13 June - Extraordinary

Mr. Conroy for the introduction.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd like to begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land, the Darug 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, meetings of the 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's 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, and the recordings are stored on 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 are the tenant off or tenant to silent. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Conroy. No apologies. Everybody is present. Any declarations of interest? Councillor Garrow .

Item number 144. I have a less than significant non-pecuniary interest. I'm an employee of one of the tenants of the property.

Thank you, Councillor Garrow. Just before we move on to our first report, I'd like to just move a procedural motion to provide an opportunity to show a short video in relation to Council's operation, which is part of our current consultation. Could I have a seconder on that, please? Seconder, Councillor Rasmussen . We'll take a vote on whether people allow that. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried. We'll just play the video and then we'll go to item 143. Thank you.

This is our Hawkesbury. This is also our Hawkesbury. This

This.

Just to give you some context, this is a video that the staff have prepared themselves, which is about Council's operations. Just as we're dealing with the Operational Plan tonight, it seemed pertinent to show it to people.

This is our Hawkesbury. This is also our Hawkesbury. This, this, this, and this. This is all of our Hawkesbury. This is our vibrant city with a rural feel. And here is the Hawkesbury City Council. And that's me, part of the bigger team working to keep our Hawkesbury running. At the front line, our customer service team received over 65,000 phone calls in the last year. For more than two years, our Council has been out talking to you in your towns and villages. We’ve talked to lots of different people about lots of different things. Since then, we have worked on many projects to improve our Hawkesbury, like maintaining our roads, connecting our community, organising events and creating attractive spaces.

We’ve also been busy doing other great things like reading stories to kids, keeping our community active, maintaining our natural areas, and we have found new homes for almost all of our dogs in our companion animal shelter. We’ve even helped our seniors get tech savvy. So let’s take a quick look at just a few of the things, big and small, that we have done. We know our roads are important to you, so we have been striving to maintain and improve our road network, and we have a long-term program of improvements. We have kept our Hawkesbury moving by building bridges, rebuilding roads, resealing roads, and grading rural roads. Some of our major projects that we have been carrying out are the Driftway, Hermitage Road, Freeman’s Reach Road, and new bridges at Upper McDonald and Lower Portland.

In fact, we have carried out works on over 300 kilometres of road by fully reconstructing or resealing or grading. That’s a lot of road works. Whilst you may not see it every day, drainage is really important. We have carried out major works in Richmond, Bligh Park, and in our rural areas. With over 400 parks, ovals and community buildings in our Hawkesbury, the Parks and Buildings Services teams have been kept pretty busy creating attractive spaces for you: court resurfacing at Richmond Tennis Courts, brand new building at Colbee BMX Park at McGraths Hill, a new car park at the Woodlands Park at Wilberforce, restoring our cemeteries, maintaining the Oasis Aquatic and Leisure Centre. Taking care of our parks and ovals and renewing our play spaces, like the one at Governor Phillip Park.

We have started planning to transform our town and villages into thriving centres. We had a huge response to our Place Score survey and learned what is important to you in our town centres. Our events team hosted our first Australia Day on the Hawkesbury. That was a great day. More than 4,000 people came along to celebrate. We showcase talented local artists at our live and local festival in Richmond and Kurrajong, and also supported our local businesses. The Winds of Woffies are a great bunch of volunteers helping make our Hawkesbury River healthy and accessible. Have you visited our community nursery? Come and meet our local volunteers who are growing plants for your home gardens. We have also been busy creating our sustainable Hawkesbury so we can all enjoy our beautiful area for years to come.

We are leading the way in water conservation with over 800 million litres of waste water treated at our sewage treatment plants, recycled for reuse on site and for irrigation of fields and lushes and growing. We have been working closely with Hawkesbury Police in installing and managing CCTV to keep our town safe. Do you walk? Ride a bike? We have connected footpaths in our Hawkesbury and are continuing to build a new bike path in Bligh Park to make it easy for you to get around. We have many volunteers in our libraries, supporting over 200,000 visitors a year. Our community thinks our libraries are the place to be. Our local RFS brigades are also part of our volunteer community, forming the backbone of many of our towns and not just during fires.

We are working together with other groups like the Reconciliation Action Plan Working Group. Our building services, planning and environment teams are working together to make our city a healthy and sustainable place. We have been out cleaning up our Hawkesbury, like on Clean Up Australia Day. You may have even met our butlers in Windsor. Unfortunately, some people don't value our environment, and illegal dumping happening on a weekly basis. Our waste and regulatory teams continue to remove waste and successfully prosecute offenders. Dumpers beware. Our heritage is part of who we are, so we have made sure our heritage sites are cared for and well maintained. We are planning and building great facilities, like this project to upgrade Richmond Preschool for our kids.

We've also approved 654 development applications in the last year, helping you build your shed, home, business or pool. Over the next 12 months, we are expanding our works program to achieve even more improvements. From July 1, we're kicking off a number of exciting projects. At Ham Common, we are renewing our play space and park furniture. We will begin sealing Ferry Road in South Windsor and also begin repairing McGrath Road. This is just the start. We are building our Hawkesbury's future. This is our Hawkesbury. Thank .

We'll just move on now to our first speaker, and our speaker on this item is Gay Kelly.

Thank you, Mary, Madam Mayor, the General Manager, Directors, Councillors and the gallery. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak on our submission and for giving the project's consideration. Firstly, I would like to thank you for attending to item number 13, which it's noted that you have already painted the pedestrian crossing on the corner of Baker Street. Item 9 is also looking great with most, with the McGrath Hill flat area, all being sort of, water's gone in, the jacarandas have been fixed, and it's looking fabulous, so thank you. We were thrilled to read in your report on item 1, where we were looking at empty shops, that you have been successful in obtaining funds through City Deal.

This will make an amazing difference to Windsor. If empty shops are being used similar to the Newcastle project with an artisan trail set, do we have a time frame for this to be carried out? We would be interested in assisting to get that project operational. Item 2, recycling of play equipment. Windsor Mall is looking really tired and would benefit from some of the play equipment to attract young families into the mall, thus also stimulating existing businesses. We are pleased that the Town's revitalisation committee will address this issue. However, once again, we would like advice on what sort of a time frame we are actually looking at, as it is now that the businesses are suffering. Item 3.

Building in disrepair are not helping to grow the area. Landlords should be requested to upgrade, repaint, etc., as part of a revitalisation project. They too will benefit if their shops are doing better. Item 4. We are aware of the history walks. However, we believe that our proposal of highlighted pavers will make it far more attractive and more encouraging to people to actually participate within those history walks. An interactive display could only enhance the history walks. It is pleasing the grants for funding are also being sought. Surely this would be something that the State Government should be able to do with the tourism dollar. Item 7. We are disappointed to hear that we could actually lose the Blues Festival to yet another council, as they are offering big sponsorship.

I appeal to you to stop this and to readdress the opportunity of funding one of the Hawkesbury's biggest events, drawing people from everywhere, stimulating the economy of all the businesses in the Hawkesbury. Thank you for the Australia Day event, which was absolutely fabulous, and it was good to see us up there on screen because we were part of that. This can only grow, and we are proud to be a part of that event. The Hawkesbury Paddle Wheeler have asked me to advise you that they are very keen to be a part of it as well. Thank you also to Casey Cordy for her work to this date on the light up of Windsor. This event can only grow bigger and better with council support. Further funding to the Windsor Business Group will assist them to deliver a great Christmas festival.

Item 8. Toilet signage. It is requested that better signage to the public toilet adjoining to Boots Bar be addressed now, that one in particular. Item 10, stop robbing Peter to pay Paul. Cars and trucks are breaking the pavers in the mall, which enforces you to fix the pavers. Please put bollards up from 9 to 5 to stop vehicle access for workplace safety and to also cut the costs of your repairs. Item 11, a loading zone and kiss and drop off point would also help in Baker Street, as currently delivery trucks are driving into the mall, often dropping off just one small box, where council is actually wearing the cost of all the maintenance. Item 12, waste charges at the tip. Mattresses are being dumped all over the Hawkesbury, as the tip charges are a bit high.

Give consideration to ratepayers showing rate notices. Mattresses dumped at the tip for some sort of a nominal fee like $10. This will save council having to send trucks out, especially to pick them up from the side of the road, which essentially means some ratepayers are getting rid of their mattresses for free. Hardly fair to those who are doing the right thing. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs Kelly. Are you happy to take some questions? Certainly. Any questions? No questions. Thank you. That was our only speaker on that item.

Moved, Councillor Gara. Yes,

Madam Mayor , I would like to move an amendment though. A motion. Move

A motion.

Is that possible to do now? You can do that now. I'd like— I've just sent it through to Michael, if that's

Is it an addition to

The existing recommendation ?

It's an addition to the existing recommendation

Yes. Okay.

If you want to read it out while it's coming up, maybe.

So I'd like to move the following motion to the current recommendation. So recommendation number one as it is, but a new recommendation, an additional recommendation, is for officers to, A, investigate and report back to Council as soon as possible on options for, one, reviewing the priority for the upgrading of Mitchell Drive, Glossodia, and undertaking the works sooner than is currently proposed, and, two, identifying potential funding options for upgrading of Mitchell Drive, Glossodia, and, B, to notify the affected residents of this Council resolution if it was passed.

Do you have a seconder for that? Seconder, Councillor Rasmussen. Discussion? Councillor

Garrard. Several councillors, I know there's quite a few of us councillors here that have discussed this issue with the residents of Glossodia. A few of us met with them last night as well. This road in particular has been an issue for quite some years, decades in fact. The safety of our residents, both vehicle and pedestrian, is a priority. It's a major bus route, this road. It's in gross disrepair. It's not wide enough. It's a perfect example of what happens when developers put in an incomplete, poorly planned estate. These residents deserve to have safe access to and from their homes. The children deserve to have safe access to and from their schools. It needs to be fixed. I understand that it's in the program for four years' time. I believe that four years is too long. So I would recommend that we try and expedite that if possible, please.

Thank you, Councillor Garrow. Further discussion?

No further discussion. I'll give you right— Councillor Richards

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd like to foreshadow an amendment onto this one to actually put forward an adjustment. It would be an amendment. An amendment to this motion. Yeah, an amendment to this motion to put forward a change to Part 3 of the recommendation to change the residential category base rate to 50 per cent and therefore adjust the other categories as required from there. Can you put a time frame

We can't change it. What are you speaking about? The rates. Yeah, but for now or next year? Absolutely for now. All

Right. Have you got a seconder? Is that possible? No, I'll just check if that's actually possible, Mr Conroy.

I'm probably going to take some advice from our Chief Financial Officer, but I think that's going to be problematic to move that type of motion tonight.

Yes, that's correct. So to change the base amount for the residential category, if we keep the current structure, it would mean that the base amount would change for the other categories as well, and the rates and the dollars that are in the business paper won't be vetted anymore. They would all have to be changed.

Sorry. And any effects that flow on from changing that to 50 per cent that need to be adjusted for the other categories?

Yes, so that would still need to come back to Council because to make the rates, essentially we have to have a Council resolution such as the one we've got in the paper which specifies the exact rate in the dollar and the exact base amount.

We don't have that information to hand, given our extensive workshopping.

Mrs Galea

We do, but we would have to need some time to put it up on the screen.

Mr Conroy. I

Do think there's an issue here on two counts. One is that the

Whole development of the rating is something that's worked through over many days, and it does have to be reviewed and modelled extensively to make sure it's absolutely right, because if it's not right, it's a major problem. So I would be reluctant to undertake a change of that nature in this way. I think the only way to do this would be to defer the matter and to come back with a further report. But then I think the other issue is going to be that the changes are going to be of such a nature that they probably would have to be re-notified. And so I think that's another 28 days plus receiving submissions, and that would mean that we wouldn't be in a position to consider our rates until probably late July, early August, in all likelihood. And that then presents its own set of financial problems for us as well.

Thank you, Mr Conroy. I'm happy to take that professional advice on board. I'm happy to therefore cease that intention at the moment, but definitely want to say that I'm glad that that's on the record now, that the people who actually have been hit hard through this rating restructure and this subsequent rate rise on top of that rating restructure actually know that we did try and do something tonight to make sure that the rates could be as fair as they could possibly be under the Local Government Act. But unfortunately, we're unable to do that again tonight. So despite the sentiment that came through, through the debate that we had leading up to the whole SRV process throughout the last few months.

Where we didn't want this to actually go ahead, where we actually said to the community that we would be participating in workshops to actually try and come up with a better outcome for this financial year. And unfortunately, despite the greatest effort of staff and the fact that I think the 12 of us are now highly educated and up to date with how the rates work, we unfortunately were unable to put anything different tonight in the operational plan when it comes to the point that's relevant to the rating structure. So I personally want to say apologise to the community, the section of people who are actually hit hard by this, and who with this rating structure and an additional 9.5% for this year as part, as year one of the SRV that was approved by IPART not long ago, we send out our apologies to you because there's nothing that we can do despite being on the public record as saying that this isn't the way to go.

I want to also apologise to the people here tonight who are here for the corridor item, but that's been attached on to the main reason we were here tonight at an extraordinary meeting, to adopt the budget for the next financial year. In putting together the budget, I know the staff have done an extensive job not just on the rates information, but also on putting together budgets whether an SRV was approved or whether an SRV was denied. So I think it's very important that everyone knows how hard the staff work behind the scenes to make sure that things are done right. And my amendment tonight to make that base rate 50%, I take that professional advice on board, but I think it's quite clear that everyone knows that that's the stance that me and my fellow Liberal councillors continue to hold.

So as you may or may not know, this budget, this document, and I urge you all to read this operational plan here. It's quite intensive, but it's also online. This is where your council is spending your money. So it's extremely important that you know where every single dollar is going, and whether you want that on roads, whether you want that on improved buildings, whether you want that on better services. So I can't encourage the community enough to actually be informed about where the council money is going, because come July 1, when you get your rates notice in the mail and you see that additional 9.5% on top of your previous rates bill, you have every right to know where that's going. And if you want to ask questions, ask questions.

And if you want to contact all of us and know what's going on, you have absolutely every right to do that. This rate rise will forever go down in history as the Madam Mayor Mary Lyons-Buckett rate rise.

Anyway— And

Seven other people. Oh

That's coming. Despite the fact that two-thirds of the community actually said they did not want option three, the rolled gold option, not trust— I would not trust to actually put more money in the hands of this majority. People here tonight, people here tonight, people in Oakville, Moralia, and there are plenty in the room, other people who couldn't make it here, have had some of their rates go through the roof. They've had progress associations set up to try and deal with the trauma associated with the bills that have come in their letterbox. Now, we have people in here tonight, again, for corridors who have experienced intense trauma, and as a council, good on us. Twelve of us stood by on that issue and said, we understand that.

But there are also people in our community who have been hit so significantly hard through this rate restructure, and then on top of that, in SRV, that they can't afford to pay their bills, that they're probably going to have to sell their home, and that is not exaggerating, and that is not overdramatizing anything. I have had personal stories of people who have come up to me and actually said that. So the way we said moving forward was to actually have a base rate of 50%, where the other 50% is based on the land valuations. It's gotten to a point where I almost don't want to be associated with the majority who have made this decision. The leadership of no, the leadership of oppose, that Hawkesbury is closed for business.

It's gotten to a point where I almost feel I want to hide when anyone mentions the rate issues when I walk down the street, because I am actually almost embarrassed to be associated with this decision, and I stand by the decisions that I make, and I stand by the decisions that I will make in this chamber, and this is one that I'm definitely embarrassed to be associated with. But then again, perhaps it might be an idea to possibly wear a mask down the street to hide myself. But then I think, oh, there we go. But then I think, you know what? Why should I do that? You know, why should I have to hide? I'm going to stand proud of the decision I made to stand up for the sector of my community that actually voted for us and actually said that this was not good enough.

So that's right, Madam Mayor, there was an additional seven other councillors that actually voted for this, including five independents. Actually, hold on, is it four? I'm not sure, Councillor Reynolds. I'm not sure which foot you've got each side of the fence today, whether it's the independent side or the Labor side. Who knows? And don't forget that when the independents claimed that they are independent councillors, there was a Facebook group formed just after, I think it was a few months after the election actually, where the independent councillors called themselves the independent councillors of the Hawkesbury. Actually grouped themselves when they oppose political parties and actually grouped themselves as a group, despite being independent.

And I think Councillor Reynolds stands where he can't decide what he wants to do, whether it's local or state independent or Labor, is a perfect example of that. So what I want to say, come July 1, when you get your rates in the letterboxes, come and let us know if that's affected you, how that's affected you. We're open, we want to listen, and I will not be supporting this recommendation tonight with the base rate as it is in point three. However, I want to make it very clear on the record that I have been representing and speaking to a resident in Mitchell Drive on those issues for months, for months and months, and I wanted to make sure that things got done. And despite my best efforts, things weren't getting done.

But it's quite ironic that when it falls into the hands of someone who's able to get things done, things are done like that. So isn't that hilarious when that actually happens that way? But what I want those people of Mitchell Drive to know is when I don't support this tonight, unless we can vote part by part by part, which I would be very happy to do because I certainly support point two, I can't support the rest of those other— Points tonight when it's going to hit people in our community, the way it's going to hit them on July 1.

Further discussion?

Councillor Conolly.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I'm a bit disappointed in the decision to rule that amendment out of order. I can remember plenty of occasions over the last three or four years where we've done exactly that. This rate structure has not been settled for a very long time. There's been disagreement about this since 2012-13, and every year, I can recall every year at the budget, amendments have been moved to change the rate structure and adopt a different rate structure. And I would have thought, given the extensive modelling we've done, surely it's not going to be that hard. We should know the exact consequence of either method and be able to adopt that. But look, given that that's the way it's been ruled and, you know, indications are it wouldn't be successful anyway, I guess we'll let that go.

But we did have a room full of people who have been really badly affected from Oakville , and we did have a debate on changing the base rate to 50%. And when that group of really angry people were in here, the majority will on council was that we should have a rating workshop and try and find a fairer system that was going to be easier and better for everybody. The workshops got delayed a couple of times. Timelines got pushed way out. Eventually it was too late to do it this year. And then at the last rating workshop, it was acknowledged that we're not going to change anything anyway because we believe this is the best thing. And of course , the cynical community member might view that and see that once those people in Oakville weren't in the room anymore, the sentiment changed, which is really disappointing.

I can't support this budget with an SRV. This is our last chance to stop the SRV if we wanted to.

The fact is that we went out and did all this community consultation, ignored our community, and went with the option that most of our community were not willing to pay for. So I can't support this budget . I would have hoped to have an alternative. I would always rather move an alternative than just vote no, especially this late in the process. But given that we've been denied the opportunity to move an alternative, I'm going to have to vote against it. Okay, Councillor Conolly

Deputy Mayor. Thank you,

Madam Mayor. Could I ask a question first? In my experience, when we get to the end of the financial year, sometimes we have a surplus in our capital works program because some projects that were meant to start couldn't be started for some reason or another. So I'd like to move an amendment, and this is the question , and can I attach that amendment to that possible surplus? Sorry, attach it to? Make it contingent on that possible surplus in the capital works program. I'll

Just check if there is a surplus. So there is no surplus. There

Are sometimes carryovers where works are not fully completed. They might be commenced, not completed, or there are sometimes carryovers because a project actually hasn't commenced because some latent condition was found, like a service that wasn't in a survey or something like that and has to be removed or rectified or something like that. That's the most common occurrence.

Sometimes there are projects which are scrapped altogether. Now, do we just move down to the next item on the list,

If that's the case? Mr

Connery

I'm not 100% sure of the practice here in terms of projects. I'd get some advice on that.

Mrs Gillian. Thanks, Madam Mayor. The only time where a project would be deleted is if either the cost estimates maybe were not enough and there isn't sufficient funds to actually do it . Yeah, I suppose that's really the only reason, because the reason why jobs are identified in the operational plan to start with is because they are required. So, yeah, so that's the only sort of situation where.. . Yeah. And, yeah, in the other forum where we would change things around is through the quarterly review. So again, if there's a change in priority or additional funds are needed for a project, so there are mechanisms where we can move funds from one project to another. So we can certainly, as part of the end of the financial year process, see what's left, but generally we do not end up with a surplus by the time we do everything.

Thank you. Perhaps surplus is the wrong word, but I can remember a few projects where we were anticipating a certain level of funding from the state government and we actually got more than we expected, and then we had that little bit left over that we had decided to put in. That's what I meant, not so much a surplus, but money we had intended to spend, but now we didn't have to spend

Mrs Gillian . Thanks, Madam Mayor. I'm not quite sure as to this specific occasion if that's happened. We have had situations where grant funding has been brought forward , where we could do projects for the following year in an earlier time . But yeah, I mean, in the event that we do receive grant funding for something that's in the operational plan to be funded by Council, that will come back to the Council for a quarterly review , recommending that that funding originally allocated would be reallocated. So there are forms where we can do that if that had to occur. Okay,

Thank you. I won't pursue that line of questioning. I just also want to know about, in our video and other documents we've indicated we have a priority to seal some of the unsealed roads. The unsealed roads that I saw listed are all around Windsor and further out towards St Albans, I think. Have we looked at any of the unsealed roads in the Bilpin area as part of that process? Mr

Organ.

Through you, Madam Mayor, yeah, we've got the works for the coming year based on a priority list that Council adopted the parameters of a number of years ago. So the roads that are being done are the St Albans Village roads and Ferry Road in South Windsor. There's a number of other roads being proposed over the next five to six years. I can certainly provide the detailed list. It's actually contained within the brochures we put out previously, but there are a number of other roads, I think totalling about 20 kilometres of unsealed road over the life of the SRV program. Well

Thank you for that. What I'm trying to suggest is that over the next 12 months, we could widen our brief and look at more, ceiling more roads rather than the ones we just got listed. I think that'll come back at a later stage. But I've received a lot of messages lately from people, especially in the Bilpin area, where the circumstances of those roads has changed. The roads now lead to what you would call tourist facilities. And when the residents moved in there, you know, 20, 30 years ago, there might be one car a day going down the road. Now there's 20 or 30, and the dust clouds are just unbearable. So a lot of those people have approached me and said, Well, can we get Bilpin dirt roads raised up the priority list? So I'm just flagging that I would like to do that. Could I make that as an amendment that we look at? Would

You like to ask Councillor Garrow, could it be a third point in there?

To

Revisit the priorities for the sealing of roads. Yes, please.

Especially in the Bilpin

Area

Seconder, Councillor Rasmussen.

Madam Mayor, can we add Yarramundi as well

Maybe other unsealed roads, specifically Bilpin and Yarramundi, or anywhere.

Councillor Zambrano.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just an observation as I begin. We have a process here in Council, and we have developed our budget over a long period of time, and indeed we developed our works program and understood the logic behind the prioritisation of that works program some months ago. I find it— Extraordinary that on the night that we accept the budget, that so many councillors would put their hand up and make amendments of this type, knowing full well that we've been through an exhaustive process, and that the allocations have been thought through, and that there was a time where our input was sought, and that there's usually little merit in suggesting amendments of this type at this time, unless you're playing to the gallery or to a particular constituency.

Those councillors are perfectly entitled to do so, but I think it's collectively a waste of our time. There is a time and place for this, and it is not now. More generally, I'd make this observation, and it is to flag that I will be voting against this budget. Citizens, when they are asked if they would be prepared to pay more tax, usually confound the people taking those polls by saying, yes, in certain circumstances. We want governments to competently execute their duties and to provide the services that that tier of government is legislated to provide. But the rider is that the distribution and collection of those taxes are fair. So even though there may be objectively a case to be made for a special rate variation, which has now been accepted by IPART, I can only vote against this budget on the basis that it is not fair.

The residents in many of our suburbs, many of whom are here with us tonight, feel very aggrieved that the distribution of rates is not fair. And in that environment, as I have said here before, our role is to do what we can within the envelope that we do have control over. To try and mitigate against the effects of land revaluation or the need for higher revenue. So the special rate variation has to be seen in the context, as we know, of people in certain suburbs experiencing a doubling or worse than doubling of their rates, receiving very little in the way of extra services, being able to claim, for example, a pensioner rebate which is pegged to a dollar value of $250, which as a percentage of their now doubled or tripled rates represents an ever-diminishing fraction of the concession that they otherwise might be entitled to.

And when we look at the spiking of rates that occurs as a result of land value, to actually change our rating structure so that it sharpens the impact of land value on their rates bill, to me is unconscionable. I think that the conclusion that the citizens of the Hawkesbury are rapidly making is that the only way in which they are going to get a fairer rating system is by changing the government in this council.

Further discussion? Councillor Reynolds. Yeah

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I find the indignation from those opposite slightly bemusing when they're accusing us of putting up rates via the SRV when they support The cost shifting by the New South Wales Government onto this council. And I'll just read out a report from the Upper House parliamentary inquiry in 2015, and it says, financial pressures are a real and significant problem for local councils, but suggesting that local councils are to blame for financial pressures when those pressures have in fact been imposed by state and federal governments again points to the fundamental flaws in the future process. In the absence of any real evidence that supports larger councils, we are left with the conclusion that this is simply an ideological conviction of the New South Wales Government that is driving the agenda.

If there was a genuine willingness to provide financial assistance to local councils, a panel would be placed to examine ways in which the state government currently hinders the ability of local councils to deliver quality services and infrastructure in their local communities. This includes rate capping and cost shifting onto local councils. And for the benefit of the gallery and rate payers from Local Government New South Wales, cost shifting is defined as a situation where the responsibility for, or merely the cost of, providing a certain service, concession, asset or regulatory function are shifted from state government onto a lower level of government without providing corresponding funding or the conferral of corresponding adequate revenue-raising capacity.

Now, in 2011 to 2012, the state government took $4.5 million of our rate payers' money by cost shifting. 2012 to 2013, another $4.5 million came from rate payers. 2013 to 2014, another $4.5 million, and so on all the way up to 2015-16, another $4.5 million. The last financial year, they took $6.9 million of our money. Now, have no—let me make it absolutely clear. If there was no cost shifting, there would be no need for a rate increase. But you don't hear that from these opposite. They're talking about wearing a mask, that they might need to wear a mask to hide from—

Point of order, Madam Mayor. Councillor Connolly.

My point of order is that Councillor Reynolds has suggested that we have said something to indicate we support cost shifting, and I would ask that he either— So

Point of misrepresentation. You could address it after he finishes, okay?

Okay

It would be good if I could hear the Liberal speak out against cost shifting, because all through this process, the last 18 months, the last two budgets we've done, they haven't. And they support Mr Perrottet's claim in the press and in public meetings that council doesn't need to put rates up because council is merely inefficient. You're pretty inefficient when someone rips 10 percent of your budget out, let me tell you. Anybody who's in business knows, you know, that doesn't work. So

I support the budget. This council has come in here thinking that we were probably fit for the future. Everything had been passed. We're fit for the future. You can move forward to the next step in the process to, you know, after amalgamation didn't go through. And what we found was it was like buying a car that was full of rust, big end was shot, someone had stuck bananas in the diff, and it wasn't roadworthy anymore. And we had to make the hard decision to fix it up.

And so that's what we've done. And I'm proud that we've got the guts to do the right thing by the community that will benefit into the future. And I ask you all, ask you all to look up cost shifting. There's reports on the internet everywhere about it. Parliamentary inquiry requested the New South Wales Government to stop it, and they haven't stopped it. And again, if there was no cost shifting, there would be no SRV. Thank you.

Councillor Reynolds. Councillor Conolly has a point of misrepresentation.

Yes, Madam Mayor. The implication seems to be that because the current state government is a Liberal state government, therefore we support cost shifting. I mean, that's illogical in the first instance. But I would also point out that in Councillor Reynolds' own speech, he identified that in 2011, the cost shifting was at 4.5 million. That didn't happen in one year. So his implication that because we're Liberals, we support cost shifting, he is the Labor state candidate. The Labor state government was the worst cost shifting government this state's ever had.

Thank you, Councillor Conolly. Can I

Get a right of reply?

Point of misrepresentation. It's not a right of reply. It's either a point of order or a point of

Misrepresentation. Misrepresentation. Okay, it was $4.5 million in 2011-12. It happened in one year. Okay, it was an average of $4.5 million a year for the five years. You can check with Mrs.

Okay, and I'm going to call an end on that, Councillor Conolly It's not—we don't have, we cannot have this debate if you wish to

Submit— Well, I think, Madam Mayor, you've allowed the Labor candidate to read out an Upper House inquiry report.

Well, I just allowed you a point of misrepresentation. Councillor Reynolds, please. Sorry. I've just allowed you to address the point of misrepresentation. We're not going to sit here and go back and forward and have the state politics played out in this chamber.

It's going to be hard, Madam Mayor, with the Labor state candidate over there.

Unnecessary. Councillor Conolly. Councillor Tree. Oh,

Thank you. I think that we all know that cost shifting is an issue, and it's an issue with all levels of government. But it's also an issue when particular councils think it's important to take on issues that are not traditionally local government issues and fund particular initiatives. I think when you stop doing that sort of thing, you can talk about the unjust cost shifting from the state to us. I think that we have tried to raise the rates in the past, and we've had no success in getting there. Councillor Buckett herself has been very vehemently opposed to raising the rates until all avenues had been expired, which they had been quite a number of years ago. So we have tried to do this a number of times, and a very noisy group of people in the community said they didn't want it, and yet they're happy to be very quiet whilst this very, very large— Our SRV is about to go through.

We're not actually against SRV, which we've always stated. It's been said by each of us here at every single meeting. We're against the fact that there is a real inequity, as we see it, for the people who are being hit by the changing in the rating structure. So that's why we're not supporting it, not because we don't think that there should be a rate rise, because obviously we're not sustainable without it. However, we are concerned about the way the monies will be spent into the future, because then who knows how we'll be impacted with further cost shifting if we continue to spend money on initiatives and projects that are not at the role of the council.

Thank you, Councillor Tree. I might just address at the moment some of the questions that Mrs Kelly raised when she was speaking, just to get clarification on a couple of the items she raised, because I think there may be some difference with regard to that since then. I'd just like to call on the General Manager to actually, I'm not sure if he can give us a time frame, but to just explain from submission one that Mrs Kelly and the Windsor Business Group submitted what the renew project would entail and some reasonable idea of some sort of time frame, if that's possible, please.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. So look, the renew model is basically where you work with the owners of vacant properties and you

Establish a legal arrangement with the owners of those properties whereby a business can operate from those properties on a On a very low rent basis, for generally a minimum fixed period of, say, 28 days. After that period, the owner has the option of putting a permanent tenant in if one becomes available or apparent. What's happened in Newcastle is that those tenancies in the vacant shops have generally been from local residents who are generally working in business start-ups, and they could be in artistic pursuits like jewellery, or even painting or pottery or something like that, or they can be all manner of other things like maker spaces and things like that. The critical thing is that you draw from your local community so that what's on offer is authentic to that community.

It's a real reflection of the skills and abilities in that local community. The result of the Newcastle approach was that it totally rejuvenated an area that was almost totally vacant, and that model has then been taken to other local government areas right across Australia. So we know we have a number of vacant properties in Windsor, particularly, and we are in the process of finalising details whereby we can, I think, announce something on that front in the very near future. We would do that only after going back. We've got a working group that we have for our town centres, so we've got to take some material back to that working group in relation to the city deal, in relation to the activation of those vacant properties, and then we would bring a report to Council with a timeline for doing that, and that would also involve working with all the tenants on a longer-term master plan for the Windsor.

Shopping centre and then more than likely South Windsor and Richmond. So that's sort of a general overview of the process. The funding details out of the City Deal will be known in the next six weeks, in all likelihood, and we'll be able to bring a report to Council in relation to that. But the City Deal does provide for a sum of $15 million for Council, and we've been advocating all along that our town centres would be an opportune way to expend those funds. We have to provide some matching funds, and we do have those funds in our budgets for our town centre works. As I said, there's also some other potential funding that's coming our way in relation to the activation of those shopfronts, so that the likelihood is in that the next short period of time we'll be able to bring a report to Council that will not only confirm the funding details, but also outline the program for going forward, both in the short term and the longer term in terms of the rejuvenation of the town centre.

Thank you, Mr Conroy. Just before I go on, could I just remind people that you cannot take photos in here. Thank you.

The next thing that was mentioned, and perhaps we could just have some clarity on so that the members of the gallery and councillors can hear, is the current status of the Blues Festival, if there has been an approach for Council to sponsor or not. Mr Conroy.

Shortly after the last Blues Festival, we met with the proponents, and we then arranged a follow-up meeting shortly after, at which time we were going to discuss some specific aspects of street closures and camping opportunities and other things to do with responding to some of the issues that were identified in last year's event. It was a very constructive and cooperative meeting, but unfortunately, since that time, we've not been able to confirm a follow-up meeting, and that's despite staff making successive attempts to do that. So at the moment, we're in a position where we've not had further contact since that meeting that happened shortly after the last festival.

Thank you. And just another thing from that submission, which I'd like to thank Mrs Kelly for, because all of those items are very pertinent to actions that can be taken to really enhance Windsor and make it a lot better. So I hope that, and I'm sure that many of them are going to be done. But just with regard to something else that I had been following up, and Mr Organ and I went to look at, was the signage to the public toilets. And I'm just going to get clarification if that has actually occurred or will be occurring, Mr Organ, please.

Madam Mayor, we're looking at doing that at the moment, and liaising with the business owner to make sure there's no surprises.

Okay. Just clarifying that, because it is a very, very big issue in the Windsor Mall. I'll just speak while I'm speaking, conclude and then pass back to the councillors who haven't spoken yet. I understand the people who have had the very large land valuation increases, that they will have a bigger rate to pay this year because of their big land increases, and that unfortunately is how rates are levied, and that is what will happen. We have been over and over the rates. We've had workshops and we've looked at various options. And of course, we have another item here, which is the corridors. And I would urge people who feel they've been affected by that to write to the state government and ask when their land is going to be revalued, because if the land values were going down, then their rates obviously will also go down.

So that's something that people who are concerned can do. I note that Councillor Tree has brought up the attempts of the last councils to move a rate increase, and they have tried for many times, but unfortunately they've failed because they have never had the support of the community to go ahead and to proceed—

Excuse me, that's

Actually not right. Councillor Tree— I don't care what you say. That is not true. I beg your pardon. Apologise or I will ask you to leave.

I'm not apologising because it's verbaling the whole system in the past. Councillor Tree, excuse me

That you are the only people who do public consultation. We've always done public consultation

In the past. Councillor Tree, could you please stop speaking and either raise a point of order

I'm speaking while I'm speaking. —or apologise.

I will adjourn the meeting, and I'll ask Councillor Tree if she will apologise when she comes back. She's out of order.

We'll adjourn until 25 to.

Thank you, everyone. We'll just resume. If those people, like, out there want to come back in. And Councillor Reynolds, we just had the adjournment. I'll just ask Councillor Tree if she would please apologise, and just bear in mind that our meetings have to be orderly. She spoke without being interrupted, and Councillor Tree, you spoke without being interrupted, and I will speak without being interrupted. If you have a point of order or a point of misrepresentation, you can raise it through the proper procedures and do it that way. Could you please apologise for your disorder, thank you.

Sorry for the disorder. I do have a point of whatever it is. What

Is it? Well, depending on which one. No, it's not a point

Of order, it's a point of clarification or— It's a point of misrepresentation

There you go. You can address it when I'm finished, thank you. So

With regard to what I was just saying, which was— Back about the previous council, I did oppose special rate variations, as did certain other councillors, and we opposed those because we did not have the information that we now have today . We have a very, very comprehensive works program that itemises and has identified where the works will be carried out, and we will be following through on that plan. When we did say we had to exhaust all other avenues, there's been a comprehensive effort to do that and to look at all other avenues of revenue streams that we can take in, but that's not sufficient to address a very, very growing backlog that's been growing over the years and accumulating, and it simply has to be addressed.

Otherwise, it will grow bigger and bigger, and these are the things that we were told years ago, and suddenly they don't seem as relevant. But the reason that I have opposed them in the past was because there was no evidence of having done the further investigations into other forms of revenue, and there was no comprehensive plan for the community to see what exact works would be done. So we may go down in history as having made and managed to accomplish something that the last three councils couldn't, but we have made a hard decision that we know is hard and it impacts on people, and no one likes doing that. But we want to build a better Hawkesbury, and we've got the plans and the documentation, and we've got the backup to show that that's what we're going to do.

As well as the SRV, we're trying for all other forms of rates, and we're trying to get us to a position where we alleviate any need to put any greater impost on people and their rates. But we are behind, and we've got to catch up, and we want to make our town centres better, we want to make our roads safer, and that's our aim. That's what we've said we'd do, and that's what we will do. And as I've said before, for people, if there's people suffering hardship, there are policies. I don't believe we've had anyone apply for that yet, but that's open for people, as are the plans, payment plans, et cetera. And I think that this is responsible . I actually recall Councillor Tree herself saying in the last Council term to the people who opposed it that we were irresponsible and we were voting to shut down council operations, when all we were doing were calling for more transparency and more information about what was happening.

So I'm happy to support this, and I'm looking forward to what we can achieve. We'll be ready to start in July when this goes ahead, and I'm happy that the councillors have contributed, contrary to what Councillor Zambrano said. I think even though we have done our prioritising, it's a fluid type of situation where if a need arises and there's identified a much greater need somewhere, we may have to shift around which work we do because we are trying to make our roads much safer and in much better condition. Councillor Tree has said she would vote for one item, and I had considered doing the voting in seriatim, but I can't think you would vote for something that's been funded by the SRV if you don't support the SRV.

So I assume we'll just vote all together.

Move procedural motion to that, Mayor. Can we move a procedural motion that we vote on it in seriatim, please?

Yes, when I finish, you can, yeah. So Councillor Connolly's foreshadowed motion to vote in seriatim, and we can vote on that after. I just wanted to—I have been corrected on something from Mrs Kelly, just to correct and say that her submission was submitted by herself as an individual, not by the Windsor Business Group. So I apologise for attributing that to a group when it was Mrs Kelly's submission, and I thank you very much, Mrs Kelly. It was a wonderful submission. So I'll return back to the councillors who may still want to speak . Any further discussion?

Councillor Wheeler. Oh, don't I have my—

Oh, I beg your pardon. Councillor Connolly. Oh, Councillor Tree first, then Councillor Connolly.

To be fair, I mean, rewriting history seems to be a real skill in this current council. When you're not in power, everybody doesn't want to—

Councillor Tree, it's an

Issue of misrepresentation

I know, you did misrepresent what happened in the previous councils.

But that's your opinion. There's a difference between opinion and me saying something was

Actually inaccurate. So yours

Is a statement of fact and mine doesn't— No, you said what you said, I said what I said.

Well, I think it's important for me to say what I'm saying. I really do, because I'm talking, I'm talking when I'm talking. Consultation and infrastructure plans were all part of the previous proposals. It's just that, you know, the dirty Liberals were in power and so there wasn't any support from the noisy minority, and that was really unfortunate, and so IPART weren't very happy about that. But it's important to note that I was very supportive of those particular proposals in the early days because it didn't ruin or mess around with the base rates, which had really bad impacts on the parts of the community. And also, we knew that the parts of the community that were so severely hit that you're saying we're so sorry that that happened to you, but—and we still went ahead and screwed you over anyway. That's it. Councillor Connolly.

Do you want to move it now or the conclusion? I thought that was the conclusion of the debate, but we can move it now if you—

You can move it now and we'll just set it aside. We'll have to debate it. So you move it,

Have a

Seconder, and then we'll vote on it. There's no debate.

Okay. So I would move that to give people the opportunity to support certain parts of the motion, that we vote in seriatim.

And your seconder? Councillor Sam Bronio will vote on that. Councillor Connolly has put forward a vote that we vote in seriatim, which, for those that don't know, means that we vote on each specific item in our recommendation. There's four parts, and we would be voting individually on each one. So councillors consider if that's how you want to vote or not, and that's the vote I'll put. All those in favour? Against. The motion is lost.

Madam Mayor, can I move an amendment in that case, please?

There already is an amendment, isn't there? Oh no, Councillor Calvert didn't proceed with his. Yes, Councillor

Calvert. The amendment would be the current motion but with only point two.

Sorry, the current motion but only

Point two.

Would you like to include how you would be funding point two if that's the only motion and there's no motion to pass the budget?

I believe that that's in the motion itself, is that we're going to identify potential funding options for the upgrading of Mitchell Drive, [unclear].

But if you're not passing a budget, how can you be voting to fund something? Well

I guess we can have a point two. Point one then, Madam Mayor, can be that the consideration of the operational plan be deferred pending further investigations to allow staff time to prepare the modelling that's been requested for a 50% base rate. Point two will be as it is on the board with no point three or four.

Okay. Do you have a seconder for that, Councillor Richards? I just have to check that that's not a direct negative by not passing the budget.

Mr Conroy?

Sorry? Mr Mifsud.

Is it deferring it, or is it—

But is it deferring with a time frame?

Does it have a time frame, Councillor Conolly? That would be the pertinent

Thing. I would think it would be very urgent for staff to do that, Madam Mayor, and they might do it really quickly. So we can put a timeline on it if you want. Well

It's just that we need really to have something operational by the end of the financial year, I understand .

And I've made this point in prior years, Madam Mayor, that it's not a real consultation process. If it gets to the end of it and you say you have to adopt it because you have to have something right now. But maybe we could defer to an extraordinary meeting to be held before the 30th of June, if that's a concern.

Are you happy with that, Councillor Sanbrano? I am. Thank you. Councillor Wheeler

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I'm currently speaking for the motion.

Got where to start? I mean, I think we've just descended into farce now.

I want to begin by thanking the three people who put submissions forward, and note actually particularly two of the submissions, which were extremely lengthy. One of them from Mrs Kelly, which was really helpful, and a lot of that information we will now take back to the town centre's meeting to act on. But I'll note that none of those three submissions commented on the SRV in a negative manner . I think it's important to note that the money raised by the SRV is being used to bring the Hawkesbury's infrastructure and community programs up to an acceptable level. There's no fat in this budget. There's no grand pay rises. We're not wasting money on staff, as has been stated in various places.

This council employs 322 people. 64% of our staff live locally. This council is one of three major employers in this LGA. It is really, really important for the economic viability of this LGA that those staff are employed in safe, good working conditions, that they can feel pride in the organisation that they work for and in the towns that they work and live in. Both staff and residents deserve to have pride in the Hawkesbury, and council has to act as a responsible employer by maintaining some level of financial fitness. There's been lots of misinformation put about about this SRV and the budget, in particular that council hasn't adequately explored other options for increasing efficiencies.

This is incorrect. Council has been working hard over the last two years and

Has found $1.4 million in savings. That comes on the back of $1.6 million in savings previously. We've now exhausted that option. It's lazy and irresponsible to keep trotting out this line when you have no suggestions for improvement other than cutting services. We've also heard that council's raising rates to give ourselves a fat pay rise. So let's be quite clear that councils are really not very well paid. You get more on the age pension than you do as a councillor. Last year, when we were offered a small pay rise,

Myself and four of the evil independents voted against the pay rise. All the Liberal councillors voted for it. The next time we're offered a pay rise, if we are—

What's your point of order, Councillor Richards? Well, basically that's an incorrect statement because it wasn't just the Liberals who voted for it because it got up, so there must have been more councillors than just the Liberals voting for it to actually get up. That's not a point of order. I will let you guys state a de facto anyway, so it wasn't just the Liberals.

Could we have a point of order, Madam Mayor? Point of order, Councillor Wheeler Could Councillor Richards stick to speaking in her own time and just suck it up when someone else says something that she doesn't like? Really? Point of order

Al

Is that appropriate, Madam Mayor, given some of the things you rule inappropriate?

There's nothing— Councillors, look, all councillors, this, I understand— the gallery can be quiet too. All councillors, we're trying to conduct this in a manner. Try and have some respect for each other. The Liberal councillors have spoken without interruption. Councillor Wheeler is speaking, and Councillor Richards, you should know what a point of order is, and that was not a point of order. Continue, Councillor Wheeler.

All four Liberal councillors voted for it. That's a matter of fact. I didn't embellish that point at all. It's a fact. You all voted for a pay rise. I'll vote the same way against a pay rise if we're offered another one in the future.

It's also been said that this council is unfairly targeting Oakville. Council cannot, by law, uncouple rates from land values. At least 50 percent of the rates must be determined by land value. This doesn't just affect Oakville. It affects everyone who owns a property with a land value greater than average. If your rates have gone through the roof, as we keep hearing, it's because your property values have gone through the roof. 80 percent of the previous rates increase was due to property values, not council's restructuring. The property value increases across the LGA.

Silence in the gallery, please.

Well, if you won't be quiet, I'll have to ask you to leave, Mrs Sunuda.

No, because you're calling out. Continue

Councillor Wheeler. It's a statistical fact that 80% of the rates increase is due to property value. Now, that's, look, that's numbers, that's the way it goes, unfortunately. The rate increase...

Continue Councillor. Eight

Members of this council were elected on a platform to restructure the rates. We were elected fairly by the community. We promised to restructure the rates to benefit the majority of Hawkesbury households in 2016, and we've delivered on that promise. Landowners in South Windsor, Bligh Park, Hobart and Hobartville should not be made to subsidise multimillion-dollar properties elsewhere. About 80% of Hawkesbury households experience a drop in their rates as a result of that restructure.

There's been repeated claims that this isn't equitable, but no solutions have been offered other than increasing the base rate to 50%, which would mean that the majority of households would see a rates increase with no increase in their land values. We don't think that that is equitable. There've been claims that people's rates are going to be $12,000 a year. People have been receiving letters and flyers stating that some rates are $9,000 and this could happen to you. These claims are deliberately designed to scare people. Rates will only be between $9,000 and $12,000 if your property is worth $6 million. That'd be a nice problem to have, but it's unlikely to affect most of us.

My facts are quite correct, thank you. I am a statistician. I'm quite capable of calculating numbers.

Councillor Wheeler, I can seek clarification on that if you wish, for the gallery. Thank you, Madam Mayor If somebody was paying, just generally, Mrs Galea, what property value would it be if someone was paying $12,000 rates?

Thanks, Madam Mayor. Yeah, it's like Councillor Wheeler said, it would be around the $6 million.

Land

Value . Six million.

Thank you. Continue, Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor.

We've had three workshops amongst the councillors. Eight councillors are not willing to ask those on the lowest value property to subsidise those on high value properties. There's been no change in sentiment. Eight councillors have decided that they find the current system as equitable as we can make it at this point. This has been on public exhibition. There were three submissions only. None of them commented on the rates rise. There are no roll gold options in this budget. Most of this money is earmarked to bring services up to scratch, $13.7 million towards either reducing or preventing the backlog from increasing, $8.7 million on new infrastructure projects, and $5.2 million for the replacement of other assets.

30% of total infrastructure. $60.8 million, or 70% of the budget, is just our routine function, just what council has to do as a normal matter of business. To say that you wouldn't trust us with this money is basically a statement that you wouldn't trust our staff with that money. The operational plan has been developed by staff

Point of order. Misrepresentation. Absolutely did not say that, and she can't come to those conclusions.

Councillor Richards, can you please comply with the procedural rules? I thought you would have known what they would be. It's either a point of order or a point of misrepresentation. It's not both. Point of misrepresentation. You may address it at the conclusion of Councillor Wheeler's speech. Continue, Councillor Wheeler.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. This operational plan was developed by all 12 councillors in conjunction with staff. All of us had the opportunity to have input. No favouritism, just hard yakka at briefings. That's all there was. This is not the policies of no, no, no and oppose, oppose, oppose. And we are not closed for business. We have just heard from a business person from Windsor, with the backing of the Windsor Business Group, that they want Council to put more effort into business. And we've heard from the General Manager that this Council intends to do just that.

This hasn't been an easy decision for this Council, but it's been a necessary one. And even Councillor Tree has admitted that. We know that this is politically unpopular and that we'll pay a price for it. We have no other option. I'm proud of the works program that we've put forward, all 12 of us working together, and the huge efforts of the staff, and I thank them for that. We've now got a lot of work to do, and we need to get on with it.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Address your point please, Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. To insinuate that saying I don't trust, because that was a quote directly from my speech, that I don't trust the administration here, in terms of the majority of councillors, is a conclusion that I don't trust the staff, is complete misrepresentation. Let's get our facts straight about process. Council laws make the resolutions. Staff write reports. Staff put up recommendations that 12 of us makes decisions. That's where the trust lies, where those decisions are made, who the majority is who makes those decisions, and that's who is accountable at the next elections, and we will do all we can to make sure that the public know who to hold accountable.

Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm speaking for the motion and obviously the budget. Madam Mayor, as we have heard on many occasions, briefings and workshops and so on to councillors from staff, and the workshops that councillors have been engaged with, and we have gone through line by line by line by line by line by line, you know, and it's been a long and important and detailed process to develop this budget, as Councillor Wheeler has just pointed out as well. It will deliver significant improvements across the Hawkesbury. It will transform, in many areas, the way the Hawkesbury will look over the next four, five, six years. It is something that simply has not been tackled by previous councils. I've only been on this council for 23 years, and I've sat listening and getting the sort of treatment that you wouldn't expect anybody to deliver to any councillor in this chamber for about 19 years.

Have you finished yet, Councillor Rasmussen? No consideration. Nothing. Absolutely no respect. No politeness. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. That's what was delivered for 19 years by— you mightn't like it, and it's not pleasant to sit here for 19 years trying to serve your community and being treated like that. It's not, I can tell you. But I've stuck with it, because why? Because the Hawkesbury is important. It really is important to me and the people of the Hawkesbury, and the division that some councillors are trying to generate out there is not the right thing to do. It is not good for the Hawkesbury, not good for any of us. We need to work together to make this Hawkesbury what it can be and what it should be.

That's what we need to do. So let's get on the bandwagon and let's get it done. And this business of wearing a mask or whatever little fancy tricks I really think is quite inappropriate. Seriously is. So let me continue. It will deliver significant change. It will transform the Hawkesbury. And for the first time, for the first time, I voted for an SRV because I could see that this would deliver a transformation for the Hawkesbury. It will significantly change quite a lot of our landscape here, and together with the city deal with about 50 million bucks, it will certainly supercharge. It will be a force multiplier to get this district going. Now, please understand that. If you do not understand anything else, please understand that for the next four or five or six years, ten years in fact, the Hawkesbury will transform with these extra funds and the energy that the staff have got and the energy

That the councillors have got.

Can the gallery quieten down, please? Continue, Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Madam. On the workshops for the rates, we have had, to my recollection, and I've been to every one of them, I've been to every one of them, not like some councillors, but I've been to every one of them, five, five to six workshops and briefings on rates. We have gone through it in great detail. And to Councillor Sam Brognos' credit, he has put up all sorts of permutations and drill-downs and worksheets and spreadsheets and all sorts of things, and we went through them all, bit by bit by bit. Nobody got dismissed. Nobody got shuffled off the end of the line. Everybody had a say. Everybody put forward their ideas. And at the end of the day, at the end of the day, it was very clear that what this budget and this rate increase came up with was the fairest across the Hawkesbury.

It was the fairest across the Hawkesbury. Let me tell you, some years ago, some years ago, there was a rate restructure. Some of us who've been here long enough will know that. And let me tell you, there were people in all sorts of places, all sorts of places, who ended up with a thousand percent increase in their rates. And we determined, some of us, that that was not fair. That was not fair. And that the rates— and we went to a council election recently, as you know, 18 months ago or thereabouts— and there was a lot of us who promised that the rates structure would be readjusted to be much fairer across the Hawkesbury. That's what we promised, and that's what's been delivered. It is a much fairer

Can the gallery please be quiet and let Councillor Rasmussen finish speaking.

Madam Mayor, I grew up in Australia. There was fair, that had respect and politeness. I spent 30 years in the military, and let me tell you— There's a lot more respect than I'm seeing here tonight. If somebody's speaking, then at least you could do is hear them out. That's the least you can do in a fair and democratic Australia. Now, come on, let us not go down that path. This is local democracy. You mightn't like to hear what I say, but you can at least be respectful enough and polite enough to listen. Please. I've served my nation for 30 years. I've been on council for 23 years, so I think I've done a reasonable amount of community service. At least you can respect that. At least you can respect that. That's all I ask. I don't speak against you. I understand your work, if you are in the predicament. But as the mayor said, there are hardship provisions. If you cannot afford the rates—

Okay, Madam Mayor, I want to ask Councillor, the Liberal councillor, what message, what message, if this budget doesn't go through or didn't go through and the amendment went through, that's a 50 percent base rate increase that they wanted, what message would they send to 80 percent of the rest of the Hawkesbury ratepayers who would see a significant increase in their rates? What message? So they don't care about the other 80 percent of the Hawkesbury, right? They don't care about them. No, we're going to adjust it so that somebody over here pays for those over there. Well, that is not the Australia—

Would you like an answer to your question, Councillor Rasmussen?

Yes, Madam Mayor.

Councillor Connolly, would you like to give that answer? Thank you

Do you want me to answer the question? It'll be a debate, Madam Mayor. Would you like me to answer that question in debate?

I would like— no, I would like you to answer what message you would be sending with your— it's a legitimate question

From Councillor Rasmus. There's a couple of points there with the question, Madam Mayor. Firstly, and this goes to what Councillor Wheeler was saying too, that 80% of the Hawkesbury would get an increase in their rates with no increase in the land value. Categorically false. Every land value, land values in all the categories in all the suburbs went up. None of them went down. So that's just false straight away. Secondly, it's not going to be those 80% that are going to be subsidising the 20%. It'll be the 20% subsidising the 80% to a smaller extent. That's the message. So there's two falsehoods in that question, and those are both of them.

That's the message. Thank you. Councillor Rasmus.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and I take that on board, but anyway, I disagree. Now, Madam Mayor, so at the end of the day, at the end of the day, if we do not recognise that part of the problem that this council has had for a number of years has been the cost shifting— Councillor Reynolds raised that, and I will raise it again because it's been a constant theme that I have raised in this council for a very long time. Cost shifting is significant. That means that the state government, the state government is shifting, is shifting their costs onto the ratepayers of the Hawkesbury and other council areas, but ours in particular because that's what we have to deal with here. Now, can I give you just a couple of small examples?

A couple of small examples. The external audit, the external audit program that this council has been going through for a number of years, the state government decreed that we would now have the Auditor-General do that job, and in addition to the PwC, that's the PricewaterhouseCoopers, who already did the external audit for us. As a result of that decree, guess what? This council, this rate— Our ratepayers now have to fund an extra $120,000 per year to pay for that. $120,000. The IHAP, the Independent Hearing and Tribunal , yeah, thank you. The IHAP system has only recently been introduced. Again, state government decree. State government decree. What did that cost the council? What did that cost the ratepayers?

Another $100,000. So what are we up to now? $220,000 per year. Multiply that by 10. You get a big number. There's a lot of roads, there's a lot of preschools, there's a lot of footpaths, there's a lot of beautification you can do for that sort of money over 10 years. Add into that the fact that the road system, as we all know, is appalling. And guess what? Because people can't use the main state roads that the state government pays for, they use local roads to get around to do their job. And so our roads take a lot more traffic: trucks, cars, utes, utes, utes, lots of utes, many utes, love the utes, love the utes.

Anyway, point I'm making is that in order to get around and do business and do the things they do, what do they do? What do local people do? Of course they do. They use the local roads, and they get worn and torn. And what do we get for it? Almost nothing. So we now wear the cost of inadequate road infrastructure by the state government. The state government announced, I think it was last year, $4.6 billion . Listen to the number: $4.6 billion surplus. No wonder they can generate a surplus when they do that. And aren't we good financial managers? We shift it all onto somebody else, the ratepayers of the Hawkesbury and others. Of course we can have a surplus, and of course we can be good financial managers.

I'd love to be able to shift my costs onto somebody else, but I can't. Now surely we can understand that as a community. Surely we can rise up against that sort of nonsense, because if we don't, If we don't, we won't have the money to fund the Hawkesbury and do the things we want to do. Anyway, Madam Mayor, just one last point about Mitchell Drive, and why it's popped up tonight. And Councillor Zamprogno had a fair point, and that is this budget process has been gone on for many months now, and we've all been part of it, or those of us who turn up have all been part of it to argue the point. Now, Mitchell Drive, and if Councillor Zamprogno, and I don't know what he was doing last night, but several of us were out at the Glossodia listening to the community up there.

It was a very robust meeting, very robust. And guess what? A number of people there raised a very significant issue that there was a major safety issue with Mitchell Drive, something that needed to be dealt with not in four or five years, not in ten years, but needed to be dealt with. That's why Councillor Garo decided to put it in, not because it was a late minute, Oh, I forgot to do this. No, it was considered and a response to the community's plea for safety improvements on Mitchell Drive at Glossodia. And had we all been there last night, listened to the community speak to us, that's the message we would have got, and that's why it's in this chamber tonight. It was the earliest that it could be brought into this chamber, the earliest that Councillor Garo could bring it to the notice of Council and make some adjustment.

And that's what she did, and I applaud her for that. She took the message, delivered it here, and hopefully most of us, all of us, will vote for it. So , Madam Mayor, I really think that this community really needs to get behind each other, all of us, because that's the Australian way. That's the Australian way. We fight for it, we love it, and we work hard for it. And I think we should need to get that message through across the Hawkesbury. Let's work hard. Let's build the Hawkesbury. Let's make the Hawkesbury a better place for all of us.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen. Any further discussion? Councillor Conolly.

I'll speak in favour of the amendment, Madam Mayor.

I thought you did, Councillor Conolly, but— No.

You

Didn't? Okay.

I hadn't had the opportunity yet, Madam Mayor. I just wanted to, as I've already spoken, just briefly address a few matters that have come up, but I would like to ask first a couple of questions, Madam Mayor, if possible, through you. Did anyone under the previous rating structure get a thousand percent increase in their rates?

Mrs. Galea. Yep, Mr Mayor. I couldn't tell you the percentage, but in terms of the amount, it was an average of about $100 per property, between $100 and $200 per property, the increase.

So to get a

I think Councillor Rasmussen was referring to the time before,

The 2012-13 restructure. Yes

Yeah

I'm not sure as to the percentage, sorry. Yeah , have to get back

To you. I won't. I imagine you might remember if there was a thousand percent increase, Madam Mayor, like we all might. And also my second question was, how much is the external audit that we now pay for?

Mrs. Galea.

Mr Mister—

Thanks, Madam Mayor. Ninety thousand. And

How much was it before we had to go through the—

About $55,000.

So it's about an extra $35,000. Yeah. Okay, not $120,000. Thanks, Madam. Thank you. Thank you for those. I think, whilst the point remains, and I agree with Councillor Rasmuson that cost shifting is a significant burden, I think that when we're having these debates, to have them be more meaningful, we should be more accurate with our statements. It's not an extra $120,000 for an audit. It's an extra $35,000. And this comes up a lot, that the state government's got a $4.6 billion surplus. And I think sometimes people think that means the state government paid all its expenses and had $4.6 billion sitting in a bank account. But, of course, this state government inherited the huge billions of debt from the previous state government, and it was only paid off with this year's budget.

So there is no— it was required to have surplus budgets in order to pay back the debt. It's not like there's money sitting there that they could spend, but they're not spending because they want it. Councillor Reynolds, I think Councillor Wheeler would tell you to suck it up, but I wouldn't be so rude. I also wanted to point out — I'm not Councillor Reynolds.

Continue, Councillor Reynolds. Councillor Connolly, both, please don't deviate from what we're here for.

Yes, well, there's less interjections, that'll be easier, Madam Mayor. I also want to just comment on a couple of things that were said. There was no submissions against the SRV to this item. The SRV was actually put on exhibition itself, and there were hundreds of submissions against it, hundreds and hundreds. I think it was close to 700 was the figure of submissions against the SRV. To put that in context, I think there were 300 submissions against the Windsor Bridge project, the Upper House inquiry. So there was at least twice as many people concerned about this as the Windsor Bridge issue, if you look at the number of submissions. And, you know, to say that all of us had the opportunity to have input into the operational plan, I mean, that's just not how it works.

This is what we're doing right now. We do not have that opportunity. There is a block of eight councillors who vote together in tighter discipline than any political party has ever done in Hawkesbury City Council. We've got independents that turn into Labor candidates, other independents that are constantly defending the Labor government. That group is voting together so tightly that we don't have an input. This council has no favouritism. Oh, you can carry on, Councillor Reynolds, but you are the state Labor candidate and an independent councillor on this council, so I think for you to carry on is a little bit ridiculous and hypocritical, for when I say that you might not really be independent.

I think

I've actually, to take the interjection from the gallery, I've always been willing to say who I am and what I believe, unlike some others in this chamber who get elected as independents and then vote together in a tight block.

Madam Mayor, are we talking about the operational plan or are we talking about people's political allegiances?

Councillor Conolly is speaking to his motion, which is about deferring the—

Yes, so my comments were in response to Councillor Wheeler's comments, actually. I should read the point of order, that we've all had equal input and opportunity to have a go at this operational plan and that we're all equal in this chamber. And my point was clearly we're not, from the voting record, Madam Mayor. Look , the only reason I moved this amendment was because of the political tactics in this chamber yet again, that we couldn't possibly vote on— sorry, item, it would take an extra, you know, 10 to 15 seconds. But people in this chamber who voted against it wanted to make sure that Liberal councillors couldn't vote for the Mitchell Drive motion without voting for the budget, and how ridiculous and petty and childish. So I'm going to move the amendment so that we can vote for this and we can be on the record as having supported it and still vote against the budget, Madam Mayor.

Councillor Reynolds. Question, Madam Mayor, for the General Manager. The draft operational plan and the make-up of the draft operational plan —

The make-up of the draft operational plan — did that ever come to a vote in the council?

Yes, I would

Think so, Mr. — No, I meant the approval, not the approval. I meant the make-up of it.

Mr. Conroy.

So the draft operational plan was presented to council back in April for consideration prior to being placed on public exhibition. That has all the details in the plan, the proposed rating structure, and how the funds are going to be expended.

And if I remember correctly, we discussed the draft operational plan at a briefing, and I think Mr. Organ and Councillor Zamprogno spent a fair amount of time discussing about the option of doing Brennan's Dam Road instead of Hawkesbury Road. And there was no vote that occurred on what should go in or what should go out of the draft operational plan. So Councillor Connelly's thing about people voting in a block to decide what goes in the draft operational plan is poppycock. It was all decided at a briefing. I'm worried about the point of misrepresentation,

Madam Mayor.

Councillor Connelly. Going to be a long time to March 2019, I fear.

I fear so, Madam Mayor, absolutely. That's what you get when independent councillors become Labor candidates. But no it's

When people raise

Political issues. That's a whole ball

For Councillor Connelly. Just say your point, please, and go on.

Oh, well, if you don't want to make the comment, then I won't respond to it, Madam Mayor. But my point of misrepresentation was that Councillor Reynolds obviously doesn't understand the process. We have voted on the rating structure that goes into the operational plan before the operational plan is drafted. That is the point of contention with the operational plan, and we did not have equal input into it.

Councillor Richards. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm speaking in support of the amendment. Councillor Connolly is absolutely right that people from Mitchell Drive have contacted various councillors to try and get the situation looked at in their road, which is dangerous. We've had staff involved in that. But this is completely and utterly a political tactic, because to include one street as a point in an entire 12 months' worth of budget shows that this has been done so that it can go out to the community, maybe not publicly or in the media, and to say the Liberals did not support the upgrading of Mitchell Drive. What would have been a better process and a better way forward was to put up an individual notice of motion about Mitchell Drive with those exact points in it.

Because where do you draw the line? Why is Mitchell Drive more important than any other road or any other street in the whole of the LGA that it gets its own point two in the draft operational plan budget? Why is it more important than any other road or street that needs tarring, that needs sealing, that needs grading? And I'm not saying that when this podcast comes out, I want the people of Mitchell Drive to know I'm wholeheartedly behind the points in that part of that motion. However, it's not the right process. It should have been brought up separately so that it alone could be voted on by the 12 councillors, not as part of a whole part of a budget where they know we will not support this rating structure or this SRV.

And just lastly, before I finish speaking on this amendment, I think it's very important to address something that keeps coming up tonight in this chamber, and that's that cost shifting argument, that cost shifting that the state government keeps imposing on local councillors. And Councillor Reynolds, independent councillor, now state Labor candidate, continues to keep bringing it up time and time again. It seems to be his pet project, his pet topic. So what I want to ask is, when we're talking about a state government, that doesn't necessarily mean a Liberal government. Let's not forget the 16 years of Labor when they were in the state government, where our state was last when it came to jobs, where our state was last where it comes to infrastructure improvement.

Excuse me. And where the current Liberal state government— Oh, it's coming, don't worry. And where the current state Liberal government has made investments across the state to make it the number one state. So this is where it becomes relevant, Councillor Wheeler. Further, now that Councillor Reynolds is the Labor state candidate, but again independent councillor, I'm really going to get confused. Yes, March 19 can't come soon enough. With an obvious passion about cost shifting, let us, as a council, hear his solution, hear his policy ideas, because he's the state Labor candidate about what he wants to do to make sure councils like ours aren't cost shifted any longer to the extent that he's elaborated

On. Point of order, Madam Mayor. Councillor Richards— sorry, not Councillor Reynolds. Councillor Richards, you are requesting a question of Councillor Reynolds in his capacity as—

I don't think there was a question. It was more saying that if he's going to— Point of order, Madam Mayor.

Please don't argue. You were asking him what is his policy, and this isn't a forum for state policy, and I don't want it

Descending into that. Did you not hear the

Last part

Of my statement? Madam Mayor—

Who's

This is too much . Point of order. Point of order, Councillor Wheeler. The chair is running this meeting. No, you are.

Councillor Connolly, look, I know that the Liberals love having a little gang of support here and performing to the crowd, but the point is, as former Mayor Councillor Ford would have said, knock yourselves out. We will continue to try and behave with some respect to each other, and I call on everyone in here to do it. We're proceeding. Councillor Wheeler, your motion is upheld. Councillor Richards, complete what you were saying, and then we'll move on to the

Next speaker. To complete what I’m saying goes directly to the point that we're here tonight to debate, which is the operational plan, which part of that is a rating structure and an SRV imposed on the community. And they're saying that the reason we had to go to the community and ask for those extra rates is because the state government does this eternal cost shifting. So what I was saying is, hopefully moving forward, Councillor, Independent Councillor Reynolds, now state Labor candidate, can actually put forward some actual solutions that our council can benefit from so that our ratepayers may not have to pay the higher rates. If he gets elected into state government, I look forward to hearing what those policies are.

Well, I'm sure he'll address those in the appropriate forum. Councillor Ross. Turn your light on. Oh,

Thank you, Mayor.

Can the

Gallery please have some respect? Thank you very much. Continue, Councillor Ross.

May I ask a question of you, Madam, please?

Yes.

I'm rather concerned that the price Speaker appears not to appreciate the method in which council expenditure would be approved and acted upon in this council. Is it not true that the operational plan is really the core document to any future expenditure of the council in the forthcoming year? And to suggest, as the previous speaker did, that it could be subject to some notice of motion does seem inappropriate. And furthermore, we've had so little time to be advised of this as a council. I myself have only encountered this difficulty with that area last night as a result of our communication and consultation ability .

Thank you, Councillor.

So I'm just wondering if you could appraise the fellow councillor of the normal budgetary processes and so on, please.

Yes, thank you. Councillor Richards, I'll ask Mrs. Galea to do that on my behalf, as she's the appropriate person to do that. Thank you, Mrs. Galea. Councillor Ross has asked a question of Councillor Richards if she understands the operational plan and just if you could give a brief summary, does the operational plan include the forthcoming expenditure for the coming—

Sorry, do I have an opportunity to say that I actually do before Mrs. Galea actually answers on my behalf?

Well , Mrs

Galea— You've assumed that I don't. You've assumed that I

Don't Councillor Richards, I have asked for a— because the question was asked of me, it was asked of me, and I am not an expert. So I'm asking Mrs Galea, who's the appropriately qualified person to say it. Thank you, Mrs Galea. A brief explanation will do.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. Yes, the budget for next year includes the expenditure.

Thank you. Thanks, Madam Mayor. Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. I'm speaking against the budget.

Against

It's the amendment. Don't get excited.

We're debating the operational plan, not just the SRV.

We can't function without an operational plan in place. That's not possible. We will be left in a position where this council cannot make routine financial decisions because it doesn't have a budget. It's already nearly the middle of June. It's a bit late to be deferring this because you want to make a political point.

I'd really like to know how determining this operational plan does work, because I thought, last I was involved in the process, that we went to briefings and workshops and working groups and committees, and we had community input at those working groups and committees very often, and expert opinion at the workshops and the briefings, and we discussed options. And I think it's quite unreasonable to accuse eight members of this council of not listening. To other councillors when they put ideas forward, that really is not how this council has been working. In contrast to previous councils, where that was the norm, on this council you are quite free to give your opinion. You are representatives on all the committees, on working groups if you had chosen to be on them, and you are able to play an active role in briefings and workshops, as you should, because we were all elected to this table.

But if you want equal input, you have to turn up, and some of you don't. So what I'd like to know too, in this grand idea that we can defer the operational plan, but we can still pay for Mitchell Road, how are you going to pay for works to Mitchell Road without the SRV, given that that works budget is dependent on the SRV, and without an operational plan in place? No one is saying that Mitchell Road needs to be upgraded just because it's special and we had a meeting there yesterday afternoon. Those of us who went yesterday afternoon, or anybody who has been to Mitchell Road of their own volition, and Mitchell Drive, sorry, and spoken to the residents, is aware that Mitchell Drive is dangerous.

It's dangerous for residents. It is particularly dangerous for school children getting on and off the bus. That's why Mitchell Drive is on here, bringing the priority of it forward, not for any grand political statement. No one's saying that the Liberal Party doesn't support this, that they are unaware of the problem. No one's trying to make political mileage out of Mitchell Drive. We're just trying to get it fixed, and this is probably the easiest way to do so. To use a notice of motion would delay having this addressed because we can't ask for financial— Commitments through notices of motion. We are supposed to ask for reports for financial commitments when they're significant, and this is going to be significant.

The money allocated in four years' time for Mitchell Drive is around $2 million. That's not really something you would put up a notice of motion for. You've made your position clear. We understand why you want to vote for Mitchell Drive, but to delay the whole operational plan is ludicrous to do that. So this amendment simply isn't viable for the good workings of this council.

Further discussion?

Councillor Ross.

Thank you.

In regard to the operational plan, of course,

Some of the foundation is naturally tied up in the revenue earned by council by way of rates.

The rating structure as adopted for the forthcoming year is the same as it was in concept and so on in 2012, before the prior council decided to make some adjustments. The adjustment made by the current council, of which I'm a proud member, reverses that adjustment made by the prior council to the situation that pertained in 2012. And my fellow Councillor Connolly was kind enough to allude to that a bit earlier. So, there was no problem with it then. There should be no problem with it now. The difficulty you're having, I'm sorry to say,

Revolves entirely, remains entirely within the province of the state government to correct. Local government is the creature of the state government. The rate structure and what can and cannot be done is also within the total province of the state government. It so happens that this state government, as opposed to what may happen in other states, decides that unimproved capital value of land is one of the component elements of the rating structure. And who does the valuation of the land in its unimproved state? A state government instrumentality. And what happened in the last 12 months? There was a revaluation of land as a result of what? Well, the state government was going to implement a fire and emergency services levy.

And then , for reasons best known to the local member, shall we say, state treasurer. It was— it was dropped, canned, put in the back pocket again. But as part of that implementation that was in train , he and the state government had ordained the revaluation of all properties within the state. All properties within the Hawkesbury LGA were subject to revaluation by the state government . It wasn't council; it was the state government. Excuse me. Please

Be quiet in

The gallery. In the gallery, please have a little respect. Thank you

Continue, Councillor Ross.

I'm sorry, but facts are facts. I am not here in a political guise. I'm here as an independent member of the community, and that is the basis upon which I am addressing you now. As I said, there was a revaluation ordained by the state government. Now, a factor that you should also be aware about that revaluation is that it was, if you like, conducted out of cycle.

It was not within the usual time span upon which the state government had previously operated over a very extended period of three or three year, I think it was, cycles of revaluations of properties. It was done out of cycle. And unfortunately, again because of state government activity, there was a growth centre, a residential growth centre created in Vineyard, I believe. That apparently has changed substantially the valuation of those properties within that area and its environs. We have no control over that.

But because of the framing, as the state has done, of the structuring of the rates, that does have an impact upon rates. It doesn't change council's overall income from rates, but it readjusts the mix within the pie. And that is where the difficulty has arisen. So it's a little bit disingenuous, in fact rather disingenuous, of the folk who have been speaking oppositely here this evening to indicate that this is an unfair change. We have reverted to the system with which they were happy right through until the 2012 year, and with which you had apparently at that stage no complaint. Otherwise they might have changed it for that reason. There seem to be some other nefarious reasons behind the 2013 adjustment, and I was not intimately aware and I cannot comment upon that, but it was a rather strange affair, very strange affair. Please, I'm sorry,

The activities of councils have also been very much curtailed over the last— Period, with government permitted increases that were running in the order of about 1.5% per annum

In their revenue raising capacity without a special rate variation occurring. And quite frankly, you know, and I know that 1.5% increment per year is just not enough to cut the mustard in terms of rising costs, either of wages or materials or works done, and indeed also requirements in terms of changes in legislation and regulation. Things have become a lot more disciplined and tight, if you like, over time, and all of those things actually cost a lot of money to implement, apart from the cost shifting. And then we've got this invisible element, the dead hand of the state government on top of councils, with things like changing the weight capacities of trucks that are allowed to run across our basically rural roads, which are quite okay if you've got a sedan, and barely okay if you've got a utility, as my fellow councillor here likes, apparently, but certainly they're not good with two-wheel tractors, and they're certainly not good with commercial-type vehicles.

And we've got trucks and dogs running through the place in all manner of directions and doing all manner of things because of the nature of change that is occurring with changes in population. But behind all of that is the permissible load limits. I mean, if a truck can put 40 tonne on, and last year it was putting on 30 tonne of material, it'll put the 40 tonne on because it can make a dollar. But at the same time, our roads are really suffering, and the shoulders of those roads are suffering too, and our dear.. . Director of Infrastructure here hears about it probably every day of the week, and probably drives him cuckoo. But that's a fact. And who wears it ultimately? You and I as ratepayers and residents.

Regrettably, the state government don't stump up and say, Oh gosh, we've been very— we've been great guys for the transport industry and building of new thises or thats or pipelines or anything else. No. They just sit back and just say, Ah, well, we'll just change the number on the bit of paper, thank you very much. You guys out in the local government areas can cop the lot, and we're copping it. And unfortunately, that combined with the low level of rate increases that are permitted up to date, even 2.3 for the forthcoming year, is

Barely satisfactory. It would need to be somewhere between 3 and 3.5 percent, honestly, to be fair dinkum and give us a chance of recuperation of all of the costs, because construction costs themselves are probably rising in the order of about 5 percent. But the wage levels, as we know, are around about 2, 2.5 percent. So

2.3 percent increase is not what you'd call a win for by any stretch, far from it. In fact, it has demanded and is continuing to demand that council's internal costs are surveyed and watched and curtailed wherever possible. And frankly, I believe our people are trying to do that. We are encouraging them to do that, and whatever improvements we can make in that area will be made in that area, because you've got— Eight good people here assisting in that regard. I am terribly sorry that there has to be a rate increase, but in view of the lack of the previous council's ticker, really, in going for an SRV, the only reason they didn't get an SRV is they didn't apply for it. And those folk across the way, two of whom were previous councillors, can wear the opprobrium. And they should. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. Further discussion? Right of reply, Councillor Garrow. None needed, thank you. We'll vote on Councillor Conolly's amendment first, which is this amendment up on the board deferring the operational plan and point 2 to investigate the prioritising of Mitchell Drive and the unsealed roads in Bilpin and Yarramundi. All those in favour of the amendment? Against? The amendment is lost. We'll vote on the motion, which was the one in the business paper with the additional point by Councillor Garrow and enhanced by what Councillor Calvert added. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried. I'd like my name recorded against, please.

Next item is with speakers. We have three speakers. It's the item that's included in the supplementary business paper on the corridors. It's item 145, and our first speaker is Mary Jean Boyer

I may just mention before that I have an intention to move a contrary recommendation than what's in the business paper, but you're aware. We can continue

Good evening all. This evening I'm here speaking as a member of BLORCAG, the Bells Line of Road Community Action Group. Much of what has been said and written in recent times about the Bells Line of Road motorway, superhighway, tollway has been in response to the clash that this proposal has with our vision of our beautiful Hawkesbury District. Our vision, and that of the majority of Hawkesbury residents, has been repeatedly stated in council surveys and council community research. In the Hawkesbury City Council community research of 2015, 62% of responses from residents listed as very important valuing and protecting the Hawkesbury heritage and buildings. As we have since discovered, the present Bells Line of Road proposed corridor would destroy several heritage-listed homes, buildings and sites, as well as impact significantly on the World Heritage-listed Blue Mountains National Park.

The latter has been of concern to the United Nations governing body for some time, as they have noticed how compromised the borders are of the Blue Mountains National Park from housing and land clearing.

The council's community survey of 2007 revealed that number one in importance of Hawkesbury residents was the country atmosphere and lifestyle, as in peace and quiet, open spaces and community living. The number three priority to residents was love of the area and beauty of the area. Of the top 10 concerns residents had, the third most important was a concern about increasing development, and that was in 2007 before the real rot really set in. The survey results identified that the top 10 issues requiring attention included improving water quality, improving air quality, and maintaining agriculture as a viable industry. Yeah? Peels what? In planning for future development, the key objectives for consideration were protecting bushland, open spaces and natural habitats, protecting rural settings and character.

No medals here for guessing what a six-lane motorway would do for the above. These issues and objectives are what we want. We are the ratepayers, the taxpayers. We need our council to fully represent us on this, our vision. Blocac's position has always been to call for the immediate and complete withdrawal of the corridor from west of the river. This position is based on numerous factors, namely need. There is none. The statistics, facts, figures and maths are clearly explained in Chris Hallam's submission, which we would hope council can attach to its submission. It states in plain English and clear numbers why this road corridor proposal makes no sense at all. Other concerns we have include environment, and again we would like to recommend that council's submission include HENS submission, the Hawkesbury Environmental Network, which is quite brilliant in its detail and arguments.

The question here is, should pre-construction investigations discover a highly sensitive and endangered microenvironment, what will the process then entail? Will the route divert around this precious patch of Platypus or Koala habitat, for example, or will it ignore the findings and simply plough through regardless? Call us cynics, but it's happening all over the state. The location of this corridor effectively separates the Hawkesbury from the Blue Mountains, as well as it also splits the Hawkesbury and several communities which have stood since convict times. The reason for this is that the Hawkesbury was never properly factored into the bigger picture planning in the first place.

To those sitting in Parliament House, the Hawkesbury is somewhere near the Moonee Moonee Bridge, isn't it? Politicians, media and other staff won't cross the river or don't know where the river is to begin with. Even the SEA acknowledges that this is a Google Map proposal, an old Google Map at that. The consultation process, or lack thereof, was as flawed as anything ever seen before. No landowners were aware before 26 March that they were being earmarked for acquisition. Rumours and various proposals floated around for decades, and there was certainly never any reason to suspect that this destructive nightmare would be unleashed on our community as a reality. Even our council was king-hit that day.

How rude. Even ruder is the recent revelation that developers and investors had prior knowledge. Economically, most of the businesses in the Hawkesbury exist because of the very nature of the district. For example, ecotourism, agri-tourism, the many turf farms located in the vicinity of the river flats, cottage industries and galleries, B&Bs, romantic hideaways if you're into that, wedding venues if you're into that as well. To be replaced with what? Medium to high density cookie-cutter housing estates, industrial estates, gigantic warehouses like the one lining the M7, truck stops and golden arches? Not the vision the Hawkesbury residents have repeatedly stated we want. Bloc EC supports Council's recommendations in that they take into account our vision.

May we all keep fighting for this vision together.

Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Boyer. Are you happy to take questions? Yep. Any questions, councillors? No questions. Thank you. Our next speaker is Virginia Kelleher.

Madam Mayor and councillors, I'm speaking for the recommendation that Council make a submission to Transport New South Wales opposing the proposed Bells Line of Road corridor. The proposed corridor would involve compulsory acquisition of a section of our property, hence my direct interest in Council putting forward a submission. Like many residents, our family have been suffering great distress at the State Government's announcement of a proposed motorway. I am for the recommendation that Council make a submission opposing the corridor. However, I believe it needs to be on the strength of the resolution made in the Mayoral Minute of the 8th of May. I refer to Resolution Number 136 made at that Council meeting in Mayoral Minute item number 98, which stated that Council does not support the current proposed Bells Line of Road corridor in any form or location, i.e.

not just the current proposed corridor.

I request that Council make their submission as strong as the Mayoral Minute by repeatedly reinforcing that Council does not support the current proposed Bells Line of Road corridor in any form or location. I make this request on two grounds. Firstly, the lack of economic justification for a motorway west of the Hawkesbury Nepean or Grose Rivers, whether it were to stop at Kurrajong Heights or extend to Lithgow. The lack of economic justification for either scenario has been proven time and time again in historical studies undertaken on behalf of the State Government and is evidenced by the traffic forecasts, which decline markedly as one heads west along the proposed corridor. The Government's population and housing forecasts west of the river also clearly do not support a need.

And secondly, if we don't make this statement clear, we run the risk of the Government merely devising a new motorway corridor somewhere else, which will leave another path of destruction for a whole new section of the community. I think more of the community would be outraged against this proposal if they were aware that Transport for NSW's proposal does nothing to alleviate local traffic problems. In fact, it probably distracts them from working on solutions to solve the current issues. It also does nothing to alleviate the localised issues in the long term, as the two interchanges on the proposed corridor are well west of the river, far from the localised traffic congestion at North Richmond.

The draft SEA prepared for Transport for NSW shows that traffic movements at Kurrajong Heights are only 18 percent of the movements at the river. Despite the above comments, I am still approached by people that think the proposed corridor will actually fix local traffic congestion. Personally, I'm not against improving road transport and freight efficiency, but any proposal needs to consider Hawkesbury residents as a first rather than a last priority. To conclude, I’m asking that Council’s Bells Line of Road corridor submission urge the government to abandon the proposed corridor in any form or location west of the river, not just the current proposal; that it emphasise the lack of economic justification for a motorway corridor, whether it were to stop at Kurrajong Heights or whether it were to extend to Lithgow.

I ask that it clearly state that any future infrastructure proposals ensure that impacts on residents’ homes and properties are absolutely minimised through upgrading existing infrastructure such as Bells Line of Road and/or using government-owned land if necessary. I also ask that it clearly state that any future motorway corridor proposals must first establish an actual need for one first, not after gazettal. As an additional issue, I ask that Council press the government to stop the rush to get an unnecessary motorway corridor gazetted and follow a proper consultation and feedback process involving the whole Hawkesbury community. I also ask that Council hold public meetings to raise awareness of the shortcomings of the proposed corridor, including that it will not resolve local traffic congestion.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms Kelleher. Are you happy to take questions? Yeah. Are there any questions from anyone? No questions. Thank you. Our third speaker is Michael Wont.

Thank you

Mayor and councillors. The RDCAA is opposed to the recommendation in the business paper, but having heard what the Mayor has said tonight about moving an amendment or something, naturally we want— We want the guts of any submission to oppose the corridors very strongly and to follow the guidelines set out in the Mayoral Minute of last month. And the three areas that are in particular to us is, is number two, that Council agree to meet with Penrith City Council representatives regarding the adoption of the 1951 route for the Castle Ray Freeway. At that meeting, Council shall state with definite clarity that it does not support the extension of the Castle Ray Freeway across the Nepean River, nor does it support a Bells Line of Road corridor, whether it be from 1951 or any other time.

Number three, that Council seek the support of Penrith Council to facilitate the establishment of a high-level crossing in the vicinity of North Richmond or Windsor to address Hawkesbury City Council's long-held ambition of achieving a third crossing of the Hawkesbury River. And number four, Council does not support the current proposed Bells Line of Road corridor in any form or location. Council believes the funding that may have been allocated to the Bells Line of Road project should be spent on planning and constructing a third river crossing in the Windsor or Richmond area. In clear and simple language, that means the NRDCAA and the community do not support the proposed corridor or new roads in any form in any place west of the Grose, Hawkesbury or Nepean Rivers.

The NRDCAA supporters and members overwhelmingly live on the western side of the river. Naturally, we also support the residents on the Windsor side of the river that are faced with the very similar atrocities. Now, the last time I spoke on the 8th of May, I said the following. I suggest there should be an addendum or a fifth paragraph calling on an appropriate body to refer this matter, be it to ICAC or an upper house inquiry, in view of the government's directions to Transport NSW to eliminate steps in the study timetable, which prevented the community the opportunity to have a deep and meaningful input into the process. I know that is not part of the subject matter, but the fiasco inside the NSW government and the Transport Ministry warrants a deep and meaningful look into their activities, preferably with judicial powers.

You can take your finger off the button. I'm not going to say anything about ICAC.

And councillors at a meeting we attended on the 18th of May 2018, Minister Perrottet said this: The current Bells Line of Road corridor proposal should not proceed. Secondly, I don't believe, and this is Mr Perrottet, I don't believe the Bells Line of Road corridor is in the best interest of the Hawkesbury community, and I do not believe it is in the best economic interest of the state. Councillors, that should form part of the council submission. And if those words have been verified by Justin over there and also Virginia up the back. In addition, the attendees at the meeting saw Minister Perrottet to organise a meeting with Premier to ensure that the outcome is conveyed to the Premier with passion and commitment reflected in the attendee's position.

Minister Perrottet said that was not required as he believes his representation will have an outcome that reflects the above. Let's hope he can deliver. Maybe, councillors, the Liberal councillors could open the door to our leader, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, to work with Minister Perrottet in opposition to the corridors.

At the same time, the mayor may be able to talk to him about the catastrophe that is happening in and around Thompson Square. This catastrophe offers no or little benefit to East traffic congestion in and around Richmond, Windsor or North Richmond. Just to repeat, councillors, any submission tonight must say very simply the community and council do not support the proposed corridors or new roads in any form in any place west of the river, west of the Grose, Hawkesbury or Nepean Rivers, nor offer alternatives unless it's a tunnel from the southern side of the Nepean River exiting way over the Big Hill, if it pleases. We also support the comments made by the two previous speakers, if it pleases.

Thank you, Mr Wanta. Are you happy to take questions? Yes. Any questions, councillors? No questions, thank you. I'll move a motion that I sent through and that I did actually put publicly today. I did try and put it on the other Action site, on the Oakville site, but it wouldn't allow me to post a submission on there. So it was on the Bells Line of Road site, and it's a little bit lengthy. I'm happy to just read through it generally if that's easier for people if you can't see, but essentially it is calling— Can I have a seconder before I keep going? Thank you, seconder, Councillor Rasmussen. Essentially it's calling that Council lodge a submission in relation to the proposed transport for New South Wales corridors, highlighting: A.

the state government's failure to recognise the need to prioritise immediate local traffic solutions. B. the impacts of the proposed corridors on the local community, in particular in relation to their: one, impacts on the local economy and agricultural productivity; two, the impacts on the wellbeing and mental health of residents; three, incompatibility with council's strategic directions. And then it goes on to say to include in the submission Council's objections to the Bells Line of Road corridor as outlined in the Mayoral minute of the 8th of May 2018, specifically the location of the Bells Line of Road corridor through highly sensitive areas. You probably don't want me to read the whole thing, but if people can't see it, I'm happy to.

And it, which are noted, the sensitive areas are noted for their landscape quality, established and interconnected communities, agricultural productivity, heritage and natural environmental qualities. Two, the design of the Bells Line of Road corridor as a multi-lane motorway terminating at Kurrajong Heights adjacent to the UNESCO list of World Heritage Blue Mountains, based on minimal projected traffic projections. And I should probably just speak to these as I'm going, otherwise it'll just take too much time. That, of course, is regarding to the lack of justification of a need of either of these corridors, to have roads that simply finish on a map at Moralia and at Kurrajong Heights, with no further information about the need for the continuation, no justification of the need for a road of that magnitude of any description whatsoever.

Previous reports having told us that there is no viability in putting the Bells Line of Road corridor, and the fact that there is no information about the further route beyond Moralia through some very, very rugged terrain it would take to go across through there. So bearing in mind the lack of justification for those things , that's a very important point. The design and location of the corridors, this applies to both of them, so I'll address them both. The design, it has not taken into account, it has not provided us with any information about freight, trade or transport matters that are critical to determining its future role and function in relation to a bigger picture. So in relation to specifically with the Bells Line of Road, both corridors, but specifically to central and western New South Wales, to how it fits in with the Kingsford Smith and Badgerys Creek airports and how it fits in with the ports where the various produce and freight may be travelling.

There's been identified an inadequacy of the community consultation and we've heard that over and over, and I'm pretty sure that's acknowledged by the government and accepted that the process was not done well. There's been a lot of distress. There's been a lot of impact on people. The sheer shock and horror of hearing about this with no warning has been devastating to many people, and we've all heard many individual stories about that. I had many submissions. I did ask for people to send their submissions because I was very cognisant of having read exactly how people were being individually affected. We can look at it on a wider scope and see how it affects the area, but there are so many individual stories I've read, and I thank all the people that sent me those submissions, and I really did understand the extent of the impact that people were being faced with regarding this.

And for many people, it placed them in a position where, particularly for people who've lived on their properties for a long period of time, where they were having to face life-changing decisions of what they would do with regard to the future of their property and, in fact, the future of their livelihood and so on. Just moving on, there's the various lack of detail regarding how certain things would go ahead. About future development rights, what happens to land, lot blocks, insurance matters, the whole acquisition process, also the uncertainty of the zoning surrounding any proposed corridor, would there be zoning changes, and in fact the consultation process around how the government would draw up a planning instrument, and it's said to be a state environmental planning policy.

So just how much involvement any community would have had in that is very unknown. There were also a lack of detailed investigations and supporting documentation relating to flooding and evacuation, potential traffic impacts, potential noise and air pollution impacts on the very nearby sensitive land, dwellings, schools, wildlife habitat and Aboriginal heritage. There was also within the path of the corridor the uptake of many public buildings such as rural fire sheds and things that would be a loss of local infrastructure on quite a big scale.

Then there include some sections from the actual mayoral minute, which you can read, which are to do with how any process would continue in the future, and the very similar points for the Outer Sydney Orbital, also being a highly sensitive area, and the great impacts and losses that would occur. There's shorter sections on the two corridors, which are the freight corridor, the Western Sydney freight corridor, and the North South Rail Link, both of which impact indirectly because they integrate into a whole transport system, but which obviously don't affect us in terms of landowners being specifically impacted by that. We went over most of this before, so I won't speak for much longer, except to say that it is becoming more apparent of how big an impact on our local economy the proposal to put this corridor is becoming.

I've already witnessed impacts already where people have not proceeded with the developments or construction that they were doing. That's impacting on tradespeople already. They've been put off jobs they thought they had. The sheer loss in terms of agricultural land , not just for now, but for the opportunities for the future, when we are going to have to feed this big city, and that's the land, much of that land is where that would be coming from. There's different types of produce coming from the Oakville and Vineyard area. There's poultry, there's the various market gardening, and of course we've got the orchards west of the river. We've got the equine industries over there, and across the whole area we have got a burgeoning tourism industry, which is reliant on the scenic beauty of this area, and that is, as one of the speakers mentioned, the core of our whole vision for the future is to retain those.

those things to value them, and they are the things that we do value, and they're the things we're fighting to protect. So I urge councillors to support this and to submit this as the submission to Transport for New South Wales. Discussion

Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. To start with, I think it's really a great thing going into this debate knowing that the 12 of us already are on board with this idea. We all agree. There's not one person in the gallery, in the community, needs to worry about any councillors not agreeing or supporting this intent. But I'm going to proceed very cautiously and carefully when I say these next few points. Firstly, who— and the reason I'm going to do this is because even a couple of the speakers tonight said that this doesn't go far enough, that this doesn't answer— I think actually it says too much. So first of all, who wrote this submission? I did. Okay. It's hard to say what I'm going to say, but that red pen is grammar, spelling, and other areas where there's doubling up.

It doesn't make sense. It's got a multitude of spelling errors in it. I want to make sure that our council— No, I'm being serious about this. We've got one chance, one chance to put a document together to show how serious we are about this issue, and we want to make it look damn good. I want it to look good. If our whole council— Well, it can

Be corrected, Councillor Richards. Thank you, and I did send it to you for that reason. I had to do it hurriedly. It's not as if it was my job to do it

I'm not trying to do anything here, and I don't— I mean, we have put our submission, another submission by the four of us, and this is not political. Online, and it got not one criticism. It answers the question of how does the community feel, and the community is angry, and we are supporting the anger of that community. I just, I'm not sure. I don't even want to speak loudly about it. I just want to get a clean, concise document together. The first point C and then point D are copy and paste because of the two different corridors. Point E and F, as you've even rightly said, Madam Mayor, more of a regional perspective element than a geographical one to the rate payers in our LGA. And I know we're on a time limit.

I know we have to get something in, but I don't know, what's an idea? Can we all commit to come together another day or another night, the 12 of us, and get something where the documents are in front of us and we're all editing and making it proper to get the sentiment that the community is angry, that the community doesn't want this, and we as their 12 elected councillors support them on that. And I just, I just think this one is confusing. And I understand it was an attempt to, because the supplementary one put forward was really just a fact submission back to Transport for New South Wales on things they already knew. So this is an absolute improvement on that. But I still think it doesn't quite go to the sentiment and to the heart and soul of the community and how much they want their council to project that what this has done to their lives.

It doesn't project the anxiety and the stress and what they've been through since this was announced on the 26th of March. And I just think that if we're going to put Hawkesbury City Council as a name onto the one submission we've got, you know, then we need to be making sure it conveys those messages a bit more. I mean, we all knew, the 12 of us knew that submissions closed on the 1st of June. I know that council got a submission. The four of us put in a personal submission. I'm led to believe Deputy Mayor did. Did any other councillor put in a personal submission in their personal capacity before June 1? Well, I did.

Did anyone—did everyone put in a personal submission?

Did you put in a personal—

It's a joint one with our four names on it. It's got my name on it as a submission, and we all crafted this document together. So what I'm saying, even as a joint—but I'm saying not as a Hawkesbury Council under their banner of Hawkesbury City Council. Did you put one in as— Yeah. So everyone did? Everyone's put one in. I mean, we've all stood next to our community members and fought to get this proposal off the table. So the least we could have all done is put in a submission. We've put ours in on time. We've now got an extension to put Council's in. I'm trying to make sure that what we put in just— I think half of that can go, and I think what we can actually just say is, we stand up for our community.

Our community doesn't want this. It was a poorly designed proposal. It caused great distress. I think we can make it more concise than what it is. Perhaps even, you know, I'm happy if you want to use parts of this document. It's definitely not copyright. Like, honestly, I just think we can make it stronger. And I do believe we do need to do a lot of editing on it as well.

Councillor Richards, if I could just point out, I do have a much lengthier document I'm happy to send you. I cut it down so it would be easier to deal with, actually, and it seemed unnecessary to put a lot more anyway. But we can continue the debate. Councillor Connelly.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. Thank you for putting this submission together. It's, you know, I think a lot of us read the business paper and didn't quite think it was quite what we wanted. Didn't really know where to go from there. So thank you for taking the initiative of giving us another option, which better represents what we want to say. I think we should just adopt this as our submission tonight. If there's a spelling error, can Councillor Richards send it through and you have it fixed up before it gets submitted?

I can probably reread it and fix it myself, but yeah.

Yeah. So I would be happy just to go ahead and vote for the motion

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm just trying to clarify, the first sentence in this document says that Council should lodge, sorry, Council lodges a submission in relation to the corridors highlighting. Now, to me that sounds like this is not the submission. This is the, these are the things that should go in the submission. Have I got it right

That is the recommendation, so that would be the resolution, that Council lodges a submission, and then the submission would be what's under.

Would the what's here be the submission, or are these the guidelines for someone else to write a submission?

No, this would be the submission. Well

Then I think you need to change the first sentence, Council lodges the following submission, or words to that effect.

Well, it would be just reworked to be a submission rather than a resolution, not a big change, just simply a different introduction. Probably would say something like, This is Hawkesbury City Council's submission to whatever,

Making the following points, or something like that. I mean obviously it would have to be done on a council letterhead, and it would have to be formatted and the spelling corrected and any other input done, but this is merely, it's the bulk of what would be said. It's the sentiment of what would be said. Can

I also say,

In that first sentence perhaps it should say something like, Council lodges a submission opposing the proposed transport for NSW corridors. Certainly.

And in point 1B, it says the impacts. I think it should say the negative impacts.

Point C should, I, in my opinion, read, Council opposes any Bells Line of Road, Castle Ray Corridor and has the following objections.

Now, the rest of what's here I have worries, and I don't know whether this is what Councillor Richards was trying to say, that we,

And of course that should also be carried over to point D as well, that we oppose that corridor. I implied that, but I didn't say it. And the things I'm saying about what's on the first page also relate to the second page where

We have the following objections, and the first point, point E, is the location of the corridor, which implies if they change the location, we wouldn't have an objection. And point 2 is the design of the corridor, which implies if they change the design, we wouldn't have an objection. And so it goes on down the page, and also with point D, it has the same approach. That's why I thought this was going to be a guideline for the submission rather than the submission itself.

Well, I guess from what you're saying, Councillor Calvert, just before it goes any further, because you may want to move an amendment, it's reflecting the mayoral minute, which for the Outer Sydney Orbital, as Councillor Zambrano had contributed the wording, was regarding the location. It was not to abandon it as the Bells Line of Road corridor was. So whether you want to seek for people to change what the mayoral minute was, in which case you might have to move an amendment because the submission is geared to reflect the mayoral minute.

Well, I will just leave it at changing point C and then someone who's perhaps brighter than me can work out what to do with point D. I also, in point D, it talks about lack of information. Just about every point talks about lack of information, which implies that if we had more information, then the outer Sydney orbital would be okay. So I just have problems with the way this approaches the situation. As one of our speakers said, I don't think it is strong enough. It doesn't make our opposition very clear. It seems to imply that we oppose the way it's been done, and if they changed the way it was being done, then we'd be okay with it. And I don't think we should be sending that message.

I'm happy to make it as strong as anyone likes. I oppose it completely, so that's fine by me. But just bearing in mind, if we're basing it on the mayoral minute or not, there's a distinct difference in if we're using it to reflect something that we've unanimously passed, or if we are rewriting an entire approach. I mean, I'm happy with either, and that's why it's open. It's unfortunate that there's time constraints. So if you want to write something or amend it to have it so people can look at, that might be advantageous, Councillor Connelly.

Sorry, if you could indulge me, Madam Mayor, just a second, quick time. Yeah. I actually disagree with the Deputy Mayor insofar as that we still have to remember we're an official agency making a submission to this process. They might go ahead with the corridor. We hope they don't, but it's possible. We would not be doing our duty if we didn't mention all the problems with it. In the end, they do go ahead with it. So yes, we make clear that we oppose it, but we also make clear every single problem we have with it so that they might at least take some of our feedback. Yeah

If I might reply to that, I'm not saying that we shouldn't mention all the problems. I'm talking about the way they are mentioned. And also,

Madam Mayor, you said it needs to reflect the mayoral minute. I think by talking this way, it doesn't reflect the mayoral minute because the mayoral minute was very strong in opposition, and these sections C and D don't appear to be that strong or as strong as the mayoral minute.

Well, the introductory sentence says as outlined in the mayoral minute. Anyway, you do your amendment, Councillor Calvert, and we'll look at that. Further discussion? Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Point of clarification, firstly, could the General Manager advise us what the extended deadline was for our submission?

So the expectation is that the matter will be considered tonight and that the submission will go in shortly after tonight.

All right then. It was my understanding when we realised that we should be making a submission is that we recognised that we didn't have a person with the requisite professional expertise on staff and that we were getting a consultant in to write the submission for us. Now, we've all generally agreed that the submission that's been generated was disappointing

What's more disappointing is that the individual submissions that I've seen from the various community action groups. The submissions that individuals who do not have subject expertise, but have gone to an enormous amount of time and emotional energy and study to try and bring themselves up to speed to make a really good submission, is superior to the submission that we, as a government entity, have been able to produce. And we've moved without comment from a position where we needed to get an external person in with subject expertise to do a report, to the mayor writing the report herself and then inviting some input from her colleagues and then making that our submission. It is a dog's breakfast.

The submissions that I've seen from the community action organisations and some of the individuals' submissions, and the submissions that I and, you know, many of us have made, I think speak more pointedly to what our heart is for this in the Hawkesbury than what we've been able to come up with here. And it's problematic to me that we are now hurriedly trying to workshop something that encompasses what we need it to, hard up against the deadline that we're being given, even a deadline that comes after Cabinet's consideration. I mean, I have no special knowledge, and I offer that caveat, but Cabinet considered this on Thursday and has almost certainly made a decision . And we've missed our opportunity, I suppose, to have a submission in by the deadline.

And Transport for NSW now has a statutory obligation to go through this process of trawling through the thousands of submissions that have been lodged and to make a report. And that, I suppose, will give the imprimatur that Cabinet needs to say, right, well, we've heard and processed all of this data, and we're late out of the gate, and that is disappointing. I'm prepared to endorse your rewrite of this, Madam Mayor, and I do commend you in the sense that what you have written at least strikes closer to what we discussed here in this chamber recently than what's in the business paper. But the way in which we've gone about it, I don't think reflects terribly well on us, and I think what we're going to end up deciding on tonight, as a matter of necessity, is short of where we should have been, considering how existential the threat is to many of our precious communities here in the Hawkesbury.

Thank you, Councillor Zambrano. Further discussion? Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam

Mayor. I think this is fairly easy to remedy relatively quickly. There are probably some edits that are required with any document that's been produced fairly quickly and with a lot of time pressure, which this one was. I think we can easily, without deviating drastically from the Mayoral Minute, I think we can make plain statements at point C and D that this council strenuously objects to, in point C, so, for example, replace point C with council strenuously objects to the Bells Line of Road, Castle Ray corridor. In

Particular, due to the following reasons. And then do the same thing at D. Council strenuously objects to the Outer Sydney Freight and Orbital Corridor, in particular for the following reasons. It's a bold statement, but it also leaves the reasons why we're objecting. I don't think at any point we've said, if you shuffle it over a bit, we'd have it. Most of these are irreconcilable problems with both corridors, and they stem largely from the same issues which we've identified and which the community has identified. What I would like to see, though, is Council use the resources of the community, which they've very generously put up, and the expertise of the community, which we simply can't replicate in the time period we have with the resources that we have, which means that perhaps we should rely particularly on three submissions.

The Kurrajong Kurmond Historical Society. The Heritage Advisory Committee was supplied with the Kurrajong Kurmond Society's list of properties that were under threat, either directly in the corridor or likely to have either their curtilage or their visual amenity impacted by the corridor. It's a well-written submission. The Heritage Advisory Committee was impressed by it and urged Council to consider including that submission with its own. The other submission, which is extremely well written with very detailed research, is the HEN submission on the environmental impacts of the Bells Line of Road corridor, and I think Council should make reference to that or attach that document. And the final one is the traffic information from Mr Chris Hallam, who's a noted traffic engineer and also a member of some IHAPS in other Council areas because of his understanding of traffic and planning around traffic .

These are things we can't afford to knock together in the timeframe ourselves that people have put up. I think it's advantageous that we attach those. So I would like to see an additional point added to the motion that those three submissions be attached. There is, however, a deficit then with heritage and environmental information for the Outer Sydney Orbital corridor, and probably the fastest resource to access that, in the absence of further information, would be the heritage listing and the conservation management plan for Skyville National Park. If we made reference to those, that would complete it. I'll just quote a tiny bit from the Skyville National Park conservation management plan because I think it's really notable and puts the context of what may happen at Oakville quite clearly.

Skyville is an exceptional example of a layered cultural landscape with evidence of different uses from the early decades of the colony to the present day. Skyville has retained its rural setting, and this has contributed to the preservation of an outstanding heritage landscape of state significance with a high degree of legibility. Now, it's this very setting that will be destroyed utterly by the Outer Sydney Orbital. You cannot build a 300 metre wide road and freight line and maintain the visual amenity, the historic— Legibility of Skyville National Park. It is physically impossible. This is the state government's own land. This is the state government's own conservation management plan for Skyville.

It's time they acknowledged the complete incompatibility of that document with their plans for Oakville. It goes on to say that Skyville demonstrates a long series of initiatives related to key government policies that have responded to the changing national and international environment and had a major historical impact on Australian concepts of nationhood. Well, wouldn't it be utterly appalling if the end of that documentation was a dirty great homage to overdevelopment in the Sydney Basin? And that's why I think that that is a particularly pertinent document for us to refer to in our submission. I think we also need to detail the impacts on the residents of Vineyard, which seem to have been lost in some of the noise on this.

They have been particularly impacted on in the short term economically. Many of them believed that they were in the Vineyard 2 area . Several of them were currently involved in contract negotiations, which have fallen through, in part because they were honest enough to tell the people that were offering them very large sums for their land that things had changed. And they're now being penalised for doing the right thing, and that seems fundamentally unreasonable to me. So I think we need to make special mention of that. I think we also need to make it very clear in this submission that the residents of Oakville and Vineyard were lulled into a false sense of security by the government continuing to use the term Box Hill to refer to an area that is most assuredly not Box Hill and never has been.

Many of the residents report that in 2015 they were told that because they lived at Vineyard and Oakville they were fine because the road was going to go through Box Hill. And now it would appear that there's just some notion that that bit of Box Hill is really, really important because it's got houses on it, and that— The Hawkesbury is just a whole lot of nothing, and nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, this land now and its ability to produce agricultural products, to house the trucks that carry those agricultural products, to provide the space for the industry that Sydney requires to keep it running, is so rare that it can't be relocated anywhere else in the Sydney basin. The state government needs to be rapidly appraised of that fact.

It's actually easier to replace the houses at Box Hill, those endless black-roofed boxes of ticky-tacky, than replace the land at Oakville and Vineyard, and that's what we should be saying. I think Mrs. Kelleher made the most important point of the evening. We, as a council, need to make sure that Hawkesbury is put last, not first. The Hawkesbury is collateral damage in both of these corridors, and we need to make sure that we are not. We need to stand up for our residents. It's our greatest responsibility to make sure that the Hawkesbury is put first. That's our job. I think that the submission that goes in will go a long way to say that. But I hope that we can have that additional point that adds those extra documents and additional information to it.

I am happy to add them. I'm just wondering

If, I'm not aware if everybody's seen them.

That's the only issue. I know members of the public have. I've read them all, and I would be happy to have them included. They're from groups who have the expertise and knowledge. They're not just random people. It would be different if we were suggesting putting Individual submissions, but they do represent the listing of the heritage items in those areas and of the environmental, specifically the species and the ecosystems that are present and the issues such as air pollution and so on. And the traffic one that Christopher Hallam has done also includes references to previous studies done, which gives valuable data relating to the vehicle movements, both in the area from Kurrajong Heights to the M7 motorway and the projected movements to Western New South Wales.

So I'm happy if my seconder is happy, I'm happy to have that as an addition, as well as a commitment to fix the spelling mistakes and to strengthen those, as both the Deputy Mayor and Councillor Wheeler have said, to strengthen the wording in the initial lead-in in points C and D. Are you happy with that, Councillor Rasmussen?

Yes, yes, Madam Mayor, of course I am. And I know the people involved. I haven't actually seen their submissions or read them. I know of them, but I haven't seen them. My only concern is, and you've pointed it out, that not all councillors would have seen it, and if they vote on something they haven't seen, we may run into some deep troubled turbulent waters. That's the only thing. But I'm happy to—

If

Councillors are happy to include, I'm happy to include.

Thank you. Further discussion? Councillor Conolly

Just for safety here, put on the record that I haven't read those submissions, and I will support the motion on your recommendation. I

Would be happy if anybody did have an issue with them to raise that, like beyond here, but I guess it's an in-principle inclusion of them as attachment. I mean, they are literally— What they say, their list of heritage and their environmental species and so on, they're not some underhanded plot to do something. Further discussion? Councillor Rasmussen. Yeah,

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll try and keep it fairly short. Firstly, I want to say thanks. Thank you very much to you for putting this together and obviously at a great time and cost to you in terms of your personal time. But that's the sort of thing that councillors do, and that's the sort of thing a good mayor does at the spur of the moment. And I think, to be quite honest, when I read it first, I thought it was quite a good document. It captures what I, when I've been talking to people at various forums, these community meetings, it captured a lot of the information, or lack of information, that people raised. They said, Look, we don't know about this, we don't know about that, we haven't seen this.

You know, the fact is that what most residents affected by this are saying is that the state government has instigated a very flawed process, and I think you've captured that. You have pointed out how flawed the process is and how badly it has affected, and I think you also go to the point where you say, I think it's one— yes , it is one subparagraph six— where you point out the need for the New South Wales government to review the current corridor and, in so doing, genuinely

Consult with the community bottom up and not top down. So you have pointed out that we are not happy, the council is not happy, the community is not happy with it, and they need to review the current corridor. So, Madam Mayor, we— Okay

Okay. Well, and that's fine, and that's basically what this document is saying. But we could come out, and we could come out and say, no, no, no . Right ? But we've heard in this council that some councillors don't like us saying, no, no, no. Right ? I think you've heard some councillors in here say, no, no, no. That's all we do here. Now , what in fact the mayor has done is put together quite a well-articulated position. Now , we can take umbrage or we can take—yeah, we can nitpick. Yeah, we can always nitpick, and I think that that is not going to do anything for us. What the mayor has done, in fact, is to articulate, I think, a very clear position , and the fact that we need to support it unanimously, I think, is strong.

We have said in the mayoral minute previously that we don't support— most of us, all of us, I suspect—don't support the corridor, either the Outer Sydney Orbital corridor or the Bells Line of Road corridor. That's pretty clear out there. People I've talked to, people who've talked to me, that's pretty clear. We do not support this flawed, absolutely flawed process that the state government has set up. My only concern is, and it takes up the point that Councillor Sanbrogu is saying, is that, you know, he thinks it's a dog's breakfast. Yes, it is a dog's breakfast, created by the state government, created by the state government, and that's pretty sad. And I'm glad we can all unite around this, and hopefully we'll support the mayor's.

The mayor's submission here tonight so we can get it in and make the point clear to the state government.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen, and Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. When I spoke before, I failed to thank you for this document. I think it is a great improvement on what we had previously in the business paper. And what I'm suggesting here, I don't see as nitpicking; I see it as strengthening your document, because if we're going to put a document into the state government, we need to make sure that we make our position very strong and very clear. So I'm just trying to build on what you already have done here. Looking at points C and D, as far as I can see, most of points C and D are about the process which the Transport for New South Wales undertook. So I've looked at the wording, and I don't think there needs to be many changes to the wording, and if you would indulge me, I could go— many changes to the wording. If you indulge me, I could go through those changes, if you like

We just had some changes that Councillor Wheeler put up, but they're just coming. But if you want to start going through, Councillor Wheeler had asked—you first of all asked for point B to say the negative in front of impacts. That's in there. Point C, Councillor Wheeler had suggested Council strenuously objects to the Bells Line of Road corridor. As outlined in the Mayoral Minute of the 8th of May 2018, and of course the Mayoral Minute should be attached for people to read, in particular for the following reasons. So , are you going to continue on from there, or did you want to change that bit? Most

Of what I'm saying builds on that.

Okay.

What you've got to be aware of is that point 1 finishes with the word highlighting, and point C is supposed to follow on from highlighting, so I believe it should say Council's opposition to any Bells Line of Road Castle Ray corridor, or you could use the words that Councillor Wheeler said about strenuously, whatever it was, and indicating that Council has the following objections to the process which has been associated with the current proposed corridor. And then all the rest of those there would be the process.

Yep, that's fine. I've got no issue with that

With a similar start to point D, if that fits in with what everyone thinks about the Outer Sydney Orbital. I think it would still be the same for C and D

I think so.

And I think that would adequately strengthen the whole submission and makes it clear in the first line. Actually, not yet it doesn't. I think the first line should say Council lodges the following submission opposing the transport from New South Wales corridors, highlighting.

So we need to make it even clearer in the motion that we are opposing the corridors, as well as in the submission

Opposes, Council lodges a submission opposing the proposed transport. Opposing

The proposed

Transport. Yeah, I

Think that's in. Should be. It's

Not up there yet. Yeah

It's not there yet. And I think

That would do it. Thank you. Okay,

Thank you, Councillor Calvert. Councillor Rasmussen, are you happy with those changes? I'm happy with contributions to change it.

Yes, I am, Madam Mayor.

Thank you, Councillor Richards. Thank you, Madam Mayor. A question and some contributions to change. Point 2 says council advise affected parties of its decision in relation to this matter. Who are the affected parties?

They're not listed, but we could list them because I thought people can contribute. I would imagine residents, landowners, adjoining councils, Centroc, anybody who's being part of— Yeah

We should list that. All right, I'm happy to— I just

Hadn't done

I think it's been good that no one has been nitpicking. We've been offering constructive criticism because we all want a stronger document, and that's all it is at the end of the day. We haven't been given this notice at the spur of the moment. We've had a long time to try and put this together. So to make it stronger, just a quick couple of changes. Let me have a look what we've done so far. I'm not sure that they're all up

There, but essentially we've changed point 1 to say council lodges submission opposing the proposed transport. In point 1B, it starts off saying the negative impacts instead of just the impacts. Point C saying council strenuously objects to the Bells Line of Road corridor as outlined in the Mayoral Minute of the 8th of May 2018, and I would suggest specifying an attachment in there . Can I ask ,

Instead of doing this and taking another hour and people waiting, Is there a chance we can get this in by tomorrow, not tonight? Because could we send this around to councillors to offer back some—

I think if it's

Nearly ready. If it's nearly ready, I think

We should. Yeah, but just to tidy it up, you know, so — It needs to be tidied up. Some of the other— we'll quickly then. It's part B.3 says incompatibility with council's, which is spelt wrong, council's strategic directions, but it doesn't say what they are. I mean, is that referring to certain documentation? Should we be saying that? Well, it's our strategic document, so it's our community strategic plan and any other strategic plans that we have. I think that just needs to be listed. Point C, council's objections to the Bells Line of Road Castle Ray corridor. In particular, the word to needs to be added there because every point down there needs the word to in front of it. Point B, the impacts of the proposed corridors on the local community.

Cross out the rest of it and write with particular emphasis on the, instead of in particular in relation to there. That doesn't make sense. Then, let me just have a look

I mean, these are very minor changes. They are minor, but it reads better. No, but that's okay. I'm happy for you to send those, and I'm sure everyone would trust that we would fix it to be reading better. I think the key thing is whether people want to introduce anything else that actually deviates from the

Sentiment. Just quickly, yes. I think Part D can basically be eliminated, and you could make Part C say council objections to the Bells Line of Road Castle Ray corridor and the Outer Sydney Freight and Orbital Corridor, because basically all those points are the same. You've just doubled up. So I think Part C— Okay.

I'm happy to do that. I specifically put them separately because we had given a different thing in the Mayoral Minute . And just

Quickly, I think there should be an additional point about the community sentiment. I think that we need to have its own additional point, whether it's a point 3, 2 becomes 3, and there's an actual point 2 that just deals with the community sentiment, how the community has been affected, what the grief and the anxiety that the residents have felt. I think that needs to have its own heading and its own— Point rather than being lost in the other stuff.

If everybody's happy, perhaps Councillor Richards, I had written another submission that had a lot more elaboration. I'm happy to send that around, or you send yours around too, and out of that, I think what we might move towards is getting some form of vote and delegation for us to simply complete it with that on there, if that's okay with everyone , because otherwise we will sit here all night. So essentially, we might just have to add on a point, aside from what we've got up there now, that amongst us via email, we will complete the finer detail of what's to go in, to be decided by the 12 of us. Anyone objecting will have to make sure that that objection is made within a certain time frame so that we can complete it, include what the additional thing—I'm happy for all of that.

I'm happy for anything, but what we just need to decide now is that there won't be any deviation or retraction from what the sentiment is within this, and then we can proceed. I think so. Is everybody happy with that? Councillor Rasmussen, are you happy to add that on

Yes, I am

Thank you.

Okay, so any further discussion?

Councillor Tree. Thank you. I was just going to say, I'm not entirely sure. I don't know why it's up to you, no offence or anything, I'm not being rude, but I'm just wondering why it's up to you to write a submission when we've got staff who should be able to put this sort of thing forward quite —

It was a decision in a short time frame, as we only got it on Friday and it was the long weekend. I wasn't able to contact anyone who could have done it in that time frame.

Is it possible though, with all of the discussions that have happened tonight with the suggestions of what can be added, to just be— Cleaned, added and cleaned up by staff. Like you've got the bones there, can't they just put it together rather than adding more and more? Because I think we've made it fairly clear that we don't want it.

I'm happy for the easiest solution that satisfies everyone, quite frankly. So if, you know, I don't want it to become an issue, I'm happy to have a staff, maybe a staff member look at it first, what we've got. If Councillor Richards or anyone else sends me something, we can give it to them, and then somebody can do it. We can send it round. If everyone's in agreement, we'll go from there.

Yeah,

Just tidy it up and send it around, I think.

So, any further discussion? Councillor Garrett. Do

We need a time frame on any comments to come back to you so that this

We'll put that when we send something out, once we see. Yeah, we do. Time is of the essence because we don't want to miss our opportunity to be considered. So obviously we've got a framework, we can tidy it up and we can just add anything that is additional. In the interim, we can have those extra submissions sent to the councillors that don't have them. They can have a look at it and say anything about those in the meantime. So if— is there any further discussion? Councillor Reynolds.

Yeah, thanks, Madam Mayor. I'd just like to agree with Councillor Richards in that I think we need to include or express the community sentiment in regard to this whole fiasco and the way it has impacted on them. I was talking to a teacher yesterday who said that they're having trouble with— there were some kids having trouble at school with the schoolwork because, you know, mum isn't sleeping and dad's cranky all the time now. And it's that personal— impact that the government needs to know. Back in, for example, there's a quote from the then Premier. He said, in regards to government employees involved in property acquisitions, he said, From a government point of view, they don't do caring very well.

They don't do caring very well. And the then Finance Minister said, Never again will someone find out the homes will be acquired through receiving a letter in the mail. And that was two years ago. And yet that's exactly what's happened to our people here. And I think it's important that that come through. I'd also like to echo Councillor Wheeler's sentiment in that I have nothing but admiration for the community that have come together and formed various groups in this difficult time, and how quickly they have turned themselves into activists of sort. And many of us have been working with them and talking to them. I just received a link today to an Infrastructure Australia report, which is dated this year, and it says that modelling by Infrastructure Australia in 2017, even though this is 2018, it estimates the net cost of protecting and acquiring the corridor between Richmond and East Picton as $300 million.

Now I have no idea what that's about, but that's in there somewhere between Richmond — that's our Richmond — and East Picton. So this whole thing raises a lot more questions than it answers, and I hope that out of this mess some good may come and a new process may be developed by the government to deal with things like this. And again, I'd just like to commend the community on the work that they've done. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Reynolds. Further discussion? No further discussion. I'll just very briefly in reply, thank everyone for their contribution and, as Councillor Reynolds just said, specific thank you to the community. It's been obviously an eye-opener for many people and a very distressing thing, but it does send us the message that we all have to tell—people have to tell the councillors how they're feeling and what's happening to enable us to work to try and represent you adequately when we do a submission like this. And I admit I had done a lengthier one before, and perhaps I should have put that up, but then that could have meant that we'd be only getting to page one by now. So I'm happy with how it's gone, and I'm really, really appreciative that we all are on board to support the community in this and to move forward with it.

So I'll put the motion as it is on the board. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried. Our next item, our final item, is item 14. Councillor Garrow, could you read your—

Pecuniary interest onto the tape, please

Just

Say what it is. It's item 144. I'm employed by one of the tenants of the property. Yeah, and it's a?

It's a less than significant non-pecuniary interest.

Thank you, Councillor Garrow. So you'll remain in here . There's no speakers, so somebody to move a motion. Moved that way. Councillor Rasmussen,

Seconder? Seconder? Councillor Reynolds. Discussion. Councillor Connolly.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. Having read the report, I was—I don't know if I've overlooked it, but I was confused as to the two options given to us, whether an option three would be the council rename the building, because I thought that's what we were being asked to do at the last meeting, but it would seem now that option's been taken away from us . So I'm just wondering if that is still actually an option. Mr

Conroy. I

Think it is an option, but I think what the investigations have identified is that there's a wide divergence of views on what the name is, and it's also identified that we don't actually have a policy on how we go about doing these things, and it's probably, given that there are heritage and other interests, it's probably better to do some consultation on this, and also we probably need to get that policy position. There's nothing to stop the tenants from adopting a name for the operation and calling themselves whatever, but if they want us to put a sign up outside directing people to that location, that's going to be a problem. So it's about getting an alignment between the name of the building on the outside and any directional signage or any other identification that may be required in the longer term. So that's why we're proposing the line we have.

Thank you for that. Madam Mayor, I would prefer Council's action should just be to rename the building the Old Hawkesbury Hospital. There's nothing wrong with undertaking a public consultation process. I just think in the current environment where Council's gone out for an SRV and rates are going up, that I think it might be seen as a little bit indulgent that we go and run a public consultation process on what to name a particular building in Windsor. I think, obviously, there's a lot of names on that list, but most of them, I mean, Old Hawkesbury Hospital or former Hawkesbury Hospital, I mean, that's pretty much the same thing. I don't think anyone's going to be offended and said it should have been former. I think I would like to move an amendment, Madam Mayor, that Council renames the building Old Hawkesbury Hospital.

And is that your only point of the amendment, or are you keeping the other points

Oh

Well, you wouldn't

Have two or three . Still keep number four. So

One and two. One is to name it Old Hawkesbury Hospital, and number four is the policy development still. Thank you, Councillor Conolly. Do you have a seconder? Seconder, Councillor Sam Bronio. Discussion?

Councillor Sam Bronio.

Thank you, Madam Mayor . At the previous meeting, we were advised that the building had no formal name. Now we've been told that a long time ago, a previous council called it something that had a historical connection, but isn't the name that we're considering now . When this made it onto social media, there was what I would politely describe as a very strong response that people supported the historic name Old Hawkesbury Hospital, or some small variation thereof. I suggested, as a member of the Heritage Committee, and I'm sure Councillor Wheela may concur here, is that there was a strong sentiment amongst members of the committee. But to follow the proper process, if the question were to come to the Heritage Committee, maybe that could inform Council in their official and advisory role about the full history of the building and what the most appropriate name is.

I'm inclined—well, I've seconded Councillor Connolly's amendment. I think we could settle this tonight, and I don't think that would be a cause of outrage within our community. I also agree with Councillor Connolly is that it is a little indulgent. I think this is a no-brainer. I'm surprised that this came up to Council originally. I think we've successfully made that distinction between the name of the building, which should have a historical connection, and the name that a tenant uses for their operation within the building. I concede that maybe some policy needs to be developed in this area, and the amendment includes the need for us to continue to develop policy in that area. So let's just get on with it.

Thank you, Councillor Wheela. Thanks, Madam Mayor. Having thrown the cat amongst the pigeons of the Heritage Advisory Committee, Councillor Zampronio is correct. They were in furious agreement, and in some cases, furious was the right word, that the building should most definitely be called the Old Hawkesbury Hospital, and no deviation from that was acceptable. I think the amendment is probably the clearest, quickest, and dare I say cheapest way forward, and we should just adopt it and go home

Did you move the original one, Councillor Wheela? No. Councillor Rasmussen, did you move it

Yeah,

I think I did move it, but

I'm happy to withdraw it. But, I mean, I'm always in great favour of talking to our public out there. I suspect there will be furies agreement out there that it should be the old hospital.

Yeah, I

Don't think there's any problem with that. But anyway , look, if Council doesn't want to do that, let's get on with it. The most important part, apart from the community consultation, is that the business people need to get on with doing the business part of their operation, because they, you know, how long has it been now? I mean, they really do need to be, you know, I said it last time, you know, the business cards, the letterheads, the whole box and dice, you know, small business struggles and they don't need this sort of delay. Yes

Further discussion?

No further discussion, right. So you remove— I'm happy

To

Adopt the amendment, which is the motion now. So can I just—

Can we get a time frame on when notification will be made to these business owners who found out about this in the Gazette?

Found out about which, Councillor Gower? About the meeting or the— Yeah, we can let them know tomorrow. They can be told tomorrow

Right of reply, Councillor Connelly . Councillor Rasmussen's withdrawn his. Not required. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried . Meeting is finished at five to ten

9.55.