Ordinary Council Meeting
Agenda
15 March 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, 15 March 2022 commencing at 7.00pm.
David Waddell
Chief Executive Officer
For apologies please contact Administration on 6393 8106.
Council Meeting 15 March 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
1.3 Acknowledgement of Country
COUNCIL MEETING ADJOURNS FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE OPEN FORUM
2.2 Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) - National Federal Election Priorities
2.3 Central NSW JO Board Meeting - 24 February 2022
Presentation of the Annual Audit Accounts - Audit Office
3 Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meeting
3.1 Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Orange City Council held on 03 March 2022
4 Notices of Motion/Notices of Rescission
4.1 Conduct Funerals at Orange Botanic Gardens
5.1 Statement of Investments - December 2021
5.2 Statement of Investments - January 2022
5.3 Statement of Investments - Feburary 2022
5.4 Strategic Policy - ST050 - Code of Meeting Practice - Post Exhibition
5.6 Central West Councils Environment and Waterways Alliance
5.7 Development Application DA 23/2022(1) - 21-25 Peisley Street
5.8 Appointment of Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) Members
5.10 Request for Financial Assistance - Small Donations Program Round 3 - 2021/2022
6 Closed Meeting - See Closed Agenda
6.1 Sale Proposed Lot 404, 38 Astill Drive Orange
6.2 Netwaste Regional Household Hazardous Waste Collection 2022
6.3 Proposed Acquisition of Land - part 415 Mitchell Highway, Orange
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.
1.3 Acknowledgement of Country
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.
|
COUNCIL MEETING ADJOURNS FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE OPEN FORUM
RECORD NUMBER: 2022/323
Mayoral Minute
That Council investigate the possibility of a temporary indoor playground for the 2022 winter season.
That the information contained in this Mayoral Minute be acknowledged
|
Jason
Hamling
Mayor
RECORD NUMBER: 2022/324
Mayoral Minute
The next Federal Election is expected to be held in May 2022.
Working in conjunction with its member state and territory associations, the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) has developed a framework and resources for a national advocacy campaign that will run in the lead up to this election.
Based around the tagline of “Don’t Leave Local Communities Behind”, the goal is to secure funding and policy commitments that will support every Australian council and community, and ensure all Australians have an equal opportunity to share in the benefits of Australia’s post-pandemic recovery.
All Australian councils have been asked to participate in this campaign to ensure a coordinated approach that will deliver the best possible outcomes.
That: 1. Council supports the national funding priorities of the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA), which would contribute an estimated $6.46 billion per year to Australia’s GDP and create 43,444 jobs; and 2. Council agrees to support and participate in the Australian Local Government Association’s advocacy for their endorsed national funding priorities by writing to the local Federal Member(s) of Parliament, all known election candidates in local Federal electorates and the President of the Australian Local Government Association to: a. express support for ALGA’s funding priorities; b. identify priority local projects and programs that could be progressed with the additional financial assistance from the Federal Government being sought by ALGA; and c. seek funding commitments from the members, candidates and their parties for these identified local projects and programs. |
Jason
Hamling
Mayor
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
The Don’t Leave Local Communities Behind campaign will promote 17 priority asks in the portfolios of economic recovery, transport and community infrastructure, building resilience, circular economy and intergovernmental relations.
These priorities are based on motions passed by councils at ALGA’s annual National General Assembly and have been endorsed by ALGA’s Board which is comprised of representatives from all state and territory Local Government Associations.
They have been assessed by independent economists and would add around $6.46 billion per year to Australia’s Gross Domestic Product while creating 43,444 jobs.
The Don’t Leave Local Communities Behind campaign will run for five weeks, with each week focussing on one of the five portfolio areas.
The full list of national Federal Election priorities that will be promoted through this campaign is outlined below:
Economic recovery
1. An initial injection of Financial Assistance Grants to local government of $1.3 billion to support communities and jobs and also resolve the current practice of bringing forward two quarterly Financial Assistance Grant payments each year.
2. A commitment to return Financial Assistance Grants to at least one percent of Commonwealth taxation revenue via a phased approach.
Transport and community infrastructure
3. $500 million per annum for a four-year continuation of the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program.
4. A strategic local roads investment program of $300 million per annum over four years to address road transport first and last mile issues and congestion on local roads.
5. An increase in Roads to Recovery to $800 million per annum (an additional $300 million per annum) and the Black Spot Program to $200 million per annum over four years, while addressing the South Australian road funding anomaly by making the additional $20 million per annum to SA in 2021-22 and 2022-23 permanent.
6. Continuing the Stronger Regional Digital Connectivity Package at $55 million over four years.
7. $200 million over four years to assist councils to develop and implement innovative housing partnerships.
Building resilience
8. A targeted disaster mitigation program of $200 million per annum for four years which will reduce the costs of response and recovery and strengthen community resilience.
9. A commitment to ensuring betterment funding as a core element of disaster recovery funding arrangements.
10. A commitment to include community infrastructure that is publicly accessible and owned, and local government waste, water and wastewater assets under Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements.
11. A Local Government Climate Response Partnership Fund of $200 million over four years to enable planning and preparation to minimise the impacts of climate change in local communities and enable councils to achieve climate neutrality as soon as practicable.
12. $100 million per annum over four years provided directly to local governments to support the capabilities of Indigenous councils and the implementation of the Closing the Gap local/regional voice.
Circular economy
13. Support to provide guidance and advice to councils on how to unlock the circular economy locally, particularly in rural, regional, and remote areas.
14. Support to investigate and, if feasible, implement a national bin harmonisation program that will improve kerbside recycling, reduce contamination, and maximise opportunities for reuse.
15. $100 million per annum over four years to fund local government circular waste innovation projects.
Intergovernmental relations
16. Reinstating local government representation to the primary intergovernmental forum in Australia, the National Cabinet.
17. Ensuring local government’s ongoing voting membership of other relevant Ministerial forums.
ALGA has developed free campaign resources that can be adapted and used by all councils to ensure a consistent and effective approach.
Participating in a national advocacy campaign does not preclude this council from advocating on additional local needs and issues, but it will strengthen the national campaign and support all 537 Australian local governments.
RECORD NUMBER: 2022/326
Mayoral Minute
I attended the Central NSW Joint Organisation Board meeting with the Chief Executive Officer on Thursday 24 February 2022 in Canowindra. This Mayoral Minute provides a summary of that meeting and attaches minutes for your information.
That the information contained in this Mayoral Minute be acknowledged and that Council:
1. Provide a response to the Central West and Orana Transport Plan including that the Plan ought: a) Use population planning assumptions that mirror the lived experience in region; and b) Make provision for longer term delivery of a safe swift link between Sydney and Central NSW. |
Jason
Hamling
Mayor
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
The Board elected a new Chair Cr Kevin Beatty Mayor of Cabonne and Deputy Chair, Cr Mark Kellam Mayor of Oberon. Both were elected unopposed reflecting the collegiate culture of the Board.
Cr Kellam was one of four new Mayors in the region welcomed to the Board, the others being Cr Robert Taylor, Mayor of Bathurst, Cr Jason Hamling, Mayor of Orange and Cr Craig Bembrick, Mayor of Weddin.
Cr John Medcalf, Mayor of Lachlan reflected on his term as Chair and welcomed in the new leadership team.
Subsequent to warm words from the new Chair, there was unanimous support for a vote of thanks for Cr Medcalf.
The meeting itself considered twelve reports where the full agenda is available on the website https://www.centraljo.nsw.gov.au/business-papers-agendas/:
1. Review of the CNSWJO Advocacy position for a safe, swift link between Central NSW and Sydney
2. Advocacy Tactics to the State and Federal Elections
3. Developing the Statement of Strategic Regional Priority for this term of the JO
4. Regional State Government/Local Government Workshop – Informing Community Strategic Plans
5. Policy for Competitive Funding
6. Regional Procurement and Contracts
7. Energy Program
8. Destination Network Central West Report
9. Regional Water Security
10. Matters raised by members – Bathurst Regional Council Section 10 Application on the Mount Panorama Wahluu Area
11. Financial Report
12. Quarterly review of implementation of the Statement of Strategic Regional Priority
There was significant discussion on advocacy tactics and key messaging into the Federal and State elections with a separate report on a safe swift link between Sydney and Central NSW.
The Board resolved to organise a workshop on refining the policy position on the safe swift link between Sydney and Central NSW. It was recognised that it is difficult to criticise a $4bn spend on the Great Western Highway, however when the current upgrade of Medlow Bath underway includes two sets of traffic lights, an unimpeded journey over the mountains at 100kph suitable for freight is clearly not being progressed. Worse, the Draft Central West and Orana Transport Plan has removed all references to the long term need for a highspeed transport link between Sydney and Central NSW. It is recommended that Council provide a response to the Draft Plan including on the need for planning for this link and to take an alternative approach to population assumptions being made in all State plans at present that show population decline or small growth in all Central NSW communities.
With the Federal election imminent the Board resolved to meet with both the government and opposition to advocate for the following priorities which align with:
1. Opportunities along the Lachlan Valley to do business differently to support the nation’s growth aspirations. Raising the dam wall at Wyangala is an important first step to deliver better flood immunity and water security to enable the agricultural sector.
2. The roll out of Inland Rail with funding support for enabling infrastructure in region.
3. Regional activation precincts like the one in Parkes and the 20 suggested by the National Farmers Federation for agricultural place-based development.
4. Connectivity, including to ports includes ensuring a safe swift link between Western Sydney and the Central West including the current upgrades along the Great Western Highway and more importantly securing a corridor for dual carriageway for a future crossing at 100kph. How is it that Queensland has two safe swift highways at 100kph to the west of Brisbane and NSW has not one?
5. A progressive increase in Financial Assistance Grants to at least one percent of Commonwealth taxation revenue (at least $4.5 billion per year), and an initial injection of additional Financial Assistance Grants funding.
6. A solutions-based approach to heath workforce shortages and aged care that puts the needs of regional communities first.
7. A Federal Government led fully funded support program for apprenticeships in local government codesigned with local government.
8. A Local Government Climate Response Partnership Fund of $200m over four years to enable planning and preparation to minimise the impacts of climate change in local communities and enable councils to achieve climate neutrality as soon as practicable.
9. Continuation of the Stronger Regional Digital Connectivity Package at $55m over four years to improve community resilience and local economic recovery.
Discussion at the Board level suggested that media prioritise key messaging in:
1. A progressive increase in Financial Assistance Grants
2. Health and aging
3. Water
4. Connection – transport and digital
Review of the CNSWJO Strategy
Like Council, CNSWJO must review its strategy each term. Given JO Board meetings are quarterly, 6 Mayors nominated to take on the role of development of the strategy. The mandated Statement of Strategic Regional Priority is due in December 2022.
Regional Submissions
Members have forwarded requests for the JO to lodge submissions, where all advice provided is within existing policy. All are available on the CNSWJO website at https://www.centraljo.nsw.gov.au/submissions/
The Board has approved submissions be lodged for the:
a. DPE Draft Central West and Orana Regional Plan
b. TfNSW Draft Central West and Orana Regional Transport Plan
c. AER Framework and Approach Consultation;
d. NSW Public Lighting Code Review; and
e. AEMC Review of Regulatory Framework for Metering Services
f. IPART Review of Electricity Network Operators’ Licenses
Value to members
A snapshot of the value to members of the various activities undertaken by the JO for their members in the context of the CNSWJO Strategic Plan follows.
VALUE FOR MEMBERS 2020/2021 |
FY 2019/2020 |
FY 2020/2021 |
FYTD 2021/2022 |
SUBMISSIONS |
20 |
23 |
10 |
PLANS, STRATEGIES AND COLLATERAL |
26 |
12 |
2 |
GRANTS SEEKING |
3 |
3 |
0 |
GRANT FUNDING RECEIVED |
$215k |
$736k |
0 |
COMPLIANCE |
13 |
9 |
9 |
DATA |
6 |
3 |
0 |
MEDIA INCLUDING SOCIAL MEDIA |
13 |
18 |
11 |
COST SAVINGS |
$1.87m |
$2.2m |
$1.03m |
REPRESENTATION |
147 |
159 |
156 |
OPPORTUNITIES COUNCILS HAVE BEEN AFFORDED |
35 |
102 |
72 |
Savings
The following chart shows the savings achieved by member councils through aggregated procurement and programming net of JO costs. An explanation of the meaning of each column has been reported previously and is available on request. The chart reflects savings in the 21/22 financial year to date.
Financial Implications
Nil
POLICY AND GOVERNANCE IMPLICATIONS
Nil
1 Minutes 24 February 2022, JO Board Meeting, D22/13176⇩
3 Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meeting
RECOMMENDATION That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Orange City Council held on 3 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 3 March 2022. |
Attachments
1 Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Orange City Council held on 3 March 2022
Council Meeting 15 March 2022
ORANGE CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF THE
Ordinary Council Meeting
HELD IN Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Byng Street, Orange
ON 3 March 2022
COMMENCING AT 7.00pm
Attendance
Cr J Hamling (Mayor), Cr K Duffy, Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne, Cr D Mallard, Cr M McDonell, Cr T Mileto, Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power (Deputy Mayor), Cr J Whitton
Chief Executive Officer, Director Corporate and Commercial Services, Director Development Services, Director Community, Recreation and Cultural Services, A/Director Technical Services (Gailey), A/Manager Corporate Governance, Administration Officer Governance
Nil
The Mayor advised that the meeting was being livestreamed and recorded.
1.3 OPENING PRAYER
Khalid Tufail of the NSW Regional Islamic Centre led the Council in prayer.
1.4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY
The Mayor conducted an Acknowledgement of Country.
1.5 Declaration of pecuniary interests, significant non-pecuniary interests and less than significant non-pecuniary interests
Cr Duffy declared a non-significant, non-pecuniary interest in IPC Item 2.1 – Extraordinary – City of Orange Traffic Committee as he is an employee of Orange Bus Lines and will remain in the Chamber and will vote on this item.
Cr Hamling declared a non-significant, non-pecuniary interest in Item 5.4 Leave of Absence as it is he who is requiring the resolution to take leave and will remain in the Chamber and will not vote on this item.
Cr Hamling declared a non-significant, non-pecuniary interest in IPC Item 2.1 – Extraordinary – City of Orange Traffic Committee as he is an employee of Orange High School and will remain in the Chamber and will not vote on this item.
THE MAYOR DECLARED THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ADJOURNED FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE OPEN FORUM AT 7.04pm.
Amber Gunn – PDC Agenda Item 2.2 DA 507/2021(1) – 314 Anson Street - Against
Geoff Metcalfe - PDC Agenda Item 2.2 DA 507/2021(1) – 314 Anson Street – For – wants to defer this item to allow Councillors to inspect the proposed development
THE MAYOR DECLARED THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL RESUMED AT 7.12pm.
The Mayor presented Council with a Giants netball team bib that was presented to the City during their recent visit to Orange.
The Mayor commented on the LGNSW Conference which was held in Sydney this week and believed a lot of knowledge was gained by the 7 Councillors that attended. A report will come back to Council.
Cr Whitton commented that 50% of attendance at the LGNSW Conference was new Councillors and new Mayors.
Cr Greenhalgh commented that the knowledge gained was priceless.
Cr Power commented that it was valuable to learn about where other NSW Councils are heading. The amount of indigenous Councillors that were present was encouraging.
Cr Duffy acknowledged that our previous Mayor Cr Kidd received recognition for his years of service at the Conference.
2 Mayoral Minutes
Nil
3 Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meeting
For: Cr J Hamling, Cr K Duffy, Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne,
Cr D Mallard, Cr M McDonell, Cr T Mileto, Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power , Cr J Whitton
Against: Nil
Absent: Nil
THE MAYOR DECLARED THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ADJOURNED FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE POLICY COMMITTEE MEETINGS AT 7.18pm.
THE MAYOR DECLARED THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL RESUMED AT 7.36pm.
4 Notices of Motion/Notices of Rescission
TRIM Reference: 2022/231 |
RESOLVED - 22/041 Cr S Peterson/Cr T Greenhalgh That Dylan Alcott OAM be invited to attend a community event within Orange.
|
For: Cr J Hamling, Cr K Duffy, Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne,
Cr D Mallard, Cr M McDonell, Cr T Mileto, Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power , Cr J Whitton
Against: Nil
Absent: Nil
5 General Reports
For: Cr J Hamling, Cr K Duffy, Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne,
Cr D Mallard, Cr M McDonell, Cr T Mileto, Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power , Cr J Whitton
Against: Nil
Absent: Nil
Cr Duffy asked if Council could get clarification on whether or not the Spring Hill Association received funding to go towards their cricket field
The Director Community Recreation and Cultural Services responded by saying yes that is my understanding, the Local Member announced this just before Christmas
Cr Mileto asked the question were the quotes for Riawena Oval $100,000.
The Director Community Recreation and Cultural Services said that the contractor had already been engaged for the Spring Hill fence and was asked to look to see if there were any additional costs and then confirmed there would be no additional costs. Yes the quote remained at $100,000.
Cr Kinghorne asked how was the Spring Hill Committee and Orange City Council on such different wavelengths, we are supposed to be engaging with them, I don’t’ understand how it could have been resolved this way.
The Chief Executive Officer responded by saying that he would circulate further information on this to Councillors
Cr Kinghorne asked is the successful tenderer local
The Director Community Recreation and Cultural Services responsed yes they are local
Cr Mileto asked about the internment wall at Spring Hill, when will it be finished and when can people add to this wall
The Director Community Recreation and Cultural Services responded saying that Council was currently going through the mechanics and it will be completed in the near future
For: Cr J Hamling, Cr K Duffy, Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne,
Cr D Mallard, Cr M McDonell, Cr T Mileto, Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power , Cr J Whitton
Against: Nil
Absent: Nil
TRIM Reference: 2022/216 |
RESOLVED - 22/044 Cr J Whitton/Cr M McDonell That Council adopt the Charters for each of the Community Committees as resolved on the 15 February 2022 Council meeting.
|
For: Cr J Hamling, Cr K Duffy, Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne,
Cr D Mallard, Cr M McDonell, Cr T Mileto, Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power , Cr J Whitton
Against:
Absent:
Cr Mileto pointed out that the Economic Development Community Committee Draft Charter listed these meetings would occur bi-monthly when it should state ‘monthly’ as this is the frequency at which these meetings have historically been held
The Director Corporate and Commercial Services commented that when the Draft Charter goes to the Committee they can resubmit it with this change
Cr Mallard asked the question about maximum numbers of community members on each community committee – all charters specify a maximum number of community reps, at least one had many more people express interest. Can we alter this.
The Chief Executive Officer commented that tonight is about discussing this matter, unlimited or limited numbers we can decide tonight
Cr Peterson asked if there are lots of people on the committee that do not show up, does this affect the quorum
The Chief Executive Officer commented that yes it could well affect the quorum
Cr Greenhalgh asked have we turned people away from these committees previously
The Chief Executive Officer responded by saying yes, a person represented a particular political group which we did not see as being beneficial to the Committee involved
That Councillors be briefed on the number of Expressions of Interest received for each Community Committee through a Councillor Briefing session prior to Committee Charters going to each Community Committee. |
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
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 7.55PM.
THE MAYOR DECLARED THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL RESUMED AT 8.34PM.
7 Resolutions from Closed Meeting
The Chief Executive Officer read out the following resolutions made in the Closed Meeting of Council.
TRIM Reference: 2022/175 |
RESOLVED - 22/047 Cr K Duffy/Cr D Mallard That the information in this report be acknowledged.
|
For: Cr J Hamling, Cr K Duffy, Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne,
Cr D Mallard, Cr M McDonell, Cr T Mileto, Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power , Cr J Whitton
Against: Nil
Absent: Nil
For: Cr J Hamling, Cr K Duffy, Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne,
Cr D Mallard, Cr M McDonell, Cr T Mileto, Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power , Cr J Whitton
Against: Nil
Absent: Nil
Cr Peterson sought background on the motion regarding whether decisions in the future would need to be made together with the other councils or if Orange City Council could do things independently.
The Chief Executive Officer advised the last council and the councils involved resolved to go to market as a collective and ask for a 50% renewable electricity in the next contract we buy (January next year). The Chief Executive Officer confirmed that we are in the process of this procurement now. This motion is effectively Councillors giving me (CEO) the delegation to make quick decisions when we go to market, which will be happening in the next month or two. Collectively we are looking at the energy load in all the councils, compiling the information and going to the electricity market and saying we want 50% renewable, we will take 50% other and you give us your best price. In the months ahead when we start that process trying to obtain the tenders to take to council to get a resolution is going to take too long and we risk losing the good price.
Cr Peterson asked that if you make the decision for Orange does that mean the other councils involved will also have their CEOs make the decision for their respective councils, is there a risk they may decide not to do it.
The Chief Executive Officer advised when we first started it was agreed that I cannot do anything to adversely affect the current price. The target here is 50% renewable on our purchase.
Cr Whitton asked whether, based on the solicitor’s report, if there are potential issues of collusion regarding the ICAC statements
The Chief Executive Officer responded by saying no, we are just being very careful about how the process is being run by having a solicitor oversee every step to ensure compliance.
Cr Mileto asked what the difference will be cost wise.
The Chief Executive Officer advised it is expected to be the same or less.
RESOLVED - 22/049 Cr J Whitton/Cr J Evans That Council move back into Open Council Meeting. |
For: Cr J Hamling, Cr K Duffy, Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne,
Cr D Mallard, Cr M McDonell, Cr T Mileto, Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power , Cr J Whitton
Against: Nil
Absent: Nil
The Meeting Closed at 8.38pm.
This is Page Number 33 and the Final Page of the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Orange City Council held on 3 March 2022.
4 Notices of Motion/Notices of Rescission
RECORD NUMBER: 2022/293
I, CR Gerald Power wish to move the following Notice of Motion at the Council Meeting of 15 March 2022:
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.
|
Background
Following a recent Funeral Service which was held at the Orange Botanic Gardens, which included the presence of a coffin to recognise the service of former Councillor Glenn Taylor, Council has been asked to again permit full funerals.
This follows the recent request by the family of Jeremy Reid to conduct a funeral at the Orange Botanic Gardens which was refused in line with the operational policy that is currently in place.
Signed Cr Gerald Power
DIRECTOR COMMENT
Firstly, I recognise the distress experienced by the Reid family caused by the refusal of their request for a funeral service to recognise the life of Jeremy Reid and that this distress was exacerbated by the funeral that was recently conducted. I apologise for the distress and anguish that was caused.
The current policy was implemented following complaints received from the public regarding coffins being in a public place and unexpectantly “coming across” a funeral when utilising the Orange Botanic Gardens.
This policy is consistent with other regional cities, except for Wagga Wagga, whose policy positions do not permit funerals with coffins present or at all in some cases:
· Albury Botanic Gardens – small memorial services are permitted, coffins not allowed
· Wagga Botanic Garden - services are permitted
· Hunter Region Botanic Gardens – requests are assessed on a case-by-case basis, coffins not allowed
· Tamworth Botanic Garden – do no permit funeral services
· Dubbo Botanic Garden – have not had a funeral service and this is not an option when booking
However due to the increasing demand to conduct funeral services in outdoor settings it is recommended that Council should have an option available to the public for this purpose within a controlled area and with appropriate signage.
It is suggested that funeral services be permitted via a booking and subject to availability within the Lawn Area of the Native Garden Display of the Botanic Gardens (this is the same location as the funeral for Mr Glenn Taylor).
As additional maintenance is required in preparation for a funeral service and the administration cost involved to manage and control bookings it is recommended that a fee of $300 excluding GST be levied.
Financial Implications
Nil
POLICY AND GOVERNANCE IMPLICATIONS
Operational Policy to be amended to reflect the resolution of Council
TRIM REFERENCE: 2021/2817
AUTHOR: Julie Murray, Financial Accountant
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to provide a statement of Council’s investments held as at 31 December 2021.
Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan
The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “17.2 Collaborate - Ensure financial stability and support efficient ongoing operation”.
Financial Implications
Nil
Policy and Governance Implications
Nil
That Council resolves: 1 To note the Statement of Investments as at 31 December 2021. 2 To adopt the certification of the Responsible Accounting Officer. |
further considerations
Consideration has been given to the recommendation’s impact on Council’s service delivery; image and reputation; political; environmental; health and safety; employees; stakeholders and project management; and no further implications or risks have been identified.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Section 212(1) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that a written report be presented each month at an Ordinary Meeting of the Council detailing all money that Council has invested under Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993.
As at 31 December 2021, the investments held by Council in each fund is shown below:
|
31/12/2021 |
30/11/2021 |
General Fund |
73,108,373.24 |
74,273,541.40 |
Water Fund |
67,894,487.53 |
67,110,273.27 |
Sewer Fund |
59,568,439.85 |
58,684,048.07 |
Total Funds |
$200,571,300.62 |
$200,067,862.74 |
A reconciliation of Council’s investment portfolio provides a summary of the purposes for which Council’s investments are being held. The summary is as follows:
Externally restricted funds are those funds that have been received for a specific purpose and may only be used for the purpose that they have been received, for example, the money received for Water access and usage charges by legislation are only available to be spent for the operation, maintenance, and expansion of the Water supply network.
Internally restricted funds are those that Council has earmarked for a particular purpose, but Council can have that purpose changed.
Unrestricted funds are those available for use to continue the day-to-day operations of Council, made up of General Fund investments and cash only.
The unrestricted cash position movements during the month are normal as projects commence and income is received. Movements may also arise following processing of income received between funds or into restricted assets to appropriately allocate for the purposes Council has determined. Council’s cash flow is monitored daily, and some investments may be redeemed rather than rolled over to support operational requirements.
Portfolio Advice
Council utilises the services of an independent investment advisor in maintaining its portfolio of investments. Council’s current investment advisor is Imperium Markets, an independent asset consultant that works with wholesale investors to develop, implement, and manage their investment portfolio. Imperium Markets is a leading provider of independent investment consulting services to a broad range of institutional investors including government agencies, superannuation funds and not-for-profit organisations.
Imperium Markets major services provided to Council include:
· Quarterly portfolio summary reports
· Advice on investment opportunities, in particular Floating Rate Note products
· Advice on policy construction
· Year-end market values for Floating Note Rate products held by Council.
Portfolio Performance
Council’s current Long Term Financial Plan establishes the benchmark for Council’s interest on investments at “75 basis points above the current cash rate”. The cash rate as at 31 December 2021 remained at 0.10 per cent. The weighted average interest rate of Council’s investment portfolio at the same reporting date was 1.01 per cent which continues to exceed Council’s benchmark i.e., the cash rate of 0.10 per cent plus 0.75 per cent (or 85 basis points).
Council has also utilised the AusBond Bank Bill Index to provide a further benchmark focused on long term investments. As of 31 December 2021, the AusBond rate was 0.90 per cent. The weighted average interest rate of Council’s investment portfolio at the same reporting date was 1.01 per cent.
Council’s Investment Policy establishes limits in relation to the maturity terms of Council’s investments as well as the credit ratings of the institutions with whom Council can invest.
The following tables provide a dissection of Council’s investment portfolio as required by the Policy. The Policy identifies the maximum amount that can be held in a variety of investment products or with institutions based on their respective credit ratings.
Table 1 shows the percentage held by Council (holdings) and the additional amount that Council could hold (capacity) for each term to maturity allocation in accordance with limits established by Council’s Policy.
Table 1: Maturity – Term Limits
Term to Maturity Allocation |
Maximum |
Holding |
Remaining Capacity |
0 - 3 Months |
100.00% |
22.38% |
77.62% |
3 - 12 Months |
100.00% |
23.21% |
76.79% |
1 - 2 Years |
70.00% |
12.47% |
57.53% |
2 - 5 Years |
50.00% |
41.94% |
8.06% |
>5 Years |
25.00% |
0.00% |
25.00% |
Table 2 shows the total amount held, and the weighted average interest rate (or return on investment), by credit rating. The credit rating is an independent opinion of the capability and willingness of a financial institution to repay its debts, or in other words, the providers’ financial strength or creditworthiness. The rating is typically calculated as the likelihood of a failure occurring over a given period, with the higher rating (AAA) being superior due to having a lower chance of default. However, it is generally accepted that this lower risk will be accompanied by a lower return on investment.
The level of money held in the bank accounts has been added to the table to illustrate the ability of Council to cover the operational liabilities that typically occur (for example payroll, materials and contracts, utilities).
Table 2: Credit Rating Limits
Credit Rating |
Maximum |
Holding |
Remaining Capacity |
Value |
Return on Investment |
Bank Accounts |
100.00% |
9.78% |
90.22% |
$19,611,609.61 |
0.10% |
AAA |
100.00% |
0.00% |
100.00% |
N/A |
N/A |
AA |
100.00% |
50.73% |
49.27% |
$101,756,160.00 |
1.09% |
A |
60.00% |
16.69% |
43.31% |
$33,470,383.56 |
0.94% |
BBB & NR |
40.00% |
22.80% |
17.20% |
$45,733,147.45 |
0.87% |
Below BBB |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
N/A |
N/A |
Certification by Responsible Accounting Officer
I, Jason Cooke, hereby certify that all investments have been made in accordance with Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993, Clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and Council’s Investment Policy.
TRIM REFERENCE: 2022/50
AUTHOR: Julie Murray, Financial Accountant
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to provide a statement of Council’s investments held as at 31 January 2022.
Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan
The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “17.2 Collaborate - Ensure financial stability and support efficient ongoing operation”.
Financial Implications
Nil
Policy and Governance Implications
Nil
That Council resolves: 1 To note the Statement of Investments as at 31 January 2022. 2 To adopt the certification of the Responsible Accounting Officer. |
further considerations
Consideration has been given to the recommendation’s impact on Council’s service delivery; image and reputation; political; environmental; health and safety; employees; stakeholders and project management; and no further implications or risks have been identified.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Section 212(1) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that a written report be presented each month at an Ordinary Meeting of the Council detailing all money that Council has invested under Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993.
As at 31 January 2022, the investments held by Council in each fund is shown below:
|
31/01/2022 |
31/12/2021 |
General Fund |
67,092,296.79 |
73,108,373.24 |
Water Fund |
71,421,925.45 |
67,894,487.53 |
Sewer Fund |
59,693,257.71 |
59,568,439.85 |
Total Funds |
$198,207,479.95 |
$200,571,300.62 |
A reconciliation of Council’s investment portfolio provides a summary of the purposes for which Council’s investments are being held. The summary is as follows:
31/01/2022 |
31/12/2021 |
|
Externally Restricted |
|
|
- General Fund |
31,437,710.63 |
31,430,530.70 |
- Water Fund |
71,421,925.45 |
67,894,487.53 |
- Sewer Fund |
59,693,257.71 |
59,568,439.85 |
Internally Restricted |
29,689,243.00 |
29,689,243.00 |
Unrestricted |
5,965,343.16 |
11,988,599.54 |
Total Funds |
$198,207,479.95 |
$200,571,300.62 |
Externally restricted funds are those funds that have been received for a specific purpose and may only be used for the purpose that they have been received, for example, the money received for Water access and usage charges by legislation are only available to be spent for the operation, maintenance, and expansion of the Water supply network.
Internally restricted funds are those that Council has earmarked for a particular purpose, but Council can have that purpose changed.
Unrestricted funds are those available for use to continue the day-to-day operations of Council, made up of General Fund investments and cash only.
The unrestricted cash position movements during the month are normal as projects commence and income is received. Movements may also arise following processing of income received between funds or into restricted assets to appropriately allocate for the purposes Council has determined. Council’s cash flow is monitored daily, and some investments may be redeemed rather than rolled over to support operational requirements.
Portfolio Advice
Council utilises the services of an independent investment advisor in maintaining its portfolio of investments. Council’s current investment advisor is Imperium Markets, an independent asset consultant that works with wholesale investors to develop, implement, and manage their investment portfolio. Imperium Markets is a leading provider of independent investment consulting services to a broad range of institutional investors including government agencies, superannuation funds and not-for-profit organisations.
Imperium Markets major services provided to Council include:
· Quarterly portfolio summary reports
· Advice on investment opportunities, in particular Floating Rate Note products
· Advice on policy construction
· Year-end market values for Floating Note Rate products held by Council.
Portfolio Performance
Council’s current Long Term Financial Plan establishes the benchmark for Council’s interest on investments at “75 basis points above the current cash rate”. The cash rate as at 31 January 2022 remained at 0.10 per cent. The weighted average interest rate of Council’s investment portfolio at the same reporting date was 0.99 per cent which continues to exceed Council’s benchmark i.e., the cash rate of 0.10 per cent plus 0.75 per cent (or 85 basis points).
Council has also utilised the AusBond Bank Bill Index to provide a further benchmark focused on long term investments. As of 31 January 2022, the AusBond rate was 0.90 per cent. The weighted average interest rate of Council’s investment portfolio at the same reporting date was 0.99 per cent.
Council’s Investment Policy establishes limits in relation to the maturity terms of Council’s investments as well as the credit ratings of the institutions with whom Council can invest.
The following tables provide a dissection of Council’s investment portfolio as required by the Policy. The Policy identifies the maximum amount that can be held in a variety of investment products or with institutions based on their respective credit ratings.
Table 1 shows the percentage held by Council (holdings) and the additional amount that Council could hold (capacity) for each term to maturity allocation in accordance with limits established by Council’s Policy.
Table 1: Maturity – Term Limits
Term to Maturity Allocation |
Maximum |
Holding |
Remaining Capacity |
0 - 3 Months |
100.00% |
26.47% |
73.53% |
3 - 12 Months |
100.00% |
17.00% |
83.00% |
1 - 2 Years |
70.00% |
19.26% |
50.74% |
2 - 5 Years |
50.00% |
37.28% |
12.72% |
>5 Years |
25.00% |
0.00% |
25.00% |
Table 2 shows the total amount held, and the weighted average interest rate (or return on investment), by credit rating. The credit rating is an independent opinion of the capability and willingness of a financial institution to repay its debts, or in other words, the providers’ financial strength or creditworthiness. The rating is typically calculated as the likelihood of a failure occurring over a given period, with the higher rating (AAA) being superior due to having a lower chance of default. However, it is generally accepted that this lower risk will be accompanied by a lower return on investment.
The level of money held in the bank accounts has been added to the table to illustrate the ability of Council to cover the operational liabilities that typically occur (for example payroll, materials and contracts, utilities).
Table 2: Credit Rating Limits
Credit Rating |
Maximum |
Holding |
Remaining Capacity |
Value |
Return on Investment |
Bank Accounts |
100.00% |
9.46% |
90.54% |
$18,743,817.93 |
0.10% |
AAA |
100.00% |
0.00% |
100.00% |
N/A |
N/A |
AA |
100.00% |
56.38% |
43.62% |
$111,756,160.00 |
1.05% |
A |
60.00% |
12.85% |
47.15% |
$25,470,383.56 |
0.97% |
BBB & NR |
40.00% |
21.31% |
18.69% |
$42,237,118.46 |
0.85% |
Below BBB |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
N/A |
N/A |
Certification by Responsible Accounting Officer
I, Jason Cooke, hereby certify that all investments have been made in accordance with Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993, Clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and Council’s Investment Policy.
TRIM REFERENCE: 2022/145
AUTHOR: Julie Murray, Financial Accountant
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to provide a statement of Council’s investments held as at 28 February 2022.
Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan
The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “17.2 Collaborate - Ensure financial stability and support efficient ongoing operation”.
Financial Implications
Nil
Policy and Governance Implications
Nil
That Council resolves: 1 To note the Statement of Investments as at 28 February 2022. 2 To adopt the certification of the Responsible Accounting Officer. |
further considerations
Consideration has been given to the recommendation’s impact on Council’s service delivery; image and reputation; political; environmental; health and safety; employees; stakeholders and project management; and no further implications or risks have been identified.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Section 212(1) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that a written report be presented each month at an Ordinary Meeting of the Council detailing all money that Council has invested under Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993.
As at 28 February 2022, the investments held by Council in each fund is shown below:
|
28/02/2022 |
31/01/2022 |
General Fund |
69,990,221.56 |
67,092,296.79 |
Water Fund |
69,542,043.37 |
71,421,925.45 |
Sewer Fund |
59,846,693.75 |
59,693,257.71 |
Total Funds |
$199,378,958.68 |
$198,207,479.95 |
A reconciliation of Council’s investment portfolio provides a summary of the purposes for which Council’s investments are being held. The summary is as follows:
28/02/2022 |
31/01/2022 |
|
Externally Restricted |
|
|
- General Fund |
31,127,290.20 |
31,437,710.63 |
- Water Fund |
69,542,043.37 |
71,421,925.45 |
- Sewer Fund |
59,846,693.75 |
59,693,257.71 |
Internally Restricted |
27,975,765.51 |
29,689,243.00 |
Unrestricted |
10,887,165.85 |
5,965,343.16 |
Total Funds |
$199,378,958.68 |
$198,207,479.95 |
Externally restricted funds are those funds that have been received for a specific purpose and may only be used for the purpose that they have been received, for example, the money received for Water access and usage charges by legislation are only available to be spent for the operation, maintenance, and expansion of the Water supply network.
Internally restricted funds are those that Council has earmarked for a particular purpose, but Council can have that purpose changed.
Unrestricted funds are those available for use to continue the day-to-day operations of Council, made up of General Fund investments and cash only.
The unrestricted cash position movements during the month are normal as projects commence and income is received. Movements may also arise following processing of income received between funds or into restricted assets to appropriately allocate for the purposes Council has determined. Council’s cash flow is monitored daily, and some investments may be redeemed rather than rolled over to support operational requirements.
Portfolio Advice
Council utilises the services of an independent investment advisor in maintaining its portfolio of investments. Council’s current investment advisor is Imperium Markets, an independent asset consultant that works with wholesale investors to develop, implement and manage their investment portfolio. Imperium Markets is a leading provider of independent investment consulting services to a broad range of institutional investors including government agencies, superannuation funds and not-for-profit organisations.
Imperium Markets major services provided to Council include:
· Quarterly portfolio summary reports
· Advice on investment opportunities, in particular Floating Rate Note products
· Advice on policy construction
· Year-end market values for Floating Note Rate products held by Council.
Portfolio Performance
Council’s current Long Term Financial Plan establishes the benchmark for Council’s interest on investments at “75 basis points above the current cash rate”. The cash rate as at 28 February 2022 remained at 0.10 per cent. The weighted average interest rate of Council’s investment portfolio at the same reporting date was 1.06 per cent which continues to exceed Council’s benchmark i.e., the cash rate of 0.10 per cent plus 0.75 per cent (or 85 basis points).
Council has also utilised the AusBond Bank Bill Index to provide a further benchmark focused on long term investments. As of 28 February 2022, the AusBond rate was 0.90 per cent. The weighted average interest rate of Council’s investment portfolio at the same reporting date was 1.06 per cent.
Council’s Investment Policy establishes limits in relation to the maturity terms of Council’s investments as well as the credit ratings of the institutions with whom Council can invest.
The following tables provide a dissection of Council’s investment portfolio as required by the Policy. The Policy identifies the maximum amount that can be held in a variety of investment products or with institutions based on their respective credit ratings.
Table 1 shows the percentage held by Council (holdings) and the additional amount that Council could hold (capacity) for each term to maturity allocation in accordance with limits established by Council’s Policy.
Table 1: Maturity – Term Limits
Term to Maturity Allocation |
Maximum |
Holding |
Remaining Capacity |
0 - 3 Months |
100.00% |
24.81% |
75.19% |
3 - 12 Months |
100.00% |
14.96% |
85.04% |
1 - 2 Years |
70.00% |
19.17% |
50.83% |
2 - 5 Years |
50.00% |
41.06% |
8.94% |
>5 Years |
25.00% |
0.00% |
25.00% |
Table 2 shows the total amount held, and the weighted average interest rate (or return on investment), by credit rating. The credit rating is an independent opinion of the capability and willingness of a financial institution to repay its debts, or in other words, the providers’ financial strength or creditworthiness. The rating is typically calculated as the likelihood of a failure occurring over a given period, with the higher rating (AAA) being superior due to having a lower chance of default. However, it is generally accepted that this lower risk will be accompanied by a lower return on investment.
The level of money held in the bank accounts has been added to the table to illustrate the ability of Council to cover the operational liabilities that typically occur (for example payroll, materials and contracts, utilities).
Table 2: Credit Rating Limits
Credit Rating |
Maximum |
Holding |
Remaining Capacity |
Value |
Return on Investment |
Bank Accounts |
100.00% |
9.54% |
90.46% |
$19,011,323.46 |
0.10% |
AAA |
100.00% |
0.00% |
100.00% |
N/A |
N/A |
AA |
100.00% |
58.03% |
41.97% |
$115,691,240.00 |
1.12% |
A |
60.00% |
11.95% |
48.05% |
$23,825,303.56 |
1.03% |
BBB & NR |
40.00% |
20.49% |
19.51% |
$40,851,091.66 |
0.89% |
Below BBB |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
N/A |
N/A |
Certification by Responsible Accounting Officer
I, Jason Cooke, hereby certify that all investments have been made in accordance with Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993, Clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and Council’s Investment Policy.
RECORD NUMBER: 2022/112
AUTHOR: Catherine Davis, Acting Manager Corporate Governance
EXECUTIVE Summary
This report presents the following policy which has been on public exhibition for a period of 28 days with no submissions received.
ST050 – Code of Meeting Practice
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
As per Council’s resolution at the 01 February 2022 Meeting, the Code of Meeting Practice Strategic Policy was changed to reflect the new starting time of 6.30pm for Council meetings. The Local Government Act 1993 requires the public exhibition of Policies (if new or include significant changes) and adoption by Council.
That Council resolves to adopt Strategic Policy - ST050 – Code of Meeting Practice. |
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
Policy for Adoption
The following policy has been reviewed and outlined below are changes/updates made. The Policy has been on public exhibition which closed 02 March 2022, with no submissions received. It is recommended this policy be adopted.
Date |
Amendment |
March 2022 |
· Change of Council meeting times from 7pm start to 6.30pm start |
1 DRAFT - Strategic Policy ST050 - Code of Meeting Practice, D22/11262⇩
Council Meeting 15 March 2022
Attachment 1 DRAFT - Strategic Policy ST050 - Code of Meeting Practice
5.5 Local Government NSW Destination and Visitor Economy Conference request Civic Theatre fee reduction
RECORD NUMBER: 2022/250
AUTHOR: Glenn Mickle, Manager Tourism
EXECUTIVE Summary
Local Government NSW (LGNSW) is seeking a fee reduction from the conference rate of $2,455 per day to the half day rate of $1,095 to hire the Orange Civic Theatre for three days of the Destination and Visitor Economy Conference to be held on 17 to 19 May 2022.
As part of the bidding process to secure the Conference, Orange City Council agreed to work with LGNSW to keep conference running costs to a minimum. The loss of $4,080 in Council revenue is offset by significant revenue generated by hosting the Conference. It is anticipated the conference will attract 230 to 250 delegates from Councils around NSW and contribute an estimated $337,500 to the local economy. The fee reduction also supports LGNSW’s work in sector advocacy and capacity building and assists in keeping membership fees as low as possible.
Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan
The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “12.4 Prosper - Partner with key stakeholders to enhance opportunities for local business to grow and prosper”.
Financial Implications
This resolution would reduce the quoted conference rate from $2,455 per day to $1,095 (half day rate) for three days. This equates to a loss of $4,080 in potential fees.
Policy and Governance Implications
Nil
That Council resolves to support the request from Local Government NSW to reduce the Civic Theatre conference fee to $1095 per day for three days. |
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
Orange City Council is hosting the LGNSW Destination and Visitor Economy Conference for the first time from 17 to 19 May 2022. It is anticipated the conference will attract 230 to 250 delegates from Councils around NSW and contribute an estimated $337,500 to the local economy.
The LGNSW Organising Committee are working closely with Orange City Council representatives and Orange360 to engage local suppliers for catering, entertainment, accommodation, and other services to deliver this event.
As part of the bidding process to secure the Conference, Orange City Council agreed to work with LGNSW to keep conference running costs to a minimum.
Local Government NSW (LGNSW) is seeking a fee reduction from the conference rate of $2,455 per day to the half day rate of $1,095 to hire the Orange Civic Theatre for the Destination and Visitor Economy Conference for three days.
This equates to a loss of $4,080 in potential fees which is offset by the significant revenue generated by hosting the Conference, which goes back into the local economy. The fee reduction also supports LGNSW’s work in sector advocacy and capacity building and assists in keeping membership fees as low as possible.
A draft program is attached for information.
1 Request for fee reduction from Local Government NSW, D22/11315⇩
2 LGNSW DVE Conference 2022 Draft Program, D22/10538⇩
RECORD NUMBER: 2022/273
AUTHOR: David Waddell, Chief Executive Officer
EXECUTIVE Summary
The Central West Councils Environment and Waterways Alliance (Alliance) is a partnership of 18 councils across the Central West of NSW. The Alliance exists to improve environmental outcomes across the region. Orange City Council is a foundation member of the Alliance since its inception in 2014. The CEO is the current Chair of the Alliance.
Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan
The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “16.1 Collaborate - Work in partnership with other Councils, regional organisations and State and Federal Governments”.
Financial Implications
Council’s annual membership to the Alliance is around $5,000 which is fixed for each year of the three-year membership agreement. Council’s adopted budget includes a provision to cover the costs of this membership.
Policy and Governance Implications
Nil
That the report on the Central West Councils Environment and Waterways Alliance be acknowledged and that Council continue to support this important partnership. |
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 Central West Councils Environment and Waterways Alliance (Alliance) has a current membership base of 18 Councils across the Central West of NSW. The Alliance exists to improve environmental outcomes across the region. Orange City Council is a foundation member of the Alliance since its inception in 2014.
To facilitate the operation of the Alliance a consultant is engaged as the Project Support Officer to assist Councils with on-ground works, grant funding opportunities, project development and management and the organisation of Alliance meetings and capacity building events. This provides the Alliance with a critical resource, increasing its effectiveness in reaching the aims and objectives identified in forward planning documents which include the Alliance Strategic Plan and Council Community Strategic Plans. The Project Support Officer is not an employee of the Alliance or any of the member Councils, but rather an independent consultant engaged by Gilgandra Shire Council (who manage the Alliance finances) for the purposes of facilitating the management and operation of the Alliance. The consultant arrangements will be reviewed annually at the conclusion of each financial year.
In 2015 the Alliance experienced a significant period of change and growth. The name of the Alliance was changed to the Environment and Waterways Alliance (formerly the Salinity and Waterways Alliance) to better represent the priorities and outcomes of the partnership. This recognises that much of the focus of the group surrounds issues along waterways and rivers – Coxs, Fish, Macquarie-Wambuul, Castlereagh, Bogan, Lachlan, Cudgegong Rivers and their many tributaries as well as the surrounding terrestrial catchments.
In 2021 the Alliance developed new Strategic and Operational Plans to guide works into the future. These plans were developed in consultation with member councils and took into account priorities and objectives from member council’s Community Strategic Plans and Delivery and Operational Plans. These Plans feature a range of Strategies and Actions designed to deliver on the 7 Alliance Priorities being:
· Land
· Biodiversity
· Water and Waterways
· People and Communities
· Towards Sustainability
· Council Capacity
· Respecting Country and First Nations Knowledge
The first six strategies align with the existing Regional State of the Environment Reporting of which Orange City Council is also involved. The seventh Priority has been included in 2021 to acknowledge and pay our respects to the traditional custodians of the lands on which we live, work and play, while recognising the extraordinary knowledge and history of land management that has continued across Australia for tens of thousands of years.
To facilitate communications within the Alliance as well as with external parties, the Alliance website and associated Facebook page were developed during 2015. The website in particular is an important resource for Council staff as it is a repository for many documents and materials, news, case studies, grant funding and award information. In more recent years the Alliance has expanded its social media platforms to include Instagram and Twitter. Both the website and social media pages are available to be utilised by Councils to promote relevant environmental events or achievements, news items and employment opportunities. The website can be viewed at: www.cwcewa.com.au
A major benefit of Alliance membership for Council is the capacity building events held across the year to upskill Council staff. A flagship project for the Alliance is the Conservation in Action Conference. The first Conservation in Action Conference held in partnership with Central Tablelands Local Land Services and Central Tablelands Landcare in 2018 attracted 150 delegates with this number forecast to be exceeded by Conservation in Action 2022. These training and capacity building events are held by the Alliance as a means of investing in positive, long-term environmental outcomes for the region.
Grant funding specifically for Alliance member councils is awarded on a competitive basis by the Alliance. In 2021 a small grants program distributed $40,000 to member councils in this manner. This funding is contributing towards various projects including habitat restoration, river restoration works, community engagement and events, litter capture projects and bush regeneration. Orange City Council successfully received $5,000 for the Orange Open Space Community Engagement Program to Enhance Biodiversity and Build Community Capacity.
Additionally, the Alliance in partnership with Orana JO received a $100,000 grant from the NSW Environmental Trust to deliver the Creating Homes for Threatened Species project. This current project is creating chainsaw carved hollows in each LGA of our member councils, targeting threatened hollow dependent species. Importantly, this work will be supported by a university research student to contribute the findings from the project to scientific literature. There will also be an educational forum at the conclusion of the project to share the findings and successes with our member councils, as well as more broadly to environmental practitioners.
In order to fund the operational costs of the Alliance, financial contributions are made by each member Council. The membership fees were reduced for the 2019-20 financial year and beyond which reflects the move away from a full-time employee with a vehicle, to a consultant operating in the Project Support Officer position. The Alliance is strongly positioned to provide a range of resources to member councils into the future with the current structure of the Alliance allowing for an increased focus on environmental outcomes across our region.
RECORD NUMBER: 2022/279
AUTHOR: Sophie Currenti, Town Planner
EXECUTIVE Summary
Application lodged |
24 January 2022 |
Applicant/s |
The Trustee for Akura Property Trust |
Owner/s |
Akura Properties Pty Ltd |
Land description |
Lot 100 PCE PT DP 1199583 - 21-25 Peisley Street, Orange |
Proposed land use |
Demolition (existing buildings), General Industry (industrial unit complex containing 13 units), Specialised Retail Premises (first use Unit 13), Business Identification Signage |
Value of proposed development |
$3,800,000.00 |
Council's consent is sought for the erection of thirteen (13) individual industrial units and Specialised Retail Premises (first use of Unit 13) with associated signage at 21-25 Peisley Street, Orange – Lot 100 DP 1199583.
The proposed development involves the following:
· demolition of existing shed and ancillary office
· erection of thirteen (13) individual general industrial units ranging in various sizes from 173m2 to 700m2
· a combined Gross Floor Area (GFA) of 4291m2
· specialised Retail Premises (first use of Unit 13) to be occupied by Repco
· access via a proposed 12m wide driveway and construction of an internal road network/hardstand area that accommodates heavy rigid vehicles
· fifty-eight (58) carparking spaces including disabled and staff car parking
· an onsite detention located through the centre of the site – subject to engineering design. The proposed driveway design basin will reduce stormwater peak discharges and volumes so as to not impact downstream properties
· proposed wall and pole signage including a free standing 5m pylon sign approximately 1800mm wide. Further wall signage and painting to the existing southern and eastern facades at approx. 6m x 1500mm high.
The Planning and Development Committee has delegated authority to approve the application, based on the cost of the development of more than $2.5 million.
As outlined in this report, the proposed development is considered to reasonably satisfy the Local and State planning controls that apply to the subject land and particular land use. Impacts of the development will be within acceptable limit, subject to mitigation conditions. Approval of the application is recommended.
Figure 1 - locality plan
Figure 2 – existing streetscape
DECISION FRAMEWORK
Development in Orange is governed by two key documents Orange Local Environment Plan 2011 (LEP) and Orange Development Control Plan 2004 (DCP). In addition the Infill Guidelines are used to guide development, particularly in the heritage conservation areas and around heritage items.
Orange Local Environment Plan 2011 – The provisions of the LEP must be considered by the Council in determining the application.
LEPs govern the types of development that are permissible or prohibited in different parts of the City and also provide some assessment criteria in specific circumstances. Uses are either permissible or not. The objectives of each zoning and indeed the aims of the LEP itself are also to be considered and can be used to guide decision making around appropriateness of development.
Orange Development Control Plan 2004 – the DCP provides guidelines for development. In general it is a performance based document rather than prescriptive in nature. For each planning element there are often guidelines used. These guidelines indicate ways of achieving the planning outcomes. It is thus recognised that there may also be other solutions of merit. All design solutions are considered on merit by planning and building staff. Applications should clearly demonstrate how the planning outcomes are being met where alternative design solutions are proposed. The DCP enables developers and architects to use design to achieve the planning outcomes in alternative ways.
DIRECTOR’S COMMENTS
This proposal relates to the construction of 13 industrial units. The design is of a modern style and would complement other buildings in the industrial strip of the south end of Peisley Street. One anchor tenant proposed for the northern most unit fronting Peisley Street is Repco. This development is permissible in this zone, provides ample parking, is compliant and the overall design will add to the character and streetscape of the area. Approval of the development is recommended.
Financial Implications
Nil
Policy and Governance Implications
Nil
That Council consents to development application DA 23/2022(1) for Demolition (existing buildings), General Industry (industrial unit complex containing 13 units), Specialised Retail Premises (first use Unit 13), Business Identification Signage at Lot 100 PCE PT DP 1199583 - 21-25 Peisley Street, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval. |
THE PROPOSAL
The proposal involves the erection of thirteen (13) individual industrial units and Specialised Retail Premises (first use of Unit 13) with associated signage at 21-25 Peisley Street.
The proposed development involves the following:
· demolition of existing shed and ancillary office
· erection of thirteen (13) individual general industrial units ranging in various sizes from 173m2 to 700m2 – any alternative uses that do not fit within this definition such as a depot, vehicle repairs or warehouse for example would need a later consent
· a combined Gross Floor Area (GFA) of 4291m2
· specialised Retail Premises (first use of Unit 13)
o the use relates to the Repco establishment specialising in motor vehicle components, tools and the like
o the proposal will involve a large display area of car related tools, compressors, oils and 4WD accessories
o due to the weight of some components such as compressors, ramps, speciality equipment and bulky items such as tarps, car paint and wheel accessories, it is submitted that areas for post purchase retail are required to assist customers loading items close to the delivery and access points.
· access via a proposed 12m wide driveway and construction of an internal road network/hardstand area that accommodates heavy rigid vehicles
· fifty eight (58) carparking spaces including disabled and staff car parking
· an onsite detention located through the centre of the site – subject to engineering design. The proposed driveway design basin will reduce stormwater peak discharges and volumes so as to not impact downstream properties
· proposed wall and pole signage including a free standing 5m pylon sign approximately 1800mm wide. Further wall signage and painting to the existing southern and eastern facades at approx. 6m x 1500mm high.
Figure 3 – proposed site plan
Figure 4 – proposed floor plan
Figure 5 – proposed streetscape elevation
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
Section 1.7 - Application of Part 7 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act 1994
Section 1.7 of the EP&A Act identifies that Part 7 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act) and Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act 1994 have effect in connection with terrestrial and aquatic environments.
There are four triggers known to insert a development into the Biodiversity Offset Scheme (ie the need for a BDAR to be submitted with a DA):
· Trigger 1: development occurs in land mapped on the Biodiversity Values Map (OEH) (clause 7.1 of BC Regulation 2017);
· Trigger 2: development involves clearing/disturbance of native vegetation above a certain area threshold (clauses 7.1 and 7.2 of BC Regulation 2017); or
· Trigger 3: development is otherwise likely to significantly affect threatened species (clauses 7.2 and 7.3 of BC Act 2016).
The fourth trigger (development proposed to occur in an Area of Outstanding Biodiversity Value (clause 7.2 of BC Act 2016) is generally not applicable to the Orange LGA; as no such areas are known to occur in the LGA. No further comments will be made against the fourth trigger.
SUMMARY
The site does not occur within land mapped on the Biodiversity Values Map and no clearing/disturbance is proposed. As the proposal does not trigger any of the four requirements for insertion into the BOS, a Biodiversity Development Assessment Report is not required to be lodged with the application for development consent. No other comments are warranted under this section.
Section 4.15
Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requires Council to consider various matters, of which those pertaining to the application are listed below.
PROVISIONS OF ANY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT s4.15(1)(a)(i)
Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011
Part 1 - Preliminary
Clause 1.2 - Aims of Plan
The broad aims of the LEP are set out under subclause 2. Those relevant to the application are as follows:
(a) to encourage development which complements and enhances the unique character of Orange as a major regional centre boasting a diverse economy and offering an attractive regional lifestyle,
(b) to provide for a range of development opportunities that contribute to the social, economic and environmental resources of Orange in a way that allows present and future generations to meet their needs by implementing the principles for ecologically sustainable development,
(c) to conserve and enhance the water resources on which Orange depends, particularly water supply catchments,
(f) to recognise and manage valued environmental heritage, landscape and scenic features of Orange.
The application is considered to be consistent with the applicable aims of the plan.
Clause 1.6 - Consent Authority
This clause establishes that, subject to the Act, Council is the consent authority for applications made under the LEP.
Clause 1.7 - Mapping
The subject site is identified on the LEP maps in the following manner:
Land Zoning Map: |
Land zoned IN1 General Industrial |
Lot Size Map: |
Minimum Lot Size 1000m2 |
Heritage Map: |
Not a heritage item or conservation area |
Height of Buildings Map: |
No building height limit |
Floor Space Ratio Map: |
No floor space limit |
Terrestrial Biodiversity Map: |
No biodiversity sensitivity on the site |
Groundwater Vulnerability Map: |
Groundwater vulnerable |
Drinking Water Catchment Map: |
Not within the drinking water catchment |
Watercourse Map: |
Not within or affecting a defined watercourse |
Urban Release Area Map: |
Not within an urban release area |
Obstacle Limitation Surface Map: |
No restriction on building siting or construction |
Additional Permitted Uses Map: |
No additional permitted use applies |
Flood Planning Map: |
Minor PMF mapping |
Those matters that are of relevance are addressed in detail in the body of this report.
Clause 1.9A - Suspension of Covenants, Agreements and Instruments
This clause provides that covenants, agreements and other instruments which seek to restrict the carrying out of development do not apply with the following exceptions.
(a) to a covenant imposed by the Council or that the Council requires to be imposed, or
(b) to any relevant instrument under Section 13.4 of the Crown Land Management Act 2016, or
(c) to any conservation agreement under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, or
(d) to any Trust agreement under the Nature Conservation Trust Act 2001, or
(e) to any property vegetation plan under the Native Vegetation Act 2003, or
(f) to any biobanking agreement under Part 7A of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, or
(g) to any planning agreement under Subdivision 2 of Division 7.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
Council staff are not aware of the title of the subject property being affected by any of the above. A sewer main exists on the land, relevant engineering conditions have been added to address any issues that may arise.
Part 2 - Permitted or Prohibited Development
Clause 2.1 - Land Use Zones and Clause 2.3 - Zone Objectives and Land Use Table
The subject site is located within the IN1 General Industrial zone. The proposed development is defined as General Industry, Specialised Retail Premises and Business Identification Signage under OLEP 2011 and is permitted with consent for this zone. This application is seeking consent. The objectives for the land zoning are as follows:
1 - Objectives of the IN1 General Industrial Zone
· To provide a wide range of industrial and warehouse land uses.
· To encourage employment opportunities.
· To minimise any adverse effect of industry on other land uses.
· To support and protect industrial land for industrial uses.
· To ensure development along the Southern Link Road has an alternative access.
There are no aspects of the proposed development that are averse to the zone objectives. In this regard:
· The proposal is permissible within the IN1 General Industrial Zone. As such, it enhances the range of land uses within this zone.
· The proposal facilitates the expansion of an existing business and therefore generates minor employment opportunities during the construction and operational phase of the development.
· The proposal is situated within an established industrial area and is thus unlikely to adversely affect other (more sensitive) land uses. As detailed throughout this report, there are no aspects of the proposed development that would adversely impact more sensitive land uses.
· The development of the site will have no impact upon the supply of industrial land within the locality as the proposal continues the use of industrial land for a use that is permissible within the IN1 General Industrial Zone.
Clause 2.7 - Demolition Requires Development Consent
The proposal involves demolition of the existing structures on the subject site and the applicant is seeking the consent of council. The demolition works proposed will have no significant impact on adjoining lands, streetscape or public realm. Conditions may be imposed in respect of hours of operation, dust suppression and the need to investigate for, and appropriately manage the presence of, any materials containing asbestos.
Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development
The application is not exempt or complying development.
Part 4 - Principal Development Standards
Clause 4.1 - Minimum Subdivision Lot Size
This clause requires the subdivision of land to be equal to or greater than the size nominated for the land under the Minimum Lot Size Map. In relation to this site, the map nominates a minimum lot size of 1000m². No subdivision is proposed within this application.
Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions
Not relevant to the application.
Part 6 - Urban Release Area
Not relevant to the application. The subject site is not located in an Urban Release Area.
Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions
7.1 – Earthworks
The earthworks that are to be undertaken for the proposed development include driveway/hardstand area construction; trenching for service installations; and significant land shaping. The disruption to the site drainage is considered minor, and will not detrimentally affect adjoining properties or receiving waterways. The earthworks are not expected to affect the potential future use or redevelopment of the site. The site is not known to contain any Aboriginal, European or Archaeological relics nor is it in proximity to any waterway, drinking water catchment or sensitive area. Sedimentation controls will be required throughout construction as a condition of consent.
7.2a – Flood Plain Risk Management
This clause applies to land identified between the flood planning level and the level of the probable maximum flood. Before granting consent, Council must be satisfied that the proposal will not affect the safe occupation of, and evacuation from, the land in flood events (industrial development). The development is considered not to, in flood events exceeding the flood planning level, affect the safe occupation of and evacuation from, the changed mixed land use. The proposed development is unlikely to change flood planning regimes on or off the site and would be unlikely to cause or contribute to erosion, siltation or reduce riparian vegetation, and is therefore unlikely to create a cost burden on the community or neighbours.
7.3 – Stormwater Management
This clause applies to all industrial, commercial and residential zones and requires that Council be satisfied that the proposal meets the relevant clauses. Stormwater will be disposed into Council’s existing stormwater infrastructure located along the bitumen access road that services the development. Overland flow will be directed to the onsite detention basin located to the south eastern corner of the development site and is subject to final engineering design. The proposed detention basin will reduce stormwater peak discharges and volumes so as to not impact the downstream properties.
7.6 – Groundwater Vulnerability
The site has been mapped as being groundwater vulnerable. The proposal is not anticipated to involve the discharge of toxic or noxious substances and is therefore unlikely to contaminate the groundwater or related ecosystems. The proposal does not involve extraction of groundwater and therefore will not contribute to groundwater depletion.
7.11 – Essential Services
In consideration of this clause, all utility services are available to the land and adequate for the proposal. The subject land is serviced by Council’s reticulated water and sewerage network. The site has access to electricity and telecommunications. Stormwater will be disposed of at a legal point of discharge with any overland flow being directed into the proposed onsite stormwater detention system incorporated in the parking and driveway areas. This will be subject to civil design.
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES
State Environmental Planning Policy 55 Remediation of Land
State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) is applicable. Pursuant to Clause 7 Contamination and remediation to be considered in determining development application:
(1) A consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of any development on land unless:
(a) it has considered whether the land is contaminated, and
(b) if the land is contaminated, it is satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable, after remediation) for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, and
(c) if the land requires remediation to be made suitable for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, it is satisfied that the land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose.
Investigation of past use and visual site inspection of the property did not give rise to any concerns surrounding contamination in relation to SEPP 55. No underground tanks or stained soil/gravel is evident on site. A check of the NSW EPA Contaminated Land Record and List of NSW Contaminated Sites notified to the EPA did not identify any contaminated sites on or near the proposed development. In light of the proposed use and the site being sealed with buildings and driveway and parking areas, no further analysis is considered justified.
State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007
Clause 104 of the Infrastructure SEPP relates to traffic-generating development. The clause applies to development specified in Column 1 of the Table to Schedule 3 that involves new premises of the relevant size or capacity. Although the use of industry is listed, the clause is not applicable to the proposal at hand as the size/capacity is not exceeded in Column 2 of the Table to Schedule 3 (Clause 2(a)). As a result, formal referral to the Roads and Maritime Service is not required as the development is not deemed to be traffic generating development.
State Environmental Planning Policy 64 - Advertising and Signage
State Environmental Planning Policy 64 - Advertising and Signage (SEPP 64) is applicable and states in part:
3 Aims, Objectives etc
(1) This Policy aims:
(a) to ensure that signage (including advertising):
(i) is compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of an area, and
(ii) provides effective communication in suitable locations, and
(iii) is of high quality design and finish, and
(8) Granting of Consent to Signage
A consent authority must not grant development consent to an application to display signage unless the consent authority is satisfied:
(a) that the signage is consistent with the objectives of this Policy as set out in Clause 3 (1) (a), and
(b) that the signage the subject of the application satisfies the assessment criteria specified in Schedule 1.
The proposed signage is permissible with consent. An assessment of the signage against Schedule 1 has been undertaken below. The signage comprises two components of a pole/pylon sign and flush wall signage on the eastern and front wall of Unit 13 for Repco.
Figure 6 – proposed signage (Unit 13)
1 - Character of the Area
· Is the proposal compatible with the existing or desired future character of the area or locality in which it is proposed to be located?
· Is the proposal consistent with a particular theme for outdoor advertising in the area or locality?
The ribbon style development along Peisley Street is largely of a semi-industrial and specialist retail character. The proposed signage is consistent with other bold colour designs of national firms such as Sydney Tools, Coates Hire, BWS, Reece Plumbing and the like. The proposed signage and wall colours are consistent with the vibrant commercial character of south Peisley Street. A mix of attached wall signage and freestanding signs are common in the local area.
2 - Special Areas
· Does the proposal detract from the amenity or visual quality of any environmentally sensitive areas, heritage areas, natural or other conservation areas, open space areas, waterways, rural landscapes or residential areas?
The proposed signage and locality does not conflict with special areas relating to heritage, open space, waterways, residential areas or conservation precincts.
3 - Views and Vistas
· Does the proposal obscure or compromise important views?
· Does the proposal dominate the skyline and reduce the quality of vistas?
· Does the proposal respect the viewing rights of other advertisers?
The proposed signage is set back within the site. The pylon sign will not dominate the skyline being of a vertical rather than wide structure. The level landform also ensures the signage does not dominate any longer vistas. The signage will not block signage exposure to other businesses, largely due to the wide land frontage onto Peisley Street.
4 - Streetscape, Setting or Landscape
· Is the scale, proportion and form of the proposal appropriate for the streetscape, setting or landscape?
· Does the proposal contribute to the visual interest of the streetscape, setting or landscape?
· Does the proposal reduce clutter by rationalising and simplifying existing advertising?
· Does the proposal screen unsightliness?
· Does the proposal protrude above buildings, structures or tree canopies in the area or locality?
· Does the proposal require ongoing vegetation management?
The proposed signage is considered within normal commercial expectations for the environment with a cluster of corporate images and design features common place in the locality. The size and scale of the signage is considered reasonable in comparison to the size and scale of buildings and their commercial theme. The proposal contributes in a positive manner with sharp modern design lines and corporate fonts and colours. The signage is considered to present a high-quality corporate image. The site has no current signage and consider the proposed signage is simple in presentation with three logical viewpoints or images. The free-standing sign will be set away from the proposed buildings therefore not critical in terms of protrusions against rooflines or nearby structures. The proposal does not require ongoing vegetation management.
5 - Site and Building
· Is the proposal compatible with the scale, proportion and other characteristics of the site or building, or both, on which the proposed signage is to be located?
· Does the proposal respect important features of the site or building, or both?
· Does the proposal show innovation and imagination in its relationship to the site or building, or both?
The proposal is within scale and overall dimension relationship with the proposed height and width of the building. The images integrate with the key visual elements of the proposed buildings. The signage represents a sharp corporate image and reflects the car related sports theme associated with car products.
6 - Associated Devices and Logos with Advertisements and Advertising Structures
· Have any safety devices, platforms, lighting devices or logos been designed as an integral part of the signage or structure on which it is to be displayed?
The Repco logo, colours and fonts are proposed as part of the signage that will be displayed.
7 - Illumination
· Would illumination result in unacceptable glare?
· Would illumination affect safety for pedestrians, vehicles or aircraft?
· Would illumination detract from the amenity of any residence or other form of accommodation?
· Can the intensity of the illumination be adjusted, if necessary?
· Is the illumination subject to a curfew?
No illumination is proposed.
8 - Safety
· Would the proposal reduce the safety for any public road?
· Would the proposal reduce the safety for pedestrians or bicyclists?
· Would the proposal reduce the safety for pedestrians, particularly children, by obscuring sightlines from public areas?
The proposal is not considered to reduce the safety for any public road, pedestrians or cyclists. The proposal will not obscure sightlines from public areas.
PROVISIONS OF ANY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT THAT HAS BEEN PLACED ON EXHIBITION 4.15(1)(a)(ii)
There are no draft EPI’s that relate to the proposed development or subject site.
DESIGNATED DEVELOPMENT
The proposed development is not designated development.
INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT
The proposed development is not integrated development.
PROVISIONS OF ANY DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN s4.15(1)(a)(iii)
Development Control Plan 2004
The following parts of DCP 2004 are applicable to the proposed development:
· Part 2 – Natural Resource Management
· Part 3 – General Considerations
· Part 4 – Special Environmental Considerations
· Part 9 – Development in the Employment and Industrial Zone
· Part 14 – Advertisements
· Part 15 – Car Parking
The relevant matters in Parts 2, 3, 4 and 14 were considered in the foregoing assessment under Orange LEP 2011 and SEPP 64. An assessment of the relevant provisions within Part 9 and 15 have been undertaken below.
09 – Development in the Industry and Employment Zone
The DCP prescribes the following applicable planning outcomes for Industrial Site Development.
- Buildings are set back a minimum of 10m from front boundaries (5m to a secondary boundary on a corner lot) for lots greater than 1,000m2 or 5m for lots less than 1,000m2 or otherwise to a setback consistent with existing setbacks in established areas.
The subject land comprises an area greater than 1,000sqm, therefore requires a setback minimum of 10m from the boundary. The new buildings will be sited at least 16m from the Peisley Street frontage. This setback allows for a sufficient landscaping strip to be established between the building and its frontage to Peisley Street to soften visual bulk. Side setbacks will comply with the BCA as concrete walls.
- Buildings cover up to 50% of the site area (excluding the area of accessways for battleaxe lots)
Based on the site area being 7864sqm, and the proposed buildings footprint of 4291.9sqm, the site coverage of the development is 54.5%. Although this proposed site coverage exceeds the 50% maximum by less than a 10% variation, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory. Due to the large size of the site, and all other design criteria being satisfied, including setbacks, driveways, parking and landscaping, the greater site coverage is considered acceptable.
- Landscaping is provided along boundaries fronting roads including trees with an expected mature height at least comparable to the height of buildings on the site. All sites contain an element of landscaping.
Landscaping will be provided along the street frontage as a 3m wide landscaping bed. The proposed landscaping will incorporate plantings that are endemic to the area and commensurate with the height of the proposed building.
- Architectural features are provided to the front building façade to provide relief using such elements as verandahs, display windows, indented walls, etc.
- External materials consist of non-reflective materials.
The proposed finishes are provided in non-reflective finish as encouraged by the DCP. The proposed development will be constructed of painted fibre cement panels and painted concrete tilt panel being neutral in colour of dark and light grey or cream/dulux dune or similar. The architectural design of the building includes awnings as well as a variation to the height of the roofline that will provide relief to the front façade.
- Adequate parking and onsite manoeuvring is provided.
An assessment of parking and manoeuvring has been completed under Chapter 15.
- Advertising involves business identification signs within the front façade and/or by a pole sign comparable to the relative height to the main building on the site.
The assessment under SEPP 64 provided in this report demonstrates that the proposed signage is satisfactory in terms of the above outcome.
- Security fencing is located or designed in a manner that does not dominate the visual setting of the area.
Security fencing is existing and is located around the permitter of the site. The fencing does not dominate the visual setting of the area.
15 – Car Parking
The DCP requires onsite parking for industries to be provided at the rate of one (1) space per 100sqm of gross floor area. Based on the DCP rate, the parking requirements for the development are calculated as 42.9 car parking spaces. A further 14 spaces are required for the Specialist Retail Use of Unit 13 based on the DCP of 1 space per 50sqm. The proposed development therefore requires 56.9 spaces and proposes a total of 58 car parking spaces including spaces for staff and disabled parking. The proposal is therefore compliant.
Ingress and egress to the site will occur on the centre of the eastern frontage. There is sufficient area for rigid vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward direction without having to reverse onto or from a public road.
The sealed right of access at its intersection with Peisley Street provides a suitable sight distance. Peisley Street appears to be of a sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional traffic generated as a result of this development. No upgrades to Peisley Street are envisaged.
PROVISIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE REGULATIONS s4.15(1)(a)(iv)
Demolition of a Building (clause 92)
The proposal involves the demolition of the existing structures on site. A condition is attached requiring the demolition to be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard AS2601 - 2001: The Demolition of Structures and the requirements of Safe Work NSW.
Fire Safety Considerations (clause 93)
The proposal does not involve a change of building use for an existing building.
Buildings to be Upgraded (clause 94)
The proposal does not involve the rebuilding, alteration, enlargement or extension of an existing building.
BASIX Commitments (clause 97A)
BASIX is not applicable to the proposed development.
THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT s4.15(1)(b)
The subject site is located in an area characterised by industrial activities and service retail and it is therefore considered that the proposal is consistent with the development in the area and is not expected to create significant impacts on the context and setting of the area. The proposed development is permissible in the IN1 General Industrial zone and the development of the site is unlikely to generate any adverse environmental impacts within the vicinity of the development.
Traffic levels are expected to be consistent with levels associated with industrial development. The development incorporates a hardstand area which also allows for a heavy rigid vehicle to enter and exit the site in a forward direction. The design also provides 52 car parking spaces for staff, customers, and disabled persons.
THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE s4.15(1)(c)
The overall bulk and scale of the development is not considered to be averse to the zone objectives and is consistent with the surrounding development in the locality. Development of the site will not create significant adverse impacts on the context and setting of the area.
It is considered the site is suitable for the proposal as the site is appropriately serviced and there are no known physical attributes, technological or natural hazards, which constrain the site.
ANY SUBMISSIONS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT s4.15(1)(d)
The proposed development is not defined as advertised development under the provisions of the CPP, and as such no formal exhibition of the application was required. No submissions have been received in relation to this application.
PUBLIC INTEREST s4.15(1)(e)
The proposed development is considered to be of minor interest to the wider public due to the relatively localised nature of potential impacts. The proposal is not inconsistent with any relevant policy statements, planning studies, guidelines etc that have not been considered in this assessment.
SUMMARY
The proposed development is permissible with the consent of Council. The proposed development complies with the relevant aims, objectives and provisions of Orange LEP 2011 (as amended) and DCP 2004. A Section 4.15 assessment of the development indicates that the development is acceptable in this instance. Attached is a draft Notice of Approval outlining a range of conditions considered appropriate to ensure that the development proceeds in an acceptable manner.
COMMENTS
The requirements of the Environmental Health and Building Surveyor and the Engineering Development Section are included in the attached Notice of Approval.
1 Notice of Approval, D22/12479⇩
2 Plans, D22/11623⇩
RECORD NUMBER: 2022/282
AUTHOR: Paul Johnston, Manager Development Assessments
EXECUTIVE Summary
Joint Regional Planning Panels (JRPP) have been established across NSW, with the Western Panel established in September 2009. The JRPP is tasked with assessing major or significant development applications that meet a range of criteria. The structure of the JRPP consists of five panellists, of which three are appointed by the State, including the Chair, and the remaining two are local panellists appointed by the relevant Council.
Council may select three people to represent the Council and community, two primary representatives and an alternate. The primary representatives would be expected to participate in most cases, while the alternate can be called on should either of the two primary representatives be unavailable or have a conflict of interest.
Section 2.13(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act precludes property developers and real estate agents from serving as members of the JRPP. Beyond this legislated restriction nothing else prevents a current or former Councillor or former staff member from being selected, although at least one representative - who should be a primary representative - must have appropriate expertise in the area of planning, architecture, heritage, the environment, urban design, land economics, traffic and transport, law, engineering, tourism or government and public administration.
Equally, there is no requirement for any of the representatives to be Councillors or Council staff, and they could all be selected from the community. The primary focus is to ensure that Council is fairly represented on the panel and can have confidence in its decisions.
Council at its meeting held on 15 February 2022 nominated Councillor Jeff Whitton as the primary representative and Councillor Kevin Duffy as the alternate member. Council is now required to call for expressions of interest for the final primary panel member. Mr Allan Renike, who has extensive planning experience, is the current appointed community member to the Panel.
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
Ensuring a full complement of local nominations for the JRPP will preserve local representation and accountability to the community.
That Council call for an expression of interest to seek a suitable representative for the final position on the Western Region Joint Regional Planning Panel - JRPP. The representative must have appropriate expertise in the area of planning, architecture, heritage, the environment, urban design, land economics, traffic and transport, law, engineering, tourism or government and public administration. |
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 recommendation of this report has been assessed against Council’s other key risk categories and the following comments are provided:
|
|
Image and Reputation |
The community expects to be appropriately represented on the JRPP in decision making of large scale or significant developments. Panel membership normally consists of three state members and two Council appointed members. Should a Council appointee have a conflict of interest or be otherwise unavailable, and no alternate representative has been appointed, local representation on the panel could be reduced. |
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
The Joint Regional Planning Panel (Western and when it sits on an Orange LGA matter) is made up of three State members not related to Orange City Council, and two Council representatives (with a reserve ‘alternate’ representative also nominated in case one of the other representatives is unavailable). Council’s representatives may be Councillors or members of the public, but at least one of the representatives must have expertise in a related field.
Permanent non-Council Members
The current JRPP sitting permanent non-Council related members are appointed by the Department of Planning and Environment. Current State members are: Garry Feilding (chair), Sandra Hutton and Graham Brown.
Council Representatives
Council may select three people to represent the Council and
community, two primary representatives and an alternate. The primary
representatives would be expected to participate in most cases, while the
alternate can be called on should either of the two primary representatives be
unavailable or have a conflict of interest. Council at its meeting held on 15
February 2022 nominated Councillor Jeff Whitton as the primary member and
Councillor Kevin Duffy as the alternate member. Council is now required to
determine the final representative on the planning panel.
It is recommended that Council call for an expression of interest to seek a suitable representative for the final position on the Western Region Joint Regional Planning Panel – JRPP
1 Procedures for the establishment and operation of Joint Regional Planning Panels (JRPP), D22/11406⇩
Council Meeting 15 March 2022
Attachment 1 Procedures for the establishment and operation of Joint Regional Planning Panels (JRPP)
5.9 Request for Financial Assistance - Event Sponsorship Rounds 3 & 4 - 1 January 2022 to 30 June 2022
RECORD NUMBER: 2022/283
AUTHOR: Tony Boland, Business Projects Officer
EXECUTIVE Summary
Council sponsors a variety of events under the Events Sponsorship Policy (Strategic Policy ST144). Applications for sponsorship are usually forwarded to Council prior to the commencement of the quarter so that event organisers have some certainty in the delivery of the event.
As the Event Sponsorship is considered financial support under Section 356 of the Local Government Act 1993, staff cannot be delegated to approve the applications on behalf of Council.
Strategic Policy ST144 states “Applications for sponsorship will not be retrospectively approved”. The policy was adopted prior to Covid and the subsequent delays in local government elections.
Three events seeking sponsorship Yu-Gi-Oh! WCQ Regional Qualifiers (15 January 2022) Wangarang Charity Golf Challenge (11 February 2022) and City of Orange Veterans Week of Golf Tournament (6 to 11 March 2022) events have occurred therefore funding of sponsorship is outside the policy. A panel assessment conducted by staff of these applications also recommended declining sponsorship as the applicants did not demonstrate sufficiently, meeting all criteria.
Two events Live at Yours in Orange 2022 and White Tie Ball are include for consideration under Round 4 of 2021/2022 financial year and are recommended for approval.
Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan
The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “11.2 Prosper - Develop and attract a variety of events, festivals, venues and activities for locals and visitors, ensuring accessibility for all”.
Financial Implications
The allocated budget for the Sponsored Events program is $100,000.00 for the 2020/21 Financial Year. $41,938.20 remains available in this year’s budget.
Policy and Governance Implications
Applications are assessed in accordance with Strategic Policy ST144 – Events Sponsorship Policy.
That Council: (a) Does not approve $4,000 in sponsorship to the Wangarang Charity Golf Challenge (b) Does not approve $1,000 in sponsorship to the City of Orange Veterans Week of Golf Tournament (c) Does not approve $1,276.50 in sponsorship to the Yu-Gi-Oh! WCQ Regional Qualifiers (d) Approves $2,000 in sponsorship to ‘Live at Yours’ (e) Approves $5,500 in sponsorship to Housing Plus’ White Tie Ball
|
further considerations
The recommendation of this report has been assessed against Council’s other key risk categories and the following comments are provided:
|
|
|
Financial |
The maximum available funding for Rounds 3 and 4 is $41,938.20. Council may choose to spend less than this amount or the amount requested if they think it is appropriate. |
|
Reputation |
Previous applications were not subjected to assessment by a senior panel. Previous recipients may have used similarly worded applications to previous successful applications and have had a different outcome on this occasion due to a more rigorous assessment by the panel. This has the potential to cause confusion with applicants. Staff will work with the applicants to advise them of how to develop an appropriate application that is more likely to meet the criteria in future.
|
|
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
In the Events Sponsorship Program the following categories exist to support assessment of applications received:
Category |
Description |
Incubator Event Fund |
Provides seed funding to events in their first or second year of activity. Funding range is $1,000 to $5,000. |
Flagship Event Fund |
Identifies and assists the development of events that contribute to the unique character and culture of the Orange360 tourism region and can demonstrate that they attract overnight visitation. Funding range is $1,000 to $10,000. |
Event Development Fund |
Supports events that have already received funding from Council in previous years and can present a comprehensive strategy for future growth that includes the continued development of its tourism potential to drive overnight visitation to the event. Funding range is $1,000 to $10,000. |
Quick Response Event Fund |
Provides seed funding and/or support to events that occur as new and unplanned opportunity for Orange and have not met the funding rounds as outlined below. Funding range is $1,000 to $20,000. |
The program objective is to provide financial assistance to groups or individuals who deliver events that offer significant contribution to the economic wellbeing of the Orange community with consideration also given to the social or environmental wellbeing of the Orange community.
The four broad criteria that the panel considered when assessing the applications include:
· The economic benefit to the community in terms of increased visitation, utilisation of accommodation, local product etc.
· Increased promotion of the city and/or identification of the city with a recognised product such as education, sport, food, wine, agribusiness, clean environment etc.
· A benefit that has a broad application to the community and not just a special benefit to an individual or selected few.
· That Council can clearly recognise the value of its assistance in the event, promotion etc.
Round 3 Applications – 1 January 2022 to 31 March 2022
As outlined in the Executive Summary, because of the delay of the Local Government Elections last year, the previous Council went into caretaker mode prior to the closing date for applications for Round 3 (events to be held between 1 January 2022 & 31 March 2022).
In addition, Strategic Policy ST144 states “Applications for sponsorship will not be retrospectively approved”. The policy was adopted prior to Covid and the subsequent delays in local government elections.
Event Sponsorship is considered financial support under Section 356 of the Local Government Act 1993 and staff cannot be delegated to approve the applications on behalf of Council. For this reason, the applications are being submitted retrospectively for Council to consider.
Private individuals or organisations are eligible to receive assistance under this program.
The brief summaries of the applications follow, and redacted copies of the applications are attached.
The Business Projects Officer declared a conflict of interest in the assessment process for Round 3 due to membership of the board of one of the applicants.
The assessment committee recommended no applications for Round 3 be approved for funding.
Round 4 Applications – 1 April 2022 to 30 June 2022
The first application (Live at Yours 2022) should have been assessed in Round 3 but was allocated to a different program as the event runs until 31 March 2022.
Both events are recommended for sponsorship approval as they sufficiently meet the assessment criteria.
|
Live at Yours |
Not for profit (yes/no) |
No |
Event name |
Live at Yours in Orange 2022 |
Event date/s |
5 March 2022, 31 March 2022, 26 August 2022 |
Level of participation |
500 attendees |
Overnight visitors |
50 |
Ticketed event |
Yes |
Amount requested |
$2,000 |
Category and Category range |
Flagship Event Fund - $1,000 to $5,000 |
Aligned with Community Strategic Plan |
Yes |
Event precis Alexander Gavrylyuk is internationally recognised as one of the world's most virtuosic concert pianists, known for his electrifying and poetic performances. Appearing in March for the first time in Orange at the Civic Theatre, Alexander will present a highly virtuosic yet accessible programme ranging from Beethoven's Moonlight sonata to the powerful Rachmaninov second sonata. He has performed at the BBC proms, Carnegie Hall, Sydney Opera House, Concertgebouw Amsterdam to name a few and has appeared as a soloist with the world's leading orchestras. This concert will be Alexander's first appearance in Orange and we believe the event will create quite a buzz for music lovers. As well as the concert, on April 1st, Live at Yours will present an open masterclass with Alexander mentoring young musicians from the region at the Orange Conservatorium of music. This will give the local musicians a rare experience to gain insights and polish their craft from an internationally recognised virtuoso. We believe that presenting such a high-profile artist in Orange as well as the masterclass will draw positive attention on Orange as the cultural hub of the region. In turn we believe it will attract tourism, have a positive impact on local business, engage the local community with fine art and inspire the local musical youth. |
|
Comment and recommendation Recommended |
|
Housing Plus |
Not for profit (yes/no) |
Yes |
Event name |
White Tie Ball |
Event date/s |
22 May 2022 |
Level of participation |
340 attendees |
Overnight visitors |
50 |
Ticketed event |
Yes |
Amount requested |
$5,500 |
Category and Category range |
Flagship Event Fund - $1,000 to $5,000 |
Aligned with Community Strategic Plan |
Yes |
Event precis The White Tie Ball is the annual fundraising event for The Orchard - a crisis centre for women and children escaping domestic violence. The Ball will be held on Saturday 21st May, and with the current restrictions in place we are hoping to sell 340 tickets to the Ball. We estimate 50-60 people, will be staying in Orange, and we will encourage them to tour the region and to take advantage of the tourism opportunities available to them. We are working with local businesses to set up the event. Our decorator is Rachel Brooking from Simply Centrepieces. Our local wineries will receive valuable exposure for their wines that they are donating for the event. Local businesses are donating goods and services to support fundraising activities on the night and will receive promotion prior to the event and to our guests at the event. The beneficiaries of the money raised from the event will be members of the Orange community, women and children escaping domestic violence. The White Tie Ball is an event organised by a local business, to benefit the local community. Guests will enjoy a 3-course meal provided by the OESC, who use local producers where possible. The entertainment provided has been organised by a local business. The prizes and giveaways on the night will benefit local businesses with increased sales. We would like Orange City Council to use their sponsorship to purchase Shop Orange vouchers for us to use as prizes for the fundraising activities at the event. This would have the double benefit of supporting local Orange businesses and the opportunity for Orange City Council to support a local community fundraising event that raises money to support women and children escaping domestic violence. |
|
Comment and recommendation Recommended |
1 Redacted - Event Sponsorship - Wangarang Charities Golf Day 11 February 2022, IC22/5808⇩
2 Redacted - Event Sponsorship - City of Orange Veterans Week of Golf Championship, IC22/5810⇩
3 Redacted - Event Sponsorship - Yu-Gi-Oh! Regional Championship Qualifying Event, IC22/5811⇩
4 Redacted - Event Sponsorship - Live at yours 2022, IC22/5812⇩
5 Redacted - Event Sponsorship - White Tie Ball - 22 May 2022, IC22/5813⇩
Council Meeting 15 March 2022
Attachment 1 Redacted - Event Sponsorship - Wangarang Charities Golf Day 11 February 2022
Attachment 2 Redacted - Event Sponsorship - City of Orange Veterans Week of Golf Championship
Attachment 3 Redacted - Event Sponsorship - Yu-Gi-Oh! Regional Championship Qualifying Event
Attachment 5 Redacted - Event Sponsorship - White Tie Ball - 22 May 2022
RECORD NUMBER: 2022/296
AUTHOR: Tony Boland, Business Projects Officer
EXECUTIVE Summary
Council’s Small Donations Program is guided by Strategic Policy - ST029 Donations and Grants. This report is the assessment and recommendation of the applications received for Round 4 of that Program in financial year 2021/2022 Council can approve community financial assistance in accordance with Section 356 of the Local Government Act 1993.
Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan
The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “17.1 Collaborate - Provide representative, responsible and accountable community governance”.
Financial Implications
Nil when in compliance with ST029 Donations and Grants policy. The remaining available budget for the Small Donations Program for 2021/2022 is $20,713.64. This report recommends the approval of $10,250 in cash donations and $500 of in-kind contribution. There is also an application that has no specific amount that Council may consider.
Policy and Governance Implications
Applications are assessed in accordance with ST029 Donations and Grants Policy.
That Council: 1) resolves to make the following donations from the Small Donations Program: (a) That $2,000.00 be donated to the Lions Club of Orange for “Give Me Change For Kids” program (b) That $2,000.00 be donated to the 3rd Orange Scouts for operational expenses (not being insurance) (c) That $1,500.00 be donated to the Shepherd Centre to assist with their program “Talk Together Connection” for the parents of deaf children (d) That $500.00 be donated to the Orange Show Society for prizes at the Orange Show (e) That $500.00 be donated to the CWA Central Western Group for prizes for their annual public speaking competition (f) That $2,500.00 be donated to Lonely Mountain Ultra Incorporated to host an inaugural high altitude running event that is likely to become an annual event (g) That $500 be donated to Lachlan Thompson to assist with travel costs to the Australian Age Championships for swimming (h) That $750 be donated to the Orange Netball Association as contribution to travel to state titles. 2) determines what level of support, if any, is provided to Team Shake, Rattle and Roll to participate in a rally to raise funds for the Cancer Council 3) approves the reallocation of previously donated funds for the Orange Regional Malayalee Association |
further considerations
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 had previously funded the Orange Regional Malayalee Association for an event during Onam (the first month of the Malayalam calendar known as Chingam). This event was cancelled due to Covid and the organisation requested to hold a Christmas event instead. The Christmas event was cancelled (also due to Covid) and the Association is now seeking permission to use the funds to host an Easter event. This is considered consistent with the purpose for which the original funds were donated.
The following is a summary of the applications for assistance under the small donations program.
Applicant |
Orange Lions Club |
Assistance Would Support |
Give Me Change for Kids (formerly Give Me 5 for Kids) which is a special club project that raises funds to purchase equipment for the Children’s Ward at the Orange Local Area Health Service. The type of equipment purchased allows more children to be treated locally which places less stress on the family. This request is a contribution towards an overall fundraising target of $40,000. |
Amount Requested |
$2,000.00. |
Policy Category |
Project or equipment purchase |
Category Maximum |
$2,500.00. |
Complies With Policy |
Policy requests three written quotes. However, given the nature of this fundraising effort (i.e. the club is requesting a contribution to a larger target), and at this stage the equipment the hospital requires is yet to be determined, it would be appropriate to waive this requirement on this occasion and provide a contribution to meet the overall target. |
Recommendation |
$2,000.00 |
Applicant |
Scout Association of Australia NSW Branch - 3rd Orange Scout Group |
Assistance Would Support |
The funds from this grant would be used to help pay Orange City Council rates for FY2021/2022 and keep the doors open. As a result of COVID-19 the group and reduced opportunities for fundraising activities such as BBQs and raffles, the group's finances have been impacted to the tune of around $8,000.00/yr. |
Amount Requested |
$2,000.00 |
Policy Category |
Providing a community service |
Category Maximum |
$2,500.00 |
Complies With Policy |
Yes |
Recommendation |
$2,000.00 |
Applicant |
The Shepherd Centre – for deaf children |
Assistance Would Support |
To provide parents of children with hearing loss from the Orange area with the fundamental skills and knowledge they need to support their child in developing listening, speech and language skills. |
Amount Requested |
$1,500.00 |
Policy Category |
Providing a community service |
Category Maximum |
$2,500.00 |
Complies With Policy |
Yes |
Recommendation |
$1,500.00 |
Orange Show Society |
|
Assistance Would Support |
Provision of prizes for exhibitions |
Amount Requested |
Not specified |
Policy Category |
Prize giving |
Category Maximum |
$500.00 |
Complies With Policy |
Yes – but did not complete the application form |
Recommendation |
$500.00 – subject to submission of appropriate documentation |
Applicant |
CWA – Central Western Group |
Assistance Would Support |
Provision of prizes for exhibitions. Our Schools Public Speaking Competition is a regional competition across Orange/ Bathurst/ Cabonne/ Blayney and Cowra Council areas. The competition has been running for 29 years for the benefit of students from Years 3 to Year 12. |
Amount Requested |
$500.00 |
Policy Category |
Prize giving |
Category Maximum |
$500.00 |
Complies With Policy |
Yes |
Recommendation |
$500.00 |
Applicant |
Lonely Mountain Ultra Inc |
Assistance Would Support |
We are seeking start-up funds for our event. This will be an ongoing event, held each year from 2022. From setting up our not-for-profit incorporated association to marking the course for the event, we require financial assistance to get the event going. It is anticipated that the Lonely Mountain Ultra in its inaugural year will attract more than 500 competitors. |
Amount Requested |
$2,500.00 |
Policy Category |
Prize giving |
Category Maximum |
$2,500.00 |
Complies With Policy |
Yes |
Recommendation |
$2,500.00 |
|
|
Applicant |
Lachlan Thompson |
Assistance Would Support |
Travel to Australian Age Championships |
Amount Requested |
N/A |
Policy Category |
Community event |
Category Maximum |
$500.00 |
Complies With Policy |
Yes |
Recommendation |
$500.00 |
Applicant |
Hayley Good & Brendan Jones (Team Shake, Rattle & Roll) |
Assistance Would Support |
Participation in Mystery Box Rally to raise funds for the Cancer Council. |
Amount Requested |
Not specified |
Policy Category |
Projects or equipment purchase or providing a community service |
Category Maximum |
$2,500.00 |
Complies With Policy |
Whilst the application does not stipulate that the funds will remain in Orange, Council has approved funding for the Cancer Council in the past and can consider supporting this as well. |
Recommendation |
Council to determine level of support, if any. |
Orange City Rugby Club |
|
Assistance Would Support |
To cover the cost of line marking for the U/10’s Rugby Tournament |
Amount Requested |
$500.00 in-kind |
Policy Category |
Projects or Equipment Purchase or Providing a Community Service |
Category Maximum |
$1,000.00 |
Complies With Policy |
Yes |
Recommendation |
$500.00 in-kind |
Applicant |
Orange Netball Association |
Assistance Would Support |
Representation at State Titles for Under 12’s, 13’s, 14’s, 15’s, 17’s & Opens |
Amount Requested |
$750.00 |
Policy Category |
Sports participation program |
Category Maximum |
$750.00 |
Complies With Policy |
Yes |
Recommendation |
$750.00 |
1 Redacted - Orange Regional Malayalee Association, IC22/6260⇩
2 Redacted - CWA - Small Donations Application, IC22/6279⇩
3 Redacted - Lonely Mountain Ultra - Small donations application, IC22/6280⇩
4 Redacted - Orange Lions Club - Small Donations Application, IC22/6281⇩
5 Redacted - 3rd Orange Scouts - Small Donations Application, IC22/6282⇩
6 Redacted - The Shepherd Centre - Small Donations Application, IC22/6283⇩
7 Redacted - Orange Show Society - Small Donations letter of request, IC22/6284⇩
8 Redacted - Lachlan Thompson - Small Donation Application, IC22/6285⇩
9 Redacted - Team Shake Rattle and Roll - Small donations letter, IC22/6286⇩
10 Redacted - Orange Male Voice Choir - Small Donation Application, IC22/6287⇩
11 Redacted - Orange City Rugby Club - Small Donations Application, IC22/6288⇩
12 Redacted - Orange Netball Association - Small Donations Application, IC22/6303⇩
Attachment 3 Redacted - Lonely Mountain Ultra - Small donations application
Attachment 4 Redacted - Orange Lions Club - Small Donations Application
Attachment 5 Redacted - 3rd Orange Scouts - Small Donations Application
Attachment 6 Redacted - The Shepherd Centre - Small Donations Application
Attachment 7 Redacted - Orange Show Society - Small Donations letter of request
Attachment 9 Redacted - Team Shake Rattle and Roll - Small donations letter
Attachment 10 Redacted - Orange Male Voice Choir - Small Donation Application
Attachment 11 Redacted - Orange City Rugby Club - Small Donations Application
Attachment 12 Redacted - Orange Netball Association - Small Donations Application
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 Sale Proposed Lot 404, 38 Astill Drive Orange 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. 6.2 Netwaste Regional Household Hazardous Waste Collection 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 (c) information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business. 6.3 Proposed Acquisition of Land - part 415 Mitchell Highway, Orange 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. |
RECORD NUMBER: 2022/259
AUTHOR: Rachelle Robb, Director Corporate & Commercial Services
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.
RECORD NUMBER: 2022/294
AUTHOR: Wayne Davis, Manager Waste Services and Technical Support
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.
RECORD NUMBER: 2022/325
AUTHOR: Jackie Foxall, Legal and Property Officer
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.