30 April 2019 - Ordinary

To the Council's ordinary meeting of 30 April 2019,

I would like to acknowledge the traditional owners of this land and pay respect to Elders both past and present. I'll ask if the General Manager can now go through some procedural matters.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. 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 wardens. I would also like to advise members of the public that in accordance with the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of Council are recorded. In the terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting of Council meetings. The provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary.

If any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting. The recordings may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations, and the recordings are stored on Council's record management system.

For

The benefit of any persons who will be addressing the Council tonight, it is expected 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 if any person in the Council Chambers has a mobile phone they either turn it off or turn it to silent. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Conroy. I've got apologies from Councillor Kotlash and Councillor Tree is on leave. Are there any declarations of interest?

No.

Move the apologies there, okay. Someone like to move we accept the apologies. Moved Councillor Rasmusson, and seconded Councillor Conolly. All those in favour say aye. Declare it carried. Any declarations of interest? No . Confirmation of minutes. There's two sets of minutes in here. The first set is the extraordinary meeting of 8 April. Would someone like to move that? Moved Councillor Conolly, Councillor Rasmusson. Any discussion? I'll move those. All those in favour say aye. The other minutes are the ordinary meeting of 9 April. Would someone like to move that? Councillor Rasmusson, Councillor Sam Brogno. Any discussion? I'll move those. All those in favour say aye. Aye. Declare it carried. Item subject to public address. We have—

Two items subject to public address. The first item is item 68, Community Sponsorship Strategy, and our first speaker is Maria Losurdo. Maria here?

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Council tonight. I'd like to speak on behalf of the Women's Cottage in relation to the proposed changes to the Community Sponsorship Strategy and the potential impact on the Women's Cottage. So just a bit of background, the Women's Cottage has been operating for 36 years and for the last 33 years out of council-owned premises at 22 Bosworth Street. In the last financial year, we responded to over 1,000 requests for assistance for women in crisis. In the first six months of this financial year, we responded to over 400 requests. There were 250 children related to those requests, and 63% of all requests relate to domestic violence. In terms of history of the rental agreement negotiations, up until 2006, the Women's Cottage was paying approximately $12,000 a year in rent.

In 2016, negotiations were initiated by Council with the consideration that rent be raised to a more corporate level of $22,400 a year. This would have been an increase of $10,000 or 87%. As a result of those negotiations and feedback from the Women's Cottage, Hanna DV Group and consideration of local needs, Council agreed to raise the rent to $22,400 plus GST, but to give the Women's Cottage an equivalent discount. And charge us $1 per year for rent. The women's cottage has since been invoiced for and paid rent up until the 11th of December 2026. It's important to note that the women's cottage do not receive any cash funds from council. This discussion relates to waiving a paper debt for rent in support of the cottage's work.

In actual terms for the women's cottage, this represents an amount of $12,000 that we would have previously paid. The women's cottage and Hawkesbury Council have since entered into a registered 10 by 10 by 10 lease, which means that we have a lease agreement that's in place to 2026, with an option of two lots of 10-year extensions. And I'd just like to note that nowhere in that lease does it talk about a renewable five-year sponsorship, as stated in some of council's paperwork tonight. This lease agreement has opened up new opportunities. The security of this lease has allowed the women's cottage to apply for state government capital works funding, and we've just heard that we've been successful in being allocated $75,000 to extend the building, which is wonderful news.

In relation to the service agreements mentioned in tonight's council papers, at the time of the lease negotiations and in the lease itself, there actually has been no formal agreements or expectations raised as to how the $12,000 rent savings would be reallocated by the cottage. What was said in the press at the time by the Cottage was, This is going to allow us to do some much needed work and run valuable programs, and we greatly appreciate the support of Council. Since going rent free, the Cottage has been able to pay for critical needs such as a new phone system, a new air conditioner, upgrade to outdated electrical power board, increased programs for women impacted by DV and trauma, and pay for childcare to make programs more accessible.

It's actually also allowed us to open two hours extra on a Tuesday, which has been a huge help. The Women's Cottage is certainly open to exploring what type of more detailed reporting might be useful to give to Council. However, at this point, we do not see it useful or appropriate to enter into specific service deliverables agreement as part of an already executed agreement. In terms of other relevant papers that relate to this issue, the Women's Cottage clearly fits into the Hawkesbury Community Strategic Plan 2017 to 36, specifically in relation to our community points 2.1 to 2.4, in relation to striving for community safety, encouraging partnerships, supporting and expanding volunteering, and working with community organisations to improve services for vulnerable people.

The rental partnership between the Cottage and Hawkesbury Council is also in line with the Hawkesbury Family and Domestic Violence Action Plan of September 2017. In this plan, it states, for promoting the Women's Cottage as the most appropriate mechanism for coordinating information to victims on services and support available to them. Recognises the Women's Cottage as the key agency for establishing partnerships to respond to the needs of Indigenous people, recognising the Women's Cottage as a key agency to advocate for safe and affordable housing. Mr Lescote,

You've run out of time. Did you have a concluding statement to make there?

Just that we greatly value Council's support around the waiving of the rent, and we obviously would love to see this continue, and we do have an existing lease and agreement till 2026. If I could just say one more thing very quickly, in relation to the draft guidelines for working with charitable organisations, we would really encourage Council to add awareness days that raise awareness in relation to family and domestic violence and issues for safety of women, so that that document would be in line with the Hawkesbury Family and Domestic Violence Action Plan.

Thank you. Are you happy to answer any questions? Absolutely. Are there any questions, please? No. Oh yes, Councillor Ross. Good evening, Madam.

Hello

Would you be good enough to give me the name of your organisation, please?

Our organisation, the full name is the Hawkesbury Area Women and Kids Service Inc., but we are known as the Women's Cottage.

Right. I deal in shorthand.

Yeah, the Women's Cottage is fine.

Any further questions? Councillor, you've got another question? Yes, I

Do. Please go ahead And I gather, are you an incorporated body or a registered charity?

We are both.

Right. Okay. That's very fine. And obviously the premises you occupy are owned by Council, is that correct?

Yes, that's right.

Right, okay. And this lease that you were mentioning, 10 by 10, that I gather was undertaken in 2016?

It started in 2016, but the final registration process only was finalised at the very beginning of this year.

Oh. There were complications, were there?

No, we were told it was just the standard process that had to go through.

Right, okay. At what stage of 2016 was that initiated, shall I?

The agreement for waiving the rent, I think, was in October 2016.

Okay. Good

Okay . Thank you very much, ma'am.

Thank you. Yeah ,

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you very much for that presentation. It's always a pleasure to hear the good work that you people down there do, and I applaud you for doing it. Thank you. And more power to you. A couple of questions. Do you cater for anybody outside our area?

Generally speaking, we cater for women who live, work or study in the Hawkesbury. That's our general gambit, but certainly if a woman in distress rang on the phone who wasn't from the Hawkesbury, we would respond to her.

So you've obviously been there for some time and seen the need. Do we have a need for more of these centres or facilities?

Absolutely. The need for domestic violence services, particularly for services for women who are still actually living within the violence, is really critical. The only additional funding that's come by way of State Government is a Safer Pathways process, which helps with coordinating services for women once they've left. But we work with a lot of women who are actually still In the relationship. And the other issue is while you can coordinate service, give information to women on what services are available, there aren't very— like, we are the only domestic violence specific service in the Hawkesbury

Just one more, I think it is. You said you paid for the upgrade of the electrical power board. Did I hear that right? Yes. Yeah. Oh, okay . I'll find out why you're paying for it. Alrighty. And I think— oh no, your $75,000 grant from the state government, that's good news. That's

Wonderful news. That's wonderful news. So what are you going to do with it? Well, we're waiting to have a conversation with council about how the building can be extended and how we can get—

New rooms or new— Yes

The ideal would be to extend the building out the back and have offices upstairs and group rooms downstairs. But we have other money to put towards that and a plan for raising community support.

Great

Thank you very much. Okay Thank you very much for your input. Okay. Thanks. Our next speaker is Carolyn McKenzie.

My name is Carolyn McKenzie and I'm the treasurer of the Hawkesbury City Eisteddfod Society, and I live at Freeman's Reach. Councillor Barry Calvert, Mayor of the Hawkesbury City, councillors, general manager, ladies and gentlemen, the committee of the Hawkesbury City Eisteddfod would once again like to thank the council for providing the venue for the eisteddfod in the past. For 67 years, the youth of the Hawkesbury and surrounds have benefited by this significant cultural event, performers pace each other in the development of talent, competence and leadership, all useful skills that equip them for life. With the uncertainty of knowing whether or not we had part sponsorship for the venue from Council and needing to commit by February, the committee considered our options and decided to proceed.

However , to do so without the Council's assistance would have resulted in the demise of the 2020 Eisteddfod, as we wouldn't have had the funds to begin the following year. We feel more comfortable now, knowing that we have some support from you and the possibility of this third-party service agreement. Hawkesbury City Eisteddfod is considered a performing arts icon. Last year, individuals entered solos numbering in excess of 1,500. 183 school groups from 51 schools participated in bands, choral, dance and verse speaking. Twenty-five percent of these schools are located in the Hawkesbury, 63% from neighbouring areas, Rouse Hill, Dural, Blacktown and the Blue Mountains, and 7% from further afield.

We even have a school that comes down from Newcastle, which is nice. Schools are eager to participate, as this festival is the only opportunity they have to come together to display and hone their skills in a friendly competition. The Windsor Function Centre is an ideal venue. There are no other such venues. Many of the visitors, the parents, grandparents and friends from neighbouring areas visit our local shops, eat at restaurants, stay in motels, visit our museum, all while enjoying our historic town. In a total, in 2018, we saw 7,750 performance across the stage, whether as individuals or in a group, plus 2,500 spectators. One of our ongoing problems is the cost of the rental of the Windsor Function Centre.

In 2013, the Council entered into an agreement with us providing in-kind contribution paid directly to the Function Centre for rental of the facility. The contribution was $20,825 with an annual CPI increase. Over the following five years, the Astedford Society paid, on average, an additional $5,000 a year, and this has been no problem. However, this rose to $ 10,906 in 2018, and this year, in 2019, it could reach $16,000 over and above the Council sponsorship. Concerned, we requested a quote from the leasee for the 2019 event, a total of $40, 866. Our usage has remained much the same at around about 19 days, and we have accommodated more performers each day to try to get through them as we can.

We can't expect the ratepayers of the Hawkesbury to contribute to the increasing costs, nor can we expect the volunteers who give their time and expertise to contribute. This ever-increasing cost of the Function Centre was much debated in 1990 when the centre was originally leased. Originally it was named the Windsor Cultural and Community Centre, paid for by the ratepayers and the federal government for a cultural and community centre in the district. The use of this centre is fast becoming out of the reach of the Hawkesbury community. These days, pressure on non-profit organisations run by volunteers is considerable. Estedfords have to comply with four different copyright organisations. The cost rose from 487 for us in 2018, and this year it will be 1,064.

Also there’s insurance, web expenses to upgrade our website, the provision of direct debit facilities, trophies, medals, banners, ribbons, printing, and it goes on, and they are all increasing. Estedford societies, when they close, can’t start up again, and these start-up costs and the loss of expertise. We have the expertise, we have the logistics in place, the volunteers, and an ideal venue to run the event in the rapidly growing northwest of Sydney. We would welcome any suggestions to solve the funding issue and wonder if maybe some state or government funding may be of some assistance in continuing the largest performing arts event in this district. After 68 years, it would be a shame to close this much admired, valued cultural event, which benefits the youth of the Hawkesbury and the rapidly expanding northwest.

Once again, we’d like to thank the Council for their sponsorship, and we look forward to being able to continue this service to the community with a third-party service agreement. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms McKenzie. Are you happy to answer questions? Certainly. Do we have any questions? Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Mrs McKenzie. As you know, I’m a big supporter of the Estedford. You are. I’m just wondering, do you have business sponsorship from local businesses?

We have some, usually there's, or small amounts of money, like, you know, trophies and things like that. Last year, Cutcliffe Properties donated $1,000 to go towards encouraging the schools, and that was divided into two awards, $500 for primary and $500 for secondary, and that was calculated on a school basis, which was very popular. Okay. Yes.

Yeah. Okay. That might be an avenue for some more funding as well. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Councillor Rasmussen. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mrs McKenzie, thanks very much again for coming along, and you've been here a few times, I know that. Once or twice. Over the last 23 years that I know of, anyway. Probably long before that too. Anyway, it's a great event, and it gets kids involved and parents, and it's lovely. It's absolutely perfect. Now, you sort of hinted, maybe it wasn't so much of a hint, that it would be sad to see this 68-year-old event close. Are we getting close to that?

With the increase of the Windsor Function Centre rental to nearly $41,000, if the Council is generous enough to give us this amount, pay the sum of the rental, the amount they did, we will still have $16,000 to find. Last year we ran this event at a loss of about $4,500. We can't continue that for very long. So we have a problem, yes. We have to somehow find the balance, whether it be, you know.. . As Councillor Lyons-Buckett just mentioned, maybe sponsorship or something. I don't know, but we need to bolster that in some way.

We'd better solve the problem together. Thank you.

Councillor Ross.

Good evening, ma'am.

Good evening

I would take it that you're an incorporated body.

Well, actually, we haven't been incorporated. We've been talking to a solicitor about it, but we haven't actually completed that yet.

Right.

It should have been done.

Yes. You might also consider the wider possibilities of registering as a charity. I think there are possible ways of doing that these days, even for diverse things, if that would be of interest. I take it in view of that, that because

Of your lack of, shall we say, a formal identification, that you have not applied or seek to apply, or are aware of any cultural grants which may be applicable to your particular...

Right.

Sorry

In the past

We have inquired about that, but nothing ever came of it. And so that would be perhaps an avenue we could look at. We'd need some direction where to go

I take it your inquiries have been of a private nature through your group or whatever? Yes

Well, we talked to Council about that some time ago. We talked to the girls some years ago.

Right, okay. But nothing recent?

No

Thank you for that. Thank you. And I wish you every success in

Maintaining the events. Yeah, thank you very much. Councillor Wheeler, you have a question?

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Mrs Mackenzie, do you have—you mentioned that 63%, last year 63% of participants came from neighbouring LGAs. Do you have a breakdown figures on which LGAs they came from for the last, say, two or three years?

I haven't got them on right now, but I can

Could you provide those for us? Yes, certainly. Thank you.

A lot of the groups that come come from sort of up the Windsor Road, the schools, also Richmond Road, and some from the lower Blue Mountains and Dural. So they're sort of neighbouring schools, but then there are some from further afield like Carlingford, Northmead. Yeah, I've got the information there, but not on hand right now.

Thank you. I think it might help us make a case for perhaps other councils helping out. Okay.

Sure. That would be good. Any further questions? Thank you, Mrs Mackenzie.

Thank you very much. Thank you for hearing.

The item is open for debate. Councillor Conolly. Move the recommendation. Seconded. Seconded, Councillor Rasmussen.

Councillor Conolly, you wish to speak to that? Yeah, thank you. Yes, happy to move the recommendation. I think that it's important we put the guidelines in place to make sure that ratepayers' money is going where we want it to go, and that this can be assessed objectively and to a criteria, rather than what used to happen — it hasn't happened for a couple of years — but what used to happen where we just had to make some sort of decision with no criteria whenever we got asked for help. I do think it's important. I sort of have mixed feelings about asking for negotiating third-party service agreements. Certainly with the Estedford, I think that's wise. With the women's cottage, whilst obviously they're providing a vital service and they are taking ratepayers, some ratepayers' resources, and therefore ratepayers should know what value they're getting, I do think we're sort of institutionalising some cost shifting in requiring an organisation which is providing a service that is a state government responsibility to then report back to us for our funding.

I think we're acknowledging and taking on board officially that role, whereas maybe — I mean, I understand the need to when we are giving them the funds — but our more powerful, I guess, course of action might be to try and get that funding replaced by the state government, rather than setting up a situation where they're always going to be reporting to us as an expectation; it's our responsibility. Having said that, I don't think any ratepayers would object to, one, council property being used for that purpose, but it doesn't mean that the state government shouldn't have to fund that service either.

Councillor Ross. Thank you, Mayor.

There...

There appear to be some problems with the document itself, in that there's a

Very strong reference to charities. Now , charities are legally different to registered organisations. Charities are nationally legislated, and registered organisations are legislated by the state. The way, and I know this is not the intent of the document, the way it appears is that we're going to be blocking out all registered organisations of whatever size if we're talking about charities. And we need to be able to have the flexi— I believe the Council needs to have the flexibility to possibly broaden that scope there. The other thing about which I was not happy about with the business paper is that I don't believe that the 15 points which were mentioned in the so-called discussion paper of 2006 have been advised us.

Now, if they were the result of a serious level of work by staff and so on, I think we should have been appraised of that before we sat down and looked at this tonight. And in the general regard, I would, with your indulgence, propose that we— defer putting this document out into the public arena until we look at it somewhat more closely and try and define things better, and possibly even define the areas in which Council may be interested in supporting its generosity. You're moving for a deferment? I would, if I can find a seconder, sir, on the floor.

Is there a seconder? Doesn't look like it. Thank you.

Okay, I'll have to make a public submission myself then.

The matters you raised just a few minutes ago, I will regard those as questions and see if the general manager can provide an answer, Mr. Littman.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. There are two documents that have been reported to Council. The first is the draft Community Sponsorship Strategy, which makes no differentiation between registered charities and incorporated associations. I think the document that you were referring to, Councilor Ross, are the guidelines for Council sponsoring fundraising appeals and National Awareness Day events, which does stipulate that Council should only consider those from registered charities. So the draft sponsorship strategy doesn't prevent incorporated bodies or other organisations from applying for sponsorship. The guidelines that you're referring to are simply trying to, I guess, provide some guidance to Council about how Council could go about sponsoring national events that are proposed by local organisations acting on behalf of national organisations So the simple answer is that the Community Sponsorship Strategy doesn't prevent anyone from applying for sponsorship.

The draft guidelines really relate to a specific issue in relation to Council's support of nationally recognised events. And the second part of the question around the 15 principles, they have been previously reported to Council in conjunction with the Community Sponsorship Program on a couple of occasions in the last two or three years, but I can certainly make those available to you if you wish. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank

You . Councillor Ross.

Would it be, in order to ask a further question, please?

I suppose so.

I'd like to inquire as to what would be the situation of unregistered groups seeking benevolence from Council in these matters.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Council ordinarily requires that if an organisation is seeking sponsorship, it should be an incorporated association with the relevant insurances. We do provide minor sponsorship to unregistered organisations, but the maximum available is $750.

Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I suspect that there are members in the gallery listening on who think that there's something at least a little bit absurd about the idea that when we appoint a third party to manage a facility for us, such as the Function Centre, and if we want to give our support for a community event to occur in a council-owned building, is that we have to go through this process of allowing our third-party representative to charge commercial rates and then we pay ourselves the money to allow that to go ahead at a subsidised rate. And I've got two questions. One is, must it be a feature of the way in which we allow a third party to run the Function Centre for us, is that we just have to go through that rather Byzantine process?

Could it be a feature of the way in which we permit that operator to run the facility for us is that we just say that for certain major community events, we have dibs on it? And that we could short circuit that process. The second question relates to the numbers that were quoted to us for the rental of the function centre. If in past years council sponsorship was about $22,000 and the overall rental costs permitted that to be met with a shortfall of only about $5,000, and that if it's now risen to over $40,000, that suggests to me that the rates that we are permitting to be charged for that facility is not only freezing out this community organisation, but may also be reducing the appeal of the venue as a whole.

Is it true to say, on the basis of these figures, that the rental costs of our function centre have risen, you know, between 50 and 80 percent? Because that would seem to be a suggested consequence of what we're hearing. General Manager.

Mr Mayor, the function centre is a commercial asset. It's not a community asset. It's not a community hall. It's a commercial asset, and council's made a decision to invest its funds in this commercial asset rather than invest them in shares or fixed interest accounts or things like that. So it's actually an income-generating asset, and there's an obligation on council to maximise the income from its commercial assets. If we were to do anything other than that, we would be short-changing the community in the process. When we take a commercial asset out to the market, we take it out... And give the market the opportunity to work the way it sees best. And on that basis, it makes a commercial payment to us. If we want to start

Constructing how that commercial operator should operate, that will impact on the return. So again, it's like accepting a lower level of interest on an investment. If we want to have a community event, then it needs to be in a community facility, or else Council needs to pay the cost of that community event in that commercial facility. That's the position that we're in .

With respect, Mr Mayor, that answers the first part of my question. The second relates to the implication, based on these figures, that the rates that we're charging have sharply increased.

Mr General Manager.

So, Mr Mayor, that's the lease arrangements. We entered into a lease arrangement with the previous operator. They were given a five plus five plus five lease or something like that, which is five years over three terms. And there are very limited opportunities for us to interfere in that process. So the previous operator found a purchaser for their lease. We are pretty much obliged to agree to that transfer, and likewise, the operator is at liberty to operate the premises to the best commercial advantage they can achieve.

So, with your indulgence, Mr Mayor, my last question would therefore be, if Council decided to increase its quantum of financial support to the Estedford from $22,000 to, say, $32,000 in order to help them meet the increasing gap between the rental cost and our support. Are we still effectively paying ourselves that money? Does that increased quantum of support percolate back to us?

Mr Mayor, it does. In the term used by Councillor Zambrano, it does percolate back to us. We end up paying that contribution. And again, I would caution us against making decisions on the run. If we're going to invest in a particular event, we should make sure that we get bang for our buck. So there should be a process that we go through to ensure that we are getting a good return on any investment we make in a community event. That's what we do for other community events. We should do the same with anything else.

Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Ross, you've already spoken, but I'll—

I'm just wondering if I could seek clarification from the General Manager, please. You sure can. Is it a question? It's a question. Yes, it is. The former councillor mentioned that

A $10,000 increment in a council contribution percolates back to council. And I understood that you indicated that it would percolate back to council, but surely that's not the case. There is a lease with the operator of the function centre, and they pay us a fixed rate of rental. And the operator of the function centre makes their own commercial arrangements about how much they charge Party A, Party B, or whoever it is that wishes to use their facility. Is that correct?

Yes, that's correct. So, just to be clear, so if we're going to increase the contribution to offset the increase in costs— At the facility, that cost will come back to Council to carry that increase

Any further speakers? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor.

Several things. I think this is an excellent document, and I want to commend Mr Litwins on its preparation, particularly the preamble. I often find those things overly sentimental, a little bit too cheery, and quite plastic, frankly. And this preamble isn't. I think it's quite frank in mentioning the Hawkesbury's limitations, but also deals with our expectations and the character of the Hawkesbury in a very unsentimental but well phrased method. And I really want to commend him on that. It's a lovely introduction. There are a few typos, which I'm sure the usual suspects will find when it goes out to public exhibition. The matrix, I think, is particularly good, and I know Mr Litwins borrowed it from another document, but it is particularly good.

I think it's an excellent idea to include the links in the assessment matrix so that people can click through and see the documents that sit behind it so that they can meet those requirements . That makes life much easier for time-strapped volunteers. Regarding the estedford, I think Councillor Zampronio is correct. If we're— If we're continually funding these increases in rent to a private operator, we're actually not sponsoring the Astedford; we're sponsoring the private operator of the function centre. And we can't sustain that in the long term. And we really do have to look at how sustainable that is. To see that the rent is increasing in this manner is quite scary, and it's really not sustainable for this council.

I presume that council's rental return on the facility has increased exponentially as well. I very much doubt it. It would be nice, but I think we're being fleeced. Regarding the women's cottage, I want to thank Maria for coming and detailing the service that the women's cottage provides and what it means to this community. Councillor Payne tried to get better subsidy of the women's cottage rent for a number of years. The Greens took the policy of free rent for the women's cottage to the council election, and we met with the women's cottage prior to that to see what this would mean to the service. And I'm delighted to see that it's done everything I hoped for and a lot more. But what we have here is a story of enormous need in this community, and I think we really do have to acknowledge that we don't have a women's refuge and that we don't have adequate services for women and children still living in violence, and they must be our immediate priority if we're going to look for additional funding via the state government.

I want to acknowledge Councillor Connolly's comments that this is, to a degree, cost shifting, and it is. But I think to make the women's cottage rent the priority for seeking funding would be the wrong thing to do. This is a council building. I think we can suck this up in the interim. Our priority has to be getting a refuge and some support for women who are still living with violence.

This is a wonderful service. It does, it means a great deal to the women of the community. It does far more than just provide somewhere for women to go for counselling. It provides safety and a safe place for women in the community, women who are not free, many of them, to even acknowledge the difficulties that they live with. And I think council should be really proud that we can provide this. We should never be seeking commercial rent from a service that provides this for the community. I think it's an excellent idea to take the funding of the women's cottage out of the community sponsorship system. It ended up there because we had to make a quick decision in a council meeting to stop the push to charge commercial rent.

It was one of the first actions of a very new council, and I think it presented a very clear change in direction for what that new council wanted for this community. And I'm very proud of the decision that this council took. So I'm pleased to see that this has provided necessary security for the women's cottage and allowed them to build on that. But I think putting this into a clear, accountable and secure stream of funding will also— Make that more secure in the long term for the women's cottage. Thank you. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I largely echo what Councillor Wheeler has just said regarding that. I did have a question regarding point four in the recommendation about Council commencing the consultation. Could somebody just tell me what this would involve and whether the councillors would have any participation in the consultation process? Mr

Luke.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. The consultation would be basically around trying to document the existing outcomes of the operations of the cottage and the estate that, I guess, are supported by Council's sponsorship, and then using that as a starting point for determining or ratifying that so that- Every year that the outcomes can be reported back to Council in terms of the outcomes achieved from Council sponsorship. Initially, I suspect that the negotiations and consultations would occur between Council staff and the representatives of the cottage in the estate, but obviously it's Council's will if it seeks to involve councillors in those negotiations and consultations. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Litwin. It would be good, I think. I think that because we took this conscious decision to go down that path, I also agree with Councillor Conolly that we should be pressuring the State Government for more funding, possibly for both events. I would think that the State should be putting something into the cultural aspect of the estate as well, certainly for the Women's Cottage. But I also think that with the Women's Cottage, it would be very nice to have some form of bringing the community in. It is a community facility, and whereas there's a lot of aspects of privacy and so on connected to it, I think that through the councillors, because obviously $75,000 is not going to do a huge amount, I did have discussions, former Councillor Payne and I had discussions years ago about a community involvement in upgrading the building and so on, and there was a lot of goodwill out in the community.

So I'm just hoping that at some point, without it being a full community consultation, we can get those ideas discussed within here so that we can have some input into how maybe some ideas of how those sort of things can be progressed forward. As well as what the staff would negotiate. I think with the estedford, there's some huge opportunities. As Mrs McKenzie identified, it's being utilised by people far and wide, largely because of the loss of estedfords and because, of course, they rely on the wonderful volunteers who run them, and they're being lost in other areas. And so, for the young people who benefit from the opportunity to perform and to get some feedback on their performance, and especially the schools and so on, it is a wonderful thing that we're providing.

But I also think it's very open to other forms of sponsorship and so on to boost it into an even bigger event than what it is. So I just don't want—I'm assuming any consultation, any report would come back to councillors. But I think because I know a number of councillors are very interested in both these sort of aspects, that it would be wonderful if we could have sort of some input or an opportunity to input into the direction that they are being taken in in the future. Thanks.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Councillor Ross, another question?

Yes, three, I'm sorry. The first question is in relation to the premises and the lease. Would I be correct in believing that the lessee is responsible for the cost of supply of services such as electricity?

General Manager . Mr Mayor,

Which premises were you talking about? The venue used for the Estedford. Sorry.

I don't have the lease here to go through that, but I believe that the tenant is responsible for outgoings and for maintenance of the building. Right, okay.

Next question. The reason for asking that was to possibly indicate that because of the substantial power cost increases that Council's incurred, it may be commensurate with the premises up the road. The second question is, if I could through you, sir, to ask the Council Officer if he would be kind enough to supply the 15 points raised earlier out of the 2006 matter to be forwarded to us individually by email.

General Manager. Yes, Mr Mayor, we can do that.

Thank you very much. Now, the next element of the questioning is in regard to our folk at the Estedford. Would it be possible for Council staff, with the participation of Mrs Mackenzie, to— Have assistance in firstly going forward with a document for incorporation, which is a very standard form of document anyway, which Department of Fair Trading provide, and secondly, would it be also possible that we could impose upon council staff, even at this juncture, to keep a weatherly eye out for possible grants that may be available either through State or Commonwealth or other means, please. General Manager.

We would have to be careful in terms of getting into providing legal advice. There are—we don't have any in-house lawyers, and sometimes there can be subtleties in these things, and I think we have to be very careful if we start providing detailed advice on such matters. Again, there's a web page—there's a couple of web pages that have access to current grants that are available, and if the Assetford aren't aware of those, we could certainly pass those details on

Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Reynolds. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Sorry, Councillor Reynolds. Oh, sorry.

I think a question probably for Mr Organ. Maria from the Women's Cottage mentioned that they had to pay for, I think she said, for repairs to the electricity power board. Why would this be the case when it's a lease arrangement, and I thought the council would normally carry the cost of maintenance?

Refer that to the General Manager, please.

We'll have to take that on notice. We don't have that answer at the moment tonight. Thank you.

Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yeah, well, thank you, Councillor Reynolds. I was going to follow up with that question as well, so I'd be interested to hear the answer to that because it seems an odd one. I'm just wondering with the— well, let me take the women's cottage first. I think Anne have done, for many, many years now, done a great job, and as has been mentioned here before, you know, there is unfortunately a very sad need for several more of these in our area. And as Councillor Connelly said, fundamentally and strategically wise, it is a state government responsibility. But for years and years and years, we have not been successful in getting the state government to honour that responsibility which they have in our area.

Anyway, council has stepped in over many years now and has obviously filled the breach, and I think rightly so, but that shouldn't stop us from really putting in big effort to make the point that cost shifting— no, it is no wonder the state government can build up big surpluses if these sorts of things are shifted to local rate payers. And I think it's time we did something really serious other than simply writing some letters and saying, please, you know, please listen to us. I mean, we've done that, as far as I know, for 23 years now, and it hasn't worked. So there's no point keep doing the same thing because you get the same result. So sooner or later, we're going to have to break the nexus on this and do something different, hopefully to achieve a different result.

Now, I don't intend to sit here for another 23 years waiting for the same outcome with the same result, with the same outcome with the same action . So it'd be really nice if we could resolve, as a council, that we will do something about this, take some different action other than write letters. So that's my first plea. So let's work on that. And I'm sure Councillor Conolly, by the sound of it, will, with me, lead the push on this. And we both together will work hard to achieve that. Thank you. And I'm sure every other councillor will join in. Now, the Eisteddfod , I'm just wondering whether— well, there are a number of issues here. Firstly, as most of us all know, because most of us will get it on a regular basis dropped into our email box, the federal member has, all federal members, as I understand it, have an amount of money equal to about $ 150,000, as I recall it.

There's an equal and similar amount, I think, at the state member level, something similar to that. And I'm sure, and I know this happens regularly with other groups that I'm associated with, you simply apply and if you're lucky, you will get some money. And it may only be five, might only be $10,000, but that may make the difference in this case so that the Eisteddfod doesn't have to close. Sixty-eight-year-old Eisteddfod, my goodness, that's a long record. Proud, lovely record. It doesn't have to close down. The last thing I want to just mention here is that I'm just wondering whether the Eisteddfod could come under Council's insurance policies. I know that other volunteer groups have recently been incorporated to operate within Council's insurance policies, so I'm just wondering whether we could save them, I think Mrs McKenzie said that that's costing around about a thousand, maybe thereabouts, a year, so maybe that's a possibility for saving this group about a thousand bucks.

I don't know whether the ins and outs of Council's insurance policy will allow it, but I do know that other volunteer groups have come under Council's insurance policies, and maybe this is a case where it could be done as well.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen. Any further speakers?

Councillor Conolly, you want right

Of reply? Just quite briefly. I think obviously it seems like it's going to be successful. Just want to clarify, in case I was not clear, I wasn't suggesting we don't continue the funding of the Women's Cottage. I guess point four says that we're going to start, we're going to commence consultation. I think that's fine to commence consultation. I was more just flagging that I don't know that it's a good idea that Council requires the Women's Cottage to report to us on that funding, whether we want to put ourselves in that position. That's all that I meant by that, and at that time that they're going to spend reporting and we're going to spend reporting on it might be better spent lobbying. But that's all I wanted to clarify. Okay,

Thank you. That was right of reply. I'll put the motion. All those in favour say aye. Those against? One against, declare it carried, nine.

Converts to one. The next item for public discussion is item 69, and our first speaker is Nicole Mulford.

Good evening, Mr Mayor and Councillors. My name is Nicole Mulford and I'm the President of the Parent Committee of Greenhills Child Care Centre. I've had a long connection with the Hawkesbury community. I started my education journey at Windsor Preschool before attending Freemans Reach Public School, then Hawkesbury High School. I'm currently a high school teacher and I also serve as the President of the Hawkesbury Sister Cities Association. I feel conflicted about being here today to speak to a recommendation that I cannot wholeheartedly see as being in the best interest of my children's centre. In the many discussions I've had with the Director and Parent Committee of Greenhills, I can't help but feel like Council has let the community down in this process.

My association with Greenhills began in 2014 when my eldest daughter commenced at five months of age. People advised me that I needed to get in early while pregnant to secure a spot. I went to a number of centres in my local area where I had a tour, put my daughter on the waiting list prior to her birth. If I were to be perfectly honest, Greenhills was not on the top of my list. In fact, I didn't even look at it. My experience of Greenhills having driven past it regularly was that it appeared run down and dirty. I looked into Greenhills on the recommendation of a friend who had three children there. It was the only centre that got back to me with a position, and it was the only one within the area that opened early enough for me.

I called other centres hoping for something to become available, but for me to return to work, going to Greenhills was the only option for us. Having said that, my husband and I have been nothing less than impressed with the quality of care and service provided for our two daughters. As a parent returning to work, you cannot help but feel the guilt of leaving your children in the care of others. And it wasn't until they had grown and were old enough to speak for themselves that we could truly allay this guilt. To pick them up each afternoon and listen to the way they spoke with great delight about their teachers and what they've done for them was the ultimate reassurance. To walk into a centre where every member of staff knows you and your child, regardless of whether they teach them or not, was reassuring.

And to know that the staff are so happy with their workplace that the turnover of staff is minimal and our child was getting a consistent experience was reassuring. To hear from friends now who take their children out of the area because they drive past Greenhills and, much like I had to start off with, judge the appearance of the centre rather than the quality of care that it provided is incredibly disappointing. In considering Council's proposal, the biggest consideration of our staff and committee has been the additional burden this would mean for families. In a low socio-economic area where many of the children are from split families, in care or requiring additional support, the primary concern during this process has always been what these changes would mean for the families of the centre.

Any increase in fees could for some be the difference between their child being able to attend the centre or not. As a not-for-profit centre, keeping the fees affordable is at the forefront of the management of the centre. However, it was also about making sure that the children of the area were given the best possible opportunities, and for some of these children, their ability to attend the centre, at least we knew they could be safe. As a resident of the Hawkesbury, I was delighted last year when I received the Community Report of July to see that Greenhills was on the list of building improvements as part of the 2018-19 works. $2.2 million allocated across seven community facilities. I was excited by the prospect that Council was looking to invest in much-needed upgrades to the centre, and hoped this might be enough to allow people to see the exterior of Greenhills reflecting the quality of the interior.

To date, there has been nothing provided by Council by means of building improvement. At the centre's expense, we committed to renovating the outdoor play area, and this was supported through a substantial grant from the local member, Susan Templeman. The building itself is in still dire need of repair, including new flooring, paint, and yet, with the proposals, these things will become the responsibility of the centre through the sinking fund.

For me, I am very confident that I made the right choice in sending my children to Greenhills. The community-minded nature of the centre has given my children so much understanding of social issues. For them to come home and tell me about the first Australians and recite the acknowledgment of country. For them to come home and ask if they can take in some food for our soldiers, or some Play-Doh for sick kids, or making craft and flowers to send to the elderly. The sense of community created within the centre has been one of the most satisfying aspects of my children's attendance there. I feel saddened that Council has not taken into consideration the needs of the community in making the recommendations, and I feel saddened that for some children these changes may be the difference between them being able to access the centre or not.

But rather than close by making a last-ditch effort for you to reconsider the position, I would rather thank the staff, not just of Greenhills but of all the other centres, for everything that they've done for our children, the presence of the directors here today in advocating for their centres, and the work they've done over many months in looking out for the best interests of our centres can't go unrecognised. And I'm sure I speak for the other families of my centre and those others in saying that every day these staff go beyond to make sure that our children are given the best possible start.

Thank you . Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Are you happy to answer any questions?

I can try.

Are there any questions? Looks like there aren't any. Thank you. Our next speaker is Danielle Shepherd.

Mr. Mayor, Councillors, thank you for the opportunity to address Council in regards to the proposed sinking fund and lease agreements to be made with our community early education and care services. My name is Danielle Shepherd and I'm the Director at Hobartville Long Day Preschool. The directors and management committees of Golden Valley Children's Centre, Greenhills Child Care Centre, Hobartville Long Day Preschool, McGraths Hill Children's Centre, Elizabeth Street Preschool, Richmond Preschool, Kindergarten, Wilberforce Early Learning, and Windsor Preschool wish to extend their appreciation to Council for allowing us to have the time to consider budgets, communicate to our parent community the changes that will be taking place, and design a proposal for Council's consideration that will facilitate the continuity and longevity of non-for-profit community early education and care in the Hawkesbury.

The purpose of negotiating long-term lease agreements and lower equitable sinking fund payments is to allow our services to reasonably cover the ongoing costs of maintenance and repair in a manner exclusive to each individual service, while ensuring financial longevity and continued service to the Hawkesbury community. The amounts initially proposed by Council for services to pay into a sinking fund far exceeded what services can realistically afford, and it is important for Council to be aware over the past two years there has been a significant decrease in the occupancy in some services, and the profit reflected in the audits used to determine the services. To determine what services can afford for the sinking fund is not a true indicator of current financial positions.

Implications for services have included a reduction in educator numbers, support staff, additional needs children, essential resources and cleaners, resulting in services, namely its overloaded employees, being put under pressure to continue to provide high quality education and care on tight budgets. The additional cost of the sinking fund has necessitated a rise in parental fees, which may result in reduced opportunities for children to attend early education services. Management committees are concerned it may become unachievable in the long term to remain financially viable in a sector that is demanding, highly regulated and rapidly becoming competitive, while providing high quality education and care at a low cost to families under the banner of community based not for profit.

Aside from this, we acknowledge that Hawkesbury City Council has generously provided buildings for early education and care rent free to the Hawkesbury community for a long time. We have been privileged with a rare arrangement, and as such the community has benefited in many ways, including providing primary support networks for families in need, increased learning outcomes for all children, affordable and high quality childcare, and a sense of community spirit. It should be noted that the directors of the affected early education and care services have reached out to councillors to invite you to meet with us and discuss the position of each service. We had hoped to facilitate a meeting, however, we endeavour to continue amicable relationships with council during further negotiations and will continue to provide the best services we can to the Hawkesbury community for as long as we can while entering into workable agreements with council.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms Sheppard. Are you happy to answer any questions?

Yeah.

Are there any questions? Councillor Wheeler. Thanks

Mr Mayor. Ms Sheppard, what sort of fee increases are you looking at to accommodate this additional cost?

When we first came and addressed Council last year, we immediately put up our fees by $3 for this year. However, my management committee is now considering putting them up another $5 halfway through the year to accommodate when the payments need to start. No one could have foreseen the low rate of occupancy that we've experienced this year. So the $3, while it sounds minimal, it hasn't really cut it for us this year, so we're having to put other strategies in place.

At $3 a day

Yes. So it's gone up from 95 to 98, and we'll have to go up another between 4 and 5, depending on what my management committee decide, for July to accommodate the extra payments that we're going to make.

Sorry

I'm a bit out of the childcare cost realm these days. How much of that does the average family pay as a cost, direct cost, and how much beyond the rebate?

So the average family in my service is paying around $40 a day. That's a very rare occasion that somebody is getting 100%, because we have at least 98% of our families are working families.

Thank you. Any further questions? Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Ms Sheppard, is there a specific reason why you've got a low occupancy rate? Is that to do with the fee increase? Is that what you meant, or you've just got just the changing dynamic or something?

There has been some changing in funding for the childcare sector that may have made a small impact. But otherwise, I really can't put my finger on it. For all the advertising and everything that we've done and the goodwill in the community, and I know there is a need for childcare, but perhaps families are feeling the pinch and, you know, with lots of— Elections and things happening this year, perhaps that's making people rethink being able to afford childcare. I can't put a finger on it for everything that I've tried to do.

Any further questions? Councillor Rasmussen. Yeah

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Ms Shepherd, thanks very much for that. It's a good presentation, I appreciate it. Can you elaborate a little bit more on your occupancy? What sort of capacity drop is it? Are you half full or quarter full or 10% full?

We're at about 70%.

So you're down 30%? Yeah

So we work on a 30... We're licensed for 40 children. We work on a budget for 36 and we're currently sitting at 32.

Okay.

So we're about 70% occupancy.

Right. Is that a trend that's happening over time or is it just recently?

It's happened in the last two years. Two

Years.

Yeah. I do believe something like this has happened about 10 years ago, and I don't know why I wasn't in this position then, so I can't tell you why that might have happened or even guess towards it, but this trend has sort of happened in the last two years.

Maybe we need a baby bonus. That'd

Be lovely, for some families I'm sure.

Any further questions? Doesn't look like it. Thank you very much. Thanks. That's the last of our speakers. The matter is open for debate.

Anyone care to move something?

Councillor Rasmussen, you're moving the recommendation, I believe. Move the

Recommendation, Mr Mayor.

Do we have a seconder? Councillor Conolly. Would you like to speak to it, Councillor Rasmussen?

No, Mr Mayor, I really don't think so. I think we've been through it many times.

Are there any other speakers? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Can I just ask when the. .. This may have to be a question on notice, I’m not sure. When are we expecting to do that work to the Green Hills Child Care Centre?

General Manager?

I’d have to take it on notice. The amount that’s allocated this year, I think, was for air conditioning renewal, so I’m not sure that work’s been undertaken. There are longer-term plans, so I’m not sure what’s being referred to, but we can certainly find out and get some more detail.

Could you perhaps send that directly to Green Hills so that they’re aware of that and don’t have to chase back through our papers? Yes, Mr Mayor.

I hear what the parents and the operators are saying about increased costs, and it is really regrettable. Families really are feeling the pinch, and child care is— child care, I think, is often perceived as a luxury, and what we’ve heard today is it’s very much a necessity. It’s a necessity for kids in terms of social interaction and early learning opportunities, but it’s also a necessity for parents who simply have to go to work in the current economic climate. It would be lovely to think that everybody could make a choice about whether they sent their kids to child care or not, and that simply isn’t the case. I handed my son over at three months old, and I know exactly what you say about the guilt that you then carry all day.

And it's really, really important to know that you're leaving a child with people who care about them. And I really appreciate that comment about continuity and the effects of that on children. This has been a hard decision, I think, for Council to make, but we have to make these facilities sustainable in the long term because the alternative is that we don't keep them. And many councils have gone down that path where they've privatised all of their childcare, and I think that would be really regrettable. I know that childcare isn't felt by many to be a core Council responsibility, and I disagree with that. I have still have, at the ripe old age of 49, I still have very good memories as a three- and four-year-old of my Blacktown Council-funded childcare centre at Leila Park, and it was so good that I still remember it all these years on.

And people travel a long way, as my mum did, to get me into that centre. I think that these are, as we've heard from Mrs Shepherd, some of the benefits that come from these centres make these really core facilities in our community. And it's a bit like the women's cottage and the Stedford, you know, there's not a direct economic benefit to Council, but the benefits to the community and the ongoing benefits to the Hawkesbury are enormous. And I think we're making a hard decision so that we can keep these facilities long term. It's disappointing that it's resulting in a rise in fees for parents, and I think that's really regrettable. But I can't. I know we've kicked this around for a long time, and I don't see an alternative.

And so I'm reluctantly supporting the recommendation.

Councillor Ross. Thank you.

I'm not in favour of the motion.

The reasons for that are as follows. I believe we haven't been given clarification in regard to some aspects, particularly in regard to Green Hills and its arrangements with Council, as were indicated earlier in a memo earlier this year.

I'm not happy with the contractual arrangements regarding the repairs and maintenance situation

It seems to me that with the Council potentially losing control of that, that the level of satisfaction and the degree of surety that Council has that, if you like, registered contractors would be engaged on site is outside of Council's direct influence.

And I see that as creating a risk that need not be there.

I'm not sure about all of the insurance arrangements as to whether they've been fully and adequately covered. I'm also not very enthused at the thought that, to my understanding, the properties and their status

Are not 100% clear. And I'm also not happy that , as part of this process, I believe that council staff ought to have looked at all opportunities in terms of council structures in and around those areas

Which may be potentially also appropriate for that use, and that we ought to have had some feedback on that. I may be

Whistling in the dark there somewhat, but I think we all are, and I don't think that that's a proper basis upon which to make decisions. I'm also not happy about the leasing term. The three-year lease initially I'm quite content with, but a 21-year extension just seems to be way, way out of court in terms of anyone's understanding as to what may happen in the intervening period, and it seems like a remarkable commitment on both sides. And I think we also have to be mindful of the fact that these are community people. And that it's not purely a straight-out commercial transaction. This has to be a transaction in which there is a commercial element, there's no doubt about that, but we also have to be mindful of our own community.

And I just feel that those things are requiring of further work. Now, I'm also wanting to say that I applaud the amount of work that's been done, the degree of negotiation and discussion that's occurred on both sides. And to the last speaker who, Danielle, who raised the matter of discussing these things with councillors, we're rather restricted somewhat, and we have to maintain a degree of circumspection on all these sort of matters that have financial implications and so on. And I hope you can respect that. Thank you.

Any further speakers?

No? Go, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just to bring up something which Councillor Ross just mentioned, it was my reading of the terms of the lease that it's only discussions once the lease is executed regarding the term to go to 21 years. I don't think that's set in stone, and I believe that that was requested by the childcare centres. Is that correct?

Mr Liddwin.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yes, the initial lease period term is three years, and as you've indicated, that will provide the opportunity to discuss a longer-term lease, which would then be subject to Council's approval.

Thank you. Thank you. On that note, I'd just like to say, like Councillor Wheeler, it is unfortunate that we do have to go down this path somewhat, although of course we have to for long-term sustainability. I thank the speakers for giving us an insight, particularly from the different perspectives, particularly the first speaker who of course made that very important point that just because something may not be the best, you know, glossy facade, what's behind it is that they're getting good quality childcare. And I think that that's a really pleasing thing to hear, and I hope that the upgrades will be done to enable that centre to have a better external thing, but it's really encouraging to hear how well it operates and the other centres.

And I thank them all for the wonderful job they do in the early childhood sector, and hope that this can turn out to be a very, that it does give the longevity of the childcare provision in this area because we know how important it is, and hopefully there'll be ongoing dialogue and that we do get to hear about how well it's all progressing and so on. So thank you for coming to speak tonight.

Thank you.

Any further speakers? No. Councillor Rasmussen, you wish to exercise your right of reply?

No thanks, Mr Mayor.

I'll put the motion then. All those in favour say aye. Aye. Those against? Declare it carried, nine votes to—

One. Thank you. We now move on to items on block. Would someone like to move that? Moved, Mr Mayor. Seconded, Deputy Mayor. All those in favour say aye. And the item for discussion is item 67, asset management. Councillor Ross, I believe you wanted to...

You want to move something on that, Councillor?

Yes, if I could please, might I suggest the following.

Perhaps, should I read?

Yes, please.

Point one. That all fixed and intangible assets of Council and related entities be subject to annual valuation by appropriately qualified valuers. Point two. Depreciation expense to be determined on the basis of, in inverted commas, condition assessment, close inverted commas, of those assets. Point three. Appropriate written terms of engagement be provided in each instance, informed by approval of the Auditor General's agent charged with conduct of Council's financial audit. Point four. Terms to include recommended rates or rates of depreciation to be assigned to each class or subclass of asset, having regard to the condition, state, efficiency, sorry, efficacy, utilisation and any other relevant factor of impairment.

Five. Management arrange for annual engagement of valuers such that their recommendations are able to be reported to Council in time for inclusion in the audited financial reports of Council. And six. Council will be informed of this process henceforth unless a subsequent resolution. With contrary intent is adopted.

Thank you. Do we have a seconder for that?

Do you want to read it first? Yes, we'll read it first. I'm sorry

Mr Mayor, could I ask a question while we're waiting? You certainly can. I had a couple of questions. Maybe we could use this time. On page 18, in the table at the top of the page, so number one still, in the legislative and accounting standard requirements, there's a statement that says, Council should document their annual assessments of fair value, including reasons why Council concluded that carrying value was not materially different from fair value where applicable. It doesn't say where that requirement comes from, if that is a legislative requirement

Or some other requirement.

Ms Gulia?

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Yeah, you are correct. It is not a legislative requirement, but it's something that the New South Wales Audit Office have advised all councils that they need to do.

Okay. So my question then is, in the next column over, Council staff are currently in the process of documenting the procedure and assessing whether there is any indication that an asset class is materially different from fair value reporting date. It would seem that that requirement, therefore, has not been met to date. Is that correct?

Thanks, Mr Mayor. So that requirement was identified in the management letter issued by the Audit Office. So we do have to address it, otherwise it's going to appear again next year. So with the change in audit office, we are finding that across all councils sort of they're enhancing the requirement over and above what's required.

When we're talking—another question, if that's okay. When we're talking about asset classes, how many asset classes would be on council books?

Like ballpark, like, is alright.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'll probably send around a more formal answer, but there's about six off the top of my head. I'll send around a more accurate answer.

Any more questions, Council? I

Did have one more question, if

That's okay.

In row two, in the third column, it says the calculation of depreciation using the straight line method is based on the replacement cost of the asset and the remaining useful life, the remaining life being a reflection of the asset's condition.

Having read that, does that suggest that the depreciation charge could be more than the original cost of the asset?

Mr Goya.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. So because the depreciation is worked out on the replacement cost, when we replace the asset, a new depreciation amount is generated each time. So it shouldn't be the case that depreciation is more than the replacement cost. That shouldn't be the case.

Right. So it's not that we're reassessing the replacement cost or the useful life. We set that at the start, yeah? Thanks

Mr Mayor. Yes, that's correct.

Thank you. We all had time to read the motion now.

Did anyone require extra time?

Would someone like to second the motion? Just a question

Regarding the order of the motion.

No

We need a seconder before we discuss the motion. No , it's not discussing the motion; it's whether the motion's in order. Whether it's what? In order. Okay. I would have thought you would require a point seven of where that 200,000 comes from to do the work, because in the report it says it would cost 200,000 to document and revalue every asset class. Surely the motion would need to say where that money would

Come from. That would be what's required usually. General Manager, do you have a comment on that?

It's always difficult when motions are moved on the floor like this and there's no opportunity to discuss them. The normal process is that if there was a cost, you'd be looking to identify how that cost could be covered. With the new code, there's a greater obligation on Council to ensure that any motions have a funding consideration in them. The 200,000 will be a real cost, and we would have to explore

Opportunities to find that funding. Still looking for a seconder. If there isn't one, the motion will lapse. Okay, motion lapses for lack of seconder. Would someone else like to move something? Yes, Councillor Conolly.

I'd like to move the recommendation with a point, so point one, that Council receive and note this report, but then add a point two that a report come to Council in

I don't know what, maybe not a timeframe, but in regards to addressing those management points, that a report come to Council to give an update on when that process has been established and what it is.

To the manager, is that clear?

That's clear. There will be a report coming back to the Audit Committee on some of these matters as well, which will come to the Council, but we are happy to keep Council abreast of developments.

Okay. Do we have a seconder for that? Councillor Wheeler. Councillor Conolly, you wish to talk on it? No. Any speakers?

I guess you don't want right of reply either. No. In that case, I'll move the motion. All those in favour say aye. Those against? One against. Declare it carried.

Nine votes to one.

We now move to questions, I believe. Questions on questions. Does anyone have any questions on questions? Councillor Sam Brogner.

In relation to questions on questions, I simply wanted to place on the record

The point that, in relation to the preschool DA in Smith Road, Oakville, that it's my understanding that we only favoured this development because it included those roadworks, and I just wanted that statement to be on the record.

Okay.

Any further questions on questions?

No . Questions for

The next meeting.

Councillor Richards, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Wheeler. Yes.

Yes. Could we place some bins at Hanna Park near the river, with the Wetlands Working Group council staff and the University of Western Sydney has installed some Tangler bins. They're bins specifically designed to collect fishing line, and the ones, they're working really well. But the ones at Hanna Park are being filled up with rubbish because there's no bin at that site. So if we could put some bins down there near the wharf, that might mean that we can collect fishing line as well as rubbish.

Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow.

Yes. Can we please get some advice as to whether RMS contractors have to conform with Hawkesbury City Council policy regarding rules about using vibrating equipment adjacent heritage properties? Also, can we get an update on the responses of the draft HCC management plan? Are the numbers good and are we getting much community response?

It has been reported that an abandoned vehicle in the Cable Street car park, Windsor, it's been there for approximately 12 months. About six weeks ago, a notice of removal sticker was applied to the vehicle stating that it will be removed by council within 24 hours. It's still there. Can we please advise when this vehicle will be removed? And lastly, I think, can we please request council staff to remind the religious group in Windsor Mall that's regularly there. They're feeding the pigeons again, which is adding to council's ongoing problem.

Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yeah, Mr Mayor, I'm not sure exactly what the right term is, but the impact barrier, or the impact mechanism that sits on the end of a guardrail barrier on Old Kurrajong Road has been impacted, and I'm just wondering whether we could have a look at that. It's sort of bent out of shape a bit, a lot. That's near the polo fields down there on Old Kurrajong Road. The other question I have, Mr Mayor, is: is there any detail attached to the promise, I guess it is, of the $200 million for an alternative or a replacement bridge for the Richmond-North Richmond Bridge? And if there is any detail surrounding that $200 million from either parties, could we please be told what it is or what they are? Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor. First question: given the historic, social and economic impacts of the Windsor Bridge project, WBRP1 or whatever, what communication and/or discussions have been held between RMS and council staff regarding the interpretation plan, and specifically the community consultation held today in relation to this plan?

Have representations been made to the RMS regarding the imperative councillors as representatives of the community be included in consultations?

Were relevant staff invited? If so, how many attended, please? I'm also

Wanting to understand from

The General Manager, I think, please, Mayor, if we could have an update on

The project process progress in regard to archaeological discoveries and consequent project timeframes in relation to the interpretation plan.

And another one, which is a little bit of a worry, signage that breaches both the council signage policy and electoral signage legislation, which is under 0.8 metres, I think it is, square.

What process is there regarding the removal of those, and will some fine be attached to those in the same fashion as occurred in regard to Bilpin, which was rather notable in its occurrence? Thank you.

Is

That

It? Yes, thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ross.

Mr Mayor? Yes. Sorry, just on questions on questions, I just missed that. I'd just like to pass on thank you to the staff for the very quick response in repairing the potholes at Beaumont Avenue. It was very appreciated by the residents who had brought that to our attention. Thank you.

Thank you. No more questions? Thank you. We now move into confidential.

Moved by Councillor Rasmussen, seconded by Councillor Conolly that we do that. All those in favour say aye. Carried.

Whilst in regard to item 73, whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Wheeler, seconded by Councillor Rasmussen, that one, the information contained within the report be received and noted. Two, Council in accordance with the provisions of Section 55(3)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993 not invite public tenders due to the extenuating circumstances, and approve a further 12-month contract for the provision of commingled kerbside recycling collection and processing services with JJ Richards & Sons Proprietary Limited under the same general terms and conditions in the current contract. Three, authority be given for the contract and any other documentation in association with the matter to be executed under the seal of Council.

In regard to item 74, Council whilst in closed session resolved on the motion of Councillor Rasmussen, seconded by Councillor Wheeler, that one, Council agree to enter into a new lease with Western Sydney University for the parcel of land known as Lot 192 in Deposited Plan 729625 as outlined in the report. Two, authority be given for the lease and any other documentation in association with this matter to be executed under the seal of Council. Three, details of Council's resolution be conveyed to Western Sydney University, together with the advice that Council will not be bound by the terms of its resolution until such time as appropriate legal documentation to put such resolution into effect has been agreed to and executed by all parties.

In regard to item 75. Whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Rasmussen, seconded by Councillor Wheeler, that: 1. Council proceed to publicly exhibit the proposed deed of lease with the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Fire and Rescue NSW, for the road reserve adjoining 43 March Street, Richmond, as outlined in the report and in accordance with section 154 of the Roads Act 1993. 2. At the expiration of the public exhibition period outlined in Part 1, the following action be taken: a. Should any submissions be received regarding the proposed agreement to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Fire and Rescue NSW, a further report be submitted to Council; or b.

Should no submissions be received: 1. Council agree to enter into a new deed of lease with the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Fire and Rescue NSW in regard to the unformed road adjoining 43 March Street, Richmond, as outlined in this report. 2. Authority be given for the deed of lease and any other documentation in association with the matter to be executed under the seal of Council. 3. Details of Council's resolution be conveyed to the proposed lessee together with advice that Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of the resolution until such time as the appropriate legal documentation puts such resolution into effect as been agreed to and executed by all parties. In regard to Item 76, whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Rasmussen, seconded by Councillor Wheeler, that: 1.

Council agree to enter into a licence agreement as outlined in the report with Health and Leisure2U in regard to vacant activity room space at Peppercorn Place, 320 George Street, Windsor, for the period from 1 May 2019 to 31 December 2021. 2. Authority be given for the licence agreement and any other documentation in association with the matter to be executed under the seal of Council. 3. Details of Council's resolution could be conveyed to the proposed tenant, together with the advice that Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of the resolution until such time as the appropriate legal documentation to put such resolution into effect has been agreed to and executed by all parties.

Thank you, Mr. Mifsud. Would someone like to move we adopt the confidential report? Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Richards. All those in favour say aye. Declared carried. Is there any further business? If not, I'll close the meeting at 8:16 p.m. and hand over to the general manager.