12 June 2019 - Extraordinary

Good evening everyone and welcome to the extraordinary meeting of Council for 12th of June 2019 . I'd like to acknowledge the traditional owners of this land, the Dharug people, and pay respect to Elders both past and present. I'll hand over now to the General Manager who will address the Council on a few 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 the members of the public that in accordance with clause 5.18 of the new Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of Council are recorded. In the terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting of Council meetings. The provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary.

If any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting. The recordings may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations and the recordings are stored on Council's record management system. For the benefit of those persons who will be addressing the Council tonight, it is expected that you will refrain from making an insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at this meeting. This request relates to both your address to Council and any answers given in response to questions from Councillors. Finally, it is also requested that if any person in the Council chambers has a mobile phone, that they either turn it off or turn it to silent.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Mr

Conroy. Do we have any apologies, please?

Councillor Conolly, Mr Mayor. Councillor Conolly and Councillor Kotlash. Would someone like to move we accept the apologies? Councillor Sam Progro, seconded Councillor Wheeler. All those in favour say aye. Those against? Declare it carried. Do we have any declarations of interest, please? Deputy Mayor?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Item 99, less than significant non-pecuniary interest.

Okay. And Councillor Wheeler?

I just, on the item number, Mr Mayor, sorry.

101, less than significant non-pecuniary.

Thank you, Councillor Reynolds.

Item 99, Mr Mayor, less than significant non-pecuniary.

Okay, well I'll ask you to state your interest when those items come up. Thank you very much. We now move to reports for determination. We have five items tonight. Two of those are subject to public speakers. First item is item number 98, and the first speaker is Gay Kelly. Thank you.

Is this— sorry.

Thank you. General

Manager, Mr. Mayor, Barry

Calvert, Councilors and Council of Burgesses, and also members of the gallery. ... IPART ... urgently. It would be greatly appreciated if the signage could be reviewed, even if there is a permanent sign erected on the banner poles at McGraths Hill.

Thank you for your consideration on that matter. I will be thrilled to see solar lighting

In Howe Park as a part of the town's revitalisation.

The gas lamps within the mall would convert easily to low energy LED. Hopefully this will

Be addressed with high

Priority

To the town's revitalisation project. Lastly, the Newcastle project has been handed down from last year's budget. Windsor needs tourists. Windsor doesn't need empty shops. So let us utilise some of the city funding or the money donated by Windsor RSL to get this project happening. This will attract tourism to the area. It could address some of the issues with the homeless and mental health by providing opportunities through the arts to stimulate some of the minds and give these people some self-worth. Everyone deserves a chance in life. Let's put Hawkesbury Council on the map as the one that makes the difference. The Newcastle project is one of brilliance. Let's do it now.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Kelly. Would you be happy to answer any questions? Certainly. Do any councillors have questions? Apparently not. Thank you very much. Thank you.

That

Was our only speaker on this matter. There's a recommendation on page 18. Would someone like to move that or another motion? Councillor Wheeler. I'll move that way, Mr Mayor. Second, Mr Mayor. Councillor Wheeler, do you wish to speak on it?

Just briefly, Mr Mayor,

I think there's a couple of things that are worth noting. We've still had, despite several years now of both this council and other New South Wales councils, including local government New South Wales lobbying successive state governments, there's still been no increase in the pensioner subsidy to rates. That's still been fixed at the same rate, a bit like Newstart seems to be fixed at the same rate for two and a half decades.

We've still got this really large increase in emergency services levy

And I wonder if we've had any reply back from the local member regarding our concerns about that levy. I know Peter Primrose brought it up in the New

South Wales Upper House last week, but it appears that we've had no further change to that large increase, and I see that it's going to cause a significant deficit for council. The other issue that is quite clear in the operational plan is the sullage costs, and I'm hoping that we can make representation to the new member for Hawkesbury regarding a subsidy of sullage costs. These are extraordinarily high, nearly $5,000 for families for pump-out fees. This is a massive impost on families. They deserve to be given the same subsidy that Blue Mountains Council residents have been given, and we're in a terrible catch-22 where. You could spend that money, quite frankly, retrofitting a sullage tank to have a really well-run, well-maintained tank that treats its own effluent, that gives people back water for use on their gardens, that provides a really good environmental and economic outcome for those families.

But the more we encourage that, the greater the burden on the families who don't take that up because they don't have the money to fund both the sullage costs for a couple of years and a cost of around $10,000 to convert. So I think we need to make some really urgent representations to the new member for Hawkesbury. I don't know that we got anywhere last time, but this is clearly a massive cost disparity for some of our families, and we need to address it. I want to thank Mrs Kelly for coming and speaking to us. In the next couple of months, you'll start to see some action in Windsor Mall. The murals project is going ahead, and next week we start the first of the shopfront improvement programs.

So there will be a tangible difference to Windsor Mall. I know it's been a long time coming. We're also at the stage with Beyond the Expression of Interest stage. We're now calling for full tenders from the companies to conduct the town centre master plans for the revitalisation, and works will begin very early next year. So things are happening. I note the big smile on the Director of Infrastructure's face at the thought of refurbishing the gas lamps. I can see he's very keen on that project, and we look forward to that happening, Mr Organ, I'm sure. The civic sign we have discussed, and apparently there are two. There's two, and we're trying to track down the controller of the civic signs.

So hopefully we can either reuse them for a better purpose or make them magically disappear. So we're working on that too.

That'll do me for the moment, I think.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. I should have pointed out to everyone we are using the new code of meeting practice tonight, and each speaker is limited to five minutes, which will be shown on this clock up here. When four minutes is up, a buzzer will sound, and then when five minutes is up, your time is up, okay? Any further speakers on this matter?

Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor.

I find the financial

Concerns which I have raised with the Council on an earlier occasion addressing the quarterly budget review statement to March,

And I have been looking for in the draft operating plan for some indication that our management are prepared to address the matter, and regrettably I have not seen any indication of that.

As it stands, the

Budgetary loss is going to be in the order of, according to the figures advised us, 3.6 million, allowing for the additional items mentioned in the business paper as falling outside of the public exhibition period. That is itself not consistent with the fit for the future requirement, which I believe was a budgetary loss of about 0.5 million, or shall we say near enough to break even. I've also sought further information today from the responsible accounting officer, and that leaves me even more concerned than I was prior to raising the email.

I believe the Council

Is in danger of

Entering a period where it

Is not in accordance with the Fit for the Future program, nor is it going to be compatible with the requirements of the community. And I just sound the warning that this

Situation, I doubt, will be able to be maintained, and that one

Must consider the likelihood or the probability

That control of the financial matters of this Council might be taken out of its hands. And I believe that is a serious concern, and I certainly won't be able to support the budget in its form or content as it's been presented to us. And I must submit that to you with the deepest of regret. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr Mayor. As in the third budget now since this term has taken place, 17, 18 and 19, I will not be supporting the operational plan, and the basis for that is a very, very, very simple one. I will not support an operational plan when it encompasses a rating structure that I do not agree with. We have spent considerable time debating that rating structure in this chamber. So I'm not going to talk about it for too long, but I will not support the structure or the fact that is based on a 30% base rate. I will never support a plan that hits sections of our community so detrimentally, and I look forward to elections in September 2020 because I will be urging, and so will the Liberal team, the community to vote in favour of councillors who actually support a much fairer rating structure. And if that becomes a basis of the next elections, bring it on.

Thank you , Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. That's an interesting comment from Councillor Richards because I don't recall anybody bringing up to revisit the rating structure within the last year since the last budget. I've just got some questions for Mrs Galia. Could you please tell us how many people have accessed the hardship provisions of Council regarding payment of rates, or particularly, yes, from the Oakville area if you could.

Mrs Galia.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. To date, we have received no applications under the hardship provisions. Thanks, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Mrs Galia. Also, given that the general valuations were brought forward a year because of the failed previous proposed implementation of the emergency services levy before, and they brought forward all the general valuations, that would be three years ago now. Do you know if they're to be redone this year, or are they back on the old schedule? Mrs Galia. Thanks, Mr Mayor. It's every three years. Every three years, so they should be done again this year, which will be very interesting, particularly in light of the Mayoral minute, which we will discuss at some point. So I'd just like to say, normally for the last four years, I've actually sat through the line-by-line budget process, which I didn't do this year, so I'm probably not across it as much as maybe Councillor Rossi is, as he may have done that.

But I'd just like to echo what Councillor Wheeler has said about the sullage cost, and we have brought it up here over and over again, and I know it's not an easy solution, but we are going to have to do something about long term. Action on the situation with the sullage collection. It's just not tenable to keep having it go up and up every year for people, when people have been allowed to develop and live in those areas where they're reliant on collection of sullage in such a way. Apart from that, I think that obviously people must be very happy with the capital works program. There doesn't seem to have been any complaints. There hasn't been any call from councillors or residents who were so concerned in the previous years about the rate, the special rate variation.

None of that has been brought up, and no requests to revisit the rate restructure. So I'm assuming that people have accepted that and have moved on, and that no one has accessed the hardship. So obviously there's not a whole troop of people paying $12,000 a year in rates. Aside from that, I think that, again, thank you to Mrs Kelly for bringing forward those things. Bit by bit, things have been doing done. I know it's slow and it's frustrating for some people, but there are many plans afoot, and hopefully over the coming year, all the work that's been put in for the last few years will come to fruition, and we'll be able to see the value of getting on with the revitalisation program.

Thank you. Any further? Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, it's initially a question, and the question relates to the statement by Councillor Ross that this budget will put this council into a deficit of some three million dollars. Can I just have some clarification of that, please, Mrs Galia?

Thanks, Mr Mayor. The budget is on track with the fit for the future plan. It's actually slightly better, when the operating result is only slightly off being balanced. So I have the combined figure here. So the combined figure here, the fit for the future is excluding sewer, the combined figure is including sewer, and the net operating result is 781,000 for the combined result. So I'm unsure where the figure is being quoted. Thanks, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, I too want to thank Miss Kelly because I know she, pardon me, she's been coming here for many years now, putting her case for, or putting the Windsor case for a better Windsor and a more, yeah

A structure within Windsor that actually promotes not only tourism but also, you know, the amenity of Windsor as well. And I thank her for that over many, many years of campaigning on that front. It has been a long time coming. I'd agree with that, and I'm as frustrated as many others are too that it has taken so long. And I think, you know, tourism is an obvious one that we have really, in my book, stalled on that front. Now I know there's lots of things sort of happening somewhere in the background, but tourism is certainly something that Windsor does need, and yes, we should have perhaps moved on that faster and more quickly and... And more aggressively, I guess, in my terms. But having said that, there are some good things happening, and things will, I hope, happen over the next six months.

It's a long time coming. The other thing I would like to say about the rate structure is that I think we have demonstrated, or Council staff have demonstrated quite clearly that this is the most fair and equitable structure if you compare it to the structure, the rate structure that was here some years ago, where the vast bulk of ratepayers in the Hawkesbury really were given a raw deal. It was biased towards a particular group of large landholders, and that clearly couldn't be sustained in terms of ordinary people living in Bligh Park and, you know, Hobartville, and those areas that are highly urbanised and relatively smaller blocks. So I think this Council has struck the right balance between something that is sensible, something that is affordable, and something that hopefully will see this Council return many balanced budgets.

Now I've been here, what, 22-odd years now, and every year so far that I can recall, we have had outstanding results from the external auditor in terms of our financial management, in terms of balanced budgets, and in terms of making plans to catch up on the backlog of infrastructure. Now I think that's a remarkable track record for this Council, and that's been done over many councillors and many hard-working staff. And I want to congratulate the staff, both now and past, who've made that possible for us.

Thank you. No one's made the buzzer go off yet. That's disappointing. Your opportunity, Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and it's not a competition. Just a couple of points of clarification first. In terms of the various submissions that were received from the public and the responses that Council staff made, in submission number 17, which related to the sealing of dirt roads in the Outville area, including Brennan's Dam Road, it was merely suggested that they

Could be considered as part of Council's gravel road sealing program. It said it could be considered should additional funding, such as roads to recovery, become available. Now I object to the weakness of that form of words, considering that the motion that we passed at Council to place the budget on exhibition said in point 7 that we would consider sealing those and possibly other roads with roads to recovery funding. So to merely say that we could do that flies in the face of the fact that we've already resolved that we will consider that with roads to recovery money . On the same point, there is mention in here of $217-odd thousand dollars of supplementary roads to recovery funding. I just want to clarify with staff that that represents the first tranche of a larger sum of extra roads to recovery funding. Can I

Seek that clarification? General Manager? Mr Organ.

Yep. The total extra supplementary funding is over five years of that amount of money, so. I'm taking on face value it's 217 off the top of my head, but that's the first year of that.

Okay, good. Thank you for that clarification. Also, under matters of note, it's mentioned that Hawkesbury River County Council have proposed a $10,000 increase to our council's levies to be members of the Hawkesbury River County Council, and Councillor Kotlash and I, as your representatives to the county council, had some misgivings about that. I mean, we declined to give our endorsement to this motion at the county council because we felt that we couldn't unilaterally approve the county council asking us for more money until we'd had the opportunity to bring this back to you and to present you with the pros and cons of asking for that extra sum of money and the extra value potentially that we'd have gotten out of that.

Now, it appears here that that $10,000 increase has just been accepted at face value. There's been no presentation or debate about what that $10,000 would fund, its extra landcare programs basically, and that it would simply be an adjustment that appears in the quarterly review. I would have preferred if we'd had some additional information presented to all councillors about that proposed increase.

Is that a question?

Well, I suppose it's just an expression of frustration that instead of it simply being— It's being counted as you're speaking time. Okay then. Okay. Fine . And largely— oh, and one other question. Can I seek clarification from staff about whether the $ 250 concession, the pensioner concession or rebate on rates... is something that has ever been varied, increased or indexed since its introduction? No. The answer is no? Ms Galia.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I don't believe so.

All right then. Thanks. I'll conclude by saying, with regret, I can't give my assent to this operational plan and this budget for the same reason that Councillor Richards laid out. I agree with Councillor Richards in that I cannot support a budget that has a rating structure which we have opposed at the various stages that led to this point, and therefore I will be voting against it.

Thank you. Can I point out that when councillors are asking questions, the clock gets stopped. So you need to make it clear that you're asking a question. You didn't make it clear, so the clock kept going, okay? So you can ask questions, the clock will be stopped, then the clock will restart when you're actually speaking on the topic.

Okay. And you still didn't make the buzzer go. Any further speakers? Councillor Tree.

Thank you. I'm just wondering, I noticed that about a third of the budget goes to staff . What was the dollar amount for staff prior to the fit for the future, and how many more people have been employed since that has occurred? And do we have a list of all the new positions that have been implemented?

General Manager. We'd have to take that on notice, Mr Mayor. I'm happy to distribute some information about that. We've certainly put some staff positions on to improve some of our work processes and— Enhanced the general efficiency across the organisation. The objective is to repay those out of those efficiencies. There have certainly been some increased activities in events, and there's been another position again at the depot, which is about, again, enhancing the operations there that again will be repaid through efficiencies. Beyond that, on the spot, I'd have to put it in writing and circulate to the councillors.

So could we, within that bit of information will be given, so just what the jobs are, because it'd be nice to know, and then how you've accounted for that, like how they're going to be funded. Thank you.

Thank you.

Councillor Reynolds. Thanks, Mr Mayor. I think it's worth pointing out that the New South Wales Government has been sitting on a report from the IPART into council rating structure. It hasn't made it public. It's been sitting on it now, I think, since three years, and that was to report back on various possibilities for changes to the rating structure to make them fairer. We haven't had that, so we're stuck with what we've got, and we have to try and make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Regarding the sullage issue Councillor Wheeler spoke about, it's worth remembering that most of these people who are on pump-out can't install on-site sewage treatment plants because their blocks are so small, and so they have to wear the extra cost.

And I again agree with Councillor Wheeler that I think our residents should receive the same support as residents in the Blue Mountains LGA regarding... financial support for the pump-out costs. And I must thank Councillor Richards and Councillor Zane Progno for reminding us that, you know, under previous councils, under Liberal domination, they oversaw Council's financial situation to a point where there was no option but an SRV and necessary rates variation. But instead of doing something about it, they deferred the decision to this Council.

Mr Mayor, that's rewriting history. Is

That a point of order? I don't see that as a point of order. Please continue. Okay,

Thank you. But instead of admitting a problem, they deferred the decision to this Council. But fortunately for Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Richards and her two colleagues, the results in the 2016 election allowed them the luxury of voting against an SRV, despite one of them saying that they realised that the SRV was necessary to Council, but it wasn't in their political interests to vote for it, which I think goes to show that they're putting the community first. Thank you. Thank you. Any further speakers?

Councillor Rasmussen. It's a question, Mr Mayor. A question, yes please .

Thank you. Mr Mayor, I note that the Black Spots money available has all gone to South Windsor, which I'm sure is a worthy area, with, I think it's, three or four new roundabouts.

Are there no other black spots in the Hawkesbury, or is this the top priority for black spots in the Hawkesbury? Mr. Organ.

Through you, Mr Mayor, they were the highest ranked accident history intersections in the city. We did make application for other areas as well, but they haven't been ranked in that same league. They're competitive across the state as well.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Question, Councillor Ross. Yes,

Thank you. I'd like to just pursue the matter which was just raised.

As long as it's a question. It is

It refers to the intersection at Ham and George Streets. That, I understand, is controlled by Give Way signals signage at the moment. Would not Council officers exhort to using stop signs at that intersection before undergoing the expense of a roundabout?

Mr. Organ.

Through you, Mr Mayor, we engaged a consultant to look at these intersections against the guidelines and the accident history. They've come back with a road safety audit that indicated that the roundabout was the most cost-effective treatment, given the severity and the extent of accidents that did occur there. While stop signs provide a greater degree of legislative control, it doesn't reduce the severity of the accidents that occur if somebody disobeys those. So that was the rationale for the road safety audit to come up with a physical device that actually reduced accident severity.

Another question? Further question

In place of a roundabout, would not Council consider the introduction of a traffic calming on George Street, which appears to be the problem of that particular location? Mr. Organ

Probably to answer some of the questions about what the design is, one of the things we can do is go back and have a look at a range of options. As we've been given the funding based on a roundabout, certainly if we can come up with other options there, we'll have a look at those. It may be that, invariably when we're doing designs for roundabouts, there's some other unknowns that creep into it, and we will certainly look at other alternatives if they don't prove cost effective. But again, working on the road, and there's a number of things that you need to look at in terms of driveway access and drainage and all sorts of things there. So they're the things we will look at in the detailed design phase.

Thank you.

Any further discussion? Councillor Wheeler, would you like your right of reply?

Thanks, Mr. Mayor.

Firstly, I think in light of Councillor Zamprogno's comments about the Hawkesbury River County Council, perhaps that matter could come to us at a briefing for further discussion. Given that we have two delegates on the HRCC and they have hit us up for a $10,000 increase, I think it's probably something that we could discuss at a briefing. I don't think it's necessary to add that to the recommendation, but if we could just have that flagged and that matter could come back to Council, I think that may be helpful. That way we can get it straight from the people who sat around the table when the decision was made. I think it's worth noting that many members of the community made submissions to this process, and it's always helpful to get submissions, even if they sometimes include lots of capital letters.

None of them complained about the rates. Many of them requested works, and many of them requested quite substantial works, particularly around access, footpaths, provision of community services, parks, playground refurbishments, skate parks, bicycle facilities. This community wants infrastructure improvement, and this operational plan delivers that. That was what the SRV was designed to do. If you can't support this operational plan, then you're denying the community the improvements that they clearly want. I think the issue of hardship provisions is something that we really need to publicise better. I don't think it's well understood in the community that people can access those hardship provisions without having to go to the wall financially.

I don't know how we best do that. Perhaps we use the mayoral column. I suspect that it might be better if we prepare a press release that goes into the Gazette, and that the Gazette does a story on it and Council then uses its social media to keep repeating that message. Maybe we want to target some groups in particular, so the senior citizens, the CWA, areas where the men's shed, areas where people meet and talk about these issues who perhaps don't access social media. But I think we do need to make sure that people aren't frightened that if they approach Council that something will happen. They need to know what their rights are and what provisions are available for them, because the people that I speak to are clearly unaware that they can simply defer all or part of their rates if they're unable to pay.

Now, I don't know if there are genuine concerns or if this is a stick used to beat this Council frequently at community gatherings like prepoll, where people who clearly are not having any trouble paying their rates like to tell you about how everyone's going to go under because of their rates bills.

On the subject of the IPART report, the New South Wales Upper House moved last week to force the New South Wales Government to release the IPART report, and that's due to be finally released this week. I'm sure it'll be fascinating reading, and we all look forward to it. We've got lots of work to do. This operational plan is trying to achieve that. We've already done a lot. Unfortunately, it's not hugely visible stuff. In the next 18 months, though, the visible improvements will really start to the Hawkesbury. We're already doing some really good works on parks and some roads. There's plenty more to do. The goal of this operational plan is to do that. So I hope that other councillors can support this delivery of what the community needs.

Thank you, Councillor. I will put the motion under the new— No. You've

Had right of

Reply . Under the new code of meeting practice, we are required to stand to vote. So all those in favour of this motion, please stand.

Agreed on that? I

Thought we had a debate on that.

Did we? For a long time. No, I didn't

In favour of the motion, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds. Please stay standing.

Councillor Wheeler, Deputy Mayor and the Mayor. Against the motion, Councillor Ross, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards. Absent is Councillor Conolly and Councillor Kotlash. Declare the motion carried. Six votes to four. Please

Record my name on that one, please.

Thank you. That was our exercise for the... I'll move to item 99 and ask the Deputy Mayor if you would like to tell us

Your interest, please. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I declare a less than significant non-pecuniary interest. I'm the public officer of the Kurrajong Community Forum. The reason for no further action is that I do not attend meetings or participate in decision making or business of the forum.

Thank you. And Councillor Reynolds, did you... ? Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I declare a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in that I know one of the applicants, and there's no reason for further action because it doesn't affect me personally or provide me with any personal benefit.

Thank you. We have one speaker on this item. It's Mr. Jarrod Feint. Please come forward, Mr. Feint.

Evening, councillors. Hello, Mr. Mayor. My public speaking is scratchy at best, so be patient with me. I'm speaking on Section 7 in regards to the sponsorship of Dinner by the River. The concept is a brainchild of Dave Wilkins from Utopian Touring. Dave Wilkins is a manager of iconic artists such as Wendy...

You should have received the Mayoral Minute earlier today, and there should have been a copy on your bench waiting for you. Plus, Mr Kern sent out a note earlier this week with some of the details as well. So hopefully you've had time to look at all those things. This is about what's happening at Vineyard Stage 1, the contribution plan for Vineyard. What happened is that we started a process to determine the contribution plan, and the process involved using government bodies such as the Valuer General, and a certain figure was arrived at. But then the rules were changed so that the contribution plan will now come through IPART. And when IPART studied it, they came up with a very different result to what was already there.

And now what was already there, as I said, started with the New South Wales Department of Planning and other government departments. It wasn't a figure that we just picked out of the air. It was based on solid data and solid research. Now the figure that they've come up with, IPART's come up with, is very different. It's to the tune of $35 million less than what we were hoping to get. But IPART has not made it, given us details of how they came to that conclusion. They haven't given us the information or the data which they used. And I believe if they're going to do this, they need to make the data publicly available so it's available for scrutiny. It's not available for scrutiny. We haven't been given any of the data.

On top of that, the new IPART approach is part of a bigger change by the state government. The state government, I believe, is saying that it wants to streamline planning in New South Wales. It's doing that by having a whole list of groups such as the Greater

Sydney Commission and a few other groups like that all working apparently at odds with each other to come up with not a streamlined set of plans, but what appears to be a mishmash set of plans, with all those groups not working well with each other and conflicting on many points. So what I'm suggesting here is that we tell the government we are not happy with the way the IPART has taken over this section, this contribution plan. We're not happy with the results. We also recognise that the introduction of the IPART process starts with us. We're the first council in New South Wales to go through this process. So I think it's very important if there are weaknesses in it, we point them out now so that the rest of New South Wales can see what those weaknesses are.

Maybe they can be addressed. And I'm hoping to say that to the planning minister when I visit him tomorrow. And I'm hoping that you will see the urgency in supporting this recommendation tonight. Thank you.

Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Of course I do support that occurring. I do, however, don't think that the recommendation is strong enough in terms of identifying what exactly it will be doing, because statements, points two and three are merely statements. They're not calling for any action or anything to be done. I did send some wording, which I'm wondering if you would consider, or otherwise I'll move it as an amendment to strengthen the recommendation, which is up on the board there now. If I may just speak to that wording, if that's okay. Yeah, I mean this is a process that the Department of Planning began. So I would be strongly urging really firm wording with the Minister for Planning. This is something that we've had imposed on us through the rezoning of a growth sector precinct that we have to collect the contributions for, and we've been given no assistance from the government in terms of doing that.

We need to have this information. We can't have Vanuatu General's information on the one hand causing such distress with the rating and then having it being used by another organisation to undermine a fair intake of contributions to enable us to do these works. So I think that I'm not sure about point three, whether we're doing a submission, whether the staff do a submission, or whether we should be doing a submission. And due to the lateness of the notice of motion coming through, I didn't have time to check with anybody about that. But I believe that we need to be stronger, given the fact that we are the test case, so to speak. I think we really need to lay it on the line. If we're going to have somebody who can Essentially , take away $35 million of what we would require to do that sort of work, then we need to be extremely firm, and we need to be able to be privy to what they're basing that on to have come up with this substitute plan, and to know what that data is and the sourcing of that data, and to very strongly express our dissatisfaction with the way that they've gone about it, to ensure that there's not a repeat of it when ever something else like this may come up.

So I think it basically, in what they've done, it undermines our capacity to deliver for something which we have been told that we are to have in our local government area. So I think that it's got an element of incredible unfairness with it, particularly when it's not transparent, and when we're not privy to just exactly how they've come up with these alternate figures. So I urge you, in your discussions with the planning minister, to very strongly express that and to ask for his assistance in securing us that information, because I would think it would be in his best interest to also be able to provide such information to councils when they're placed in this position that we are in at the moment.

So that's a suggested strengthening, if you would consider that or parts of that that I bring forward.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I am considering it. Can I just ask the General Manager, with point three about preparing a submission. Under our new meeting code, that would require some kind of financial impost , wouldn't

It? Generally, that applies to a notice of motion,

And it does apply to the Mayoral Minute, yes, so we probably need to identify any likely costs and make some provision for that.

I've just been told by the Director of Planning that a submission is being prepared apparently already.

Yes, so we are in the process of preparing a submission, and we'll be briefing Councillors on that before we submit it

So we don't have to find the money to do it; it's already been done That was my only problem. Otherwise, I'm quite happy to substitute this as the Mayoral Minute. I think it does strengthen things, and I rushed this afternoon to write it as well, and I had two attempts at it and I still wasn't happy because it wasn't strong enough, so I'm very glad that you've done this, and hopefully it'll help me give a strong argument tomorrow. Any further speakers? Councillor Ross.

Question.

There's an indication that there have been a number of DAs submitted . I appreciate that they can't be considered until IPART have done their business. Could we get an indication over that site as to their location? Are they all located on Boundary Road, or are they scattered through? Citharinyon,

Please. Mrs. Beren.

From my understanding through you, Mr. Mayor, they're scattered throughout the area.

Thank

You Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, it's a question initially. I'm just wondering to what extent the IPART decision can be appealed or is subject to ministerial review, and if neither of those are possible, which my experience with IPART is that they can't be once they've determined, then where would we expect this to go? And secondly, which is part of the amendment that Deputy Mayor has put up, I would like to know what the consequences, financial consequences on Council is, that if the IPART decision is to be final, where are we left financially, and what is the impact on our fit for the future and so on? Is that possible to give some indication now?

I think point 3 actually asks that to be done. Deputy Mayor, that was your intention?

Yes, I did see a figure of $35 million. That is the amount that is lesser than what we had originally had. But, yeah, but it could, if, yeah, point 3 does ask for that, for an outline of the impacts in that regard.

Your first question about appealing IPART, do we have an answer to that?

I know in the case of the SRV , IPART made a recommendation to the government, and I don't have the answer on this particular... occasion because this is a new process, but it would most likely be that the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal would have to make a recommendation to government. They wouldn't have sole discretion on this matter, but we can check that to be sure.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Might be a question for the Minister tomorrow.

Further speakers? Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just some questions, please. Are we the first council to go through this process because we're the first council to ask to raise the developer contributions under the fact it's now this Section 11? Is that a new system, or the Section 7.11 thing, sorry, is just a new numbering system? So that's just a new numbering system, but we just happen to be the first council to seek to raise the developer contributions now that this process is in place.

General Manager.

The Section 7.11 used to be Section 94. That was changed with an amendment to the Act. My understanding is that the state government have

Allocated responsibility for the plans to IPART, and that we're the first council to go through that

Process. Because we want to raise the contributions? No, we're

Just the first. We just happen to be the first council. Okay

Because we are going through a rezoning process that the state government has rezoned, and so this is what every council would now have to do?

Every council has to do this now, anyhow. It's just that historically councils have developed their own plans, then more recently, and made their own determinations. More recently, the government put a cap on it. Then most recently the government removed the cap and put it under the jurisdiction of IPART. But

When you say removing the cap, it's the cap on the developer contributions. There was a cap on

The developer contributions.

So that $35.5 million that we are now saying we are less of, based on our initial assessments of what we needed, is based on them saying, because I remember in the other documentation we got from staff, can you clarify what we asked for the developer contributions for each lot to be 75 , wasn't it? And they've come back at—

So they've come back at— forgive my, I didn't bring the document with me. Oh, that's okay. But the reason why we've asked for 75,000, because in the growth areas, other councils like the Hills Council are accessing a subsidy. So if they didn't have the subsidy, they would be asking for $75,000 as well per lot. And

Why didn't we get that subsidy? Because that was provided by the state government.

We weren't included.

Is there a reason we didn't get— You don't know why.

I don't know

Why.

So just to confirm, that $35 million that we are less of, and when it's broken down into those five dot points in the Mayoral Minute, that's just because that's, it all accumulates to being because IPART has said they're giving us less per lot. Partly . Or is there another pool of funds we were asking for?

So we've asked for funding for different aspects, whether it's around roads or drainage or acquisition of property. One of the critical issues, for instance, is we have put valuations of the acquisition of land or property, and that was provided or backed up by valuer general valuations. IPART don't seem to agree with that valuation, even though— But

That's a separate issue from the developer contribution amount per lot,

Or it's all— Well , it's, I suppose it's all lumps— it's all part of our overall plan of what we're trying to do, whether we have to acquire property or implement infrastructure. We've allocated, we've identified what we want to do or where we, you know, want to spend this money, and we've said this is notionally how much we need per lot, which then covers all of that. Which covers that yes. And now by cutting, I suppose, the amounts of money across the contributions plan, where— Either we change what we're going to try and build, which, or we have to build it at council's.

So IPART are saying we've— I'm not saying I agree with this, but they're saying we've overassessed what we need to do.

Seemingly. Potentially. We don't, you know. Okay.

But essentially it all comes down to the fact that we've asked for $75,000 per lot, and they've said no, you're only getting, and I don't have the figure in front of me, as you don't, X amount, which, was it in the 50s, I think, from the previous documentation? I'm not sure. So it's still more than the 30 though. It was still more than the 30,000 cap that they were allowing.

At the end of the day, when we prepare the submission, we'll be able to give you a detailed assessment of what the implications might mean in terms of what they're proposing compared to what our

Plan was before. Yeah, I guess that's, in summary, all the questions I have is because I just feel I don't have enough information in front of me to support this tonight because there's too many questions and even if, you know, right now staff are all going a bit like this as well because it is the first time we've gone through this process and that's no reflection on not knowing the answer, that's because it's new. And so I just find that I can't support this right now when I've got so many questions that aren't even answered. Like the memorandum's not even addressing, it doesn't even mention once in here that that accumulation of $35 million comes from a reduction in each lot's developer contribution amount. It doesn't even say that. I just, yeah, there's not enough information here. I think if I'm going to support something, I need a lot more information in front of me. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Reynolds.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I think we covered a lot of this in the briefing last Tuesday and the issues that have just been raised. I'm not sure if the information's on the hub, but it may well be. I do have a question. In the email that was sent to us regarding the draft IPART report from Vineyard, it mentions the local growth infrastructure scheme, which was given to Hills Council and other councils but denied Hawkesbury Council. It says that despite representations, the Vineyard precinct is not included in the local growth infrastructure scheme area. I'm just wondering who those representations were made to?

General Manager?

Sorry, we'll have to take that on notice. I'm not sure.

Can I perhaps suggest to the Mayor that he may want to mention that to Minister Stokes when he meets with him, that we've made representations to be treated fairly like other councils and were denied, if that's possible? I

Think it's called the LEP scheme, isn't it? Yeah, I was planning to mention that, yes. Okay, good.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I think it's important for people to note that the loss of this funding is going to impact not just on the new residents of Vineyard, but on the whole of the Hawkesbury. Much of the infrastructure that Council is required to put into that space is non-negotiable.

These works start at really basic level works , like really basic park structures, drainage and irrigation, security lighting, sports fields, and move all the way through community services. By shortchanging , by IPART shortchanging Council on $35 million, the rest of the community is going to have to carry the can for this development, and that's fundamentally unfair. We've seen this Council wrestle with the implications of the additional requirements for Redbank and the upkeep there, which is not consistent with the rest of the LGA. We've seen this Council struggle with the need to refurbish parts of Bligh Park, where that development went in in the '80s and Council failed to collect adequate maintenance fees for years.

We've seen Windsor Downs largely manage their own through owner contributions in a much smaller, much tighter-knit and much more affluent community than we're going to see at Vineyard. Not having this money isn't just inconvenient; it's not tenable. What we've got here is a developer's paradise. We've seen what happens when developers go in—we saw it at Pitt Town—and promise the earth to the people who were moving into those communities. They charge the homeowners a massive fee under the proviso that they will be given all this infrastructure and that the area will look a certain way. The homeowner then expects Council to deliver that. They live 90 minutes from the CBD. They rely on community services provided in the Hawkesbury because they don't exist anywhere else.

This is greenfield development. The developer pockets a huge profit, and then it's going to leave Council and the ratepayers carrying the can for this again. But what's most galling about all of this is the complete lack of transparency. Now, IPART is supposed to be an independent identity that's set up to protect and promote the ongoing interests, and I quote from their website, of consumers, taxpayers and citizens of New South Wales. By shortchanging us $35.5 million, that isn't going to happen in this area.

The Greater Sydney Commission is setting up these developments to be liveable, sustainable and productive. Well, they're not productive if transport doesn't work effectively. They're not liveable if open space and stormwater are compromised by a lack of developer contributions, and they're certainly not sustainable if the rest of the LGA has to carry the can for land acquisition and administration and bringing these areas up to standard. So I think I applaud both the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor for bringing this to Council. This is simply not good enough. We cannot sit back and watch the residents of the Hawkesbury be done over again because they haven't worked out what they're doing yet. It's bad enough that we missed out on LIGS funding and that we've watched these developments that have attracted LIGS funding impact on our communities, and we've seen the— The creeping of Box Hill closer and closer, and the impact of that on the Hawkesbury, it's appalling to think that we would have that level of development, that cheek-by-jowl development that looks nothing like the rest of the Hawkesbury, with none of the funds to make that liveable, and a bigger impost on the rest of the people who live here.

Thank you, Councillor Ross.

I've got a fairly long contribution to make, if you don't mind. Thank you. The first is that apparently in 2017 there was a change of government policy

In regard to Greenfield development, and this Vineyard Stage 1, Stage 2 are the subject of that. Department of Planning were out in the field conducting community consultation as late as October 2017, I think between the 10th and the 13th of that month.

We then get to the stage of two critical reports being issued by the department. One is called the Finalisation Report, and the other is the Development Control Plan for this Stage 1 of Vineyard. Both documents are dated November, but they were not released and handed over to Council until the 18th of January 2018, and that was recorded in the May business paper. Then followed.

The council's

Consultant and the council staff management putting together a document to IPART, a submission. However , in so doing , the development control plan and the final staging report, both dated November and issued in January, were apparently not referred to. The critical point in those reports is that the change of government policy was manifest by, firstly, Boundary Road, instead of becoming a subarterial road, was reduced to the state of a collector road.

The second part was that suddenly Chapman Road became a portion of a subarterial road. Now, the logic behind that was, if you look at the planning report preceding the DCP , that Arup had been

Required by RMS to do consultative work on the area, and initially Arup had recommended that Boundary Road be the

Subarterial road.

However, in 2016, RMS came up with this plan where Garfield Road West would be diverted around the back of, if you like, on the south creek side of the old Riverstone Meatworks, taken up the hill to Vineyard Station, and a cutting would be made under the Vineyard Station, similar to as has happened at Schofields Road, and they would run down Bandon Road with a new corridor. And that was described by RMS as a subarterial road. ARUP was apparently then consulted by RMS and told— Request extension, Mr Mayor. Yes, please.

He has a minute to go.

I'm trying to give a factual basis upon the reading of all these documents.

You have one minute left.

Thank you, and then we'll ask for an extension if need be. ARUP altered its recommendations to RMS. Now, the only basis upon which I could see that being done is that RMS decided, as a result of their 2016 stroke of genius, that this subarterial corridor would zip under the railway, go down Bandon Road and then straight into Chapman Road. Now,

That occurred and was published in January '18. The submission that went to IPART from Council did not reflect that. It reflected the understanding that the Department of Planning had given the Council and the consultant employed by, at that stage, Department of Planning, a whole different set of parameters. They had been given the parameters that Boundary Road was the subarterial road, and everyone was happy with that, and Chapman Road was going to be a collector road . But that all changed. And I believe, and it's only purely hypothetical, that it was a change of government policy that brought that

About. Excuse me, Councillor Ross. Councillor Rasmussen would like to move an extension. Do we have a seconder for that? Councillor Reynolds.

Point of order, Mr. Mayor. Yes. It relates to the new Code of Meeting Practice. Is it proper for another councillor to seek an extension in this way, or is the five minutes really five minutes?

I'll ask Mr. Mifsud if he could.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. The five minutes is there to speak, but if there is a request to extend the time, the Mayor can make a decision on that.

Did we say how much time we wanted to extend, Councillor Rasmussen?

Three minutes, Mr. Mayor.

Three minutes. Is that within the rules, Mr. Mifsud? So it's been moved and seconded that we extend by three minutes. All those in favour No It's a procedural matter. All those against? Declare it carried. Three minutes, Councillor Ross .

Thank you, Mayor. Colleague, I'm trying to provide you with factual material. This is not—

Right.

Okay. So we got to the point where a submission has gone to IPART based on different parameters to that which Council understood , for whatever reason. The disappointing thing from my point of view as a councillor is that the submission to IPART was not put before the Council prior to its going to IPART, as was done with the SRV. So there are questions to be thought and looked at there . Now, in the IPART report, they've gone strictly to report against the November documents, the development control plan and the final interpretation report , and have, as a result, treated Boundary Road as a collector road and said, Well, you know, there's ten million bucks there you don't need to spend, etc.

And, of course, that's creating the mayhem. Now, I cannot make any comment about the basis upon which they made land valuations, and I cannot make any comment, factual comment, in regard to the McKenzie's chain of ponds network.

What I would like to suggest is that the question I asked earlier about where are these DAs going to be located , we have a sovereign risk problem, in my opinion. Firstly , the development in the very short term of this area is jeopardising Redbank and Jacaranda Ponds, and the other element to this is that because there is no head or sole developer to the property, Council may be forced into the situation, if we accept a plan, of having to develop the whole site, in other words, the total road network, etc., etc., and the drainage, presumably, so that any developer can walk in and organise subdivisions on any part of it. That would change . That would completely alter the financial aspects of this proposal that IPART are looking at, would potentially raise the borrowings to, who knows, could be seventy or eighty million dollars, and that would be a financial disaster from this Council.

And apart from that, we've got this concern about what will be the uptake of Redbank and Jacaranda ponds if we start developing land closer in. Now, there's also not been any statement by government—

Councillor Ross, I'm sorry, your time is up.

Can I make one last point?

One sentence, yes.

There's not been any statement by government of the need for this property to be developed in the immediate short term. Thank you.

You've raised some important issues there, Councillor Rosk. Can I ask the General Manager, will those issues be addressed in the report that we're looking at?

We can make sure that they're included in that report.

Oh. Councillor Tree.

Thank you. Just wondering, so the cap of $30,000 that it used to be, you're saying is that no longer existing or doesn't apply to us? Just wanted to get a clarification on that. Was it $30,000 used to be? Maybe it's gone up a bit since I last involved.

General Manager.

Could I offer advice on that?

The, under the old process, there was a— Cap placed on the level of the contribution. So it didn't matter what the cost was of developing land, the developer was limited to that cap, and then councils had to find a way of complementing that sum of money. Some councils got access to funds from the state government. We didn't. The state government has since made IPART responsible for determining the plans, and they go through their own process of determining what they think the land value is, and what they think the road hierarchy should be, what they think the construction costs are for drainage and roads, what they think the level of embellishment for open space should be, and based on those calculations , they come up with their own contribution value .

And that's where we're at at the moment. We've got a plan that was originally developed by the Department of Planning that was handed to us. We completed the plan. We've actually been to court and defended the plan, and had to pay money out from the plan based on New South Wales Valuer General valuations. And one of the issues is that the land valuation in the IPART plan is lower than the New South Wales Valuer General valuation, but we have no reason to understand why that is. And we have a number of these issues where... The two plans are at odds, and we don't yet have the information to understand fully why that is. I've tried to just answer the whole question. I hope that helps.

Sorry. It just seems to me, I've got to admit, I think that $70,000 per lot was extreme. When you have a, and it's the bane of the existence of Hawkesbury in terms of contributions, I like to think that the VPA that was struck between Redbank and Council and the RMS was actually pretty good, and the community are getting lots, lots for their money there. Unfortunately, there's a lot of water features that have been kept there that are going to have to be paid for by people, but aside from that, I think mainly there's a lot of really good investment put into that area, lots of people using walkways, people who don't even live in the area are taking advantage of that. So there's lots of value adding there.

So I think that that's an example where that is actually working, the VPA. Regarding Pitt Town, which was mentioned earlier, unfortunately we didn't get to make decisions about that, and there was a Part 3A, and Frank Sartor made decisions about how those contributions were going to work. And my understanding is that there are lots of things promised and things that can't be delivered because what the developer needed to do in order to deliver those things has not yet occurred. So it's important that we do understand all of these things and how they work, and if there's a disparity between the

Land values and what is happening in terms of the contributions for this, that does need to be understood more clearly. But I did think that our expectation of $70,000 per lot seemed extreme, and I would have thought $55,000 is probably reasonable. But I guess you'll have to see if you can sort out the confusion regarding those issues that Mr Conroy's just highlighted. But I probably tend to agree with Councillor Richards. It's a bit tricky until we know all those facts whether we can support this.

Councillor Reynolds.

Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor. I'd just like to point out that a lot of information was contained in an email sent to us last Thursday by Mr Kearns. It dates that 71,000 is for low density residential, and it's $55,000 for medium density residential, and it also explains a lot of information. And again, a lot of it was, we dealt with at the briefing last Tuesday.

Thanks, Councillor Reynolds. You've actually spoken twice on this matter. Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I want to thank you for bringing this mayoral minute, and I want to, in my time, perhaps address some of the points that have been raised by my Liberal colleagues and to issue an appeal to them for us to be bipartisan on this matter, and I'll explain why. We were first asked to contemplate the effect of the developer contribution scheme in Vineyard on August 14th last year, where we were told that we— Excuse me

Mr Mayor, that is incorrect. Is that

A point of order?

Point of order, sir.

Factual error.

A factual error.

Yes, sir.

Would you like to tell us what the real date was?

May the 8th. 2018, I believe.

Thank you. Please continue.

On the 14th of August, there was a motion as part of a broader process for us to contemplate the effect of our LGA not being eligible for LIGS funding. And I raised this, along with my Liberal colleagues, to Dominic Perrottet. At that time, I have correspondence here that I wrote him in early September. We raised it at a party meeting. I did not receive a response to that correspondence. I only received an acknowledgement that it would be forwarded to the then Planning Minister, and it went nowhere . I have deep misgivings about the effect that this will have on the quality of development in Vineyard. But equally, to address the questions that have been raised by Councillor Trune, Councillor Richards, I too agree that we don't have the full picture yet.

For example, it was mentioned in the briefing note that we received from Mr. Kearns that— There are certain elements of this infrastructure that would simply have to be done anyway, and that it would therefore be funded by the rest of the LGA. And we don't know what proportion of these works will be foregone for lack of this money, or what proportion of these works will have to happen anyway and will be subsidised by the rest of our ratepayers in that way. So the extra impost to us is unquantified. In the same way, although there are hints of this in the briefing note that we received, there isn't a full picture of what other LGAs have been charging for developer contributions, given that they were in receipt of LIGS funding.

And I think the misgiving that was expressed to my left here was, well, if the amount that we're asking for is so high, is it so different from what other councils would be asking for if they were not in receipt of LIGS funding? I would prefer to see that better laid out, and if there are areas that are perhaps even contiguous with Vineyard Stage 1 on the other side of Boundary Road, I'm aware that LIGS funding was available for Box Hill, Box Hill North, Box Hill Industrial, Alex Avenue at Riverstone, Marsden Park, Schofields, and Kellyville North, among others. This LIGS plus developer contributions equals the amount that we're asking for, and that I think makes our case much, much stronger.

More broadly, however, I want to express my deep misgivings about the whole process. Because what we are seeing east of Boundary Road is a travesty, in my opinion. The scale and intensity of that development is not what we want to see in our own LGA. And if this is the portion of the Northwest Growth Sector that's jumped over the boundary and is in our backyard, and that we have some carriage over, I would like to draw a line in the sand and to say surely we can do better than that, because that scale and intensity of development is not what the Hawkesbury is about. And $35 million goes an enormously long way to ensure that if we do have to develop that area, is that it is a quality development.

In the area in which I live, our community is deeply divided about the prospects in the medium to long term about development. There is a sense that Vineyard Stage 1 and Vineyard Stage 2 are merely the thin end of the wedge, and that ultimately other areas of Oakville and Moraylya will eventually be selected for this kind of development. If we have to have that development, what the residents in those areas want and deserve is some certainty about the process, and some assurance that Hawkesbury Council thinks differently to Hills Council or Blacktown Council, and want to spend the money to do this right. And the decision that's been made by IPART, I think, is wrong-headed. I would be as interested as the rest of you to know what IPART's land valuation methodology is, and my time is over.

Thank you.

Any speakers who have not spoken so far? You've already spoken, Councillor. I have.

I have a question.

That's question. Go ahead.

Because I know I can't speak. Are you aware of the practice note? Put out by IPART on this process, which appears to imply some ministerial discretion in this process. If not, I can send you the link. It may be useful.

Am I aware? No, I'm not. I'd be happy to receive that. Thank you. Any further questions?

Yes.

Councillor Ross.

Following on from my learned colleague, are you aware also that this IPART report is, in fact, an interim report only, and that, as I understand it, and you might like to confirm this, that the opportunity being afforded Council now to respond to June 28 will, as I understand, possibly assist them in formulating a more definite report to the Minister. Would that be your understanding, sir?

Yes, it is my understanding. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Now, could I ask the General Manager, please. An NDA percentage of 73 per cent, that's the net development area available. Is that normal, sir, in terms of a greenfield site, in your experience?

General Manager. It depends from site to site. Some areas that have got significant vegetation or significant drainage restrictions have significantly less than that. Others have much higher because they don't have any natural impediments to development. It does vary from situation to situation, you know, environmental constraints or otherwise.

Could I direct a question to the Director of Planning, please?

You can direct a question

To the General Manager. Oh, through you, sir.

Yes.

The report we received from staff via email last week, would I be correct in believing that a figure of $80,000 was mentioned for developments within the Blacktown local government area, which excluded this LIGS component, and that using that as a benchmark, the figures that were arrived at by staff in this occasion are, in fact, relatively comparable, sir?

General Manager .

I didn't bring a copy of what was submitted to you last week. However, in the briefing that we're going to give Council next week, on Tuesday, we'll give an idea of how we compare to other local government areas with and without the subsidy.

Further questions, Councillors? Sorry,

Am I correct in believing that the section 7.11 contribution, in normal circumstances these days, still remains at 30,000, but there are circumstances in Greenfield sites where this applies at the level of 40,000, and that sometime through 2020, I believe, there is going to be a change in the legislation that at the moment would appear to remove those ceilings.

General Manager? We'll have to take that on notice, Mr Mayor.

Question, Councillor Rasmussen. Yeah

Thank you. Sorry? Yeah, well, I haven't spoken to you, Mr Mayor. No, I have. I've asked a question.

I'll ask another question. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Mayor. And my question relates to the new material that we intend, the Council is intending to put into its submission that is being prepared that is different to the submission that we created in the first place. What new material have we actually going to be confronting the IPART staff with? Ms Perrin.

So at the moment, when our contribution plan was developed, it was done with consultants GLN, who do a lot of work around contributions. So we've actually, the moment we got this report, we got on the phone to them to say, Here's some of the issues. So they're working with us to see what additional expertise we need to get to bolster our arguments around roads, drainage, valuations, et cetera. So all of the aspects that we've already been dealing with IPART about, we're giving additional information about that as much as possible. But we'll be briefing you, Councillors, on that as much as we can next week.

Thank you. Could I seek a further question, please?

Yes, Councillor Ross.

In the development of this material that has just been mentioned, has the matter of a hydrologist been raised as one of the areas of expertise that may be required to deal with the Mackenzie Chain of Ponds matter? Ms. Perrin

I don't have the specifics, but if it hasn't been, I can look into that.

Further question. I appear to be considerably concerned by the word nexus in its dealings with this particular contributions plan.

I would submit that Council —well, I would request Council staff to please view the Brennan's Dam Road issue not so much in terms of the roadways, although they are important. It is the actual crossing of the Mackenzie Chain of Ponds waterway

Which is potentially

Critical to the state of the roads on either side and the capacity of them to flood. And I'm just wondering if, in this work that we're doing, that because there is certainly a nexus, that this should not also be included there to reduce the risk factor that we're looking at in this whole operation. Thank you.

General Manager, do you have an answer?

I believe the question relates to Nexus, and the answer in relation to that particular issue is that the developer is only required to contribute to the proportion of the increased demand that their development creates. And that's going to be a difficult issue because there's a general approach now to land development that you try and maintain pre-development runoff rates. And I'm generally informed that some of the issues in that area of Brennan's Dam Road are historical issues to do with an ongoing flooding issue, and we would have to investigate whether there was some way of linking that back to the development under question.

A further question.

Would the General Manager be kind enough to put that in the kit bag, please?

In the what, sorry?

Kit bag.

We can certainly talk about Nexus in the presentation next week.

Be very grateful.

Councillor, do you have a question?

Yes. Picking up on something

Councillor Ross said before, in the document that we received from Mr Kearns last week, I'll just quote a little bit. It says IPART. Etcetera, appears as if the focus has been on cost reduction in this plan. IPART appears to have taken a hard line on any issue it found an angle to weigh in on. And then it says, this is surprising given the rates in other northwest growth centre contribution plans, including Blacktown, which are between $70,000 and $80,000 and higher per dwelling, and the fact that the Vineyard rates were considered reasonable to begin with. So, the question is, has IPART or the government allowed Vineyard to impose rates of $70,000 to $80,000 per dwelling?

General Manager.

I can't answer that on the spot. I can take it on notice and we'll deal with it as part of the presentation next week.

Yeah, that's the point I would like to make, because if they have let Blacktown get away with rates of over $80,000 per dwelling, then I think we have a good case there to make.

Any further questions? Councillor Ross.

Mr Mayor, I'd like to inquire of you, do you feel somewhat better informed this evening for your upcoming robust discussion with the said Minister?

I will answer that in my right of reply, Councillor Ross.

I just wanted to point out that the meeting tomorrow is a short meeting, and I have about—I'm there... From WesRock as well. And I have at least eight things on the agenda, of which this is one. My plan tomorrow was not to change the thinking of the planning minister in five minutes and get him to change the whole world. My plan was to make him aware of what's going on, put it on the table, and I wouldn't even be surprised if the planning minister isn't aware of this problem we're having here because Hawkesbury doesn't actually always come to the top in planning matters. So I'm planning to make him aware, put it on the table, and then as the motion now says, or the mayoral minute now says, organise, if we can, a delegation at a future date to go through this in detail.

Because, yes, I am much better informed, thank you, Councillor Ross, but the amount of detail that I received here tonight is not the amount that I'm planning to communicate to the minister tomorrow. That will be in the report that the staff are working out, and I'm sure they appreciate the extra information that you've given, and that, I think, will form the basis of this delegation at a future date. And at that delegation, I'm happy to attend, but I would think that I'm not expert enough to actually lead the delegation. I'll be looking for the general manager and the director to be giving us all that information at that time. What we've got here tonight is the beginning of a process. There will be more to happen.

There is, as Councillor Ross pointed out, a submission date by which we can respond. So there's a whole lot more yet to happen. And I would say to Councillors Richards and Tree that you need to consider that what we're saying here tonight is not that the whole process is terrible and it needs to be revisited, but there is an issue, and we're going to see the Planning Minister make him aware of the issue and that there is a process which we're following through. So, yes, there isn't enough information yet because by definition there cannot be enough information because we're at the beginning of the process, not at the end of the process. And if you want to wait till the end of the process, I think the horse will have bolted by then.

Right now is the time to put it on the table with the Minister and say, look, there's an issue. These are the main things that are coming up. We'd like to come back and discuss it with you in more detail. And that is my plan tomorrow, and that was the plan of the Mayoral Minute. And I will say to the Deputy Mayor, thank you for strengthening it, but one of the reasons I didn't strengthen it too much was because it's a process, because it's the beginning, and because I just wanted to flag it with the Minister at this stage. I don't think your strengthening stops us from doing that. So I'm happy to support the recommendation as it now appears on the board. And I ask you to support it as well.

And if you want to vote in favour, could you please stand up?

In favour of the motion is Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Zamprogno and the Mayor. Against is Councillor Ross, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards. Absent is Councillor Conolly and Councillor Kotlash. Declare it carried. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven votes to three.

Thank you. We now could move into confidential. Move that way, Mr Mayor. Councillor Rasmussen, Deputy Mayor, all those in favour. Carried. We'll move into confidential, please.

I'll ask Mr Mifsud if he can give us a report of what happened in the confidential meeting, part of the meeting, please.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. In regard to item 100, Council, whilst in closed session, resolved on the motion of Councillor Rasmussen, seconded by Councillor Wheeler, that: one, the information containing the report be received and noted; two, Council, in accordance with the provisions of Section 55(3)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993, not invite public tenders due to extenuating circumstances and approve a further 12-month contract for the provision of kerbside bulk waste collection and processing service with Cleanaway Proprietary Limited, under the same general terms and conditions in the current contract; three, authority be given for the contract and any other documentation associated with the matter to be executed under the seal of Council; four, Council review the areas that are currently able to access a regular green bin collection with a view to increasing the number of households that could potentially access this service.

Voting in favour of the motion were Councillors Ross, Rasmussen, Garrow, Reynolds, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Zamprogno, Tree, Richards and Calvert. Absent were Councillors Cotter and Conolly. In regard to item 101, Council, whilst in closed session, resolved on the motion of Councillor Rasmussen, seconded by Councillor Zamprogno— sorry, I need to have Councillor Wheeler do her interest, sorry.

I have a non-significant non-pecuniary interest in item 101. I live on another section of King Road, Wilberforce. The reason for no further action is that the repairs to King Road will not affect my property, access to my property, or its value.

Whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Rasmussen, seconded by Councillor Zembrogno, that Council: one, note the acceptance of Schedule of Rates tender of MJ and MD Skinner Earthmoving Pty Limited for Road Rehabilitation of Separable Portion 1, King Road and Separable Portion 4, Settlers Road in the amounts of $619,806 and $394,525, GST exclusive respectively. Two, in accordance with Section 178F, Local Government General Regulation 2005, not accept any tender for Separable Portion 2 and 3, Sackville Road and East Kurrajong Road, and carry out the requirements of the proposed contracts itself. Voting in favour of the motion were Councillors Ross, Rasmussen, Garrow, Reynolds, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Zembrogno, Tree, Richards and Calvert. Absent from the vote were Councillors Kotlash and Conolly.

So I'd like to move we accept that report. Councillor Rasmussen and Councillor Reynolds. All those in favour say aye. Those against? Declared carried. Is there any further business? If not, I'll close the meeting at— A question. You can ask a question. Put the light on . Oh , sorry. I'm wondering what is the appropriate means by which one could contact the Traffic Committee to put a matter or matters before them? I think you talk to Councillor Reynolds. He's the chair of the committee. Right Okay.

Send him an email. Yeah.

Go straight to the top.

Yeah. Thank you, Mayor.

Any further general business? If not, I'll close the meeting at nine. 19 p.m. and hence

Too early.