9 April - Extraordinary

Welcome to our meeting this evening. I'll just hand over to the General Manager.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd like to begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land, the Dharug people, their elders past and present. Members of the public attending the meeting are advised that in the event of an emergency, you will be asked to proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exit, following the guidance of our warden. I would also like to advise members of the public that in accordance with clause 6.3.1 of the Code of Meeting Practice, the meetings of Council are recorded. In the terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting of Council meetings.

The provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary. If any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting. The recordings may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations. The recordings are stored in Council's record management system. For the benefit of those persons who will be addressing the Council tonight, it is expected that you will refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at this meeting. This request relates to both your address to Council and any answers given in response to questions from Councillors. Finally, it is also requested that if any person in the Council Chambers has a mobile phone, they either turn it off or turn it to silent.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Conroy. Everybody is present, so no apologies. Any declarations of interest?

None. We'll move on to—

Bodies present, so no apologies. Any declarations of interest?

None. We'll move on to our report for determination, item 84. We have no speakers. Is there someone to move?

Move

Councillor Rasmussen, seconded Councillor Reynolds. Discussion?

Madam Mayor, I'd like to move an amendment.

Councillor Calvert.

My amendment is the three points that are in the business paper, plus a fourth point that I sent to Michael. Hopefully the ladies have it over now. Only two in there

Oh, sorry.

Do you just want this added, or do you want this as an amendment?

All right . Okay

Councillor Rasmussen

Yes, Madam Mayor

Thank you. Happy to incorporate that.

Councillor Calvert wishes to move it as an amendment or ask for you to withdraw yours, was his.

Oh.

What's the purpose of that?

Councillor Calvert.

The purpose of that is I would just like to move it, that's all.

I would.

Seconder, Councillor Reynolds. Let's drive. If you've got a seconder for that one, Councillor Cutlass. Thank you, Madam Mayor, yes.

Discussion?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I would like to speak on that, if I could.

It's disappeared off the screen, but I've included this point because

The North Richmond and area and the area west of the river is actually growing very quickly and it amounts to one third of our city's population. Yet it doesn't have one third of our infrastructure. It has much less than that. And what I put there commits us to investigate this. It doesn't commit us to spend millions of dollars, but hopefully it's sending the right signals to the people west of the river that we are very much determined to address the lack of infrastructure west of the river, and we're starting with this as our first point of call. I know there are other things we could look at as well, but people I've spoken to west of the river, a lot of them complain that especially on Saturdays when their kids are going to sport, they all have to go across—well, many of them have to go across the river—and then the traffic getting back at lunchtime on Saturday is just often worse than weekdays.

And that's just going to keep getting worse. So this could be something that helps that. I know it's not going to solve our traffic problems, but it's an indication to the people over there that we… We take their plight seriously and we want to do something about it. I believe there are already parts in the budget which go towards this, address this at some level, because I believe we are already meeting with the Regional Street Strategic Alliance people and several other groups to do an analysis of the sporting needs in the area. And I think there's a few other studies going on as well. So in the background in the budget, there is actually money already allocated, which eventually could lead to this construction.

It's not aimed specifically at this construction, but it could help in the process. So I just wanted the people west of the river to know that we are serious about addressing the infrastructure issue, and we've heard so many times over the years people come in here and say things like, We don't want any more development until there's infrastructure. Well, we have a duty to address the infrastructure, so hopefully this sends that message. And I've put it in the budget, as I said, because there are components in the budget already that start to address this. So that's why I've asked to attach it there. So I'm hoping that councillors will see this in the right light and will support this motion.

Thank you, Councillor Calvert. Was there some sort of monetary component attached to that, or you're simply putting it as a statement to support what we're already doing within the budget? Because I can ask for an outline of what we're already doing, if that would better inform people.

Maybe we'll just hear how much of that is being done and whether we need to actually allocate some funding. Mr Conroy.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I had some email exchanges with Councillor Calvert over the weekend, advised him that we have, based on the ABS data that's been released to date, we've completed our review of that. We're also finalising the regional open space strategy. That was a document that was initially prepared some years ago, but we're also now aware, through the regional alliance, that Penrith and Blue Mountains are finalising plans for their regional open space and facilities, and so it would be prudent to look at what they're proposing and where they're proposing those facilities, as well as the hills, so that we can take that into account in terms of our longer term plans. And we're also finalising our design guidelines.

Again, this was a process that has been commenced already, and we're going to complete that in the next financial year. And it's also intention to complete the sports plan in the next financial year, again based on that population data and the regional open space initiatives, our neighbours. So all of that, as Councillor Calvert's correctly observed, is in train. And so through the course of next year, we'd be hoping to bring that final sports plan design guidelines back to Council, and that can include consideration of a facility at North Richmond. As I said to Councillor Calvert, when we get to that point, we'll also be able to start work on finalising our Section 94 plan. Section 94 plan won't necessarily fund that multipurpose indoor facility, but a business case and feasibility study that was produced in relation to such a facility could be used to apply for government grants and things like that.

So I think when we get to the completion of that next stage, we'll be able to make a decision about next steps, whether it's a feasibility and a business case. And again, there would be scope to look at that through the course of the budget in the next financial year.

Thank you. Further discussion?

Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Yeah, Madam Mayor, I think most of us will recall that six, eight months ago, we decided , we resolved to set up an infrastructure committee, and I would have thought that all of that would have been caught up within that framework of that committee. But maybe I've got, if something else that Councillor Cowley is thinking about, that wouldn't be captured by that infrastructure committee. I think we've got the infrastructure committee meeting in

Next

Week or something. I think

Next week.

Anyway, it doesn't hurt to hammer the point because it's been hammered in here on many occasions, and that's why I put forward that notice of motion about the infrastructure committee, because we really do need to get on with it. So.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen. Councillor Conolly.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I won't be supporting this motion. I would like to make the comment that I think the budget, the process we've gone through for developing the budget, including Councilors, has improved year on year over the last few years, and I was very happy with the process this year. Council did resolve, though, to have a rating workshop and look at our rate system, as Council felt that the rating system was not the fairest it could be and wanted to look at other alternatives. That hasn't come to fruition in time for the budget, and so obviously I can't support, Madam Mayor, this budget based on the rating system that we represented the concerns of ratepayers who thought it was fair.

In terms of point four, whilst I don't disagree with the need... For that infrastructure, I don't think this is the correct process, and I think Councillor Rasmussen did say that, but almost hinted that way what the correct process would be. We should be evaluating all the infrastructure proposals we have in our area, looking at the cost-benefit before deciding which one we should investigate specifically. I don't think this is good process, that we just pick one and commit to investigating that one. There's a whole range of things we could be doing. We've got extremely limited capital funds. I think we should have a more rigorous process than just picking one at a meeting, resolving on it, and then going away and investigating whether that one stacks up.

Thank you, Councillor Conolly. Councillor Ross.

Thank you. I, to a degree, support the words of my two colleagues.

Sorry, I, to a degree, support the thoughts of my two prior colleagues, and in reference to point four,

I would counsel the mover in

The following terms. This is not a budget matter.

I believe it would behove us all to kindly accept an offer from my learned colleague to submit a separate notice of motion at a time of his choosing for possibly this to be considered, in addition to what is going on with the infrastructure committee.

I'm aware of some other material. That has been produced many moons ago by various state governments, which would indicate that we need to think in greater depth about the whole of the

Area formerly known as Colo Shire in terms of development and what the future is likely to hold. So I think a notice of motion at a subsequent meeting in which it could be brought forward and discussed more learnedly , if you like, by all of us here on the basis of some time to think about things and also to

Gather information, because there may well be, in addition to our concerns about North Richmond, we also must be mindful that possibly not within this term, but maybe we don't know when, the Jacaranda Ponds development is likely to come heading down the path towards Council, and apart from our current interests, we must also be sufficiently enlightened to be getting prepared for that and having

At least some form of acknowledgement and something in our back pocket in the way of long-term planning thoughts and ideas. That may ensure that our people are going to be well catered for in terms of all of the services that they will require: transport, infrastructure, road networks and so on. And I

Don't think, unfortunately, that this budget is the appropriate place in which to pin this. It will only, to my way of thinking, potentially become lost. And I think we've got broader strategic issues and policy issues to be contemplating. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. I just had a question about how point 4 would manifest really in terms of being included. Like, it's like a point of a notice of motion. I agree with Councillor Ross how this is a motion to put our this operational plan here on exhibition. Is it just in addition to that, or is it meant to be somehow included in it? I'm not quite sure of its intent, that's all. If it's—

Councillor Calvert, is it meant to actually specify somehow in this document, or is it simply a council resolution that we support that ?

It's not meant to be part of the document. It's a concept that I'm asking councillors to support, as well as the budget.

On top of. Okay, thank you.

Madam Mayor just

Not to labour

On the point, but perhaps a point of order then, Madam Mayor, as to whether this motion really should be brought without notice to the community. Given that it's not directly related to the business at hand.

So is that a procedural, a point of order?

General Manager.

I think it's being proposed as a motion, to my way of thinking, that acknowledges work that's embodied in the budget and operational plan. And it's probably a statement to that effect. We wouldn't interpret that as a need to amend the documentation. And as I said earlier, it doesn't involve any change in any work programs that are already in place. A lot of the work that is going to inform this is work that's already contained within the budget and the program next year. And I think this is more a statement that acknowledges that fact.

Thank you.

Further discussion, Councillor Richards. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

First of all, I'm going to be very brief tonight. I don't think we need to labour on this for too long, but I do want to thank the staff, and I do want the staff to know well and truly, from the bottom of my heart, that my vote against the operational plan has nothing to do with your efforts, but everything to do with the rating structure. So I think it's very important that that distinction is made early on. I do want to acknowledge, or support, point four, Councillor Calvert's amendment to the motion there to actually include the Indoor Sports Stadium west of the river. It's something that I'm also very committed to the idea of, and I think the important part there is it is just an acknowledgement and that it actually states to work in partnerships with other organisations.

So not just getting funding from state or federal government, but also from private enterprise. So I think that Council has a real opportunity there to make that commitment. Now that we've got the State Government investing in corridors, definitely better transport options, then we're still in consultation phase right now, obviously, but, you know, we're getting that infrastructure coming west of the river, and I think having these additional ideas in support of that is a good thing. So just to continue on, I can't support, obviously, this operational plan because it supports the current rating structure model. There is also still so much up in the air right now, and while I understand we are on a time frame and a deadline and we have dates that we need to do things to make sure we comply with the legislation, there are still so many fundamental variables that require certainty.

IPART still hasn't approved the SRV, and while I understand there's different options in the budget showing what it would be with the SRV or without the SRV, I think that's unfortunately confusing for a lot of the community to understand what it's actually going to be. We're still workshopping rates, and we made a commitment to pursue that a long time ago, and the fact that we haven't got something else to show the community at this point in time, I feel is unfortunate. But the fact that we are still putting this plan with a 30 percent base rate is something that I cannot support. I still think it's going to be difficult for the community to provide— I mean, tonight's whole resolution is about putting the document to public exhibition, so I would think that the public would find it hard to be able to comment on a document when it's still showing the old rating structure and they have no idea what any change to the rating structure would be in that meantime before we actually adopt the budget itself.

So unfortunately, I can't support it based on that basis because I do think it's going to be a little hard for the community to be able to provide that certainty and feedback. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor

Madam Mayor, could I foreshadow a motion? Should this motion fail, then I will move the original motion, or the motion that—

Okay, so you're foreshadowing it or amending

I am foreshadowing it. No, I'm foreshadowing it. Okay.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen. Further discussion? Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor.

I agree in part with Councillor Conolly that I'm not entirely sure that point 4 belongs here. I'm happy for it to remain, however, as someone who— parents a teenager west of the river and knows lots of teens who live around that area, there really is a paucity of service for our kids. The community centre at North Richmond does an excellent job of trying to put things on for them, but if they want to do anything, they have to cross the river. And at some times in the day, that can be extremely difficult because of the traffic gridlock. So I think it would be fantastic for us to see some facility for young people to use west of the river. That said, we really need to address transport links to that, particularly for teens.

We already have a system where parents are stuck ferrying their kids all over the place because of a staggering lack of public transport. So whether we put pressure on bus services to increase service, whether we make those services more frequent and reliable, or whether whatever facility goes in comes with some sort of commitment to run a bus between North Richmond and Glossodia, Freemans Reach and Wilberforce, we are going to have to address actually getting kids to that space. So it might be west of the river, but it's still 20 minutes, half an hour from... From some of our other smaller towns that have lots of kids of the age group that would use this and can't get themselves places, and I think that's only going to increase with further development at Glossodia.

So I'm happy to support the motion in its current form. I think it's probably something that we could have discussed in greater detail prior to this, but I think it probably fits in well with flagging where some money and some ideas for infrastructure might go. In terms of the rest of the budget, I'm happy to support this budget. I want to thank the staff for putting this together. This has been a long and difficult process, and they've in fact had to put together not one budget but two, because we don't know what's happening with the SRV at this stage. But we can't hold the budget back while we wait to find out what's happened. We have a legal obligation to put this on public exhibition and for the community to give a response.

And then we've also committed to going out and consulting with the community once we have word back from IPART as to whether we'll get the SRV or not, and whether this budget will be adopted in its current form. So we can't do that if we don't accept the budget this evening. We also can't hold the budget back while we wait for a ratings workshop. We've had an initial workshop. It would have been nice to squeeze another one in, but I don't think that we've been sitting around doing nothing, and certainly the staff haven't. The councillors who are objecting to this have been asked to provide alternatives, and only one's been put forward, a 50% base rate, which wasn't acceptable to the majority of councillors.

That's how democracy works. Nor have we had any viable alternatives to an SRV. You haven't selected the services that you think we should cut. You haven't offered any suggestions to have Council meet its future obligations set by the state government. It's just been no, no, no. I note that in the document that accompanies the budget, the programs and key highlights, there is a section on what we will have to cut if we don't get the SRV. These aren't services that we won't be able to— these aren't additional services that we won't be able to deliver. These are services that we currently offer that we will have to cut.

The library, our both libraries, and the mobile library to Wisemans Ferry will all have to be looked at. The gallery, the museum, pools and recreation facilities, events, heritage, the animal shelter, economic development, community services and tourism. All of these will have to be looked at seriously to see what service levels we can maintain under the current budget if we don't get the SRV. We can't sit here and say, Well, we don't like the rates, we don't like the rate structure, we don't like this, we don't like that. We're just going to squash the budget and wait for some miracle to befall us. It's not going to happen. We need to accept the budget as it is. The staff have done their very best. They've found quite a lot of savings. We are running a very lean council. I'm happy to accept the budget in its current form. Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Councillor Conolly.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. If I could just briefly respond to that, because I think it's important that that mistruth not be allowed to stand. A couple of things that were just said that just plainly aren't true, that there's been no alternatives offered. I'm sure the council members, when we were putting up options one, two and three, there was a request for an option four, which we would actually go out to the community and say, Look at having a smaller rate increase with some service cuts. Give the community a list of the non-core services. Look to cut, you know, somewhere in the vicinity of half a million to a million in consultation with the community. Broad agreement in the briefing comes up to Council and gets squashed.

The staff put up a report saying that a million dollars is nothing. It was not worth looking at, despite the fact that some of our strategies are as little as $35,000. And the Council supported that, voted that report through. That was the first alternative. The other mistruth that I think needs to be combated, which has been peddled by a lot of people, is that this is just about maintaining our current service levels. Option 2, which was supported by the majority of the community, was just about maintaining current service levels. Option 3 is not just about maintaining current service levels. Option 3 is an improvement in our overall budget position. It goes above and beyond that. So this idea that if we don't have Option 3, we're going to have to shut our library, museum, pools and animal shelter is just absolute ridiculous.

It's not true. It shouldn't— Mayor,

Misrepresentation. Thank you, Councillor Whelan. I hear that when Councillor Conolly's finished.

I'm not sure what was a misrepresentation, Madam Mayor. That's exactly what was just said. There was a list of services read off that we would have to close if we didn't have a rate rise, and it's just not true. And, you know, it's been said in many mediums and venues that there's been no alternative offered, and it's just not correct. There's been alternatives offered. We've been engaged in this process. No, we didn't agree with you at the last step. That doesn't mean that we didn't offer any alternatives or have any engagement. And I think that it's unfortunate that that's what it's come down to, that it's just got to be constant lies.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Your point of misrepresentation.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I think Councillor Conolly is reaching into the past. It was about 18 months ago when we first started this discussion about which options we would put forward that's really outside the scope of the current budget. And no one has said, no one has denied that option three is about increasing services. What I stated was that without an SRV, either option two or three, perhaps I should have been more specific, without option two or three, we will have to look at cutting services. It was made very clear to the community, for those of us who attended the extensive community consultation sessions, that option one wasn't actually business as usual. Option one is service cuts. So without an SRV, we are looking at service cuts.

I don't think that anyone is telling lies about the fact that services will have to be cut if we don't get options two or three. We've asked for option three. It's possible we will get less than option three, but any less than option two and we will be looking at service cuts. That is quite clear from the information given to us by the staff at recent briefings. Thank you, Councillor Wheeler.

Councillor Reynolds. Thanks, Madam Mayor. I support the budget and the exhibition of the draft operational plan. I don't support point 4 being added in that. I appreciate the spirit and the meaning behind the point brought by Councillor Calvert, but I don't think this is the time for it. This is the time to exhibit the draft operational plan, knowing that we're not sure what the result from my part is going to be. It may well be that we can't commit to investigating the possibility

Of— Partnerships with other organisations to construct something like an integrated indoor sports stadium, because there may not be an SRV grant and we may not be financial enough to do it. So I can't support this with option four because I just think, again, I appreciate the spirit and the intent behind it, but I just don't think this is the right time for it. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Reynolds. Any further discussion? Councillor Tree.

Thank you. It's quite ironic that Council Wheeler states that we're just opposing it just for the sake of it and being political, because it wasn't that long ago that when the Mayor and, I don't know if Councillor Wheeler was there, but the Mayor definitely had said that she wasn't going to support a rate rise because Council weren't doing their job and we should find all other alternatives, and unless they had expired, then we shouldn't move forward with such a huge rate rise. And I kind of think that that's incredible. So once we've become Mayor, we don't view that to be the case anymore, it seems.

Point of order, Councillor Tree. I'll just correct you on that. You just said it yourself that I said that I wouldn't support it until all other avenues had been investigated,

Which is what I said I know you

Believe that . Well, they have been and you haven't put any forward to investigate, or attended the briefings, but continue.

I've always stated that we should be not having that base rate of less than 50 percent because it's not a fair system for anybody, and I won't be supporting it because of that very thing. But it's all very well to say that you can't support things until you get into the leadership and then you change your mind because you want to keep your position. The other thing that I think is really an important thing to— Comment on is that Councillor Calvert has been advocating for some time sporting facilities west of the river, and I think that that's a very noble pursuit. I do know that at the moment the Peel Park is going through a period of consultation, extensive, incredibly extensive consultation, and I hope that the fields will be, you know, good enough for the children to be able to train on and to have lighting and to be able to not have to travel out of the area.

However, my point I'd like to make about people moving to areas where they're, you know, further away from facilities, if you move, you know, if parents move away out of areas that haven't got all of the facilities within a town centre, I think it's reasonable to expect that people can't just be putting on public transport to get their children to sport. You have to take on that responsibility for yourself, just like a lot of us do. And so I think that the further you move from the town centres, the more reasonable it is to expect that there aren't, you know, front door stop buses to support people there, and parents should take on that responsibility. So I won't be supporting this because I think we should definitely have had the race be at 50 percent because that would have been far more fair and equitable for the whole community.

Thank you. Any— Councillor Ross, you've already spoken. Did you have a question?

Thank you. I'll just speak briefly. First of all, could I just confirm from something Councillor Richards said, I'm not sure if you thought we still may change the rating structure before this budget's adopted, but I don't think that's possible. If I can just clarify that, Mr Conroy.

No, that's the case, Madam Mayor.

Thank you. I do understand we have some unusual timeframes with IPART being, you know, not coming out until May. It's an unusual time to give a result for something when they know people are doing a budget, but that is what it is, so we have to put up with that. With regard to point four, of course I'm a huge supporter of getting more infrastructure in not just west of the river but in the whole of this area, and I'm a little bit—doesn't really bother me either way. I do take Councillor Conolly's point of view, though, that inserting this without giving people an opportunity to comment on perhaps other things they would have also wanted us to show a commitment for is perhaps a little unfair, and it may be best moved as a separate notice of motion when perhaps other people could put up things they also wish Council to be committed to .

However, I certainly don't have a problem with its sentiment whatsoever. I support it wholeheartedly and think that we should be looking at that. I also think perhaps it could be, and certainly will be now it's been mentioned, taken to the Infrastructure Committee for consideration and therefore prioritisation within that process when that's being looked at.

I am concerned about some various calculations and some information that's been put out, which is accusing the Council of misleading the people of the Hawkesbury, and I'd just like to correct those assertions that have been made because it's great that people are interested in looking at these sort of things. I can also understand that people have concerns about them. Obviously, having a big increase in your rates is not something anybody wants, just like we don't want big increases in anything else, for example, our insurance bills, such as have just taken a massive leap. I'll just address some questions that were put in the public domain, and they are directed at me, and so I feel I should answer them publicly.

The first question was, Are you prepared? They're from a group called Hawkeye that don't identify who they are. They don't ever put a name to it, so they've sent me messages and they've put this publicly, so I'll just address what they've said. Are you prepared to apologise for misleading the people of the Hawkesbury? is the first question, and my answer is that I don't believe the people of the Hawkesbury have been misled by myself or by the figures provided by the staff. The calculations of rates are a complex set of figures, and they're dependent on knowing all the values of all the properties and the total levels of increase across the whole LGA to be able to compare different models and rates for different land values.

So I think that putting out figures without having all that information is a little bit dubious, and it certainly is not representative of what the exact situation is. Secondly, the question was, Did you already know Council's decision to restructure caused the majority of the rise? So the answer to this is no, because the restructure did not cause the majority, the major part of the increase in the rates. The major increase in the rates has come from the increase in land value which has occurred. Thirdly, the question was, are you prepared to work towards implementing a balanced rate structure as a matter of urgency? So as we know, we've commenced a review of the rating structure, and we're working towards determining what should happen with that.

We've had a couple of things which contribute to the current situation, the first one being the valuation being moved forward for a year due to the then proposed fire and emergency services levy, which didn't go ahead, was deferred, so everyone's property had a land revaluation. And then, of course, we've had the recent announcements of the corridors going through a couple of the areas that had big land increases. So I would probably foreshadow at this time that should these corridors be gazetted, that I think we should be, I don't know if it's automatic, but we most certainly should be asking for that land to be revalued because there will be a significant impact on the land valuations in those areas, I would imagine.

So a comment, a statement was made that said, and I'm reading a quote here from Hawkeye, not Hawkeye from the Gazette, by the way, sorry, Connor, it's a Facebook thing, thank you. The quote said, It proves without doubt that whilst the valuer general is responsible for a portion of the rate rise, the responsibility for the majority of the rise in these suburbs lies with Council's decision to restructure the rates in June 2017. End of quote. So this statement and the figures used to supposedly support the claim are inaccurate. It's important, if presenting calculations, that they truly represent an application of the formula under the real conditions. That is, one simply cannot apply a rate on a perceived valuation.

If a property was valued at $607,000, it paid rates in 2016-17 of $1,484 under the previous structure. If under the changed structure that land value did

Not change— Point of order, Madam Mayor.

Yes .

Just, sorry, just to the relevance of this, I mean, I've just looked up this Facebook group. It's got about 100 likes, and this is a meeting about whether or not we adopt the budget and put on exhibition. I'm just wondering what we're doing at the moment. Why are we responding to this in public, and if all councillors have the opportunity to respond in detail— I'm responding in public because it's

A public allegation about council misleading the public

So my question would be, does every councillor have the right to respond in public to Facebook posts? If

We're going to go

Down the path and make a

Response about something that's in the public domain about me

On Facebook— Well,

This is about the rates. This is talking about the rates, and we're putting our rate charges on exhibition, thank you, Councillor. I think you've gone a little bit off tangent. Well, I'll decide if I've gone off tangent, and I don't think I have, so I'll just continue. Thank you.

So I'm just pointing out that there's some inaccurate statements have been given. If people are to comment on our rating structure, if they're to comment, then they should have the right information. I'm glad you find it so amusing, Councillor Tree.

Well, I don't think it's pathetic. I'm correcting a state— I beg your pardon? Can you show some respect? Show

Some respect to your position.

Don't be so rude. I am stating something of how the figures are calculated. Thank you. How many likes it's got, it's not to do with that. It's to do with the information in the public domain. So, it doesn't matter if two people say it. No, it is not petty.

It doesn't matter how many shares or how many likes. The fact is someone's made an accusation against the Council that we've misled the public, and we haven't misled the public. So I'll just continue. So, the— can't remember where I was up to now, so I'll start again at the beginning, shall I?

In other words, so if the land was still at that rate, then the rates would be 1,829, but the increase to the bigger amount lifts it up to 3,632. So these figures have been claimed by this website to be conclusive proof that would be correct if the land value of every property in the Hawkesbury increased by the same percentage, but that's not the case. So, in other words, to work these figures out, you have to know the relative increase of all the other sums. And the reason I bring it to this Chamber, Councillor Tree, is because if someone thinks that they can just calculate their own rate, that's not possible. They need the values of all the land in the whole area. And to then turn around and say there's conclusive proof that Council is misleading people on something like our rating structure, I don't think it's petty.

I think it's important that that's publicly clarified when somebody has sent me messages challenging me on that sort of thing. So now it's in the public domain.

So, with regard to point four, I think that— I think it's a very valid point, but I'll see how the vote on that goes. Councillor Rathmussen has a foreshadowed for the original motion if that one doesn't pass. I think that there was one other, one other

Question I actually had. Never mind.

I can put the rest of that up so people can read it then, so I don't bore you all too much with reading about it. That's all from me. Right of reply, Councillor Calvert.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I was just wondering whether councillors would prefer if I put this in seriatum,

And whether that would be the way to go. But I don't know how to judge the answer to that question.

Well, you can ask and I'll put it that way.

Well, I have asked. Yeah

That's—

I think I might do that.

Okay. All right . You do your right of reply.

My right of reply. Firstly, when I spoke before about the motion, I went straight to point four. I forgot to say thank you to the staff for the budget. I've been involved in many budgets, and the process this year has been probably the best process I've ever seen. I think it was run very well, so I neglected to say that before. I think it's unfortunate that there is not a lot of support to have this point four included in the motion, because I wanted to send a signal to the people. Well, the people of the whole area, not just those in North Richmond, that we have acknowledged a problem and we're going to address it. But I think some councillors got a bit spooked by that because they thought I was saying, let's build an indoor stadium, which is not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying let's have an investigation. In fact, Councillor Ross said we should gather information first. Well, I think that's what I'm saying, that we should have an investigation and gather the information. That's what I was after with this motion. I wasn't after us committing to building a sports stadium now, but I wanted to send this signal to the people of Hawkesbury that this council is doing something. One of the biggest complaints I get from people out there is they think this council and previous councils doesn't do anything. When are you going to do something? Well, you know, I'm trying to show that we, as a council, are doers. We're not just talkers. We want to actually do something, and that we've acknowledged the problem and we have a plan to fix it.

That's what this was all about. It was also about the fact that, as Mr Conroy said, there are already many parts of this that are starting to be done, and I was trying to pull all those parts together, pull the strings together, because those parts are already in this budget, and by pulling them together by adding a point four, we would be saying to the people, this is what this budget really means. It's like an interpretation of the budget. This is what it could do for you. So it is very relevant to the budget. It's not something that I think doesn't belong in this. I think it actually does belong there. That was the whole point. So I would ask if we can move it in seriatim because I believe there are some people that just won't vote for points one, two and three, but they just might vote for point four.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. So we'll vote on point one. All those in favour?

Against?

Point two, all those in favour? Against? Point three, all those in favour? Against? Point four, all those in favour? Two, three, four , five , six, seven. All against. Five. Thank you. So the motion is carried in its entirety, all points, and that was the only item. Is that the only? Yep. Thank you. Meeting finished at 7:17.