Cr Russell Lund and heritage advocate and council by-election candidate Jo Galer recently visited Wellington to speak to a joint private submission they made to the select committee considering the government’s Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill.
Both were concerned about the proposed new classification of Dunedin, from "minimum" to "medium" seismic risk.
Cr Lund said he was impressed by the way the committee addressed the issues and listened to submitters and felt they were asking the right questions.
Select committee chairman MP Andy Foster, the former mayor of Wellington, was planning a visit to Dunedin to get a better view of the issue, Cr Lund said.
Cr Lund provided extra information to the select committee about the financial risks to Dunedin should it become a "medium" zone for earthquake risk.
This included the sheer cost of upgrading Dunedin’s Municipal Chambers alone.
"The three-level ... Municipal Chambers building in the Octagon requires considerable seismic work to comply with current rules," Mr Lund told the committee, referring to his submission.
"Advice from industry is that costs of up to $90m have been mentioned. This seems like a fantastically high figure but given that the about-to-be-completed strengthening and upgrade of Wellington Town Hall has cost over $300m (and would not be more than three times the size), it does indicate that it could well be at this level."
Other significant public buildings understood to be earthquake prone were Tuhura Otago Museum and the Dunedin Central Fire Station.
"There are very few earthquake-prone buildings being strengthened in Dunedin. The council have noted that of over 10,000 code compliance certificates issued over the past five years, just 80 have been identified as having a seismic upgrade component."
Mr Lund told the Otago Daily Times that south of the Octagon, it was "just a sea of red flags", the red flags being earthquake-prone buildings.
"But it’s worse than that. There are affected buildings all around the city. It’s down Stuart St, down Dowling St, Stafford St, Princes St, all around."
Ms Galer said they were "heartened" by the response from the committee.
"We’re really worried about the rating remaining as medium risk for Dunedin — and if it does, then we think we will lose a very large amount of our historic heritage in Dunedin, because the information we have is that building owners just can’t make the numbers work."
Minister for Building and Construction Chris Penk told the ODT the government recognised the pressure on building owners, but that none would be worse off under the new system.
The National Seismic Hazard Model 2022 (NSHM) showed the estimate of earthquake shaking in Otago had increased 160%, in part due to the identification of active faults in the region.
Based on the latest evidence, Dunedin more appropriately sat within a medium seismic zone than a low seismic zone, Mr Penk said.
"I recognise the pressure many owners, especially of heritage buildings, are under."
Mr Penk said no earthquake-prone building owners would be worse off under the new system, and many would in fact benefit from the changes in the Bill.
"The seismic zone change from low to medium means that coastal Otago remains within the system, and that any new earthquake-prone buildings identified there after commencement will have remediation timeframes of 25 years (rather than 35 years)," Mr Penk said.
"Current earthquake-prone buildings there that remain within scope will retain their current deadlines."
The agreed changes provided several forms of relief, Mr Penk said.
Firstly, about 55% of earthquake-prone buildings now identified would be removed from the system entirely and only specified high-risk building types could be identified as earthquake-prone buildings in future.
"Remaining earthquake-prone buildings will face graduated, risk-based remediation requirements, ranging from simple facade securing through to targeted retrofit."
Only about 80 buildings nationwide would require a full retrofit due to the risk they posed, he said.
The Bill is expected to be passed later this year, and legislation in place by July 1 next year.
At present, it is before the transport and infrastructure committee, which is due to report back to the House by June 16 this year.
