ORANGE CITY COUNCIL
Infrastructure Policy Committee
Agenda
6 September 2016
Notice is hereby given, in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 that a Infrastructure Policy Committee meeting of ORANGE CITY COUNCIL will be held in the Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Byng Street, Orange on Tuesday, 6 September 2016.
Garry Styles
General Manager
For apologies please contact Michelle Catlin on 6393 8246.
Infrastructure Policy Committee 6 September 2016
2.1 Minutes of the City of Orange Traffic Committee - 9 August 2016
3.2 Rural Fire Service Funding
3.3 Spring Hill to Orange Sewerage Effluent Pipeline Project
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 Committee Members now disclose any conflicts of interest in matters under consideration by the Infrastructure Policy Committee at this meeting. |
TRIM REFERENCE: 2016/1852
AUTHOR: Chris Devitt, Director Technical Services
EXECUTIVE Summary
The City of Orange Traffic Committee met on 9 August 2016 and the recommendations from that meeting are presented to the Infrastructure Policy Committee for adoption.
The Traffic Committee considered the McNamara Street loading zone at this meeting. It is recommended that consideration of the Committee’s recommendation on this item be deferred and considered in conjunction with a future report on the McNamara Street parklet. This future report will also consider the two submissions on the loading zone that were received after the Traffic Committee meeting.
Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan
The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “15.1 Our Environment – Maintain and renew traffic and transport infrastructure assets and services as specified within the Asset Management Plan at agreed levels of service”.
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.
The Committee’s recommendations can be funded from the existing budget.
Policy and Governance Implications
Nil
That the recommendations made by the City of Orange Traffic Committee at its meeting held on 9 August 2016 be adopted, with exception to item 3.7 – McNamara Street modifications, and that this item be considered in conjunction with a future report to include the McNamara Street parklet.
|
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 Committee recommends installation of the following:
· “No stopping” signs in Lords Place south of Matthews Avenue
· “No stopping” signs in March Street east of Park Street
· Reminder 50kph signs in Silverdown Way and a give way sign in Gorman Road at the intersection of Silverdown Way.
The Committee also recommends the removal of timed parking along Edward Street between Caroline Street and Churchill Avenue.
Attachments
1 Minutes of the Meeting of the City of Orange Traffic Committee held on 9 August 2016
ORANGE CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF THE
City of Orange Traffic Committee
HELD IN Councillors Workroom, Civic Centre, Byng Street, Orange
ON 9 August 2016
COMMENCING AT 9.00am
1 Introduction
Attendance
Cr R Turner (Chairperson), Mr David Vant, Sen. Const. Alison Hodge, Ms Deanne Freeman (RMS), Commercial and Emergency Services Manager, Road Safety Officer, Works Manager (9:07am), Strategic Planning & Design Engineer, Divisional Administration Officer
1.1 Apologies and Leave of Absence
RESOLVED Cr R Turner/Mr D Vant That the apology be accepted from Sgt Mark Hevers for the City of Orange Traffic Committee meeting on 9 August 2016. |
1.2 Acknowledgement of Country
1.3 Declaration of pecuniary interests, significant non-pecuniary interests and less than significant non-pecuniary interests
Nil
3 General Reports
TRIM Reference: 2016/1635 |
Recommendation Mr D Vant/Sen Const Hodge That Council installs two “no stopping” signs in Lords Place 10 metres south of Matthews Avenue.
|
** Manager Works arrived at the meeting with the time being 9:07am. **
TRIM Reference: 2016/1705 |
Recommendation Mr D Vant/Sen Const Hodge That all timed parking along Edward Street, between Caroline Street and Churchill Avenue, be removed.
|
TRIM Reference: 2016/1747 |
Recommendation Mr D Vant/Cr R Turner That Council install “no stopping” signs in March Street, east of Park Street, 20 metres from the Park Street kerb.
|
TRIM Reference: 2016/1827 |
That Council installs a 13.5 metres long loading zone on the eastern side of McNamara Street beginning 30 metres south of Summer Street as per drawing CP00053.
|
GENERAL BUSINESS
The Meeting Closed at 9:20AM.
TRIM REFERENCE: 2016/1954
AUTHOR: Chris Devitt, Director Technical Services
EXECUTIVE Summary
The purpose of this report is to update Council on construction and maintenance works which have been carried out since the last current works report to Council.
Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan
The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “14.1 Our Environment – Design and construct new infrastructure assets as specified with the Asset Management Plan to agreed levels of service”.
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.
Policy and Governance Implications
Nil
That the information provided in the report on Current Works be acknowledged. |
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
ROADWORKS
Road Maintenance
Pothole patching has been ongoing and with some dry and warmer weather Council’s jet patcher has been utilised to undertake more durable repair works.
Damage has been caused to road pavements at locations where inundation has occurred due to flooding. Temporary repair work is ongoing and Council staff have submitted applications under the NSW Natural Disaster Assessment scheme for permanent repairs.
Council crews have also undertaken gravel road grading on:
· Anderson Road
· Bargwanna Road
· Beaumah Road
· Bennett Lane
· Blunt Road
· Buttle Road
· Dane Lane
· Emu Swamp Rd
· Ginns Road
· Kearl Road
· Lone Pine Ave
· Selwood Lane
· Shepherd Road
· Steels Lane
· Wise Road
Road Upgrading
Crews have recommenced works on internal roads in the Bloomfield precinct adjacent to the Mission Australia development on the Huntley Road side of the site.
Completion of new street lighting on the Northern Distributor Road adjacent to the new Bunnings development is expected in early September.
Linemarking
Linemarking and associated works remain outstanding on road works undertaken late in the 2015/16 construction season. Council staff have engaged linemarking contractors to undertake these works, however cold and damp conditions have not been ideal for achieving the desired drying off of painted road surfaces.
CONCRETE AND DRAINAGE
Traffic Facilities
Crews continued works on pedestrian blisters and refuge facilities at the intersection of Kite and Sampson Streets, Kite and Woodward Streets and Sampson and Byng Streets.
WATER MAINTENANCE
New Water Services
· 8 McNamara Street
· Orange Toll Hanger - 50mm fire service and 32mm domestic service
· 1 Alice Place
· 5 Abbey Place
Category |
July 2015 – June 2016 |
July 2016 |
Leaking meters |
515 |
24 |
Faulty meters (incorrect readings) |
216 |
10 |
No supply |
45 |
2 |
Water pressure complaints |
26 |
1 |
Meter box/lid replacements |
105 |
3 |
Water quality |
32 |
4 |
Service break |
8 |
0 |
Service leak |
62 |
0 |
Main break |
92 |
2 |
Main leak |
231 |
19 |
Valve leak |
14 |
0 |
Hydrant leak |
52 |
4 |
Total Water Requests |
1398 |
69 |
WATER STORAGE
Water Storage Levels
Location |
Date |
Level Below Spillway (mm) |
% of Capacity |
Suma Park Dam |
22 August 2016 |
0 |
100.0% |
Spring Creek Dam |
22 August 2016 |
0 |
100.0% |
Gosling Creek Dam |
22 August 2016 |
0 |
100.0% |
Lake Canobolas |
22 August 2016 |
0 |
100.0% |
Water Consumption
Average daily water consumption during the week ending 18 August 2016 was 236 litres per person per day.
Water Quality
Water samples are collected as a component of the Orange City Council’s Drinking Water Quality Monitoring Program which forms part of the NSW Health requirements. Samples are collected regularly and sent to a National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) accredited laboratory for analysis. Samples analysed between 1 July (as last reported to Council) and the end of July 2016 complied with the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines, 2011.
SEWER MAINTENANCE
Category |
July 2015 – June 2016 |
July 2016 |
Sewer blockages |
357 |
41 |
Odour |
9 |
1 |
Overflows |
196 |
14 |
Total Sewer Requests |
562 |
56 |
Construction
· Construction commenced on the upgrade of the sewer main across Margaret Stevenson Park. The pipe is being upsized from 225mm diameter to 300mm diameter using trenchless technology (“pipe cracking”). The project will increase the capacity of this section of Council’s sewer network.
· Sewer junction reconstruction of 13 Coronation Drive.
CCTV
· 10 Nunkeri Drive
EAST ORANGE CHANNEL – BYNG STREET TO MCLACHLAN STREET
Council has awarded the contract for this work to Hibbo Hire Pty Ltd from Bathurst. The contractor commenced site works on Wednesday 17 August. Excavation of the first 40m length of the existing channel is progressing to allow forming of the concrete base for the new channel section.
NEW EMERGENCY HELICOPTER HANGAR
The project is currently on approved budget, however the works schedule is affected by the recent prolonged wet weather with an anticipated completion now in late September/October. This is well within the timeframe required by TOLL of February 2017.
The installation of services throughout the building including hot and cold water has been completed. Wall insulation, roof sarking and sheeting works are now underway within the hangar.
Project Control Group meetings are progressing well with TOLL representatives in attendance. Preliminary designs have been received detailing the refuelling facility proposed for the hangar. Council is now in negotiation with TOLL regarding final location and sizing.
CENTRAL TABLELANDS REGIONAL WATER SECURITY PROJECT – Orange To Carcoar Pipeline
Orange City Council is continuing the development of the Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project from Orange to Carcoar. This project is funded under the Restart NSW Water Security for Regions Program to improve water access and security in the areas serviced by Orange City Council (OCC) and Central Tablelands Water (CTW).
Cabonne Council is also developing a Pipeline Project under the same Restart funding program, and to achieve economies of scale it has been agreed to work with Cabonne and submit a joint tender. Tenders for the OCC / CTW Project were invited from the pre-qualified list of tenderers on 15 August 2016. Cabonne Council is proposing to invite tenders on 25 August 2016 with closing dates for both tenders being 7 October 2016. Both tenders will be awarded in November 2016 with construction proposed to commence early 2017.
Orange City Council and Central Tablelands Water are continuing consultation with their respective affected landowners in relation to acquiring easements which includes survey, valuations and rehabilitation plans.
This project is within budget and on track to meet the completion date of December 2018.
Aquatic Centre Attendance
|
May 2016 |
June 2016 |
July 2016 |
Adult |
584 |
423 |
558 |
Concession |
370 |
295 |
336 |
Child |
583 |
486 |
714 |
Child Under 5 |
195 |
159 |
256 |
Family |
38 |
26 |
65 |
School |
0 |
34 |
46 |
Swipe Entries |
2,913 |
2,427 |
2,477 |
Adult Multi Pass |
34 |
25 |
32 |
Child/Concession Multi Pass |
51 |
45 |
46 |
Carnival Spectators |
312 |
236 |
0 |
Fitness Passport |
1,556 |
1,211 |
1608 |
Shower |
5 |
7 |
152 |
Non Swimmers |
178 |
255 |
278 |
Aqua Aerobics |
44 |
46 |
31 |
Super Pass |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Total |
6,863 |
5,675 |
6,599 |
AIRPORT PASSENGER NUMBERS
Passenger numbers for July 2016 were 4,130 compared with 3,934 during the same month in 2015.
Cr Gryllis has requested information on passenger numbers over the last 10 years for both Orange and Dubbo Airports. This data is listed in the table below.
Total PASSENGERS |
||
FINANCIAL YEAR |
ORANGE |
DUBBO |
2006-2007 |
58,123 |
177,031 |
2007-2008 |
60,641 |
193,125 |
2008-2009 |
54,513 |
173,535 |
2009-2010 |
53,320 |
171,261 |
2010-2011 |
59,794 |
176,420 |
2011-2012 |
63,894 |
171,739 |
2012-2013 |
54,218 |
170,195 |
2013-2014 |
50,571 |
186,203 |
2014-2015 |
48,836 |
188,907 |
2015-2016 |
49,247 |
203,294 |
ENERGY USE
The following information is sourced from E21, Council’s energy software.
21 August 2016
TRIM REFERENCE: 2016/1857
AUTHOR: Kel Gardiner, Manager Commercial and Emergency Services
EXECUTIVE Summary
Council has received correspondence from the Commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service advising funding arrangements between the Service and Council will change.
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
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
The projected implications of the new funding arrangements is approximately $57,963.00.
Policy and Governance Implications
Nil
That Council endorse the recommendation from the recent meeting of Council representatives of the Canobolas Zone on the Rural Fire Fighting Fund funding arrangements and endorse the following actions: 1 The zone member councils write to the relevant Ministers and the Rural Fire Service requesting: a That future rises be limited to the rate cap and the cost of emergency services be included in the IPART consideration of rate rises for Local Government b Clarification be provided on the standard to which the RFS is heading with regard to facilities, equipment and training and how this compares to the standard of fire cover which was the previous ambition c The implementation of the new higher costs be deferred one year to effectively take the increases through the Integrated Planning and Reporting processes given that councils budgets are already in place d Feedback on concerns that councils from those zones which have been historically proactive in lifting facilities, equipment and training will be financially penalised for being proactive with a risk of subsidising less historically proactive zones given the new formula for apportioning council contributions contained within the changes 2 The zone member councils write to LGNSW and LGNSW local representatives expressing concerns as above and seeking feedback on whether protections for significant rises were provided for in negotiations between RFS and LGNSW. A copy of correspondence from RFS citing negotiation and agreement between RFS/LGNSW to be provided with such letters 3 That Centroc be requested to support member councils on this matter. |
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 has been advised by the Commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service that funding arrangements between the Service and Council will change from the 2016/17 financial year and future years.
Previously Rural Fire Service (RFS) funding was negotiated on a yearly basis between, in our case, the Zone Manager and the four councils in the Zone, Orange, Cabonne, Blayney and Cowra. Discussions were held on the specific council’s ability to fund new vehicles and major capital expenditure such as a Fire Control Centre or brigade stations.
Councils’ contribution to the Rural Fire Fighting Fund is 11.7% of the allocation to the Zone. In the 2015/16 year the contribution was $1,055,559.00. This in turn was divided among the four councils in the Zone on the following percentages:
· Blayney – 23%
· Cabonne 35%
· Orange 19%
· Cowra 23%.
The percentage split was based on allocation history when the Zone was formed.
There has also been a reimbursement to councils of program charges or as it’s known today Volunteer and Support Services (VASS) and this was also split on the above percentages.
Council has been advised that the reimbursement will not continue, however the Rural Fire Service has advised that the majority of the VASS budget has been moved into maintenance and repairs budget to reimburse councils for maintenance and repairs.
The Rural Fire Service advise that in consultation and agreement with Local Government NSW a new financial methodology for the 2016/17 financial year and subsequent years. The revised funding arrangement is based on determining the estimated expenditure in a Rural Fire District or Zone as a percentage of the fund based on a twenty year history.
Interestingly LGNSW has since come out advising the Claims Agreement between RFS and LGNSW are a misrepresentation (see attached).
The Service has indicated this will benefit local government by:
· The annual contribution will be a fixed percentage of Rural Fire Fighting Fund (RFFF) and therefore will only increase by the annual percentage change in the overall RFFF. This will allow councils to better anticipate and budget for their statutory contribution
· The time of notification of the allocation will improve. The information included in this report relates to the 2016/17 year and as Council is aware, the budget is well and truly set by this stage of the year so finding out about additional/changes to funding at this late stage requires Council to contemplate a budget adjustment.
· The RFS will be able to provide Council the full allocation for approved infrastructure projects in a single allocation without affecting the contribution paid by Council.
In the past there would have been an increase in the contribution paid by Council if there were new approved projects such as stations and trucks.
From Orange Council’s perspective based on the new methodology the impact is as follows:
Projected State Allocation |
$319,328,135.00 |
Projected Zone Allocation 2.842% |
$9,075,530.00 |
Zone Contribution 11.7% |
$1,061,810.20 |
The Orange percentage in the Zone is 19% and this equates to $201,744.00
Should the VASS reimbursement have been applied it would have been $35,910.00 based on the RFS budget for 2016/2017 leaving a balance of $165,834.00. Council had $214,710.00 in the current budget for RFS contribution.
There is also the addition of capital in the equation and this year this will include for Orange two new stations and a new truck. The capital expenses in the zone are covered by the respective Council and this will mean the projected RFS contribution by Council this year will be $272,673.00. The fact that the VASS charges are not being reimbursed means Council will have to pay an additional $57,963.00 to what was projected in the budget. Council has kept any surplus projected contribution money in a reserve for times when additional capital items are made available through the fund and the above amount can be funded from that reserve.
This may change slightly as Council is yet to be informed of the actual allocation however if the above analysis is true the additional cost to Orange City Council is $57,963.00. Across the sector some councils, particularly rural councils, are advising of significant rises, with impacts on operating budgets that will require cuts to other levels of service.
It should be noted the Canobolas Zone Council’s and in particular Orange Council has been proactive in the support of Rural Fire Service volunteers and the Rural Fire Service in the provision of up-to-date equipment and infrastructure. A good example of this is the construction of the Zone Fire Control Centre which was funded by Orange City Council and then claimed back from the Rural Fire Fighting Fund.
This has placed the volunteers in this Council and the others in the Zone in a good position as far as the level and standard of equipment is concerned. However as stated previously the new funding arrangements have been based on past allocations over the past 20 years. The fact that this Council has been prepared to pay extra in the past it is suggested it may now cost it into the future in a double dipping sense.
There are other areas that have not had the proactive approach and have minimised the contribution to the RFFF and therefore the level of equipment and infrastructure will be of a lesser standard than what is in this Zone. This may lead to councils in Zones such as Canobolas in fact subsidising others as the allocation will be based on the twenty year historical average.
It could be said that other areas should be required to pay additional amounts to cater for the future upgrade in equipment that will be required to bring fleet and infrastructure up to an acceptable standard.
It also raises the question of percentage increases in contributions to Emergency Services each year, will these be only subject to CPI or will they be greater which has been the case in some circumstances in the past? Local Government is restricted in any increases it can make in rates and it would therefore seem reasonable that this should apply to contributions made to the Rural Fire Service, State Emergency Service and Fire and Rescue NSW.
Representatives of the councils in the Canobolas Zone have met to discuss the future funding arrangements with the Rural Fire Service and have endorsed and recommended the following actions:
That:
1 The zone member councils write to the relevant Ministers and the Rural Fire Service requesting:
a That future rises be limited to the rate cap and the cost of emergency services be included in the IPART consideration of rate rises for Local Government
b Clarification be provided on the standard to which the RFS is heading with regard to facilities, equipment and training and how this compares to the standard of fire cover which was the previous ambition
c The implementation of the new higher costs be deferred one year to effectively take the increases through the Integrated Planning and Reporting process given that council budgets are already in place
d Feedback on concerns that councils from those zones which have been historically proactive in lifting facilities, equipment and training will be financially penalised for being proactive with a risk of subsidising less proactive zones given the new formula for apportioning council contributions contained within the changes
2 The zone member councils write to LGNSW and LGNSW local representatives expressing concerns as above and seeking feedback on whether protections for significant rises were provided for in negotiations between RFS and LGNSW. A copy of correspondence from RFS citing negotiation and agreement between RFS/LGNSW to be provided with such letters
3 Centroc be requested to support member Councils on this matter.
For Council’s information the comparative contributions made to the Rural Fire Service, Fire and Rescue NSW and the State Emergency Services is shown below.
TRIM REFERENCE: 2016/1901
AUTHOR: Wayne Beatty, Water and Sewerage Strategic Manager
EXECUTIVE Summary
This report is recommending the allocation of $2,000,000 from Sewer Fund restricted assets to undertake the construction of a pipeline to transfer sewerage effluent from Spring Hill, Lucknow and the Orange Airport Precinct into the Orange sewerage network – a distance of approximately 10 kilometres.
The project is being brought forward in order to take advantage of the Orange to Carcoar Potable Water Pipeline Project and economies of scale associated with laying the sewerage effluent transfer pipeline at the same time in an adjacent or same trench.
It is proposed that construction work associated with this section of the pipeline will commence in early 2017.
Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan
The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “14.1 Our Environment – Design and construct new infrastructure assets as specified with the Asset Management Plan to agreed levels of service”.
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
The recommendation is to utilise $2,000,000 from the Sewer reserves to fund this project. Operational savings of $120,000 per annum relating to the decommissioned sewage treatment plant at Spring Hill are expected to be realised.
Policy and Governance Implications
Nil
That $2,000,000 be allocated from Sewer Fund restricted assets for construction of a sewerage effluent transfer pipeline from Spring Hill to Orange. |
further considerations
The recommendation of this report has been assessed against Council’s other key risk categories and the following comments are provided:
Service Delivery |
Allocating funds to undertake this project will provide significant future operational and capital upgrade works savings at Spring Hill Sewerage Treatment Plant. |
Environmental |
Taking Spring Hill Sewerage Treatment Plant out of service reduces the risk of groundwater contamination from this point source. |
Projects |
This project has been assessed as part of the Orange to Carcoar Pipeline Project. The project has significant benefits due to economies of scale associated with laying the sewerage effluent transfer pipeline in an adjacent trench and at the same time as the Orange to Carcoar pipeline. All risks are able to be mitigated so that residual risks are low to moderate. |
Financial |
The Sewer Fund has sufficient capacity within the Section 64 restricted asset to fund this project. As subsequent development occurs, the Section 64 restricted asset will be replenished. |
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
The construction of the proposed Spring Hill to Orange sewerage effluent pipeline consists of 10.7 km of pipeline and associated fittings as well as a single pump station. This includes:
· 10.2km of 150mm diameter sewerage effluent transfer pressure main from Spring Hill to Orange and
· 0.5km of 100mm diameter branch connection to the Orange Airport Precinct.
Installation of this pipeline is proposed to parallel a section of the Orange to Carcoar Potable Water Pipeline route.
It is proposed that construction work associated with this section of the pipeline will commence in early 2017. The project has a total cost estimate of $2 million.
The estimated construction savings may be in the order of 10% of the project value (or $150,000 - $200,000) which includes various aspects of the works including:
· Project Management
· Rehabilitation works and
· The requirement to undertake a new or revised Review of Environmental Factors (REF)
Other savings may also be made as a result of common trenching, if this methodology is used by the contractor.
Also, if work was to be undertaken at a later date:
· increased costs may result due to potential construction conflict with the previously constructed Orange to Carcoar Potable Water Pipeline and
· Landholders adjacent to the proposed pipeline route would be inconvenienced for a second time.
Spring Hill and Lucknow Sewerage Infrastructure Strategy
Spring Hill Sewerage Treatment Plant (STP) is a nominal 1,000 Equivalent Persons (EP) STP that services the communities of Spring Hill, Lucknow and the Orange Airport Precinct.
The STP and sewerage system was designed in the late 1980’s by NSW Public Works and constructed in 1990 to 1991. It is considered to be a basic plant that, while performing its role over the last 25 years, now requires various short to medium term upgrade works. The Plant is ageing and, in the longer term, will require considerable upgrade works and amplification if development in the Spring Hill and Lucknow area continues.
Any future upgrade works will require the STP to comply with current Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) requirements for treated effluent water quality. Discharge limits would be much tighter than the current licence requires for parameters such as nutrients. Therefore any upgrade will involve significant expense, potentially in the order of $10 million for a new plant along with ongoing additional operational and maintenance costs.
Possible future developments in Lucknow and Spring Hill will add new connections and further load to the STP
Cost benefits
Given the opportunity to construct the pipeline to transfer sewerage effluent from Spring Hill into the Orange sewerage network, this option (compared to the option of future upgrade works associated with the Spring Hill STP) is recommended for the following reasons:
· Council’s current operational and maintenance budget for the Spring Hill STP is $120,000 per annum. Whilst sewerage effluent would still need to be pumped into the Orange sewerage network, all operational and maintenance costs associated with the plant would be saved as the Spring Hill STP would be taken out of service.
· Significant medium to long term capital expenditure due to future requirements for upgrading Spring Hill STP would be avoided. More than $10 million could be required to construct a new plant in order to comply with current EPA requirements.
Environmental benefits
A recent groundwater assessment in the Spring Hill village area identifies the Spring Hill STP as a potential point source that may impact on groundwater quality. These risks are considered low to moderate provided appropriate control measures are implemented such as groundwater quality monitoring as occurs currently.
By comparison, if the Spring Hill STP were to be taken out of service, all risks associated with potential groundwater contamination would be negated as would the potential for the limited capacity of the existing plant to limit opportunities in Lucknow and Spring Hill.
The project also transfers all sewage to the one location for treatment (Orange STP) thus increasing sustainability opportunities in the future e.g. maximise biogas collection. As well the Orange STP has significant spare capacity to deal with the additional load from the Spring Hill plant.