27 August 2019 - Ordinary

Welcome to the Hawkesbury City Council Ordinary Meeting, 27th of August 2019. I'd like to firstly acknowledge the traditional custodians of this land, the Darug people, pay respect to elders both past and present. I'll now hand over to the Acting General Manager to go through some

Things that I keep forgetting. Procedural matters. Yes, thank you.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Members of the public attending the meeting are advised that in the event of an emergency, you will be asked to proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exit following the guidance of our warden. I would also like to advise the members of the public that in accordance with Clause 5.18 of the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of the Council are recorded. In 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 those persons who will be addressing the Council tonight, it is expected that you will refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at this meeting. This request relates to both your address to Council and any answers given in response to questions from councillors. Finally, it is also requested that if any person in Council chambers has a mobile phone, that they either turn it off or turn it onto silent.

Thank you.

Thank you, Acting General Manager.

General Manager, do we have any apologies, please? Councillor Rasmussen and Councillor Kotlash. Councillor Tree. Is Councillor Reynolds an apology? Okay, and Councillor Reynolds. Someone like to move we accept the apologies? Councillor Richards, seconded Councillor Wheeler. All those in favour say aye. Declare it carried. Do we have any declarations of interest? Yes? No?

The minutes of the last meeting. Would someone like to move, moved by the Deputy Mayor, seconded by Councillor Garrow. Do we accept the minutes? Those in favour say aye. That's again.

Subject to public address, in which case we move to the first item, which is the Mayoral Minute, which you should have received on your desks as you walked in and by email this afternoon.

I am very proud to report that the State Government, through the Minister, Minister Andrew Constance, has decided to subsidise the Lower Portland Ferry for the next four years to the tune of $500,000 per annum. Now that is a tremendous support for both Hawkesbury and The Hills Council. As you know, we are both discussing the future of the ferry in terms of finances, wondering where the money would come from, and this money has shown up very conveniently at this time. And I want to thank the Minister for this, and I also want to thank the Member for Hawkesbury, Robyn Preston. I spoke with her last week, as did the Mayor of The Hills, and she said at the time that she was going to see if she could find a solution to this as soon as possible, and it looks like she has, and I congratulate her for that.

And I think this will allow us to keep good faith with the people of Lower Portland because my understanding is this Council wanted to keep the ferry. It was always a question of where the money was going to come from. So now this might help us answer that question. And there's a recommendation there, basically, that we note the letter and we thank Andrew Constance, and that a further report be submitted showing how the whole matter might fit together with The Hills Shire Council. Is there any discussion?

Thank you, Mayor. Could I draw your attention to the comment which you made at the beginning of your speech in which you indicated that an email had been sent to councillors. I have not received an email acknowledging the— The

Email was this Mayoral Minute. Acting General Manager, that went to all councillors.

Yes, that's my understanding, Mr Mayor.

About 4:30 this afternoon. 5:30.

I have not received it, sir.

Councillor Garrow hasn't received it either.

You did . It was supposedly broadcast to all councillors. I apologise if you didn't receive it. That was the earliest we could do it because the letter only came through just after lunch. And then we wanted to talk to the Hills and see what they were doing as well, so it took a while to put the thing together. And it went out as early as we could, which was 5:30. If it didn't go to you, sorry, that was a mistake. Anyway, you have it now in front of you.

Thank you. I am obliged, sir, very much. If it's not out of order, I would like to make some general comments. Thank you. Councillors, whilst this is a very welcome piece of news and the local member is indeed to be thanked and her advocacy on behalf of particularly this council applauded, I believe there are

Matters which, in the longer term, we should all be— Putting our mind to. One of particular note is that there are very distinct differences between the two councils involved.

We, due to circumstances in which we're placed, are regarded as metropolitan. That, I think, needs to be given some thought too. Possibly, if there are other local government areas in a similar situation to ourselves, there may need to be a third classification of local government areas, potentially, shall we say, peri-urban might be a label which one might affix to these local government areas.

The reason I make that comment is that last Saturday week,

A number of us attended to the community consultation at St Albans, and that is a remote community.

It, like a number of other communities, depends greatly on whatever services the Council is able to provide it. In that case, of course, particularly direct road transport and road linkages.

As we know, despite the SRV, it appears that providing... Sufficient funding to enable, if you like, ongoing roadworks to maintain our remote roads is not an easy ask, both in terms of the practicality of providing the services, and also funding, and even to the matter of communication of difficulties as they arise being reported back here and then being able to be attended to.

I was pleased to be able to drive the

Road about which was most discussed last weekend on the afternoon of that Saturday,

And the roadworks have basically completed at that stage, which was most pleasing. At the end of the track, as it ended up being, I was 100 miles distant from this very building—sorry, 100 kilometres distant from this very building. So that gives our community some understanding of the sheer distances and difficulties that can arise in those circumstances. Our brethren across the river from Lower Portland in the Hills possibly do not appreciate those physical constraints placed upon this council and its— More distant communities. We only have to look at areas such as along the Colo River, the Mountain Lagoon Road, the road in the

Higher mountain area which fell into disrepair, Comleroy Road in its extent, and those areas are all quite remote, have very low population densities, and yet require basic services. This is part of the social contract.

And there is a fiscal imbalance which has arisen. It's arisen between Commonwealth and states, as we well can see.

Individual states such as Tasmania, South Australia, and the territory of Northern Territory all depend to a lesser or a greater degree on federal

Consideration to supplement the revenues gained from within those states or territories. Something of the same ilk is occurring in local government.

Excuse me, Councillor Ross, your time's actually up. Thank you. I

Think that was the point to which I was hoping to draw everyone's attention, sir. Okay

Thank you. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I support, obviously support this Mayoral minute. I just wonder if there could be some wording changes to make it a bit clearer of what exactly we're doing, both in, rather than just noting the offer, I think we should be resolving that we accept the offer.

Or we at least convey to the minister that we would like to accept the offer, rather than simply noting it. If it's an offer, I'm assuming it's conditional on the Hills also accepting the offer, and I understand we have to wait for them. But I think just noting it is not really adequate, and thanking for the offer. I think we should be a bit firmer in saying, yes, we accept it, lest it slip away somehow. Also, additionally, in point three, I think we need to specify what the report is aiming at, in that it will, I assume, it's to be addressing the matter of the long-term future of the ferry in consultation with the Hills Council, rather than just a further report. Is the further report on the funding, or is the further report on the actual operation of the ferry over a much longer period of time?

I'm just not sure that's clear what the recommendation is regarding the report. So I would request that some additional wording be put in to specify what that report will be addressing, and will it be done in conjunction with the Hills, or are we going to take a stance on that ourselves based on this kind offer from the state government, which I'm sure both the councillors and the community will be most appreciative of. And I thank Ms Preston for her advocacy on that behalf, and also the strong community advocacy about the continuation of the Lower Portland Ferry. So if we could maybe just have either clarify if we're accepting that offer conditional on the Hills, or merely noting it. And specifying what the report's on.

And do we have keyboards now that are missing apostrophes? I'm just wondering.

Missing apostrophes?

I'll put that to the end.

That's not a recommendation.

Would you be happy to change number one to Council accept the offer of recurrent funding?

Yes, although I'm mindful that us accepting it may be conditional on the Hills also accepting it. I understand that, so just—

I think what point three is talking about is we accept it, but then we wait for what the Hills are going to do. Just because we accept it doesn't mean we have to go ahead with our—

Okay, well, I'm happy with that. And with regard to the report, it was more, is it just a report about that bit of funding that's coming for the four years, or are we going to actually be looking at the long term? I think this is something the community are really asking. Are we going to be making some concrete policy about what we're doing in the future, or are we looking still short term in the four-year term of this funding? That's all. I'm just seeking some clarity around that.

Well, I might ask the Acting General Manager, but my idea was that when the report comes back and we know what the Hills are doing, then we make this long-term decision, because we can't make it until we know those things. So that's the way I interpreted point number three. Is that the way you meant?

Correct, Mr Mayor. We would negotiate with the Hills. We'd obviously contact Transport for New South Wales, see any other information that's required or conditions that we need to meet, and then work out the timing. And, you know, there's a few bits of information here that we need to work out.

Thank you. I understand that. Could we perhaps then specify that when that process is undertaken, that we actually prepare a report that both deals with the short and the long term at once, instead of coming back and then deciding to do the long term? Because I'm quite mindful that this has dragged on for a long, long time, and I think that is what the community is seeking, just a position on it. But if it takes two stages, I've got no issue with that. I'm just thinking if we're doing reports and we're looking at what the Hills are doing, if they say they're going ahead, and in the past, although their recommendation tonight was to cease the ferry operation, but if they're looking at running it for the next 20 years, and they say that in the interim, then surely we would prepare a report that also deals with how we would go forward with that.

Yes. Once we've got more information, we'll be able to come back to Council, whether it is a two-stage process, I can't answer that at the moment. Once we've got more information, we'll outline that to Council. Thank you.

So you're happy to leave point three as it is?

I'm happy to leave that, and on the assumption that the report will be comprehensive enough to be dealing with the situation going forward.

Change point one to say Council accept the offer. Yes,

Thank you.

As for the apostrophe, I'll have a look for it tomorrow.

Okay. Well, there's more than one, but I hope you find a merry band of them. You can borrow one from an overuse somewhere.

Okay. Councillor Garrow.

Just following on from what Deputy Mayor said, I'm just curious as to whether we could take a position on this now and not wait for the Hills Council to come back with what they plan to do with the ferry. I mean, this is clearly a really vital piece of infrastructure that connects this community, and I think that we need to take a stance for the community to let them know that— We intend to fight for this to stay long term. And, you know, if we take a stance on what direction our council is going in, then why should we have to wait for Hills to make a decision and then ask to follow suit? So

I would— if you'd like me to answer. So I would, I'm requesting possibly whether you would be able to maybe add a point four to your recommendation.

What would it say?

Council notes that the Lower Portland ferry provides an essential public service for the residents of Lower Portland and surrounds, and that this service should be retained beyond the four years of this funding offer.

Or

Something along those lines.

I

Don't disagree with you, but I would have thought that would be something we would talk to the community about and invite the community. I

Think the community has voiced this pretty loud and clear that they want this ferry to retain. Well

If you want to put that up, I'll just wait and see what Councillor Conolly is going to— are you going to add to this question, Councillor Conolly? Sort of, yeah. Okay.

Whilst I don't disagree with Councillor Garrow's sentiment, I don't think it's in the Hawkesbury ratepayers' interest for us to come out first and put all the cards on the table before the Hills responds at all. That's not good negotiation or bargaining to come out and say, 'We're for it, we're going to retain it anyway.' I also note the Deputy Mayor's point. I would be a bit cautious about using the term accept as well, because that would imply that we're going to fund the other half if the Hills doesn't. Obviously we're not tied to it legally, but we are putting that—we are giving away a bit of our negotiating position in saying those things. I thought the original Mayoral minute was quite— Quite comprehensive.

Basically, we're just acknowledging an offer of recurrent funding from the state government and saying that we're going to go away now and do some proper work on it and come back to Council once everyone's had a chance to look at how this is going to work and who's going to fund what and when. So rather than take any long-term positions right now, given that this only came in at 5.30 and some Councillors, like Councillor Garrow, hadn't even seen it till right now, I think the responsible thing to do would be just to note, or accept it would be okay, just like Deputy Mayor said so it doesn't slip away from us, but to not give too much away right now. To note to the community that we've seen that we've got this offer and that it is going to impact our decisions going forward, and then wait till we have a chance to properly consider and see all the information before we make any other decisions.

I thought that this mayoral minute implied that we were accepting it, but I take on board what the Deputy Mayor said. It doesn't spell it out. And if you look at the letter from the Minister, the second last paragraph says, To accept this offer. So the Minister is expecting us to accept it. So I'm happy therefore to change that word to accept. In terms of point four, Councillor Garrow, if you want to put that up as an amendment , I'm not happy to go down that road just now because I think we should wait and see what the Hills come forward with. And as Councillor Conolly said, we don't want to end up taking over the whole, you know, the other half of the ferry. We want to see what the Hills are doing first.

No, I'm happy to leave it. Thank you.

Okay. Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor. Can I just make a point of clarification, please?

In a matter which we're discussing under confidential later in the evening, which I won't broach, but as an appendage to that, there was this document unsourced that is apparently a staff, shall I say, pro forma MOU with the Hills. My question is this: is there not an MOU or some formal agreement already in place? Because it is acknowledged in the business paper that there is joint ownership of this piece of infrastructure . My understanding is that the MOU spells

Out a 50-50 relationship with the Hills. By accepting this offer, it would change that relationship. So we'd have to, I would say, have another look at the MOU. But Mr. Organ might be able to comment on that

I'm not sure the current agreement with the Hills, I think it is simply just an agreement in writing rather than an MOU. It's actually a document that spells out the respective parties' responsibilities.

I'm dodging around obviously what's in the confidential report. It's probably somewhat moot now that there's another offer, an offer is on the table, and what's indicated in the letter from the minister is that we would need to enter into some form of agreement. That's unknown at this stage, given that it's come in today and it's really just asking us to talk with Transport for New South Wales. I would expect that there will be some formal agreement between all three parties that will emerge from that, whether it's in the form that's mooted in the... Confidential reports and other matter. And obviously there's things alluded to in the Minister's letter about certain requirements they're seeking in terms of capital works and requirements. Okay. Councillor, no problem.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. There's a distinction that I think that we're failing to draw here. I'm happy to accept the recommendation in the Mayoral Minute, and Mr Mayor, I echo your sentiments that thanks are most definitely due to our State Member of Parliament, who's certainly delivered for us, especially considering that RMS, until quite recently, had been quite trenchant in saying that this simply wasn't going to happen. So to see movement, I think, is a testament not only to our MP and the Minister for Transport and the Treasurer, and also the Lower Portland community, who have been very organised and very vocal and very persistent in the representations that they've given us and also Hills Shire Council.

But there is a distinction to be drawn here between whether something is objectively sustainable financially and whether we simply find it too expensive to bear the cost. And it's my colleague Councillor Conolly here who frequently makes the point that regardless of whether something is paid for by the State Government or by us, if it is objectively unsustainable, if we are subsidising the cost of this service to the tune of $24.50 per car journey, if we're providing an annual subsidy of $12,613 to each of the top 20 users, if we're Looking at a service where only seven, only seven vehicles used it five times a week, or more often than that, then it is objectively an unsustainable service. In the absence of this funding from the State Government, I'd have been in the difficult position of probably voting against the continuation of the service.

This tips the balance. But I do want to make the point that even though the State Government is coming to the party, it doesn't change the fact that it's a very expensive service and is of marginal viability to the community.

Thank you, Councillor Zamprogno. Councillor Ross.

In relation to the answer provided earlier, sir.

Yes.

If there is a letter or some form of written agreement,

I believe we should be privy to it to understand what it is saying. I appreciate that this

Offer may change the landscape, but we need to know upon what ground we are standing now before we would contemplate a move. And in regard to— I raised that point—and in regard to

Councillor Conolly, if we're talking about bargaining, our initial bargaining point surely would have been, if we had had the opportunity, to say, well, the State Government should take it lock, stock and barrel. We've been pre-empted. And in regard to Councillor Zamprogno... May I indicate that his discussion about the cost per journey is a statement made in a vacuum. Does he know the cost to the RMS per journey of the Webbs Creek and Sackville punts? No. None of us knows. We don't even know what the capacities of the vessels are in terms of their vehicles. So I'd just like to add those points. I think we need to know where we stand at the moment, because this is a vital matter, and I think we need to be fully apprised of what has occurred already

Thank you. I'll ask the Acting General Manager.

Currently there is no agreement. What Jeff was alluding to was the assumption that if we move forward in accepting this offer, there is an agreement that we would have to look at in relation to the Hills, this Council, and the Transport for New South Wales.

Councillor Ross, not

Happy with that answer.

Mr Mayor, I fancy a difference in the wording between our two staff members, and I'd like to have it clarified as to whether there is a letter even, and not just a matter of assumption, please.

I'll have to take that on notice about what that document and the form that it's in. It's never really been a major issue. We've simply shared costs, and there's never been a disagreement between the two Councils. What I think we're alluding to here, and it's probably what— I will bring back in response to point three in that report, and I'm hoping that that would be to the next Council meeting, and it would include any of those agreements that are in there, full details of what the, I guess the devil in the detail of any agreement that's proposed by RMS or Transport for New South Wales, and what the considerations of the Hills are at their meeting tonight. So I think all those things need to be knitted together in that report.

I'm certainly hearing the short-term and long-term issues, and whether they come back as the acting general manager has said in two stages, but until we know what the Hills' position is, and as I said, the issue they've got to deal with is the reconstruction of the ramp. So they have a tender matter on that. We have the tender for the overhaul that they will need to also deal with, which isn't on their agenda tonight, as I understand it, and then there will be a further tender that will need to be prepared as a result of this, which goes to the ongoing contract operation of the vessel itself. So there's quite a few things that will need to come back as a consequence of the offer that's been put by the government today.

Note the acceptance, the intention of Council to accept that, but we'll certainly need to talk with the Hills following whatever they resolve tonight, and what the RMS or Transport for New South Wales position is, and what conditions might be attached to that. As I said, we don't have any of that detail, simply the letter that's been provided today at very short notice on behalf of the government.

So, Councillor Ross, the matter only came up late this afternoon. We haven't had time to put all the material together. That's another reason why it's good to get the report back later, and all that information will be provided at that time. rather than tonight. So, you happy with those answers?

I do appreciate that, sir. The announcement was made this morning verbally, as I understand it, but that's another matter. The only other point about which I think we should give some consideration to tonight as a council is the release of a, if you like, upon knowing of the Hills Shire Council result of their meeting, possibly a combined statement by both our councils to the public of at least a preliminary nature to assuage the concerns of the community at this juncture, and possibly to include in that community consultation at a later stage as matters progress.

Well, it's going to be public release because it's part of the meeting, so it'll be out there, and we can't do a joint release with the Hills until we know what they're going to do. So the only thing we could do tonight is make a release of our own, not one that involves the Hills.

Is that what you're putting forward as a question?

No. I was asking if, in our resolution this evening, if we could not resolve that upon knowing the outcome of the Hills Council meeting, if in that instance it is favourable. To the continued operation of the. Service that we issue a preliminary joint statement to that effect for the public.

Point four, was it?

Yes, yes, if we're only at point four, please.

Yes, we are only at point four. I mean, I would be happy to entertain that. Does anyone wish to speak against that?

Wouldn't we actually deal with that when it comes back at the next council meeting with the proper report?

Well, Councillor Ross wants to do it almost . When did you say you want to do it?

Later this week, but after the knowledge of the outcome of the Hills Council meeting. Before this report comes back. Yes, please. The difficulty I see, and I'm trying to obviate, is that there are miscommunications within the community as a result of the meeting tonight, or as a result of the Hills meeting, and people becoming confused, and then we end up in an unnecessary... Well, I can

Put a statement out this week myself, if that appeases you, rather than building anything.

It's not appeasing me. It's taking care of our community, sir, with all due respect

If it answers your question.

Thank you. I would greatly appreciate...

I will put a statement out later this week. Councillor Wheeler had a light on a few times.

Councillor Richards, sorry. Okay

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Can we just first of all get confirmation that this report referenced in point three will definitely be next council meeting?

I can provide a— I can't at this stage indicate what the full content of that report would be, but I'm certainly happy to bring a report back that gives the state of play

As known at that time. Maybe just, even if we're not up to the full report, but, yeah, like, that's perfect, a state of play. So the community is aware that once the Hills make their decision tonight, we then, as a council, Hawkesbury Council, can have something in the business paper next time at least saying where we're going with that.

Through you, Mr Mayor, I think that that's achievable. But as I said, noting the earlier debate about the full box and dice of the long term and short term, it would be simply related to where we have landed with the resolution from the Hills tonight and our own council resolution and discussion with RM.

That's what I mean. There's still so much ambiguity out there about what's actually going to happen because we don't know what the Hills are deciding tonight. So I don't want to get pedantic over the word note or accept, but if we bind ourselves to an accepting an offer and the Hills vote no tonight, are we then coughing up the extra half of the money? Do you know what I mean? So I just, I think your MOU minute is fine as it is because you're noting something that only happened today so that the community is aware that that half a million dollars has come through from the state government, which is a fantastic way forward for the community with this Lower Portland ferry. I would go further on point two and thank not just Andrew Constance but Robyn Preston because she, our state member, did do a lot of advocacy in going to the minister to ensure that funding.

But I see your MOU minute fine as it is. Essentially, it's a huge win for the community. I know every single one of us advocated in some way, appreciating what the members of the community actually wanted in this outcome, and we know there's no community appetite for this ferry to close. But as councillors, we had to balance the use of that ferry with the cost of that ferry, and given the huge financial burden it was, and we haven't been shy in saying that, it's very pleasing to see this offer come through because it's saving us over a million dollars over the next— The next four years. So that's a significant amount of money that can be used for something else in the community. So I welcome this offer from the state government.

I thank Robyn Preston for pressing the minister to make this offer, and I see it as nothing more than a win for the community.

Thank you. Just to answer one of your points, as I said to the

Deputy Mayor, I think, it was implied that we were accepting this offer, and the minister's letter actually asked us to accept it in the second last paragraph. So changing the word to accept, I think, is a much clearer way to go.

My only concern there, and it's not a major concern, but was to highlight if we accept the offer and the Hills decline to continue with their portion of the cost tonight, where does that leave us? I

Don't think that's a problem. It's

Pre-emptive.

It doesn't tie us to anything. Now either Deputy Mayor or Councillor Wheeler.

I just had a question. It doesn't tie us to anything because we don't have a funding agreement. So really, I think it's—and also we do have, as you say, the agreement that has us as joint owners or joint tenants in that particular asset. I've just got a question regarding the wording in the offer, and I would imagine the reason I was trying to get the report clearer is similar to what Councillor Richards has alluded to, that it didn't specify it would be coming back soon, as in next meeting. And so therefore I wanted as much information as was available to be included in it. But an interim update at the next meeting would be great, because when we enter into a funding agreement.. . I'm assuming that we will actually specify that we require the maximum amount, whereas the wording says up to that amount.

So can we have some guarantee that we will be pushing for it? It's no point if we're going to be agreeing to go forward in this way if in the second year it's only $200,000 and the next year after that's only $100,000. So I think that our, and again having only got this so recently and not really having time to look into it any further, that we would be, if in the interim report Mr. Organ could have some sort of maybe preliminary style of funding agreement that we would be looking at having at that stage, or a set of conditions that would be our minimum conditions in that sort of instance. So I was just drawing attention to that, and it is for four years, which is great, so that's $2 million if that's what's coming forward, and just trying to clarify some points and making sure that we and the community are kept up to date on that.

I'm sure Mr. Organ will include that in the report, some version of it.

Yeah, through you, Mr. Mayor, that would certainly be our approach. As I said, this is a ministerial announcement letter. As I said, we need to go back and put some clarity around some of those words that are in there, contingent and those sorts of things, what that actually means, and the normal course of events, we would enter into a funding agreement with Transport for New South Wales that clarifies those things.

Deputy Mayor, you're saying you don't trust the state government, is that what you're saying?

That wasn't at all what I was saying. I was merely saying when wording says up to $500,000, that could mean anything from $1 to $500,000.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. There's a couple of other things in the Minister's letter that are probably worth noting. One of them is in the first paragraph where it says, Your Council's plans to discontinue this service. Now, I don't know if I was asleep in one of our meetings, but this Council has voiced no intention to discontinue that service. I know that the Hills Business Paper tonight has a recommendation that the service close, but that is not the case with Hawkesbury, and I think that we need to make that very clear publicly, that this Council currently has no stated wish to close that service. I think that's a really concerning statement for the community if that drifts out. So I think if we are going to contact the Minister, we should point out that Hawkesbury Council has plans to refurbish the ferry, not discontinue the service.

The New South Wales Government's— the other paragraph is paragraph four. The New South Wales Government's offer of recurrent funding is contingent on the agreement of both councils to cover any capital investments required to keep the ferry service operational. And I think the key word in that sentence is both. So I think it implies a willingness from both Hawkesbury and Hills to keep this service running, and I think that we should continue to hold Hills to that. This has been an elaborate game, I think, for some time of who would blink first on the Lower Portland ferry, and I got the distinct impression from Hills Council that they were hoping that we would. There was certainly a lot of inference made at the public meeting.

That Lower Portland in February, that Hawkesbury Council, being the smaller council, wouldn't have the financial resources to sustain the ferry. And I think it was probably Hills' great hope that we would be the ones to say, We can't do it, because they, at that point, were telling the public that they had allocated money to keep the Lower Portland ferry going for the next ten years. So I think it was probably a great shock to the community to read in Hills' business paper when it came out late last week that they'd decided to give the whole service the flick. What we heard from the community is that this is an incredibly important service, and that in fact the retention of the service is what allows people to travel to school and work, and that people make educational decisions, decisions about their kids' education and the work that they do based on whether this service is running or not.

It's also their main access to emergency service vehicles. I live on King Road, and that's one of the major access roads for Lower Portland. Every Sunday afternoon, without fail, there is a string of emergency service vehicles that travel down that road. Now, some of them go to Sackville, some of them go further. But the river is quite dangerous, and there are a lot of accidents down there, particularly with tourists and other people who use the river for recreation. And the ability to get emergency service vehicles to and from is really, really important. It's too much to expect them to go all the way around. The figures that were quoted by Council, and again this evening by Councillor Zamprogno, have been shown to be a worst-case scenario.

And the community was furious with those figures that were put forward by Council. We used a very low usage period. We set the bar very high. I think it would be extraordinary to expect a community to justify a road just because the majority of them used it seven days a week. People are allowed to take a day off and stay in their houses and not go to work on a Saturday and Sunday, and still expect that a service will be in existence a week or so later. So I think we need to be really careful quoting those figures, because the community took great umbrage at us trotting them out as a reason to get rid of this service, or a reason that the service was far too expensive. I think this council has been well convinced by the community that this service has a vital role to play, and I'm really pleased that the state government has seen that, and I really do think Robyn Preston, for her advocacy—that's the job of the state member, to advocate for her constituents—and here she has done a good job.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Any further discussion? If not, I will put the Mayoral minute. I won't take my right of reply, I'll just put the minute, okay? If you're in favour of the Mayoral minute, please stand.

In favour are Councillor Ross, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Wheeler, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards and Councillor Calvert. Absent are Councillor Tree, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Reynolds and Councillor Rasmussen, and declared carried.

May I move to items subject, items on block. We have one item on block, which is 157, with Councillor Zamprogno, seconded Councillor Conolly. All those in favour say aye. Declared carried.

We move to item 154 , which is the Regional Strategic Alliance. Councillor Conolly. Move the recommendation. Move the recommendation. Seconded, Councillor Wheeler. You wish to speak, Councillor Conolly?

Very briefly, this has been a little bit of a disaster, in my personal opinion, this Regional Strategic Alliance. And I was very wary at the start of this process about creating a new bureaucracy with no defined, no real defined objectives other than to be regionally strategic and an alliance. And I've asked, and I've asked consistently over the last few years, how much money have we spent, what have we got? And I've asked over and over again, and every time there's been, you know, great benefits just over the horizon that have never materialised. And I think this needs to be a lesson to Council and to the other councils as well in how to take care of ratepayers' money. I think this was, in many cases, an insurance policy against amalgamation that didn't work anyway.

But we kept throwing good money after bad. We're now several years later and several hundreds of thousands of dollars later with, you know, almost nothing to show for it. I'm an alternate to the Regional Strategic Alliance, so I went to the meeting on this date because somebody wasn't available. And I didn't have much to say because I just, you know, I sat there looking at people around the table, almost congratulating everybody on a great effort. Didn't get much, but, you know, we've got great relationships we're going to take forward and we're all really happy about it. And I just think, you know, I just wanted to make sure we got the vote through, so I didn't say anything. But I think we're much better off without this alliance, and I think we need to remember going forward that things don't just work.

You can't just throw money at something and hope that you're going to get an outcome, and that we are answerable to our community when we make these decisions.

Further discussion? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I agree with Councillor Conolly. I think we need to acknowledge that the RSA was formed under pressure from the State Government during the threat of amalgamation, and I think Council engaged in it in good faith. We did, I think, occasionally get a few good outcomes out of it. I don't think it was— but I think Councillor Conolly is correct in that we had other layers of bureaucracy already, and now we have another, the City Deals.

So I think some of the information that we got out of the tourism strategy, I think, was useful. That's probably the key thing. I'm sure Mrs Galear is aware of additional things that came out of it. I was wondering how much funding we've allocated to this project for 2019-20 that we now wouldn't be spending

Thanks, Mr Mayor. So for the contribution to the alliance, we had $95,000 put aside, and in addition to that, for the tourism project, we had a total of $110,000. Some money was in the operational plan this year, and we carried over some money from last year.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. So we haven't spent that money at this point? Will that come back to us in the quarterly review to be reallocated?

So the funds left over in the alliance, because there were some funds left over from previous years as well as a collective fund, the board resolved that the general managers will work together in terms of finalising all that and potentially looking at some of those funds to be used for tourism initiatives , but none of that has been decided. It's a work in progress. Thanks.

Mr Mayor, sorry. Actually, just on that, I meant to move this following the meeting. I didn't make a note. Sorry. I would actually like to change—so, add something to the recommendation. Just to point 5, that Hawkesbury Council requests

The return of its share of any residual funds held by the Regional Strategic Alliance. I think Mrs Goulia just said that's going to happen. No. So, at the meeting, it was discussed very briefly—you were there, Mr Mayor—but it was discussed very briefly, and the vibe I got was that we're the only small council in this alliance; the other two are flush with cash, and they didn't particularly care about their last little bit. They wanted to find some sort of tourism thing to spend the money on, which may or may not be of value. But I actually trust that I would back us to spend the money better than that collective would spend it, and I don't think we should just leave it for the wash-up and just see what happens and maybe get a little bit back sometime. I think we should be pushing for that to be divided—any final costs to be deducted and divided by three and return it to us. Mrs

Goulia, do you

Have a comment on that? Thanks,

Mr Mayor. That will be up to the general managers to decide what to do with those funds. So the funds are all still there, the residual funds. So, yeah, I mean, as you outlined, that's what was discussed at the meeting, that potentially those funds will be directed at the tourism, but we do have separate funding specifically for that anyway. But it will be up to the general managers what they decide.

I guess the point of the resolution, Mr Mayor, would be to give a strong message as to Council's position, and it'll still be up to the General Manager to negotiate, I understand.

Yeah, well, the General Manager will be speaking for us, and we've asked for it, yeah, that's my thinking

So do you want to keep point five in or not? We do have a version of it here. How does that...

So Councillor Conolly has changed his motion to read this way, with five points. Councillor Wheeler, you were seconding? Yes, Mr Mayor. Still happy with that? Yep. Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I agree with some of what Councillor Conolly and Councillor Wheeler have said. Definitely, it was something that we were almost forced into through the delegates' report on the amalgamation that basically said that the three councils should have a structure like that in place to perhaps show some strength in our frameworks of being financially sustainable. However, I think the opportunities that we may have thought were there didn't necessarily eventuate, and with the emergence of the Western Sydney City Deal on top of that, which also incorporated our three councils, so of course that was another layer of sort of doing similar things and negotiating and so on, I think that was a little unfortunate.

I would like to actually thank Ms Galea for her fundamental part in the RSA. She worked very, very hard on the procurement things, and she was highly respected within the group. I think that a number of times, as a member of staff, she was highly complimented by the managers and the elected representatives from the other council. And I would hope that she is able to continue some of that type of work that she was doing, because I don't think we actually have to have a strategic alliance to do that. I think that we still can engage in information sharing and, you know, building relationships with other councils. In fact, I think we probably should in many ways, but they don't have to mean that we're all putting in money and employing someone to run it.

We can simply, you know, engage with other councils through other mechanisms, and I do hope that that continues, because I know there was a lot of effort and a lot of time put in there, and I thank her in particular for the work that she did. One of the fundamental problems, I think, and Councillor Conolly just alluded to it slightly, is that there is an imbalance. Balance when you've got an agreement between councils of greatly different sizes and resources. Penrith Council is a big urban council, and I know they participated in it, and I'm sure that was genuine and so on. But it just didn't have the things riding on it for them that it did for us, because we were really trying to get something out of it.

They have a very big staff, they have a very big budget, and their objective, I'm not criticising them and not saying it was different, but I just always felt, from a personal perspective, that there was the big little council things. And then Blue Mountains, of course, has a different set of needs and objectives as well. I think that probably some good long-lasting relationships did come out of it. I think that from time to time, when something is considered, somebody will think, Well, Hawkesbury did that well, or Blue Mountains might be able to help , or Penrith. It would be good if Penrith could help when they have so many resources available, if we were to engage on any projects. However, I think that if the city deals continues and the alliance of the eight councils through that, then similar things may be occurring down the track with that sort of thing.

So I think that it was something we had to enter into. We really didn't have any choice. I feel if we were to deny entry, to deny our commitment to an alliance in the last council when that came up, I think that that would have been frowned upon by the state government under their forced amalgamation program that they had going. So I don't think it was all lost. I just think that it had potential that maybe wasn't realised, or it had opportunities that slipped by. But I also think some good work was done, and I personally would like to thank everyone involved because I think there were people who worked hard to get it to work. We move on to another , a non-strategic alliance time, I suppose, and that's the way it is, so thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Conolly. It's been pointed out to me that maybe point five should say return of its share of the residual funds. Councillor Wheeler. Okay. Can we have that put in there, thanks. Any further speakers?

Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor. I endorse the general proposal to terminate the formal tripartite agreement. I believe, as does the Deputy Mayor, that informal contact is to be fostered. I do understand through the process that we were talking about a little earlier that we do have a degree of that with staff at both Hills and Hawkesbury, which is all to the good. The other point about which I'm rather concerned is that the talk about using the funds returned to be splashed around in some other area is inappropriate. I believe that they should be returned to the council, constitute a variation in the quarterly operating statement. And if Council decides to vary the budget, the operational plan, Council can vote on such a move at the appropriate time on a project if it's choosing. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further speakers?

Can I just say that I also was very keen to get into this partnership, the alliance. I could see great opportunities in it. Unfortunately, it didn't deliver those opportunities, and I'm very sad about that. And I know that our staff worked very hard, particularly Mrs. Galea. They put a lot of work in, and we did get a number of things out of it. I won't list them all, but we did get a number of things out of it. And at the final meeting the other week, we agreed that we would continue to work together where possible and save those things that were worth saving. And so it's not as if we're just going to all walk away and say, See you later. There were some great relationships forged, and we're going to keep those and work with those.

So it isn't all a total loss. But it is sad that it's not going to continue, and it didn't deliver as we thought it might. No more discussion. Councillor Conolly, right of reply? No. In that case, I'll put the motion. If you're in favour of this motion, please stand.

In favour of the motion: Councillor Richards, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Samprogno, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Ross, Councillor Calvert. Abstains is Councillor Tree, Councillor Cottleash, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Rasmussen. Declare it carried.

We move to item 155, the submission to local government on rating. Move the recommendation. Councillor Conolly is moving it.

Seconded by Councillor Richards. Councillor Conolly, you wish to speak?

No. No. Would anyone wish to speak? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I want to thank the staff for taking on board the councillors' comments at the briefing that we had this last week, where we workshopped our response to this.

This is a long-awaited report from the state government, and I appreciate the opportunity to have some input back. And I hope that the state government will then listen to the concerns of councils. I've got concerns about the capital improved value, the use of capital improved value to calculate rates, and I think while I think the idea certainly has some merit, and I think we simply just don't have enough information to have a firm position on it. I'm supportive of the general idea, but what we really need to see is whether this works well or better than the current land value-only system to better distribute rates in areas with very large land value disparities, which is what we see here.

I am really concerned with the state government's failure to To increase pensioner funding for rates, it really is very poor. The figure of $250 was introduced in the 1980s, when $250 represented half the average New South Wales rates bill. Now it's less than a quarter of that. So clearly it leaves councils in the invidious position of saying to pensioners, bad luck, you'll have to cough up all but $250 of the bill, or other ratepayers will have to subsidise pensioners. And for smaller councils like ours, that's simply too great an ask. And so we subsidise sullage costs and we don't subsidise the rest of the rates. It makes things difficult for pensioners who live in areas like the Hawkesbury, as opposed to larger councils where in some instances they're able to absorb that cost better.

So I think for a state government that is keen on touting its surplus, it's really a shame to have let this opportunity go yet again. Local Government New South Wales has made it very clear that it's the position of councils across New South Wales that this subsidy needs to be increased. Hawkesbury Council has certainly made its feelings known. We've submitted a number of motions to Local Government New South Wales on this topic. We've discussed it in this chamber a number of times, and yet here we have again the greatest chance of changing the rating system, or the state government's kick-in to this rate system, and here we see yet again a wasted opportunity, and I think that's really sad.

But I would thank the staff for the excellent job that they've done with this submission . I think it reflects Council's position on this quite well.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Any further speakers?

No? Councillor Ross

Yes, I support the staff's recommendations, and I also support the prior speaker and the comments that came from that quarter. The great concern is that on whatever basis valuation is made,

That these tend to be, these days, done electronically, sitting in front of a Google map, and real estate pricing , at least under the current regime, and no doubt would also be subject to a similar sort of thing if we went to improved capital value. It's been put to me that frequently

Valuations are really based on, if you like, certainly not on an individualised basis, and I believe that is one of the drawbacks in any system, and it's been clearly shown. With our folk out at Oakville and surrounding areas who have been impacted by the declaration of the Vineyard Stage 1 development and obviously some speculative procurement by people of land in the hope that they may be able to get themselves in on more intense use of the land. So all these things are very much subject to whichever way the state government is going to move and what the rules are, and then to get into the granular beyond the rules to find out the actual modus operandi which they intend to adopt. So we're very much left out in the cold on that, as we have been in, I think, a rather strange determination, as I mentioned earlier, about being classified as metropolitan, with a land area greater than all of the remainder of the metropolitan area in council's charge, albeit, what, 73 percent or something of national park .

It is still a heck of an area, huge, absolutely monstrous, and people don't appreciate it. And this is where we get this problem of fiscal imbalance. And our folk out here

Anticipate and want and frankly deserve some equality of treatment in terms of being able to drive on. Roads that are of a comparable standard to those closer to the CBD , or metro, shall I say, closer in councils . So there is a larger dilemma for the state , and I don't know whether they're going to have the capacity or the inclination even to look at this. But I thank the staff for their time and consideration as well. Thank you, sir.

Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Conolly, do you want a right of reply? I'll move the motion then. All those in favour, please stand. In favour of the motion: Councillor Ross, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Wheeler, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Calvert. Absent: Councillor Tree, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Rasmussen. Declare it carried.

Move to item 156, the investment

Report moved by Councillor Conolly, seconded by Councillor Wheeler. Councillor Conolly, you wish to speak? Anyone wish to speak?

Councillor Ross Yes, I'm rather interested that there's been such a substantial change in the value of financial holdings, if you like, through this period. And it brings to light the question, which I'd very much like to canvass tonight, is what are the payment terms being adopted by Council with its supplies of goods and services? It seems that there's been a flurry of payments, which would tend to indicate that we've been paying prior to the due close anything up to 60 or 90 days on 30-day accounts.

Mrs. Galea.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. The payment terms for our suppliers are in accordance with the Securities Act, so it's 14 days unless agreed otherwise. So that's the payment for our suppliers. And in terms when we invoice people, generally it's 30 days for invoices other than rates. Rates are payable quarterly.

Any further speakers? Councillor Conolly, you wish right of reply? I'll put the motion. If you're in favour of this motion, please stand. In favour of the motion: Councillor Richards, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Ross, Councillor Calvert. Absent: Mayor, Councillor Tree, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Reynolds and Councillor

Rasmussen, declared carried.

Move to item 158, which is

Heritage Advisory Committee. Councillor Wheeler, you moving that? Yes, please. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Conolly. Councillor Wheeler, you wish to speak?

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I just want to draw Councillors' attention to a few items within the minutes . In particular, the erection of the power pole in Thompson Square, which now, instead of being in a less obtrusive location, now stands more than a metre forward of its previous location and is much larger in scale and has a significant visual impact on the heritage item. It's in contradiction to the conservation management plan prepared by Council and also the RMS's own recommendations for what happens in Thompson Square under the Strategic Conservation Management Plan. Basically, it's too big, it's too close, it's too far forward, and it's really bloody ugly in front of a heritage building that has already been significantly impacted by this abysmal project.

Unfortunately, Endeavour Energy has refused to make any changes and spent Sunday wiring up the pole whilst managing to cut off electricity to most of the businesses in Thompson Square in their peak trading period to boot. The other item of interest, and the Heritage Advisory Committee got very excited about the footage of the barrel drains in Richmond. So not only are there barrel drains in Windsor, but there are also some beautiful brick barrel drains that are probably date to around 1840 that were built in Richmond, and they're still being used as key infrastructure by Council. So we had some very nice footage of a little robot with a camera going through the drains and looking at these beautiful brick domes, which kept the— perhaps only on the Heritage Advisory Committee would we get so excited about the inside footage of drains, but we were all very excited.

The other matter of significance is Singleton's Mill. So significant work has been done by Council staff to— and Craig is the main person here— to gather information and properly map the items that make up the Singleton's Mill site, and we now think that that is probably worthy of a State heritage listing, which is very exciting news. It speaks to the importance of the Hawkesbury as the granary of the early colony and is highly significant. We've also received some new heritage grants, and of particular note is St John's Church at Wilberforce. This is a highly significant building designed by Blacket. It has its twin at Pitt Town, another Blacket design . That precinct is State heritage listed.

We're hoping that it will not only help the building itself, but also help with education for St John's and its parishioners. Unfortunately, that building has been unintentionally damaged due to inappropriate works to the sandstone inside. It's a real shame what's happened to that building with the best of intentions, but just not understanding that using cement mortar on sandstone is a disaster.

I'm hoping that Councillor Garrow will note the request to work with the RAPS group on the Aboriginal cultural heritage study, and that Council notes that the $6,000 received from the State Government to pay for the heritage advisor is staggeringly insufficient in an area that has the heritage that the Hawkesbury has. And I'm going to raise that matter when I meet with Robyn Preston tomorrow to also discuss the problems of the heritage near me grants. And the final thing is the Dr Rex Stubbs Memorial History Day, which takes place this Saturday from 9 till 3. There'll be two lectures, Megan Martin, the Head of Collections at Sydney Living Museums, and Christine Yates from the Royal Australian Historical Society, talking about publishing tips for historical societies and groups.

These lectures are always well attended and really well received. So if you're free on Saturday, I urge you to attend. Thank you.

Thank you. Any, Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor. I endorse the previous councillor's points which were raised. In regard to Thompson Square, there are other matters which I understand have been raised by CAWB in relation to the conservation , storage and utilisation of kerbing and guttering that has been removed as a result of the works, and... It appears as if there has been not a great deal of interest shown by

Our staff, and I am very disappointed that the staff aren't out there advocating for the

Preservation of this material, knowing where it is stored, and knowing that the contracting crowds, whoever they are, will be required to reutilise that material in appropriate manners in the works as they are completed. The substitution of concrete kerbing and guttering is an antithesis within the confines of Thompson Square. I wish to make that point. I also wish to, and I thought possibly the previous speaker might have alluded to the matter regarding Australian Pioneer Village. I note that there was a resolution of council in 2009 for the contribution of $100,000, exclusive of GST, to prepare a CMP. I gather that was what some of the concern was earlier , and I am just wondering.

Why that may not at this stage have been brought to some finality, I think it's rather strange, frankly, in view of the fact that it's such a treasured element within that township and for all of us. Thank you.

Councillor Wheeler.

Mr Mayor, that matter was dealt with, as far as I understand it, at the previous council meeting. I have a conflict of interest in that matter and if Councillor Ross wants to continue down this path, I'm going to have to leave the room.

Councillor Ross, do you wish to continue down this path?

Not

This evening,

Thank you, sir.

Not this evening. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just if it may help Councillor Ross regarding the sandstone, I had submitted a question on the 19th of August, which will be answered for the next council meeting, a number of questions regarding where, if that sandstone has been salvaged and where it is stored, et cetera. So due to the question lag, you wouldn't know that, but it'll be at the meeting of the 10th.

Thank you, sir. Look, I'd like to make a further point. The RMS have issued a bulletin, I think in the last few days or a week, in which they're talking about a process to use injections of water to, if you like, fluidise earth, I gather in part of old Bridge Street or Bridge Street proper. To enable the laying of electrical conduits and cabling. And the idea is that apparently they pump in water, presumably under high pressure, and that releases the earth material, and it becomes a slurry, which is then pumped into a truck, and then that is subsequently discharged down at the back of Vineyard, I gather, in a similar fashion to council's own salvage materials.

Councilor Ross, we are accepting the Heritage Advisory Committee report of their meeting. Are you going to relate it to that?

Yes. Well, a little bit difficult. It's so contemporary , sir.

If it's difficult, then I suspect it's not relevant to this topic.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Councilor Wheeler, do you want right of reply?

No, thanks, Mr Mayor.

In that case, I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please stand. In favour of the motion, Councillor Richards, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Samprogno, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Ross, Councillor Calvert. Absent is Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor

Treed. The motion

Carried.

Move to item 159, which is the Local Traffic Committee. Somebody asked for this to come up. Moved by Councillor Conolly. Do we have a seconder?

Councillor Wheeler, that's a seconder. Councillor Conolly, do you wish to speak? Councillor Wheeler, do you wish to speak?

Yes, please, Mr Mayor. I just wanted to highlight that on page 74 of the business paper, while I frantically find page 74 of the business paper, thanks, that there's a discussion there of the matter that Council discussed at its last meeting regarding the George Street intersection and issues with people turning into McDonald's and KFC at that intersection. And it needs to be noted, I think, that the paragraph second from the bottom, due to the confusion, the advice from the RMS to the developer contradicted the DA condition. That's the DA condition of this Council, as the RMS did not consider pedestrian movement on a state road. So I think this is highly illustrative of how we've ended up with this really dangerous position—sorry, condition—on this road.

It happened. Council made a recommendation, and the RMS, it would appear, blithely ignored it. And now we have the community having to deal with it. Now, there's, following from Council's request that the Traffic Committee consider this, there's been some recommendations in this report that a path be placed along George Street and some sort of crossing be made across to, and from what I gather, it will be on the left-hand side of George Street as you're heading to the Richmond Road roundabout. So it will be adjacent to the nature reserve and the Bligh Park. Town side of the road, and then we'll have to have some sort of crossing in order for people to get to the other side of the road. So I think it's useful that the Traffic Committee has made this recommendation.

It seems to have passed unanimously, but I don't think it's over yet, because getting people from that side of the road to McDonald's and KFC safely is going to be an ongoing concern. And I think it needs to be really clear that the fault here is the communication from Council. Council approved this DA in good faith with a recommendation for a footpath and a crossing, and that just seems to have disappeared into the ether. And that's a pretty damning indictment, I think, of how planning currently works in the grand state of New South Wales, and who ends up bearing the brunt of that failure. And it's currently the community.

Thank you. Any further speakers? I'll just add that Mr Conroy and myself spoke to the local member about that issue again just last week. She promised that she would look into it, so hopefully we'll get some kind of answer soon. No further speakers? Councillor Conolly, you wish to write a reply? If not, I'll put the motion. Local Traffic Committee, all those in favour, please stand up. In favour, Councillor Richards, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ross, Councillor Calvert. Absent are Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Cotchlach, and Councillor Tree. Declare it carried.

We have one question from

Deputy Mayor. Thank you, I do have a question on the question. Yes. Thank you. I'd like to thank the Director of Infrastructure Services for that information and also for some preliminary ideas that Mrs Stewart has shown me about what they would be putting on the web. However , the original motion was a request for an emergency management guide in a printed form. The reason being, the idea of it was to be given to people who lose power and who lose internet and who live in mobile black spots in times of emergencies. So the idea was to be able to provide people with a simple and step-by-step guide of what they should actually do in certain emergency situations, disaster situations. We know and we saw what happened down in Tathra when they had no mobile phone coverage and people were unaware of the severity of the fires and they've done some work on it after that.

And whereas I think it is fantastic that we would have the web tile in a situation of emergency that would direct people to the proper authority, which is also another issue. You need to be getting the information from the actual authority who is calling the shots, so to speak, in any particular disaster, whether that's the SES, the police or the RFS. And I think it's wonderful that we would be able to offer that to people and direct them to that correct authority. However, we know that in a situation of flood we're going to lose power in our west of the river area. We know that people will therefore lose not just power and water and so on, but they will also lose their communications. And this was, as other councils have done and other people have done, its intention was to let people have a small physical book next to them so that if something occurs they know what they should do in terms of various actions or who they should contact.

I would hope that we can persevere with trying to get some funding. I would have actually thought there would be money from Infrastructure New South Wales. Whilst given how much they're doing in their big budget for the education of the flood task force, so I hope we persevere to try and get that, even if we scale back the amount of printed copies to the point of not necessarily doing the urban areas, but certainly doing the vulnerable areas that are in mobile black spots and that are likely to lose communications and power in the event of any emergency. I hope this can be continued and hope for another update soon.

So, are you requesting any further action in particular?

I'm requesting continuation of the investigation to get some printed copies. Okay

Anyone want to answer that? Take it on notice.

Certainly the matter has not been closed off, and if I can just add to probably the last part of those comments there, at that meeting with Infrastructure New South Wales, we did continue to explore funding opportunities through the resilience side of things rather than necessarily the other side which we've been pushing at the moment, and that's through the RFS and SES where they already have their make a plan campaigns. So again, trying to explore some other opportunities there where there might be funding available to pursue that. But the matter is certainly not closed off at this stage, but will be ongoing.

Thank you.

No further discussion on that question? Thank you. We now, Councillor Ross, you—

I'm just concerned that with the previous answer from the staff, I don't think that covers the situation where we're talking about a power outage .

So I think some consideration might

Be afforded that if I saw the staff will take that on board. Power outage. Yes.

Through you, Mr. Mayor, as indicated in the response there, we'll still be exploring the opportunities for a printed document as the Deputy Mayor has requested.

Any further discussion? No. We get to move to confidential. Would someone like to—

Move that way. Councillor Garrow, seconded Councillor Richards. Does anyone wish to speak against moving to confidential? If not, I'll put the motion. All those in favour say aye. Declare it carried.

Whilst in closed session, the Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Lyons-Buckett and seconded by Councillor Ross that Council adopt the officer's confidential recommendation as outlined in this report relating to the tender for the overhaul of the Lower Portland Ferry and the resolution be made public following acceptance of the tender by The Hills Shire Council.

Is there any further business? And , General Manager, you want to talk to us after the meeting is closed, or during the meeting? After the meeting is closed. Councillor Ross, you have some further business. Yes, look,

It relates to that heritage in Thompson Square. Yep. The process which I was speaking about earlier,

Because it's, shall I say, possible that it's going to encroach upon relatively aged earth below footpath level, that it may in fact result in the

Removal of archaeological relics of small items

Can I excuse you, Councillor Ross? You need to move a motion on this. We're not, even though it's not just general discussion at this stage, you still need to move a motion, which we can then discuss if you want to do that.

Yes, I'd like to move that Council give consideration to heritage matters in relation to Thompson Square that are in mind of RMS to conduct in the short term, please.

Theoretically, Councillor Ross, that would have to be moved as an urgency motion, and you would have to ask me whether I would like to make it an urgency motion, and my response would be, no, I don't see that it's urgent, so I don't think we should bring it up tonight.

Thank you

Yes. Yep. You could put it through as a question in the next meeting. Any other business? If not, I'll close the meeting at 8.25, and our acting general manager wants to address us for a second.