchen

5.22 It is expected that these items will cost in the order of $2.7M (capex) including design and contingency. This cost would be on top of the strengthening required. A commercial kitchen is arguably the least necessary addition and without this feature, the estimated cost would be around $2.5M.

5.23 This report does not recommend Option 3, but instead Option 2, which enables Council to ensure the building can continue to be used and that the work is an improvement to the existing building, but that no additional, more significant renewals take place.

Option 4: Deconstruction

5.24 There is an option not to strengthen and to instead deconstruct and use the space for another purpose, which is shown in the table below as Option 4.

5.25 There is a heritage significance to members of the community that would be lost with this option, although there is an option of retaining the façade.

5.26 Building removal costs have not been quoted but are expected to be high because of the presence of asbestos. On top of the building removal costs, there would be an additional level of investment in order to retain the façade or prepare the space for another use. Other costs could include structural work to create a park-like area. Both of these options remove the earthquake risk of the building. If the Committee prefers deconstruction, officers will need to report back with more specific costings. Further consultation would also be required.

5.27 Deconstruction of the Hall would remove the ongoing costs of the contract, management of the facility, maintenance and renewals over the Hall’s life, but would also limit the opportunity for future revenue.

5.28 In terms of users and meeting community demand, this option would be supported by some members of the community who have submitted against future expenditure at the Stoke Memorial Hall, however it would leave some members of the community unable to carry out activities within community halls in Stoke and instead having to travel further for their activities.

5.29 While there has been support for the retention of the Hall in the past by some, there are concerns over any significant investment in the facility, noting there is Greenmeadows Centre/ Pūtangitangi around 200 metres up the road.

6. Budget considerations

6.1 Budget of $458,000 was allocated through the Long Term Plan 2018-28 for strengthening of the Hall in 2024/25. This report identifies that this amount is inadequate for the amount of work required.

6.2 Budget of $120,000 was allocated in the Annual Plan 2020/21 for design, in recognition of the need to bring forward the design work for the project.

6.3 The table below shows cost estimates for the recommended option, Option 2:

Item	Cost estimate
Option 2: Strengthening and basic improvements/maintenance
Strengthening	Capex	Opex
Total – strengthening (includes design, strengthening, asbestos estimate and contingency)	$1.2M
Basic improvements/maintenance
Opex (includes design, maintenance, asbestos, contingency)		$440,000
Capex (includes improvements and contingency)	$420,000
Total – basic improvements/maintenance	$420,000	$440,000
Total cost of the project (recommended)
Total (Strengthening and Basic improvements/maintenance)	$1.62M	$440,000

6.4 The following sets out the budget implications and requirements to support the preferred option, option 2.

What	Budget (Capex)	Budget (Opex)
Existing budget in 2020/21 (for design)	$120,000
Existing budget in 2024/25 (required to be brought forward to 2020/21)	$458,000
Council funding required, in addition to what is already budgeted in 2020/21 and 2024/25	$1.04M	$440,000
Amount potentially available from the PGF for the strengthening	$500,000
Total amount Council needs to fund for the work, depending on the success of the PGF	$540,000-$1.04M	$440,000

6.5 Note that those items above are high level cost estimates only, and will be refined as the design is completed and the costings confirmed. As a result, a large contingency has been applied to account for the fact that only high level estimates have been provided at this stage and that asbestos in the building could add to the costs.

6.6 In summary, $120,000 is already allocated for design and $458,000 can be brought forward from 2024/25. Council needs to commit an additional $1.5M from what is budgeted in order to carry out the work, noting that up to $500,000 of this is potentially available from the PGF.

6.7 The cost to Council of the project will range from $1.5M to $2M depending on the amount of PGF funding awarded, if any.

Timeframe

6.8 For a usual Council project of a similar scale, the process would be design (year 1, i.e. 2020/21) and then construct in a different year (i.e. 2021/22 or other future year).

6.9 If the PGF application is successful, Council will need to move ‘at pace’ on the project, and there will be an expectation that physical construction will commence as soon as six months from the date that the funding is awarded (i.e. by January 2021). Council’s Capital Projects team has confirmed that this faster timeframe to complete design and start physical work is achievable. It would mean that some of the physical construction budget (the strengthening) would need to be in 2020/21 and the rest (other maintenance/renewal work) in 2021/22.

6.10

	Capex	Opex	Comment
2020/21	$120,000		Existing
	$458,000		Brought forward from 2024/25
	$500,000		Potential Provincial Growth Fund (to be confirmed)
	$120,000		Unbudgeted funding
	$1.2M		Total 2020/21
2021/22	$420,000	$440,000	Unbudgeted funding
Total	$1.62M	$440,000	Total both years

6.11 If PGF funding is not successful, Council can still carry out the design in 2020/21 based on the preferred option in this report, with funding and timing of physical construction to be confirmed in the Long Term Plan 2021-31.

6.12 Given Council already has a large capital programme it has committed to in 2020/21 and this project would be adding to it, there is a risk that adding to the work programme could reduce Council’s ability to deliver elsewhere.

6.13 If the project was to be allocated through the Long Term Plan 2021-31, this impact would be weighed up against all other projects that are being considered for delivery.

7. Options summary

7.1 The options are discussed in more detail below. The preferred option is Option 2.

Option 1: Seismically strengthen only and reopen
Advantages	· The building can be reopened fairly soon (2021/22). · The facility is retained and the community continue to have a space that can be utilised by various groups. · Can recover up to 20% the cost of the work from revenue through increasing fees and charges in line with the Revenue and Financing Policy (though this will be over a long period). · Users get to return to the Hall reasonably quickly.
Risks and Disadvantages	· The strengthening cost could increase due to unforeseen items and would be confirmed once design is completed. · Opportunity to improve the Hall is not realised. · User charges would need to increase in order to cover the costs and users may not return to the Hall if they are satisfied with their new locations. · Construction is not currently in the work programme for 2020/21.
Option 2: Seismically strengthen and undertake basic improvements/maintenance and reopen (preferred)
Advantages	· The building can be reopened fairly soon (2021/22). · The facility is retained and the community continues to have a space that can be utilised by various groups. · The maintenance needs of the Hall and exterior maintenance are undertaken with the work so prevents future disruption and may provide economy of scale (access in place etc.). · Can recover up to 20% the cost of the work from revenue through increasing fees and charges in line with the Revenue and Financing Policy (though this will be over a long period). Fees will need to increase more than just option 1. · Greater level of upgrades such as acoustic treatments could be done in the future.
Risks and Disadvantages	· The strengthening and other costs could increase due to unforeseen items. · User charges would need to increase more than under option 1 in order to cover the costs and users may not return to the Hall if they are satisfied with their new locations. · Construction is not currently in the work programme for 2020/21.
Option 3: Seismically strengthen and renew elements of the Hall and reopen
Advantages	· The building can be reopened fairly soon (2021/22). · The facility is retained and the community continues to have a space that can be utilised by various groups and the space provided is an improved space that may attract new or additional users. · The maintenance needs of the Hall and exterior maintenance are undertaken with the work so prevents future disruption and may provide economy of scale (access in place etc.). · Can recover up to 20% the cost of the work from revenue through increasing fees and charges in line with the Revenue and Financing Policy (though this will be over a long period). Fees will need to increase more than just option 1 and 2.
Risks and Disadvantages	· The cost could increase due to unforeseen items. · Users may not return to the Hall if they are satisfied with their new locations. · User charges would need to increase more than option 2 in order to cover the costs. Users may not be keen to pay increased costs to cover the cost of the work so may not return. · Potentially some duplication with Greenmeadows/Pūtangitangi. · Construction is not currently in the work programme for 2020/21.
Option 4: Deconstruction and repurpose the site
Advantages	· This provides the lowest physical cost option. · The work could be completed reasonably quickly. · Provides potentially a different asset and a space for community to come to and enjoy. · Allows for future development of space to meet needs. · All users have been able to find temporary homes in the meantime, so there are suitable community spaces for users in the region, although the alternative spaces are not necessarily the preference of the users. · Reduction in ongoing opex for costs associated with the Hall.
Risks and Disadvantages	· The loss of the Hall may be unpopular with some members of the local community. · The loss of a Memorial Hall · Loss of revenue from hire · Cost to undertake work cannot be recovered. · Will require investment to develop the desired final use of the space. · Some users will need to find a permanent new home. · The construction is not currently in the work programme for 2020/21. · Communications about the Stoke Memorial Hall closure did not mention permanent closure of the hall

8. Conclusion

8.1 The Annual Plan 2020/21 allows $120,000 for design of the Stoke Memorial Hall strengthening solution. Design can commence when Council has confirmed the preferred option.

8.2 Once completed, physical construction can commence.

8.3 If the PGF application is successful, construction will need to start within six months of being awarded, so by early 2021.

9. Next Steps

9.1 Commence design.

9.2 Confirm PGF funding and inform Council.

9.3 Inform users about the project’s development.

9.4 Provide updates to the Committee through quarterly reports.

Author: Jane Loughnan, Parks and Facilities Asset Planner

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2382193 Annual Plan 2020/21 submissions related to the Stoke Memorial Hall ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

This decision enables Council to commence design of the preferred option in order to strengthen the building and meet the timeframes in the Building Act.

Having a functioning hall provides activities for wellbeing close to the local community.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

Providing community venues contributes to the Community Outcomes that:

· Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs

· Our communities have access to a range of social, educational and recreational facilities and activities

3. Risk

There is a risk that the design process identifies additional expenditure required that wasn’t considered up to this point.

There is a risk that some members of the community do not want money spent on this Hall, given Greenmeadows Centre/Pūtangitangi was built so recently.

There is a risk that users that have re-located to other venues may prefer their other venue and not return to the Stoke Memorial Hall.

4. Financial impact

The decision to proceed with this option has financial impacts. Some of the costs may be able to be provided by the PGF funding, if successful.

With the increased costs of the building, it is likely that the user charges for the building will need to increase in order to keep the facility in line with the Revenue and Financing Policy targets.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of medium significance because it affects some users directly and other members of the community because of the ongoing financial costs of the decision. Feedback was received through the Annual Plan.

Users of the Hall will be kept informed of progress.

6. Climate Impact

The decision to strengthen, rather than demolish the building, reduces the impact of the building to landfill. However, there is a continued operating impact of the building into the future of carbon emissions related to electrical outputs.
Through the strengthening, where items are replaced, they will be replaced with low carbon impact equivalents e.g. lighting and heating.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report.

8. Delegations

The Community Services Committee/Subcommittee/Council has the following delegations to consider community halls and the Refinery.

Areas of Responsibility:

· Arts, Culture and Heritage

· Community Centres and Halls, including Greenmeadows Community Centre, Stoke Memorial Hall and Tahunanui Community Centre

· Community Festivals and Events

Delegations:

· Monitoring Council’s performance for the committee’s areas of responsibility, including legislative responsibilities and compliance requirements

Powers to Recommend (if applicable):

· Unbudgeted expenditure relating to the areas of responsibility, not included in the Long Term Plan or Annual Plan