Agenda of Council Meeting - Tuesday, 15 March 2022

Council Meeting 15 March 2022

2.3 Central NSW JO Board Meeting - 24 February 2022

RECORD NUMBER: 2022/326

Mayoral Minute

I attended the Central NSW Joint Organisation Board meeting with the Chief Executive Officer on Thursday 24 February 2022 in Canowindra. This Mayoral Minute provides a summary of that meeting and attaches minutes for your information.

Recommendation

That the information contained in this Mayoral Minute be acknowledged and that Council:

1. Provide a response to the Central West and Orana Transport Plan including that the Plan ought:

a) Use population planning assumptions that mirror the lived experience in region; and

b) Make provision for longer term delivery of a safe swift link between Sydney and Central NSW.

Jason Hamling
Mayor

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The Board elected a new Chair Cr Kevin Beatty Mayor of Cabonne and Deputy Chair, Cr Mark Kellam Mayor of Oberon. Both were elected unopposed reflecting the collegiate culture of the Board.

Cr Kellam was one of four new Mayors in the region welcomed to the Board, the others being Cr Robert Taylor, Mayor of Bathurst, Cr Jason Hamling, Mayor of Orange and Cr Craig Bembrick, Mayor of Weddin.

Cr John Medcalf, Mayor of Lachlan reflected on his term as Chair and welcomed in the new leadership team.

A group of people sitting at tables

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Subsequent to warm words from the new Chair, there was unanimous support for a vote of thanks for Cr Medcalf.

The meeting itself considered twelve reports where the full agenda is available on the website https://www.centraljo.nsw.gov.au/business-papers-agendas/:

1. Review of the CNSWJO Advocacy position for a safe, swift link between Central NSW and Sydney

2. Advocacy Tactics to the State and Federal Elections

3. Developing the Statement of Strategic Regional Priority for this term of the JO

4. Regional State Government/Local Government Workshop – Informing Community Strategic Plans

5. Policy for Competitive Funding

6. Regional Procurement and Contracts

7. Energy Program

8. Destination Network Central West Report

9. Regional Water Security

10. Matters raised by members – Bathurst Regional Council Section 10 Application on the Mount Panorama Wahluu Area

11. Financial Report

12. Quarterly review of implementation of the Statement of Strategic Regional Priority

There was significant discussion on advocacy tactics and key messaging into the Federal and State elections with a separate report on a safe swift link between Sydney and Central NSW.

The Board resolved to organise a workshop on refining the policy position on the safe swift link between Sydney and Central NSW. It was recognised that it is difficult to criticise a $4bn spend on the Great Western Highway, however when the current upgrade of Medlow Bath underway includes two sets of traffic lights, an unimpeded journey over the mountains at 100kph suitable for freight is clearly not being progressed. Worse, the Draft Central West and Orana Transport Plan has removed all references to the long term need for a highspeed transport link between Sydney and Central NSW. It is recommended that Council provide a response to the Draft Plan including on the need for planning for this link and to take an alternative approach to population assumptions being made in all State plans at present that show population decline or small growth in all Central NSW communities.

With the Federal election imminent the Board resolved to meet with both the government and opposition to advocate for the following priorities which align with:

1. Opportunities along the Lachlan Valley to do business differently to support the nation’s growth aspirations. Raising the dam wall at Wyangala is an important first step to deliver better flood immunity and water security to enable the agricultural sector.

2. The roll out of Inland Rail with funding support for enabling infrastructure in region.

3. Regional activation precincts like the one in Parkes and the 20 suggested by the National Farmers Federation for agricultural place-based development.

4. Connectivity, including to ports includes ensuring a safe swift link between Western Sydney and the Central West including the current upgrades along the Great Western Highway and more importantly securing a corridor for dual carriageway for a future crossing at 100kph. How is it that Queensland has two safe swift highways at 100kph to the west of Brisbane and NSW has not one? 

5. A progressive increase in Financial Assistance Grants to at least one percent of Commonwealth taxation revenue (at least $4.5 billion per year), and an initial injection of additional Financial Assistance Grants funding. 

6. A solutions-based approach to heath workforce shortages and aged care that puts the needs of regional communities first.

7. A Federal Government led fully funded support program for apprenticeships in local government codesigned with local government.

8. A Local Government Climate Response Partnership Fund of $200m over four years to enable planning and preparation to minimise the impacts of climate change in local communities and enable councils to achieve climate neutrality as soon as practicable.

9. Continuation of the Stronger Regional Digital Connectivity Package at $55m over four years to improve community resilience and local economic recovery.

Discussion at the Board level suggested that media prioritise key messaging in:

1. A progressive increase in Financial Assistance Grants

2. Health and aging

3. Water

4. Connection – transport and digital

Review of the CNSWJO Strategy

Like Council, CNSWJO must review its strategy each term. Given JO Board meetings are quarterly, 6 Mayors nominated to take on the role of development of the strategy. The mandated Statement of Strategic Regional Priority is due in December 2022.

Regional Submissions

Members have forwarded requests for the JO to lodge submissions, where all advice provided is within existing policy. All are available on the CNSWJO website at https://www.centraljo.nsw.gov.au/submissions/

The Board has approved submissions be lodged for the:

a. DPE Draft Central West and Orana Regional Plan

b. TfNSW Draft Central West and Orana Regional Transport Plan

c. AER Framework and Approach Consultation;

d. NSW Public Lighting Code Review; and

e. AEMC Review of Regulatory Framework for Metering Services

f. IPART Review of Electricity Network Operators’ Licenses

Value to members

A snapshot of the value to members of the various activities undertaken by the JO for their members in the context of the CNSWJO Strategic Plan follows.

VALUE FOR MEMBERS 2020/2021	FY 2019/2020	FY 2020/2021	FYTD 2021/2022
SUBMISSIONS	20	23	10
PLANS, STRATEGIES AND COLLATERAL	26	12	2
GRANTS SEEKING	3	3	0
GRANT FUNDING RECEIVED	$215k	$736k	0
COMPLIANCE	13	9	9
DATA	6	3	0
MEDIA INCLUDING SOCIAL MEDIA	13	18	11
COST SAVINGS	$1.87m	$2.2m	$1.03m
REPRESENTATION	147	159	156
OPPORTUNITIES COUNCILS HAVE BEEN AFFORDED	35	102	72

Savings

The following chart shows the savings achieved by member councils through aggregated procurement and programming net of JO costs. An explanation of the meaning of each column has been reported previously and is available on request. The chart reflects savings in the 21/22 financial year to date.

Chart, pie chart

Description automatically generated

Financial Implications

Nil

POLICY AND GOVERNANCE IMPLICATIONS

Nil

Attachments

1 Minutes 24 February 2022, JO Board Meeting, D22/13176 ⇩

Council Meeting 15 March 2022

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

MINUTES OF THE

Ordinary Council Meeting

HELD IN Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Byng Street, Orange

ON 3 March 2022

COMMENCING AT 7.00pm

1 Introduction

Attendance

Cr J Hamling (Mayor), Cr K Duffy, Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne, Cr D Mallard, Cr M McDonell, Cr T Mileto, Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power (Deputy Mayor), Cr J Whitton

Chief Executive Officer, Director Corporate and Commercial Services, Director Development Services, Director Community, Recreation and Cultural Services, A/Director Technical Services (Gailey), A/Manager Corporate Governance, Administration Officer Governance

1.1 APOLOGIES

Nil

1.2 LIVESTREAMING AND RECORDING

The Mayor advised that the meeting was being livestreamed and recorded.

1.3 OPENING PRAYER

Khalid Tufail of the NSW Regional Islamic Centre led the Council in prayer.

1.4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

The Mayor conducted an Acknowledgement of Country.

1.5 Declaration of pecuniary interests, significant non-pecuniary interests and less than significant non-pecuniary interests

Cr Duffy declared a non-significant, non-pecuniary interest in IPC Item 2.1 – Extraordinary – City of Orange Traffic Committee as he is an employee of Orange Bus Lines and will remain in the Chamber and will vote on this item.

Cr Hamling declared a non-significant, non-pecuniary interest in Item 5.4 Leave of Absence as it is he who is requiring the resolution to take leave and will remain in the Chamber and will not vote on this item.

Cr Hamling declared a non-significant, non-pecuniary interest in IPC Item 2.1 – Extraordinary – City of Orange Traffic Committee as he is an employee of Orange High School and will remain in the Chamber and will not vote on this item.

THE MAYOR DECLARED THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ADJOURNED FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE OPEN FORUM AT 7.04pm.

Amber Gunn – PDC Agenda Item 2.2 DA 507/2021(1) – 314 Anson Street - Against

Geoff Metcalfe - PDC Agenda Item 2.2 DA 507/2021(1) – 314 Anson Street – For – wants to defer this item to allow Councillors to inspect the proposed development

THE MAYOR DECLARED THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL RESUMED AT 7.12pm.

The Mayor presented Council with a Giants netball team bib that was presented to the City during their recent visit to Orange.

The Mayor commented on the LGNSW Conference which was held in Sydney this week and believed a lot of knowledge was gained by the 7 Councillors that attended. A report will come back to Council.

Cr Whitton commented that 50% of attendance at the LGNSW Conference was new Councillors and new Mayors.

Cr Greenhalgh commented that the knowledge gained was priceless.

Cr Power commented that it was valuable to learn about where other NSW Councils are heading. The amount of indigenous Councillors that were present was encouraging.

Cr Duffy acknowledged that our previous Mayor Cr Kidd received recognition for his years of service at the Conference.

2 Mayoral Minutes

Nil

3 Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meeting

RESOLVED - 22/034 Cr J Whitton/Cr M McDonell

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Orange City Council held on 15 February 2022 (copies of which were circulated to all members) be and are hereby confirmed as a true and accurate record of the proceedings of the Council meeting held on 15 February 2022.

For: Cr J Hamling, Cr K Duffy, Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne,

Cr D Mallard, Cr M McDonell, Cr T Mileto, Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power , Cr J Whitton

Against: Nil

Absent: Nil

THE MAYOR DECLARED THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ADJOURNED FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE POLICY COMMITTEE MEETINGS AT 7.18pm.

THE MAYOR DECLARED THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL RESUMED AT 7.36pm.

4 Notices of Motion/Notices of Rescission

4.1 Notice of Motion - Dylan Alcott

TRIM Reference: 2022/231

RESOLVED - 22/041 Cr S Peterson/Cr T Greenhalgh

That Dylan Alcott OAM be invited to attend a community event within Orange.

For: Cr J Hamling, Cr K Duffy, Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne,

Cr D Mallard, Cr M McDonell, Cr T Mileto, Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power , Cr J Whitton

Against: Nil

Absent: Nil

5 General Reports

5.1 Reallocation of Funding For Cricket Field of Play Fencing

TRIM Reference: 2021/2682

RESOLVED - 22/042 Cr J Hamling/Cr K Duffy

That funding for installation of a picket fence at the Spring Hill Recreation Ground be reallocated to installation of a picket fence at Riawena Oval.

For: Cr J Hamling, Cr K Duffy, Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne,

Cr D Mallard, Cr M McDonell, Cr T Mileto, Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power , Cr J Whitton

Against: Nil

Absent: Nil

Cr Duffy asked if Council could get clarification on whether or not the Spring Hill Association received funding to go towards their cricket field

The Director Community Recreation and Cultural Services responded by saying yes that is my understanding, the Local Member announced this just before Christmas

Cr Mileto asked the question were the quotes for Riawena Oval $100,000.

The Director Community Recreation and Cultural Services said that the contractor had already been engaged for the Spring Hill fence and was asked to look to see if there were any additional costs and then confirmed there would be no additional costs. Yes the quote remained at $100,000.

Cr Kinghorne asked how was the Spring Hill Committee and Orange City Council on such different wavelengths, we are supposed to be engaging with them, I don’t’ understand how it could have been resolved this way.

The Chief Executive Officer responded by saying that he would circulate further information on this to Councillors

Cr Kinghorne asked is the successful tenderer local

The Director Community Recreation and Cultural Services responsed yes they are local

Cr Mileto asked about the internment wall at Spring Hill, when will it be finished and when can people add to this wall

The Director Community Recreation and Cultural Services responded saying that Council was currently going through the mechanics and it will be completed in the near future

5.2 Policy Committee Draft Charters

TRIM Reference: 2022/176

RESOLVED - 22/043 Cr J Whitton/Cr D Mallard

That Council adopt the Charters for each Policy Committee consisting of Planning and Development, Employment and Economic Development, Environmental Sustainability, Sport and Recreation, Infrastructure, Finance and Services.

For: Cr J Hamling, Cr K Duffy, Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne,

Cr D Mallard, Cr M McDonell, Cr T Mileto, Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power , Cr J Whitton

Against: Nil

Absent: Nil

5.3 Community Committee Draft Charters

TRIM Reference: 2022/216

RESOLVED - 22/044 Cr J Whitton/Cr M McDonell

That Council adopt the Charters for each of the Community Committees as resolved on the 15 February 2022 Council meeting.

For: Cr J Hamling, Cr K Duffy, Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne,

Cr D Mallard, Cr M McDonell, Cr T Mileto, Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power , Cr J Whitton

Against:

Absent:

Cr Mileto pointed out that the Economic Development Community Committee Draft Charter listed these meetings would occur bi-monthly when it should state ‘monthly’ as this is the frequency at which these meetings have historically been held

The Director Corporate and Commercial Services commented that when the Draft Charter goes to the Committee they can resubmit it with this change

Cr Mallard asked the question about maximum numbers of community members on each community committee – all charters specify a maximum number of community reps, at least one had many more people express interest. Can we alter this.

The Chief Executive Officer commented that tonight is about discussing this matter, unlimited or limited numbers we can decide tonight

Cr Peterson asked if there are lots of people on the committee that do not show up, does this affect the quorum

The Chief Executive Officer commented that yes it could well affect the quorum

Cr Greenhalgh asked have we turned people away from these committees previously

The Chief Executive Officer responded by saying yes, a person represented a particular political group which we did not see as being beneficial to the Committee involved

MATTER ARISING Cr J Hamling

That Councillors be briefed on the number of Expressions of Interest received for each Community Committee through a Councillor Briefing session prior to Committee Charters going to each Community Committee.

5.4 Leave of Absence

TRIM Reference: 2022/240

Cr Hamling declared a non-significant, non-pecuniary interest in this Item as it is he who is requiring the resolution to take leave and will remain in the Chamber and will not vote on this item.

RESOLVED - 22/045 Cr J Whitton/Cr F Kinghorne

That Leave of Absence be granted for the Mayor, Cr Jason Hamling for the Meeting of Council to be held Tuesday 19 April 2022.

For: Cr K Duffy, Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne,

Cr D Mallard, Cr M McDonell, Cr T Mileto, Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power , Cr J Whitton

Against: Nil

Absent: Cr J Hamling

6 Closed Meeting

In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, in the opinion of the General Manager, the following business is of a kind as referred to in Section 10A(2) of the Act, and should be dealt with in a Confidential Session of the Council meeting closed to the press and public.

In response to a question from the Mayor, the Chief Executive Officer advised that no written submissions had been received relating to any item listed for consideration by the Closed Meeting of Council.

The Mayor extended an invitation to any member of the public present at the meeting to make a presentation to the Council as to whether the meeting should be closed for a particular item.

RESOLVED - 22/046 Cr J Whitton/Cr K Duffy

That Council adjourn into a Closed Meeting and members of the press and public be excluded from the Closed Meeting, and access to the correspondence and reports relating to the items considered during the course of the Closed Meeting be withheld unless declassified by separate resolution. This action is taken in accordance with Section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act, 1993 as the items listed come within the following provisions:

6.1 Submission Redactions February 2022

6.2 Electricity Procurement

This item is classified CONFIDENTIAL under the provisions of Section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act 1993, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to (d)ii information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council and (g) advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

Information contained in this paper is subject to legal professional privilege and is strictly confidential. Any disclosure of this paper, including a verbal disclosure of its content or conclusions, beyond Council officers directly involved in this matter may result in the loss of legal professional privilege and cause damage to the Council’s legal and financial position. Councillors have a good faith duty to strictly maintain confidentiality of privileged communications, and any failure to do so may result in a penalty under section 664 of the Local Government Act 1993 and action under the Code of Conduct.

THE MAYOR DECLARED THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ADJOURNED FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE CLOSED MEETING AT 7.55PM.

THE MAYOR DECLARED THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL RESUMED AT 8.34PM.

7 Resolutions from Closed Meeting

The Chief Executive Officer read out the following resolutions made in the Closed Meeting of Council.

6.1 Submission Redactions February 2022

TRIM Reference: 2022/175

RESOLVED - 22/047 Cr K Duffy/Cr D Mallard

That the information in this report be acknowledged.

For: Cr J Hamling, Cr K Duffy, Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne,

Cr D Mallard, Cr M McDonell, Cr T Mileto, Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power , Cr J Whitton

Against: Nil

Absent: Nil

6.2 Electricity Procurement

TRIM Reference: 2022/236

motion

That Council

1. Note the report on electricity procurement;

2. Note that a reduced tender period has been considered;

3. Resolve that because of the extenuating circumstances set out in the report a satisfactory result would not be achieved by inviting tenders for the aggregated procurement of electricity for large market sites and streetlighting which are due to commence on 1 January 2023;

4. Note that the reasons for the decision of the Council in resolution 3 are as follows:

a. The services with respect to which the tender relates can only be provided by energy retailers.

b. Council has received expert advice that due to the nature of the relevant market, offers from those retailers which will be made in response to the request for tender will only be open for acceptance for a period of 1-2 weeks.

c. Even if the tender period was shortened to 7 days as permitted under the Regulations, some if not all of the relevant tenders would expire prior to Council being able to undertake an assessment of tenders, report the matter to Council and resolve to accept or reject any tenders.

d. This would result in Council either having no valid tenders which it is able to accept, or it would not be able to consider for acceptance all of the tenders lodged in response to the request for tender.

e. This would not be a satisfactory result for Council.

5. Delegate the authority to execute the contracts for the supply of electricity for large market sites and streetlighting to the Chief Executive Officer; and

6. Advise Central NSW Joint Organisation of Council’s decision.

AMENDMENT Cr D Mallard/Cr M McDonell

That the motion be amended by inserting an additional point 7:

Makes representations to the Central NSW Joint Organisation that the procurement process should exclude seeking to enter into a power purchase agreement with any provider involved in new projects for coal, gas or oil extraction or energy generation, for example Origin Energy, which continues to seek to expand its gas and oil exploration, production and fracking in areas such as the Northern Territory's Beetaloo Basin, Queensland's channel country and Western Australia's Canning Basin.

For: Cr D Mallard, Cr M McDonell, Cr G Power

Against: Cr J Hamling, Cr K Duffy, Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne,

Cr T Mileto, Cr S Peterson, Cr J Whitton

Absent: Nil

The amendment on being put to the meeting was lost

RESOLVED - 22/048 Cr J Whitton/Cr T Greenhalgh

That Council

1. Note the report on electricity procurement;

2. Note that a reduced tender period has been considered;

4. Note that the reasons for the decision of the Council in resolution 3 are as follows:

a. The services with respect to which the tender relates can only be provided by energy retailers.

e. This would not be a satisfactory result for Council.

5. Delegate the authority to execute the contracts for the supply of electricity for large market sites and streetlighting to the Chief Executive Officer; and

6. Advise Central NSW Joint Organisation of Council’s decision.

For: Cr J Hamling, Cr K Duffy, Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne,

Cr D Mallard, Cr M McDonell, Cr T Mileto, Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power , Cr J Whitton

Against: Nil

Absent: Nil

Cr Peterson sought background on the motion regarding whether decisions in the future would need to be made together with the other councils or if Orange City Council could do things independently.

The Chief Executive Officer advised the last council and the councils involved resolved to go to market as a collective and ask for a 50% renewable electricity in the next contract we buy (January next year). The Chief Executive Officer confirmed that we are in the process of this procurement now. This motion is effectively Councillors giving me (CEO) the delegation to make quick decisions when we go to market, which will be happening in the next month or two. Collectively we are looking at the energy load in all the councils, compiling the information and going to the electricity market and saying we want 50% renewable, we will take 50% other and you give us your best price. In the months ahead when we start that process trying to obtain the tenders to take to council to get a resolution is going to take too long and we risk losing the good price.

Cr Peterson asked that if you make the decision for Orange does that mean the other councils involved will also have their CEOs make the decision for their respective councils, is there a risk they may decide not to do it.

The Chief Executive Officer advised when we first started it was agreed that I cannot do anything to adversely affect the current price. The target here is 50% renewable on our purchase.

Cr Whitton asked whether, based on the solicitor’s report, if there are potential issues of collusion regarding the ICAC statements

The Chief Executive Officer responded by saying no, we are just being very careful about how the process is being run by having a solicitor oversee every step to ensure compliance.

Cr Mileto asked what the difference will be cost wise.

The Chief Executive Officer advised it is expected to be the same or less.

RESOLVED - 22/049 Cr J Whitton/Cr J Evans

That Council move back into Open Council Meeting.

For: Cr J Hamling, Cr K Duffy, Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne,

Cr D Mallard, Cr M McDonell, Cr T Mileto, Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power , Cr J Whitton

Against: Nil

Absent: Nil

The Meeting Closed at 8.38pm.

This is Page Number 33 and the Final Page of the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Orange City Council held on 3 March 2022.

Council Meeting 15 March 2022

5 General Reports

5.1 Statement of Investments - December 2021

TRIM REFERENCE: 2021/2817

AUTHOR: Julie Murray, Financial Accountant

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to provide a statement of Council’s investments held as at 31 December 2021.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “17.2 Collaborate - Ensure financial stability and support efficient ongoing operation”.

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council resolves:

1 To note the Statement of Investments as at 31 December 2021.

2 To adopt the certification of the Responsible Accounting Officer.

further considerations

Consideration has been given to the recommendation’s impact on Council’s service delivery; image and reputation; political; environmental; health and safety; employees; stakeholders and project management; and no further implications or risks have been identified.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Section 212(1) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that a written report be presented each month at an Ordinary Meeting of the Council detailing all money that Council has invested under Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993.

As at 31 December 2021, the investments held by Council in each fund is shown below:

	31/12/2021	30/11/2021
General Fund	73,108,373.24	74,273,541.40
Water Fund	67,894,487.53	67,110,273.27
Sewer Fund	59,568,439.85	58,684,048.07
Total Funds	$200,571,300.62	$200,067,862.74

A reconciliation of Council’s investment portfolio provides a summary of the purposes for which Council’s investments are being held. The summary is as follows:

	31/12/2021	30/11/2021
Externally Restricted
- General Fund	31,430,530.70	31,430,530.70
- Water Fund	67,894,487.53	67,110,273.27
- Sewer Fund	59,568,439.85	58,684,048.07
Internally Restricted	29,689,243.00	29,689,243.00
Unrestricted	11,988,599.54	13,153,767.70
Total Funds	$200,571,300.62	$200,067,862.74

Externally restricted funds are those funds that have been received for a specific purpose and may only be used for the purpose that they have been received, for example, the money received for Water access and usage charges by legislation are only available to be spent for the operation, maintenance, and expansion of the Water supply network.

Internally restricted funds are those that Council has earmarked for a particular purpose, but Council can have that purpose changed.

Unrestricted funds are those available for use to continue the day-to-day operations of Council, made up of General Fund investments and cash only.

The unrestricted cash position movements during the month are normal as projects commence and income is received. Movements may also arise following processing of income received between funds or into restricted assets to appropriately allocate for the purposes Council has determined. Council’s cash flow is monitored daily, and some investments may be redeemed rather than rolled over to support operational requirements.

Portfolio Advice

Council utilises the services of an independent investment advisor in maintaining its portfolio of investments. Council’s current investment advisor is Imperium Markets, an independent asset consultant that works with wholesale investors to develop, implement, and manage their investment portfolio. Imperium Markets is a leading provider of independent investment consulting services to a broad range of institutional investors including government agencies, superannuation funds and not-for-profit organisations.

Imperium Markets major services provided to Council include:

· Quarterly portfolio summary reports

· Advice on investment opportunities, in particular Floating Rate Note products

· Advice on policy construction

· Year-end market values for Floating Note Rate products held by Council.

Portfolio Performance

Council’s current Long Term Financial Plan establishes the benchmark for Council’s interest on investments at “75 basis points above the current cash rate”. The cash rate as at 31 December 2021 remained at 0.10 per cent. The weighted average interest rate of Council’s investment portfolio at the same reporting date was 1.01 per cent which continues to exceed Council’s benchmark i.e., the cash rate of 0.10 per cent plus 0.75 per cent (or 85 basis points).

Council has also utilised the AusBond Bank Bill Index to provide a further benchmark focused on long term investments. As of 31 December 2021, the AusBond rate was 0.90 per cent. The weighted average interest rate of Council’s investment portfolio at the same reporting date was 1.01 per cent.

Council’s Investment Policy establishes limits in relation to the maturity terms of Council’s investments as well as the credit ratings of the institutions with whom Council can invest.

The following tables provide a dissection of Council’s investment portfolio as required by the Policy. The Policy identifies the maximum amount that can be held in a variety of investment products or with institutions based on their respective credit ratings.

Table 1 shows the percentage held by Council (holdings) and the additional amount that Council could hold (capacity) for each term to maturity allocation in accordance with limits established by Council’s Policy.

Table 1: Maturity – Term Limits

Term to Maturity Allocation	Maximum	Holding	Remaining Capacity
0 - 3 Months	100.00%	22.38%	77.62%
3 - 12 Months	100.00%	23.21%	76.79%
1 - 2 Years	70.00%	12.47%	57.53%
2 - 5 Years	50.00%	41.94%	8.06%
>5 Years	25.00%	0.00%	25.00%

Table 2 shows the total amount held, and the weighted average interest rate (or return on investment), by credit rating. The credit rating is an independent opinion of the capability and willingness of a financial institution to repay its debts, or in other words, the providers’ financial strength or creditworthiness. The rating is typically calculated as the likelihood of a failure occurring over a given period, with the higher rating (AAA) being superior due to having a lower chance of default. However, it is generally accepted that this lower risk will be accompanied by a lower return on investment.

The level of money held in the bank accounts has been added to the table to illustrate the ability of Council to cover the operational liabilities that typically occur (for example payroll, materials and contracts, utilities).

Table 2: Credit Rating Limits

Credit Rating	Maximum	Holding	Remaining Capacity	Value	Return on Investment
Bank Accounts	100.00%	9.78%	90.22%	$19,611,609.61	0.10%
AAA	100.00%	0.00%	100.00%	N/A	N/A
AA	100.00%	50.73%	49.27%	$101,756,160.00	1.09%
A	60.00%	16.69%	43.31%	$33,470,383.56	0.94%
BBB & NR	40.00%	22.80%	17.20%	$45,733,147.45	0.87%
Below BBB	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	N/A	N/A

Certification by Responsible Accounting Officer

I, Jason Cooke, hereby certify that all investments have been made in accordance with Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993, Clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and Council’s Investment Policy.

Council Meeting 15 March 2022

5.2 Statement of Investments - January 2022

TRIM REFERENCE: 2022/50

AUTHOR: Julie Murray, Financial Accountant

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to provide a statement of Council’s investments held as at 31 January 2022.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “17.2 Collaborate - Ensure financial stability and support efficient ongoing operation”.

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council resolves:

1 To note the Statement of Investments as at 31 January 2022.

2 To adopt the certification of the Responsible Accounting Officer.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

As at 31 January 2022, the investments held by Council in each fund is shown below:

	31/01/2022	31/12/2021
General Fund	67,092,296.79	73,108,373.24
Water Fund	71,421,925.45	67,894,487.53
Sewer Fund	59,693,257.71	59,568,439.85
Total Funds	$198,207,479.95	$200,571,300.62

A reconciliation of Council’s investment portfolio provides a summary of the purposes for which Council’s investments are being held. The summary is as follows:

	31/01/2022	31/12/2021
Externally Restricted
- General Fund	31,437,710.63	31,430,530.70
- Water Fund	71,421,925.45	67,894,487.53
- Sewer Fund	59,693,257.71	59,568,439.85
Internally Restricted	29,689,243.00	29,689,243.00
Unrestricted	5,965,343.16	11,988,599.54
Total Funds	$198,207,479.95	$200,571,300.62

Internally restricted funds are those that Council has earmarked for a particular purpose, but Council can have that purpose changed.

Unrestricted funds are those available for use to continue the day-to-day operations of Council, made up of General Fund investments and cash only.

Portfolio Advice

Imperium Markets major services provided to Council include:

· Quarterly portfolio summary reports

· Advice on investment opportunities, in particular Floating Rate Note products

· Advice on policy construction

· Year-end market values for Floating Note Rate products held by Council.

Portfolio Performance

Council’s current Long Term Financial Plan establishes the benchmark for Council’s interest on investments at “75 basis points above the current cash rate”. The cash rate as at 31 January 2022 remained at 0.10 per cent. The weighted average interest rate of Council’s investment portfolio at the same reporting date was 0.99 per cent which continues to exceed Council’s benchmark i.e., the cash rate of 0.10 per cent plus 0.75 per cent (or 85 basis points).

Council has also utilised the AusBond Bank Bill Index to provide a further benchmark focused on long term investments. As of 31 January 2022, the AusBond rate was 0.90 per cent. The weighted average interest rate of Council’s investment portfolio at the same reporting date was 0.99 per cent.

Council’s Investment Policy establishes limits in relation to the maturity terms of Council’s investments as well as the credit ratings of the institutions with whom Council can invest.

Table 1: Maturity – Term Limits

Term to Maturity Allocation	Maximum	Holding	Remaining Capacity
0 - 3 Months	100.00%	26.47%	73.53%
3 - 12 Months	100.00%	17.00%	83.00%
1 - 2 Years	70.00%	19.26%	50.74%
2 - 5 Years	50.00%	37.28%	12.72%
>5 Years	25.00%	0.00%	25.00%

Table 2: Credit Rating Limits

Credit Rating	Maximum	Holding	Remaining Capacity	Value	Return on Investment
Bank Accounts	100.00%	9.46%	90.54%	$18,743,817.93	0.10%
AAA	100.00%	0.00%	100.00%	N/A	N/A
AA	100.00%	56.38%	43.62%	$111,756,160.00	1.05%
A	60.00%	12.85%	47.15%	$25,470,383.56	0.97%
BBB & NR	40.00%	21.31%	18.69%	$42,237,118.46	0.85%
Below BBB	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	N/A	N/A

Certification by Responsible Accounting Officer

Council Meeting 15 March 2022

5.3 Statement of Investments - Feburary 2022

TRIM REFERENCE: 2022/145

AUTHOR: Julie Murray, Financial Accountant

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to provide a statement of Council’s investments held as at 28 February 2022.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “17.2 Collaborate - Ensure financial stability and support efficient ongoing operation”.

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council resolves:

1 To note the Statement of Investments as at 28 February 2022.

2 To adopt the certification of the Responsible Accounting Officer.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

As at 28 February 2022, the investments held by Council in each fund is shown below:

	28/02/2022	31/01/2022
General Fund	69,990,221.56	67,092,296.79
Water Fund	69,542,043.37	71,421,925.45
Sewer Fund	59,846,693.75	59,693,257.71
Total Funds	$199,378,958.68	$198,207,479.95

A reconciliation of Council’s investment portfolio provides a summary of the purposes for which Council’s investments are being held. The summary is as follows:

	28/02/2022	31/01/2022
Externally Restricted
- General Fund	31,127,290.20	31,437,710.63
- Water Fund	69,542,043.37	71,421,925.45
- Sewer Fund	59,846,693.75	59,693,257.71
Internally Restricted	27,975,765.51	29,689,243.00
Unrestricted	10,887,165.85	5,965,343.16
Total Funds	$199,378,958.68	$198,207,479.95

Internally restricted funds are those that Council has earmarked for a particular purpose, but Council can have that purpose changed.

Unrestricted funds are those available for use to continue the day-to-day operations of Council, made up of General Fund investments and cash only.

Portfolio Advice

Council utilises the services of an independent investment advisor in maintaining its portfolio of investments. Council’s current investment advisor is Imperium Markets, an independent asset consultant that works with wholesale investors to develop, implement and manage their investment portfolio. Imperium Markets is a leading provider of independent investment consulting services to a broad range of institutional investors including government agencies, superannuation funds and not-for-profit organisations.

Imperium Markets major services provided to Council include:

· Quarterly portfolio summary reports

· Advice on investment opportunities, in particular Floating Rate Note products

· Advice on policy construction

· Year-end market values for Floating Note Rate products held by Council.

Portfolio Performance

Council’s current Long Term Financial Plan establishes the benchmark for Council’s interest on investments at “75 basis points above the current cash rate”. The cash rate as at 28 February 2022 remained at 0.10 per cent. The weighted average interest rate of Council’s investment portfolio at the same reporting date was 1.06 per cent which continues to exceed Council’s benchmark i.e., the cash rate of 0.10 per cent plus 0.75 per cent (or 85 basis points).

Council has also utilised the AusBond Bank Bill Index to provide a further benchmark focused on long term investments. As of 28 February 2022, the AusBond rate was 0.90 per cent. The weighted average interest rate of Council’s investment portfolio at the same reporting date was 1.06 per cent.

Council’s Investment Policy establishes limits in relation to the maturity terms of Council’s investments as well as the credit ratings of the institutions with whom Council can invest.

Table 1: Maturity – Term Limits

Term to Maturity Allocation	Maximum	Holding	Remaining Capacity
0 - 3 Months	100.00%	24.81%	75.19%
3 - 12 Months	100.00%	14.96%	85.04%
1 - 2 Years	70.00%	19.17%	50.83%
2 - 5 Years	50.00%	41.06%	8.94%
>5 Years	25.00%	0.00%	25.00%

Table 2: Credit Rating Limits

Credit Rating	Maximum	Holding	Remaining Capacity	Value	Return on Investment
Bank Accounts	100.00%	9.54%	90.46%	$19,011,323.46	0.10%
AAA	100.00%	0.00%	100.00%	N/A	N/A
AA	100.00%	58.03%	41.97%	$115,691,240.00	1.12%
A	60.00%	11.95%	48.05%	$23,825,303.56	1.03%
BBB & NR	40.00%	20.49%	19.51%	$40,851,091.66	0.89%
Below BBB	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	N/A	N/A

Certification by Responsible Accounting Officer

Council Meeting 15 March 2022

5.7 Development Application DA 23/2022(1) - 21-25 Peisley Street

RECORD NUMBER: 2022/279

AUTHOR: Sophie Currenti, Town Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged	24 January 2022
Applicant/s	The Trustee for Akura Property Trust
Owner/s	Akura Properties Pty Ltd
Land description	Lot 100 PCE PT DP 1199583 - 21-25 Peisley Street, Orange
Proposed land use	Demolition (existing buildings), General Industry (industrial unit complex containing 13 units), Specialised Retail Premises (first use Unit 13), Business Identification Signage
Value of proposed development	$3,800,000.00

Council's consent is sought for the erection of thirteen (13) individual industrial units and Specialised Retail Premises (first use of Unit 13) with associated signage at 21-25 Peisley Street, Orange – Lot 100 DP 1199583.

The proposed development involves the following:

· demolition of existing shed and ancillary office

· erection of thirteen (13) individual general industrial units ranging in various sizes from 173m² to 700m²

· a combined Gross Floor Area (GFA) of 4291m²

· specialised Retail Premises (first use of Unit 13) to be occupied by Repco

· access via a proposed 12m wide driveway and construction of an internal road network/hardstand area that accommodates heavy rigid vehicles

· fifty-eight (58) carparking spaces including disabled and staff car parking

· an onsite detention located through the centre of the site – subject to engineering design. The proposed driveway design basin will reduce stormwater peak discharges and volumes so as to not impact downstream properties

· proposed wall and pole signage including a free standing 5m pylon sign approximately 1800mm wide. Further wall signage and painting to the existing southern and eastern facades at approx. 6m x 1500mm high.

The Planning and Development Committee has delegated authority to approve the application, based on the cost of the development of more than $2.5 million.

As outlined in this report, the proposed development is considered to reasonably satisfy the Local and State planning controls that apply to the subject land and particular land use. Impacts of the development will be within acceptable limit, subject to mitigation conditions. Approval of the application is recommended.

Letter

Description automatically generated with medium confidence Figure 1 - locality plan

Figure 2 – existing streetscape

DECISION FRAMEWORK

Development in Orange is governed by two key documents Orange Local Environment Plan 2011 (LEP) and Orange Development Control Plan 2004 (DCP). In addition the Infill Guidelines are used to guide development, particularly in the heritage conservation areas and around heritage items.

Orange Local Environment Plan 2011 – The provisions of the LEP must be considered by the Council in determining the application.

LEPs govern the types of development that are permissible or prohibited in different parts of the City and also provide some assessment criteria in specific circumstances. Uses are either permissible or not. The objectives of each zoning and indeed the aims of the LEP itself are also to be considered and can be used to guide decision making around appropriateness of development.

Orange Development Control Plan 2004 – the DCP provides guidelines for development. In general it is a performance based document rather than prescriptive in nature. For each planning element there are often guidelines used. These guidelines indicate ways of achieving the planning outcomes. It is thus recognised that there may also be other solutions of merit. All design solutions are considered on merit by planning and building staff. Applications should clearly demonstrate how the planning outcomes are being met where alternative design solutions are proposed. The DCP enables developers and architects to use design to achieve the planning outcomes in alternative ways.

DIRECTOR’S COMMENTS

This proposal relates to the construction of 13 industrial units. The design is of a modern style and would complement other buildings in the industrial strip of the south end of Peisley Street. One anchor tenant proposed for the northern most unit fronting Peisley Street is Repco. This development is permissible in this zone, provides ample parking, is compliant and the overall design will add to the character and streetscape of the area. Approval of the development is recommended.

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council consents to development application DA 23/2022(1) for Demolition (existing buildings), General Industry (industrial unit complex containing 13 units), Specialised Retail Premises (first use Unit 13), Business Identification Signage at Lot 100 PCE PT DP 1199583 - 21-25 Peisley Street, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

THE PROPOSAL

The proposal involves the erection of thirteen (13) individual industrial units and Specialised Retail Premises (first use of Unit 13) with associated signage at 21-25 Peisley Street.

The proposed development involves the following:

· demolition of existing shed and ancillary office

· erection of thirteen (13) individual general industrial units ranging in various sizes from 173m² to 700m² – any alternative uses that do not fit within this definition such as a depot, vehicle repairs or warehouse for example would need a later consent

· a combined Gross Floor Area (GFA) of 4291m²

· specialised Retail Premises (first use of Unit 13)

o the use relates to the Repco establishment specialising in motor vehicle components, tools and the like

o the proposal will involve a large display area of car related tools, compressors, oils and 4WD accessories

o due to the weight of some components such as compressors, ramps, speciality equipment and bulky items such as tarps, car paint and wheel accessories, it is submitted that areas for post purchase retail are required to assist customers loading items close to the delivery and access points.

· access via a proposed 12m wide driveway and construction of an internal road network/hardstand area that accommodates heavy rigid vehicles

· fifty eight (58) carparking spaces including disabled and staff car parking

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Figure 3 – proposed site plan

Figure 4 – proposed floor plan

Figure 5 – proposed streetscape elevation

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

Section 1.7 - Application of Part 7 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act 1994

Section 1.7 of the EP&A Act identifies that Part 7 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act) and Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act 1994 have effect in connection with terrestrial and aquatic environments.

There are four triggers known to insert a development into the Biodiversity Offset Scheme (ie the need for a BDAR to be submitted with a DA):

· Trigger 1: development occurs in land mapped on the Biodiversity Values Map (OEH) (clause 7.1 of BC Regulation 2017);

· Trigger 2: development involves clearing/disturbance of native vegetation above a certain area threshold (clauses 7.1 and 7.2 of BC Regulation 2017); or

· Trigger 3: development is otherwise likely to significantly affect threatened species (clauses 7.2 and 7.3 of BC Act 2016).

The fourth trigger (development proposed to occur in an Area of Outstanding Biodiversity Value (clause 7.2 of BC Act 2016) is generally not applicable to the Orange LGA; as no such areas are known to occur in the LGA. No further comments will be made against the fourth trigger.

SUMMARY

The site does not occur within land mapped on the Biodiversity Values Map and no clearing/disturbance is proposed. As the proposal does not trigger any of the four requirements for insertion into the BOS, a Biodiversity Development Assessment Report is not required to be lodged with the application for development consent. No other comments are warranted under this section.

Section 4.15

Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requires Council to consider various matters, of which those pertaining to the application are listed below.

PROVISIONS OF ANY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT s4.15(1)(a)(i)

Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011

Part 1 - Preliminary

Clause 1.2 - Aims of Plan

The broad aims of the LEP are set out under subclause 2. Those relevant to the application are as follows:

(a) to encourage development which complements and enhances the unique character of Orange as a major regional centre boasting a diverse economy and offering an attractive regional lifestyle,

(b) to provide for a range of development opportunities that contribute to the social, economic and environmental resources of Orange in a way that allows present and future generations to meet their needs by implementing the principles for ecologically sustainable development,

(c) to conserve and enhance the water resources on which Orange depends, particularly water supply catchments,

(f) to recognise and manage valued environmental heritage, landscape and scenic features of Orange.

The application is considered to be consistent with the applicable aims of the plan.

Clause 1.6 - Consent Authority

This clause establishes that, subject to the Act, Council is the consent authority for applications made under the LEP.

Clause 1.7 - Mapping

The subject site is identified on the LEP maps in the following manner:

Land Zoning Map:	Land zoned IN1 General Industrial
Lot Size Map:	Minimum Lot Size 1000m²
Heritage Map:	Not a heritage item or conservation area
Height of Buildings Map:	No building height limit
Floor Space Ratio Map:	No floor space limit
Terrestrial Biodiversity Map:	No biodiversity sensitivity on the site
Groundwater Vulnerability Map:	Groundwater vulnerable
Drinking Water Catchment Map:	Not within the drinking water catchment
Watercourse Map:	Not within or affecting a defined watercourse
Urban Release Area Map:	Not within an urban release area
Obstacle Limitation Surface Map:	No restriction on building siting or construction
Additional Permitted Uses Map:	No additional permitted use applies
Flood Planning Map:	Minor PMF mapping

Those matters that are of relevance are addressed in detail in the body of this report.

Clause 1.9A - Suspension of Covenants, Agreements and Instruments

This clause provides that covenants, agreements and other instruments which seek to restrict the carrying out of development do not apply with the following exceptions.

(a) to a covenant imposed by the Council or that the Council requires to be imposed, or

(b) to any relevant instrument under Section 13.4 of the Crown Land Management Act 2016, or

(c) to any conservation agreement under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, or

(d) to any Trust agreement under the Nature Conservation Trust Act 2001, or

(e) to any property vegetation plan under the Native Vegetation Act 2003, or

(f) to any biobanking agreement under Part 7A of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, or

(g) to any planning agreement under Subdivision 2 of Division 7.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Council staff are not aware of the title of the subject property being affected by any of the above. A sewer main exists on the land, relevant engineering conditions have been added to address any issues that may arise.

Part 2 - Permitted or Prohibited Development

Clause 2.1 - Land Use Zones and Clause 2.3 - Zone Objectives and Land Use Table

The subject site is located within the IN1 General Industrial zone. The proposed development is defined as General Industry, Specialised Retail Premises and Business Identification Signage under OLEP 2011 and is permitted with consent for this zone. This application is seeking consent. The objectives for the land zoning are as follows:

1 - Objectives of the IN1 General Industrial Zone

· To provide a wide range of industrial and warehouse land uses.

· To encourage employment opportunities.

· To minimise any adverse effect of industry on other land uses.

· To support and protect industrial land for industrial uses.

· To ensure development along the Southern Link Road has an alternative access.

There are no aspects of the proposed development that are averse to the zone objectives. In this regard:

· The proposal is permissible within the IN1 General Industrial Zone. As such, it enhances the range of land uses within this zone.

· The proposal facilitates the expansion of an existing business and therefore generates minor employment opportunities during the construction and operational phase of the development.

· The proposal is situated within an established industrial area and is thus unlikely to adversely affect other (more sensitive) land uses. As detailed throughout this report, there are no aspects of the proposed development that would adversely impact more sensitive land uses.

· The development of the site will have no impact upon the supply of industrial land within the locality as the proposal continues the use of industrial land for a use that is permissible within the IN1 General Industrial Zone.

Clause 2.7 - Demolition Requires Development Consent

The proposal involves demolition of the existing structures on the subject site and the applicant is seeking the consent of council. The demolition works proposed will have no significant impact on adjoining lands, streetscape or public realm. Conditions may be imposed in respect of hours of operation, dust suppression and the need to investigate for, and appropriately manage the presence of, any materials containing asbestos.

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

The application is not exempt or complying development.

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

Clause 4.1 - Minimum Subdivision Lot Size

This clause requires the subdivision of land to be equal to or greater than the size nominated for the land under the Minimum Lot Size Map. In relation to this site, the map nominates a minimum lot size of 1000m². No subdivision is proposed within this application.

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

Not relevant to the application.

Part 6 - Urban Release Area

Not relevant to the application. The subject site is not located in an Urban Release Area.

Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions

7.1 – Earthworks

The earthworks that are to be undertaken for the proposed development include driveway/hardstand area construction; trenching for service installations; and significant land shaping. The disruption to the site drainage is considered minor, and will not detrimentally affect adjoining properties or receiving waterways. The earthworks are not expected to affect the potential future use or redevelopment of the site. The site is not known to contain any Aboriginal, European or Archaeological relics nor is it in proximity to any waterway, drinking water catchment or sensitive area. Sedimentation controls will be required throughout construction as a condition of consent.

7.2a – Flood Plain Risk Management

This clause applies to land identified between the flood planning level and the level of the probable maximum flood. Before granting consent, Council must be satisfied that the proposal will not affect the safe occupation of, and evacuation from, the land in flood events (industrial development). The development is considered not to, in flood events exceeding the flood planning level, affect the safe occupation of and evacuation from, the changed mixed land use. The proposed development is unlikely to change flood planning regimes on or off the site and would be unlikely to cause or contribute to erosion, siltation or reduce riparian vegetation, and is therefore unlikely to create a cost burden on the community or neighbours.

7.3 – Stormwater Management

This clause applies to all industrial, commercial and residential zones and requires that Council be satisfied that the proposal meets the relevant clauses. Stormwater will be disposed into Council’s existing stormwater infrastructure located along the bitumen access road that services the development. Overland flow will be directed to the onsite detention basin located to the south eastern corner of the development site and is subject to final engineering design. The proposed detention basin will reduce stormwater peak discharges and volumes so as to not impact the downstream properties.

7.6 – Groundwater Vulnerability

The site has been mapped as being groundwater vulnerable. The proposal is not anticipated to involve the discharge of toxic or noxious substances and is therefore unlikely to contaminate the groundwater or related ecosystems. The proposal does not involve extraction of groundwater and therefore will not contribute to groundwater depletion.

7.11 – Essential Services

In consideration of this clause, all utility services are available to the land and adequate for the proposal. The subject land is serviced by Council’s reticulated water and sewerage network. The site has access to electricity and telecommunications. Stormwater will be disposed of at a legal point of discharge with any overland flow being directed into the proposed onsite stormwater detention system incorporated in the parking and driveway areas. This will be subject to civil design.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 Remediation of Land

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) is applicable. Pursuant to Clause 7 Contamination and remediation to be considered in determining development application:

(1) A consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of any development on land unless:

(a) it has considered whether the land is contaminated, and

(b) if the land is contaminated, it is satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable, after remediation) for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

(c) if the land requires remediation to be made suitable for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, it is satisfied that the land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose.

Investigation of past use and visual site inspection of the property did not give rise to any concerns surrounding contamination in relation to SEPP 55. No underground tanks or stained soil/gravel is evident on site. A check of the NSW EPA Contaminated Land Record and List of NSW Contaminated Sites notified to the EPA did not identify any contaminated sites on or near the proposed development. In light of the proposed use and the site being sealed with buildings and driveway and parking areas, no further analysis is considered justified.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

Clause 104 of the Infrastructure SEPP relates to traffic-generating development. The clause applies to development specified in Column 1 of the Table to Schedule 3 that involves new premises of the relevant size or capacity. Although the use of industry is listed, the clause is not applicable to the proposal at hand as the size/capacity is not exceeded in Column 2 of the Table to Schedule 3 (Clause 2(a)). As a result, formal referral to the Roads and Maritime Service is not required as the development is not deemed to be traffic generating development.

State Environmental Planning Policy 64 - Advertising and Signage

State Environmental Planning Policy 64 - Advertising and Signage (SEPP 64) is applicable and states in part:

3 Aims, Objectives etc

(1) This Policy aims:

(a) to ensure that signage (including advertising):

(i) is compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of an area, and

(ii) provides effective communication in suitable locations, and

(iii) is of high quality design and finish, and

(8) Granting of Consent to Signage

A consent authority must not grant development consent to an application to display signage unless the consent authority is satisfied:

(a) that the signage is consistent with the objectives of this Policy as set out in Clause 3 (1) (a), and

(b) that the signage the subject of the application satisfies the assessment criteria specified in Schedule 1.

The proposed signage is permissible with consent. An assessment of the signage against Schedule 1 has been undertaken below. The signage comprises two components of a pole/pylon sign and flush wall signage on the eastern and front wall of Unit 13 for Repco.

Figure 6 – proposed signage (Unit 13)

1 - Character of the Area

· Is the proposal compatible with the existing or desired future character of the area or locality in which it is proposed to be located?

· Is the proposal consistent with a particular theme for outdoor advertising in the area or locality?

The ribbon style development along Peisley Street is largely of a semi-industrial and specialist retail character. The proposed signage is consistent with other bold colour designs of national firms such as Sydney Tools, Coates Hire, BWS, Reece Plumbing and the like. The proposed signage and wall colours are consistent with the vibrant commercial character of south Peisley Street. A mix of attached wall signage and freestanding signs are common in the local area.

2 - Special Areas

· Does the proposal detract from the amenity or visual quality of any environmentally sensitive areas, heritage areas, natural or other conservation areas, open space areas, waterways, rural landscapes or residential areas?

The proposed signage and locality does not conflict with special areas relating to heritage, open space, waterways, residential areas or conservation precincts.

3 - Views and Vistas

· Does the proposal obscure or compromise important views?

· Does the proposal dominate the skyline and reduce the quality of vistas?

· Does the proposal respect the viewing rights of other advertisers?

The proposed signage is set back within the site. The pylon sign will not dominate the skyline being of a vertical rather than wide structure. The level landform also ensures the signage does not dominate any longer vistas. The signage will not block signage exposure to other businesses, largely due to the wide land frontage onto Peisley Street.

4 - Streetscape, Setting or Landscape

· Is the scale, proportion and form of the proposal appropriate for the streetscape, setting or landscape?

· Does the proposal contribute to the visual interest of the streetscape, setting or landscape?

· Does the proposal reduce clutter by rationalising and simplifying existing advertising?

· Does the proposal screen unsightliness?

· Does the proposal protrude above buildings, structures or tree canopies in the area or locality?

· Does the proposal require ongoing vegetation management?

The proposed signage is considered within normal commercial expectations for the environment with a cluster of corporate images and design features common place in the locality. The size and scale of the signage is considered reasonable in comparison to the size and scale of buildings and their commercial theme. The proposal contributes in a positive manner with sharp modern design lines and corporate fonts and colours. The signage is considered to present a high-quality corporate image. The site has no current signage and consider the proposed signage is simple in presentation with three logical viewpoints or images. The free-standing sign will be set away from the proposed buildings therefore not critical in terms of protrusions against rooflines or nearby structures. The proposal does not require ongoing vegetation management.

5 - Site and Building

· Is the proposal compatible with the scale, proportion and other characteristics of the site or building, or both, on which the proposed signage is to be located?

· Does the proposal respect important features of the site or building, or both?

· Does the proposal show innovation and imagination in its relationship to the site or building, or both?

The proposal is within scale and overall dimension relationship with the proposed height and width of the building. The images integrate with the key visual elements of the proposed buildings. The signage represents a sharp corporate image and reflects the car related sports theme associated with car products.

6 - Associated Devices and Logos with Advertisements and Advertising Structures

· Have any safety devices, platforms, lighting devices or logos been designed as an integral part of the signage or structure on which it is to be displayed?

The Repco logo, colours and fonts are proposed as part of the signage that will be displayed.

7 - Illumination

· Would illumination result in unacceptable glare?

· Would illumination affect safety for pedestrians, vehicles or aircraft?

· Would illumination detract from the amenity of any residence or other form of accommodation?

· Can the intensity of the illumination be adjusted, if necessary?

· Is the illumination subject to a curfew?

No illumination is proposed.

8 - Safety

· Would the proposal reduce the safety for any public road?

· Would the proposal reduce the safety for pedestrians or bicyclists?

· Would the proposal reduce the safety for pedestrians, particularly children, by obscuring sightlines from public areas?

The proposal is not considered to reduce the safety for any public road, pedestrians or cyclists. The proposal will not obscure sightlines from public areas.

PROVISIONS OF ANY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT THAT HAS BEEN PLACED ON EXHIBITION 4.15(1)(a)(ii)

There are no draft EPI’s that relate to the proposed development or subject site.

DESIGNATED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is not designated development.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is not integrated development.

PROVISIONS OF ANY DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN s4.15(1)(a)(iii)

Development Control Plan 2004

The following parts of DCP 2004 are applicable to the proposed development:

· Part 2 – Natural Resource Management

· Part 3 – General Considerations

· Part 4 – Special Environmental Considerations

· Part 9 – Development in the Employment and Industrial Zone

· Part 14 – Advertisements

· Part 15 – Car Parking

The relevant matters in Parts 2, 3, 4 and 14 were considered in the foregoing assessment under Orange LEP 2011 and SEPP 64. An assessment of the relevant provisions within Part 9 and 15 have been undertaken below.

09 – Development in the Industry and Employment Zone

The DCP prescribes the following applicable planning outcomes for Industrial Site Development.

- Buildings are set back a minimum of 10m from front boundaries (5m to a secondary boundary on a corner lot) for lots greater than 1,000m² or 5m for lots less than 1,000m² or otherwise to a setback consistent with existing setbacks in established areas.

The subject land comprises an area greater than 1,000sqm, therefore requires a setback minimum of 10m from the boundary. The new buildings will be sited at least 16m from the Peisley Street frontage. This setback allows for a sufficient landscaping strip to be established between the building and its frontage to Peisley Street to soften visual bulk. Side setbacks will comply with the BCA as concrete walls.

- Buildings cover up to 50% of the site area (excluding the area of accessways for battleaxe lots)

Based on the site area being 7864sqm, and the proposed buildings footprint of 4291.9sqm, the site coverage of the development is 54.5%. Although this proposed site coverage exceeds the 50% maximum by less than a 10% variation, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory. Due to the large size of the site, and all other design criteria being satisfied, including setbacks, driveways, parking and landscaping, the greater site coverage is considered acceptable.

- Landscaping is provided along boundaries fronting roads including trees with an expected mature height at least comparable to the height of buildings on the site. All sites contain an element of landscaping.

Landscaping will be provided along the street frontage as a 3m wide landscaping bed. The proposed landscaping will incorporate plantings that are endemic to the area and commensurate with the height of the proposed building.

- Architectural features are provided to the front building façade to provide relief using such elements as verandahs, display windows, indented walls, etc.

- External materials consist of non-reflective materials.

The proposed finishes are provided in non-reflective finish as encouraged by the DCP. The proposed development will be constructed of painted fibre cement panels and painted concrete tilt panel being neutral in colour of dark and light grey or cream/dulux dune or similar. The architectural design of the building includes awnings as well as a variation to the height of the roofline that will provide relief to the front façade.

- Adequate parking and onsite manoeuvring is provided.

An assessment of parking and manoeuvring has been completed under Chapter 15.

- Advertising involves business identification signs within the front façade and/or by a pole sign comparable to the relative height to the main building on the site.

The assessment under SEPP 64 provided in this report demonstrates that the proposed signage is satisfactory in terms of the above outcome.

- Security fencing is located or designed in a manner that does not dominate the visual setting of the area.

Security fencing is existing and is located around the permitter of the site. The fencing does not dominate the visual setting of the area.

15 – Car Parking

Table

Description automatically generated The DCP requires onsite parking for industries to be provided at the rate of one (1) space per 100sqm of gross floor area. Based on the DCP rate, the parking requirements for the development are calculated as 42.9 car parking spaces. A further 14 spaces are required for the Specialist Retail Use of Unit 13 based on the DCP of 1 space per 50sqm. The proposed development therefore requires 56.9 spaces and proposes a total of 58 car parking spaces including spaces for staff and disabled parking. The proposal is therefore compliant.

Ingress and egress to the site will occur on the centre of the eastern frontage. There is sufficient area for rigid vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward direction without having to reverse onto or from a public road.

The sealed right of access at its intersection with Peisley Street provides a suitable sight distance. Peisley Street appears to be of a sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional traffic generated as a result of this development. No upgrades to Peisley Street are envisaged.

PROVISIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE REGULATIONS s4.15(1)(a)(iv)

Demolition of a Building (clause 92)

The proposal involves the demolition of the existing structures on site. A condition is attached requiring the demolition to be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard AS2601 - 2001: The Demolition of Structures and the requirements of Safe Work NSW.

Fire Safety Considerations (clause 93)

The proposal does not involve a change of building use for an existing building.

Buildings to be Upgraded (clause 94)

The proposal does not involve the rebuilding, alteration, enlargement or extension of an existing building.

BASIX Commitments (clause 97A)

BASIX is not applicable to the proposed development.

THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT s4.15(1)(b)

The subject site is located in an area characterised by industrial activities and service retail and it is therefore considered that the proposal is consistent with the development in the area and is not expected to create significant impacts on the context and setting of the area. The proposed development is permissible in the IN1 General Industrial zone and the development of the site is unlikely to generate any adverse environmental impacts within the vicinity of the development.

Traffic levels are expected to be consistent with levels associated with industrial development. The development incorporates a hardstand area which also allows for a heavy rigid vehicle to enter and exit the site in a forward direction. The design also provides 52 car parking spaces for staff, customers, and disabled persons.

THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE s4.15(1)(c)

The overall bulk and scale of the development is not considered to be averse to the zone objectives and is consistent with the surrounding development in the locality. Development of the site will not create significant adverse impacts on the context and setting of the area.

It is considered the site is suitable for the proposal as the site is appropriately serviced and there are no known physical attributes, technological or natural hazards, which constrain the site.

ANY SUBMISSIONS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT s4.15(1)(d)

The proposed development is not defined as advertised development under the provisions of the CPP, and as such no formal exhibition of the application was required. No submissions have been received in relation to this application.

PUBLIC INTEREST s4.15(1)(e)

The proposed development is considered to be of minor interest to the wider public due to the relatively localised nature of potential impacts. The proposal is not inconsistent with any relevant policy statements, planning studies, guidelines etc that have not been considered in this assessment.

SUMMARY

The proposed development is permissible with the consent of Council. The proposed development complies with the relevant aims, objectives and provisions of Orange LEP 2011 (as amended) and DCP 2004. A Section 4.15 assessment of the development indicates that the development is acceptable in this instance. Attached is a draft Notice of Approval outlining a range of conditions considered appropriate to ensure that the development proceeds in an acceptable manner.

COMMENTS

The requirements of the Environmental Health and Building Surveyor and the Engineering Development Section are included in the attached Notice of Approval.

Attachments

1 Notice of Approval, D22/12479 ⇩

2 Plans, D22/11623 ⇩

Council Meeting 15 March 2022

5.9 Request for Financial Assistance - Event Sponsorship Rounds 3 & 4 - 1 January 2022 to 30 June 2022

RECORD NUMBER: 2022/283

AUTHOR: Tony Boland, Business Projects Officer

EXECUTIVE Summary

Council sponsors a variety of events under the Events Sponsorship Policy (Strategic Policy ST144). Applications for sponsorship are usually forwarded to Council prior to the commencement of the quarter so that event organisers have some certainty in the delivery of the event.

Due to the delay of the Local Government Elections last year, the previous Council went into caretaker mode prior to the closing date for applications for Round 3 (events held 1 January 2022 to 31 March 2022).

As the Event Sponsorship is considered financial support under Section 356 of the Local Government Act 1993, staff cannot be delegated to approve the applications on behalf of Council.

Strategic Policy ST144 states “Applications for sponsorship will not be retrospectively approved”. The policy was adopted prior to Covid and the subsequent delays in local government elections.

Three events seeking sponsorship Yu-Gi-Oh! WCQ Regional Qualifiers (15 January 2022) Wangarang Charity Golf Challenge (11 February 2022) and City of Orange Veterans Week of Golf Tournament (6 to 11 March 2022) events have occurred therefore funding of sponsorship is outside the policy. A panel assessment conducted by staff of these applications also recommended declining sponsorship as the applicants did not demonstrate sufficiently, meeting all criteria.

Two events Live at Yours in Orange 2022 and White Tie Ball are include for consideration under Round 4 of 2021/2022 financial year and are recommended for approval.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “11.2 Prosper - Develop and attract a variety of events, festivals, venues and activities for locals and visitors, ensuring accessibility for all”.

Financial Implications

The allocated budget for the Sponsored Events program is $100,000.00 for the 2020/21 Financial Year. $41,938.20 remains available in this year’s budget.

Policy and Governance Implications

Applications are assessed in accordance with Strategic Policy ST144 – Events Sponsorship Policy.

Recommendation

That Council:

(a) Does not approve $4,000 in sponsorship to the Wangarang Charity Golf Challenge

(b) Does not approve $1,000 in sponsorship to the City of Orange Veterans Week of Golf Tournament

(c) Does not approve $1,276.50 in sponsorship to the Yu-Gi-Oh! WCQ Regional Qualifiers

(d) Approves $2,000 in sponsorship to ‘Live at Yours’

(e) Approves $5,500 in sponsorship to Housing Plus’ White Tie Ball

further considerations

The recommendation of this report has been assessed against Council’s other key risk categories and the following comments are provided:

Financial

The maximum available funding for Rounds 3 and 4 is $41,938.20. Council may choose to spend less than this amount or the amount requested if they think it is appropriate.

Reputation

Previous applications were not subjected to assessment by a senior panel. Previous recipients may have used similarly worded applications to previous successful applications and have had a different outcome on this occasion due to a more rigorous assessment by the panel. This has the potential to cause confusion with applicants.

Staff will work with the applicants to advise them of how to develop an appropriate application that is more likely to meet the criteria in future.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

In the Events Sponsorship Program the following categories exist to support assessment of applications received:

Category

Description

Incubator Event Fund

Provides seed funding to events in their first or second year of activity.

Funding range is $1,000 to $5,000.

Flagship Event Fund

Identifies and assists the development of events that contribute to the unique character and culture of the Orange360 tourism region and can demonstrate that they attract overnight visitation.

Funding range is $1,000 to $10,000.

Event Development Fund

Supports events that have already received funding from Council in previous years and can present a comprehensive strategy for future growth that includes the continued development of its tourism potential to drive overnight visitation to the event.

Funding range is $1,000 to $10,000.

Quick Response Event Fund

Provides seed funding and/or support to events that occur as new and unplanned opportunity for Orange and have not met the funding rounds as outlined below.

Funding range is $1,000 to $20,000.

The program objective is to provide financial assistance to groups or individuals who deliver events that offer significant contribution to the economic wellbeing of the Orange community with consideration also given to the social or environmental wellbeing of the Orange community.

The four broad criteria that the panel considered when assessing the applications include:

· The economic benefit to the community in terms of increased visitation, utilisation of accommodation, local product etc.

· Increased promotion of the city and/or identification of the city with a recognised product such as education, sport, food, wine, agribusiness, clean environment etc.

· A benefit that has a broad application to the community and not just a special benefit to an individual or selected few.

· That Council can clearly recognise the value of its assistance in the event, promotion etc.

Round 3 Applications – 1 January 2022 to 31 March 2022

As outlined in the Executive Summary, because of the delay of the Local Government Elections last year, the previous Council went into caretaker mode prior to the closing date for applications for Round 3 (events to be held between 1 January 2022 & 31 March 2022).

In addition, Strategic Policy ST144 states “Applications for sponsorship will not be retrospectively approved”. The policy was adopted prior to Covid and the subsequent delays in local government elections.

Event Sponsorship is considered financial support under Section 356 of the Local Government Act 1993 and staff cannot be delegated to approve the applications on behalf of Council. For this reason, the applications are being submitted retrospectively for Council to consider.

Private individuals or organisations are eligible to receive assistance under this program.

The brief summaries of the applications follow, and redacted copies of the applications are attached.

The Business Projects Officer declared a conflict of interest in the assessment process for Round 3 due to membership of the board of one of the applicants.

	Wangarang
Not for profit (yes/no)	Yes
Event name	Wangarang Charity Golf Challenge
Event date/s	11 February 2022
Level of participation	200 attendees
Overnight visitors	85
Ticketed event	Yes
Amount requested	$4,000.00
Category and Category range	Flagship Event Fund - $1,000 to $5,000
Aligned with Community Strategic Plan	Yes
Event precis Wangarang Industries are holding their twelfth annual charity golf challenge on 11 February 2022 at Duntry league Golf Course in Orange. The event is a four-person Ambrose with a shotgun start at 12pm. The event will be supported with prizes and raffles. The funds raised will go toward upgrades at their Forest Road site to continue to support the 125 people with disabilities who work there.
Comment and recommendation The application is light in detail and scores low in terms of revenue generation for the city and businesses, with no supporting evidence of benefits. Numerous questions arose around the income and expenses provided. The risks and benefits were also not detailed sufficiently. That said there is a community benefit element to the proposed event. Not recommended
	City of Orange Veterans Golf Classic
Not for profit (yes/no)	Yes
Event name	City of Orange Veterans Week of Golf Tournament
Event date/s	6 to 11 March 2022
Level of participation	220 - 250 attendees
Overnight visitors	250 (includes partners)
Ticketed event	Yes
Amount requested	$1,000
Category and Category range	Flagship Event Fund - $1,000 to $5,000
Aligned with Community Strategic Plan	Yes
Event precis The Tournament commences on Sunday with a registration day between the hours of 2pm to 5pm at Duntry League Golf Club. The Tournament is held Monday to Friday at Wentworth Golf Club and Duntry League Golf Club. Wednesday is a rest day allowing contestants to explore the local retail outlets, wineries and other attractions within and around the City. The winners of the various competitions are presented with trophies in the form of gift vouchers purchased from local businesses.
Comment and recommendation The application is light in detail and scores low in terms of revenue generation for the city and businesses with no information or supporting evidence of the benefits received. Numerous questions arose around the income and expenses provided. There is a strong volunteer element to the application. Not recommended
	DR Gaming Pty Ltd
Not for profit (yes/no)	No
Event name	Yu-Gi-Oh! WCQ Regional Qualifiers
Event date/s	15 January 2022
Level of participation	150 attendees
Overnight visitors	70 (includes partners)
Ticketed event	Yes
Amount requested	$1,276.50
Category and Category range	Flagship Event Fund - $1,000 to $5,000
Aligned with Community Strategic Plan	Yes
Event precis The event is a qualifier for the Yu-Gi-Oh! trading card game world championship. The top place getters at this event will receive an invitation to the Oceanic level event, usually held in June. Players will be participating in 8 rounds of Yu-Gi-Oh! trading card game competition.
Comment and recommendation The application is very light in detail and scores very low in terms of revenue generation for the city and businesses with no information or supporting evidence for the benefits. The exposure / benefits to council is not detailed. The request is low value. Not recommended

The assessment committee recommended no applications for Round 3 be approved for funding.

Round 4 Applications – 1 April 2022 to 30 June 2022

The first application (Live at Yours 2022) should have been assessed in Round 3 but was allocated to a different program as the event runs until 31 March 2022.

Both events are recommended for sponsorship approval as they sufficiently meet the assessment criteria.

	Live at Yours
Not for profit (yes/no)	No
Event name	Live at Yours in Orange 2022
Event date/s	5 March 2022, 31 March 2022, 26 August 2022
Level of participation	500 attendees
Overnight visitors	50
Ticketed event	Yes
Amount requested	$2,000
Category and Category range	Flagship Event Fund - $1,000 to $5,000
Aligned with Community Strategic Plan	Yes
Event precis Alexander Gavrylyuk is internationally recognised as one of the world's most virtuosic concert pianists, known for his electrifying and poetic performances. Appearing in March for the first time in Orange at the Civic Theatre, Alexander will present a highly virtuosic yet accessible programme ranging from Beethoven's Moonlight sonata to the powerful Rachmaninov second sonata. He has performed at the BBC proms, Carnegie Hall, Sydney Opera House, Concertgebouw Amsterdam to name a few and has appeared as a soloist with the world's leading orchestras. This concert will be Alexander's first appearance in Orange and we believe the event will create quite a buzz for music lovers. As well as the concert, on April 1st, Live at Yours will present an open masterclass with Alexander mentoring young musicians from the region at the Orange Conservatorium of music. This will give the local musicians a rare experience to gain insights and polish their craft from an internationally recognised virtuoso. We believe that presenting such a high-profile artist in Orange as well as the masterclass will draw positive attention on Orange as the cultural hub of the region. In turn we believe it will attract tourism, have a positive impact on local business, engage the local community with fine art and inspire the local musical youth.
Comment and recommendation Recommended

	Housing Plus
Not for profit (yes/no)	Yes
Event name	White Tie Ball
Event date/s	22 May 2022
Level of participation	340 attendees
Overnight visitors	50
Ticketed event	Yes
Amount requested	$5,500
Category and Category range	Flagship Event Fund - $1,000 to $5,000
Aligned with Community Strategic Plan	Yes
Event precis The White Tie Ball is the annual fundraising event for The Orchard - a crisis centre for women and children escaping domestic violence. The Ball will be held on Saturday 21st May, and with the current restrictions in place we are hoping to sell 340 tickets to the Ball. We estimate 50-60 people, will be staying in Orange, and we will encourage them to tour the region and to take advantage of the tourism opportunities available to them. We are working with local businesses to set up the event. Our decorator is Rachel Brooking from Simply Centrepieces. Our local wineries will receive valuable exposure for their wines that they are donating for the event. Local businesses are donating goods and services to support fundraising activities on the night and will receive promotion prior to the event and to our guests at the event. The beneficiaries of the money raised from the event will be members of the Orange community, women and children escaping domestic violence. The White Tie Ball is an event organised by a local business, to benefit the local community. Guests will enjoy a 3-course meal provided by the OESC, who use local producers where possible. The entertainment provided has been organised by a local business. The prizes and giveaways on the night will benefit local businesses with increased sales. We would like Orange City Council to use their sponsorship to purchase Shop Orange vouchers for us to use as prizes for the fundraising activities at the event. This would have the double benefit of supporting local Orange businesses and the opportunity for Orange City Council to support a local community fundraising event that raises money to support women and children escaping domestic violence.
Comment and recommendation Recommended

Attachments

1 Redacted - Event Sponsorship - Wangarang Charities Golf Day 11 February 2022, IC22/5808 ⇩

2 Redacted - Event Sponsorship - City of Orange Veterans Week of Golf Championship, IC22/5810 ⇩

3 Redacted - Event Sponsorship - Yu-Gi-Oh! Regional Championship Qualifying Event, IC22/5811 ⇩

4 Redacted - Event Sponsorship - Live at yours 2022, IC22/5812 ⇩

5 Redacted - Event Sponsorship - White Tie Ball - 22 May 2022, IC22/5813 ⇩

Council Meeting 15 March 2022

5.10 Request for Financial Assistance - Small Donations Program Round 3 - 2021/2022

RECORD NUMBER: 2022/296

AUTHOR: Tony Boland, Business Projects Officer

EXECUTIVE Summary

Council’s Small Donations Program is guided by Strategic Policy - ST029 Donations and Grants. This report is the assessment and recommendation of the applications received for Round 4 of that Program in financial year 2021/2022 Council can approve community financial assistance in accordance with Section 356 of the Local Government Act 1993.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “17.1 Collaborate - Provide representative, responsible and accountable community governance”.

Financial Implications

Nil when in compliance with ST029 Donations and Grants policy. The remaining available budget for the Small Donations Program for 2021/2022 is $20,713.64. This report recommends the approval of $10,250 in cash donations and $500 of in-kind contribution. There is also an application that has no specific amount that Council may consider.

Policy and Governance Implications

Applications are assessed in accordance with ST029 Donations and Grants Policy.

Recommendation

That Council:

1) resolves to make the following donations from the Small Donations Program:

(a) That $2,000.00 be donated to the Lions Club of Orange for “Give Me Change For Kids” program

(b) That $2,000.00 be donated to the 3^rd Orange Scouts for operational expenses (not being insurance)

(c) That $1,500.00 be donated to the Shepherd Centre to assist with their program “Talk Together Connection” for the parents of deaf children

(d) That $500.00 be donated to the Orange Show Society for prizes at the Orange Show

(e) That $500.00 be donated to the CWA Central Western Group for prizes for their annual public speaking competition

(f) That $2,500.00 be donated to Lonely Mountain Ultra Incorporated to host an inaugural high altitude running event that is likely to become an annual event

(g) That $500 be donated to Lachlan Thompson to assist with travel costs to the Australian Age Championships for swimming

(h) That $750 be donated to the Orange Netball Association as contribution to travel to state titles.

2) determines what level of support, if any, is provided to Team Shake, Rattle and Roll to participate in a rally to raise funds for the Cancer Council

3) approves the reallocation of previously donated funds for the Orange Regional Malayalee Association

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Council had previously funded the Orange Regional Malayalee Association for an event during Onam (the first month of the Malayalam calendar known as Chingam). This event was cancelled due to Covid and the organisation requested to hold a Christmas event instead. The Christmas event was cancelled (also due to Covid) and the Association is now seeking permission to use the funds to host an Easter event. This is considered consistent with the purpose for which the original funds were donated.

The following is a summary of the applications for assistance under the small donations program.

Applicant	Orange Lions Club
Assistance Would Support	Give Me Change for Kids (formerly Give Me 5 for Kids) which is a special club project that raises funds to purchase equipment for the Children’s Ward at the Orange Local Area Health Service. The type of equipment purchased allows more children to be treated locally which places less stress on the family. This request is a contribution towards an overall fundraising target of $40,000.
Amount Requested	$2,000.00.
Policy Category	Project or equipment purchase
Category Maximum	$2,500.00.
Complies With Policy	Policy requests three written quotes. However, given the nature of this fundraising effort (i.e. the club is requesting a contribution to a larger target), and at this stage the equipment the hospital requires is yet to be determined, it would be appropriate to waive this requirement on this occasion and provide a contribution to meet the overall target.
Recommendation	$2,000.00

Applicant	Scout Association of Australia NSW Branch - 3rd Orange Scout Group
Assistance Would Support	The funds from this grant would be used to help pay Orange City Council rates for FY2021/2022 and keep the doors open. As a result of COVID-19 the group and reduced opportunities for fundraising activities such as BBQs and raffles, the group's finances have been impacted to the tune of around $8,000.00/yr.
Amount Requested	$2,000.00
Policy Category	Providing a community service
Category Maximum	$2,500.00
Complies With Policy	Yes
Recommendation	$2,000.00

Applicant	The Shepherd Centre – for deaf children
Assistance Would Support	To provide parents of children with hearing loss from the Orange area with the fundamental skills and knowledge they need to support their child in developing listening, speech and language skills.
Amount Requested	$1,500.00
Policy Category	Providing a community service
Category Maximum	$2,500.00
Complies With Policy	Yes
Recommendation	$1,500.00

Applicant	Orange Show Society
Assistance Would Support	Provision of prizes for exhibitions
Amount Requested	Not specified
Policy Category	Prize giving
Category Maximum	$500.00
Complies With Policy	Yes – but did not complete the application form
Recommendation	$500.00 – subject to submission of appropriate documentation

Applicant	CWA – Central Western Group
Assistance Would Support	Provision of prizes for exhibitions. Our Schools Public Speaking Competition is a regional competition across Orange/ Bathurst/ Cabonne/ Blayney and Cowra Council areas. The competition has been running for 29 years for the benefit of students from Years 3 to Year 12.
Amount Requested	$500.00
Policy Category	Prize giving
Category Maximum	$500.00
Complies With Policy	Yes
Recommendation	$500.00

Applicant	Lonely Mountain Ultra Inc
Assistance Would Support	We are seeking start-up funds for our event. This will be an ongoing event, held each year from 2022. From setting up our not-for-profit incorporated association to marking the course for the event, we require financial assistance to get the event going. It is anticipated that the Lonely Mountain Ultra in its inaugural year will attract more than 500 competitors.
Amount Requested	$2,500.00
Policy Category	Prize giving
Category Maximum	$2,500.00
Complies With Policy	Yes
Recommendation	$2,500.00

Applicant	Lachlan Thompson
Assistance Would Support	Travel to Australian Age Championships
Amount Requested	N/A
Policy Category	Community event
Category Maximum	$500.00
Complies With Policy	Yes
Recommendation	$500.00

Applicant	Hayley Good & Brendan Jones (Team Shake, Rattle & Roll)
Assistance Would Support	Participation in Mystery Box Rally to raise funds for the Cancer Council.
Amount Requested	Not specified
Policy Category	Projects or equipment purchase or providing a community service
Category Maximum	$2,500.00
Complies With Policy	Whilst the application does not stipulate that the funds will remain in Orange, Council has approved funding for the Cancer Council in the past and can consider supporting this as well.
Recommendation	Council to determine level of support, if any.

Applicant	Orange City Rugby Club
Assistance Would Support	To cover the cost of line marking for the U/10’s Rugby Tournament
Amount Requested	$500.00 in-kind
Policy Category	Projects or Equipment Purchase or Providing a Community Service
Category Maximum	$1,000.00
Complies With Policy	Yes
Recommendation	$500.00 in-kind

Applicant	Orange Netball Association
Assistance Would Support	Representation at State Titles for Under 12’s, 13’s, 14’s, 15’s, 17’s & Opens
Amount Requested	$750.00
Policy Category	Sports participation program
Category Maximum	$750.00
Complies With Policy	Yes
Recommendation	$750.00