14 May 2019 - Ordinary

Our meeting for 14th of May 2019. I'd like to acknowledge the traditional owners of this land, the Darug people, and pay respect to Elders both past and present. I'll call on the General Manager to run through some

Information for the meeting.

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 warden. I would also like to advise members of the public that in accordance with Council's Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of the Council are recorded. In the terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting of Council 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 may be addressing 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 both to 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, please?

We have apology. Councillor Tree is on leave. Yes, I believe so. And Councillor Richards has sent through her apologies.

Do we have an explanation as to why Councillor Tree is still on leave?

I thought this was still part of the time that she asked for.

So it might have expired. Is that what you're saying? I'm not sure. I just assumed— It's expired . It's expired, okay. All right, so Councillor Tree is an apology then. Councillor Richards. Mr Conroy.

Mr Mayor, I've received a request from Councillor Sarah Richards for leave of absence from council meeting tonight, 14th of May 2019.

And do we have any word from Councillor Ross? He's an apology too then. Someone like to move we accept those? Councillor Sam Brogner, Councillor Rasmussen, and all those in favour say aye. Declare it carried.

Declarations of interest, do we have any?

No. The minutes from the last meeting. Councillor Rasmussen and Deputy Mayor, you'd like to speak on the minutes, would you? No, I was just pressing to move. Okay, moved Councillor Rasmussen and seconded Deputy Mayor. All those in favour say aye. Those against, declare it carried.

We have no items subject to public address tonight, so we move straight to the Mayoral Minute. You should have had a copy of that on your desk when you came in. Hopefully you've had time to look at it.

No, can we have a couple of minutes, please?

You certainly can have a couple of minutes to look at it.

Can I ask a question while we're doing that, Mr Mayor? Please do. Through you, just to perhaps, I'm going to put this to the General Manager, but I wasn't aware of this significant change till I got your email today. Has the State Government provided any rationale in its announcement as to why this change has been put through, in terms of why they're seeking to raise this revenue in this way?

Well, I'd be happy to answer your question, but that sounds like we're moving into discussing the Mayoral Minute. I have received no justification or rationale, no.

But maybe during the discussion, the General Manager might be able to shed some more light on it.

Are we all travelling ?

Ready

Councillor Garrow, are you ready?

I want to put this Mayoral Minute forward. What it is, it's about the emergency services levy which the State Government has increased. Without any notice over the last week or so. For Hawkesbury, the increase is an increase of about 22%, taking us up to $1.064 million. Now, that increase of 22% is despite the fact that our rates are capped at 2.7%. So somehow we're supposed to be able to find this extra money at the last minute. As well as that, the notification of this came in in several ways. The first way it came through was a press release on Saturday the 4th of May, and that was the first anyone had heard about it. The second was the invoice turned up on the 7th of May. And the third thing was that the New South Wales Office of Local Government circular officially notified us on the 8th of May.

So to me, that is extremely poor consultation. It was no consultation. It was released to the press first, and then councils were told about it as an afterthought. As you all know, our budget is currently on exhibition. We've spent months, councillors and staff spent months on getting the budget correct because of the Fit for the Future program that the state government has placed upon us. And now the same state government wants us to turn around and just change the budget to be able to pay this money. It seems quite ridiculous to me that they should do this at the last minute, especially when the state government itself is going around spruiking that it's got the biggest surplus that it's ever had.

Now, if it's got such a great surplus, it could have paid this for the first year and then let us work on it for a year to get to this figure. But no, they didn't. So we're supposed to find this money, and how do we find that money? Well, you would think there's only one way we could do that, is to cut some of our services. And you all know how difficult it was in our budget to say what we're going to cut and what we weren't going to cut. But now we're faced with this as well. So to me it's ridiculous, and I'm calling on the state government to explain why there was a lack of consultation, why the timing was so bad, and make them aware of the financial consequences of this decision. And in my role as President of WesROC, I put out a press release today about this matter, which also calls on all of Western Sydney councils to also put pressure on the state government to explain the process and to make them aware of the hardship it's going to cause to local councils.

I'll put it out now for discussion. Deputy Mayor.

Mr Mayor, firstly a question to you: is WesROC meeting with the Minister for Local Government on this issue in the upcoming time, in the foreseeable future?

I got a message today that we're trying to organise a meeting in the next week or so, but it's not definite yet. But yes, we're trying to do that.

Because I would actually suggest that the recommendation include that a delegation actually approach the Minister for Local Government to discuss this, possibly with the local member or through the local member. I expect that most councils will be seeking to do similar things, and of course I imagine that Local Government NSW, after seeing their press release, that they'll be lobbying as well. But, I mean, I actually find this quite unconscionable. I think to do this just after being re-elected, with no consultation, it's extremely poor form. It's hitting our people after the government was elected on the platforms that they put forward, and when they have imposed such incredibly stringent financial constraints on us in our reporting for every financial aspect.

And we have worked, as you said, on that budget so hard, and now to be hit with an increase of 22% on something, it simply should not be accepted by us as a way that a government treats local government. It's another form of cost shifting. It's been poorly delivered and poorly, with no consultation, is really terrible. So I would ask that you strengthen the recommendation to actually ensure that we have a meeting with the Minister and the local member at the very least to express our real concerns about this and to perhaps put forward, although I doubt they would change it now, but to put forward what you suggested, that perhaps it could be something that was phased in over time with some warning, and it's the ridiculousness of having to abide by the— The rate capping and after we've had to impose an SRV to meet our infrastructure backlog and to implement a works program, to then have this foisted upon us is extremely unfair and totally unacceptable.

Could I just ask for a bit of clarification, Deputy Mayor? The delegation you're talking about, you're talking about a delegation from here, or linking up with WesROC or Greater Western Sydney? I

Think that possibly if a group, maybe WesROC, or even just simply ask any councils who are either in our RSA or perhaps the Western area or whoever, whichever mechanism sort of was able to be set up, and perhaps a representative from staff from here as well, whichever can be done. I would think leave it to your discretion to find whatever is the most appropriate, but most definitely somebody actually going and speaking to them about it.

I'm happy to add that. I was just clarifying exactly how you wanted it to work. Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I must say I agree with everything the Deputy Mayor said about this. It's just extraordinary, which leads me to my question of what happens if we can't pay this invoice, and what's the time frame on this invoice? I'm not quite sure about when we have to pay it.

General Manager . I'll answer two questions perhaps here at once. There was literally a one-page circular that went out to councillors in relation to this, and that was received on the 8th of May. Since that time, we've been trying to get further clarity on this. There's obviously a lot of work gone on in the background. For the invoices to arrive before the circular indicates there's a lot of planning gone underway. And the circular talks about three things. One is that the changes are made to bring New South Wales into line with other states. What will it mean? It will mean that the increase will include as an annual charge. And the key points are councils will be able to pay for the emergency services levy in quarterly instalments, which will lessen the impact of the increase, with the first quarterly instalment due on the 30th of September.

We'll have to budget for it in the budget. It's not going to have any change on the impact. We will have to work with, I think, as the mayoral minute says, Local Government New South Wales to see if we can get some reconsideration of this, because the increase for us is significant, but for some other councils it's four and five hundred thousand dollars. And as the mayoral minute says, most of the councils are already out on exhibition with their budgets, so it becomes very difficult to change budgets by that order when you're getting to this point in the process. So unless there's a change in government thinking, there will be an obligation on us to pay for it. We can certainly ask for a deferral, but as it stands, we will have to pay for it.

And I think the representation is a good initiative.

Thank you for that. Councillor

Cotter?

Yes. I think I'll just concur with what the Deputy Mayor said about a delegation. I think because the timeframe of this is so tight and it seems to be so unreasonable, I think that trying to have a delegation and seek a meeting face-to-face with the people responsible for this, I think, is the way forward. And, yeah, and as soon as possible, I think. So I'll leave it at that. Very disappointing. Thank you.

Councillor Conolly. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I support the intent of the motion. I was going to suggest a small change, however. When I got your email, I did do some reading around the response of other councils, and I understand that the Emergency Services funding has been increased to allow for a workers' compensation scheme for volunteer firefighters that allows the current system to properly fund that, so the volunteer and paid firefighters get workers' compensation similar to what they get in other states. So I think that is a good initiative, and it's not just being paid for by councils; they're just increasing the total size of the emergency services levy that's required. And I understand all organisations who pay into that are paying at the same percentage proportions they were before.

It's just that obviously the cost has increased. I think the real issue is that this has been done, as previous speakers have said, this has been done with a couple of days' notice when we've already prepared a budget and with no consultation. So I would suggest that we include as a point one that Council supports— The introduction of a proper workers' compensation scheme for volunteer and paid firefighters, and wants to work with the state government on a fair funding model going forward. And I point, too, that the state government should fund the increase for this year, and then go ahead with the rest of the motion as it is up there. Because I don't think we can be saying that we're not going to pay any increase if the scheme is not correct, if the scheme is not providing what it needs to provide, and it's always been funded this way.

I don't think there's any problem with it continuing to be funded in the same way. It's just that you can't just do it at the last second and expect us to be able to recoup that without any opportunity to get it back from our income sources.

I'm happy with the concept of what you put forward. The grammar doesn't fit very well, though. The stem of the recommendation is Council's express Council's concerns in relation to, so I might leave that to...

I can read something out, perhaps.

So we'd end up then with five points: the two from Councillor Conolly, the three that are here, and the one from the Deputy Mayor. And the General Manager says he's got that worked out.

So what I'll be suggesting is that it reads that Council, one, supports changes to the workers' compensation provisions in relation to volunteer firefighters; two, requests the state government to support the scheme for the first year; and three, works with Local Government NSW, other council organisations and councils to seek a meeting with the Premier and relevant Minister to express Council's concerns in relation to A, lack of consultation, B, the timing, and C, the final consequences.

Yep, I'm happy with that. Deputy Mayor?

I just had a question about whether we really should be supporting something of which we have no information. I'm happy, of course, to support a workers' compensation scheme, but I would actually like to see what it is and what's proposed and what responsibility that puts on us. Of course, I think it's a great thing for volunteer firefighters, but I think before giving our support, I could put support in principle maybe, but I would certainly not want to support it in case it came back and it was something that was, you know, something that we didn't agree with or that we couldn't financially support.

My understanding is it already exists, but I'll hand it over to the General Manager. Do you have any information on it?

Mr Mayor, the circular says the New South Wales Government has made changes to workers' compensation to provide better protection for volunteer and career firefighters affected by work-related cancers. The reforms reflect existing arrangements in other states and will ensure that those who provide vital community services receive adequate medical care and support. The result will increase in the cost of providing emergency services across the state, which will be shared as per the usual funding arrangements between insurance providers, state government and local councils. The local government share will be 11.7 percent of the cost of the emergency services levy. That's the extent of the advice we've received and, as I said, we'd made contact to try and get extra information, but we haven't been able to get anything other than that at the moment. So

Deputy Mayor, is that enough information to leave it as it is, or do you still want to change it?

Well, I think I'd support it in principle. Yeah, just maybe use those words, so that just in case when we got the finer details, we didn't agree.

So, Councillor Conolly, you're happy

To say — Yeah, I think the point is just to make sure we're not coming out against that as a concept; we're coming out against this current arrangement. We support the concept

Which isn't on the board at the moment.

So, Councillor Conolly wants to change what he said to say, support the concept

Yep. Okay. Any further speakers? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor, and thank you for bringing this to Council. I was going to ask a question on it this evening, so that saved both me and the staff, I think.

This really is outrageous. Clearly, the government has been planning this for some time, given that the new government was only sworn in last week amid much carrying on with men in bloomers and very tight tights. I'm not sure at what stage anyone actually considered this and shovelling this cost impost onto local government. But clearly, someone had this well and truly planned before the Liberal Party went to the state election. And I think we need reminding of the carry-on that this Council experienced when we went out to the public with a rates rise. The efforts that we had to go to, the grief that we copped, and the heat put on this council to justify our spending to raise rates, and yet they can go from 2.7 to 22% in a blink, and we're supposed to just swallow that.

We're supposed to swallow nearly $200,000 a year cut to our budget to fund something that isn't actually our responsibility. No one around this table objects to firefighters being adequately compensated, but we're supposed to do roads, rates and rubbish, so the state government constantly tells us, and here we are funding a compensation scheme for firefighters. The state government needs to make up its mind whether it expects local government to be their debt collection agency or whether we're supposed to get on with our own jobs. I'm very happy with the recommendations and the additions to it, but I'm not. I'd just, I would like to see point one strengthened. I don't think we have concerns.

I think we have a bit stronger than concerns. All of us who have spoken about this are more than concerned. Some of us are outraged, and I think that's the level

Of concern that we need to be putting forward to the government. So I would hope that you could strengthen that first point, Mr Mayor, to something a bit stronger than concerned, disgust, dismay, outrage perhaps, but more than concerned.

Thank you for that. It's no longer point one, by the way. morphed into point three or four. So when the whole thing comes up on the board, I'll be happy then to make it stronger at that stage, okay? Any further speakers? Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, a few questions first. It would have been, maybe this is a statement, it would have been nice to see the circulars part of the minute, because until Councillor Conolly raised it about the insurance scheme or the levy raised to pay the compensation scheme, I had no idea. Absolutely no idea. So it would have been handy to have that. But anyway, we finally got the information out in the chamber, so that was good . Secondly, do we know how much money is going to be raised as a result of this across the state?

I believe it's 19 million dollars. Is that the figure you've got?

We're not sure. So not sure. It's the order of 19 million. The document I got from WESROC today, 19 million was mentioned.

Right, okay. Thank you. So what we are now looking at is a 19 million extraction out of the local council economy so that the state government can get out of its, obviously, a clear responsibility to have these compensation schemes in place. And as councillors have said to this point, I mean, they clearly knew, they clearly planned it, and they clearly meant to execute it the minute that the election results were declared. Clearly, it was not on the board. I've obviously been there for a while. But it just seems to me, Mr. Mayor , this is just happening way too many times. I think what we should do is write to the state government and say, look, from this date forward, the credit card that we have given you, clearly we've given them a credit card, is cancelled with effect today .

And from then on, if you want to take any more of our money, ratepayers' money, you're going to have to give us a reasonable explanation and plenty of notice. Other than that, don't use the credit card anymore. We are not an ATM for the state government. They have got plenty of surpluses. They blow and carry on like chooks about how much money they've got in surpluses and goodness knows what. And of course it's no wonder. I mean, if they've got 152 credit cards at the local level, of course they're going to spend it on somebody else's credit card. Of course they are. Well, from here on in, I think we should write to them and say, well, that's it. You've had your

Day in this. Credit card's cancelled. Go away. That's not to say that the compensation scheme for firefighters is not important. That is a totally different issue, and I think the two are conflated. And clearly they rely on the good nature of councillors and the local community to say, oh well, you know, we really should support it because it's for our firefighters. And of course we should support it, but not with our unlimited credit card access by the state government. So, Mr. Mayor, I'm— I'm really drawn here because I really don't want to support it. Certainly didn't want to support it at the beginning, and it wasn't until I heard about what the levy was for that I started to change my mind a bit because clearly none of us here are anti proper compensation schemes for firefighters who put their lives on the line every time there's a fire or rescue or whatever.

So, Mr Mayor, I am really ambivalent about this, and I'm really disappointed. I mean, it is so sneaky, it's not funny.

Councillor Conolly, you've already spoken on this.

The motion's changed since I spoke, though, so I could just make a brief comment. Okay. Well, I mean, you can't make changes after I've spoken and say I can't comment on them. But I just wanted to clarify, I think we're trying to, you know, in terms of trying to make this strong, I think we're talking about two different things here. The concept of an emergency services levy funded by 11.7% by local government has existed for almost close to 20 years in New South Wales, and before that it was other schemes that were similar. So if we've got a problem with that as a concept, I don't think now is the time to bring that up, just because they've increased the size of the emergency services funding.

I think we're trying to bring two different issues together and say that we never should have been paying this in the first place, when what our real issue is, is that you can't just dump it on us a few days before we're supposed to come up with it. So I think we should focus on that issue and say it's not, you know, if it's really important that this workers' compensation scheme starts this year, the state government should pay for it this year. And then we can look to fund it in future years. The reason I wanted to put support in principle changes is because we've always, for the last close to 20 years, we've paid 11.7% of whatever the levy was. And I personally, and I would have thought the community wouldn't have had a problem with that scheme also including this compensation.

It seems quite reasonable. If we think we shouldn't be paying into the levy, and that, I mean, the reality is we all live in New South Wales. We can either pay it through our rates or we can pay it some other way. We're all going to pay it anyway. If we think there's a better funding model, I think we can advocate for that. But I don't think joining the two issues together is going to serve our purpose. We could be far more effective making the much stronger argument that it's just a timing and funding issue, and we want to look at this in a fair way.

Deputy Mayor.

Just a question, Mr. Mayor, or just a request for further information if and when any becomes available. Just regarding the— it's a matter of interest probably as much as us being as informed as possible. I'm just interested that it says specifically related to work-related cancers. It doesn't— I'm assuming it also covers accidents and so on, but maybe not. I'm just wondering if there's any relation to PFAS within the career firefighting brigade, and I just would really appreciate if any information's received that we could have that passed on so we better understand what the government is using the workers' compensation to be paying out for. Thank you.

Councillor Reynolds.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I speak in support of the current mayoral minute as it stands. A question. I'm not sure whether you'll be able to answer. The New South Wales government sought to introduce this a year ago, perhaps. Might have been a year ago, a bit longer, and they knocked it back until Mrs Berejiklian declared that they would defer it until we get a fairer system. If we can't get a fairer system, then we won't introduce it. The idea, as I understand it, of the service levy previously dreamt up by the government would see that portion, the emergency services portion of existing homeowners' insurance policies removed, and the New South Wales government calculated that it would save, by removing it from insurance policies and putting it onto council's rating system, would save a homeowner $47 a year.

Have we received any information from the New South Wales government in relation to this aspect of their proposal?

My understanding is that they are no longer looking at a levy on properties, which is what they were looking at in 2017. This is a straight invoice to council to pay this amount. Okay. So, and I believe the levy on property was for a wider list of things, not just for the emergency compensation scheme. It was a number of other things, from what I can remember.

So homeowners won't receive any, as in the old system, they would have received a reduction in their insurance policies.

And homeowners are still now going to pay a levy through their insurance companies

As well as this.

On top of this, yes.

Well, in that case, I think that it absolutely stinks. Thank you.

Councillor Wheeler.

A question first.

Is it possible that we can pass this on as a special rate, as a special levy?

General Manager.

We would have to get IPART approval potentially to do that, and— We wouldn't be able to do that this year anyhow. I think amending our income side of our budget at this point would be very difficult. I think it's going to be on the expenditure side that we're going to have to work, unless we can achieve the objective of seeking the state government to defer it for a year.

Thank you. And could we strengthen what is now point three, please? Yes. Have you got

Any recommendation, Councillor Wheeler, what you'd like to see in there?

Currently it just says concerns.

Outrage.

I'm happy with outrage.

Outrage at the lack of.

Outrage at the lack of.

Or outrage at.

Outrage in relation to.

You can have in relation to, I think it's And then it

Reads properly.

Outrage in relation to. We happy with that, are we?

A body can be outraged, and apparently it is. Well ,

I do think concerns is not strong enough. Do you have another term, Councillor

Mr Mayor, I wouldn't go to a meeting if someone requested the meeting to express their outrage to me. I wouldn't feel that was going to be productive. Well

I'm looking for suggestions . I think concern.. Do you have a suggestion? No, well at the moment it's outrage, okay? Okay.

While this continues, maybe you could think about another term you might want to use. Councillor Ross.

Could I suggest a word such as disquiet? Thank you. They're a noisy lot, aren't they, sir? However, Mr Mayor, you are apparently right across the detail here, and you indicated to us that those within the community who have personal property insurance are going to be subjected to an element of this levy as well,

If I understand you.

I only received the information today. I wouldn't call myself an expert, and it came through on an email from WesRob , and the general manager's got part of it here . There are two primary components to emergency services levy, both of which will go up: council contributions paid by the local government, $19 million in all of New South Wales; property levy contributions paid by landowners via their insurance premiums, $41 million. Total increased cost to councils and communities for the new emergency services levy workers' compensation scheme is $160 million.

As I said, I got that today. Yes.

Should not, with your knowledge and expertise, now possibly institute some additional clause to indicate that we're rather unhappy that, in fact, landholders who have property insurance are in fact going to be bearing it twice?

I'm happy to add that if you would like, Councillor Ross.

I'd be most grateful if you'd be so kind.

I'm happy to add it. I haven't got the words. Do you have any words, or does Mr Mifsud's going to make some words, I believe. Would you like to say it again for his benefit? Put your microphone on.

That the impost also affects ratepayers who are property owners and have property insurance,

To the extent that it will, in their case, in their situation, represent a double charge.

Happy to add that, but Councillor Conolly is about to tell me something different. Councillor Conolly. Well

Mr Mayor, I believe when the government suggested changing the system so that they didn't just levy property owners with insurance twice, we weren't in favour of that either. So I'm really confused about why we're trying to bring in all these other issues. I don't believe the current system is—the changes that Councillor Reynolds were mentioning, the government was proposing to take it off insurance and levy it directly to property owners. We were against that. So now if we're going to say, Oh, and you're going to hit people with property insurance unfairly twice, the Labor Party and this council in particular were the ones that killed that off. They were— sorry, this council did not kill it off.

This council didn't kill it off, but the Labor Party killed it off through its opposition in the upper house. The Labor Party didn't want that. This council expressed a similar view at the time. If— well, the government didn't have the numbers to get it through. It didn't have the numbers because of the Labor Party not supporting it.

I hear what you're saying.

Well, my point is, we bring in all these other issues. We're being hypocritical when our main issue is just that this current scheme and this current invoice has been dropped in our lap with no consultation and no time to deal with it. I don't want to, on the run right now, take a position on the overall emergency services levy. We should look at that properly before we take a position, not just bring in little bits of it all over the place into one motion tonight.

I don't agree with you, Councillor Conolly. The fact that the council has received an invoice is one thing, but some people might then assume that ratepayers aren't going to be paying through their insurance when actually they are. I think it's very important that we make it clear that people are still paying through their insurance as well as this, and both of those have been increased by this announcement. So I see them both as being relevant and part of the same situation. So I know I'm happy to accept Councillor Ross's addition.

Councillor Sam Prodnik.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I've noticed a tendency where notices of motion or mayoral minutes start with a fairly clean intent, but others in this chamber— Consistently fail to resist the urge to kick and sink with it. And what could have been passed with what could have been unanimous support is passed, but without unanimous support. And I would suggest that when we're taking on another tier of government, where the Liberals are in power, the support of the Liberal councillors counts. If we're arguing over the symbolism of a word like outrage, the symbolism of having a united position I think is equally symbolic.

Excuse me, Councillor Sam Progno's got the floor.

Nevertheless , nevertheless, I think this motion has improved as it's been discussed around this chamber, and I think that's good. I don't agree with the word outrage. I think we are losing sight of a bigger picture, and that is the overall position that local governments find themselves in in relation to cost shifting in general. And if this is merely the latest example of cost shifting, cost shifting that's been imposed on local governments by both major parties when they have been in power,

Then, you know, I will support this motion on the basis that we should always fight back against a cost shifting measure, and that's the way in which I'm seeing this.

Thank you for your support, Councillor Zamprogno. Any other speakers?

I just have an additional, just point that the delegation may like to take along with them. The breakdown of the funding, 11.7% by local government, and the state government actually contributes 14.6%. I don't think, I just think we need to, we do really need to look at, and the insurance industry the other 73.7%, which means there'll be quite big hikes for people on their individual notices. And whereas I see we can't debate this all now without the information and so on, I just think we need to bear in mind to actually question whether that is fair, that local government is paying that level, as well as ratepayers paying that big share, and the state government only 14.6%. Okay

Councillor Wheeler, is this a question?

No

It's a grammatical issue. There's a misplaced apostrophe in 3B. It's a plural rather than the possessive apostrophe shouldn't be there. Sorry .

Yeah, I believe it is. What's missing?

Yeah.

I don't know whether the delegation is up there, is it?

Yeah, that's what's missing.

There was a request for a delegation.

Seek a meeting with the Premier, so to seek a meeting, it says delegation instead of seek a meeting.

Well, the Deputy Mayor requested a delegation. That was the word she used. So

Seeking a meeting with the Premier , you

Have— I think we want to do more than seek a meeting. We want to have a meeting.

To arrange a meeting and a delegation

To arrange a delegation to meet. Okay

To arrange a delegation to meet. We've got that.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Kotlash, another grammatical. No. No,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just want to ask another question, and it's in relation to possibly what the delegation will take to the Minister. And it's about if we have to, if Council has to review our budget again, it would be interesting and probably very valuable to get some idea of how much that's going to cost us as well. Because it seems to me that our budgeting process is such a big load of work, and lots of people are involved in it. And if we— and it was, I mean, we did this process before and it took, well, it took a long time. So I would like to see that sort of information in our top pocket when we go to talk about this extra burden, is just what actually it's going to cost us and the things that we won't be doing if we have to fork out this money this year.

And I don't like the word outraged either. I keep my outrage very close to my heart, and I think dismay is probably a better word.

We have one dismay.

We have one dismay and one disquiet. And a couple of outraged.

Disrespect. Disrespect.

Well, I'm leaning on the dismay. I think that might be the—would Councillor Conolly be acceptable with dismay rather than outrage?

He prefers dismay. No, we're stuck with dismay now, I think. Okay. Any further speakers? Councillor Asmar. Thank you.

A question, Mr Mayor. Is it possible, once this resolution or motion is turned to a resolution, could we get that up on the council's website, say tomorrow, so that people are well aware of it before Saturday's election?

So we

Can express our outrage on our website. We're surely entitled to do that.

Our dismay. Or

Our dismay. I might get in there and change to outrage, but—

General Manager says we can arrange that

We can arrange that. Can we put it on the front page,

So the ratepayers actually know what's happening here? This is aimed at the state government. No

It's the state government But I've been here long enough, Mr Mayor, and so have you, that the number of times that Liberal councillors in here said, send a message to, right, with a council election— Send them, yeah, it wasn't me, but yeah, I know I'm independent.

Absolutely I'm independent. The General Manager said it can be— And let's

Get it on Facebook as well, and let's get it on Twitter and Instagram. Let's just make people aware of what's happening here, right? You can hide away in a dark corner on a dark night at eight o'clock in a council meeting, and this rubbish gets put up. Honestly, it

Is absolute rubbish.

It isn't. Anyway,

If it get up there, that'd be good on all our media channels, because otherwise people will not know.

Well, the general manager said he will try and do that. Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'm a little bit concerned that we haven't also sought to engage our local representative in the state house in these processes, that we would no doubt wish to express our dismay to the person in question. And I'm just wondering if you might consider that as a supplement to the already fine work of my colleagues, please.

The general manager and I are working on having regular meetings with the local state member, and I think we're due to have one next week, I think it is. And this will be on the agenda automatically . We didn't get time to add it tonight because this—I talked to her before tonight because this just came out today. We don't plan to ignore the local member. We plan to talk to her about this, definitely. So it will happen as a matter of course, I believe, without putting it up there. I don't think I need to add it there, but unless you want to make an issue of it.

No, it's not a matter of making an issue. It's a matter of the body of councillors wishing to express— The dismay, apart from your own personal dismay. Well

We can send a copy of this to the local member if that's what you want.

Yes, I think that might be. Okay,

We'll do that. Thank you. Any further discussion?

If not, I won't exercise right of reply. I think we've had a robust discussion on this item, and thank you for your input, and especially for your grammatical corrections. It's all looking good, and I just, well, I should say I am disgusted that this should happen so quickly and with such little notice. It really puts our budget in a precarious position, and we need to tell the government that it's just not the way to do things. So I really thank you for your support, and I will now move the mayoral minute. All those in favour say aye. Those against? Declare it carried.

Thank you. We have several items on block, items 78

79 and 80. Moved by Mr. New, moved by Councillor Sam Prognose, seconded by Councillor Rasmussen that those items be done on block. All those in favour? Declare it carried.

Reports for determination. Our first report is item 77 about markets, and I believe the General Manager wants to give an introduction to this one.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. This relates to two requests that we've received in relation to markets. They're coming to Council primarily because Council has a policy statement that requires all market applications to be considered by Council. The report provides some history and also some context in terms of the livability program funding that we've received and the work that's underway at the moment with a view to developing a market strategy.

Do we have someone to move the recommendation or something else? Councillor Wheeler.

I'll move the recommendation in the business paper. Second, Mr Mayor. But I've added a point five to that, which is now with the staff.

Would you like to tell us what point five is roughly?

Point five is that a revised and updated, or that a revised market strategy and policy be brought to Council for consideration no later than March 2020. I've discussed the timing of that with the Director of Planning, and that is feasible.

Would

You like to talk on the recommendation, please? Go right ahead.

So the markets have come to us before , and we sent it in part, we sent the policy stuff back to the Town Centres Committee to bring a revised policy back to Council. That has turned out to be a bit more difficult than we anticipated, I think. Largely because relying on volunteers to do council's business is always pretty fraught, but also because there's an existing relationship between members of that committee and some markets as well. Some of the members were running their own market at the time. And then we had a whole lot of overlap with other things that that working group had to carry out, and so the market policy fell away. Hence the point five, which makes it a priority and gets it back on the agenda for both the working group and the staff to sort out by next year, so that we're not faced with issues like this that we don't have a solid answer for.

The Richmond market is a quite effective market. I was hoping that they would come this evening so that we could ask them a few questions. In particular, I'm interested in how some of the facilities on that site function for the markets, and I don't know if the staff have any feedback around how the toilets cope at that site with the volume of people that come in, and also how we cope with rubbish on that site. So whether the market deals with its own rubbish, I'm not sure of what happens with rubbish at that market, and whether we end up with a problem with overflowing bins, because a lot of people go there and eat. A lot of people buy their breakfast or brunch or lunch at that market, and they eat it on site, and I think that's probably more than our current bin capacity in that spot.

There's also some issues with parking, and I think if we approve this market this evening, I think we need to feedback to the people who run the market that their stallholders really need to park elsewhere. That's a very constrained car park. It's always difficult for people who are coming into the market to get, particularly people with access issues, to get a parking spot. And then there's often cars parked higgledy-piggledy. There's trailers in car parking spots. It turns into a shambles. There's going to be an accident in there, and it's probably going to involve a small child if we don't make some rationalisation of parking in that site. It's a predominantly good quality market, largely local stalls promoting a Hawkesbury identity, and I think that's good.

I think the other market at McQuade, so I'd support the Richmond Good Food Market continuing. I think it's a shame that we have to say no to the market in McQuade Park. The AMA event management ran a high quality market that really was well worth retaining in Governor Phillip Park. I'm not sure why it closed. But the problem with both Governor Phillip Park and McQuade Park, aside from the heritage concerns and the wear and tear on sensitive areas of McQuade Park, is that neither help foot traffic in the Windsor town centre, and that's where a market policy comes in, I think, where we start directing where and when and what happens at markets in the Hawkesbury. So this has to be much wider than us looking at ad hoc approaches that come to us wanting to set up somewhere, hence the need for a strategy, not just a policy of what people put on their stalls or how much they pay or how often they're allowed to set up.

We need something that works right across the LGA so that people are encouraged, both tourists and locals, are encouraged to come into our towns, do their shopping,

Make it a repeatable event. It works extremely well in the Southern Highlands and on the South Coast. There's areas where this works really effectively, and we need to get in on the act. The other thing I think that we have to be particularly careful of is that it doesn't interfere with shop owners who often feel that market stall holders don't have to meet the same stringent requirements. So I've received numerous complaints from hairdressers in Windsor, because there's a hairdresser who sets up at Windsor markets. She has none of the health and safety inspections that go on, and she doesn't have to pay for any of the facilities that the shop owners have to pay for. So we need to manage that effectively as well.

So I think my only concern with this recommendation is point three, which is refusing AMA a market anywhere. If we can tell them that we're in the process of review and that we would be happy to receive an approach from them after the strategy and policy is out, I think that would be good. They've run high quality markets in the past. I think it would be a shame to see them go to a neighbouring LGA and for us to lose that potential.

Thank you. Any further speakers? Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you, Councillor Wheeler, for putting on that fifth point. I had sent in some questions regarding that a time frame for the policy to be updated that we resolved to do in 2017, and also questioning whether it would be done on an LGA-wide basis. I'm quite mindful that there is a little bit of feedback sometimes I get within the community that the revitalisation is great, but it's very focused on three specific townships. And we mustn't forget that people want to do things in other areas as well. I know someone wanted to do markets in Kurrajong, and it was all too hard. Our policy, our existing policy, is three sentences, which tells you absolutely nothing. And also, you know, in North Richmond they're holding the market within the school now because it's difficult to do when there's no guidelines or anything for people to do them in the public spaces.

But I think that it will be great to see it done across the LGA and— I hope that will give people more certainty in where they can go with it, and I think it will be very good once we get this up and running. And I echo what Councillor Wheeler has brought up about the Richmond Fresh Food Market. It's a wonderful drawcard in our area and a wonderful market with some really top-notch produce there. And I hadn't been to the other market, but I also think that's a bit sorry that we have to knock somebody back. Maybe they can come back with another proposal. But it will be good if we are the ones setting the guidelines, then people can submit their applications in line with that, and that we can have this as something across our whole local government area going into the future.

Councillor Garra. Can

Through you, Mr Mayor, I was just wondering if the General Manager knows whether either of these applicants were contacted and given notice that this was coming to Council tonight?

Through you, Mr Mayor, I couldn't answer that tonight. I don't believe so.

Okay, because it would have been great if they were here to represent themselves and their issues and concerns. I'm just curious as to whether any of the other councillors would have any appetite to possibly go into further discussions with the AMA Event Management Group to see whether they would be interested in relocating their market outside of McQuade Park to a more suitable area that fitted in with our liveability strategy.

Here again we have— Another business coming to us wanting to invest in our LGA and our policy isn't good enough to allow it to happen. So I'm just wondering whether we could possibly defer the AMA Event Management Group for further discussions to see if they could re-evaluate their location.

It is possible to do that. Firstly, I'll ask Councillor Wheeler whether she would like to consider changing her motion to read that way. Happy with that. Happy with that. So can we get some wording for that,

Councillor Wheeler?

That Council enter into discussions with AMA Event Management regarding alternate locations for monthly markets.

So that would be point three.

Three, instead of point three.

Well, would it be what's there in point three and then after that, and Council enter into discussions? Yep

Yeah, that's fine.

Just following on on that, we've been at this situation, we've been at this exact situation before when we approved the Windsor Business Group markets without the policy and strategy being complete. And here we are again with another market wanting to come and still we don't have the policy and strategy complete. So I think it's only fair that we offer this company the same opportunity that we gave to the Windsor Business Group market. Okay,

Thank you. So how is the change going?

Point three. I think we're getting there.

Any further discussion while we're waiting? Councillor Rasmussen. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Mr Mayor, I want to thank Councillor Garrow for raising a point that I was going to raise as well. That's about the proposition, or the proposal by the AMA Group about McQuade Park. It seems to me that McQuade Park is not being recommended by staff to be not approved because we don't have a policy, or policy is a work in progress, but because there are issues with the park itself. And there are three points listed for those reasons in the business paper, and they relate to dryness of the ground and trees and egress and ingress,

And that there is a plan afoot to try and do something about that. But look, McQuade Park has been dry for as long as I've been in the Hawkesbury,

And that's pretty close to 30 years now, and we're still saying it's very dry. And we also say it's an iconic entry to our city, which I agree it is.

And I would have thought that we would have done something about that by now. Now let's hope that we are in the process of doing something about that by now, and we'll very soon be told. How the very dry is going to be turned into quite not so very dry, and therefore looking much more like a bit of an icon for the city. That would be really nice. Maybe we could ask the state government to contribute to the upgrade of a state-listed site. But my other point, I guess, is this, and they've seen that plenty of money, Mr. Mayor, just as an aside, coming from an independent.

The other point I wish to make is I'm not sure why Clarendon, that lovely area adjacent to the base, quite long, bit narrow, but certainly very, I would have thought, very amenable to markets. It's got a walking path. It's lovely. It's got a whole bunch of stuff going for it. Why people who seek to do markets don't use that. Or propose that as a possible venue for events such as this. So my question, I guess, might come down to this. Did the staff who assessed the application from the AMA, did they propose an alternative for them, given that the staff obviously saw that there was a big issue with McQuade Park? Was there an alternative proposed? And if so, what was that alternative? And was Clarendon offered as a possible alternative, or are there issues with Clarendon that I'm not aware of which would make markets not very sensible in that area?

Mr. Organ, I believe.

Through you, just probably in relation to the AM common area, you need to probably go back and just check whether that's actually permissible under the plan of management. I believe there'd be certain significant parking issues there, given the long linear nature and the conflict with traffic on Hawkesbury Valley Way. But I'd need to come back to you on that. In terms of offering them alternative sites, I don't believe that we did. The application was for a particular site. We've assessed it purely on that basis. It's not, as somebody said, it's about the applications before us, which is a park use, and that's all that we've done. We're not seeking to promote as part of a park application markets. So it's purely based on the consequences of those sites.

Councillor Ross, you had your light on before. Do you wanted to speak or not?

Don't have to speak if you don't

I don't know whether this aids as a contribution or not, sir, but, pardon me, I was wondering if it would not be possible, with the great knowledge that the council staff have,

To possibly have a list of potential sites for markets that people such as AMA, when they pop along, are able to avail themselves of and go away and consider whether they believe that the traffic and other conditions there would be amenable to their particular interests. I

Assume that's what point five is asking council to do. Would that be right, Councillor Wheeler? Yes, that's the intention.

Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In response to Councillor Rasmussen, I think an obvious answer to his question is that markets are not simply an end in themselves, but we're seeking to have markets in areas to boost the general economy in our town centres. So if you place a market very far from any other economic activity, they're less likely to feel any of that aura of foot traffic and economic activity. I think the question of how well our markets activate the broader economy in our town centres is something that we'll need to look more closely at, because I think the effect is variable.

So I think that it would be better for us to hold our markets closer to our town centres. Notwithstanding how picturesque that area along Ham Common is, the other point that I'd make is that I've seen markets staged by cooperative groups and also by for-profit groups. And I used to be more opinionated about whether one was more desirable than the other. I've come to the conclusion that if they're working hard to bring something of value to the local economy, we should cheer them on regardless of which sort they are. But I've also seen the operators of some of these markets treating that space very strictly as though it's their territory, and I think they need to be reminded that they're being granted the use of what is otherwise a public space, and therefore their remit over that space should extend purely to the operation of the markets.

So if there are buskers or incidental users of the park, they don't have the ability to kind of go up to those people and tell them that they can't be there because I've seen that, unfortunately. That's my remarks.

Councillor Reynolds. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. In relation to Councillor Zemprogno's comments there about Councillor Rasmussen's comments regarding use of Ham Common and it being out of town and not being suitable because it's so far from our shopping centres, which we want to invigorate, the Lions Markets used to be held in Richmond Park, and they had to move to Clarendon because of issues with councils. As I understand it, council's complaints about damage to the grass in the park. And I think this brings us to the point. I think Councillor Ross raised where we should have a list of suitable areas for markets, and it all comes back to the fact that we don't have that policy, which we asked for over two years ago now. And I think that we need to, I mean, the policy be brought to Council for consideration no later than March 2020.

That's still 10 months away. I would have thought we could have been a little bit more, it could have been done a little bit more quickly than that, especially with, you know, a summer in between.

And I also, I want to thank Councillor Garrow for encouraging consultation with AMA. There are other places which immediately spring to mind, for example, Howe Park, you know, Holland's Paddock, ideal places. So yes, I support the motion. Thank you.

Other speakers? No. Councillor Wheeler, do you want right of reply?

Right. Just quickly, Mr. Mayor, I've made a bit of a list of things that, I think, that other councillors have raised that I think need to go into any strategy and policy, and they include things like the use of buskers, proximity to town centres, traffic, and having a readily available list of locations so that when people approach us, we have somewhere to offer them if they want to. But I think what we have to, the goal of an overall strategy is that we end up with markets that highlight the Hawkesbury, attract both locals and visitors. Add to our town centres and our tourist routes, but also don't compete with each other, and I think that's a consideration. We are not a particularly large LGA.

We're still emerging as a tourist destination, and I think it would be foolish of us to think that we could support several markets all on at the same time in two or three different towns at once. Even areas that have well-established market circuits, like the Southern Highlands, don't try that. So, you know, if it's the first Saturday, you're at Mittagong; if it's the second Saturday, you're at Moss Vale; and if it's the second Sunday, you're at Bowral. Those towns are a similar distance apart to our towns. They have a much bigger population , particularly of tourists who are going there specifically, staying overnight and using their markets. And I think we have to learn to walk before we run.

We've run markets on an ad hoc basis in the past. This is an attempt to stop that. I'm sorry that the policy has stalled. The Town Centres Working Group is made up of business people who are largely running businesses and a couple of local community volunteers as well. And we're already dealing with all the stuff that's come out of the city deals and liveability, as well as money used to revitalise Windsor, with decisions that had to be made on how to spend that. So that working group meets monthly. It's already taken on a significant share of its work and this stalled. And hopefully there'll be sufficient resources to support that working group's activities in getting this policy back to Council.

Thank you. I will put the motion as it appears on the board. All those in favour say aye. Those against, declare it carried.

We now move to item 81, notice of motion from the Deputy Mayor.

Move that, Mr Mayor.

Do we have a seconder for that? Councillor Rasmussen. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I think it’s fairly explanatory, and it is an issue which I’ve raised on multiple occasions before. It came to light last week when I was contacted from someone from Colo who witnessed a significant amount of dumping on the side of a road. They had the number plate of the person, and they called the council, and they were told it was an RMS issue. They’d have to ring the RMS and so on. And this echoes something that had happened there probably about a year beforehand, where there was a similar thing, and upon ringing the RMS on that occasion, this was a different person, but they were told, ‘No, it’s National Parks. You’ll have to ring the National Parks.’ So, I mean, there’s only a certain amount we can expect members of the public to go through to try and deal with this.

They feel fobbed off when they’ve bothered to call in and report something. And so I think that it does appear to be a very cumbersome system, and I understand there's a basis for it. But in the past, I spoke with the previous local member, Dominic Perrottet, about this to try and see if there was some sort of a system where Council would be the first response to pick up the rubbish, so that it wasn't left there to accumulate. The next person driving past thinking, Oh, there's a pile of rubbish, I'll dump some more. And if we have to wait, particularly for the National Parks to come and remove things when they're in a National Park, that's very, apart from being unsightly, it's often very dangerous as well, because if it's not secured or covered over, you can have things blowing around and, you know, all sorts of things going on.

And if nobody goes to look at it, we don't know if it perhaps contains some sort of hazardous material like asbestos or something like that. So this is really a follow-up on what, to bring to attention to the new Member for Hawkesbury, and I'm pleased that you're meeting with her next week so you can perhaps raise it with her about that and bring to attention the letter that Mr Perrottet was sent and didn't get around to responding to, but so that she can perhaps take this on. There's a number of areas where there's multiple agencies dealing with things, and it's quite difficult. There must be an easier way is all I can say. There just must be. It shouldn't be a situation where we've always got to wait for somebody else to do it.

It's rubbish that is— Being dumped on our outskirts, but people can see it. I've driven along the Putty Road, and it's just appalling. And I know that's not our responsibility, but if we could be delegated that responsibility and a cost and given some funding to deal with it, we could just go and deal with it, and then everyone would be happy, and we'd have a much safer and more aesthetic environment out on our major roads. So I just brought this forward after receiving this information from someone and the very anti-council attitude that develops when people can't just easily ring up and report things. And I think that we need to make it very clear to people what the protocol is, or ideally to improve the protocol so that we don't have this situation.

That's why it's a call to collect the data on the nature and the location of the rubbish. I've got some figures from, you know, so for example, this year to date council has collected 182 piles , I assume that is, the RMS 39 and the National Parks 5. But it would be good to have the information of how long it takes for these things to be dealt with, etc. The other thing with the National Parks, I've seen rubbish dumped in National Parks near waterways, and it ends up in the waterways and it's just, just totally unsuitable. With regard to the rest of the notice of motion, another … Another question that's often asked of us when people are aware of other local government areas is why we don't belong to the RID squad, which of course we used to belong to in the past.

So I just think we need to give information about why we don't, if it's not cost effective or whatever, but we need to have some sort of response that councillors can give to people who may ask that. And also to add to the list for the mayor with the meetings with Ms Preston, a number of outstanding things. There was some in a letter that I'd written, but I think it's only fair to her that she is advised of these sorts of things so she can familiarise herself before they're followed up at meetings in the future, because I think there were a number of outstanding things. Another one was the situation where council's responsible for part of Windsor Road on one side, or the middle or something like that, and the RMS is responsible for the other side.

And I mean, these sort of things surely can have an easy solution. Or maybe they can't because it's government. But I think we should be able to come up with something. It's just I find it quite frustrating, but I just think that if we work with the local member to try and address that, it would be a best situation for everybody all round, because the RMS, I mean, it uses— it takes someone's resources to go and deal with it. So it doesn't really matter whose it is, but we need to know whose it is, and we need to have someone who goes and picks it up before it sits there for weeks or months.

Can I just clarify before we move on that — I'm seeking a meeting with the member, local member, and the general manager and I are going to have regular meetings, but those dates are not yet confirmed. I'm hoping one is next week, but I'm not sure at this stage. Councillor Garrow.

I'm just wondering whether Councillor Lyons-Buckett, sorry, Deputy Mayor, would be able to add a point five into her notice of motion. Just working on some wording here, but I would like Council to engage in negotiations with our local real estate agents to ensure that we're not left with the cleanup expense of the end-of-lease kerbside dumping. The possibility of assuring that this is written in part of the outgoing lease inspection and how this would work with the Tenancy Act, because there seems to be a lot of roadside dumping at the end of lease that Council is left to pick up the bill for.

Deputy Mayor, are you happy to add that?

I'm happy to

Add that.

Do our people on the keyboard have that ? You do? Okay.

Can we hear it again, Mr Mayor? Can you hear it again? Yeah. Actually, Councillor Garrow, would you like to speak to it,

Or would you like to speak to your addition?

No, no need. I think it's pretty self-explanatory. Could

You say it again for Councillor Connolly's benefit? He wasn't listening.

Request Council to engage in negotiations with local real estate agents to ensure that Council is not left with the cleanup expense of end-of-lease kerbside dumping. The possibility of assuring that this is written in as part of the outgoing lease inspection, and how this would tie in with the Tenancy Act.

Can I make a small suggestion, Mr Mayor? Sure can. Just delete the words ‘in negotiating’ or ‘in negotiation’. So it’s just request Council to engage with local real estate agents. We’re not trying to get a deal, we’re just trying to make sure they do the right thing. Yeah.

Happy with that? All right. Councillor Cutler.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just a question on that. I was under the impression that when people moved out of their, you know, ended their leases and they put their rubbish on the curb, that that was part of their — I think we get one clean-up a year Yeah, but — Is that a — I think that’s what happens. I don’t think — I’d be interested to know. I’d be interested to know how many times we actually were out of pocket on that one. I

Think the General Manager would like to answer that question.

Oh, good.

There is a collection available once a year if you order it. So you’re relying on people to order it, and the second thing is there are limitations on what you can put out and what you can’t put out. So again, things like mattresses and other difficult recyclable material, that’s not something that you can put out. There’s a pay-for disposal on those items.

Further discussion? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I think the Deputy Mayor is right. One of the problems that we have, when people certainly report to us, is that they ring Council to say that there’s a pile of rubbish along the side of the Putty Road or down one of the little dead-end lanes , and they’re told when they ring that it’s not Council’s jurisdiction and they should ring blah. By the time people have picked up the phone once, they don’t care whose jurisdiction it is, they just want the problem to go away, and they think that Council’s fobbing them off. Now, we understand that we’re burdened with this endless — Separation between entities, but I think at the end of the day, it would be, in some respects, it would be easier for us to just sort it out than to be, because all it does is create ill will in the community.

And then those people who are willing to go out of their way and spend 10 minutes on the phone, take a couple of photos to make a report, we lose their goodwill. These are the very citizens that we should be encouraging, rather than saying to them, Oh, well, it's not really our problem. You'll have to ring blah, who doesn't answer the phone or doesn't fix it. It would be much better that we said, Look, that's not actually our problem to fix, but we will let them know. Thanks very much for your call. We really appreciate your interest in keeping the Hawkesbury clean. That would be a much better mechanism for dealing with these people, even if it did cost us a bit more staff time. And I'm well aware that our staff are well and truly overstretched.

I'd also like to see a start to shame some of these dumpers and use our social media platform to do that, because people are getting increasingly brazen. This week, there's a pile of bricks on the corner of Wilberforce Park. Now, this is a residential street. It's well lit. It's got reasonable traffic and walking footage, and yet someone has felt that it was quite reasonable to pull up on the corner of the road and unload a load of bricks. I think that is photo-worthy. I think that could hit social media with, Are these yours? Are you the pig who left them on the corner of Wilberforce Park? Come and get them.

Litter is another issue. Our roadsides are filthy, and unfortunately rubbish begets rubbish and dumping begets dumping. I don't really know how we fix this, but I don't know who these people are who think that it's fine to dump their tied-up bags of household refuse along Terrace Road at North Richmond. They've been doing it for the two years that I've been on council. I've contacted Mr Organ a couple of times, and they've been cleaned up, but they're always back again. Styrofoam, litter, drink cans, food wrappers, just all flung out of windows. We've got people like Les Dollin who tirelessly pick up other people's garbage, but I think it's time for an anti-litter campaign here as well, because this is beyond a joke.

I don't know who these people are who live amongst us, who think that this place is one giant tip and that their mother is going to come along and clean up after them. But it needs to stop, and I think Council is the only leader who's going to do something about this. I think we also need to start picking up the litter before we turn 200 pieces of plastic into 2 million pieces of plastic every time we run the lawnmower across a roadside or a park. And that's been an ongoing problem, again, for the two years that I've been on Council. We've been raising that. So I'd really like us to see use some of our information platforms for going much harder on dumping and litter in conjunction with this notice of motion.

Thank you, Councillor. Where I tend to agree very strongly with what you just said. I had some overseas visitors here recently, and they couldn't believe the rubbish on the side of the roads. Where they came from, it just doesn't happen. And a lot of that rubbish on the side of the road is not people dumping big piles of bricks. It's just food wrappers and drink bottles just chucked out of the car window. And I don't understand the mentality of people who cannot leave the rubbish in their car, take it home and put it in their bin. I mean, where's the problem with that? But somehow they can't manage to do that, and it's costing governments of all levels millions of dollars to clean it up. Just imagine how much money we'd have if we didn't have to spend it on that sort of thing.

I know in some other council areas there are groups of prisoners who go around and do the clean-up. I don't know whether that happens here that much, does it? So maybe that's something we can look into as well. Anyway, I just wanted to add those few bits. Plus, you talked about the locals. I'm not sure that these people are all locals because on Bells Line of Road, if you have a look after a long weekend, the rubbish is just, you know, half a metre deep, and I think it's tourists as well, or mostly. But either way, the rubbish is there and we have to deal with it. So yes, I agree wholeheartedly. Councillor Ross, were you the one who had your light on then? Councillor Rasmussen, sorry. Were you going to talk?

No, it's you, Councillor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yeah, Mr Mayor, maybe I could offer a couple of solutions from the past. I remember some years ago where this council put up a number of signs along Blacktown Road. Councillor , Mr Mayor, you might remember those signs, and they were there for quite a while. And it had a phone number on there, Ring the Premier. So where there's an RMS road and where there's local dumping, could we get some signs made up that we could stick on top of the pile of rubbish and if you find this disgraceful or outrageous, please ring this number, Premier's number, and ring this number. Maybe we could do that. Well, that's one solution because it's worked before, right? It worked before from this council.

Mind you, it was a Liberal-dominated council at that point, but it may work again. The other solution is that we just do it and we send the state government an invoice like they did to us. There it is, there it is. Pay seven days terms, and if you don't, it'll be a 20% interest charge or something. I mean, it'd work for them. Surely it can work for us. I mean, this business of we have a dismay or we are, or we're sort of a little bit annoyed by this, it doesn't work with this government. It just doesn't work. Doesn't work. Never worked. Anyway , can I tell you also, Long Springwood Road, I am at McDonald's eat finish distance from McDonald's in Richmond, trust me. I regularly go up and down my little bit of road.

It's only about 900 metres long, and I collect half a wheelie bin full of rubbish. And not only that, but I've got a driveway where people can actually come in, and I hide dump stuff, which they do regularly, and then I end up having to take it to the tip. So yes, it is a problem, and I don't know how you deal with people like that. I really don't. But it is annoying. And it is a big cost, as you pointed out.

Any further discussion? Deputy Mayor, do you want right of reply?

Just briefly, thank you, Mr Mayor, and thanks for those additional suggestions, and for Councillor Garrow's addition. I do think that, you know, even if we're touching base with the local real estate agents to make them aware that if people are going to be putting that out, that they have to, I believe, you have to organise the collection. So I'm not sure if people are aware of that because, of course, if they're a tenant, they wouldn't be the ratepayer, so they probably may not even know. So just maybe to go through the system for that, and hopefully to be able to work something out. I know that we all want to find a solution, and somewhere in there there's a much easier way, so we've just got to find it and go with it. So thank you.

I'll put the motion as it appears on the screen. All those in favour say aye. Those against, declare it carried.

We now move to questions on questions. Do we have any questions on questions?

No.

Councillor Ross, you will have questions. Lights on.

Thank you, Mayor.

I was concerned about another

Aspect of the Windsor Bridge project, namely the interpretation plan

Stage one final report dated May last year.

Which question are you referring to, Councillor Ross?

Question eight. Yes. Yeah. Yes please go ahead.

There is an error in the interpretation plan publication at page seven, which indicates that Council was

Unwilling to consult with the RMS regarding the interpretation plan, and I believe that was an incorrect statement because, as I understood it, Council's situation was that...

It was, I think, a strategy at that point and certainly not a plan which could be commented upon. And because it was at a very early stage, staff sought not to make comment. And I believe that the statement made in the interpretation plan is therefore incorrect. And I believe it would be behoven, in the interests of Council, not to have their position misrepresented , shall we say, in that regard , because I think it casts the Council in a bad light and I don't believe it is warranted. And I also understand that the senior project manager

Was heard to make a similar statement on the occasion of the so-called, and I use the word so-called possibly in inverted commas, community consultation recently in regard to the interpretation plan. And again, I believe that to have been a misstatement at least. Thank you.

So I'd

Very much request Council to make representations to the RMS to amend their report to expunge that reference, please.

General Manager, do you have a response?

I'll ask Councillor Ross to liaise with the Director. We'll identify the specific section and then we can make representations to RMS on that basis.

Any further questions on questions? Councillor Garrow.

Just in reference to question number four, this is possibly through you, Mr Mayor, question to Mr Organ

Or maybe Mrs Perrin.

Anyway, it states that officers may have to issue an LG order to have the vehicle removed. It's my understanding that that's already been issued . There was a sticker placed on this car some six weeks ago saying that it was going to be removed within 24 hours. Can we please get clarification on that?

Yes, there was a sticker. I was trying to work out where the sticker came from, but to all intents and purposes staff have been trying to get in contact with the owner because we've not got their details. The car has since then come out of registration, so therefore we can deal with the car in a different manner, and we'll work with the police if we need on that.

And can we get a timeframe on that different manner?

We're working on it now. Councillor Rasmussen

Thank you. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Pardon me. Question six, I want to thank the Director of Infrastructure Services for that. That's great. Question seven, and given it's my question and other Labor councillors in the chamber here no doubt are reluctant to raise it, I'm just wondering whether we could get the spelling of Labor correct.

We'll see if the minutes can be changed to reflect that, yeah.

Any further questions on questions? No questions. Questions for the next meeting. Councillor Conolly,

Councillor Sam Progne, Councillor Kotlash, Deputy Mayor.

We can come back to you if you want. Councillor Wheeler.

Could we get some information on the costs of residents using the Snap Send Solve app ? So I'm aware that some residents are using it, and apparently some of them have been asked not to because it costs council money. So could we get some feedback on that, please?

Yep. Councillor Reynolds. Councillor Garrow.

Yes. Can we please get some information on what is happening with the, I'm not a horticulturist, but I believe it's called karkee, which is karkee weed, which has infiltrated Don't Worry Oval in Speaking and everything else. But I've been told by some local turf farmers that this, in their lifetime of turf farming in the Hawkesbury, this weed has never been in the Hawkesbury until recent years, and the first sign of it was in Don't Worry Oval. It is now infiltrating into these turf farms and across the entire LGA, Sticks Gishes, goes everywhere. We need to get this addressed before we cause some serious injury to some local businesses. Secondly, can we also please get a record of attendance from all councillors for all council meetings for the past council term, including record of meetings that have not been attended in full with early departure.

Councillor Rasmussen. Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor. The first one which I wish to raise with you, pardon me, is in regard to

Heavy transport vehicles. I understand that the Deputy Mayor made an inquiry of staff some time ago and there's a report due to come back to Council in that regard. And the second strand of this is in regard to the, sorry, LGNSW weekly report , if you like, dated the 3rd of May. One of the sub-paragraphs there, which is not in the latest but was at the 3rd of May, deals with heavy vehicle reform seeking Council experts. This is from LGNSW. Right. Now, one of the elements there, and if you work through there are half a dozen different elements to the reporting and so on, is a thing described as the National Heavy Vehicle Access Strategy. Now , the point in raising that is that we have a situation currently pertaining down along the junction of Macquarie and George Streets in South Windsor.

At that point, there is a space on the, shall we say, the south creek side of the road. In which heavy vehicle trailers are being, if you like, dumped or offloaded because transport operators don't have access to space within commercial business areas in which to manoeuvre those particular vehicles. This is particularly the case in regard to B doubles and so on, where you've actually got two trailed units at least.

You need to get to the question. Yes

Well, the question is, firstly

In regard to that particular area at that road junction, is it RMS land or council land, and is it a designated heavy vehicle trailer or whatever drop-off point? And if it isn't, I'm just wondering what council staff may suggest, because there are complaints from local business

Transport-associated people, such as one fairly large food processing company, who are currently using that particular site but would be amenable to using another site within Kewy of South Windsor in which to conduct these things. There was a site on Blacktown Road, but it has now been fenced off. So that has been cut off. The possibility of the Macquarie George Street intersection being cut off or curtailed is also relevant. Can another area be possibly set aside or designated by Council in which those operations can be conducted, please? Any further questions? Yes, thank you. I've been advised that apparently up outside the museum, there's been some very recent addition to signage in regard to the solar program of Council.

It strikes me as rather strange, frankly, that we can install signage at relatively short notice to—

Councillor Ross, please make it into a question.

Yes, to proclaim the benefits of solar technology, but at the same time there is no ability to get any heritage signage out into the areas of heritage, and that is an area particularly close to heritage.

Okay.

And I am just wondering what the delay is in getting signage that has been holding things up for this whole period of Council. Next question is in regard to PFAS. I'd like to inquire, please, as to the

Sewage plants and the measurement or not of PFAS in their inputs, and has that been undertaken or is it being contemplated to be undertaken, and who will do that and— Is the Commonwealth Government agency looking after PFAS matters in consultation with Council staff in that regard, or will Council have to do that themselves? And I'm just concerned from an overall health point of view in that area. Thank you.

Is that the end of your questions?

I certainly hope so.

Thank you, Councillor Garrow

Sorry, I forgot one. What is Council's process on taking action on dog attacks on people, pets and livestock reported by neighbours? Okay,

Thank you. No further questions. We are about to move into confidential, but I have to invite the members of the public. Do any of you wish to argue that we should not move into confidential?

I do. Thank you

Sir. Members of the public, I'm asking.

No.

Well, now, would someone like to move that we move into confidential? Councillor Rasmussen.

I move, and you would like to speak against that.

Councillor Ross. Yes, I

Would, sir.

Please go ahead Okay. The basis upon which this is being sought to go into confidential are as follows, and I'll abbreviate this. It is considered that the release of the information would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person or organisation with whom Council is conducting, or proposes to conduct, business, etc . I believe that is substantially not the case in this instance, and I believe that this matter is a very significant matter involving possibly the largest expenditure in regard to anything in the likely province of the LGA, either in the past or in the foreseeable future, and it is a matter of great public interest and therefore in the interest of transparency and community involvement that the matter should be heard in open session, please.

Are you commenting on item 83, 84, or both? Just item 83. General Manager, would you like to provide an answer to that?

The matter relates to a negotiation that's underway, and that involves other

Parties. Like, this is a complicated issue. There are numerous parties involved, and— We need to get some direction from Council so that we can continue, and once we've got this direction, then we can bring these matters into a public domain. It's not that we're trying to exclude it from public domain. We're merely asking for some direction to proceed with an MOU that is not binding on Council, but it does impact on other parties, and that's the legal nature of this matter. And it's not unusual for such legal matters, particularly that involve leasing and property matters, to be conducted in this fashion. And I probably would have appreciated a bit more advance notice on this so that I could have prepared a little bit better. But on the run, that's the position.

So I'm sorry about that, but this is the first I've been notified as well. Any further speakers on the matter?

No? Councillor Wheeler, you wish to speak on it?

I can certainly see Councillor Ross's point. We're talking about an issue that affects our largest sports facility. It's publicly- it's a council-owned facility. You

Need to be careful of how far you go. It's still confidential.

Yes, and this is the whole problem, so that we are negotiating about something that affects the public and a public facility, and we can't talk to the public about it. And I get that that's our job as councillors to make those decisions, but I'm really uncomfortable with the degree of confidentiality that we have been bound by by an external organisation. Handed to us by the state government,

Caught up in an election promise that we have not been able to discuss openly with the community that we're elected to represent. And I agree with Councillor Ross that it's problematic. This will be the very last time I agree to handle this matter in confidential session. It's making me feel quite sick that we are put in this position. I strenuously disagree with what is being done to Council in the negotiations here.

No further speakers. I just had

A question, Mr Mayor. Without mentioning any content or anything, would post this decision that we make, will we then be able to discuss the matter in public session? So, in other words, ongoing things related to this, aside from any commercial in confidence actual dealings?

General Manager. Once we've contacted the— once we've got a direction from Council, we've contacted the relevant parties and advised them of the situation, then we'll be in a position to start updating the community on the history, on what's going on, on the direction. But we do need that direction first so that, again, when we go back to the community, we go back with some certainty and with some details.

No further speakers. It's been moved and seconded that we move into confidential. All those in favour say aye. Those against? Declared carried. Yes , certainly. Thank you, members of the public. We now move into confidential.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. In regard to item 83, whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Rasmussen, seconded by Councillor Reynolds, that Council adopt the officer's confidential recommendation as outlined in this report, and it be recorded that Councillor Ross voted against this motion. In regard to item 84, whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Rasmussen, seconded by Councillor Lyons-Buckett, that: one, the current contract for the collection, transportation and disposal of biosolids from South Windsor and McGraths Hill sewage treatment plants, with Bettergrow Proprietary Limited, be extended until midnight on 30 June 2021, with the new price of $80 per wet tonne fixed for the two-year period. Two, the Seal of Council be affixed to any necessary documentation, and it be recorded that Councillor Ross voted against this motion.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr Mifsud. Would someone like to move we accept that report? Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Kotlash. All those in favour say aye. Carried. Is there any further business? General Manager is not keeping us in tonight, so I'll declare the meeting closed at 9:02.