8 April 2019 - Extraordinary

Good evening everyone. Welcome to our Extraordinary Meeting of 8th of April 2019. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the traditional owners of this land and pay my respect to Elders past and present. And I'll hand over to the General Manager to give us some procedural matters.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd like to begin by advising members of the public about our emergency procedures. People 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'd also like to advise members of the public that in accordance with the Code of Meeting Practice, the meeting of the Council is recorded. In the terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting of Council meetings.

The provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary. If any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting. The recordings may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations, 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 chamber has a mobile phone, that they either turn it off or turn it to silent.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Conroy. Do we have any apologies or requests for LEAVE OF ABSENCE please?

Councillor Garrow is an apology.

Councillor Garrow. Councillor Tree. Yes,

She's on leave, that's right. Mr Mayor, I've received a request from Councillor Garrow for LEAVE OF ABSENCE from Council from tonight, Monday the 8th of April until Sunday the 14th of April, inclusive, including the Council meetings on the 8th and 9th of April 2019.

Would someone like to move we accept that leave? I'll move that , Mr Mayor. Moved, Deputy Mayor, seconded Councillor Zamprogno. All those in favour? Declared carried.

Interest, please. No. We only have one item tonight, and that is item 57. We have two speakers. First speaker is Mr. Peter Ryan, please. That didn't

Happen. Look,

Thank you for affording me the opportunity to speak tonight. I'm speaking on behalf of Pitt Town Progress Association and the residents of the Pitt Town and surrounding districts. Look, I'd just like to take the opportunity to thank Council for approving a grant for our Anzac Day ceremony this year. Very much appreciated. It's really helped us out. Now, the main area I want to bring to attention of Councillors is the upgrading and sealing of Old Stock Route Road, Commercial Road and Brennan's Dam Road at Vineyard. I understand this item is not yet included in the budget for roadworks. The sealing of this section of road would be a great benefit to the large number of ratepayers in Oakville, Pitt Town and the surrounding areas.

Pitt Town Road intersection at McGrath's Hill is choked with traffic and is becoming more so every year. The growing population at Pitt Town, Cattai and beyond is increasing traffic flow through this intersection, and the current roadworks at Long Pitt Town Road will do nothing to alleviate this situation. Mulgrave railway station is used by the people from Pitt Town, Oakville area, but people from Wilberforce and Freemans Reach are now using it as they are unable to get parking at Windsor, and this is adding to the congestion at McGrath's Hill. Bear in mind that the upgrades for the car park at Mulgrave was levied on land at Pitt Town via state development contribution and has been paid for.

The association has lobbied the state government to deliver the upgrades much sooner than currently indicated by Minister Constance, that the work is to be anticipated to be delivered in 2056. 2056. Why can't we have some good things that we have actually paid for? Anyway, I'll move on. It's a sore point. Currently, many of the residents in Oakville, Pitt Town and beyond go either to Vineyard or Riverstone just to get parking. However, they still have to come back through McGraths Hill. With the light rail finishing at Rouse Hill, the users of that will have to drive through McGraths Hill again. During the upgrades of Windsor Road some years ago, the RMS saw the value of Brannans Dam Road and constructed turning lanes into and off into Windsor Road, so that the intersection is already at a high standard for increased access from Brannans Road.

Now, the ceilings of the road would give the road users a viable alternative access past McGraths Hill, therefore reducing congestion while improving the safety and the road users' efficiency. There is funding in the budget to seal the east end of Old Hawkesbury Road. I would hope that when this occurs, the gates

At the end of the road will be removed to allow vehicles access. From memory, the gates were installed to prevent vehicles from using the unsealed section due to dust problems they were causing that affect only a handful of residents. My request is that the sealing of the section of the road now. I'm aware that the problem during floods, there's a problem during floods. But please do not use that as a reason not to give a large number of ratepayers a viable solution to being held up in traffic at McGraths Hill. Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to speak.

Thank you, Mr Ryan. Are you happy to answer any questions? Yes. Would anyone have any questions? Councillor Sam Prodromou.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you, Mr Ryan, for coming along tonight. I heard somebody make a remark once that Brennans Dam Road and Old Stock Route Road were only used for rat racing, and I took exception to that because I believe that people using the road for a legitimate purpose shouldn’t be ascribed that motive. I mean, is this a legitimate through road for access to Windsor Road for Pitt Town residents?

It is, because it’ll alleviate people going into McGraths Hill, where people are moving through into Windsor and Wilberforce, so there’ll be less traffic there at that intersection of Pitt Town Road and McGraths Hill. People are smart enough these days; they will take that road if it is viable. It is that rough now. It’s not really a viable road until these upgrades, which are only minor, take place.

Thank you. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Ryan. From what you were saying, I’m just trying to understand what your rationale was. It’s because Windsor Road is so choked that you feel people should be able to turn off at Brennans Road, Brennans Dam Road.

Yeah, that’s correct. It’ll give them a viable access to Pitt Town. I’ve been over North Richmond. They don’t have another viable access over the river. We have one there, which would not take a lot of work and cost as much money as another river crossing to make it another viable access to reduce these road congestions at McGraths Hill, to get people home on time. The state government bangs on, We’ll get everyone home on time. Well, here’s a perfect opportunity to get people home on time.

I'm just suggesting perhaps it's a state obligation, not a council one.

Well, they are council roads.

Yeah, I know, but the problem's on the state road. Thank you.

Councillor Ross, you had a question. Thank you, Mayor. Good evening, sir. You were speaking about further sealing of Old Hawkesbury Road?

That's correct. I read that in your budget.

Right. And you were advocating tonight, as I understood it, some further extension of that work?

Well, if that work goes ahead to seal the eastern end of Old Hawkesbury Road, the ratepayers are paying for it. Remove the gates, and that will give the people of McGraths Hill another access to Windsor Road past the congestion there at Pitt Town Road. So yes, if you seal that road, I believe every ratepayer should have the ability to drive up and down it.

Now, the point from which you are advocating this sealing, is it from Brennan's Dam Road or further east than that?

I would like to see Brennan's Dam Road, part of Commercial Road, and the end of Old Stock Route Road completed, because what will happen, people will then get onto Old Stock Route Road. They will then travel up to Saunders Road, and levies from Pitt Town have been approved and there's plans approved, and they're working on that intersection of Saunders Road, Pitt Town Road, Pitt Town Bottoms Road. There'll be actually nearly five lanes going into that for turning lanes, through lanes and all that, and that will make it even more viable for people to go that way.

Right. Sorry, I think you misunderstood the point which I was trying to have you enlighten us upon. You're mentioning extension of the sealing of Old Hawkesbury Road. Now, I'm just not sure which element of that. Is it beyond—is it from Brennan's Farm, Brennan's Dam Road towards McGrath's Hill or further east, please?

Brennan's Dam Road towards McGrath's Hill. I believe that's what's approved to be sealed, and that's where I'd like to see those gates removed and say that we could actually use that also.

Any more? Would it be in

Order to make a comment? No, just questions at the moment, sorry. Deputy Mayor, got another question?

Sorry, Mr Mayor, I just have one other question for Mr Ryan while he's there. How would— where in the final plans for the bypass that have been given to the Pitt Town people, the proposed bypass, where does that actually commence, the bypass? Is that off Pitt Town Road back near the Linwood Country Club?

Could we get Mr Ryan's light switched on, please?

Look, that's back towards Glebe Road, right at that sharp intersection of where you go into Pitt Town. But there has been roadworks levied for all that road from Pitt Town are two metre wide on each side shoulders, plus five intersections upgrading. They've started on one intersection now, Charles Street at McGrath's Hill, and really you should see the traffic there now. It's horrendous. We really need— Poor North Richmond needs another bridge. We have this here, there, now that we can put in place. We have a viable access. Let's use it. Let's get it going. I

Was just alluding to whether you think bypass is going to be helped in

No, it probably won't be.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, Mr Ryan, thanks very much for coming along and putting that point of view, which I appreciate very much. And I'm aware of the, yeah, serious congestion and absolute diabolical situation that residents have to, or travellers have to negotiate. I do it on a regular basis, and it's a really big pain. So can I just make this point, or try and tease out this point. You said earlier that part of your rationale for this request is that Windsor Road is a choking point at certain times of the day, morning and evening , where they join. Yeah. Yep, absolutely. And I think most of us are well aware of that. Can I just also, and I want to take up the point that the Deputy Mayor pointed out, and that is it really is a state issue.

And I know that's not much consolation to people sitting in traffic, but if we keep shifting, and I'm just wondering whether you agree with that, keep shifting costs from the state onto the local roads and the ratepayers then have to repair that when there's so much traffic on it. Is that a fair cop to the local ratepayers?

Well, these are local ratepayers that we'll be driving on it. I would suggest that we make it a load limit on there, so we don't get the trucks on there. Most of the people I believe that would use it are ratepayers. They live in that area. We're not going to get too many people from out of the district drive down that road. Other than our local ratepayers from Oakville, Pitt Town, Cattai and beyond. So I think it's a very, very viable access, and it's there, it's available, it needs tarring, it needs the job. Okay, there's a bridge there. It'll go underwater in the flood, but when it goes underwater in the flood, there's not that many people drive around anyway. So I think this is a real good economical way of giving people a viable access other than coming through McGraths Hill through that bottleneck, and it'll free people up going to Wilberforce and that, because sometimes that is blocked right back nearly to Vineyard if you have an accident or something.

Thank you.

And that is that the operational plan as it is here tonight for us to debate and approve or amend or whatever, that has been developed and come about as a result of, as you would know, because I've seen you at some of these community meetings, where Council put out the request for an SRV or put out the idea of an SRV, and that whole process that went on for a couple of years, as you would probably know. As a result of that, we've now got what we've got, and that sets priorities in place in terms of which roads will be done, when they'll be done. The community was told, this is what we're going to do, this is why we want the SRV, and we promise you that this is what we're going to do. Now , if we now inject new roads into this draft plan, would you not think it would be reasonable that we go back to those community people and say, look, for

Whatever reason— Mr Mayor, I think this is currently within our two minutes of questions, and this is more of a debate.

Sorry about that, Mr Ryan. That's fine.

Thank you very much.

I was going to allow

Councillor Rasmussen

To ask a question. The lib's not in the allow mood

Tonight, so that's fine. Well, the lib's don't run the meeting, Mr Councillor Rasmussen. Oh, they don't? Would you like to have a short question?

Sorry, Mr Ryan. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Any other questions? No, thank you, Mr Ryan. We have another speaker and that is Lorraine Charness.

Thank you.

Mr Mayor, councillors, Council support staff and ratepayers, thank you for this opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Lorraine Charness of Speets Road, Oakville 2765, and I am speaking on behalf of my husband and myself. We wish to support the amendment to include an optional variation made by Councillors Amprono to the program of road tarring proposed by Council for consideration tonight. The optional variation includes the tarring of Brennan's Dam Road, Old Stock Route Road and Commercial Road. These roads are unsealed and in very poor condition. They require grading on a regular basis after heavy rain and after constant use of so many cars going through. These roads serve the suburbs of Oakville, Maraylya, Pitt Town, Cattai and others, with some 1,000 cars passing through them daily, particularly at peak hour.

It appears that the above-mentioned roads are consideration tonight. So if the dirt roads outside the localised flooding area were tarred, it would provide a far superior, safer alternative to the constant grading of pothole dirt roads. I believe the amount is not a great deal and would be a positive first stage improvement of these roads, re-safety and access, until further works were approved. In the COVID, perhaps. In the past, rural suburbs, and particularly Oakville, has paid two and a half times the rates of average ratepayers. We in Oakville now pay five to ten times the rates of average ratepayers, while we are denied the same rights of dual occupancy as other residential suburbs. We have virtually no infrastructure or services other than refuse collection, no footpaths, no curbs or gutters, no streetlights, no public transport, no sewerage, and some people only have tank water.

We do not use more services than any other ratepayers, and we use less services, actually, and infrastructure, we have far less. But we pay the highest rates in the Hawkesbury LGA, some two and a half percent of your population paying nine percent of the rates. We would greatly appreciate council's consideration on this worthy tarring alternative proposal, and thank you very much for allowing me to speak to that matter.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Are you happy to answer questions? Yes. Do we have any questions, please? No. Looks like you've got off lightly. Thank you very much. That's the end of our speakers. Before we move on, the General Manager wants to give us an update on some matters .

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have two matters that I'd like to bring to the attention of Council. The first relates to a memo circulated earlier this evening by the Director of Support Services concerning the operational plan, and regarding building fit-out and refurbishment in respect of the Winds of Preschool and Wilberforce Long Day Care Centre, totalling $161,307. This is not new or additional funding; rather, it's a clarification of funding, existing funding that's in the operational plan. The second matter relates to a letter received from the Deputy Prime Minister regarding roads to recovery. In particular, a proposal to increase our allocation by $1,087,629, which brings it to a total of $5,438,146 for the five-year period 2019-20 to 2023-24, which equates to $217,525 per annum. Thank you.

Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd like to move to adopt the operational plan with some amendments that I've foreshadowed and sent through to staff. If they could be put up on the screen, that would be a good start.

Thank you

Very much, Mr Mayor. So I'll be speaking to this, and in short, it's to adopt the budget or the operational plan as it's presented in the recommendations of the business paper, with some amendments that I'll walk us through now. What I want to do is I want to separate out, if I

Can Before you start telling us about it, do we have a seconder for this

If you'd like to read it for a while, yes.

Is it correct, Councillor Zamprogno, the way you wanted it

Well, my additions relate to point four and down. So one, two and three are as they are in the business paper, and with the general manager's clarification, my addition is point 4, A, B and C, and point 5.

Okay. Do we have a seconder for that?

Councillor Conolly. Councillor Sam Brognow, you wish to speak to it?

Thank you. What I wanted to do was to separate out a specific initiative that I believe we should be looking at tonight, and the broader issue of the way in which Council formulates its capital works program, exhibits them and then receives feedback both from the community and from councillors. I have the greatest of respect for the subject expertise that goes into the preparation of draft budgets and draft capital works programs, but I believe the citizens of the Hawkesbury expect us as elected representatives to be engaged in a creative tension with public servants who formulate budgets, and then we bring the knowledge of our communities to bear, and we reserve the right to have the last word on, you know, the ultimate priority that things have.

I'd like to suggest, and I'm reflecting this through my motion, that the processes that we engage in could be better. When we looked at the capital works budget, I could see roads being listed with a reasonably high priority that were dead-end roads, that were roads that had like seven houses on them, and major through roads in a corner of our LGA that's being subjected to enormous development pressure and increasing housing and increasing vehicular traffic. For us to still have dirt roads of the standard that Brennan's Dam Road, Old Stock Route Road and Commercial Road descend to, especially after rainfall events, I think is shameful. So I want to separate out the broad issue of how we formulate our capital works program and how we establish the priorities of various things, and what I'd like us to do in a particular instance, to correct a particular problem that I see in the current draft program.

So my motion asks for us to review the criteria and the methodology that we use, that we get more formal input from councillors, that we give more weight to things like traffic movements. I want to know why Brennan's Dam Road, Commercial Road and Old Stock Route Road couldn't even make the current works program, not now and not for the next eight years, in other words, off to the never-never, especially when we consider the kind of development and increase in traffic that's happening in that area. I think if our methodology couldn't capture and flag and give priority to that, then we need to look at our methodology. I would like to suggest that if we are in fact going to receive a greater quantum of Roads to Recovery funding, as that funding should be earmarked, we should declare tonight, in an indicative way, because we haven't received the money yet, but we should flag that that will be our highest priority for the use of those funds, and then in the fullness of time those monies will come through and we can solidify those plans.

I'd regard that as a win for the Pitt Town and Vineyard and Oakville communities because it goes further than the minimal option of perhaps just tarring what's there and leaving that culvert that's subjected to localised flooding events so frequently more or less as it is. With a progressively greater quantum of money coming from Roads to Recovery funding, we might be able to fix that intersection properly. That said, all we're doing is effectively fobbing off this community and saying that we're not prepared to spend council money on this. We'll spend federal money on this. I think we should be spending our money to fix our roads. This is a council road, as has been said repeatedly, and I think we should have been giving money out of our capital works budget tonight to do this.

Perhaps somebody might see fit to move that as an amendment. But I've moved this because I believe that this will have the support of a majority within the chamber, and it is a step forward. So I commend it to you.

Thank you, Councillor. Any further speakers?

Councillor Conolly. Just a question through, Mr Mayor. Given there's already a long-term plan that takes us out to 2026-27, if we were to change the methodology following a review of the methodology,

And I understand one of the biggest objections is that this has already been exhibited, would that methodology then take place from 2028 or from 2020? General Manager.

That would be Council's decision whether it wanted to implement it immediately or maybe introduce it in stages or defer it until the end of the current program.

Deputy Mayor.

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

Yes, please.

The amendment I sent through earlier today, and possibly just change point 7 on that. Now that we know there is some further allocation from Roads to Recovery—

Oh no, we'll just leave it actually. Just leave it because it says to consider just what point 7 is. There.

I'll just get a seconder

Councillor Wheeler, thank you.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I think it's good that we're always happy to review existing criteria that we have and consider new requests that come through from the community. But just to recap on the situation as it stands, let us not forget that before last year, we didn't even have a program for sealing roads, and we were having trouble with a large infrastructure backlog. And so, in accordance with the directions given under the Fit for the Future program and the suggestions of special rate variations, we embarked on a process to apply for a special rate variation. We went to our community with a comprehensive plan, and we asked them to support us on that plan. And so we had many community meetings, and we came up with the works program, and that's what we took out to the people.

So without this program, we wouldn't be getting any upgrades. We wouldn't be getting any footpaths, kerb and guttering, or any sealing of any roads at all. So we wouldn't have the level of improvement that the community expects and which was essentially supported. So with no SRV, there was to be no infrastructure upgrades. So it's a matter of fairness as to whether we just simply insert something else into that tonight when we have had the community— Be given this as something that's occurring. Now , I'm quite happy, as you can see from point four, to review the criteria and go back through the process and go back out to the community and ask them again and explain to them about what we're doing.

But to just insert this now, who's going to go and tell the people who are missing out that they're not getting what they want because somebody else is getting something that wasn't in there before? Now , we did go with the Glossodia community. They were involved in the process. They brought up the issues they had. We went out. We were at the meeting. They got through the whole meeting and they raised the issues. They raised the roads they had problems with. And then we were able to adjust what we were doing so that we could compensate for them. So I just think that because in this chamber we often hear that if we've told people something, why would we just change it? I think that when we've gone out and asked them to pay more rates and given them a schedule, that to ask them to change it at this point is grossly unfair.

I think that it's valid to review the program and the criteria. I think that we can do that and we can come up with a better way. It's old criteria. There's nothing wrong with reviewing it, and we can go back out to our people again and go back over it all again. There could be other roads besides Brennan's Dam Road that also need to be included. And I noticed when Councillor Sambrano put a post on Facebook about it, that people were coming forward with all sorts of roads that they'd like to have upgraded. So there's many roads. So I agree we can change the criteria and the way we consult, but we cannot just insert something tonight and say this is going to change and someone else misses out, because that simply isn't fair.

We've just heard we've got some additional funding, so I think we should do considerations of how to see what level of involvement we can have in trying to prioritise what can be done. I think that without doing the entire upgrade of Brennan's Dam Road, without fixing the culvert, without making it so that it's a worthwhile road, it wouldn't be worth doing just a patch job. It needs to be done properly. And from what I'm hearing from what Mr Ryan said, there's major congestion on a state road and again people are seeing the solution as using our local roads, which is fine, but the state government should be giving us more money into that process. It's also a state obligation to provide ample parking at railway stations.

So I think that the community should be pushing to be told 2056 to have an upgrade to parking at a railway station is absurd. I just think that we can advocate however we can to push that along as well. And I think that if the congestion is that bad on Windsor Road, then the state government does have an obligation to do something about it. And I think that we can, as it says in point six of my amendment, that we can investigate any opportunities of funding that may come up through the very, very expansive— Development that's right on our doorstep. Now, some of that money, because those people are going to be accessing our township and our facilities, we should be getting some money towards that.

And I have no issue with Brennan's Dam Road being upgraded, but I would like to see the proper process followed and fairness, as we demand of all things in here, to see it being done in a fair, fair manner . And I'd just like to address to what the second speaker said. All those same things apply to people that live where I live. We don't have any of those things either. So it's not only one area; it's many areas in the Hawkesbury don't have sewer or kerb and guttering or all those sorts of things, and pay high rates as well.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Councillor Ross, are you speaking for the amendment or for the motion, or

Which way are you speaking? I would like to suggest that I have an amendment of my own which I'd like to put before the meeting. Well, we already have an amendment. A foreshadow. You could foreshadow, or if you have a point, you might ask the

Mover or the mover of the amendment if they'd like to adopt whatever that point is, unless you're moving a whole new motion. Is that what you're— I'm moving a whole new motion. Okay. I could accommodate

Some elements of what has gone before. It's contrary

To the other two anyway.

Is it? I don't know that. So you're looking to foreshadow a motion. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Any other speakers? Councillor Rasmussen,

Are you speaking for— I am speaking against. The motion. Against the motion. Against the motion, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, the Deputy Mayor has raised quite a number of issues, and compelling issues in my book , why we shouldn't just insert, and as I've said in briefings, parachute in new roads into this operational plan. It is well recognised that this is a body of work, that is the operational plan, that takes a lot of time, a lot of effort, a lot of staff time to get it worked out. Community's been involved on many occasions. I've been to many community meetings where this operational plan was being forged, developed, talked about, argued about, whatever about, and we finally, after much consideration , got to this point.

Now, that's been a process over many, several years, several years. And as the Deputy Mayor said, Glossodia, yes, they got involved in the process at their stage when there was a community consultation process on this, and they raised a number of issues. As a result of that, councillors listened, those of us who were there, and we obviously did what we thought was a reasonable and sensible thing, and that was to insert or adopt the proposal from Glossodia in terms of that extra road, or that repair of that extra road. Now, coming to this, it just seems to me that it's a dangerous path for any politician to go down and to renege on something. That has been promised to the community over much consultation.

It is not a path that I would want to go down, and it's a path that I would suggest several other councillors, many councillors, should not go down either. How are we going to explain to the people who spent their evenings, all of that time and effort that they spent arguing for their case and looking at what was being proposed, how are we going to go back and say, Oh look, sorry, at the five minutes to twelve, midnight, we got to a council meeting and we turned the whole thing upside down. Because what's going to happen, what's going to happen is the operational plan, if we insert one or two or three more roads to be funded and worked on, then some other of these priorities, some of these other elements, roads, infrastructure, has to go down the priority list.

It has to be shifted down, which means that no longer will the people who looked at the plan and went, Oh okay, I know what they're doing. Yes, it's not tomorrow, it's not the next day, but it is in five years' time or six years' time I'm going to get my road done or my kerbing done or whatever. So at least they know what the program is. That was the promise. That's what we said we would do. Now for us now to do a complete reverse on that, I reckon is silly. It's worse than that, in fact, and I won't use the word. So, councillors, I suggest we don't do this now. We go through the review process, and if there's a need to upgrade the criteria and get better criteria, more sensible criteria, more workable criteria, criteria that more reflects what is going on now in our area, then let's do that.

But let's not just insert a whole or several new roads for sealing. Let's work on it. Let's do it. With a process that works, due process, and let's get it done that way.

Thank

You, first speakers.

Councillor Conolly. Thanks, Mr Mayor. You're speaking in favour of the motion. In favour of the motion. I just want to clarify, Mr Mayor, following that address from Councillor Rasmussen, I think there might be some confusion as to what the motion was. Perhaps we could put it back on the board for a while, if you like. Yes, please. Because the motion is not to put this in the operational plan, Councillor Rasmussen. The motion is that we look at the criteria, and that if any more federal money becomes available, we look at Brands Dam Road as something that should be highlighted as a priority for that extra money. So nobody's suggesting that we bump anything off the list or that we put anything new in the operational plan.

The suggestion is that we have a briefing with the criteria, we look at whether that criteria then gets applied going forward, either immediately or at the end of the current long-term plan, and that any additional federal funds that become available get allocated towards Brands Dam Road as a priority. Obviously that has to come back to Council again, as we're not doing it right now. It would be a whole process for that. So I don't think there's actually not major difference between the motion and the amendment. The only difference is that the amendment doesn't acknowledge Brands Dam Road at all , and the motion

Oh,

Sorry. Keep going, Councillor Conolly.

No, that's quite relevant. Well, then there's really not a lot of difference at all, other than that we look at the—one says to look at the Northwest Growth Centre, the other one's specific about an issue. But I think this is a road that's come up every year since I've been on Council. It's something that can't get any traction. I think the most important point of this motion is point four, which is give us an understanding of why it can't get any traction and what needs to change if we think that is a priority. I did have a question, if possible, Mr. Mayor, to finish up. I just wanted to know, between the point of formulating that capital works program that was taken out on consultation to the SRV and the finalisation, were any changes made?

Mr. Organ . There would have been minor changes to values and slight extensive work, but by and large the program is the same as was went through the SRV consultation.

Yeah. So I guess my question, when was the chance for the community to make changes to that program?

Well, obviously we've met with the community on multiple occasions there, and they had the opportunity of putting forward any particular views on those works, and I don't think we received anything substantial in that regard in relation to the sealing program.

There's probably some, if I could just finalise one thing, there's probably some learnings to take from that process in that it's sort of a little bit paradoxical. In one sense you're saying you can't change anything once you've told the community what you're going to do for the SRV, and then on the flip side say the chance that the community had to change it was through those consultations for the SRV. It seems a little bit contradictory, and I wonder if there should have been an extra layer after that, that we should have always said we'll come back to you if the SRV is approved to finalise this. It's always open for you to add that to the motion, Councillor. I'm not proposing any further SRVs, Mr. Mayor. I just say that that's perhaps a

Shortcoming of this process that's led...

Thank you, Councillor Cottleish. Thank you

Mr. Mayor.

You're speaking for— I

Just want to clarify something, if I can, to start off with . In the original recommendation in the business paper, it's got that we are deciding to put this draft operational plan on

Public exhibition. So, what are the likely changes that we should expect from the community if nothing is going to change? I'm not quite sure I understand why the process is here if nothing can change.

Mr Conroy.

I wouldn't say that nothing can change. No, no, but so we've got a draft document in front of the council tonight, and that's been prepared by staff based on the best available information. But that's not infallible. So council has the discretion to adjust the draft document that's before them tonight. Then during the consultation period, we will be going out via the newspaper, via social media, via our web page, have your say, and encouraging people to participate. And we do that in the belief that if someone has something valid to say, something worthwhile to contribute, we will bring that to council's attention, we'll comment on that, and then again we'll go back to council for that final determination. So there is the potential to change the plan. That's certainly an opportunity that is available to Council.

Councillor Richards

Thank you very much. Just a question to start with. The mover of the amendments went on with a lengthy reasoning that it was okay to adjust last year to compensate Glossodia, but with the conclusion it's not okay to compensate Oakville. Can you please just clarify for us the steps taken last year when Mitchell Drive was added to the budget? What actually had to happen there to add one particular road to the budget last year? Mr

Organ. Through you, Mr Mayor. Mitchell Drive and Ian Street kerb and gutter projects or drainage projects in Glossodia were included in our long-term plan out in five or six years' time, capitated on that one. What we looked at last year during the consultation was there was a demand from the community to bring those works earlier. We looked at that and because of the funding source that was available there, which was through the drainage charge, we looked at bringing those works forward because there was the opportunity of borrowing with a guarantee of income to pay that back. So they weren't new works; they were works that were being brought forward with a funding source. And

Just to clarify, the roads, Brannan Dam's Road, etc., that our speaker spoke about tonight, just to clarify, were they budgeted for any financial year moving forward currently up to where we're up to, or there's no allowance for them?

Through you, Mr Mayor. Yes. They're not included in the gravel road sealing program. By and large, that's because of the need to upgrade the culvert. As I said, it's a very frequent inundation. The cost of that was kind of prohibitive in terms of including it into the gravel road sealing program. Okay. So it hasn't been included in that ranking for that reason.

All right. Thank you. Would you wish to speak? Yes, please. I'll be supporting the motion that went first tonight. I think that defending the fact that residents turned up to a community meeting as part of the SRV process as a defence for moving a motion for a particular road then, but then saying our speakers who turned up tonight to plead their case in a chamber has a different set of circumstances Deputy

Mayor, point

Of order. Misrepresentation. I'll address after Councillor Richards finishes. Thank you, Councillor

Lyons-Bucko. I

Look forward to

It. Please continue, Councillor. I

Also think that to— Mr Mayor

Yes, Deputy Mayor

I'm sorry, that's

Very disrespectful. I would ask that you ask Councillor Richards to retract that. My apologies. Remark retracted.

Thank you. I think it's also fair to put on the record that when we speak about the community, and I bring that up as a constantly in this chamber when people refer to the community, there were only one third of the community that supported Option 3 in the SRV, which is what a majority of councillors went for. That spectacular defence of the SRV then was extraordinary. But let's not forget that there was also a rate restructure that went prior to that that contributed to the problem . I think that you have every right to come and plead your case to councillors, and there's been plenty of opportunities and times in this chamber where people have come and spoken on any recommendation that's in the business paper, and councillors in this chamber have taken that advice or that plea on board and actually gone with it.

So you've paid rates, you have the ability and the right to come into this chamber and advocate for what you want to advocate for and all the power to you to do that. So I'll be

Supporting the original motion that went up tonight and not the amendment. Further speakers, Councillor Wheeler, had you light on before

Miss representation, Mr Mayor. I just would like to point out that it was just pointed out that the Glossodia community. The works that were done there were already in the program, as we know, and they had a separate funding source. They weren't from the SRV. So what Councillor Richards just said was a misrepresentation . And also, I began saying what I— sorry , I've got a really sore throat. Saying what I said by saying that, of course, people have the right to come and ask. We're always welcome to that, just to clarify that. Thank you.

Thank you for that. Councillor Wheeler, you wish to speak?

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'm speaking for the amendment. My concerns with the original motion really is at point 4B, and it really comes more from the methodology than the roads in question. And I think the amendment probably deals with the method better. 4B makes quite specific recommendations about a methodology that looks at Brennan's Dam Road. Now, I agree that Brennan's Dam Road is —

That's the amendment.

Yeah, I need to talk to the motion . If we could go to the original motion, please.

That's it. Thank you.

If we're going to have an objective process, then we need to start with a far more open process from the beginning, where we review Council's methodology that I understand was developed about eight years ago. Things have changed. Traffic in the area has changed. Vehicle movements have changed, particularly heavy vehicle traffic has changed. And Pitt Town has changed dramatically as well. So I think we need, but I think we need to look at the criteria far more holistically than Point 4B directs us to. We need to start with a much more open process and then test particular roads, perhaps against that methodology, to see that it's robust enough to take us into the future. But by selecting a single area to develop the criteria around, we're biasing the criteria from the beginning, which is why I much prefer the amendment to the original motion.

I am also concerned, as I think we heard from Mr. Ryan, that we're going to shift quite a lot of traffic onto subsidiary roads if we upgrade this road. Now, we talked in the briefing about an amount of 300,000 to seal Brennan's Dam Road. That doesn't include any work to the culvert, which I understand has a one in three month flood rating. I don't know how much money we've allocated, if any, to Commercial Road and Old Stock Route Road, and we haven't discussed opening Old Hawkesbury Road as was recommended, which would then provide, it seems the intention would be to then provide through access to residents who don't live along Old Hawkesbury Road but live further down. Again, I think we're looking at a single road in isolation, and I don't think that's an optimal way for us to approach this.

So again, I think the amendment does that better. But one of the things that I do want to bring up that has nothing to do with roads is some of the other stuff that's in the operational plan, which is a study in all the activities that Council carries out. And the thing that I want to bring up in particular is DS71 under miscellaneous fees on page 116, which is the flood level advice basic. We've currently got a big problem in the LGA with people who are struggling with insurance premiums because their properties are deemed flood affected. And it appears here that Council has a mechanism for providing people with a letter, and then there's three different levels of flood advice. And perhaps we can start sending this information out to residents and highlighting that Council provides this service.

The insurance industry has told us that if we can tell people about their actual insurance risks for their property, then they can save money on their insurance premiums, which for some people are in excess of $20,000 a year because of their flood ratings. So I think this is something that we can provide, that we can do. I think we need to tell residents that it's available. And if I hadn't gone through the operational plan line by line, I wouldn't have known it was there. So I think this is something we should be pushing to the community. I'm very pleased to hear that we've got additional money out of the Roads to Recovery funds. I think we can all come up with plenty of ideas on how we spend that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. I might ask— General Manager,

What are our plans with that letter that Councillor Wheeler talked about? Do we have plans to distribute that and promote it, or is it—

I was just getting some corrections from the Director.

The letter's about insurance. We have the— Councillor Wheeler might tell us.

The letter that we're talking to is in relation to miscellaneous fees, DS71, flood level advice basic, a letter confirming 1 to 100 level only, and the suggestion is that we promote the availability of that letter. So I think we can look at how we can do that. Yes. Thank you. Any

Further speakers? Councillor Reynolds.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Just a question. In the— to Mr Organ, in the business paper it's estimated that sealing at Brennan's Dam Road, Commercial Road, Old Stock Route Road is estimated at 300,000, excluding any drainage upgrade. The drainage upgrade that's mentioned there that's being excluded, is that the extensive culvert work that would be required to do it properly?

Yeah, in a nutshell, that's correct. It would exclude any work other than some minor adjustment to the curvature of the road, but leaving the existing capacity of the culvert that's there at the moment.

Could— do you a rough idea of how much it would cost to do it properly with a new culvert?

We've done a number of alignments and ballpark estimates, but it's probably in the order of $2 million plus. The catchment at that point is, the corresponding crossing on Boundary Road is a series of culverts 70 metres long. So that's the capacity, and that's a one in five year. So it's a very substantial culvert. Bridge works required at that point to even get it to a one in five year. So about $2 million to do it probably in that order. But again, there's probably land acquisition, downstream works and so on, which we haven't contemplated at this stage.

Just a bit more, if the road was just to be sealed, and it's apparently subject to a one in three month flooding, flood occurrence, how long, in your experience, would the sealing last?

How many floods?

Very difficult to answer. What we would do is probably provide a different sort of pavement over the immediate flood-prone area. But we'd also, if the road were to be sealed and to protect the pavement from people going through, particularly with heavy vehicles, we would actually put in substantial lockable gates rather than barrier boards, which currently go out there now. So that would potentially protect it from vehicle damage, and we'd need to design a pavement that's keyed in to stop it from eroding.

While you're on the microphone, Mr Organ, I believe you've got a correction you wanted to make.

Yes, Mr Mayor. Just, there was one of the speakers tonight indicated that the section of Old Hawkesbury Road that is in the current program is in the gated section. The section proposed for sealing in the exhibited document is from Chapman Road westerly, so not the section from Brennan's Dam Road heading back towards the gated section of near Henry Street.

Further speakers?

Councillor Sam Brobnow.

Yes, Mr. Mayor. I'm just going to speak briefly against the amendment, but reserve my right to reply at the motion if we get that far. I just wanted to suggest that some of the speakers tonight have been fighting the wrong fight. The motion that I've proposed, I've proposed in the form that I have because I believe it's achievable. I believe it'll get a plurality of votes in the chamber. At least I hope so. I have not sought, through my motion, to arbitrarily inject a road that was not on the works program into the current operational plan, even though several of the speakers spent most of their time arguing against precisely that proposition. I will repeat that I wish that we were spending council money fixing council roads properly, but I'm acknowledging the reality in the room, and therefore I've proposed that we leave the works program as it stands, and that we use the roads to recovery money and that we make a positive affirmation that we will seek to use a substantial fraction of that money to fix this problem if that money is forthcoming within the coming financial year even.

That would be a wonderful outcome, and I'd regard that as a big win for the community and for drivers through this locality. I'm opposing the amendment because the amendment proposed by the deputy mayor simply uses the word consider, and that's altogether too soft a word. My motion says that we'll make a concrete stand to say that that's what we would intend to use that money for, and I think that's what the community would expect. I think concerning Councillor Wheeler's objection about, you know, the methodology, I'm pointing out a specific instance. As an example of what I see as an error in the current methodology, it doesn't hogtie us to only consider that. I'm saying this is an example of.

I'm quite sure that council staff have been listening attentively, and they take in both the form of words that I've proposed and the form of words that the Deputy Mayor proposed, and understand that we're substantially on the same page, and that it's perfectly safe to vote for the motion rather than the amendment tonight, in that what they are going to do is that they're going to go away and they're going to come to us with some analysis of the methodology because we can see some flaws in that methodology.

That concludes my remarks against the amendment.

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd just like to speak against the motion. Just picking up on what Councillor Zambrano just said, the reason that I do speak against the amendment and chose to put up an alternative against the motion, rather, and put up an alternative, is that Councillor Zamprogno's point does give a priority to Brennan's Dam Road when I don't see that that's any fairer than considering it as one of possibly many roads that need some attention through the additional funding. So I think if we're going to review the criteria, we should then apply that to the roads to recovery work as well, and it's purely and simply a matter of fairness. I want to see Brennan's Dam Road be done. I'd prefer to see it get state funding and be done properly and have the culvert fixed and have it as a fully functional road that people could use.

I think that would be wonderful for the area. But a Band-Aid solution and prioritising that for the additional money when we haven't looked at what other things may need doing, I just don't see that as upholding any principles of fairness.

Councillor Rasmussen. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I wish to speak for the amendment. Mr Mayor, and maybe this should be couched as a question, but I'll put it anyway as a statement. Roads to Recovery funds, if we're actually allocated those funds and they're allocated to Hawkesbury City Council, surely they become local ratepayer funds.

Is that a question?

Well, it's a rhetorical one, I think, Mr Mayor, at this point. So if that is the case, then surely, once they become local funds, if we spend that money on Brinsden Road, we are spending local funds , Council funds , ratepayers' funds on Brinsden Road. I think there was a bit of a, what could I say, a logical flaw in what was being put forward earlier by one of our councillors. He might like to reflect on that. Maybe he doesn't know whether this is the case. Can I also add to this, add to my statement here that there's the Yarramundi Lane, Inalls Lane, Crowley's Lane, and I've been on about this for donkey's years, donkey's years. These are farm lanes.

Hello? Farm lanes. They're dangerous. I travel them regularly, and so do thousands of other residents and others, thousands of them. They're dangerous. Massive big holes, right. There's absolute no verge. There's big holes, there's gutters, there's drainage. Absolute danger to anybody who travels on that road. And we are proposing that maybe. We should not spend money on them, those roads, those farm roads, to upgrade them, which have been needed because they are dangerous. But we should divert money to something else that suddenly has popped up? I just don't think that's fair. The community has been on about this for donkey's years. I mean, I know I've only been on Council for 22 years, and I've heard it ever since then.

And all of a sudden now we've got to suddenly turn the whole world upside down. Now I know the motion. Thank you, Councillor Conolly. And like several other councillors in here, sometimes you take an oblique line to what is put before some of us. But I really do think that we need to take a good view on what it is we are trying to do. We are suddenly saying, oh, and it is good news that we got funds. It really is good news, thank goodness, about time. Finally, in an election, finally when there's an election, we're going to get some money. Goodness me. 200 million for a bridge. Perfect, lovely, love it. We should have this area here absolutely marginal to the 0.001%. Maybe we would get more attention from the major political parties.

But we really do need to take a good solid look at how we're doing, how we organise this Council, how we strategically manage this Council, its funds, its rate base, its needs and its wants, and how we go about doing that. Without due process and without correct process, we are doomed. Do not change what you told we would do to the local ratepayer community. Do not do that.

Thank you, Councillor. Any further speakers?

I would just like to ask,

I'd like to speak in terms of asking Councillor Zamprogno, when you have your right of reply, my understanding is what you are saying about Brennan's Dam Road is that— We will prioritise our deliberations. I don't think you said we'll rush out and tar the road when we get some more money. So, in your right of reply, could you make that clear? And I know that will have a big impact on how some of us decide to vote. Thank you.

Mr Mayor, could we have the motion back up so that we can see the wording? Because I believe it says prioritised and Brinins Dam Road

That's what I'm asking Councillor Zamprogno to make clear, because it may be that he's saying we prioritise our discussions about the road, which is what he said in his talk. So I'd just like him to make that clear. That's all I'm asking, okay? Any further points? No.

Right of reply, Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Look, I want to counter some of the narrative that I've heard around in the chamber and elsewhere. I want to counter the idea that the people that use this road are only rat racing to get to points that are otherwise going to be subject to congestion. So Mr Ryan said that, you know, it is a good thing to be able to relieve some of that pressure. On the intersection of Pitt Town Road and Windsor Road. He furthermore said that the route of Old Stock Route Road, via the upgraded intersection of Saunders Road, is a very legitimate through road for residents of Pitt Town to find their way to Windsor Road and avoid some of that congestion. It is not an argument to say that we shouldn't construct or improve a particular road because people might use it or that we might induce extra traffic to it.

If I might say so, that's the point. We put roads where people need to have roads and then to assign to them some impure motive. Instead of saying these are people getting to where they need to go via the most convenient route

We say that they're— Sorry, excuse me. Point of order. What's the point of order, sorry? Can I hear you out, Councillor Wheeler? What's the point of representation? Impure

Motive? Really, Mr Mayor?

That's his point of view. Please continue.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd also like to put paid to the idea that a particular portion of our community are less worthy of funds because it is perceived as a Liberal voting area and that the Liberal Councillors on this Council voted against the SRV and that these funds would not have otherwise been available unless the SRV had been passed and therefore they are not deserving of funds. Point of order, Mr Mayor.

Point of order, Mr Mayor. I don't recall anyone bringing this up in this discussion this evening.

I think Councillor Zamprogno was talking about something being implied, but I'll let him continue.

Point of order, Mr Mayor, he's bringing up new material that wasn't mentioned.

I think you might need to be careful of bringing up new material, Councillor Sam

Brogden, please. I'll move on, Mr Mayor. I'd like to put paid to the idea that if there were a works program, is that it is somehow sacrosanct. I think it would be an abrogation of our duty as elected representatives not to take on board the significant feedback that the community gives us to then look at draft programs and amend them where necessary. No plan is perfect, and it's, as I said, a part of that creative tension between elected representatives and public servants that make government work. So that said, I would like to commend the motion to the Chamber, and for the Mayor's benefit, if he wants me to clarify, the wording that is on the screen is the wording that is there. Now, it uses the term that it be given the highest priority with those funds.

The Mayor has been in politics long enough to understand that the way in which motions are interpreted by staff to give full effect to the desires of the Chamber is a collaborative process, and if staff were to come back and to say that the way that they've chosen to interpret that is to accelerate the process of deliberation, then that's what we will work with, and that will become part of that collaborative process. I am well aware that we cannot be proscriptive about the time frame and the amount of those roads to recovery funds, because A, we haven't received the funds, B, we don't know how quickly we will receive portions of those funds, and I'm also acknowledging that. We factor that into our works budget as monies become available.

The use of the word priority in that sense refers to the overall process, if that helps the Mayor to perhaps make his mind up. I'm done.

Thank you, Councillor Zamprogno. That was right of reply. We have an amendment moved by Councillor

Lyons-Buckett and seconded by Councillor Wheeler. I will put the amendment. All those in favour say aye.

Put your hand up, please. One, two, three, four, five, six. All those against? One, two, three, four. I declare the amendment won, and now the amendment becomes the motion. I'll put the motion. All those in favour say aye, and put your hand up, please. Two, three, four, it's nine. Those against? Declare it carried. Thank you. Is there any further business? If not — Foreshadowed motion if the motion was lost, which it was. Yes.

Point of order. We just voted for that amendment as the motion. It's been resolved.

The foreshadowed motion comes into effect if the motion is lost. But we just resolved in favour of the motion, just that—

I thought we were voting on the— Well, the amendment became the motion, and the original motion was lost. Yes, Mr Mayor, but the council just resolved in line with the amendment, so how can we now consider another motion?

I will ask the General Manager for his opinion on this, please.

I think the foreshadowed motion is problematic because it's contrary to the motion that Council have just adopted.

But we don't know what it is till we hear it.

It

Has been circulated. Can I ask, are you looking to move that we defer the budget? Is that the Your motion, the one that you circulated about deferral, is that— That is correct. Well, that contradicts what we just did. We just passed the budget, so I don't think you can move it at this stage.

I did foreshadow it, and I would have anticipated that the Chair would have provided me the opportunity to prosecute that at an appropriate time, and I'm not in control of the meetings, sir.

Mr Mayor, point of order. Yes, point of order. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, I do think we can take this foreshadowed motion— the motion. At the end of the day, and we can change Council motions and resolutions, that's pretty obvious, and it may get voted down. It may not sustain much of a light of day.

I have asked the General Manager for the opinion, and I'll ask again, please.

Mr Mayor, as I understand it, we had a motion moved by Councillor Zambroni. We had an amendment moved by Councillor Mary Lyons-Buckett. The amendment won and was put. And I think that's the way that it should have been.

And Councillor Ross's foreshadowed motion contradicts the motion that we just passed. That's correct. So I'm not going to accept it as a foreshadowed motion. Thank you. Any further business? If not, I'll close the meeting at 7.45. Thank you.