Ordinary Council Meeting
Agenda
5 April 2022
Notice is hereby given, in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 that an Ordinary meeting of ORANGE CITY COUNCIL will be held in the Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Byng Street, Orange on Tuesday, 5 April 2022 commencing at 6.30pm.
David Waddell
Chief Executive Officer
For apologies please contact Administration on 6393 8106.
Council Meeting 5 April 2022
EVACUATION PROCEDURE
In the event of an emergency, the building may be evacuated. You will be required to vacate the building by the rear entrance and gather at the breezeway between the Library and Art Gallery buildings. This is Council's designated emergency muster point.
Under no circumstances is anyone permitted to re-enter the building until the all clear has been given and the area deemed safe by authorised personnel.
In the event of an evacuation, a member of Council staff will assist any member of the public with a disability to vacate the building.
1.1 Apologies and Leave of Absence
1.2 Livestreaming and Recording
1.4 Acknowledgement of Country
COUNCIL MEETING ADJOURNS FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE OPEN FORUM
3 Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meeting
3.1 Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Orange City Council held on 15 March 2022
3.2 Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting of Orange City Council held on 25 March 2022
COUNCIL MEETING ADJOURNS FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE POLICY COMMITTEES
Planning and Development - Chaired by Cr Jeff Whitton
Employment and Economic Development – NO ITEMS.
Infrastructure - Chaired by Cr Jack Evans
Sport and Recreation - NO ITEMS
Environmental Sustainability - NO ITEMS
Finance - Chaired by Cr Kevin Duffy
4 Notices of Motion/Notices of Rescission
4.1 Australian Defence Force Strategic Sovereign Partner
5.1 Recommendations and Resolutions from Policy Committees.
5.2 National General Assembly - 2022
5.3 NSW Australian Local Government Women's Association Conference
5.4 Destination & Visitor Economy Conference 2022.
5.5 Tourism Services Contract - Orange360 - Extension to 31 December 2022
5.7 Reduction in fees request - Scout Camp
6 Closed Meeting - See Closed Agenda
6.1 Submission Redactions March 2022
6.2 Health Infrastructure Agreement
7 Resolutions from closed meeting
1 Introduction
1.1 Apologies and Leave of Absence
1.2 Livestreaming and Recording
This Council Meeting is being livestreamed and recorded. By speaking at the Council Meeting you agree to being livestreamed and recorded. Please ensure that if and when you speak at this Council Meeting that you ensure you are respectful to others and use appropriate language at all times. Orange City Council accepts no liability for any defamatory or offensive remarks or gestures made during the course of this Council Meeting. A recording will be made for administrative purposes and will be available to Councillors.
1.4 Acknowledgement of Country
1.5 Declaration of pecuniary interests, significant non-pecuniary interests and less than significant non-pecuniary interests
The provisions of Chapter 14 of the Local Government Act, 1993 (the Act) regulate the way in which Councillors and designated staff of Council conduct themselves to ensure that there is no conflict between their private interests and their public role.
The Act prescribes that where a member of Council (or a Committee of Council) has a direct or indirect financial (pecuniary) interest in a matter to be considered at a meeting of the Council (or Committee), that interest must be disclosed as soon as practicable after the start of the meeting and the reasons given for declaring such interest.
As members are aware, the provisions of the Local Government Act restrict any member who has declared a pecuniary interest in any matter from participating in the discussion or voting on that matter, and requires that member to vacate the Chamber.
Council’s Code of Conduct provides that if members have a non-pecuniary conflict of interest, the nature of the conflict must be disclosed. The Code of Conduct also provides for a number of ways in which a member may manage non pecuniary conflicts of interest.
|
Recommendation It is recommended that Councillors now disclose any conflicts of interest in matters under consideration by the Council at this meeting.
|
COUNCIL MEETING ADJOURNS FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE OPEN FORUM
3 Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meeting
|
RECOMMENDATION That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Orange City Council held on 15 March 2022 (copies of which were circulated to all members) be and are hereby confirmed as a true and accurate records of the proceedings of the Council meeting held on 15 March 2022. |
|
RECOMMENDATION That the Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting of Orange City Council held on 25 March 2022 (copies of which were circulated to all members) be and are hereby confirmed as a true and accurate records of the proceedings of the Council meeting held on 25 March 2022. |
Attachments
1 Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Orange City Council held on 15 March 2022
2 Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting of Orange City Council held on 25 March 2022
ORANGE CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF THE
Ordinary Council Meeting
HELD IN Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Byng Street, Orange
ON 15 March 2022
COMMENCING AT 7.00pm
Attendance
Cr K Duffy, Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd (via Zoom), Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne, Cr D Mallard, Cr M McDonell, Cr T Mileto, Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power (Deputy Mayor)(Chairperson), Cr J Whitton
Chief Executive Officer, Director Corporate and Commercial Services, Director Development Services, Director Community, Recreation and Cultural Services, Director Technical Services, A/Manager Corporate Governance, Chief Financial Officer, A/Executive Support Manager, Executive Support Admin Officer
1.1 APOLOGIES
|
RESOLVED - 22/050 Cr J Whitton/Cr T Mileto That the apologies be accepted from Cr J Hamling (Mayor) for the Council Meeting of Orange City Council on 15 March 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
|
RESOLVED - 22/051 Cr M McDonell/Cr D Mallard That Cr Glenn Floyd be permitted to attend this meeting of 15 March 2022 via Zoom because of health reasons. |
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
1.2 LIVESTREAMING AND RECORDING
The Deputy Mayor advised that the meeting was being livestreamed and recorded.
1.3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY
The Deputy Mayor conducted an Acknowledgement of Country.
1.4 Declaration of pecuniary interests, significant non-pecuniary interests and less than significant non-pecuniary interests
Cr Mallard declared a significant, non-pecuniary interest in Item 2.2 Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) - National Federal Election Priorities as he is a member of the Management Committee of the Greens NSW and a member of the campaign committee coordinating the election through Greens NSW and will leave the chamber and not vote on this item.
Cr Whitton declared a significant, non-pecuniary interest in Item 5.9 Request for Financial Assistance – Event Sponsorship Rounds 3 & 4 – 1 January 2022 to 30 June 2022 – Application titled Housing Plus ((e) in the recommendation) as he is a Director on the Board of OCTEC and OCTEC own a building that Housing Plus rents and will leave the Chamber and not vote on (e) in the item.
THERE WAS NO OPEN FORUM
Mr Phil Donato MP, State Member for Orange addressed the Council Meeting
|
RESOLVED - 22/052 Cr J Whitton/Cr J Evans That Late Item 2.4 Flying of the Ukrainian Flag be accepted. |
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
2 Mayoral Minutes
|
TRIM Reference: 2022/323 |
|
RESOLVED - 22/053 Cr M McDonell/Cr T Greenhalgh That the information contained in this Mayoral Minute be acknowledged. |
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
Cr Mileto asked why was this matter a Mayoral Minute and not a Notice of Motion (NOM)
The Chief Executive Officer said that because of timing – a NOM is required to be released 8 days prior to the meeting, this was a last minute matter and a Mayoral Minute requires no advice prior to the meeting
Cr Mileto asked if clarification could be provided on the wording ‘temporary indoor playground’
The Chief Executive Officer said the Mayor’s vision is that this facility would be for winter and cover the months of May/June/July/August/September 2022, staff will investigate all options and costings and provide back to Councillors in a report to Council
Cr Duffy asked when would the report come back to Council
Director Community Recreation and Community Services responded by saying the report would come back to Council on 05 April 2022
Cr Mallard left the Chamber at 7.31pm
For: Cr K Duffy, Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne, Cr M McDonell,
Cr T Mileto, Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power , Cr J Whitton
Against: Nil
Absent: Cr J Hamling, Cr D Mallard
Cr Mallard returned to the Chamber at 7.33pm.
Cr Peterson asked in regard to (c.) in the recommendation what will Council’s actions be, will it be put on the Orange City Council website, what happens to these commitments
The Chief Executive Officer commented that ALGA would prompt Councils on their actions in this regard and provide proformas and templates to assist Councils
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
Cr Whitton asked what is regarded as Central NSW, how far, to Bathurst or beyond
The Chief Executive Officer responded by saying Lithgow to Condobolin is considered Central NSW
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
Cr Mileto asked if Council is able to fly two flags on one pole
Director Development Services responded by saying that there are flag-flying protocols and that it is not permissible to fly a national flag below other flags and that a national flag is sometimes flown instead of the Council flag
The Chief Executive Officer commented that the cost of putting the NAIDOC stencil on the Gallery rooftop was considerable
Director Community Recreation and Cultural Services commented that it is in the thousands
Cr Peterson commented that this was a particular issue of importance but in the future there may be other political issues we don’t want to get involved in or show a position on, and asked the question whether this was a national political statement and was Council setting a precedent and had Council done this previously
The Chief Executive Officer commented that this was a unique situation and Council had not done this previously
Cr Mileto asked if Council still has the large flagpole on the entrance to Orange on Bathurst Road
The Chief Executive Officer said yes Council does
Cr Kinghorne made the statement that Council needs to acknowledge that the Russian residents in Orange and make sure they are not marginalised through this action
The Chief Executive Officer said that the Director overseeing Communications could draft communications tomorrow with a statement that reflects the situation
A PRESENTATION OF THE ANNUAL AUDIT ACCOUNTS WAS GIVEN BY CHRIS HARPER FROM THE NSW AUDIT OFFICE
3 Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meeting
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
Cr Peterson asked when the Dylan Alcott Notice of Motion be actioned
The Chief Executive Officer said that staff were in the process of liaising with Dylan’s Management and when we have a suggested event for him to attend a report would come back to Council
4 Notices of Motion/Notices of Rescission
|
TRIM Reference: 2022/293 |
|
MOTION Cr M McDonell/Cr S Peterson 1. That Council permit Funerals, including the presence of a coffin, to be conducted at the Orange Botanic Gardens within the Lawn Area of the Native Garden Display with appropriate signage in place: and 2. That Council place on public exhibition for the information of the community for a period of 28 days a hire fee for the conduct of funeral services at the Orange Botanic Gardens being $300 excluding GST. |
|
AMENDMENT Cr T Mileto/Cr T Greenhalgh 1. That Council permit Funerals, including the presence of a coffin, to be conducted at the Orange Botanic Gardens within the Lawn Area of the Native Garden Display or within the Clover Hill Function Centre with appropriate signage in place; and
2. That Council limits the days on which funerals can be held at the Orange Botanic Gardens to weekdays only and only one funeral per day; and
3. That Council place this proposal on public exhibition for the information of the community for a period of 28 days including the detail of a hire fee for the conduct of funeral services at the Orange Botanic Gardens being $300 excluding GST. |
|
The amendment on being put to the meeting was carried and became the motion. |
|
The motion on being put to the meeting was carried. |
|
RESOLVED - 22/058 Cr T Mileto/Cr T Greenhalgh
3. That Council place this proposal on public exhibition for the information of the community for a period of 28 days including the detail of a hire fee for the conduct of funeral services at the Orange Botanic Gardens being $300 excluding GST
|
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
5 General Reports
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
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
Cr Whitton asked on page 41 the General Fund dropped almost $6M and on page 42 the Unrestricted Funds dropped approx. $6M, what is the explanation for these decreases
The Chief Financial Officer responded by saying that month to month these figures move around depending on what bills are due, what grants come in what rates are paid. In the period December 2021 to January 2022 there was a drop in the General Fund because Council paid a large number of bills for that period, likewise Unrestricted Funds are used to pay these suppliers and the balance increases again in February as rates are paid. These are common fluctuations.
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
|
TRIM Reference: 2022/112 |
|
RESOLVED - 22/062 Cr D Mallard/Cr S Peterson That Council resolves to adopt Strategic Policy - ST050 – Code of Meeting Practice.
|
For: Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne, Cr D Mallard, Cr M McDonell,
Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power , Cr J Whitton
Against: Cr K Duffy, Cr T Mileto
Absent: Cr J Hamling
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
Cr McDonell asked the question does this mean Council must reschedule the Council Meeting from Tuesday 17 May 2022 to later in that week after the event
Director Corporate and Commercial Services responded saying Council can do that if it is required depending on how many Councillors attend the Conference
Cr Kinghorne asked about the loss of revenue outlined in the report and how is this money recouped for Council
Director Corporate and Commercial Services responded saying these monies are not recouped, when Council won the bid for this Conference it was acknowledged that we would support the Conference to the best of our ability supplying venues, possible reduction in fees etc. Council believes this loss of revenue would be offset by the economic lift that the conference delegates would supply into the Orange community
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
|
TRIM Reference: 2022/279 |
|
RESOLVED - 22/065 Cr J Whitton/Cr M McDonell That this item be withdrawn at the request of the applicant.
|
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
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
Cr Whitton asked if it is a requirement that Council go out to an Expression of Interest or can Council reappoint the previous representative Mr Allan Renike
The Chief Executive Officer responded by saying that it is a requirement that Council goes out to an Expression of Interest
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
|
RESOLVED - 22/068 Cr M McDonell/Cr T Greenhalgh That Council: (a) Does not approve $4,000 in sponsorship to the Wangarang Charity Golf Challenge
|
For: Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne, Cr D Mallard, Cr M McDonell,
Cr G Power , Cr J Whitton
Against: Cr K Duffy, Cr T Mileto, Cr S Peterson
Absent: Cr J Hamling
For: Cr K Duffy, Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne, Cr T Mileto,
Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power , Cr J Whitton
Against: Cr D Mallard, Cr M McDonell
Absent: Cr J Hamling
Cr Evans left the Chamber at 9.12pm.
|
RESOLVED - 22/070 Cr K Duffy/Cr J Whitton That Council: c) Does not approve $1,276.50 in sponsorship to the Yu-Gi-Oh! WCQ Regional Qualifiers |
For: Cr K Duffy, 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, Cr J Evans
Cr Evans returned to the Chamber at 9.14pm.
|
RESOLVED - 22/071 Cr D Mallard/Cr M McDonell That Council: (d) Approves $2,000 in sponsorship to ‘Live at Yours’ |
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
Cr Whitton left the Chamber at 9.14pm.
|
RESOLVED - 22/072 Cr D Mallard/Cr T Mileto That Council: (e) Approves $5,500 in sponsorship to Housing Plus’ White Tie Ball |
For: 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
Against: Cr K Duffy
Absent: Cr J Hamling, Cr J Whitton
Cr Whitton returned to the Chamber at 9.16pm.
Cr Kinghorne asked that if these events have already happened and this breaches guidelines because we can’t approve these retrospectively, if we start to approve these individually is that then an issue
Director Corporate and Commercial Services responded by saying that Council policy states that staff cannot approve funding under any grant program. Because we had caretaker mode when this round was assessed we didn’t have a Council to be able to approve the request for funding. When the request is tabled, Council can choose to fund an event retrospectively and that money would then go to the organisation to assist them but the monies have not been used to hold the event.
Cr Whitton asked did the City of Orange Veterans hold the golfing event
Director Corporate and Commercial Services responded by saying yes they did hold the event, the application for the funding did not have the required detail in regard to how they were growing the event, and thus I cannot confirm any data around number of visitors, how many night stays etc.
Cr Mileto asked the question when we spoke about the Veterans, when there are only limited amount of positions available at such an event, how are they expected to grow such an event.
Director Corporate and Commercial Services responded by saying that other events could surround the event, extending the event and get more people to come with partners or families. This is the challenge we have with this funding program as it is a ‘tourism event’ funding program and one of the key objectives is to bring visitation to Orange.
Cr Mileto asked opinion from CEO, I see one of the first applications rejected was the Golf Day due to lack of detail and wasn’t considered, there is a couple of applications like this. Does Council go back to these applicants and assist or guide them for more information.
Director Corporate and Commercial Services responded by saying that – the first reason those three applications were recommended not to approve was because under policy staff cannot approve funding of monies and we were in caretaker mode so the assessment of that last round took place in caretaker mode. Two of the events were held before the new Council was elected and prior to the first council meeting. Council can make a decision if you choose to approve that funding and fund retrospectively. The Veterans Golf event has happened before and the criteria for this funding program is quite strict in regards to what is that economic benefit that is coming into the city and generation of income from visitors as well as number of nights stayed in Orange. Yes we do go back to applicants and we try to give guidance and also try to guide them to other grants. They have to show growth in their event and bring more people in and how more stays could be achieved.
Cr Mileto asked for clarification on the situation in Item 5.10 where Council is asked to make a decision on previously donated funds for the Orange Regional Malayalee Association where there was leftover monies from a proposed event requesting that these monies may now be used on an Easter event without the applicant offering any further information
Director Corporate and Commercial Services responded by saying she would need to take that question on notice and it may have been an application under another Fund, perhaps the Small Donations Program.
Cr Kinghorne commented that the report indicates that the allocated budget for
the Sponsored Events Program is $100,000 for the 2020/21 financial year -
is this a typing error
The Chief Executive Officer responded by saying that yes this was a typing error and should have read 2021/22 financial year.
Cr Kinghorne asked if there is money left over, does that money go into the same fund for the next financial year.
Director Corporate and Commercial Services said that there is still another Round (Round 4) to be completed.
CR DUFFY MADE A PRESENTATION TO THE DEPUTY MAYOR OF RECENT TIDY TOWNS AWARDS THAT ORANGE CITY COUNCIL WON AT THE TIDY TOWNS EVENT IN ALBURY RECENTLY. THE AWARDS WERE FOR 2021 SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES TIDY TOWN AWARDS FINALIST AND WINNER OF THE HERITAGE AND CULTURE AWARD FOR INDIGENOUS ARTWORK AT LAKE CANOBOLAS.
|
TRIM Reference: 2022/296 |
|
QUESTION TAKEN ON NOTICE Cr K Duffy Has a DA been received by Council for the Lonely Mountain Ultra Incorporated to host the inaugural high altitude running event. |
|
RESOLVED - 22/073 Cr T Greenhalgh/Cr M McDonell That Council resolve in seriatim points 1, 2 and 3 of this Recommendation |
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
For: 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: Cr K Duffy
Absent: Cr J Hamling
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
Cr Whitton asked have we funded Team Shake, Rattle and Roll to participate in a rally to raise funds for the Cancer Council previously and how much were they asking for
The Chief Executive Officer responded by saying the applicant was requesting $2,500 and he didn’t think Council had sponsored this previously
Director Corporate and Commercial Services confirmed that Council had in fact provided Small Donation Grant funding for other people to raise funds for charities such as the Cancer Council previously.
Cr Greenhalgh asked if the monies stayed in our local community
Director Corporate and Commercial Services responded by saying that this detail was not included in the application and would have to take this question on notice.
|
RESOLVED - 22/076 Cr M McDonell/Cr D Mallard That Council: 3) approves the reallocation of previously donated funds for the Orange Regional Malayalee Association |
For: 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: Cr K Duffy
Absent: Cr J Hamling
|
RESOLVED - 22/077 Cr T Mileto/Cr J Whitton That Council extend the running of this meeting beyond 9.30pm to conclude prior to 10.00pm. |
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
Cr Peterson left the meeting at 9.28pm and continued via Zoom link.
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.
The Mayor declared the Ordinary Meeting of Council adjourned for the conduct of the Closed Meeting at 9.30pm.
The Mayor declared the Ordinary Meeting of Council resumed at 9.43pm.
7 Resolutions from Closed Meeting
The Chief Executive Officer read out the following resolutions made in the Closed Meeting of Council.
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
Cr Power asked if this property was owned by Orange City Council
Director Corporate and Commercial Services responded by saying yes it is
Cr Power asked how is the money distributed within Orange City Council
Director Corporate and Commercial Services responded by saying the sale comes into Council’s budget under the Land and Property Fund and has to be used within that property land portfolio
The Chief Executive Officer commented as a point of clarification that these funds are not restricted, is that correct
The Chief Financial Officer responded by saying that Council could move money out of this fund if they wished
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
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
Cr McDonell asked the question does Council already own the strip heading east back into town over Ploughman’s Creek
Director Technical Services responded by saying no we don’t own the neighbouring lot but we do own the road reserve and manage the road reserve from the edge lane line through to the boundary, we have room to put in the pathway, closer to the school the slope is sharper and without doing serious works within the road reserve with have agreeance with the school to acquire that strip to facilitate the footpath.
Cr Peterson asked will a track go under the bridge and how will it connect to other paths
Director Technical Services responded by saying that the footpath will connect to another footpath across the NDR along Molong Road, there is currently a box culvert there to extend and widen to facilitate a path across the box culvert (not under) but beside.
The Meeting Closed at 9.45pm.
This is Page Number 25 and the Final Page of the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Orange City Council held on 15 March 2022.
ORANGE CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF THE
Extraordinary Council Meeting
HELD IN Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Byng Street, Orange
ON 25 March 2022
COMMENCING AT 12.30pm
1 Introduction
Attendance
Cr J Hamling (Mayor), Cr K Duffy, Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd (via Zoom), Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne, Cr D Mallard, Cr M McDonell, Cr T Mileto, Cr S Peterson (via Zoom), Cr G Power (Deputy Mayor)
A/Chief Executive Officer (Greenham), Director Corporate and Commercial Services, Director Development Services, Director Community, Recreation and Cultural Services, A/Director Technical Services, A/Manager Corporate Governance, Chief Financial Officer, A/Executive Support Manager, Administration Officer Governance
1.1 APOLOGIES
|
RESOLVED - 22/082 Cr T Mileto/Cr J Evans That the apologies be accepted from Cr Jeff Whitton for the Council Meeting of Orange City Council on 25 March 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
Against: Nil
Absent: Cr J Whitton
|
RESOLVED - 22/083 Cr T Greenhalgh/Cr G Power That that Cr S Peterson and Cr G Floyd be permitted to attend the meeting via Zoom. |
1.2 LIVESTREAMING AND RECORDING
The Mayor advised that the meeting was being livestreamed and recorded.
1.3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY
The Mayor conducted an Acknowledgement of Country.
1.4 Declaration of pecuniary interests, significant non-pecuniary interests and less than significant non-pecuniary interests
Cr F Kinghorne declared a significant, pecuniary interest in Item 2.3 Development Application - DA 306/2021(1) - 142-158 Lysterfield Road as her husband through his employment has conducted contimination assessments on this land and a condition of approval is that more assessments are to be conducted and will leave the Chamber and not vote on this Item.
Cr F Kinghorne declared a significant, pecuniary interest in Item 2.4 Development Application DA 23/2022(1) - 21-25 Peisley Street as her husband through his employment has conducted geotechnical assessments on this land for Akura and will leave the Chamber and not vote on this Item.
2 General Reports
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
Against: Nil
Absent: Cr J Whitton
Cr Kinghorne asked if Councillors should be concerned if there are major differences between the opinions of experts in this matter
Director Development Services said that Council had asked the applicant to clarify further the opinion of their arborist that the tree was unsafe, Council staff had done an inspection of the tree and concluded the tree was not unsafe, and given no further information was given to staff by the applicant the conclusion is as per the report
Cr Kinghorne commented that the letter from the arborist indicated that there is damage to the footpath and the buildings and that was different to the opinion of Council staff, how can there be two totally different opinions
Director Development Services commented that Council staff have inspected the tree and make their notes on what they see, there is certainly noted cracking in the footpath and the damage was not anything significant or to warrant concern and that is what has led to our recommenation
Cr Mileto asked the question should Councillors vote to maintain the tree if it is forseable that the root structure of the tree will cause damage to the surrounding area, is Council liable for any further damage caused based on these reports provided to Council
Director Development Services responded by saying that the court case mentioned in the report does talk about liabilities that arise from trees that are dangerous, so Council has done an assessement based on the liability of that case and concluded that it would be reasonable to keep the tree there. It is a private tree, there are other options such as the root barrier system to prevent further damage to a building, then I am not seeing the link to Council. Staff have looked at it from a structural point of view, not the type of tree to drop limbs like a gum tree
Cr Mileto asked what was the comparison between a root barrier system being installed and the cost to land owner to remove the tree
Director Development Services said that the root barrier would only be required to be fitted to just one side of the tree between the tree and the house, and that given that the root barriers are only made of PVC the cost would be significantly less than to remove the tree
Cr Peterson asked the question could a condition of removal be that the tree be replaced, and what makes a significant tree on private property
Director Development Services commented that he considered replacement of the tree this morning when onsite with Cr Duffy – if it were removed on the basis that it was a concern to the house, the replacing tree in the same area brings about the same problem in a few years anyway. Lucknow is a Heritage Conservation area and when Council looks at the significance of trees, measured at chest height if they are more than 300mm in diameter or higher than 4m high – this is a tree of significance – this needs to have development consent for removal.
Cr Peterson asked if this was just in Lucknow or anywhere
Director Development Services commented that consent was required for particular trees to be removed in town, often handled with a tree removal permit or in the conservation area or heritage items they need a deveoopment consent
Cr Greenhalgh commented that this tree was identified 5 years ago as having potential issues, what is the difference now compared to 5 years ago, have there been any signifcant changes in this time
Director Development Services commented that Council staff have asked for additional information over the last few months from the applicant but received no additional information to be able to give comparisons of the details
Cr Evans asked how far away are the powerlines and service wires from the tree and is there any expectation it will interfere with these services in the future
Director Development Services responded by referring to page 14 of the report saying that the tree is trimmed by Essential Energy around the powerlines and that the setback depends on Essential Energy’s own criteria based on voltage of the powerlines
Cr Evans asked if there had been reports of issues prior
Director Development Services answered by saying nothing had been received from Essential Energy previously
Cr Mileto asked with regard to the applicant being asked to provide further information was a deadline given to the applicant
Director Development Services answered by saying that Council’s standard letters have a 14 day response period, in the last few months there have been a number of phonecalls between the assessing officer and the applicant but cannot confirm if verbally there was a deadline given to the applicant
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
Against: Nil
Absent: Cr J Whitton
Cr asked McDonell asked what sort of businesses have been approached
Director Development Services said that there are restrictsions based on the zone and that they would not be retail but more speciality retail bulky goods style of development
Cr McDonell aksed if they would be the same sort of businesses that are currently out there
Director Development Services said yes that was correct
Cr Mileto asked if one of the businesses was going to be a children’s amusement centre
Director Community Recreation and Cultural Services responded saying that staff had one conversation with a person interested in exploring that option, that person was aware of this DA and exploring the possibility of putting in an indoor playground for children, and this person has had a prior conversation with another staff member, predicated on the DA going through and predicated on this being a permissible activity
Cr Mileto asked if that person was just waiting for Council to provide feedback on whether it is a permissiable activity
Director Community Recreation and Cultural Services responded saying that there had been no formal DA lodged, just a phonecall at this stage
Cr Kinghorne left the Chamber at 12.55pm.
For: Cr J Hamling, Cr K Duffy, Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr D Mallard,
Cr M McDonell, Cr T Mileto, Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power
Against: Nil
Absent: Cr J Whitton, Cr F Kinghorne
Cr Peterson asked the report mentions no through roads or culdersacs, these may be attractive to some people, is there a problem with culdersacs or it just so happens that way
Director Technical Services said that generally that road layout is in accordance with Council’s DCP, some only accessing small number of houses that are quite narrow roads as well and a through road helps with access rather than taking up room with a culdersac, allows for a good flowthrough of pedestrians and traffic
Cr Mallard asked in regard to re-alignment of Applebox Street noting the comments in the report that Stage 3 of the proposal is to demolish the existing dwellings and then original realignment of the street would be valid. If Council were were to impoase a condition requiring the originally intended straight alignment of this street, what would that change in terms of work that will be needed in the earlier stages, are the outbuildings going to have to go as part of establishing the setbacks or will it change what needs to be demolished in Stage 2
Director Technical Services said that the continiued use is permissible under this arrangement in that the owner of the residual lot will be able to retain those buildings in place and have the road constructed around them or if they chose to subdivide in the future to provide the setbacks that are required under the DCP there would be certain buildings that would have to be removed and some buildings are on boundary lines and would have to be removed to allow that subdivision to take place
Cr Mallard asked if Council were to impose that condition would we be requiring them to knock down the outbuildings otherwise it would not need to happen, is that correct
Director Technical Services said yes to some extent, but there is some misalignment under the DCP already, referring to page 54 it can be seen that a a straight line of Applebox Street comes through and is slighltly misaligned to the east continuance, doesn’t align under the DCP, what is proposed here is a staggered T-type arrangement that meets the standards but also allows the continued use of the current dwellings to remain
Cr Mileto asked looking at the different stages and understanding there are three stages, stage 2 indicated 84 residential lots includes a public reserve, stage 3 indicates a further 9 residential lots, the Directors comment refers to 94 lots is this correct, shouldn’t it be 93 lots
Director Development Services commented that this sum would include the Reserve lot
Cr Mileto asked with regards to the 93 lots is there any requirement for any social/affordable housing to be included in this development and a timeframe of commencement
Director Development Services said that the permissability of affordable housing in this zone, yes it would be permissable, no proposal for any of the housing types in this its just purely the subdivision, the applicant is keen to commence as soon as possible
Cr Mileto asked about the headworks which Council is responsilbe for – how far away are these
Director Technical Services said that most lots in this subdivsion under 500m2 and four lots under 400m2, the headworks have already been constructed through there, its up to the applicant to take the Easements over adjoining properties to connect to those existing services
Cr Evans commented that liveabiltiy is important as is serviceability and noted that a micro-shopping centre is planned and in what proximity will this be in regards to this development and timeframe
Director Development Services said that the location of the neighbourhood shopping area is at the top of the hill as you go into the estate on the Eastern side of the boundary, when will depend on the market, no applications before us to build such a development yet
Cr Evans asked has this area been designated for this purpose
Director Development Services said yes under the DCP it has those controls placed on it - height and types of development
For: Cr J Hamling, Cr K Duffy, Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr D Mallard,
Cr M McDonell, Cr T Mileto, Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power
Against: Nil
Absent: Cr J Whitton, Cr F Kinghorne
Cr Kinghorne returned to the Chamber at 1.14pm.
3 Closed Meeting
Nil
The Meeting Closed at 1.15pm.
This is Page Number 32 and the Final Page of the Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting of Orange City Council held on 25 March 2022.
COUNCIL MEETING ADJOURNS FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE POLICY COMMITTEES
Planning and Development - Chaired by Cr Jeff Whitton
Employment and Economic Development – NO ITEMS
Infrastructure - Chaired by Cr Jack Evans
Sport and Recreation – NO ITEMS
Environmental Sustainability – NO ITEMS
Finance - Chaired by Cr Kevin Duffy
Services – NO ITEMS
4 Notices of Motion/Notices of Rescission
RECORD NUMBER: 2022/463
I, CR Jeff Whitton wish to move the following Notice of Motion at the Council Meeting of 5 April 2022:
|
That Council formulate a Working Party and a strategic plan to promote and position Orange and the Central West as a strategic sovereign partner with the Australian Defence Forces.
|
Background
The goal is to attract the Australian Defence Force to look to Orange in locating manufacturing, logistics, tactical and operational facilities and promote supply chain capability in the key areas of innovation and technology engaging with existing local supply chain.
Signed Cr Jeff Whitton
RECORD NUMBER: 2022/468
AUTHOR: Jodie Sheen, Admin Officer Governance
EXECUTIVE Summary
Council’s Policy Committees (Planning and Development Committee, Employment and Economic Development Policy Committee, Infrastructure Policy Committee, Sport and Recreation Policy Committee, Environmental Sustainability Policy Committee, Finance Policy Committee and Services Policy Committee) have delegation to determine matters before those Committees with the exception of items that impact on Council’s Delivery/Operational Plan.
This report provides minutes of the Policy Committees held this year. Resolutions made by the Committees are for noting and Recommendations are presented for adoption or amendment by Council.
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
Policy and Governance Implications
Nil
|
1. That the resolutions made by the Planning and Development Committee at its meeting held on 3 March 2022 be noted. 2. That the resolutions made by the Infrastructure Policy Committee at its meeting held on 3 March 2022 be noted. 3. That the resolutions made by the Environmental Sustainability Policy Committee at its meeting held on 3 March 2022 be noted. 4. That the resolutions made by the Finance Policy Committee at its meeting held on 3 March 2022 be noted.
|
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
Planning and Development Committee
At the Planning and Development Committee meeting held on 3 March 2022, all resolutions were made under delegation, and the minutes are presented for noting.
Infrastructure Policy Committee
At the Infrastructure Policy Committee meeting held on 3 March 2022, all resolutions were made under delegation, and the minutes are presented for noting.
Environmental Sustainability Policy Committee
At the Infrastructure Policy Committee meeting held on 3 March 2022, all resolutions were made under delegation, and the minutes are presented for noting.
Finance Policy Committee
At the Infrastructure Policy Committee meeting held on 3 March 2022, all resolutions were made under delegation, and the minutes are presented for noting.
1 Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes 3 March 2022, 2022/272⇩
2 Infrastructure Policy Committee Meeting Minutes 3 March 2022, 2022/271⇩
3 Environmental Sustainability Policy Committee Meeting Minutes 3 March 2022, 2022/269⇩
4 Finance Policy Committee Meeting Minutes 3 March 2022, 2022/270⇩
Attachment 1 Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes 3 March 2022
Attachment 2 Infrastructure Policy Committee Meeting Minutes 3 March 2022
Attachment 3 Environmental Sustainability Policy Committee Meeting Minutes 3 March 2022
RECORD NUMBER: 2022/435
AUTHOR: Renea Meacham, Acting Executive Support Manager
EXECUTIVE Summary
This report outlines detail around the upcoming National General Assembly (NGA), seeks nominations from Councillors to attend the Conference and requests motion (s) that Council wishes to be submitted by Orange City Council and seeks Council’s endorsement.
Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan
The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “14.3 Collaborate - Provide opportunities for widespread and quality engagement, and where appropriate, shared decision-making.”
Financial Implications
The budget as set down in the Councillors – Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities Policy is $60,000 per annum in total for all Councillors to attend Conferences with funds currently available for attendance at this conference.
The cost of the conference is:
· $989 (prior to 6 May 2022)
· $689 – Virtual Delegate
In addition, Councillors can opt to attend the Regional Forum at a cost of $225 each if attending the NGA.
It should be noted that the amount above indicates registration costs per delegate. Travel and accommodation will need to be added onto each registration cost.
Policy and Governance Implications
Nil
|
That Council resolves which Councillors attend at the National General Assembly 19 – 22 June, 2022. That Council agree on motion (s) to be submitted to the National General Assembly 2022. |
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
National General Assembly
Convened annually by the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA), the National General Assembly (NGA) of Local Government is the peak annual event for Local Government to engage directly with the Federal Government, to develop national policy, and to influence the future direction of councils and communities.
The theme for the 2022 NGA is Partners in Progress with the conference being held 19 – 22 June, 2022 at the National Convention Centre, Canberra ACT
In addition to the NGA a Regional Forum will be held Sunday 19 June, 2022. The 2022 Regional Cooperation and Development Forum will focus on the fact that at a time when the traditional patterns of Australian settlement have been upended by COVID-19 and people are gravitating to the safety, security, space, and affordability of our provincial cities, the theme for this year’s Forum is “Regions Rediscovered”.
Speaker will cover the challenges and opportunities of rural and regional health, statical trends, and raising awareness of the importance of regions across Australia.
Motions
As the national voice of local government, the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) advocates on behalf of Australia’s 537 councils for funding and policy outcomes that support local governments to deliver better results for their communities.
Each year a National General Assembly (NGA) is held in Canberra where councils from around the nation discuss current and emerging challenges and opportunities and advocate to the Federal Government on critical issues facing our sector.
The motions passed at the NGA inform ALGA’s strategic direction and national advocacy objectives.
To assist us, please ensure that your motions meet the following criteria:
1. Be relevant to the work of local government nationally;
2. Be consistent with the themes of the NGA;
3. Complement or build on the policy objectives of your state and territory local government association;
4. Be from a council which is a financial member of their state or territory local government association;
5. Propose a clear action and outcome; and
6. Not be advanced on behalf of external third parties that may seek to use the NGA to apply pressure to Board members or to gain national political exposure for positions that are not directly relevant to the work of, or in the national interests of, local government.
All motions should have a contact officer, a clear national objective, a summary of the key arguments in support of the motion.
Attached to this report is a Discussion Paper and copy of ALGA’s 2022 Federal Election Priorities. The 17 national priorities outlined in this document have been informed by motions passed at last year’s NGA, and unanimously endorsed by ALGA’s Board in conjunction with the member state and territory local government associations.
1 Discussion Paper, D22/16943⇩
2 Election Priorities, D22/16940⇩
RECORD NUMBER: 2022/347
AUTHOR: Renea Meacham, Acting Executive Support Manager
EXECUTIVE Summary
This report outlines detail around the upcoming Australian Local Government Women’s Association Conference and seeks nominations from Councillors to attend the Conference. It should be noted that this report will indicate registration costs per delegate. Travel and accommodation will need to be added onto each registration cost.
Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan
The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “14.3 Collaborate - Provide opportunities for widespread and quality engagement, and where appropriate, shared decision-making.”
Financial Implications
The budget as set down in the Councillors – Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities Policy is $60,000 per annum in total for all Councillors to attend Conferences with funds currently available for attendance at this conference.
Policy and Governance Implications
Nil
|
That Council resolves to approve the attendance of Councillors at the NSW Australian Local Government Women’s Association Conference to be held 7 – 9 July, 2022. |
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
Australian Local Government Women’s Association (ALGWA) Conference, Fairfield City Council
7-9 July 2022
Registration Cost per delegate $1,538 (prior to 30 April 2022)
ALGWA is the peak body for women in Local Government. It is a voluntary-run organisation, that supports both employees and elected representatives. The 2022 ALGWA NSW Annual Conference is designed to provide training and support for councillors and staff, whether they are new to local government or have been around for a long time. It is an opportunity to learn and grow from speakers and from each other. A copy the program is attached for Council’s information.
1 ALGWA 2022 Program, D22/13938⇩
RECORD NUMBER: 2022/433
AUTHOR: Renea Meacham, Acting Executive Support Manager
EXECUTIVE Summary
This report outlines detail around the upcoming Destination & Visitor Economy Conference 2022 and seeks nominations from Councillors to attend the Conference. It should be noted that this report will indicate registration costs per delegate. No travel and accommodation will be incurred as the Conference will be held in Orange.
Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan
The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “14.3 Collaborate - Provide opportunities for widespread and quality engagement, and where appropriate, shared decision-making.”
Financial Implications
The cost for each delegate to attend is $980 (until 19 April 2022)
Policy and Governance Implications
Nil
|
That Council resolves to approve the attendance of interested Councillors at the Destination & Visitor Economy Conference 2022 to be held 17 – 19 May, 2022. |
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
The 2022 LGNSW Destination and Visitor Economy Conference will be held from 17 – 19 May in Orange with the support of Orange City, Cabonne Shire and Blayney Shire Councils.
This year’s Destination and Visitor Economy Conference carries the theme Dare to Dream – Orange 360. The program is scheduled over three days from Tuesday 17 May to 19 May commencing at 2.00pm on Tuesday with three breakout streams and ending on Thursday at 12.30pm with lunch.
The event will bring together local government staff and Councillors, key industry stakeholders and local operator to discuss insights and the ever-changing world facing future visitors.
A copy of the full program is attached for Council’s attention.
1 DVC Program 2022, D22/16539⇩
RECORD NUMBER: 2022/277
AUTHOR: Glenn Mickle, Manager Tourism
EXECUTIVE Summary
The contract with TDO Limited trading as Orange360 is due to end on 30 June 2022. This report is seeking Council’s endorsement to extend the contract by six months until 31 December 2022 at a cost of approximately $210,000. Whilst this amount is an additional cost to the existing contract, it is included in Council’s 2022/23 budget.
This contract extension will enable Council to finalise our industry and government consultations in developing the 2022/2025 Destination Management Plan (DMP). It will also provide the opportunity to ensure the key goals, tasks, and measures of the DMP will be leveraged in the next Tourism Services Contract.
Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan
The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “11.1 Prosper - Capitalise on the character and lifestyle of Orange to remain a destination of choice”.
Financial Implications
If the recommendation of this report is supported and adopted post exhibition, it is proposed that the existing budget for the tourism services contract will be utilised to cover the additional three months.
The six-month contract extension cost is $210,000. This amount is listed in the approved Council budget for 2022/23.
Policy and Governance Implications
Nil
|
That Council resolves to extend the Tourism Services Contract provided by TDO Ltd trading as Orange360 for six months until 31 December 2022. |
further considerations
The recommendation of this report has been assessed against Council’s other key risk categories and the following comments are provided:
|
|
|
|
|
Service/Project Delivery |
The extended contract agreement will be managed under existing resources, as per past contracts. |
|
|
Financial |
Funding for the contract extension of six months is in the existing Council budget for 2022/23. |
|
|
Reputation |
The tourism services sector is a significant employer in the region. Working with Orange360 to assist in the recovery of this sector (post the Covid19 related lockdowns) will positively impact a significant number of business and residents. |
|
|
Compliance |
Council approval is required to extend the existing contract. This report is seeking Council’s approval. |
|
|
People |
Orange360 has 350 business members across the LGAs of Blayney, Cabonne and Orange who represent a broad spectrum of industry sectors including accommodation, hospitality, cellar doors, museums, and galleries, as well as retail and supporting business services. |
|
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
As part of Council’s Delivery Program and Operational Plan it is proposed that the next tourism services contract reflect the priorities, activities and strategies identified in Orange’s Destination Management Plan (DMP). The DMP is the primary business plan for building and managing the regional visitor economy across our three LGAs (Orange, Blayney and Cabonne). The DMP reflects the views and aspirations expressed in Council’s current Community Strategic Plan (CSP).
The Orange region visitor economy is worth more $400 million annually and employs more than 6,000 residents, attracting over 1 million visitors each year.
An extension of the current tourism services contract through to 31 December 2022, will allow the full implications and obligations of the DMP to be incorporated into the terms of the next contract. It will also enable Orange360 to continue destination marketing, training and development, and in-region event support while this process occurs.
As our regional destination marketing organisation, Orange360 have achieved outstanding results over the past four-years. Particularly over the past two-years, during and post the COVID19 travel restrictions. Visitor numbers to the Orange LGA are recovering better than other regional destinations. According to Tourism Research Australia to YE June 2021, the Orange LGA welcomed 555,000 overnight visitors. A new record and 100% higher than June 2020. These visitors spent 1.81 million nights here, another record and 172% higher than YE June 2020. We also welcomed 588,000-day trippers over that same period.
As travel restrictions ease other regions are very pro-active in the market now, particularly interstate destinations. As the domestic tourism market slowly gathers momentum it is imperative that our region continues to market, package and promote our tourism experiences and products. The increased market awareness and forward bookings we are currently enjoying may diminish if we cease to be active in this area.
For the extension period of six months, it is proposed the funding will be allocated as follows:
|
Deliverable |
2022/2023 |
|
Destination Marketing including digital and general marketing |
$70,000 |
|
Media and journalist famils - we will invite media to come and experience in lieu of regional showcases out-of-region |
$15,000 |
|
VIC famils |
$5,000 |
|
Member development and forums |
$5,000 |
|
Tourism Managers support |
$10,000 |
|
Maintain accommodation register and online booking system as required to preserve Level 1 VIC accreditation |
$5,000 |
|
Maintain the Data Warehouse system information as required to preserve Level 1 VIC accreditation |
$5,000 |
|
Survey data collation and annual visitor profile review and update. New investment across 3 x LGAs to capture visitor sentiment data for future marketing. |
$15,000 |
|
Allocation for out-of-region events run by TBC for events sponsorship (acknowledging Council and using art and words as supplied) |
- |
|
Allocation for staff time for in-region events support |
- |
|
Allocation of staff time on marketing, product development and promotions |
$70,000 |
|
Conferencing attraction and famils |
$10,000 |
|
TOTAL |
$210,000 |
RECORD NUMBER: 2022/375
AUTHOR: Scott Maunder, Director Community, Recreation and Cultural Services
EXECUTIVE Summary
This report provides Council with information on creation of temporary Indoor Playground for Winter 2022.
Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan
The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “1.1 Live - Engage with the community to ensure recreation opportunities and facilities meet changing needs”.
Financial Implications
Nil
Policy and Governance Implications
Nil
|
That Council 1. Secure a site for the operation of an indoor recreation facility for the period of 1 May 2022 to 30 August 2022; 2. Council secure the rental of indoor play equipment for the operation of the indoor recreation facility; and 3. Council conduct an expression of interest process for the operation of the indoor recreation facility. |
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
Council staff have been requested to provide information to Council on the establishment of an indoor playground for Winter 2022.
STYLE AND SIZE
Council staff have been working on developing options for a temporary indoor play area for Winter 2022.
Council have had discussions with Orange Ex Services Club to secure short term access to the former Pee-Wees site which operated out of their premises at 99 Byng Street Orange.
This site requires approval from the Board of the Orange Ex Services Club and would involve significant to remove items currently stored at the premises. The cost for the use of the site would also need to be finalised.
Council staff have also identified that play equipment would be available for short term lease or available for purchase.
Options include:
- Hire a 6m x 5m jumping castles with internal slide from an Orange based business.
- Hire a large playground from a NSW Supplier – something like below
- Hire an Extra-large playground from a NSW Supplier – something like
Without publishing exact costs in a public setting, the hire costs would range from low thousands to several thousand dollars per month
Other longer term options include
- Partner with supplier to share purchase price of equipment
- Council purchase its own equipment
- Enter a long-term lease for operation of a facility
Other operational costs and considerations that need to be considered include:
- Staffing for 7 days
- Cleaning
- Security
- Utilities
- Consumables
- Promotion / advertising
- Fees
- Establishing operating hours
- Setting entrance fees
- Hire fees
- Leasing fees
It is estimated that weekly operational costs based on 7 days a week activity would be approximately $7,500 excluding premises rental.
In essence a site and equipment could be available for the upcoming Winter months in Orange in 2022. Opening a site would be dependent on finalising an implementing an operational plan and meeting operating costs.
OPERATIONAL PLANS
Again, multiple options are available to Council. These include:
1. Council staff are employed to operate the site including all cleaning and security; or
2. Council secures a site and issue an expression of interest to supply and install equipment to operate the site and meet all operational costs; or
3. Council secures a site and hire equipment and issue an expression of interest to operate the site and meet all operational costs; or
4. Council provide support a private business through an EOI process to establish and operate a site.
The operator would also need to consider the provision of café services.
Of the options available the recommended option is option 3. above as this is the most likely model to ensure a site is available for the upcoming Winter period. It is dependent on finding an operator and securing the hire equipment.
RECORD NUMBER: 2022/428
AUTHOR: Tig Armstrong, Manager Economic Development
EXECUTIVE Summary
St John Ambulance – Molong Cadet Division have written to Council asking for a reduction in fees for their use of the Scout camp for their Cadet Camp to be held from 10 to 14 April 2022 during Youth Week.
COVID restrictions have significantly impacted the membership and fundraising activities for St John Ambulance and there has been a significant increase in costs to provide food and activities during the camp.
This camp will bring members from the Bathurst, Orana and Broken Hill Divisions to the area for the days of the camp.
The full fee for the Scout Camp hire is $18 per person per night for the four nights required for this event.
It is recommended to reduce the Dormitory overnight stay fee of $18 per person per night by 50% to $9 per person per night.
The number of participants staying overnight is estimated to be 32 participants. This equates to a loss of $1,224 in fees for Council.
Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan
The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “2.2 Live - Ensure the sporting and recreational facilities, programs and activities are accessible and affordable to support healthy lifestyle choices”.
Financial Implications
The full fee for the Scout Camp hire is $18 per person per night for the four nights required for this event.
Number of participants staying overnight is estimated to be 32. This equates to a loss of $1,224 in fees at 50% reduction.
Policy and Governance Implications
Nil
|
That Council reduce the fees by 50% from $18 to $9 per night for four nights for the St Johns Ambulance Cadet Camp 2022 to be held from the 10 to 14 April.
|
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
Below are the current Canobolas Scout Camp fees.
1 Letter - Request for Fee Reduction - Molong Cadet Division Cadet Camp, D22/16550⇩
Council Meeting 5 April 2022
Attachment 1 Letter - Request for Fee Reduction - Molong Cadet Division Cadet Camp
6 Closed Meeting - See Closed Agenda
The Chief Executive Officer will advise the Council if any written submissions have been received relating to any item advertised for consideration by a closed meeting of Orange City Council.
The Mayor will extend an invitation to any member of the public present at the meeting to make a representation to Council as to whether the meeting should be closed for a particular item. 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.
|
Recommendation 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 March 2022 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 (e) information that would, if disclosed, prejudice the maintenance of law. 6.2 Health Infrastructure Agreement 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 (c) information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business 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. |
RECORD NUMBER: 2022/276
AUTHOR: Catherine Davis, Acting Manager Corporate Governance
Reason for Confidentiality
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 (e) information that would, if disclosed, prejudice the maintenance of law.
RECORD NUMBER: 2022/413
AUTHOR: Nick Redmond, Manager Corporate & Community Relations
Reason for Confidentiality
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 (c) information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business 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.
