12 November 2019 - Ordinary

Council for the 12th of November 2019. I'd like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of this land and pay respects to Elders both past and present. I'll hand over now to the General Manager for some procedural matters.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the public attending the meeting are advised that in the event of an emergency, you will be asked to proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exit following the guidance of our wardens. I would also like to advise members of the public that in accordance with clause 5.18 of the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of the Council are recorded.

In the terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. 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 any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at this meeting.

This request relates to both your address to Council and any answers given in response to questions from councillors. Finally, it is also requested if any person in the Council chambers has a mobile phone, 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— oh, here you go. Councillor Garrow. Councillor Garrow. And Councillor Connelly. Councillor Connelly. Councillor Rasmussen. Someone like to move we accept the apologies. Councillor Sam Probnow, seconded Councillor Reynolds. All those in favour say aye. Declare it carried.

Mayor, do we have any declarations of interest, please? No? Yes, Deputy Mayor, sorry.

Item 209, less than significant non-pecuniary interest.

So will you be staying in the—

Yes, I will.

Councillor Reynolds? Item 204, pecuniary.

Will you be staying in the— You won't. Okay

The minutes of the last meeting. Would someone like to move we accept the minutes? Deputy Mayor, seconded by Councillor Kotlash. All those in favour say aye. Those against? Declare it carried.

The first item we're going to look at, looking at two items together, items 205 and 206. We have the auditors on phone. That's Mr. James Winter and Ms. Samaya Ahmed. They're going to address us first, and they will answer any questions at the end of their address. Ms. Ghalia, you ready?

My name is Samaya Ahmed. I'm the Director of Financial Audit at the Audit Office of New South Wales, and with me I have here James Winter, who's the partner from Grant Thornton. Thank you for the opportunity today to present the report on the conduct of the audit. Firstly, I want to apologise for not being there in person. Given the bushfires across New South Wales and the state of emergency, our office is taking additional precautions, especially after some of our staff got caught up in one of the bushfires earlier on, so I do apologise for that. Tonight we will take you through the results of our audit, a summary of what the Audit Office has been doing in the past year in the local government sector, and a high-level snapshot of your council's performance compared to the industry benchmark.

It is really pleasing to see Hawkesbury City Council has continued to maintain a good net asset position, good results, and good performance against industry benchmarks. It is crucial to have strong controls and financial reporting processes to continue with positive results, and our role as the auditors is to provide assurance over this financial reporting process and internal controls,

And provide recommendations for improvement.

As you're all probably aware, the Audit Office provides both financial audit and performance audit services. The reports of these audits are tabled in Parliament and provide insights and recommendations that are applicable across the sector. This year we tabled our second report to Parliament for the sector, and we identified some key themes and insights that were consistent across the sector around financial reporting, sustainability, asset management, governance and IT controls. We also tabled three performance audit reports. Performance audits aim to help councils improve their efficiency and effectiveness. They also provide communities with independent information on the performance of their council's activities.

The reports tabled this year were workforce reform in amalgamated councils, domestic waste management in Campbelltown City Council and Fairfield City Council, and development assessment pre-lodgement and lodgement in Camden Council and Randwick City Council. These performance audits were targeted on specific councils compared to the general performance audits that we did across the sector last year. However, the findings from these specific councils can still be used as learnings for your council. We also released an annual work plan this year in August, and the purpose of this work plan is to explain how we decide what we will focus on and what we intend to cover over the next year . Specifically for local government, there are three scheduled performance audits planned between now and 30 June 2020.

These include credit card management, developer contributions and voluntary planning agreements, and management of procurement. Post 30 June 2020, we also plan to look at audit risk and improvement committees and cyber security. We will consult with councils such as yourselves and others on the choice of future performance audit topics. If you have any suggestions, we will consider them, and you can either make them to me directly or via our audit office website. I will now pass on to James Winter to provide a high-level snapshot of the results of the audit. Hello? So, yes, just can you

Yes. Hello, yes, yes, yes

Just confirming

Then

That the audit ... unmodified opinion on the .. Again a summary reference, financial performance has improved, albeit with prior years operating result level, and excluding grants and contributions

For ... was positive in the current year. So there's no significant change in the costs, and the overall change in the financial position of the organisation, of the council, was as a result of the surplus and then the revaluation of the IPP assets by 56 million. As is presented in the ratios, the liquidity presented in the ratios is sound, with current assets quite considerably in excess of both the non-current and current liabilities, in fact over double those, and the operating cash flow is largely reflected the operating surplus. I just briefly turn to the key benchmark ratios, as is indicated in the report. In terms of Council's performance against benchmarks, the operating performance exceeded the benchmark.

The own-source operating revenue ratio again exceeded slightly against prior year, in excess of the benchmark. The unrestricted current ratio also exceeding the benchmark, and debt service cover ratio as well. In terms of the rates annual charge expenditure, Council did not meet that entry benchmark. It was slightly deterioration from the prior year. And then finally, then the cash expense coverage ratio met and showed slight improvement. In the current year, Council applied one new accounting standard, with no significant matters to disclose.

And again, just as is notified in the report, the auditor did not identify any instances of non-compliance with legislative requirements or any material deficiency in Council's accounting records. And we confirm, as stated in the report, that accounting records were maintained in a manner and a form to allow the general purpose financial statements to be prepared and effectively audited. And I guess at this point, before I hand back to Samai, I'd just, from our perspective, to thank Emma and particularly Vanessa for the assistance they provided during the audit process.

And to conclude our audit of the Council, we do continue, like in prior years, some of these include readiness of the implementation of the new accounting standards that are effective for the 2020 financial year.

Governance and internal controls and financial accounting and payroll matters, and information technology matters such as IT strategies, keeping Council information secure and backup controls. We will highlight these findings in our next report to Parliament, which is expected to be tabled in March 2020. I look forward to working with management again next year. Similar to James, I wanted to thank Emma and Vanessa and the Finance team for their cooperation in working with us to achieve a successful and timely audit. Once again, thank you for inviting us to present our audit results, and we're happy to take any questions.

Thank you for that. Are there any questions? If you have any, you need to address them to Mr. Lear and then she'll address them onto the phone.

Doesn't look like. Councillor Ross has a question.

My question is specifically in relation to the

Net operating result before capital grants and contributions of 5,319,000.

Am I correct in believing that

A change

In the next financial year's accounting,

Shall I say, adoption of Australian accounting standards would have resulted in, in fact, a loss of 1,467,000 being reported this year due to a difference in the accounting treatment afforded operating grants. Which have as yet been not expended by Council at the balance date

Sorry

Just— yep, you go ahead.

Yeah, so I was just going to read the question. So, Councillor Loss has asked, is it correct to say that the net operating result is impacted by grants and contributions? If the accounting standard in relation to grants was adopted... I'm sorry, I do

Not believe

My question was

Fully appreciated .

I draw your attention to Note 3G

In the financial reporting, at which operating grants as yet unexpended at the balance date were 6.786 million. As I understand it,

In financial year 19 just gone, the liability in respect of that sum is offset against Council's reserves and not recognised as an operating expense. And therefore, the declared operating profit has not been affected in a fashion which is equivalent to the requirement going to be implemented in the financial year June 20. Do you agree with that statement, please? Yes, I would like

Further clarification, if you don't mind, please, because as I understand it.

The operating grants have been booked as revenue this year, in total, and the grants which have not been acquitted are recognised at note 3G, and that amount of money has been, if you like

Offset

Against

Reserves rather than treated as an operating expense, which would.. And that, as a result, gives a certain result in the current year, which, if looked at at the end of June 20, using the same numbers, would cast a different result on behalf of this council.

Do we have a

Response?

Do we have any other questions?

No. Can I thank our auditors for their time and patience. Thank you very much for their report

Thank you. Thank you.

Item 205 is now up for discussion. Do we have anyone who wants to move anything?

Councillor

Ross. Thank you. 205, of course, is the Council's annual report. I am not impressed by its content. I believe sections 1.5.6 and 2.3.4 contain factual misstatements, which are most unpleasant and, in

An ideal world, would be rewritten and drafted. I further note that the reporting in regard to outgoings of the Council in specific areas, the legal fees, for instance. In the profit and loss statements, it's stated at 794,

000. Excuse me, Councillor Ross, before you continue, are you moving item 205?

No one's moved anything yet.

Oh, I'm sorry, yes.

Is someone moving item 205 or something to do with item 205?

Well, I'll move that motion to get the discussion

Going if somebody

Will second

Okay. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Wheeler. Okay, Councillor Ross, please continue.

Thank you. In

The earlier comment stand, in regard to legal expenses, the P&L reports total expenditure over three designated subgroups of 794,000. The expenditure, I think, in 205 indicates that there was 716,000 expended between our two service providers. So there's a discrepancy there. And then further, when we get to look at the individual elements reported by Council, I think the amount came to something around the vicinity of 180,000. So I'm rather perplexed as to the shortfall and the discrepancies at every stage of the report. I find that rather disturbing, and I also believe that it's not worthy of my support. Thank you.

Just to clarify, it's not worthy of your support, but you are moving it. Is that right?

Okay

They might just do that. Any further speakers?

Councillor Wheeler.

Can I have some clarification from Councillor Ross, please, Mr Mayor, of the sections that he finds particularly problematic? Could he give a page number, please, for our reference?

Councillor Ross, are you able to do that? It goes straight from 1.5.2 to 1.6.1. I believe on the council's website of the business paper, there is the section 1.5.6. General Manager unit know what's happened to the missing item? Councillor Ros

Are you doing 205 or 206

Thank you. So we

Do— Turn your

Microphone

On. General Manager, do

We know what happened? So we have experienced some issues with the

Translation

Of

Word documents to PDFs. We had an issue with that at the audit committee a week or so ago, where it randomly dropped pieces out of the production, and it's looking like something's been dropped out here. I know we went back to IT and we went back to Microsoft to look at that issue with the PDF, and on that occasion Vanessa went through every page and proofread every page and added stuff in by hand.

But the hub?

So, Mr General Manager, this

Report is incomplete. It looks like it's missed a page, or maybe even more, in the printing of the PDF.

And is it an urgent matter that has to be dealt

With tonight, Mr General Manager? So, but Councillor Ross said he saw it this afternoon.

On Council's website. Business papers.

Okay, I think we've just had a look and it's not there either.

General Manager, does this have to be dealt with tonight?

It's going to be in by the 30th of... No, so we could listen. Oh, we can answer the question?

No, but it's below the section, isn't it, 1.5.6.

Can I ask for the question to be repeated? Right.

Through you, Mr Mayor. Yes. Can I ask the question be repeated in regard to the missing section so we can attempt to answer it?

The

Section about which I was speaking

Sorry, thank you for drawing my attention. The section about which I was speaking was 1.5.6, and it was to do with our leadership, I believe, and the matter at hand in that area was audit.

Councillor Ross, what we might be doing is deferring this till later tonight.

Mr Mayor, I would...

So we can all have a look at this section you want us to look at.

I don't believe it would be appropriate for the meeting to continue to address this matter this evening without the full business paper having been made available. to the attendees at the meeting and possibly my fellow councillors.

So you're moving that we defer this item?

Yes, I would like to move that way, sir, with your— It's not

Quite appropriate, but I'll accept it anyway. Thank you, sir. Do we have a seconder for that?

Councillor Reynolds. Any discussion on deferral? Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. It's not so much to the question of deferral; I'm ambivalent on that question. I would like to point out another typographical error in the annual report. On page 94, where it relates to the payment of councillor expenses, it suggests that the annual councillor fee is 18,416. On the 28th of May, we resolved that the councillor fee would be 19,310. Or 316

Although the total listed is the correct total, the individual fee is the incorrect individual fee.

General Manager, do you have an answer?

That resolution may not apply to this reporting period. We'll just check that out.

Nevertheless, it says 12 times 18,416 is 231,720, and it's not.

Okay.

12 times 19,310 is 231,720

Page 94. Do we have any further discussion on the deferral is what we're talking about, please?

There's been a motion that we defer, moved by Councillor Ross and Councillor Reynolds.

The motion is to defer. I support the defer motion. Would it be pertinent to, just like Councillor Sanbruno has just raised, just raise a couple of other points so that when it came back, things could maybe be corrected,

Or has he moved an amendment?

I allowed him to change his motion from— Okay. —because he wasn't really supporting item 2.05 in the first place, so he's changed it to deferral. If you're not happy with that ruling, we can go back and do it properly. No

I'm not unhappy with the ruling. I was just going to take an opportunity to point a couple of things out, that's all. But

If this isn't the correct time— Well, I'll ask the general manager: do you wish to receive those now, or should they be sent to you? Sorry

I didn't

Hear what you said.

Look, we can take them via email or we can take them now, however Councillors want to do it.

If it's going to be deferred, then you've got till the next meeting to get all these changes in. We don't have to actually do them tonight.

Okay. All right. I'll just circulate it to all Councillors then.

But there's been a further development out here. Item 1.5.6 or whatever may have never existed in the first place. Oh God.

Is that what I'm hearing?

It may be.

We're checking that up.

I think we'll just defer it. Okay. We're still on the deferment, Councillor Ross. You've moved and we defer it. Anyone else wish to speak on the deferment? Councillor Kotlash.

I just wish to ask a question. If our annual report and financial statements need to be in by November the 30th, so we have another council meeting. Yeah, so I'll speak in favour of the deferment. I think that's most wise. There's quite a few things that I can add to the mix as well. Thank you. Okay.

Can I ask a question too? Item 2.05 and 2.06 are intertwined. Does this mean we need to defer item 2.06 as well, Mr General Manager?

I don't believe so. The financial statements standalone, unless there's an issue with the financial statements. Yes. Okay

Any further discussion on the deferral? Nope. It's been moved. Councillor Ross, would you like right of reply? No,

Thank you. I think everything's going as best we

Can at the moment, thank you. Couldn't go better. Sorry,

Sir

So we only have one motion on the books, and that is to defer. It's not an amendment. It's a motion by Councillor Ross. If you are in favour of that motion, please stand.

In favour of the motion, Councillor Ross, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Kotlash, Councillors Ambrogno, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards, Councillor Calvert. Absent is Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, and Councillor Conolly, declare it carried.

We move to item 206. Does anyone wish to move anything?

Okay.

Better to clear it.

Item 206, the general purpose financial statements.

No one wishes to move anything?

All our moving people must be away,

Are

They? Councillor Cotless.

I'll move the recommendation.

Thank you. Do we have a seconder? Come

On, be brave

Do we have a seconder? Councillor Tree. Thank you. I will ask you to talk to it. Would you like to speak to it, Councillor Cotless? No? You don't have to. I just have to ask you. Yes,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. No, I think it's quite straightforward, and I think it's worthy of our support. The recommendation is that we note this, and the financial statements with the annual report is what goes to the Office of Local Government on the 30th. Is that right? Sorry, to turn my thing into a question.

Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Ross, I

Would just like to express my disappointment that the audio contact which was had with the Auditor-General's representative and the Auditor-General's agent in the field were both difficult to decipher and really unbecoming the Chamber, frankly. And I appreciate there must be some technical difficulties, and one might suggest that maybe Skype might be a better mode of attempting these things. That said, I would also believe

In line with information previously received from the Director of Support Services, in regard to the accounting treatment of grants, with which we've had some correspondence between ourselves earlier in the year, that there were $6,786,000 worth of grants

Described as operating grants for which income was booked for the year ended June 30, 2019. But had not been

Acquitted or expended by the council. In other words, council had been provided

Those grants by various government agencies and whatever, but there were obviously conditions

Which meant that they were unable to be expended within the same financial year as they had been granted, and will no doubt be substantially expended this year, this new financial year. In line with what I had been previously informed by the director, that the liability in respect of those grants , because a grant just isn't a straight-out gift, a grant presupposes that certain things are going to occur as a result by way of expenditure being incurred by the council to enable the grant to be discharged. And those agencies also, I would understand, have a fairly rigorous feedback and reporting mechanism attendant to those grants to ensure that what has been given has also been expended in. within the local government area.

The director advised previously that the unexpended element of this $6,786,000 would be offset against Council's reserves to recognise the liability. Now that's one way of treating things, but it's not the way of the corporate world even as we speak, and it hasn't been for quite a considerable period. The impact of that on our operating profit is that it overstates the operating profit in the current year, and it also fails to fully recognise the amount of reserves that Council is holding and has not yet expended on works that pertain to those reserves. So it, I think, gives a rather unfortunate connotation to the OPR ratio, for one, and I think that's rather unfortunate that the audit office didn't come in sooner on that element.

Thank you.

Any further speakers?

If not, Councillor Kotlash, you have a right of reply if you want it.

I just will— I'll just point out that the recommendation is for us to note the completion of these financial statements. I don't think this is the forum to analyse particular parts of it. And I say that because the second point in the recommendation is that we note the audit officer's report, and we thank the representatives from the New South Wales Audit Office for their presentations. So I think we need to be mindful of that recommendation. Thank you.

Thank you. So item 206 has been moved by Councillor Kotlash and seconded by Councillor Tree. If you're in favour of that motion, please stand.

In favour of the motion, Councillor Ross, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Samprogno, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards, Councillor Calvert. Absent, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Garo and Councillor Rasmussen. I declare it carried.

We have one other item with public speakers, and that's item 204, which is in your supplementary business paper. And the first speaker is Mr Harry Cherry. Mr Mayor. Yes. You'd like to declare an interest. Yes, please . Please do.

Okay, pecuniary interest. Since the last meeting, the RMS has released documents which mentioned my family's home. Thank you.

Mr Mayor.

Thank you

Councillors, Council staff, gallery. Many, many, many years ago, I read an anecdote about bureaucracy and spin. There was a project that turned out to be a pile of horse exhaust. After going through the levels of bureaucracy and spin, the project was portrayed to the Premier and to the public as a stimulant for growth.

The basis for the slip lane application is the claim by the Windsor Bridge Replacement Project team that two so-called recent updated Arcadis traffic studies of 2017 and 2019 had indicated traffic had grown slightly faster than originally predicted, and about 2,000 additional vehicles per day could potentially be travelling over the bridge in 2026 than

Was predicted in the 2012 EIS. However, The 2017 traffic studies indicated the estimated average weekday traffic on Windsor Bridge for 2026 would be 25,000, and the 2012 VIS traffic prediction for 2026 would be 24,000. That is a difference of 1,000, not 2,000 claimed in the report. How could the Windsor Bridge replacement project get it so wrong? But it gets worse. I was very aware of the 2017 study as I watched it being carried out in March of that year. However, I was not aware of the 2019 study, as intensive search found it online. But it turned out to be exactly the same report as the 2017 study, but simply re-badged. But it gets worse. The 2017 study's final report was dated the 21st of June 2017, with an appendix added on the 27th of March 2018.

It is now, however, called the 2018 report. But it gets worse. The 2019 report has now been re-badged to read 2018. I'm confused, but it gets worse. The current 2019 Arcadis report compared traffic counts between 2017 and 2019. Its conclusion include: The overall traffic volumes have remained relatively consistent between 2017 and 2019. In the 2019 AM and PM peak period, average travel times on Bridge Street Wilberforce Road have marginally decreased. but between 6 to 42 seconds when compared to 2017. The survey results suggest that there had been a minor improvement to the overall traffic speeds across the AM and PM peak periods between 2017 and 2019. The queue lengths across the four locations in 2017 and 19 are similar, with minor changes observed across the area, and it concludes: Overall, the traffic volumes on the Windsor Bridge and the four nearby intersections have remained at similar levels between 2017 and 2019.

If the most recent traffic study indicates basically no growth in traffic numbers from 2017 to 2019, what is the modification one really about, and who corrected it? Who selected it? But it gets worse. The RMS has traffic volume viewer 20 metres north of Court Street. Annual records have been kept since 2008 to 2018. It records traffic travelling west, they mean north, and east, which they mean south, between Macquarie and George Streets. Although total traffic movements travelling west have not marginally varied from 2016 to 2018, the number of vehicles travelling east has decreased to less than the 2008 level. But it gets worse. The RMS proposed the modification in the 2017 Arcadis report and Arcadis prepared reports at that time that are now included in the 2019 report.

But the decision was made not to proceed with a zip lane or merge lane. So the question is, why has the Windsor Bridge replacement team decided to resurrect this proposed… Proposal now, but it gets worse. In the same report to meet possible future demands, the modification allows for future tidal flow arrangements on Bridge Street. This would result in two lanes northbound across the bridge during the afternoon peak. Is this the reason the current application is titled Modification One? But it gets worse, and this is a real cracker. The date of the Arcadis final report is the 29th of October 2019. That is six days after the consultation period commenced. At 4:37 p.m. on Wednesday, the 6th of November, I received by email from the RMS a copy of the report.

I understand the report was on the website the following day.

Mr Terry, your time's actually up.

Thank you. Can

You round off in one

I will indeed. That meant possible respondents only had that day to read and digest this report before the consultation period closed.

Thank you. You happy to answer questions?

I am indeed.

Would anyone have any questions for Mr Terry? Councillor Ross.

What would be your, shall we say, analysis of the current proposal, and does it offer any benefit or any improvement, or is it unknown ?

Traffic is always very difficult because of the human nature that comes into it. People choose to do certain things at different times. But the key factor on this is that the RMS, or the Windsor Bridge Replacement Project Team, has based their application to the Department of Planning for a variation to conditions on the understanding there are 2,000 extra vehicles expected in 2026 than they had anticipated. Their own document says that figure is $1,000, but the report that they commissioned for 2019 basically says in the last two years there's been no significant, no real change at all. So if this not meeting what their claim is, the question is, what is it all about? Why are they trying to do something at this stage that doesn't back up their own figures?

Where did they get that 2,000 vehicles from if it doesn't appear in their own documents? There's something wrong about the whole process.

Any other questions?

Yes,

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you. Mr Terry, the document you got on the 6th of November from the RMS, had you requested that, or why did you get that then?

I'm a friend of the RMS.

Yes. So would other people have received that? I'm just wondering if you were aware of anybody who may have wanted to make a submission who was unable to because they didn't have the documentation within the time frame that was allowed.

I don't know who else received it. No one's ever told me. What people have told me, who follow very carefully, that they looked on the web page on the 7th, and it was up on the web page on the 7th.

Okay, but not before then.

Not that I'm aware of.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Terry. That's time for questions. Sorry, Councillor Ross, we've run out of time for questions.

Thank you, Mr Terry. Our next speaker is Sarah McRae

For clarity and transparency around the modification proposal of the Windsor Bridge replacement project. What the most recent information has revealed is this proposal is another poor plan on top of an even larger poor plan. On the 7th of November, on the very day the submissions for the modification proposal closed, the 2019 traffic study was made public by the RMS. What is particularly disturbing is this report, with these most recent figures, wasn't even finalised until six days after the modification report was released. Reading the modification proposal, it becomes evident this plan was based on the traffic study undertaken in 2017, not on the 2019 figures. So why did the RMS push ahead with exhibiting the proposal when the most recent traffic data was not even finalised? Despite claims by the RMS, the 2019 traffic count does not support the 2017 traffic report.

Surprising to many is the reduction of small vehicles using the bridge each day. What is not surprising to anyone who visits the square is the significant rise in heavy vehicles, which rose by a staggering 18%. By not taking these new figures into account, the RMS has failed to properly assess the noise impacts of the fourth lane, a lane that will sit directly next to the parkland of the square. They have not assessed the impacts on amenity of having additional heavy vehicles merging adjacent to the recreational space, nor have they addressed the discrepancies in their figures of just how much parkland will be taken. They have not addressed why the high amenity parkland has been reduced to just a mere 18 metres wide.

In fact, the 2019 report did not mention heritage or the CMP not once. But mostly, these traffic figures reveal there is no justification for the modification proposal based on traffic performance. Whilst ever traffic is being funnelled through the Macquarie Street intersection, the George Street intersection almost becomes an irrelevancy. This modification does not address the bottleneck northbound PM peak motorists will face. Therefore , the congested intersections and lengthy queues will remain. And yet, despite knowing this in 2017, the RMS fronted up to the parliamentary inquiry last year and claimed that 88% of the cost benefit of the project comes from improved traffic flow. The saddest part of this is we all knew it already.

From 2008, when the government architects' office stated they could not support the project based on its poor heritage and traffic outcomes, to the damning reports commissioned by the Department of Planning in 2013, to the findings of the parliamentary inquiry last year. Time after time, independent experts have condemned this plan. So why have they continually been ignored by the Liberal government? So what has become patently clear is the RMS knew in 2017 what a traffic failure this plan was going to be. This was prior to the contracts being awarded, prior to the devastating destruction of convict-built heritage that existed nowhere else in the country. And it was before the RMS swore an oath at the Upper House inquiry to tell the truth, but then blatantly lied about the traffic improvements of Option One.

And whilst the councillors who support this appalling plan will claim a mandate based on this year's state election results, it is worth asking which bridge do they believe the community voted for? Is it the bridge the then Liberal candidate and now Liberal member claimed prior to the election would be a, quote, traffic solution? Because that bridge is the very same bridge the RMS has known since 2017 will have major congestion, significant delays, queues, and a reduction in safety. A mandate isn't a mandate when it is based on lies. The community, for the most part, is in absolute furious agreement over the need for improved infrastructure. However, supporting a bad project isn't going to magically turn it into a good project, and it will not deliver the infrastructure the community wants or needs.

Only standing up for your community to fight for a good project will ever provide a good project. But now, unfortunately, it is too late. However, I commend the councillors who continue to fight for a good project.

Thank you Thank you, Miss. Are you happy to answer questions? Yep. Are there any questions? Councillor Ross, your question. Yes

You're citing an 18 percent increase in—

In heavy vehicles.

Travelling northbound?

No, across both directions, on average per day.

Right. Okay. That would presumably also severely impact the northbound traffic in view of the introduction of controlled traffic lights at the corner of George and Bridge Streets. Without question. Would you agree that that is likely also to impede the flow of traffic? And slow its progress, thereby even curtailing the vehicle flow.

Oh, absolutely. Anywhere where you've got heavy truck movements is going to impinge on small vehicle movement and, of course, it's appalling in terms of heritage outcomes, amenity, noise, pollution, all of those things when you're replacing vehicles with heavy vehicles.

Last question, if I may. Do you see any benefit to be derived from the use of the curbside lane between Macquarie Street and George Street for through traffic? Is it a practical measure?

I'll be upfront and say I prefer to defer to traffic experts on this. I think if I had my way, I would have preferred that all of that traffic be diverted around that heritage space. I'd probably ask you to talk to someone who's a little bit more confident to predict traffic movements, if that's okay. Sorry,

Thank you. Thank you. Time for one last question, if there is one. No. Thank you, Ms McRae. Item 204 is up for discussion. Do we have anyone who'd like to move something, please?

I'll move the recommendation in the business papers, Mayor.

That is that the report be received and noted. That's

Correct.

Do we have a seconder for that? Councillor Tree. Councillor Sam Probnow, you wish to speak on it?

Only briefly, and that is to say that it would appear that the opponents of the Windsor Bridge replacement project are trying to have their cake and eat it too. If they have claimed consistently that this project was unwise because— The bridge was incapable of coping with the traffic volumes that were anticipated now and in the immediate future. They are now basing their argument on the basis of figures that show that it isn't that bad, and that traffic volumes have not increased precipitously, or have been relatively stable between 2017 and 2019. That , to me, sounds a trifle inconsistent, and on that basis, I support the recommendation.

Thank you. Any further speakers on the matter? Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I think, just in response to what Councillor Zambrano just said, I think it's the fact that the figures are inconsistent was what was being brought to attention, and therein lies the problem. With this, I had a few issues with how this came back to Council because what I would have liked to see was to have a report that actually addressed the outcomes that were included in the Mayoral Minute last week, to be able to know, first of all, urgent being the word that was used there , that all that seems to have happened is some letters have been written which had really no response except saying we can't do that , and that there'll be a future meeting. But I think that really this whole matter was focused on dealing with this modification and to try and actually have it, you know, to have some sort of an outcome about it.

And all we've got is, well , not much really. We haven't got anything really much at all. So really , I think what people would like to see, the public would like to see, is what happened with these things. The report doesn't say. Was there an extension of the submission? If you read the letter in there, it's in there somewhere that no, they're not going to give an extension. But I think when we have an itemised Mayoral Minute with these various items, we should be getting a corresponding outcome to them. So no, they won't grant a submission, and we've just heard that people only got the traffic study on the day that the submission was due, and what level of concern was expressed to the RMS about that tight timeframe?

There's no evidence that any concern was given, and why not? What was in the letter that was sent? Sent to them, we don't see the letter. We just see a response. And I think that, given the public interest in this case, in this project, that we should be seeing just exactly what's going back and forth, not just one side of it. So, from what I gather, there was no extension. The assessment of the application was not suspended. So really, we've got nothing much at all. And we haven't had any additional members of the public come to speak in favour of the project that may have missed out last time. The RMS figures are very dubious. I mean, I was finding anomalies all the way through when I was reading it.

So I think that what Mr Terry and Ms McCray outlined there gave some clarity to that, and that made it a little clearer that there is some form of anomaly with the figures that are being used. But then we see that the actual figures weren't even completed before that modification was put forward. So I'm not quite sure how we would move forward from this. I don't think we're achieving anything by noting a report that essentially doesn't really tell us anything at all. And I'm just very disappointed that we couldn't have progressed this a little further in trying to engage and get some more information about this. We're again just left with more questions than answers, and I think that that's really very unfortunate.

Any further speakers? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I agree with the Deputy Mayor that I think basically we've had information come back to us that leaves us in a position where we are— We're

Basically taking this on the chin. We've had a state government organisation come in, feed the community what would appear to be a series of, if not downright untruths, at the very least half-truths, not give us, not give the community the information to respond to a supposed period of community consultation.

And when council has asked for further information and for some input into this process, we've really been fobbed off. This is public space in our community. It belongs to our community. It's been stolen out from underneath them, and we are sitting here accepting some letters back from the RMS that effectively say, Tough. That's really unacceptable. And what we've got back is a recommendation to roll over and play dead. That's simply not good enough. Is this council putting in a submission against this travesty, or are we just going to lie back and take it? We had Mr. Standen come in and contradict himself. He told us it would be fine if we put in a late submission. Now he states that he can't make those choices.

So why does he stand in front of us at a briefing and pretend that that's okay? It says in the RMS clearly states one of the key objectives is to improve traffic efficiency. The Acatus report identified the road widening or park narrowing, let's call it what it is, option in March 2018. So why have we got this big hurry for a response to this modification now? They sat on it for 19 months and then gave the community two weeks and no data. Pathetic.

Have the RMS modelled the impacts on narrow residential streets maintained by this council at a cost to ratepayers, being used to transport large vehicles, Court Street, Ardill Street. What have they done about modelling for the Fitzroy Bridge? How is it possible for a large government entity to spend in excess of $130 million on a supposedly state significant project that doesn't examine key feeder roads less than 200 metres away from it? Four lanes of traffic through Australia's oldest colonial square will have no significant heritage impact, according to the report, which is clearly RMS speak for we can't make a bigger mess than we already have in this place. The traffic counts have increased by 0.5%, but heavy vehicles are up 18%.

That is extremely concerning, and just what the community told the RMS. If you build this monstrosity, you are condemning Windsor to heavy vehicle traffic for decades. How can there be an 18% increase in heavy vehicle traffic with no increase in noise?

As to Councillor Zamproni's point that it isn't that bad, the intersections are at E on a scale from A to F, with F being a fail. How bad does it need to be before we get a decent solution to this? You don't sit in it. That's why you don't think it's problematic. My God, outrageous statement to make when people leave home half an hour early to sit in this bloody traffic every single morning, missing trains, missing buses, late for school, late for work, and your comment, It's not that bad. I tell you what, mate, it'd be bloody bad if it was at Oakville. You'd be furious if this was at Oakville. We've got no significant change over two years. Probably because people are self-managing. They're leaving home earlier, they're travelling outside the peak, they're coming home to their families later, they're changing their routes, possibly due to the changes at North Richmond.

How does any of this justify the theft of 160 square metres of public open space, high amenity open space in Australia's oldest public square? Destination New South Wales refers to this as Australia's finest colonial town square. Destination New South Wales, that spent a motza advertising this place while their own government was destroying it. I notice there's no pictures of the mess at Thompson Square on their website. Council needs to urgently put in a submission condemning the RMS's work here, condemning their inability to consult with the community. We have to stop rolling over when government organisations treat us like this. It's a disgrace. Any

Further speakers? Councillor Ross. I quite agree with the last speaker. This is an absolutely shameful proposal. I think Mr Terry has outlined clearly the duplicitous carryings-on by RMS in this matter. It's probably gone on since prior to 2017, and they trot out these so-called consultant traffic reports to try and substantiate their malevolent plans, when they clearly, in this case— Indicate that there's been very little change except in the movement of heavy vehicles. And heavy vehicles, because of the only hill and the terrain that has to be climbed from both either travelling north or travelling south, has to be negotiated. It is going to impede the progress of those heavy vehicles. One might also inquire as to the benefit of any controlled traffic intersection at George and Bridge Streets would seem highly problematic.

And then we get RMS saying, Oh well, we need 160 metres of carve-out in our historic area. It's okay because we say it's okay. It's outside the project area, mind you, but it's okay.

But then we go down and

Ask about

Well, what are you going to do about the Fitzroy Bridge? Oh, don't ask us about that. It's outside the project area. Isn't that convenient? We have one argument for one situation, but if you like a parallel situation, they adopt a different stance altogether. They are just not upfront

Serious. This is just an absolute disgrace. Imagine. They suggest now also that Corts Route can be accessed when travelling from Pitt Town Road , travelling north, by turning right. So that's great. If you're towing a boat with a four-wheel drive, we can hold up the traffic there. And of course that's all included in the great master plan. Or if you're not going to turn right there, well, we'll just send you across the river. And then there's questions about the dimensioning of the actual roundabout at Freeman's Reach Road. As I understand it, the specifications for that are inadequate to cope with heavy vehicles, and probably inadequate to cope with a four-wheel drive vehicle towing a rather large speedboat or some such pleasure craft.

So there are questions over the whole thing. It's a total mess. The proposal here should be totally rejected by this Council. We should put a very strong submission in and, with the aid of Mr Terry's interpretation of timelines and so on, point these things out, because there's no way the RMS will voluntarily do such a thing. The Department of Planning are being snowed, and the RMS are trying to snow us. It's a thorough disgrace. The whole project has been a disgrace all the way through, and to sacrifice more of our history and our heritage to this mob is just untenable.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler.

I'd like to move an amendment, Mr Mayor.

Can you let us know what the amendment is?

The words are with that. It's regarding Council preparing a submission.

I'll second it, Mr Mayor

Councillor Wheeler, is that more or less what you had in mind, a few grammatical changes?

It could. It's got a— there's a capital, the, before manner. Needs a comma after community. The and could come out after the comma.

Outcomes is one word

Other than that, it's fine.

Would you like to speak to it?

No, it's not necessary.

Are there any other speakers for the amendment? Deputy Mayor. I'll

Speak to it, Mr Mayor. I think this is —I am the seconder. I thank Councillor Wheeler for bringing this forward. I think it's essential that we do write a submission, and it was said to us that they would accept our submission, so I think we should be proceeding to do so. I thought that was why we originally had it come here, so that we could write a submission and get that in, and to give the information that we requested to the public. So hopefully , I'm not sure how that will go forward, whether we will have the submission circulated to us or how we'll know what's in it. I'm not sure if Councillor Wheeler had something along those lines. Yeah

Did you wish to comment? We can certainly circulate something, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. I was just thinking that it would be more time if it has to come back again, and so I would assume that the content of it would be the things that were raised in the last meeting and also in this meeting and basically particularly the concern of the short consultation period and the non-availability of the various reports to the public. I think that is a breach of due process, and I think that that needs to have attention drawn to it because it really is just saying to our community that it doesn't matter what you think, we're doing it anyway, so we're not going to— bother letting you have a look at it or have a comment on it. So I think that was all to say on that. Thank you.

General Manager, I was under the impression that the recommendation in the business paper did not preclude a submission being submitted.

That's correct, Mr Mayor. The recommendation just requested that we return the information back to Council, which is what we've done. And I might also just add, we did include all the information of the previous Council resolution in those letters to those various authorities, which explains in part the nature of the response. They do go to a lot of the issues that were raised in the last Council resolution.

Thank you. So up for discussion at the moment is whether we replace the recommendation in the business paper with the amendment. Would anyone else like to speak? Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor. I support the amendment, but I would propose a slightly different approach. I think it might be better from the Council's point of view to do it in two stages. The first stage, I would suggest, would be to write to Mr Gainford as a matter of urgency within the next 24 hours and point out that the material which ought to have been available to the public

Did not appear on a website of the RMS until the 6th of November, I believe, or the 7th, depending on what Mr. Terry has indicated, and that therefore the

Process has been flawed at that point, and that Council, as a result,

Humbly suggest that the failure of due process would require the whole matter to be reset and recommenced anew, with all documents being available at the point of the opening of a consultation period. And then the second stage would be to further comment on the detriment we see in terms of the knowledge we now have regarding Arcadis and so on, and the lack of increase in overall traffic volumes whilst at the same time noticing that heavy vehicle movements have increased at rather an exponential rate, and therefore inherently will reduce the flow of other vehicle traffic through the area.

So, Councillor Ross, are these— Matters which you would like to see included in the submission, or are you suggesting a change to the amendment?

Please turn your light

On.

Sorry, you

Want to change the amendment ?

Yes, to amplify it in a sense. Step one would be to get in touch with Mr Gainford and say, ‘Hey, look , you're possibly unaware that the timing of the release of the last document was presumably the 6th of November. This did not afford the community any opportunity to make meaningful submissions, and I'm one of those people who actually responded by the required date, the initial date , at some length. And the second step would be to seek also a resetting of the whole thing back to 0.0 to reconstitute the

Consultation period. And if that were not the case, that Council be afforded at least a reasonable time in which to submit a detailed response beyond the 14th of November.

Councillor Wheeler, do you wish to change your amendment to read that way, or would you rather those matters just be included in the submission?

I think Councillor Ross's point has some merit, so I'd be happy to add an additional clause that Council write to David Gainford

Highlighting that the traffic data was not available to the public . Until the last day of the submissions process, and asking, if possible, for the submissions process to be reopened now that that data is available. But I think that's also information that could be put into the submission. And I need to correct the clause that's on the screen there. It's the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment

That the submission needs to go to, but I think we should keep the RMS included , so both DPIE and RMS.

Deputy Mayor, are you happy with those changes?

Yes, I am.

Busy

Getting

Them typed at the moment. Councillor Cotless, you wanted to add something.

Yeah, if I may. As it stands, that just is going to be received, and there's no action other than we're telling them that we're furious about it. So as it reads, it says that Council write a submission to the RMS outlining its anger at the proposal. And mind you, I agree with everything on the board, but at the moment that just says we're angry about it. We aren't demanding anything, and I think we have to switch it around to say we really do expect to have the proper time for consultation. Probably we're not going to get consultation for the community. We're probably just going to get an extension for Council to carry that can, which is not great, but that's probably the reality of the situation. And we use the points that Mr Terry enlightened us about, with all of the changes in the dates to reports. I mean, we have to demand that we have correct information

And we have to demand that a proper cost-benefit analysis is also conducted because it seems to me that they're grabbing incredibly valuable open space for very little , or for something that might be able to be sold in another way. So I think, so whilst I support this, we just haven't asked them for anything. We've just said we're very angry. That always worries me because, you know, when people receive letters like that, it's, well, they're angry. So if we can, I'll just allow these modifications to be made and we might revisit it. Thank you.

It's becoming more of a workshop than a meeting.

We'll see how it looks.

Can I ask the general manager,

General manager, if the original motion went through, you were going to put in a submission anyway, would your submission include all these points or not?

We actually don't have a resolution to put a submission in at the moment. The original resolution last week was to put a submission in. Then the resolution was changed to seek the meeting and raise all those questions, which we've done. And we've provided the responses to those meetings and representations. But at the moment, we don't actually have a resolution from Council to make a submission. That's correct.

Thank you.

How does that read, Councillor Wheeler?

That's fine so far, Mr Mayor. So

Far.

Councillor Kotlash, is that what you wanted?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. No, it's still the second point. We're still telling them we're angry, so let's just change that to, oh well, we can tell them we're angry. The third point would be that we write a submission and seek clarification — no, that's not strong enough — demand clarification on the traffic study that was the basis, apparently, for this modification,

Including the dates that RMS were aware that apparently these traffic conditions had changed or their predictions had changed, which needs to be clarified.

And I suppose actually, instead of going into detail, it's really in the original Mayoral Minute.

We want to know the status of the previously proposed stage two works at Fitzroy Bridge, the options and cost estimates considered. So the points in the Mayoral Minute, in point one

A, three. If that makes any sense , on page three of the supplementary business paper,

There's three points that the details that we had included in the letters that we sent. So now I think we have to revisit those things, and we want to get those things clarified.

So do our typists write a submission based on the original mayoral minute ? So, Councillor Kotlash, you're saying we should write a submission based on the original mayoral minute, or words to that effect?

Yes, and those points that I just referred to are point one, A, three of the mayoral minute.

Those points are in the mayoral minute, so they should be included. I don't think you then need to spell it out. Yeah. Okay. Deputy Mayor.

Mr Mayor, I just wondered if perhaps within that content that Councillor Kotlash is speaking about, if the specific anomalies that Mr Terry raised with the dates could also be some clarification sought on those. They would be on the web audio cast—what's it called?—podcast, because they were really the things that were of significant concern, I think, were those particular anomalies in the information that we were provided with.

So would that go in the notification to the community section , maybe?

So I think we put in part three, then the submission. So we've changed three to write a submission based on the Mayoral Minute, including the observations made by Mr Terry.

Deputy Mayor, that's being added as we speak.

You just can't see it yet

Based on the information given by Mr Terry tonight, or words to that effect.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

So, Councillor Kotlas. Thanks

Mr Mayor. If I just, I can just clarify point three. To write a submission based on the Mayoral Minute from the Council meeting 29th of... yes, including the observations made by Mr Terry at this meeting. And in particular, we want clarification on the traffic study, including the dates the RMS was aware of the changed traffic predictions, and the information contained—well, just full stop after those traffic predictions, because I think that's probably the main aim of point three. Mayor, would I

Add that bit? Can we have

It again, please?

What's on the board, and including the observations made by Mr Harry Terry at this meeting, in particular the clarification of the traffic study, including the dates the RMS was aware of the changed traffic predictions. That's just highlighting those things that Mr Terry brought to our attention.

We'll just wait for that to come up and then maybe we can stop the workshopping and start. Sorry

Yes

Is that it?

All done. Okay, we're still discussing whether the amendment should replace the motion. Any further speakers?

No. Councillor Wheeler, you move the— no, you move the amendment. You don't get a right of reply. Councillor—

Sorry.

Yes. Yes.

Right of reply comes later. We're moving the amendment. The amendment is moved by Councillor Wheeler and the Deputy Mayor, as on the board. If you are in favour of that amendment, please stand.

In favour of the amendment is Councillor Ross, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Bucket, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert. Against is Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards. Absent is Councillor Conolly, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow and Councillor Rasmussen, and I declare it carried.

Now, we haven't finished yet. Councillor Reynolds.

What we just voted on was that the amendment will replace the motion. We can still debate this. It's a new motion. We can still debate it or discuss it if we want to. If not, Councillor Samprogno gets right of reply, even though it's not his amendment. Is there any further discussion? No. Councillor Sam — sorry,

Councillor Ross. I'm just a little concerned, and I seek my colleagues' thoughts. As I understood what Mr Terry was saying was that there may have been a rebadging of some of the traffic studies and the dating of them. In other words, the 2019 report was actually exactly the same material as turned up in 2007, and somehow or another— I

Think that is included, Councillor Ross

Okay. If everyone's comfortable with that. I think so. I'll be guided by the— The general manager tells me it

Is. Okay. Any further discussion before right of reply? No. Councillor Samprogno, right of reply, please.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I had a gut feeling that this is what would happen. The recommendation that was before us was simple, and I was prepared to support it, which was that simply we would receive the information that was in the business paper. I didn't see any need for us to rehash yet again in the way that we have done so many times over the last three years, matters that the RMS are not required to heed us on. The bridge is nearly built, and it's bearers reminding the Chamber that this project ultimately will deliver a bridge that increases the amount of public space in Thompson Square, and that this amendment to the plan requires the removal of no additional trees, and which will improve the traffic performance of the bridge and its approach roads, which was one of the chief objections that CORB had raised for the last four or five years, and now they're opposed to a change to the plan that would improve the performance of the bridge and its approach roads.

So, although I was happy to support the recommendation in the business paper, I cannot support this amendment and I will be voting against it.

That was right of reply. Before we move on,

I need to point out that there was a typographical error in the original report where we discussed, we had a discussion with the local member, and she talked about a holistic approach to traffic from Pitt Town, it should say Pitt Town Road to Windsor Bridge, not Pitt Town. So if we could note that change, please. Other than that, we're moving the amended motion. If you're in favour of the amended motion, please stand. In favour is Councillor Ross, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert. Against is Councillor Sam Brogno, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards. Absent is Councillor Conolly, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, and Councillor Rasmussen. Declare it carried.

We move to items on block, and Councillor Lyons-Buckett, you wanted to declare an interest in one of those.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. A less than significant non-pecuniary interest in item 209, which is the rating exemption for Rose Cottage. I'm a member of the Rose family and a member of the Thomas and Jane Rose Family Society, but I'm not active in making any decisions, and so no further action required.

Thank you. Would someone like to move we accept those items on block? Councillor Wheeler, seconded Councillor Kotlash. All those in favour say aye. Declare it carried.

The only items left are the confidential items, I believe, unless I've missed something. Would someone like to move we move into confidential? Councillor Richards, seconded Councillor Sam Brogno. All those in favour say aye. Declare it carried.

I should have said that on the microphone. I'll ask Mr. Mifsud to report on the confidential section of the meeting, please.

Mr. Mayor, in regard to item 210, whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Zembrogno, seconded by Councillor Kotlash, that: one, Council note the RMS has not provided Council with a draft asset transfer agreement as directed in the conciliation conference on 21 August 2019 and, as such, is not in a position to make an informed decision. Two, Council permit the General Manager to negotiate the terms of an asset transfer agreement with RMS. Three, subject to the terms of the asset transfer agreement being acceptable to Council solicitors, Pikes and Verriker's lawyers, and the General Manager, A, Council agree to accept the compensation as set out in this report in relation to the compulsory acquisition of part of lot 7008 DP 1029964, now known as lot 71 in DP 1238663 and lot 345 DP 752061.

B, Council grant delegation to the General Manager to execute the asset transfer agreement as set out in this report in relation to the works being carried out on lot 7008 DP 1029964, now known as lot 71 in DP 1238663, lot 345 DP 752061, in the adjoining road reserves comprising the Windsor Bridge replacement project. C, Council discontinue the Class 3 appeal in the Land Environment Court, subject to RMS paying Council's costs as agreed or assessed. Four, if the terms of the asset transfer agreement are not acceptable to Council solicitors, Pikes and Verriker's lawyers, and the General Manager, A, Council maintain the Class 3 appeal in the Land Environment Court. B, Council permit the General Manager to continue to negotiate the asset transfer agreement with RMS, and if agreed terms are reached, then the matter be reported to Council for further consideration.

Five, the General Manager update Council as this matter progresses. Voting in favour. Of this motion were Councillors Ross, Reynolds, Wheeler, Lyons-Bucket, Kotlash, Zembrogno and Calvert, voting against it, Councillor Richards. Not present were Councillors Rasmussen, Garrow, Conolly and Tre. In regard to item 2.11, whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Kotlash, seconded by Councillor Lyons-Bucket, that: one, Council, in its capacity as shareholder, vote in favour of a special resolution to update Southern Phone Company Limited's constitution to permit non-Council shareholders of the company; two, sells its Southern Phone shares to the value of $2 as part of a proposed acquisition of Southern Phone by AGL Energy Limited; three, delegate authority to the General Manager to sign all documentation associated with this matter; four, use the sale proceeds for a special purpose consistent with Council's Community Strategic Plan as determined through the budget process.

Voting in favour of this motion were Councillors Ross, Reynolds, Wheeler, Lyons-Bucket, Kotlash, Zembrogno, Richards and Calvert. Not present were Councillors Rasmussen, Garrow, Conolly and Tre. In regard to item 2.12, whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Lyons-Bucket, seconded by Councillor Zembrogno, that: one , Council agree to the assignment of lease for Shop 7, Wilberforce Shopping Centre from Data Network Services Australasian Holdings Proprietary Limited to Ross Sean Corporation Proprietary Limited as outlined in this report; two, authority be given for the assignment of lease and other relevant documentation in association with this matter to be executed under the seal of Council; three, details of Council's resolution be conveyed to the proposed assignee and proposed assignee, together with the advice that Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of its resolution until such time as appropriate legal documentation.

To put such resolution into effect has been agreed to and executed by all parties. Voting in favour of this resolution were Councillors Ross, Reynolds, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Kotlash, Zembrogno, Tree, Richards and Calvert. Not present were Councillors Conolly, Garrow and Rasmussen. In regard to item 2.1.3, whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Lyons-Buckett, seconded by Councillor Zembrogno, that one, Council agree to enter into a new lease with Mino Grigas and Fatty Gurgis for the property known as Shop 6, Werribee Shopping Centre, as outlined in the report; two, authority be given for the lease and any other relevant documentation in association with this matter to be executed under seal of Council; three, details of Council's resolution be conveyed to the proposed lessees, together with the advice that Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of its resolution until such time as appropriate legal documentation to put such resolution into effect has been agreed to and executed by all parties.

Voting in favour of this resolution were Councillors Ross, Reynolds, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Kotlash, Zembrogno, Tree, Richards and Calvert. Not present were Councillors Conolly, Garrow and Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr. Mifsud. Before I close the meeting, the General Manager has a couple of little things to talk to us about. So I will close the meeting first. Meeting officially closed at 8.39.