Agenda of Council Meeting

Council Meeting 5 April 2016

I would like to acknowledge the Wiradjuri people who are the Traditional Custodians of the Land. I would also like to pay respect to the Elders both past and present of the Wiradjuri Nation and extend that respect to other Aboriginal Australians who are present.

1.4 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.

2 Mayoral Minutes

Nil

3 Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meeting

RECOMMENDATION

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Orange City Council held on 15 March 2016 (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 2016.

Attachments

1 Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Orange City Council held on 15 March 2016

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

MINUTES OF THE

Ordinary Council Meeting

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

ON 15 March 2016

COMMENCING AT 7.00Pm

1 Introduction

Attendance

Cr C Gryllis (Deputy Mayor), Cr A Brown, Cr K Duffy, Cr R Gander, Cr J Hamling, Cr N Jones, Cr R Kidd, Cr S Munro, Cr G Taylor, Cr R Turner, Cr J Whitton

General Manager, Director Corporate and Commercial Services, Acting Director Development Services (Hodges), Director Community, Recreation and Cultural Services, Director Technical Services, Manager Administration and Governance, Manager Corporate and Community Relations

** In the absence of the Mayor, Cr Gryllis Chaired the Meeting. **

2.1 APOLOGY

RESOLVED - 16/084 Cr R Kidd/Cr K Duffy

That the apology be accepted from Cr J Davis (Mayor) for the Council Meeting of Orange City Council on 15 March 2016.

2.2 OPENING PRAYER

PASTOR TIM WHITE OF THE EVER UPWARD CHURCH LED THE COUNCIL IN PRAYER

2.3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

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

Nil

Cr Gryllis showed a short video on Orange to be presented to the National Tidy Towns Awards.

2 Mayoral Minutes

Nil

3 Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meeting

RESOLVED - 16/085 Cr R Kidd/Cr S Munro

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Orange City Council held on 1 March 2016 (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 1 March 2016.

RESOLVED - 16/086 Cr R Kidd/Cr R Turner

That the Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting of Orange City Council held on 25 February 2016 (copies of which were circulated to all members) be and are hereby confirmed as a true and accurate record of the proceedings of the Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 25 February 2016.

4 Notices of Motion/Notices of Rescission

4.1 Support for Prue McCarthy - Disability Support Pension by Cr Kidd

TRIM Reference: 2016/566

RESOLVED - 16/087 Cr R Kidd/Cr K Duffy

That Orange City Council support in any way possible Orange’s Ms Prue McCarthy’s plight to seek justice and fairness with an adequate disability support pension.

5 General Reports

5.1 Request for Financial Assistance

TRIM Reference: 2016/366

RESOLVED - 16/088 Cr R Kidd/Cr S Munro

That Council decline the request from the Orange Male Voice Choir for $6,800 as insufficient funds are available in the Major Promotions and General Donations Budget and as Orange Male Voice Choir have already received a donation from Council this financial year.

5.2 Recommendations and Resolutions from Policy Committees

TRIM Reference: 2016/450

RESOLVED - 16/089 Cr K Duffy/Cr R Gander

1 That the resolutions made by the Planning and Development Committee at its meeting held on 1 March 2016 be noted.

2 That the resolutions made by the Employment and Economic Development Policy Committee at its meeting held 1 March 2016 be noted.

3 That the resolutions made by the Infrastructure Policy Committee at its meeting held on 1 March 2016 be noted.

4 That the resolutions made by the Sport and Recreation Policy Committee at its meeting held on 1 March 2016 be noted.

5 That the resolutions made by the Finance Policy Committee at its meeting held on 1 March 2016 be noted.

6 That the resolutions made by the Services Policy Committee at its meeting held on 1 March 2016 be noted.

5.3 Outstanding Questions Taken on Notice

TRIM Reference: 2016/449

RESOLVED - 16/090 Cr J Hamling/Cr R Turner

That the information provided in the report by the Manager Administration and Governance on Questions Taken on Notice be acknowledged.

5.4 Local Government Act amendments

TRIM Reference: 2016/495

RESOLVED - 16/091 Cr R Kidd/Cr K Duffy

That Council make a submission on the amendments to the NSW Local Government Act 1993 as outlined in this report to incorporate the amendments from the Councillor Briefing held on 14 March 2016.

5.5 2016 National General Assembly of Local Government Call for Motions

TRIM Reference: 2016/451

RESOLVED - 16/092 Cr R Gander/Cr K Duffy

1 That Council submit Motions to the National General Assembly relating to:

a role of Private Certifiers and oversight by Local Government

b requirement for all Local Government areas to submit valid data in relation to road assets including backlogs.

2 That Council Councillors Duffy, Munro and Hamling represent Orange at the National General Assembly to be held 19 to 22 June 2016.

5.6 Jobs Creation update

TRIM Reference: 2016/421

RESOLVED - 16/093 Cr R Kidd/Cr S Munro

That Council acknowledge the Jobs Creation Strategy has provided financial assistance to 19 projects that may result in between an estimated 450 and 550 potential new positions if all initiatives reach fruition.

5.7 Statement of Investments - February 2016

TRIM Reference: 2016/489

RESOLVED - 16/094 Cr J Hamling/Cr S Munro

1 That Council receives the Statement of Investments as at 29 February 2016.

2 That Council receives and adopts the certification of the Responsible Accounting Officer.

5.8 Boundary adjustments - Paling Street

TRIM Reference: 2015/3213

RESOLVED - 16/095 Cr R Gander/Cr R Kidd

1 That Council proceed to transfer parts of Lot 1 DP 1075928 to adjoining land owners with Council meeting all costs associated with the transfer.

2 That permission be granted for the use of the Council Seal on all necessary documentation.

6 Closed Meeting

Nil

The Meeting Closed at 7.50pm

This is Page Number 8 and the Final Page of the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Orange City Council held on 15 March 2016.

Council Meeting 5 April 2016

4 Notices of Motion/Notices of Rescission

4.1 Nuclear Waste Dump by Cr Jones

TRIM REFERENCE: 2016/524

I, CR Neil Jones wish to move the following Notice of Motion at the Council Meeting of 5 April 2016:

Motion

That Orange City Council support the No Central West Nuclear Waste Dump Group’s opposition to a nuclear waste dump at Sally’s Flat.

Background

A site at Hill End has been short listed by the Federal Government as a potential site for nuclear waste storage. While there has been recent media coverage that the Federal Government has indicated Sally’s Flat near Hill End would not be pursued, the site remains on the short list.

The proposed site would store low- and medium-level radioactive waste, much of it a by-product of nuclear medicine.

Three proposed sites are located in South Australia — Cortlinye, Pinkawillinie, and Barndioota — while the other options are at Hale in the Northern Territory, and Oman Ama in Queensland.

While there is a need for such a facility, Sally’s Flat is not that site.

At a Council meeting on 3 February this year Bathurst Regional Council resolved the following:

That Bathurst Regional Council advise The Hon Josh Frydenberg MP, Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia, that Council does not support the proposal to establish a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility at Sally's Flat in New South Wales.

This is consistent with the standing resolution of Orange City Council in 2003 to oppose the transportation of radioactive waste through the city.

While this is generally seen as a policy position rather than one that can be enforced, it makes clear the view of Orange City Council that these matters need to be given serious consideration and due care must be taken.

Signed Cr Neil Jones

Financial Implications

Council has been advised that as a council included in the NSW Government’s merger proposals under consideration by the Office of Local Government since referral on 6 January 2016, Council must comply with the merger proposal period guidelines issued under S23A of the Local Government Act 1993.

The guidelines instruct Council it should expend money in accordance with the detailed budget adopted for the purposes of implementing the Delivery/Operational Plan for the 2015/16 year.

Any expenditure outside the adopted budget requires the identification of clear and compelling grounds and must be approved by Council at a meeting that is open to the public. The guidelines indicate the resolution of Council for increased expenditure must specify the reasons why the expenditure is required and warranted.

If increased expenditure is greater than $250,000 or 1% of the Council’s revenue from rates in the preceding year, whichever is the greater, Council is required to exhibit the increase to the budget and consider comments received.

Council must also avoid entering into contracts or undertakings where expenditure or revenue is greater than $250,000 or 1% of the Council’s revenue from rates in the preceding year, whichever is the greater, unless the contract or undertaking is as a result of a decision or procurement process commenced prior to the merger proposal period or where entering into a contract or undertaking is reasonably necessary for the purposes of meeting the ongoing service delivery commitments of the Council or was previously approved in the Council’s Delivery/Operational Plan.

Implications in this report

Nil

POLICY AND GOVERNANCE IMPLICATIONS

Nil

Council Meeting 5 April 2016

4.2 Commemorative Medallion by Cr Duffy

TRIM REFERENCE: 2016/564

I, CR Kevin Duffy wish to move the following Notice of Motion at the Council Meeting of 5 April 2016:

Motion

That Council fund the creation of a commemorative medallion based on the Orange City Council crest for Councillors and as a gift to visiting dignitaries or prominent or high achieving residents.

Background

It is very likely that this will be the last Orange City Council in its current form. This medallion could mark this transition and act as a keepsake for the current Councillors and perhaps as a gift to the City’s former living Mayors or other prominent residents or visiting dignitaries.

Signed Cr Kevin Duffy

STAFF COMMENT

In November last year the following was resolved:

RESOLVED - 15/527 Cr C Gryllis/Cr S Munro

That Council invite designers, artists and students to participate in a competition to design a Medallion for the City of Orange.

Since that motion was resolved, in discussions with the mover Deputy Mayor Chris Gryllis, it has been suggested that this process be delayed until the merger issue is resolved.

If this Notice of Motion is carried, a source for funding would need to be identified.

Preliminary cost estimates are in the range of $65 to $110 each plus set up and design costs.

A set of 50 could cost in the order of $3,000 to $5,000.

It should be noted that design and set-up costs will be fixed irrespective of the number produced.

Financial Implications

The guidelines instruct Council it should expend money in accordance with the detailed budget adopted for the purposes of implementing the Delivery/Operational Plan for the 2015/16 year.

Implications in this report

The cost to fund the production of a commemorative medallion would be between $3,000 and $5,000. A funding source would need to be identified as part of the next quarterly review if the motion is resolved in the affirmative.

Council Meeting 5 April 2016

5 General Reports

5.1 Orange Showground Pavilion

TRIM REFERENCE: 2016/676

AUTHOR: Scott Maunder, Director Community, Recreation and Cultural Services

EXECUTIVE Summary

To provide a report to Council after the exhibition of the additional expenditure for the Orange Showground Pavilion.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “6.2 Our Community – Seek innovative and creative solutions in partnership with key stakeholders that convert the demonstrated community need for sporting and recreational services/facilities to infrastructure and activities”.

Financial Implications

The guidelines instruct Council it should expend money in accordance with the detailed budget adopted for the purposes of implementing the Delivery/Operational Plan for the 2015/16 year.

Implications in this report

Council has previously resolved to fund the additional expenditure of $395,417 above the level of funding in the Delivery/Operational Plan from the balance of the reimbursement of the airport grant $361,025 and the deferment of the Lake Canobolas BBQ project as outlined in the December Quarterly Review published February 2016.

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council endorse the construction of an 80m x 33m pavilion at the Orange Showground at a budget of $1,445,417.

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

At its meeting of 16 February 2016 Council resolved:

RESOLVED - 16/043 Cr R Gander/Cr N Jones

1 That Council note the part of the Quarterly Review report that deals with recent resolutions in regard to the tender for the Showground Pavilion.

2 That Council endorse the larger 80m x 33m pavilion at a budget of $1,445,417 noting that the budget is $395,417 above the level of funding in the Delivery/Operational subject to:

a The advertisement of the project and shortfall of $395,417, noting the guideline requirements for this process as Orange City Council is currently subject to a merger proposal.

b A report back to Council after exhibition providing any submissions and to determine the project.

c The shortfall being met from the balance of the reimbursement of the airport grant $361,025 and the deferment of the Lake Canobolas BBQ project as outlined in the Quarterly Review report, October to December 2015, published February 2016.

3 That in the interim, Council endorse and proceed with the 60m x 33m with hardstand option as funded substantially within the budget and under the threshold that would require exhibition under the guideline requirements for a Council under a merger proposal (total cost $1,196,817 and budget $1,050,000). The reason for supporting this proposal is that it is a long-supported project that has been many years in the planning framework and is less than 20% above the estimated cost ($146,817).

4 That Council note the reason that the budget is being amended is to allow an 80m x 33m pavilion, rather than a 60m x 33m pavilion as to better suit the needs of the operation of the Showground and to provide more capacity for use as a multipurpose facility and to provide for future use for larger events.

Council advertised the project and shortfall of $395,417, noting the guideline requirements for this process as Orange City Council is currently subject to a merger proposal.

The exhibition period closed on Thursday 24 March 2016.

Ten submissions were received all of which supported that the 80m x 33m pavilion be constructed. A summary of the reasons provided is:

· Required for use by sporting groups

· Required for use by community groups

· A 60m pavilion limits the scope of use

· Will provide a long term benefit to the community of Orange

· 80m x 33m pavilion required to host activities such as Farmers Markets

· Would enable Council to host larger functions

· 80m X 33m would be better especially for winter events - roller derby, music, car and other exhibitions, the Farmers Market is getting larger every year and horse eventing is increasing

· Cost to expand in the future would be much more than to construct now

· Will enable the attraction of new and interested clubs and shows that currently do not visit Orange due to lack of facilities.

Attachments

1 Submission - increase size of pavilion - Orange Showground - John Black and Hiliary Black, IC16/3410 ⇩

2 Submission - Showground Pavilion - Sylvia Cleary, D16/12661 ⇩

3 Submission - Showground Pavilion - Ian Sawtell, D16/12668 ⇩

4 Submission - Showground Pavilion - Elaine Connor, D16/12670 ⇩

5 Submission - increase size of pavilion - Orange Showground - Patricia Raffen, IC16/4336 ⇩

6 Submission - Orange Showground Pavilion - Eli Naylor, IC16/4621 ⇩

7 Submission - multi purpose design - pavilion - Orange Showground - Michael Middleton, IC16/4702 ⇩

8 Submission - increase size of pavilion - Orange Showground - Orange Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc, IC16/4703 ⇩

9 Submission - Showground Pavilion - Peter Naylor, D16/12677 ⇩

10 Submission - New Pavilion - Showground - Orange Show Society, D16/12642 ⇩

Council Meeting 5 April 2016

5.2 Water Security for Regions Pipeline Projects

TRIM REFERENCE: 2016/588

AUTHOR: Chris Devitt, Director Technical Services

EXECUTIVE Summary

In late 2014 Orange City Council agreed in principle to support Cabonne Council in their Restart NSW Water Security for Regions Program application to secure their community’s water supply for Molong as well as enable the provision of potable water to Cumnock and Yeoval for the first time.

Cabonne’s original application proposed a raw water pipeline from the Macquarie to Orange Pipeline to Molong Creek Dam.

Since this time a number of potable supply options have been identified that would appear to offer a better expenditure of public money than the raw water connection particularly in light of the need to take a more regional approach to water security.

While Cabonne Council are still pursuing the raw water option as their preference, this report recommends that Orange City Council take a more strategic approach to this matter, with all viable regional water supply options properly considered for their medium and long term benefits in a joint Orange/Cabonne Lachlan Macquarie drought study as required by Infrastructure NSW (INSW). Upon receipt of this study, Council will then be in a position to assess the most appropriate long term regional solution, and ultimately resolve the most appropriate pipeline route to support, which should also ensure the maximum funding commitment from INSW to meet the full cost of proposed pipelines from Orange to both Blayney/Carcoar and Molong/Cumnock/Yeoval.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “15.2 Our Environment – Operate, maintain, renew and upgrade water, sewer and stormwater infrastructure assets and services as specified within the Asset Management Plans at agreed levels of service”.

Financial Implications

The guidelines instruct Council it should expend money in accordance with the detailed budget adopted for the purposes of implementing the Delivery/Operational Plan for the 2015/16 year.

Implications in this report

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

1 That Council acknowledge the contents of the report by the Director Technical Services on the Water Security for Regions Pipeline Projects.

2 That Council note that following finalisation of the combined Lachlan Macquarie drought study required by Infrastructure NSW, a further report be prepared to enable Council to assess the various regional water supply options identified in the drought study.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The development of the agreement between Infrastructure NSW, Orange City Council and Cabonne Council to deliver pipeline projects to Blayney/Carcoar and Molong/Cumnock/Yeoval respectively was based on the expectation that both councils, plus Central Tablelands Water, would work together collaboratively to achieve a long term regional water security solution.

The funding for both these pipeline projects was limited by INSW to 75% of the amount sought by both Orange and Cabonne. This was on the basis that the two councils needed to undertake a combined Lachlan Macquarie drought study to ensure that the proposed pipe system, and pipe sizing as outlined in the initial funding application, was optimised. Until this key strategic study is completed it is premature to lock in preferred routes or pipe sizes for either pipeline.

The broader regional water security issues need to be considered in this study, such as:

· Are there other regional benefits which could be delivered with particular solutions?

· What are the longer term operational and financial benefits, particularly the impact of water pricing on residents?

· Can water quality compliance be assured in the longer term?

· What are the short and long term asset management issues associated with various solutions?

The interconnection of two existing totally independent water supply systems brings with it a whole range of challenges, including integrating different types of equipment, operating protocols and the development and implementation of policies, such as the imposition of water restrictions within and across each water utility.

The development of the Orange to Blayney/Carcoar pipeline has progressed well, with a close working relationship having been developed with staff at Orange and Blayney Councils as well as with staff from Central Tablelands Water (CTW). Agreements reached to date on the construction and operation of this pipeline will help inform the joint drought study, and will enable an assessment of possible broader regional benefits from this pipeline to be examined.

The first stage of the Orange to Cabonne pipeline involves a new connection to the Molong water supply system from the Orange system to provide additional water to satisfy an existing shortfall in secure yield. This could either be achieved via a raw water connection from the Macquarie pipeline near Pearce Lane on Ophir Road, which was the option submitted in Cabonne’s application to INSW, or, via a potable water connection from the end of the Orange reticulation network at Ammerdown.

At the present time the Cabonne Council Project Manager is keen to progress with the raw water option, arguing that this is the option identified in the agreement with INSW and is the basis of the adopted project delivery schedule which Cabonne is working towards. This solution is supported by a recent Justification Report undertaken for Cabonne, which indicates that a raw water supply from the Macquarie Pipeline is a better solution than a potable supply option.

Orange Council’s position is that there are a number of issues and assumptions in this justification report which are not agreed with, and therefore, at this time Council is not willing to support the outcomes of this study as it has been undertaken before the more strategic drought study has been completed.

Council’s preferred option is to complete the combined Lachlan Macquarie drought study first, as this strategic report will provide a sound basis for establishing whether the most appropriate long term regional water supply connection between Orange and Molong is with raw water, potable water or possible combination of both.

Upon receipt of this study a further report will be prepared for Council to assess the various strategic options identified, with the aim of resolving a position on Council’s preferred option to then enable the detailed project development to proceed.

Unless this strategic study is undertaken, there is a risk that failing to comply with this requirement of INSW could potentially jeopardise the remaining 25% of INSW funding both Orange and Cabonne are seeking to complete their respective pipeline projects. This strategic study is critical to ensuring all potential water supply options are properly considered and the adopted system fully optimised, thus delivering the most cost-effective overall solution for all parties.

Once the Lachlan Macquarie drought study is completed, depending on the recommended way forward, Orange Council will need to undertake a detailed review of the Cabonne Justification Report as the outcomes of this report have a direct impact on the Orange water supply network. In particular, with a raw water connection to the Macquarie pipeline the potential impacts on the existing operating regime, which was part of the original project approval, will need to be fully assessed to ensure the effectiveness of this pipeline in securing Orange water supply in the long term is not compromised. In addition there needs to be an assessment made of the impacts of constructing either a raw water or potable water pipeline from Orange as either pipeline will pass through Orange Council property. Given the range of issues encountered in selecting the most appropriate route for the Macquarie pipeline, particularly relating to access to private property and the environmental impacts of constructing a major pipeline, the same level of rigour and route optimisation needs to be applied to the pipeline between Orange and Molong.

Orange Council staff are willing to work collaboratively with Cabonne staff to achieve the most effective pipeline route, with the knowledge and experience gained from the successful completion of the Macquarie pipeline a key part of ensuring this outcome. One of the key lessons which Council staff learnt from the Macquarie project is that for projects of this size and complexity to be successfully delivered it is essential to fully research all potential options and be able to justify these in order to demonstrate to funding bodies, as well as the broader community, that the funds provided for this project will be expended in the most appropriate and cost effective manner.

Council Meeting 5 April 2016

5.3 Compatibility of horse activities at Towac Park

TRIM REFERENCE: 2016/559

AUTHOR: Nick Redmond, Manager Corporate and Community Relations

EXECUTIVE Summary

At the Council meeting on 16 February 2016 a report was requested outlining what horse related activities were compatible and could be co-located, including thoroughbreds and pacers.

In compiling this report Council contacted a number of stakeholders and the general reaction to co-location was that it was achievable provided the facilities matched the needs of the users.

The cost of co-location has not been considered in this report and would require a separate body of more detailed investigation.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “1.2 Our City - Information and advice provided for the decision-making process will be succinct, reasoned, accurate, timely and balanced”.

Financial Implications

The guidelines instruct Council it should expend money in accordance with the detailed budget adopted for the purposes of implementing the Delivery/Operational Plan for the 2015/16 year.

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That the report by the Manager of Corporate and Community relations regarding the compatibility of horse activities at Towac Park be acknowledged.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The context of this report is the potential co-location of horse activities at Towac Park.

In compiling this report Council contacted local horse associations, a vet specialising in the Equine sector and the Australian Equine and Livestock Events Centre (AELEC) at Tamworth.

There are numerous horse disciplines including cutting, camp drafting, team penning, western pleasure, dressage, show jumping, harness racing, thoroughbred racing and pony club.

It should be noted that not all disciplines have been consulted in the formulation of this report.

In discussions with the Orange Harness Racing Club and Racing Orange, Council has been advised that these disciplines can co-exist at Towac Park with the current infrastructure. One of the opportunities is the possibility of dual code meetings with thoroughbred racing in the earlier part of the day and harness racing into the twilight. Whether this opportunity proceeds will be a matter for the NSW authorities of these sports.

The Orange Pony Club already operates at Towac Park.

Orange Camp Drafting runs a three day event in November. The organisation has invested in the facility at the showground. The organisation advised that the active camp drafting area is of a high standard but the other facilities at the showground are limiting, particularly if the organisation was to pitch for national titles. They advised that while satisfied with the existing active camp drafting area at the showground they would not oppose a relocation to a precinct that hosted other horse sports. The caveat was ensuring the current active camp drafting area was replicated.

The Central West Dressage Group also advised that co-location was workable provided the infrastructure was adequate to meet the needs of the varying disciplines.

An equine vet advised that while there can be communicable health issues in horse populations the risk does not multiply with use of a single facility across varying horse disciplines.

AELEC has a large facility with numerous arenas available. Depending on the size of the event they manage colocation through the staged booking of these events. However, they also run different disciplines simultaneously. AELEC have disease control procedures in place as they move from one event to the next. They also advised there were some logistical challenges around moving from one event type to the next but these were manageable and were generally around the differing surface requirements of particular horse sports.

It should be noted that this compatibility is not limited to Towac Park if there is matching infrastructure and space.

Council Meeting 5 April 2016

5.4 Free Waste Disposal Days at the Ophir Road Resource Recovery Centre

TRIM REFERENCE: 2016/539

AUTHOR: Wayne Davis, Manager Waste Services and Technical Support

EXECUTIVE Summary

Council, in partnership with the Orange Mountain Bike Club, Forestry Corporation NSW (FCNSW), Cabonne Council and NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has been working on a research study on the potential motivations and drivers behind illegal dumping in the region focussed on the Kinross Forest.

This study will assist in implementing community behavioural change with the ultimate goal of reducing illegal dumping.

Positive incentives and ongoing community education are recognised as important elements in reducing illegal dumping and a request from the study coordinator has been made to Council for consideration of allowing two free waste disposal days for Orange residents at the Ophir Road Resource Recovery Centre.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “13.3 Our Environment – Identify changing community aspirations and undertake community engagement to inform planning and advocacy of plans and policies for waste management and resource recovery”.

Financial Implications

The guidelines instruct Council it should expend money in accordance with the detailed budget adopted for the purposes of implementing the Delivery/Operational Plan for the 2015/16 year.

Implications in this report

The proposed initiative will incur loss of income for Council for two days for loads that meet acceptance criteria of up to one 6’x8’ trailer or utility load size of waste per resident who may attend the Ophir Road Resource Recovery Centre.

Reviewing waste data from 2015, which excludes organic material and recyclables delivered by residents, the average number of small vehicle loads delivering waste to Ophir Road Resource Recovery Centre on Saturdays was 50.30 vehicles. This equated to 3.81 tonnes of waste per day with a chargeable value of $723.09.

Refining the data review to the months of May and November 2015 (likely corresponding months to the proposed free access days), the average number of small vehicles delivering waste was 34.80 and 50.00 respectively. This equated to 2.98 tonnes and 4.07 tonnes of waste per day, with chargeable values of $562.94 and $787.60 respectively.

By Council advertising two free residential waste disposal days it is expected that the total number of vehicles, volume of waste and associated loss of income will increase on the numbers provided in this report.

It is in Council’s interest to trial this initiative and review actual volumes of waste and lost income associated with the two free waste disposal days to determine continuance of this initiative beyond 2016.

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

1 That Council waive the fees associated with one 6’ x 8’ trailer or utility load per resident subject to proof of residency within the Orange LGA for one day in May 2016 and one day in November 2016 at the Ophir Road Resource Recovery Centre;

2 That Council fund the shortfall of fees at an estimated $1,200 in total for the two days from within the existing waste budget;

3 That Council promote to the residents of Orange the two free residential waste disposal days and include reminders of what is free for disposal and how to maximise resource recovery by segregating waste loads.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The attached proposal from the Project Manager of “Tackling Illegal Dumping in Kinross Forest” advises of the partnership with key stakeholders undertaking a behaviour change and prevention strategy to reduce illegal dumping in Kinross Forest and the greater Orange region.

Reference is made to Council’s recent adoption of abandoning the two bulky waste collection services per annum under the new waste contract commencing April 2016. Uptake of the bulky item collection service was at best 15% of the Orange residential rate base and the visual and environmental impact of the service was questioned on a regular basis. In lieu of the two services per annum which was a cost spread across the entire residential rate base, Council has made provision for residents to still access this service if deemed necessary on a “user-pay” basis under the new waste services contract.

Positive incentives such as allowing limited free waste disposal at the Ophir Road Resource Recovery Centre will assist the management of with other educational and promotional initiatives to help incentivise people to dispose of bulky waste responsibly. Council could also use this opportunity to promote the vast array of recycling and potential opportunities to minimise waste to landfill by segregating loads which can be diverted to the resource recovery facilities at the centre.

Attachments

1 Attachment 2016/539 - Free Waste Disposal Days at the Ophir Road Resource Recovery Centre - Proposal to Tackle Dumping in Kinross Forest Behaviour Change Project, D16/9439 ⇩

Council Meeting 5 April 2016

5.5 Electricity Procurement

TRIM REFERENCE: 2016/620

AUTHOR: David Waddell, Director Development Services

EXECUTIVE Summary

Council will be aware that buying cheap electricity is challenging. For example the short time frames (sometimes down to two days) to accept prices are outside the meeting timeframes for even an extraordinary meeting. At the same time, procuring electricity collaboratively offers better pricing.

Centroc, on behalf of member councils, has undertaken a formal Request for Quotation (RFQ) process in January 2016 to identify suitable entities to manage the aggregation of electricity procurement for members of Central NSW Councils.

Energy Management Services was identified as the best value service provider subject to legal advice ensuring procurement using their services was complaint with the Local Government Act Tendering Regulations.

Legal advice obtained by Centroc suggests that electricity procurement can be deemed as an ‘extenuating circumstance’ due to the short validity of offered prices, and as such would not be required to be run as a tender process and be resolved by Council. At the same time a competitive procurement process identifying best value must be undertaken.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “1.1 Our City - Provide easily obtainable information on the legal responsibilities of Councillors, Council staff and the community”.

Financial Implications

The guidelines instruct Council it should expend money in accordance with the detailed budget adopted for the purposes of implementing the Delivery/Operational Plan for the 2015/16 year.

Implications of this report

Centroc advises the costs of engaging EMS to identify the best prices for electricity is anticipated to be offset by a reduction in electricity fees.

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

1 That Council acknowledge that there are extenuating circumstances surrounding the procurement of electricity and Council that is unlikely to achieve the most favourable result by tendering with suitable tenderers only holding offered prices for 2-7 days, therefore Council should be excused from the tendering requirements under section 55 of the Local Government Act 1993.

2 That Council engage Energy and Management Services to conduct the procurement process for electricity for the next rounds of small sites, large sites and street lighting contracts.

3 That Council delegate the authority to finalise and execute the contracts for the supply of electricity to the General Manager.

4 That approval be granted for the use of the Council Seal on any relevant document.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Council currently procures electricity through Local Government Procurement (LGP). At its October 2015 meeting, the Centroc General Manager’s Advisory Council resolved to nominate a small group of General Managers for a working party to investigate options for procuring electricity.

Options were sought to test the market and:

· Provide comparison on level of service

· Provide comparison of pricing

· Ensure a compliance approach

· Seek alignment and potential economies of scope between aggregating procurement and other activities Centroc undertakes such as energy grant acquisition and energy management.

The working party deemed Energy and Management Services (EMS) to be the successful respondent, pending legal advice regarding the fit with the Local Government Act for a number of options for ways to use an aggregator without prescription, while still working within legislative framework.

The status of current electricity contracts is as follows:

· Small sites – expires 31 December 2016

· Large sites and street lighting - expires 31 December 2017

Legal Advice

Due to neither Centroc nor EMS being a prescribed entity (i.e. an entity who can procure on behalf of government entities), the working party of General Managers sought legal advice to determine whether S55(3)(i) of the Local Government Act applied to the procurement of electricity when energy retailers will only hold offered prices for 2-7 days.

Section 55(3)(i) of the Local Government Act states that contracts referred to in s55(1) does not apply to:

‘(i) a contract where, because of extenuating circumstances, remoteness of locality or the unavailability of competitive or reliable tenderers, a council decides by resolution (which states the reasons for the decision) that a satisfactory result would not be achieved by inviting tenders.’

Legal advice was received by Centroc from Marsdens Law Group and is as follows:

1 The exception under s55(3)(i) of the LG Act to the requirement to call for tenders recognises that there may be occasions when a Council genuinely believes that calling for tenders for a particular contract will not produce an acceptable result.

2 In order to rely upon the exception, each Council must still decide by resolution that a satisfactory result would not be achieved by inviting tenders for the proposed contract and the resolution must state the reason for Council’s decision that such result would not be achieved.

3 Given each has their own agenda and timing for meeting it would be particularly difficult, if not impossible, to plan a procurement process that would have all member Council’s in a position to assess, report and resolve to accept a tender in seven (7) days from the closing date.

4 In my opinion, for it to be reasonably justified, it would be necessary to first procure market information and/or confirmation from suppliers in writing which could be relied upon to objectively demonstrate that there are in fact no suppliers of electricity services who are willing or able to hold their tendered rates open for acceptance for a period long enough to allow all of Centroc’s member Councils to meet.

5 If …the Councils resolved that there were extenuating circumstances such that the exemption in s 55 (3)(i) should apply, Council should still undertake an appropriate and practical market testing process, including appropriate processes for the consideration and acceptance of any offers received by the Councils.

The legal advice suggests that using the extenuating circumstances clause offers a compliant process to Councils wishing to use an aggregator without prescription in this case due to the short time frames for price acceptance.

Market information to inform paragraph 4 above obtained from 2 aggregators is that the retailers will normally only hold offered prices for between 2-7 days. If councils were to request an extension of the prices to allow for each Council to resolve at their ordinary monthly meeting, the price is likely be higher than the price offered for a shorter validity timeframe due to a risk component being built into the price.

Regarding paragraph 5, the practical market testing process would be coordinated through EMS through an Expression of Interest (EOI) process.

The Process

The procurement process will be run as a Request for Quotation or an Expression of Interest, and is as follows:

1 Each participating member Council to receive a report at their March/early April meeting regarding electricity procurement and seek to resolve that the accepting of the price for electricity through the process with EMS be delegated to the Mayor and General Manager.

2 Councils will be asked to provide a full list of tariff sites to EMS, including historical consumption information. Councils including Orange currently using e21 software (part of EMS) for the management of energy will not need to provide as much information as EMS will already have access to electricity information. Those councils will be required to verify the information provided.

3 EMS to advise the current status of the electricity market and to determine the best time to seek quotations for the supply of electricity for the commencement of a contract on 1 January 2017. Recent advice provided is that the best time to go to market for electricity is either autumn or spring as prices peak in summer and winter due to high demand.

4 EMS to conduct the procurement process, including the analysis of responses including energy pricing, metering costs and the terms and conditions of the contract and provide advice to Centroc and participating councils.

5 EMS to prepare a report recommending the preferred retailer and contract period.

6 Council to sign off on the offering and execute contracts. Some retailers have a sign off sheet to execute contracts whereas others prepare full documents for signing straight away.

7 EMS to assist with the site transfers at the commencement of the new contract.

Pricing

EMS charges the following costs for the management of the aggregation of electricity procurement:

· Small Sites

o $1,000 per Council – 50% is refunded if Council proceeds to a contract.

o $25 per site per annum (paid by Council)

· Large Sites and Street Lighting

o $750 per Council – 100% returned if Council proceeds to a contract

o $100 per site (paid by Council)

o 1.5% commission on the energy charges (paid by Council).

Council Meeting 5 April 2016

5.6 Relocation of Rural Fire Service Headquarters to Orange

TRIM REFERENCE: 2016/587

AUTHOR: Reg Kidd, Cr

EXECUTIVE Summary

On Wednesday 25 February 2016, Cr John Davis – Mayor, Chris Devitt – Director Technical Services and I met with the Hon David Elliott MP, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Emergency Services and Minister for Veterans Affairs, and his senior policy staff on the possibilities of relocating the Rural Fire Service (RFS) to Orange.

This meeting was arranged by our Local Member, Andrew Gee MP, and he also attended the meeting.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

Financial Implications

The guidelines instruct Council it should expend money in accordance with the detailed budget adopted for the purposes of implementing the Delivery/Operational Plan for the 2015/16 year.

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That the report by Cr Reg Kidd regarding the relocation of the Rural Fire Services headquarters to Orange be noted.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

A motion was moved by myself on 6 September 2012 (see attached). This was supported unanimously and outlined a case for the decentralisation of Rural Fire Services (RFS) to Orange.

In July 2015 the NSW Farmers Association moved at their annual conference (see attached) to support a move from Sydney of the NSW Rural Fire Services to Central West NSW (preferred options Orange or Parkes). This saw a deal of media (locally and state-wide) and a great deal of enthusiasm for such a move from Regional Development Australia (Central West), NSW Farmers members across NSW and the broader business and public community.

A number of submissions have been made to the Local Member, Andrew Gee MP, since particularly in light of the Electrolux closure and the Economic Development Community Committee has included it as an item on its action plan.

Council has also made approaches to the RFS for the establishment of a training facility in Orange without success to date.

Over this time, there have been changes in Minister and senior staff and I believed the time was right for a renewed approach. All supporting organisations (including NSW Farmer with 8,000 plus members, Regional Development Australia and the general community) are firm in this support.

I was fortunate enough to obtain copies of supportive letters that had been sent through to the Minister in 2013, 2014 and 2015 from other organisations like Volunteer Fire Fighters Association (VFFA), Peter Canon OAM President, and the Hon Thomas George MP. These I passed onto the Local Member.

Therefore it is best to say that it has been an ongoing push for such a decentralisation since September 2012.

It is important also to note that a decentralisation of the RFS is supported by the findings of the NSW Government Parliamentary inquiries on the Warrumbungle fires. It would also meet the principles within the Government’s decade of decentralisation policy.

Therefore even though Orange City Council (OCC) has written to the NSW Fire Service proposing the establishment of a State Training Centre for Incident Management Teams, Incident Control Systems and Control Command Communication (and other relevant training) possibly located on the site of the Canobolas Zone headquarters, nothing positive has been forthcoming to date.

Thus a meeting with the Minister was seen as a possible way forward and was organised by the Local Member. Meeting outcomes:

1 That OCC was very pro-active in Regional Development and supported Governments Decentralisation Policy. Examples were given to the Minister of OCC’s capability.

2 The decentralisation of the Department of Primary Industry to Orange had been hugely successful and facilitated by OCC. This move had proven to be very successful.

3 Even though the Minister has been inundated with requests to relocate from Sydney, Orange and Parkes are the only centres supported by the NSW Farmers, the VFFA and others.

4 There will be a review of emergency services management in NSW, therefore a multi-agency response would be a preferred option (there will be a Green Paper, then a White Paper released) that OCC should have input to.

5 A Command Centre (where all contributing Government agencies and support agencies) will necessarily have to remain in Sydney.

6 Non-operational sections (ie training) could be relocated-decentralised, and this involved several hundred positions.

7 For OCC to put up options to the Minister (and senior staff) addressing main areas:

a Why not other regional centres

b Looking at multi-agency response (ie Police, SES, charity organisations etc)

c Media support

d Local factors including a cooperative experienced Council, a communication/media hub, Canobolas RFS headquarters, transport hub – air, road, train, aerial firefighting experience, available land, DPI headquarters and the new Biosecurity Act (that includes Emergency Services fire, flood, drought etc), Central point for distributing (and housing heavy equipment ie earthmoving, aerial firefighting equipment, ground firefighting equipment, other logistics hub for all emergency services.

Since that meeting, I have been in touch with Senior Advisors of the Minister and have said that OCC will put through a written request based on discussions at the meeting and copies of interest Council had put forward previously in the training sector.

Reg Kidd

COUNCILLOR

Attachments

1 Copy of Notice of Motion - CCL - 6 September 2012 - Relocation to Orange of Rural Fire Service Headquarters, 2012/865 ⇩

2 Attachment - Meeting with Hon David Elliott MP Minister for Corrections, Emergency Services and Veterans Affairs, D16/10619 ⇩

Council Meeting 5 April 2016

5.6 Relocation of Rural Fire Service Headquarters to Orange

Attachment 1 Copy of Notice of Motion - CCL - 6 September 2012 - Relocation to Orange of Rural Fire Service Headquarters

2012/865

Date received 20 August 2012

NOTICE OF MOTION

RELOCATION OF RURAL FIRE SERVICE HEADQUARTERS TO ORANGE

I, COUNCILLOR REG KIDD, wish to move the following Motion at the Council Meeting to be held on the 6 September 2012:

MOTION

That Orange City Council work with our local Member to lobby to have the Rural Fire Service Headquarters relocated to Orange.

BACKGROUND

I wish to make a suggestion that would seem to fit both with your enthusiasm for the advancement of Orange and State Coalition policy about boosting regional areas, that is, to move the Rural Fire Service HQ to a RURAL area. The ideal places are now available in Orange. The RFS HQ in Homebush has become too small to house all the staff and some have been relocated to rented premises in Glendenning and some to rented premises at Sydney Olympic Park in the Dairy Farmers building and are still having problems with space. A new state-of-the-art RFS HQ and Disaster Planning HQ could be located in Orange at the Agricultural Research Station or at State-owned land (old Hospital):

1 The land is already owned by the State Government.

2 Land in Orange is cheaper than Sydney and the Government would save hundreds of thousands of dollars on expensive Sydney rent.

3 It would boost the regional economy and economy of Orange.

4 It would contribute to decentralisation and reduce pressure on Sydney roads and other infrastructure.

5 Response times to attend the HQ would be dramatically reduced for operations staff.

6 The RURAL Fire Service should be located in a RURAL area.

7 It is one of the safest sites in the country; disaster in Sydney could mean loss of the Fire Control Centre operational capacity.

8 It would act as an example of how this Coalition Government really cares about regional NSW not just Sydney.

9 It is within day car trip distance to Sydney and back and we have a reliable air service for the same purpose.

ABOVE BACKGROUND COMMENT:

Suggestion by persons involved with RFS and used with their permission.

Cr Reg Kidd