Village Hall Roof Repair Committee Meeting Minutes

Village Hall Roof Repair (VHRR) Committee meeting

01 July 2021 @18:30

1. Present: Ady (AW), Rob (RW), Stu (SC), Cherie (CH), Kev (KB)
2. Apologies:
3. Minutes of last meeting (25 May 21)
   1. All agreed the minutes of the 25 May as a true record of events.
4. Action tracker
   1. The action tracker was reviewed.

[Discussion 1] AW informed the committee that for action no. 26 the safeguarding policy had been created in the name of the VHMC not the PC, this was because the responsibility for bookings and therefore the users of the hall lies with the VHMC not the PC. All agreed this was a logical approach. KB informed he acts as a safeguarding officer for Lincoln college and that he could provide further assistance if required.

ACTION: AW to present the safeguarding policy to the VHMC for approval.

5. Roofers
   1. To review the quotes received and to select a preferred contractor.

[Discussion 1] Mathew Sharp from Cherry Willingham had emailed saying he was too busy right now and withdrew himself from the tender. Bluedot roofing have failed to respond to numerous emails prompting them to submit a revised quote.

[Discussion 2] The two remaining roofing companies were therefore ARMA roofing and Mathew Pope Building. Both quotes, additional information and their availability was reviewed. The two quotes were very similar with ARMA at £41,000 and M. Pope at £41,486.

[Discussion 3] After extensive discussion ARMA roofing were unanimously chosen as the preferred contractor based on;

1. Cost being slightly less
2. As they carried out the temporary repair, we are familiar with the company
3. They have knowledge of the roof and the building
4. Continuity of tradesmen was beneficial
5. The ARMA quote also includes plastering
6. The ARMA guarantee is 5 years longer than M. Pope.

[Discussion 4] KB advised we now need a meeting with the contractor to discuss requirements for the pre-construction phase plan.

ACTION: AW to contact roofers to inform them of the decision.

ACTION: AW to set up a meeting with ARMA roofing.

6. Plasterers
   1. Is a plasterer still required?

[Discussion 1] After discussion it was agreed that a plasterer was no longer needed as the ARMA quote includes plastering. It was agreed to discuss plastering with ARMA at the next meeting then to inform the other plasterers of the decision.

ACTION: AW to inform plasterers of decision after confirming the extent of the plastering included in the ARMA quote.

7. Decorators

[Discussion 1] Currently we only have quotes from 2 decorators. KB said it would be good to choose the preferred decorator this evening, however as we’ve given Holmes and Fields until the 9 Jul to submit a quote the decision to choose the preferred decorator was left until the next meeting.

8. Grants / Funding
   1. Successful
      6. WLDC £5747.78
      7. Bernard Sunley Foundation £5000
      8. Hodgsons Trust £5000 (if required)
      9. VHMC £5000 inc VAT (if required)
      10. PC £10,000 (if required)
      11. Shortfall £11,500 (if required)
      12. PC VAT commitment of £7200
   2. Pending
      6. National Lottery Community Fund - £31k – 12 weeks – 1 July,

[Discussion 1] Additional information has been sent to the National Lottery. They had replied saying she had additional questions, they had asked for 3 quotes for roofing so it was agreed to send them quotes from roofers who have since withdrawn themselves from the tender and an update on the PC’s current year accounts. AW said he would be able to send this information this week.

7. Postcode Lottery Community Fund - £20k,

[Discussion 1] AW informed the post code lottery have responded saying our application had not been successful stating high demand and low funds as the main reason.

3. Alternative funding – letters to local businesses
   6. Letters sent to Sirius Solar, Ethical Solar, Primetake, Dyson Farming, Siemens, British Sugar,

[Discussion 1] The letter has been sent to Silver Spoon in Bardney, the only responses we’ve received were from Primetake and Dyson, both saying they’d like to help but couldn’t at this time.

4. Self-funding options
   6. PWLB - 

[Discussion 1] AW informed that before we can apply for a loan we will need approval from NALC/LALC. AW has asked the clerk to contact LALC to see what forms we need to complete.

[Discussion 2] AW informed the committee he had spoken with the PWLB to discuss our best options for the new loan, the PC currently have a loan which was taken out in 2003 and has another 7 years left to run. Interest is being charged on this loan at 4.7%.

1. To increase the term of our current loan to reduce the payment. PWLB advised that once loan conditions are agreed they cannot be varied. The current loan has 7 years remaining to run which cannot be altered.
2. Take out a larger loan now at low interest rates to pay off the old loan and provide the capital to complete the roof repairs. PWLD charge an early repayment penalty so doing this would only save us £100.
3. Take out a new completely independent loan.

[Discussion 1] AW advised that if option 3 was taken that the current loan is (approximate figures) costing us £2,000 per annum. A new loan for £13,712 over 15 years would cost us £1000 pa, so for the next 7 years the combined loan payment would be £3,000 pa but after that it would drop to just £1,000 pa until the new loan is repaid.

[Discussion 2] If option 2 was taken then although there is no real saving the actual annual repayment cost would remain the same. If a new loan of £29,006 was taken out over 15 years the repayment cost would be £2,130 pa. The £29,006 would provide £15,294 to pay off our current loan and £13,712 to complete the roof repair. The additional annual cost is only £130 which would easily be absorbed into our annual budget.

[Discussion 3] One of the requirements to meet the PWLB requirements is to show if any increase in repayment costs would result in an increase in precept and if so to show there is support for this increase. By choosing option 3 the small increase in costs would not need to result in an increase in precept. All were in agreement that this option appeared best value for money as it would not require an increase in precept. The graph below shows the annual repayment costs for the two options. The flatter green line represents the preferred Option 2.

[Discussion 4] KB requested for a table of annual costs for the one combined loan, this can be seen at the end of these minutes.

[Discussion 5] AW shared an email sent by the PC clerk which describes the PWLB requirement which we will need to meet. The only one which raised concern was the requirement to consult with residents to show support for the project. RW felt that as the project has been discussed at almost all PC meetings for the previous 18 months which are open public meetings with minutes published on the website and notice board that this should count as consultation. Afternote: Since the meeting the PC clerk has forwarded the LALC Parish guidance notes which lists newsletters, websites and agenda’s as sufficient public consultation. Extract below.

9. Approvals
   4. Planning – Not required
   5. Building Control – Submitted and approved
   6. Structural assessment – Email received saying we’re safe to proceed.
10. AOB

[Discussion 1] RW mentioned that the PC chairman had recently written in the village newsletter asking why the PC were looking to take out a loan when the money was already available and that this could prove counter productive if seen by those we’ve requested funding assistance from. AW responded that although the PC do have sufficient funds it is all in reserve funds and allocated for other projects. There was no other AOB.

11. Date of next meeting
    1. TBC to meet with Graham from ARMA roofing.