28 May 2019 - Ordinary

Ordinary meeting of Council for Tuesday the 28th of May 2019. I'd like to begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of this land, the Darug people, and paying respect to Elders both past and present. I'll now hand over to the General Manager to make us aware of 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 clause 6.3.1 of the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of the Council are recorded. In the terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting of Council meetings. The provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary.

If any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting. The recordings may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations. The recordings are stored on Council's record management system. For the benefit of any person who will 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 to both your address to Council and any other answers given in response to questions from Councillors. Finally, there is also a request 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 We have

Apologies from

Councillor Kotlash , I believe. Before we actually start the meeting, I'd like to mention that Suzanne Stewart is producing a video for us for later this year when we do our consultation visits, and she'd like to take some video tonight of this meeting. If anyone doesn't want to be on the video, please raise your hand. Councillor Tree. Any members of the public who don't want to be on the video ?

Okay.

I think there was just Councillor Tree.

So Ms Stewart will be wandering around during the first item or so taking a video. Don't let that interrupt your usual level of involvement. Do we have any declarations of interest?

Oh, someone has to move the acceptance of the apology. Someone like to move, Councillor Kainally, seconded by Councillor Rasmussen, that we accept the apology of Councillor Kotlash. All those in favour say aye. Declare it carried. Do we have any declarations of interest, please? No. None. Would someone like to move and confirm the minutes from the last meeting,

Councillor Rasmussen,

Councillor Zamprogno. All those in favour say aye. Aye . Acknowledgement of official visitors, I would just like to acknowledge the previous mayor, Mr Bassett, is in the audience. Welcome to the meeting. And there are no items tonight subject to public address, and there are no mayoral minutes. We move straight on to items on block. There are four items to be moved on block.

I can see them on the board. Would someone like to move that, Deputy Mayor and Councillor Conolly. All those in favour say aye. Those against? Declare it carried. We therefore move into the items.

As they appear on the business paper, the first item is item 86, 2019 Hawkesbury Local Business Awards.

Move the recommendation. Two councillors have asked for this to come up. Do they want to move something on this? I'll move the recommendation, Mr Mayor. Moved the recommendation by Councillor Connelly. Do we have a seconder?

Councillor Richards, you wish to speak to it, Councillor Connelly?

Are there any further speakers? Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just had some questions regarding it. I've got no problem about Council supporting it. I just was wondering how much actual input do we have to do with how it's run and how the judging is carried out? The reason I ask is that I've had some feedback from some businesses who were entered who, because of the nature of their business, were fairly certain that they had not had a random person come to assess their business. So because of the nature of their clientele, they knew everyone they'd had was there. And it's a matter of transparency, really, that I'm just wondering how much feedback we had from last year and actually how much input we had regarding the actual running of it.

General Manager.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. We haven't had a post-event meeting with the operator since last year.

We've conducted this event on a regular basis. We haven't had any concerns raised directly with myself or other staff members, as far as I'm aware, regarding the operation. But I'm happy to take that point and any other points on board, particularly in relation to the— Details of the award program that are outlined in the report. There is a bit of a program outline, step by step of the various stages. I'm happy to make contact and discuss the random person element, and I'm happy to take any other questions or comments on board and raise those and bring the results back to Council in due course.

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. That would be wonderful. Also, I think just having been there, another concern was the , I am assuming it would be in the same facility, there was just a little bit of congestion in there last year. It just perhaps an alternative seating arrangement or something like that. Just a few of those points. It'd just be interesting to know if we're sponsoring it, just exactly how it's going to be run this year, that's all. But thank you for that feedback.

Any further speakers? Councillor Ross. Thank you, Mayor. Possibly this might be directed to the General Manager

I was rather surprised that the details of the particular awards which were being offered have not been enumerated in this blurb from the promoter, and I'm wondering if that could be done. And I'm wondering if we could possibly just cast an eye over that to make sure that it is suitable, or if we might have a suggestion for any further or a different categorisation of an award, please. General Manager. Mr Mayor, we can provide a summary of the award details that are proposed on the night. It is a format that's

Basically repeated right across metropolitan Sydney. So there's a lot of consistency of the award categories between the various award locations across metropolitan Sydney, but we certainly can get those for councillors. And again, if there are suggestions about a more appropriate award for Hawkesbury, we can convey that to the operator.

Thank

You.

Much obliged. Thank you, Mayor.

Any further speakers? No. It's been moved by Councillor Conolly. Do you wish to write a reply, Councillor Conolly? I'll put the motion. All those in favour say aye. Those against? Declare it carried.

Our next item is item 87, Council's media policy, and Ms Stewart is going to give us an introduction to that one.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Council's media policy was prepared back in 2007. Over many months, Council has worked to review and update the policy. The purpose of the revised policy scope and objectives have all been reviewed and reflect the changes in the current media landscape. Roles and responsibilities have been updated with reference to key stakeholders, including councillors, council officers, including staff, volunteers and contractors. There is a reference to digital media, websites and social media. As part of the review, other councillors' media policies were reviewed, and a final review was undertaken by an independent consultant. The minor changes suggested by the consultant were incorporated, and the policy was also updated to reflect Council's new policy format.

Thank you, Ms Stewart. Anyone wish to move something on this matter? Councillor Rasmuss.

Move the recommendation. Moved the

Recommendation. Seconded by Councillor Conolly. Councillor Rasmuss, and you wish to speak on it?

No, not at this point, thanks.

Does anyone wish to speak on it? Councillor Sam Progter.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll just make this remark. Objective four of the media policy is to not only establish protocols and consistent methods for managing and coordinating communication from Council to the media, but also to the wider community. So in going through the draft media policy, what I was looking for was some evidence of thinking not only about our relation to the media and how we handle media inquiries, but also how Council is continuing to innovate in its communication with the broader community. Earlier in this term, I asked the question of staff, what percentage of ratepayers we held a valid email address for, and I believe the percentage was about 10% at that time. But it was also revealed that we have many other mail databases in the library and at the pound and at the swimming pool and at the sports centre for a variety of purposes that are not allowed to cross-pollinate because the terms under which people provide those email addresses are for that exclusive purpose.

So our desire to amalgamate our lists and have a better way of communicating digitally with the broader community is kind of cruel. I would have hoped that this draft media policy would have included some step to , for example, change the terms and conditions under which people provide their email addresses so that they understand and consent to having that email address used on Council's broader mailing list. And I don't see that. And I may be mistaken in the sense that that isn't the intention of this document, but when I see that one of the objectives is to have protocols and consistent methods for communicating with the wider community, I would have hoped that it would be there.

Councillor Zamprogno, I do remember you mentioning that previously . General Manager, do we have a response to that?

I did get the number of email addresses that we have at the moment, and in relation to rates, it's less than 10%. And one of the challenges with emails is maintaining their continuity. People do change email addresses and they do move around. And whilst we have a problem as it is with people not advising us of a change of address, let alone a change of email address, there's also the issue that the council has referred to, and that is that we are obliged to use the information only for the purpose for which it's collected. And we can put a disclaimer on it at the bottom and encourage people to allow us to use it for other purposes. We are liaising with other councils about the best way to do that.

But again, it's a complicated issue, and it also ultimately may require us to establish what we call a names and address register and more actively manage that. And again, that will have some resourcing implications for council as well. So we're certainly familiar with the council's objectives, and Suzanne's going to say something in a second. We're certainly aware of the council's objectives. We are certainly working in that space, and I think Suzanne's just about to update us a little bit more.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. If I could just give an example of the way we are starting to do that now. So whenever we hold community consultation engagements, now we're encouraging people to register through an online registration. So through that, we do compile a big list of email addresses. So an example would be that each time we hold another round of consultation, our database is growing, so we are able to communicate with those people who are coming along or who are registering their interest. We have recently updated our Your Hawkesbury, Your Say, and so when people go on and consult through that, we're gathering their information there. And just like we're now endeavouring to update our website, so we are taking small steps to start gathering those emails, and we are seeking permissions as we do that to allow us to do further email engagement with those people.

Thank you. I'm just expressing some mild frustration because I had hoped that this would be a part of Council's digital media strategy when we came out with our digital media strategy, and I think we fell short in that document in terms of the objectives that I've laid out. So, in the media policy, there's also an opportunity to overtly state that we will be renovating our processes. And with respect, the email addresses that we gather at community consultation meetings are probably the tip of the iceberg. There's a huge reservoir of people who willingly give their email addresses to Council at the library and at the Oasis and at the gym and at the sporting complex and so on and so on and so on.

And it might be very difficult to retrospectively go back and ask those people for permission, but certainly in those areas, it would simply take a change of the terms and conditions so that they understood that if they were providing their email address, a Council newsletter of a more generic type might occasionally hit their inbox. And I suspect, even though most people don't take kindly to spam, that kind of communication would be welcomed.

Councillor Semperog, now are you suggesting an addition to the recommendation or are you happy with the way it is?

Mr Mayor, if an extra dot point directing Council to develop strategies for increasing our mailing, our e-mailing list would be appropriate to add to. Our media policy, then I would be happy to do so. I'm just seeking some direction that our media policy is the best instrument to be directing that through.

I'll ask Ms Stewart to comment.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. We could include a line in there, but probably it's more about media communication. So what you're suggesting is something that we're definitely working on with the rates and with communication, like I just outlined, but it probably wouldn't generally be an objective for the media policy as such.

That said, Mr Mayor, I won't delay proceedings here, and I'll think more on this and may bring it as a notice of motion in the coming months.

Through you, Mr Mayor, one of the actions in our operational plan is to develop a community engagement strategy, which will be obviously quite broad. Through that strategy, we'll be looking at a range of techniques in order to engage with the community, and digital media would obviously be one of those ideas, and Council will have an opportunity to work with us on that strategy.

Thank you. Any further speakers on the matter? Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor. I take a different view on this matter. I believe what we are speaking to is really an external communication policy, as opposed to a media policy, and I believe that that would be a more appropriate way in which to describe. What is being attempted to be done. I do however have misgivings in regard to the responsibilities of the various roles that were laid out or expressed in the report. Below the Manager of Communications, however that was described, there seemed to be a great lack of clarity as to who is responsible to whom and for what. There seemed to be potential for overlapping and so on. I believe this policy needs to go back, be redescribed, be rebranded if you like, and further considered with some of those elements. And the general body

Of the wording compressed somewhat. It seemed to be superfluous and, if you like, lacking in a succinct sense of direction. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. Any further speakers?

No. Councillor Rasmussen as mover, do you wish to exercise your right of reply?

Not necessary, Mr Mayor. Thank you.

Okay, I'll put the motion then. All those in favour say aye. Those against? One against. Do you wish that recorded?

Thank you.

Councillor Ross would like his name recorded as voting against this. I declare it carried.

Our next item is item 88 , quarterly budget review statement. Moving the recommendation. Seconded. Seconded Councillor Rasmussen. Councillor Conolly, do you wish to speak to it? Any other speakers? Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor.

I just wish to draw to my fellow councillors' attention what is really not a satisfactory position as I see it. I have a vastly different view to those who wrote the report.

The most significant element advised to Council is the operating profit ratio of negative 0.141. If you look at that in terms of the numbers which are used to calculate that, there is an operational loss of 9.5 million.

For Council to perform in accordance with its fit for the future plan , that would need to be reduced to 4 million. There is a discrepancy of 5.5 million, which I regard, as an elected councillor, as untenable, and I would suggest that my further, my colleague councillors need to pay very close attention to this, because it is only in January of 2018 that Council submitted an application to IPART for the rate

Variation, the SRV. In that, Council laid out its plans. We have failed to meet those plans. We have a legislated responsibility to

Adhere to, from the point of view of the ratepayers and residents of this local government area. I believe the councillors are failing to do that, and I believe it is incumbent upon the councillors to step up to the mark and seek the management's plan as to the management's intentions as to how this situation might be corrected.

With bearing in mind, I might add, that that 5.5 million deficit has no earthly chance of being corrected in the coming quarter, which is well and truly advanced. The operational situation in the March quarter showed a decline in the operating situation. Still, it was reduced, no doubt with some great flourishes here and there. They can only occur once. The situation at the end of June will, in all likelihood , be worse, which places us in a very precarious situation, I would feel, with our state government and the relevant minister. I draw your attention to that, and I also feel that I should draw your attention to the changing nature of the narrative that is being provided to us by this staff.

At the December review statement, at page eight of the document, the following was— I'll read, if I may, verbatim. In the opinion of the responsible accounting officer, whilst Council is not in a satisfactory short-term position, it can remain on track to achieve the required fit-for-the-future ratios as planned in its long-term financial plan. This will require actions to be taken to ensure financial performance is brought back in line with the long-term financial plan over the remainder of the financial year.

However, we then turn to March. This is the concluding statement there at page eight of the current business paper. The quarterly budget review statement recommends budget adjustments that result in an overall balanced adjustment for the quarter. Variations proposed are necessary to ensure appropriate budget allocations are available to deliver Council's adopted— Operational plan.

I suggest to you that there's a wildly different, well , substantially different theme being portrayed in both those reports. I was looking for a plan to be provided by the management to the Council following release of the December report. That has not been forthcoming. I consider that the current situation is untenable, and I consider that the current report is also not appropriate in view of the circumstances. And I again seek urgent attention from the management to place the Council in a better position, which obviously means that there has to be some rationing and rationalisation and curtailment of expenditure, as it is proving to be at levels which is inappropriate. It also, in view of the amounts of expenditure that have been incurred in relation to both of the sewage plants,

Which is reported as something over 2.2 million from what I can ascertain over the three quarters, that there is a rather serious problem in the operation of those plants. And furthermore, if I take you back to the long-term financial plan and the report that was submitted to IPART, there was a consultants' report from Morrison Low, which indicated that Council had changed its long-term view of infrastructure as being now only 17 million dollars behind the— Current requirements in terms of expenditure that is required to bring things back to normal, whereas prior to this it was in the order of about 68 million, from memory. The Morrison-Lowe report clearly told Council that , in its opinion, as a consultant, they considered the current basis of the Council's asset management plan was inappropriate in the circumstances, and it did not support the request for the SRV as well.

I believe that there is urgent need on the part of Council, apart from curtailing its costs, to go back and have a very serious look at the asset management plans, because clearly we are seeing here levels of expenditure which go to indicate that asset management and the level of

Expenditure required to bring assets to a satisfactory state is far more significant than has been alluded to and provided to us councillors. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. Do we have a response to that,

If you want?

I've made some notes on the way through, and I've already arranged to meet with Councillor Ross as well, so I think I'll continue along that line. Okay. Any further speakers? Councillor Conolly

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I had a couple of questions, if that's okay. First question through you, Mr Mayor, is I would like to know how difficult it would be, or what would be involved in reporting the quarterly budget reviews earlier. Obviously, I know it's a complex and large organisation, but to get the quarterly reviews, because I don't overall disagree with some of Councillor Ross's sentiments around it would be good to have some options to correct the issues rather than just to accept that this is a position. But that's obviously policy changes that require Council's examination, and to get the report on the 28th of May, you're not going to fix anything by the 30th of June. I'd just be interested to know how resource intensive or how difficult it would be to try and do these reports earlier.

Do you have an answer to that?

That doesn't have— I guess that's probably an unfair question to ask right now. If that should be on notice, that's fair enough.

Take it on notice

Yeah, sorry. Yeah . And the other question I had was in relation to the variation for the independent hearing and assessment panel. I notice we're recording a favourable variance of 50,000. What was the total budget for the IHP originally?

Thanks, Mr Mayor. 100,000. Okay.

Thank you. And the swimming pool program, again maybe this is more appropriate to be on notice, but I noticed that we're recording an unfavourable variance, and I think we've already— I think this might be an update one from the first quarterly review, that we also updated this. Just wondering if this is on the radar for a report back to Council or some sort of internal review on what else we can do in this space, because I know I've noticed for private certifiers who we're competing with, activity's picked up, and we're obviously missing out even though we're cheaper. So it'd just be interesting to know if we're looking at what can be done in that space.

So you may recall, at the end of last year, I actually brought an amended swimming pool program policy to Council. The policy that we had was actually very proactive, but required a number of resources that we didn't have, so we were actually setting ourselves up to fail. So I brought back a program which was actually just dealing with what we have to do under legislation. Over time, we can look at doing a more proactive program, but based on our current resources, we just need to do what we're required under legislation.

Thank you. That was all, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Councillor Conolly. Any other speakers? Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, I'm just wondering, in relation to Councillor Ross's detailed critique of the report, how much of that—and I'm just trying to remember from the briefing that we had recently on this— how much of that was actually covered in the briefing? I remember some of it, or if not all of it, or a substantial part of it was covered in the briefing, as I recall. Have I got that wrong,

General Manager?

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Yes, pretty much everything was covered in the briefing.

Yes, pretty much everything was covered in the Councillor briefing.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. And did we not get a plan of action to correct the situation? I thought we did. I thought there was some plans laid out at the briefing. Was I at a different briefing?

Thanks, Mr Mayor. So for the December quarterly review, where we had a deficit budgeted position, yes, there was some identified actions to be taken to rectify the position. And as in the report here, the March review reflected some of those actions. Thanks.

Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you,

Mr Mayor. Anybody else? No. Councillor Conolly, do you wish to have right of reply? Okay, I'll move the motion then. All those in favour say aye. Those against? Councillor Reynolds and Councillor Ross against. Do you want your names recorded? Okay, if you could do that. Declare it carried.

Next item is item 91, remuneration for Mayor and Councillors. We have someone who wants to move something on that one.

I'll move the recommendation, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Sam Progonos moving the recommendation. Councillor Ross.

Foreshadow an amendment.

Foreshadowing an amendment. Do we have a seconder for the recommendation? Councillor Conolly. Councillor Sam Progonos, do you wish to speak?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Twelve months ago, when we were presented with this decision, it was in the light of, at that time, very recent and very hefty hike to rates that we'd imposed on the community. And at that time, I think it was appropriate for us to show some solidarity with the community and to say that we would not automatically, by rote, immediately vote ourselves the maximum increase that we are entitled to. It is worth pointing out, however, that over the last 12 months, by not taking the increase that was offered by IPART, or the Remuneration Tribunal, Council saved a grand total of $7,132, or 0.009% of our overall budget. So it might be symbolic, but it's also reasonably tokenistic.

I think the broader community don't begrudge us the fee that we are paid to give of our time and energy and talent to be here. What they would begrudge is if we were not across our subject matter, if we weren't engaged with the community, and if we didn't turn up as often as possible. So under the circumstances, I'm Prepared to move the recommendation as it stands.

Any further speakers? Councillor Ross. Well

I would wish to move an amendment, if that is— An amendment? Yes, thank you. I would seek to amend the recommendation to one which would indicate that councillors would withhold consideration of any further increase in view of the budgetary situation pertaining at the moment. Thank you.

Actually, Councillor Ross, I don't see that as an amendment. The recommendation is that we pass it as it stands. Your amendment is that we don't pass it. That, to me, conflicts with the motion. So that would be a foreshadowed motion that you want to put up. So what you need to do is speak against this motion and convince everyone to vote it down, and then convince everyone to vote for your foreshadowed motion. Okay? So I'll hand it over to you if you wish to speak. Yes.

Well, as I have outlined, fellow councillors, the financial situation of Council is far from satisfactory: 9.5 million, and the meter is still running red hot.

The causes for that are many and varied, but they are there, and they're indisputable. I believe, as a councillor, that it is incumbent upon us to have regard to the community to whom we report. And who put us in this chamber, and show them the respect with which they deserve to be treated,

And forego the opportunity to improve our material situation with the Council in this diabolical financial position. I would therefore feel that it inappropriate to request any increment in our stipend. Thank you.

Further speakers?

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I won't be supporting the recommendation. I think that, contrary to what Councillor Zamprogno says, even though it may only be symbolic, I think it is a strong sense of symbolism that we have required the community to have a rate hike for the last three years, and I think that this is just something that we should do. I think we should involve ourselves in the lobbying by Local Government NSW and others who are calling for a reform to the structure surrounding how councillors are paid, I mean this being an allowance as such, not a salary, so to speak. So I think that that being the case, we should just continue on for the rest of this term on the rates as they stood.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor.

I agree with the Deputy Mayor that this isn't the time for a pay rise for us. There are many parts of Council's budget that are outside our control. For example, how many people bring us their swimming pools to be looked at, how many cats need to be desexed, and whether the property market is tanking or powering along. But this is one aspect that is within our control. This is one small choice that we can make to show solidarity with the ratepayers, and I think it may be tokenistic , it may be symbolic, but I think it's the right thing to do in this instance. We could all go on a great rant about how poor Council remuneration is, but we all went into this with our eyes open, and I think if any of us were in this for the money, then we were probably in the wrong place.

There are better ways to make a buck on a Tuesday night than sitting in this place. So I think we can forgo this rise for another year.

Councillor Garrow.

I will also be voting against the recommendation. In light of the current economic environment, where average wage is not increasing, we've recently adopted an SRV, then the State Government have gone and imposed an increase in fire service levy, not to mention the imposed IHAP procedure. I find it irresponsible that we can put our hands out and ask for a pay rise. There are most certainly councillors amongst us that deserve ten times the amount of money that they get paid here, but there's also others that don't attend repeated meetings, that do not involve themselves in any committees or community involvement at all. So it's pure hypocrisy that we can accept this unless there was a paid-for performance criteria imposed.

Further speakers.

Can I just add that what's being proposed here is not a wage increase or a pay rise. What's being proposed is that we keep up with the CPI. By not keeping up with the CPI, what you're suggesting is that we should actually take a reduction in the money that we, in real terms, that we receive. And I do think it is tokenistic. And if I was an average person out there in Hawkesbury and I heard that council's going to do the right thing and take a reduction in their pay , a reduction in their allowance, I would not be impressed by that. I would see that as being patronising and tokenistic. And I'd also see it as grandstanding. Councillors who want to, who believe that we are getting too much of an allowance can always give it back.

You can go to the pay officer and say, Take my money back. I don't want it. And you don't have to do it here in council and make it and broadcast it across the city. I think it turns out to be something like five dollars a week. And what can be done with five dollars a week? Not much. So, and others people are saying that we should be setting an example. What is the example we're setting? The example we're setting is that it's okay for wages to be reduced, when actually one of the biggest problems in the economy today is that real wages are falling. And we're saying it's all right to do that. It's all right to cut your wages. I don't see that as a good example at all, at all. And perhaps the solidarity we should be showing is solidarity with workers and saying, No, wages shouldn't be decreased.

Wages should be kept or increased at the current level. So I have great problems with what's being suggested in the foreshadowed motion, and I'm going to be voting in favour of the recommendation. Any further speakers?

Councillor Sam Progner, do you wish to have right of reply?

None needed, Mr Mayor.

I'll put the recommendation, the motion which is the recommendation in the business paper. All those in favour say aye. Raise your hands, please. One, two, three. All those against? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Declare it lost. We move to the foreshadowed motion put up by Councillor Ross. Can you repeat what that foreshadowed motion is, please?

Thank you, Sir.

That Council is respecting the wishes of the ratepayers and residents, respectfully decline the opportunity to increase their

Allowance at this juncture in view of multiple facts, including

Council's precarious financial position,

The awarding of an SRV which has already been inflicted upon our ratepayers and residents, and further cost shifting by the State Government, which is also bound to impact. On those good residents of ours in the coming future.

Thank you for that, Councillor Ross. Do we have a seconder for that?

Sorry, Mr Mayor, there's too much content in that to just vote from the floor. I think it needs to be seen. It's too long and it's got too many elements.

Can we see it on the screen, please? No one's seconding it at the moment. We need to see it on the screen, then someone may second it.

Mr Mayor, while that's being rendered, I'd also flag an objection on the basis that it's out of order, in the sense that the negation of the previous motion effectively gives effect to what Councillor Ross is proposing. And it isn't an actionable motion.

I've already ruled on that. I saw it as a foreshadowed motion.

The declining the previous motion doesn't really leave us anywhere,

In my opinion. Nothing happened, yeah.

And that's what Councillor Ross's motion proposes

To do. Well, that's an opinion, but I'm going to let him put this up anyway.

It was very long-winded. You don't want to put a shorter version?

I'd be quite content with purely suggesting that Council decline the prospect of an increase.

Okay. Thank you. Mr Wern, did you get that? Does anyone wish to second that? Councillor Garrow. Thank you. Councillor Roche, you wish to speak to it?

I'm very pleased that I have a seconder. A remarkable feat.

That's your speech, is it? Councillor Conolly.

Look, Mr Mayor, I think you're correct in what you said, that it's sort of neither here nor there. It's a very small amount of money and I'm not too fussed either way. I guess the point I would just make is that it's a bit interesting to find ourselves in this position where the councillors who wanted the SRV and claimed they had community support are now turning around and saying council are in a precarious and diabolical financial position and can't take a pay rise to show solidarity with the community whose support they supposedly had for their SRV.

Further speakers? Yes Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll support this motion. I think it's essentially what we just actually voted for, but I'm happy to support it. I'd just like to, in response to what you said about wage cuts and so on, just reiterate that this isn't a wage; it's an allowance to assist us to carry out our job. So it's not like being employed with a wage. As we know, tax isn't taken out, so we all get a nice lovely tax bill at the end of the year. And it's something that has a range, which we get the maximum of what the range is. So other councils... Many other councils choose to go for the minimum. Other councils don't have budgets for conferencing and things like that. So I think we do fairly well in being assisted to carry out our duties as we go along.

So given that we're getting the maximum fee already, or the maximum fee from last year, or whenever we didn't have the increase, I don't think that the argument of being in solidarity with workers who are employed and are wage earners who haven't had an increase for a long time, I don't think that equates as a viable argument because this simply isn't a situation where we're on a wage or employed. We don't have accountability. We don't have to meet any particular standards. We simply have to be elected, and then we're given an amount of money to assist us to carry out these duties. So I'm happy for it. In response to Councillor Conolly, we do have a lot of burdens just of late due to cost shifting, which were raised about the emergency services levy and the swimming pool inspections, the IHAPs and so on.

The things that were raised by other councillors are actually things that were all imposed by the state government under another form of cost shifting. So I think that it's, you know, I'm just happy to stay with how we're plodding along. And thank you, Councillor Ross, for raising that.

It's on the board at the moment. Is that okay with you, Councillor Ross? What's up there?

You're happy with that? Okay. Councillor Wheeler, you wish to speak?

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Just to comment on something Councillor Conolly said, only one councillor has said that our financial position is diabolical. I don't think the rest of us are of that view, and I would prefer not to have my views stated by someone who isn't me, basically. This isn't a wage. We're not showing any solidarity with workers by working with no paid leave, no superannuation, and no reasonable performance reviews. So to imply that by not taking a 10 to 15 dollar a week rise is showing poor solidarity with working members of the community, I think is a pretty long bow. If we wanted to show solidarity with workers, if we wanted to actually fight for reasonable pay and conditions for councillors, then a far better campaign would be to ask the state government, not the ratepayers, but the state government, to renumerate us properly for the job that we do, provide superannuation, provide a reasonable wage, join with other councils who are now starting that campaign with Local Government New South Wales and ramping up their efforts to see that councillors are paid a wage rather than an allowance.

While we're being paid an allowance and that allowance is coming from ratepayers, then I think we do need to keep an eye on the budget.

I thank Councillor Ross for bringing this forward. I agree with the Deputy Mayor. We have, for a long time, this council has set itself at the maximum allowable fee. Now, when the community has maximal satisfaction, when our infrastructure is in maximal repair, and when all is right with the world, maybe we'll go back to the maximum fee. But right now, I think we can just suck it up for another 12 months.

Any further speakers? Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Happy to be stand corrected, but I think the correct term is, yes, this is not a wage, but it's actually a fee for service, which I think is what we actually get paid. But in my time of being an elected councillor, every single time this comes up, it seems the other side of the chamber tries to use it as an opportunity for cheap point scoring. It's not an opportunity to get on your high horse and claim superiority because you don't want to accept an increase to your fee for service, because I'm actually supporting Councillor Ross's motion. It's also not an excuse every time this comes up, every 12 months, to start your cost shifting arguments again and therefore get your five seconds in on the state government.

It's also other councillors in this chamber have imposed the rolled gold version of a rate rise on residents. I simply won't take more money while other councillors in this chamber of Arks residents to dip more into their pockets, yet want to use the hypocrisy argument from across the chamber. So I'll actually be supporting you tonight, Councillor Ross, but as I said, next time this comes up, which it will in another 12 months, let's get off our high horses, shall we?

Councillor Reynolds. Now, Councillor Richards is off her high horse. I'll just might stand on a box for a tick. I don't see how we can say $7,000 is tokenistic when we've just had an item come before us asking for $5,500 for us to approve that. If seven grand is tokenistic, why don't we just pull the $5,500 out of the petty cash tin? Why did it have to come to here? Why did we even bother? I think that, you

Know. So, it's a nice bit of projection there, Councillor Richards, you know, accusing us of doing something that you just did yourself. There are members of our community that would dearly love to have an extra $7,000 a year, dearly love $7,000 a year. And for us to say that it's just tokenistic shows that, or some of us to say that it's just tokenistic just goes to show how out of touch those people who think that really are, especially with those that are struggling and, you know, looking at every dollar every week. So I think that shows a pretty poor form.

And as far as the cost shifting goes, now that Councillor Richards has raised it, I think that it should be addressed. I mean, we were just hit, what was it, $196,000 we were hit with last month. We're supposed to find that from somewhere.

Well now, instead of $196,000, it's now $189,000. I think that's pretty good value.

Any other speakers?

I just wanted to add that Hawkesbury councillors are one of the lowest paid councillors, maybe the lowest paid councillors in Sydney metropolitan area.

In the Sydney

Metropolitan area, we— it's not as if we're all getting rich on the money that's being given to us. And it's been,

I think that it is actually setting a bad example, not a good example. I've already gone through that, so I'm not going to go through it again. But if this is the will of Council, then I will, I'll keep quiet at this stage. Any further speakers? Councillor Ross, you wish to have right of reply?

Not necessary. I'll move the motion as it appears on the board. All those in favour, please raise your hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. Those against? Two. Declare it carried.

We move to item number 92, the Code of Meeting Practice.

Move that way, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Rasmussen. Any seconders?

Do we have a seconder, please?

Doesn't look like it.

Does somebody wish to move something else then?

Councillor Wheeler.

I'd like to move a couple of amendments to the recommendation.

Okay.

They're amendments to the document itself.

So item, sorry, clause 4.2, where it says members of the public may address Council on any items in the business paper, and it goes on to say other than the confirmation of minutes, blah blah. I'd like 4.2 to stop at any items in the business paper.

And item 5.4, I'd like a clarification before I amended that,

Please What clarification would you like?

It says, item 5.4 says a councillor's request for leave of absence from meeting should, if practicable, identify by date the meetings from which the councillor attends to be absent and the grounds upon which the leave of absence is being sought. I'm wondering if if practicable relates to both the dates and the grounds upon which the leave of absence is sought, or simply the dates.

General Manager, do we have answers to those questions?

Mr Mifsud. Thanks, Mr Mayor. My understanding is that it would relate to both.

Thank you. In which case, I would like, if practicable, to relate only to the dates and not the grounds on which. So perhaps if a comma was inserted after absent, then that would mean that if practicable should refer to the first clause in the sentence, not the second. I don't think it's— I think it's reasonable to allow some leeway for a councillor to identify a date, but I think you should be able to give a reason.

Okay. So you'd like to move the recommendation plus with those two changes? Those

Two changes, please. Mr Mifsud .

Thanks, Mr Mayor. In regard to the latest request regarding item 4.5.4, I believe that's a mandatory clause within the current model code, which means that the only way you could change it would be to strengthen it rather than weaken it. In which

Case, could we remove— is it possible to remove if practicable? Because that would strengthen it. Is that true ?

Mr Mifsud.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. If Council believe that was strengthening, yes, they could do that.

Okay. So you could do that.

Thank you. I think that adding the comma also strengthens it, but removal of— sorry to be difficult— but removing— no, I'm not. You're right. I'm not sorry at all. But removing if practicable, I think is preferable.

So you're moving it with those two changes. Do we have a seconder?

I raise a point of order, Mr Mayor. You may. I don't believe that the first change to clause 4.2 is in order with the current recommendation. The current recommendation is to move with adoption, whereas I would have thought that to make a significant change, you would need to go onto exhibition. I think we're adopting it to come back, isn't it?

Councillor Conolly, I didn't hear all that. Can you say that last bit again? Sorry.

I believe maybe I'm just second guessing myself. No, okay. So we're currently going—the recommendation is to adopt the document, but I would have thought that to change 4.2 would require the document to go back on public exhibition, given it's such a significant change, and therefore we would need to change the recommendation to move it back onto public exhibition again.

General Manager, do we have a response to that

I'm not sure it's that significant that it would require public exhibition.

If we were going to say members of the public may not address, but we're actually—we're expanding the range of opportunities. I think it's probably acceptable.

I see it that way too. We're adding to it, not subtracting. Could

I be permitted to make one small further comment, Mr Mayor? This clause, and it was obviously before the time of the current General Manager, to make this change in the first place was highly controversial and involved a lot of debate. So to just change it back without putting it on exhibition, I think is significant, and I think there would be no harm in a ruling that it would need to go back on exhibition and just put it on exhibition again. It's a very big change to spring on at the last minute, considering how much debate went on the first time to change it.

Mr Mist, has a comment. Thanks, Mr Mayor. All councils are required to adopt a new code of conduct, code of meeting practice by the 14th of June. If councils do not adopt a new code of meeting practice by the 14th of June, the model code of meeting practice will become councils' code of meeting practice.

So we don't have time before 14 June to put it on exhibition again.

Well, my point of order still remains. This requires a ruling as to whether it's significant enough or not.

I heard your point of order, but as the general manager said, the change is actually not detracting from the recommendation; it's adding to it. And I think if it said something like, Members of the public may not address Council on certain items, then that would be a major change. General manager, do you have any further comments?

Yeah, look, it's correct. I'm not familiar with all the history that Councillor is referring to, but I do still have the view that it's not constraining; it's actually expanding. So I don't believe that it's something that requires re-notification at this point in time.

You could possibly move an amendment.

Yes, I would like to move an amendment, Mr Mayor, which is just a recommendation in the business paper. Okay. Do we have a seconder for

The amendment?

Councillor Richards. Okay. What needs to happen now is we need to discuss the amendment first and decide whether we want to replace Councillor Wheeler's motion with the amendment. Did I get a seconder for Councillor Wheeler's motion? Councillor Reynolds. Okay. So we're discussing the amendment, Councillor Conolly.

Excuse me, Mayor.

Point of order.

I'd like to foreshadow an amendment later.

Foreshadow a motion.

Foreshadow an amendment. Okay.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I would be moving the recommendation in the business paper. I think the draft code of meeting practice as exhibited to the public, and without any strong representations, two clause 4.2 should remain as is. I actually, I don't have a big problem with, or any problem with, members of the public addressing Council on the confirmation of the minutes, questions with notice, responses to questions. However, I can't see anything productive that's going to come out of having addresses from the public on mayoral and deputy mayoral elections. In the past, it was just a case of the same people, usually who'd been candidates for Council themselves, getting up and slagging people off for five minutes at a time.

It was not a pleasant experience for anybody involved. It was completely unprofessional and did not lead to any more productive decisions than if we hadn't had it. And that was the reason that that change, as I mentioned before, after much debate and public exhibition was made. I wouldn't have, as I said, no issue with any of the other items. I can't see why members of the public would want to register to address Council on the confirmation of minutes, but if there was some issue with the minutes that every councillor had missed and they couldn't contact a councillor or the staff, then that wouldn't be a problem. In terms of the change, suggest a change to 5.4, I think that's fine because, of course, if that clause was breached, I guess that the consequence would be somebody would lodge a complaint that the code of meeting practice had been breached, and if there was a good reason why it wouldn't be an issue, and if there wasn't a good reason why, well, all the better that it was raised.

So I had no issue with that. But I really do think that the change clause 4.2 would be a bad change. It's not going to lead to any better decisions being made by Council.

Thank you. Any further speakers on the amendment? Councillor Reynolds. I'd just like to— a question, Mr Mayor. I think Councillor Conolly just spoke against his amendment by suggesting that 5.4 be changed when his amendment is to accept the recommendation as it is. Yes, Councillor Conolly is free to speak anyway he wants.

I mean, to make it clear, Councillor Reynolds, I guess what I'm saying is if there was a move to compromise, those are all the things I would have no problem with changing. But my real sticking point would be that part of 4.2.

Thank you. Any further speakers on the amendment?

Okay. What I'm going to do now is put the amendment.

Then what we're voting on is whether the amendment should replace the motion. If the amendment replaces the motion, then we will vote on it straight away. No, we won't, sorry. Then it becomes a motion. We can then call up the other amendment. If the amendment is lost, then we go back to the original motion, but there can be a new amendment. Okay. So we're moving the amendment moved by Councillor Conolly. All those in favour say aye. Raise your hands. One, two, three, four, five. All those against. One, two, three, four, five, six. Declare the amendment lost. We go back to the original motion for Councillor Wheeler, but Councillor Ross would like to move an amendment to that.

Sorry. My amendment would be that clauses 3.12, 3.13, 9.10 and 10.9, which all entail the

Councillor involved in either raising a notice of motion or a question to seek clearance from the management , the operational management, as to whether there are funds available within the operational plan before those matters are elevated to, if you like, a favourable standing. Those clauses—

Just the amendment, please, not a speech about it, okay? Yes. Okay.

That's the gist of the amendment,

Mr Mayor. Before I ask for a seconder, Councillor Wheeler, would you consider adding those points to your motion?

Could I hear the points again, please? Just the list of numbers.

Could we also have clarification whether they're mandatory clauses or optional?

Okay. Can you repeat the points, please?

Yes, I can. If I may assist the Deputy Mayor, if you refer to the business paper of March 12, AT3, all those clauses are optional. Optional. The clauses which I seek to revert to the standard are as follows: 3.12.

3.13,

9.10

And 10.9.

Can I ask Mr Mifsud, are any of those mandatory or can they be changed?

Thanks, Mr Mayor. We'll need to identify those clauses that Councillor Ross has put up there and then go back and marry them against the current document to see whether they're the same clauses, then check whether they're mandatory. So we probably just need a bit of time to do that. The clauses that Councillor Ross is referring to are in the previous business paper. The Code of Meeting Practice is before Council at the moment. Those numbers have changed, so we need to marry those back up against the ones in this one to be able to work out whether they're mandatory or not.

Yes, they are different, Councillor Ross. 10.1 is about motion has to be seconded. That's not what you meant, is it?

In this model code, this draft code of practice that we have before us tonight,

10.1 is very different, for example.

10.9, you said, did you?

Can I seek your clarification, Mayor? You sure can. Thank you very much. Do I take it that the Code of Meeting Practice which is before us tonight differs from that which was at the March 12 meeting?

I believe the numbers are different. Mr Mifsud

Mr Wern's going to answer that. Okay

So in the model code , which Councillor Ross refers to, 3.12 has now become our 3.14. 3.13 has now become Council's 3.15. 9.10 and 10.9 stay the same as the model. They are all non-mandatory clauses. They're all optional. They give Council the option of having the General Manager or the Council provide a reasoning or, you know, provide an— or have a deferral so he can respond and provide a report on the expenditure. So they're all non-mandatory provisions. Okay,

Thank you. Do you need any more clarification? Yes, I do. It's

Still unclear to me whether the document in front of us on the table is that which was considered at the March 12 meeting.

Mr Mifsud.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. The document that's in front of Council at the moment is slightly different to the one that Councillor Ross refers to on the March meeting. As outlined on page 50 of the business paper, additional clauses 11.6 and 11.7 have been inserted into the business paper.

Okay, but the other points that Councillor Ross raised are still the same, or are they different too? That's the question he's asking, I think. There's been extras inserted in 11.

So all the other clauses are identical to the business paper from March, with the additional clauses 11.6 and 11.7 added to the code, which is then translated to some other numbers changing further down in the code. So

The content is the same except for an addition in point 11, but the numbers have changed. The numbers of the points have changed, but the content is the same. Is that right? Yep,

I can clarify it. So there's an additional clause 11.6 and an additional clause 11.7 in this code of meeting practices before Council at the moment. Because those have been inserted, some numbers have changed, but the rest of the document is exactly the same as the March document. Councillor Ross

Mr Mayor, I would put it to you that there has been a change in the document with the addition of those further clauses at section 11, and however they're renumbered, doesn't change the fact that there's been a change in the overall document. Therefore, if the original document went out for public exhibition, this cannot now be passed without going to public exhibition. General

Manager.

Mr Wern is going to answer that.

Yes, I guess what Councillor Ross is referring to is that the clauses listed in the business paper of the 12th of March ... have the optional clauses from the model code. Now, we didn't adopt all those optional clauses, so our numbering system will be different to the model code. The second point is, yes, the version that was adopted by Council for public exhibition has changed. There's been two additional clauses put in. One is for the voting to enable voting only on matters other than formality, I guess formalities. The other change is just an administrative change to allow councillors the right to have their dissenting vote recorded in the minutes. They're purely administrative. They didn't change the intent or the intent from the Council resolution of the 12th of March. And so they're not being substantial, don't need to be placed on public exhibition again.

Thank you, Mr Wern. Councillor Ross

Beg your pardon, Mayor. I believe that's a staff interpretation. There are changes to the document. If the original document was required to go out into public exhibition, with the changes that have occurred, albeit not through our origination, the document has to be resubmitted for public exhibition.

Thank you. I don't think so, but I'll ask the General Manager if he wishes to comment.

Mr Mayor, just to follow up on Mr Wern's comments. So the numbering has changed for two primary reasons. One is to reflect the decision that Council made in March when they determined the composition of the document to go on public exhibition. There were some changes as a consequence of that because some clauses dropped out. The second lot of changes relate to feedback during the consultation period, and some of that feedback was internally from staff, and it related to whether you needed to note voting patterns on some procedural matters, and the view of the staff and the input of the staff was that that wasn't required, and that the second... Amendment came basically as a result of the councillor briefing, which is part of the consultation process, and it was to clarify that councillors could call for their name to be recorded against one of those operational motions.

So I think everything is in order. I believe that the

Document that's before Council tonight is consistent with Council's original decision in March and/or consistent with feedback from staff and/or councillors during the consultation process. And it's before Council tonight. Council can make a decision. I'm confident it doesn't need to go out for further exhibition based on what's before us at the moment.

Thank you. Before we move on, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Wheeler, are you happy to accept those changes and add them to your motion?

I'm happy to accept the removal of 9.10 and 3.14 and 3.15, yes. So

Councillor Ross, are you happy to have your amendment built into the original motion

Yep, she has moved that way. The seconder is Councillor Reynolds, I believe. Are you happy with that change? Okay. Councillor Wheeler, do you wish to speak on your motion? Can we have that change on the board, Mr Mayor? Have the change on the board, yes please.

Councillor Wheeler, do you wish to speak?

Yes, please .

I think

The main aim with this document is not to produce a document that suits us, but a document that serves the community regardless of who holds power in this Council. I think the staff have done a really good job with keeping the— The main aims of the Council's Code of Meeting Practice and the usual rhythm of Council's meetings, and adapting the new code to that. Many other councils have used this as an opportunity to exclude the public from meetings. It's one of the things that this Council sought to do very early into our term, was to increase the amount of public speaking. And I recall that when last time there was contention about people speaking on all items at the business paper, that actually happened because people were excluded from speaking on all the items in the business paper apart from planning.

And that caused considerable community consternation, quite understandably. Other councils have opted for a forum at the beginning of the meeting, and I think that's a worthy goal. I really wish we'd done that. But many of them have done that and then excluded residents from speaking on items in the business paper as the paper flows along, and that makes it very difficult, I think, for councillors to consider what's been said. It stifles debate, and it makes it very difficult for community members. I would have liked a forum where everybody got to speak about the things that they felt were relevant, not the items that were necessarily in the business paper. I certainly understand the spirit of 3.14 and 3.15.

It would be irresponsible for councillors to bring notices of motion into this chamber that derail Council's— General business, but I think these clauses can be misused and used to stifle councillors, particularly councillors who don't hold significant power in the chamber, from getting Council to discuss and act on other items of business. And so I'm happy to exclude them. I don't think it means a free-for-all. This Council has always had a tacit agreement that if you wanted to spend a significant amount of money, the right thing to do with a notice of motion was to ask for a report before and then have this Council consider that when it came back to it. And I don't think that there should be a dramatic change of practice.

You still have to get the support of your colleagues if you want to change to Council business and you want Council to expend money. So I think there is a safeguard there within the standard limits of Council democracy. What I sought to do in 4.2 was to make sure that the community could speak on all matters. I think it is reasonable for the community to speak on who the Mayor and Deputy Mayor are elected by this Council, whether they say things that we want to hear or the next Council wants to hear or not. I think it's perfectly valid that members of the community get to speak on things that affect them. They also have opinions and information on questions that come back from councillors. So I think it's perfectly reasonable that people get to address all of the business paper, and I hope you can support those recommendations.

Thank you. Do we have the motion?

Is that it?

Councillor Wheeler, are you happy with that even though it's not formatted yet? Yes. Yep. Do we have any further speakers on the motion? Councillor Conolly.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I don't think that removing those clauses makes the Code of Meeting Practice better. I take Councillor Wheeler's point that you still need the majority of Council to support your notice of motion, but I think that the inclusion of these points is about making sure that noticees of motion are actually providing all the information required to make a decision. They're not just a political statement, that if you want to say we should do this, you should say where the money is going to come from, and let Council make an informed decision about whether to spend that money or not, and put all the information out on the table. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect any Councillor to, if they want to spend an amount of money, to have spoken to the staff and at least have an idea of where that money should come from.

I don't think that's placing a burden on any Councillor that's unreasonable. Clause 3.14, I understand, and Clause 3.5 even, they actually place the onus on the staff, not on the Councillor, to prepare that report of where the money is going to come from. So I don't see that it's placing Councillors at a disadvantage at all. So I won't support the motion as it is currently

Further speakers? . .

A question or a point of order. The amendment, curiously, was— That we've rejected was for the recommendation in the business paper as it stands. This is now an amended version. So if this were to fail, would we be at liberty to revert back to

The recommendation in the business paper, since that's been voted on and defeated?

No, we wouldn't. We'd require a further motion. The recommendation in the business paper was voted on and defeated.

Any further speakers? Can I ask a question into the General Manager? The section on voting , have we come to a decision on how the voting will take place in the Chamber?

Mr Mayor, at the moment we've got the system of switches that we use. It's in the past proved to be a bit frustrating. I think if we're going to use that system, we probably need to enhance it

So there will probably have to be some expenditure. We did put the option of Councillors adopting other practices, and we cited some councils that use the practice of standing. So we would probably like some direction in due course on that matter. In due

Course, you mean tonight? Yes. So, Councillor Wheeler, your motion doesn't address that point, which is all in point 11. How do we plan to vote at meetings? Do you have a response to that?

I think the cheapest way would probably be that we stood up.

The

Lights are excruciating. I don't think any of us have missed them with the absence of planning matters on the business paper. So I think standing up probably quite healthy and free. So let's stand.

It's 11.5. 11.5 .

Excuse

Me, Mayor. What we can do with 11.5 is after open means we can put comma by standing and take the rest out. And then it will go however the council may.

Okay. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll either foreshadow an amendment or ask Councillor Wheeler if she would possibly change something. I've got a little concern with 3.14 being removed, but could it perhaps be amended to perhaps encompass some of clause, what was it, 9. 10 with mayoral minutes? I do think that to receive a report with a notice of motion, if there are those strategic, legal, financial or policy implications, would be an advantageous thing for us to receive at the time of bringing a notice of motion. So I'm just wondering if we could keep 3.14 and perhaps reword it to have— If the General Manager considers that a notice of motion or a mayoral minute submitted by the Mayor or Councillor for consideration, if it has those sort of implications listed there, that the General Manager does advise, you know, within the business paper of those considerations.

I think 3.14, just 1.15 , and 1.4 is it you're talking about? It says the General Manager may prepare a report. So I don't see that it's urgent to change it anyway, to take it out, because it doesn't say it's compulsory, but that's just my opinion. Councillor Wheeler, are you happy to make that change?

I'm happy to leave 3.14 and to alter it so that it includes both notices of motion and mayoral minutes.

I should go back to Councillor Ross. Are you happy with 3.14 to be changed in the way just described,

Even though it's no longer your motion? You're happy, right.

So, hang on. So, did we have that change listed?

It's coming on the board, I think.

Mr Wern, are we okay with that? Yes.

Just a suggestion for, I guess, readability of the code. I think we need to have notices of motion and mayoral minutes differentiated. So is it possible to have the same wording as 3.14, but just to replace it in 9.10 and just have the word mayoral minute? That would just make it a bit... I think we should keep Mayoral Minutes and Notice of Motions separately, but we could have the exact same wording in 3.14, just transferred across to 9.10, and just instead of the word Notice of Motion, just have the word Mayoral Minute.

Councillor Wheeler? I'm happy with that, Mr Mayor. I'd like to move a procedural motion. Could we move to committee, that Council move to Committee of the Whole to discuss this matter further?

I thought we're almost finished discussing it. Is there a lot more to discuss?

Who knows.

Well, I think we just keep going for a while and see how it goes. So you're happy with what Mr Wearn said, okay, and Councillor Reynolds, you're the seconder. You're happy with that too. Councillor Sam Progne, you wish to speak?

Look, I have a rising sense of unease that we're doing this in an ad hoc fashion and on the run. We were briefed about this and we made some comments. The version that came to us in the business paper I thought was perfectly acceptable. I think what we're doing is we're now cutting it to pieces. I object to the omission of point 11.5 relating to the voting system. I don't know why we should be so prescriptive as to insist that we vote by standing in our place when it would be perfectly acceptable to leave that with the wording that's there and permit us to vote in whatever manner achieves our goal, depending on how the technology is working or otherwise. We have an electronic voting system which the General Manager...

Tells us can be reliable, and has generally been reliable apart from some notable instances. But the point is, it's there. It's been a fixture of this chamber for very many years, and I think replacing it by proscribing us to rise in our place for every vote is very cumbersome. I think we should leave well enough alone there.

Councillor, you were talking about

Changing the wording to insist that we rise in our place, rather than provide for a variety of voting methods.

Councillor Wheeler, can you clarify what you're moving?

Frankly, I don't care if we do cartwheels to decide how we vote. I thought we were required to state how we voted. The clause in there isn't overly prescriptive. I have no problem with how we vote, as long as we vote within the confines of the model code. So I think we're probably arguing over something that isn't terribly important, as long as we all know at the beginning of the meeting how we're required to vote, so that we can all do the right thing on the night. So for clarification, 3.4 remains. 3 . 14 remains

9.10 becomes

The

Same as 3.14, but relates to mayoral minutes rather than notices of motion. 10.9 is removed, and 3.15 is removed.

Mr Wearn, you got all that, did you?

Can I ask a question, Mr Mifsud, about the voting patterns. Is it necessary for us to prescribe now what method we use for voting?

Mr Mayor, no. You don't have to set that. At the moment, 11.5 reads in the book that it is by open means, and it suggests what it could be. It's just up to the Council about what that would be.

So it can be left as it is and we decide on the night? Or do we need a long-term decision? Thanks

Mr Mayor. I don't believe you need a decision to do that. The Council can make up its mind how it does that.

Tonight?

Any time.

General Manager? I know the voting seems a minor thing, but if we chop and change from night to night about how we're going to record the voting, that will be a problem. And if we, I don't mind if we use the buttons, but to be clear, they have been a problem and we'll need to do some work on them. But what we can't have is something, I believe, that changes from week to week. And the historical issue with people with a show of hands, it has ranged from someone putting a finger up to being very clear. And the challenge for the staff is to record the voting accurately. That's the real challenge. And so we're just looking for a signal that allows us to capture the voting patterns unambiguously and as simply as possible.

Speaking for myself, I'm happy with raising of hands, provided everyone is disciplined and actually raises their hand long enough for the staff to... Take notes of that. But Councillor Wheeler, it's your motion. What do you wish to do?

I would prefer that we stood. I think it's clear. It's unequivocal. It may be something that Council has to look at down the track if we have someone who finds standing difficult. If that's an issue within the chamber, then I think we can probably address that. But for the moment, I think standing is probably the easiest and cheapest option we've got. So let's go with that.

Okay. Councillor Kynal, you had your light on before. Did you still wish to speak or have you forgotten by now?

I mean, not to labour on it, Mr Mayor, I was just going to raise a similar point of order to the one I raised at the very start of this. Looking at how many changes we've made, surely we can't do this without going back to public exhibition.

Thank you. I don't agree with you on that point of order. I'm sorry. The changes we're making tend to be rather small changes. There's a number of them, but they're all quite small. So I don't see that we're making major changes to the document. Councillor Richards, did you wish to speak? Yes,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. My concern is with changing 4.2. If you are changing or you are enabling the public now to address the issues in that point that were previously eliminated, you are opening up a can of worms, essentially, because if you're just going to leave it as is like that, you're not actually stating how the public can actually address each one of those criteria. So you actually will be actually put with questions every single time a member of the public wants to speak on those issues. So, for example, if you are not prescribing the way a member of the public can speak on the confirmation of minutes, are you therefore giving the right of that every single time we start a brand new meeting, a member of public can reopen every single item from the last meeting and speak on it?

If you're not prescribing how we do that, then you're opening it up to— So much ambiguity. If you're allowing members of the public without rules or without structure to come and speak on mayoral elections or deputy mayoral elections, are you allowing them to speak before a nomination has taken place or after a nomination has taken place? If you are allowing members of the public to come and speak on committee elections, we actually conduct those committee elections right now in confidential. So are you telling me that anyone who nominates themselves can actually address the meeting of the council while we're in the open public session, but then we go into confidential? My point is, you are not detailing how each, every single one of these elements actually—you're not giving any rules.

You are—it's no structure, and you're just opening it up to the floor. So I think that if you actually go into amend 4.2 and just leave it as it is, you're actually going to create a lot of problems for council, so I will not be supporting it in this way, because I think that without any structure, without any form, good luck with trying to implement how that's going to work successfully, because it's just not.

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

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just want to back on the voting system, sorry. Can I just have a simple explanation as to why it is so difficult to get the lights working? I mean, I've been here 22 years, and we've had a bit of a problem throughout that time, and I just find it really interesting that we as a council cannot get a simple little electronic system like that operational. So what is holding us back on getting it right?

General Manager.

Mr Mayor, we used to use the lights for planning matters. Generally, we don't have planning matters anymore, and as such, our reliance on the lights has been decreasing over time. If we're going to move to a point where we're relying on them to an even greater extent, then I'm suggesting that we'll need to expend some funds to bring them up to an acceptable performance level, and that's all I'm saying. And I'm just letting councillors know that that would be the case.

Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Richards.

Sorry, the points I raised, I think, need clarification from staff. How are you actually going to address all that ambiguity? General

Manager.

I would have to agree with some of those observations. I think there is a need for some clarity in terms of how we would conduct some of those issues. If we start with the confirmation of the minutes, I think there is some direction potentially required about what is open for discussion in relation to the minutes. Again, if we talk about the elections to office, I think there's some discussion required about when that would occur. And again, I think there would have to be an acknowledgement that if there's going to be discussion about the elections to committees, that there would be clarity that the council would make that decision more likely than not in closed session. So people could speak, but they couldn't have an expectation that they could participate or witness the voting.

So therefore, are we going to pass these amendments tonight and actually have a weaker code of meeting practice? I think that's a bad look for the Council, and I think it's a bad look for the public. You know, they can actually now run with this however they want, because Council actually has no legal basis to say you can't do this or you can't do that. I think that if you let this go through tonight, it's a very, very poor look on the Council. And we've now just had the General Manager's recommendation that if we do do this, we've got no rules, no structure and no direction. So I think this is a really, really bad idea if you amend this tonight because, I mean, even the staff have said it's not strong enough.

The motion has been put by Councillor Wheeler. Having heard that discussion, Councillor Wheeler, are you still happy to change 4.2 the way you described?

Yes, I am.

Okay. So what would have to happen, Councillor Richards, is we just have a motion on the books at the moment. You could move an amendment if you wanted to.

Well, I think that a sensible amendment would be to defer a decision tonight because it's basically turned into a mess. And I think that if any councillors want to put input in over email, they can do so, and we can come up at another meeting, whether it's the next one or the future meeting after that, with a more comprehensive, detailed and succinct document rather than the mess we've got on show tonight. Don't

We have to adopt it by the 14th of June?

If I could just answer the question, a deferral is not an amendment. A deferral is the opposite to the motion. The motion is that this is passed. Your deferral is the opposite. You could move an amendment that the motion be passed with that change to item 4.2, for example. Could

I move an

Amendment, Mr Mayor? Please do. I'd like to move that we adopt the draft code of meeting practice as prepared, and that it gets reported back to the next meeting again for councillors to potentially make further changes.

So why would it be reported back if we're adopting it?

For review. So we have a review in two weeks, essentially. The idea being that I still think we're making significant changes to the document that's been on exhibition. We're making them all as we go on the run. Councillor Richards has pointed out there might be some issues that need to be considered. Some of them are probably going to be taken care of in other clauses in the code, but there still might be some further clarification. We have to adopt something tonight, but we don't have to adopt it with all these changes tonight. We could adopt it as is so we've met our obligations and have a proper review after having time to discuss at the next meeting.

Mr Mayor? I've got an amendment that's been put up. Do we have a seconder for that amendment? Councillor Richards, is that a yes? Yes. Okay. Deputy Mayor, yes.

Oh, so were we debating an amendment already? No. Councillor Wheelers, so that's the motion, is it? Okay . I would just, I do understand the ambiguity around the confirmation of minutes. Element , because I think that could either be clarified with a statement of being confined to perhaps any changes in the minutes. I do agree with Councillor Connelly that when we're going on further, we are getting more changes. However, I do think we should open up those various things for public speaking. So trying to get it done within the time frame is obviously the issue. With regard to, for example, people speaking on elections, I think we could add a recommendation that we review that prior to the end of this term, because we won't be having those elections within that term.

So, and the other things I wouldn't have an issue with. But perhaps Councillor Wheeler could just consider perhaps clarifying that the speaking on the confirmation of minutes would be restricted to only raising particular things to avoid people speaking on every item. And of course, the usual rules around people addressing would apply to those particular, to, you know, the same rules of the five minutes and the questions would apply to those various things as well, I would expect.

Councillor Wheeler, it appears the sticking point is 4.2, which you said you didn't want to change, but would you consider adopting the report except for 4.2, which would be reviewed and brought back to the next meeting?

I'd consider that.

Sorry? Would that satisfy you, Councillor Connelly? Yep .

Councillor Connelly satisfied, Councillor Wheeler satisfied, we might be getting somewhere.

We're holding over 4.2 and reporting it back to the next meeting, which could be the extraordinary meeting, June the 12th, 13th.

How would that fit in?

I suspect that what you adopt tonight is the version you adopt, and then any changes beyond the adopted version tonight would probably have to go out to consultation again.

Can I— so we can't do that. Just a point of order, Mr Mayor. Yes. How could we take a position that it wouldn't be so significant tonight that we would need to go in exhibition, but it would be so significant in two weeks that we would need to go in exhibition? I just would like that clarified.

The issue is that you've adopted something tonight, and then once you want to change the adopted version, you do have to go out in exhibition. It's the adoption tonight that's the trigger for that. So— Are

You suggesting a way forward, General Manager? Well—

Mr

Mayor, could I suggest that we go into a committee as a whole and discuss it?

I'm just waiting for the General Manager's answer to that question.

It appears to me that we've broadly reached agreement except for 4.2, and I think it's a matter of finding the level that we can reach agreement on with 4.2. The minutes are obviously a problem. I think there's a concession on that. We've had a concession that there are not going to be any elections in the next— Twelve months, so we can take those out. This is all on the understanding we're going to bring something back to Council sooner rather than later to put some structure around this. And again, committee elections, I believe that, as I said, that is a problem if there's an expectation that people are going to participate in or observe how those committee elections are conducted when we ask for expressions of interest and we go into closed session.

So it could well be that we can take a couple of those out and reach a point where we have something that there's broad agreement to and we can ask for a follow-up report in relation to those outstanding issues.

Councillor Wheeler, do you have a way forward?

I would if we had moved into a committee of the whole at the moment, we're, I think we're discussing the deferral, but if we can, if 4.2 could state that discussion of the minutes be confined to the validity of the minutes rather than discussion of each item on the minutes, then I think that would address the concerns about the minutes. I have no problem at all with members of the public being able to address Council on who is on committees, and then Council moving into confidential session as we've always done. I don't see that those two things are mutually exclusive. We had a period on this Council, I will remind many of you, where many worthy members of the community with significant expertise were excluded from Council committees for a period of eight years because their political views didn't match with those of the Council.

I think that members of the public should be able to tell Council that before they make those decisions. So I have no problem with the community addressing Council. It's not a free— at no point is this a free-for-all. There are pages of rules in front of us. It's untrue that there are no rules and no structure. There is some conjecture over what people might be able to address on the minutes. Otherwise, I see no problem with the changes to clause 4.2. So I'm happy to have those additional words inserted around confining the minutes discussions to the validity of the minutes. But otherwise, I don't have any problem with the rest of the clause.

Thank you. To those councillors who had problems with 4.2, are you happy to accept that change, or do you want more?

I think there was no change, I don't think. But I think I'll just withdraw my amendment if I can, and I'll just— given it seems quite clear, and I'll just vote against the motion.

Councillor Tree. Thank you. I think that censorship has been a two-way street in here over a number of years, so I think it's a bit rich saying that it's been one way over an eight-year period. I remember that all the last time the committees were mentioned at the last mayoral election, there weren't very many people with this political colour featuring on them. I was just wondering what the legal obligation was in relation to, or the validity of allowing community members to— I mean, if it's okay to do it, knock yourself out. But in relation to how it's valid for a community member to say, when we're the board as such, to make remarks about the validity of minutes.

General Manager, do you have an answer to that?

I don't have an answer, and again, I've been thinking about this over the course of this evening. We keep a recording of the minutes, so people can go back and listen to the council meeting and listen to what was discussed, and can listen to the resolution, the voting, and things like that. I am trying to understand what situation might arise where there would be a constructive outcome of a discussion of someone speaking for or against the minutes without the prospect of reopening a debate on a matter that had already been resolved. The minutes are the minutes, and unless they're inaccurate in some way, in terms of typing or what have you, they are the proceedings of the meeting. So if someone can identify a spelling mistake or an inaccuracy in the minutes, as someone said earlier, they can just notify a councillor and the councillor can have that edit made.

I don't know what purpose it would serve beyond that.

I was hoping to push through this, but it looks several councillors have suggested we go into committee. It appears that we might have to, but I'll ask if someone wants to move that. Councillor Rasmussen. Second that. Seconded Deputy Mayor. Anyone wish to speak against that?

Just a vote.

Do you know what

We're sitting here. It's been

Moved and seconded that we go into committee. All those in favour say aye. One, two, three, four. Those against? One, two, three, four, five. Declare it lost.

Can we have a procedural motion, Madam that the motion be put?

Thank you, second that. Okay.

It's been moved that the motion be put. All those in favour say aye.

Aye.

Those against? Declare it carried. Do you want another show of hands on that?

It's been moved that the motion be put.

Councillor Wheeler's motion with that last change about the minutes included in 4.2. That's the motion at the moment.

It's been moved that the motion be put.

One, two, three, four, five . Those against? One, two, three, four, five , six. Motion is lost. We continue.

Councillor Wheeler, would you like to give your right of reply now, please?

I'm not sure that there's a great deal left to add apart from— The intention of this is to increase the community's ability to speak to Council , and for Council to consider what the community tells them before they make decisions. I make no apologies for that being inconvenient , difficult, uncomfortable, whatever . That's our job. I think Councillor Ross's changes allow councils at

Least as much scope as they had previously to bring notices of motion before Council, and I think that's a good thing. What I do want to do is commend the staff again on taking what was a difficult and unwieldy code of meeting practice that, in fact, sought to remove the ability of the community to address each item as it came up on the business paper, and to stick with the code of meeting practice that this Council passed in 2016. I think that's been excellent. Some of this will cause teething problems. Some of this may make life confusing and difficult on occasion. But the intention is not to confuse Council, it's not to confuse the community, and it's not to cause long-winded and difficult meetings.

The intent here is for the community to be able to address the Council that serves it, because at the end of the day, that is the thing that we should keep front of mind. We are here to serve the community, nothing else.

Thank you. I'll put the motion, Councillor Wheeler's motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. One, two, three, four, five, six. All those against. One, two, three, four, five. Declare it carried. Um.

Our next item is questions from the last meeting. Does anyone have any questions on questions?

Councillor Wheeler.

The information— sorry, I'm just struggling to get to the page. The information on the Snap Send Solve app has been contradicted by a resident who contacted the owner of the app, who said that they don't charge and the intention is not to charge or never to charge for that app if a council was unable to pay. Could I just get some clarification on whether we've received similar information from that company or not?

No, we haven't.

Thank you.

Any further questions on questions? Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor. I refer to question number four in the business papers this evening. I have not received any response into the last element of the question, namely, can council possibly designate another area for these operations? And I sincerely request that some consideration be given to this , as it is quite a problem for the industries operating within our designated industrial area, particularly in the South Windsor. Element. Actually

Councillor Ross, it says in the second paragraph of the answer, it is not recommended that Council advise drivers of an alternate location. So there is an answer to your question there.

I was thinking that the question was more framed in the light of seeking Council's possible consideration of an area that could be set aside for this purpose that takes it away from the main roads, and that was the light in which I was posing that question. One such element would be, I would fancy, along Fairview Road, possibly even between Brabyn and the railway crossing.

General Manager.

Mr Mayor, I think the issue is that, as the answer says, that the conduct of that loading should occur on private land because it relates to a private activity. If Council's going to start identifying areas that are going to be used for the transfer of loads, then it's not a decision that's made in the two-week turnaround of a question. It's something that would have to be investigated. Residents, nearby landowners would have to be consulted, and that's a much more complicated matter. It's more akin to a development application process than a question on notice process. So I think I'm happy with the answer that's been provided, and unless we get some direction from Council to investigate options for identifying places, then we would have to go out to consultation.

Another question?

Well, I do, yes. I'm not happy with the response tendered by the general manager, sir. I'm not talking about running forklifts out and loading trucks at all. What I'm talking about is dropping off trailers and having a designated area in which they can do that and safely come back and reattach.

In the case of B doubles, for instance, I don't believe that there would be a single industrial property within the council area that can comfortably take a B double with towing two trailers into a private site and accomplish that task with both safety and economy. And it would only normally be one trailer unit at a time.

General manager, do we have an answer to that further question?

Again, if it's about unhitching a trailer from a prime mover or a trailer from a trailer and a prime mover, then again, we would still have to look at a range of matters before we could identify any areas that may be suitable for that. I don't think it's a matter of just identifying some potential locations over the course of the, as I said, the two-week turnaround of one of these questions. It's a bit more complicated than that and would require some consultation with relevant stakeholders.

So perhaps, Councillor Rice, it might be something that needs Research and maybe even a notice of motion at some time. Mr Mayor? Yes.

With your indulgence, Mayor, I might suggest that I would foreshadow a notice of motion at the next opportunity.

Okay. Thank you, Councillor. Deputy Mayor is going to tell us.

I was just going to say that there was a Mayor on Winnett on that very thing, and the report's outstanding. It was a year or so ago.

About a year ago. We're waiting on the report.

But isn't this already happening at Clarendon car park?

That's not for me to say. Any questions on questions, please?

No. Questions for the next meeting. Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Sam Progro.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Two questions. One is, could I seek from Council staff a list of the private car parks in the Hawkesbury for which our Council parking inspectors do parking enforcement? And could I seek an assurance that if there are private car parks where we do parking enforcement for them, that that enforcement is pursuant to a current contractual arrangement? And the second question relates to a request to, could we please have Brendan's Dam Road, Commercial Road and Old Stock Route Road graded in the vicinity of the culvert? It's in a shocking condition. Thank you.

Thank you. Deputy Mayor, Councillor Wheeler.

Could we consider not printing the brochures that come to Council for various events? So I notice in the Business Paper we've got six pages of a brochure . The printing is so small that we can't read it. Most of it is pretty pictures. There's a whole page of red ink. This is a waste of council resources. Maybe just a link to an electronic version would serve just as well.

Councillor Reynolds. Councillor Garrow.

Could I ask, possibly for you, Mr Mayor, to discuss with our local police regarding the need for a gate at the entry to Governor Phillip Park. I've had numerous conversations with them of late, and their resources are being tied up with a lot of hoons using the newly sealed surface down there in a dangerous manner.

Thank you. Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, I've been notified that recently there have been two childcare centres that have been approved and about to be built on or very close to some roundabouts, and I'm just wondering whether these childcare centres have had their siting subject to safety of the children as to their location. I'm just wondering whether we could find that out.

Thank you, Councillor Ross.

Yes, a number of questions.

The first relates to the budget review statement.

Sorry,

Quarterly budget review statement. There's a statement on page six, an increase of $139,000 for the renewal of pump station Q for Quincey . The estimated budget... Cost based on previous similar contracts undertaken, the tender resulted in is 139K higher than projected. Now, the staff, the report on contracts accepted indicates that Turnkey Innovation, whatever, was awarded a contract at 288,927. I'm just wondering, is this 139,000 in addition to that so that the project cost is now 428,000? And can you clarify as to what this March statement is trying to indicate, please? Thank you. I'm also rather concerned

That

There has been mention of a tender for pump station F for Freddy being reported

In the QBRS, but I have not seen any sight of that in the area of contracts or tenders awarded for contract. It just seems incongruous that we've got one thing and not the other. And a similar situation applies to a tender for diffusers, which was reported

Having a variation of cost from memory of 42,000. But again, it is not reported as an attendance awarded element within the QBRS. So those matters seem rather disjointed.

I have some other concerns. Another one relates to the

Sewer mishap in 2015, which went to the Land and Environment Court. I am yet to receive any response as to how the $175,000, or if the $175,000 fine has been settled and paid for, and can I have some indication as to that, and a confirmation from either the Parks and Wildlife or other appropriate people who would be able to do that, and a confirmation that Council's liability in that regard has been now settled finally. Thank you.

I think

I'm just also curious in the terms of the quarterly budget review statements as to the extent to which Council accounting has fully treated— sorry, fully accounted for. Both the asset

Procurement phase as well as the retirement or scrapping of previous assets when reported in the quarterly budget review statement, or is that going to be taking place as at the 30th of June?

Thank

You.

That's all your questions? Yep. You do realise you can send them through to the general manager during the week. You don't have to bring them up here at the meeting. Councillor Garrard. Sorry

I just had another question come in from a community member . Is it Council's job or is it the job of the AEC to remove the federal electoral signage that is still displayed around the LGA that was to be removed by last Friday under AEC legislation?

Thank you. No more questions. Okay.

There are no more questions. Would someone like to move that we move into confidential, please? Councillor Rasmussen, seconded Councillor Sam Progro. Would anyone from the public like to speak against us moving into confidential? No. Okay. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favour say aye. Those against? Carried. We'll move into confidential.

I'll hand over to Mr Mifsud to give us a report on the confidential section of the meeting.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. In regard to item 96, whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Rasmussen, seconded by Councillor Conolly, that: one, the acquisition of an area of land in the order of 6,115.6 square metres within 629, 669 Upper Macdonald Road, St Albans, Lot 2 in DP 1104141 and Lot 1 in DP 154934, as outlined in Attachment 1 to this report, proceed. Two, compensation in the amount detailed in this report be paid to the property owners in respect of the acquisition of part of 629 and 669 Upper Macdonald Road, St Albans, Lot 2 in DP 1104141 and Lot 1 in DP 154934. Three, Council bear all costs associated with the process of acquiring the subject portions of land, excluding any fencing affected by the acquisition.

Four, following the acquisition of land, Council classify proposed Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6 in the Deposited Plan 1286284 as operational land under Section 31(2)(a) of the Local Government Act 1993. Five, authority be given for any documentation associated with this matter to be executed under the seal of Council. Six, details of the Council resolution be conveyed to the affected landowners together with the advice that Council will not be bound by the terms of this resolution until such time as appropriate documentation to put such resolution into effect has been agreed to and executed by all parties. In regard to item 97, whilst in closed session Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Conolly, seconded by Councillor Rasmussen, that: one, Council publicly exhibit and notify adjoining owners of the proposed road closure of an area in the order of 2,116.8 square metres adjoining 1273 and 1275 Upper Macdonald Road, Upper Macdonald, as shown in Attachment 1 to this report.

Two, Council publish an amended version of this report that does not contain the financial compensation details for the purposes of public exhibition and for notification to the relevant government agencies. Three, that's 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 road closure— A further report be submitted to Council. Or B, should no submissions be received, 1. Council approve the road closure of proposed Lot 1, being part of closed portion of the former road reserve adjoining 1273 Upper Macdonald Road, Upper Macdonald, with Council retaining ownership. 2. Council approve the road closure and transfer of proposed Lot 2, being part of closed portion former road reserve to the owners of 1275 Upper Macdonald Road, Upper Macdonald, formerly Lot 1349 in DP 997871, now Lot 5 in DP 1206627 at no cost.

3. Upon closure of the former road reserve, proposed Lots 1 and 2, the land be classified as operational land under Section 31(2A) of the Local Government Act 1993. 4. Council is to bear all costs associated with the closure of the former road reserve. 5. Authority be given for the road closure plan transfer and any documentation associated with the matter to be executed under seal. 6. Details of Council resolution be conveyed to the adjoining owner of 1275 Upper Macdonald Road, Upper Macdonald, together with the advice that Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of the resolution until such time as appropriate legal documentation to put such resolution into effect has been executed by all parties and agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Mifsud. Would someone like to move we accept the report? Councillor Rasmussen, seconded by Councillor Conolly that we accept that report. All those in favour say aye. Declared carried. Is there any further business? If not, I'll close the meeting at 8.55. Thank you.