10 March 2020 - Ordinary

Good evening everyone. Welcome to Council's ordinary meeting of the 10th of March 2020. I'd like to welcome you all here and I'd also like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of this land, the Dharug people, and pay my respect to Elders both past and present. I'll ask the General Manager if he can go through some procedural matters please.

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 the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of the Council are recorded. In the terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting of Council meetings. The provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary.

If any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting. The recordings may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations, 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 to any answers given in response to questions from Councillors. Finally, it is also requested that if any person in the Council Chambers has a mobile phone, that they either turn it off or turn it to silent.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Conroy. Are there any apologies please?

Councillor Conolly may be, but he certainly will be late. Yeah, he's going to be late, but I wasn't sure if it was a total apology.

Okay. Councillor Reynolds. Councillor Reynolds. And Councillor Kotlash. Someone like to move we accept the apologies? Councillor Rasmussen, seconder. Councillor Zamprogno. All those in favour say aye. Declare it carried.

Are there any declarations of interest?

Councillor Wheeler.

Yes, item 042, pecuniary interest.

042. Thank you. Any others?

Yes, please. Sorry, item 045,

Significant non-pecuniary. Okay. Anybody else? No. The confirmation of minutes. There are two sets of minutes. The first set is the meeting of the 18th. Would someone like to move those? Move that, Mr Mayor. Deputy Mayor, seconded Councillor Garrow. Any discussion? All those in favour say aye. Declared carried. The other set of minutes were— sorry. Yes.

Would you like to turn your light on, please?

Excuse me, Mayor. I would like to register my disapproval of those minutes, thank you, and

Be recorded as such. Thank you. Okay. So I better call for a vote by show of hands. All those in favour of those minutes, raise your hands. In favour, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards and Councillor Calvert. Against is Councillor Ross. Declared carried.

The

Other minutes of the 25th

Someone like to move those? Mr Mayor, I've got a small alteration to that. Have you? The attendees, I think I was there. I've recorded moving a number of motions, but I was certainly there, and I'm not recorded in the attendees.

I think you are. Am I? Yeah , the 25th minutes start about halfway through the yellow section.

There's no page number. But you're there.

Sorry about that. Thank you. I'll move it then. Moved by Councillor Rasmussen, seconded by Councillor Garrow . No?

I wasn't present the whole meeting, so update .

Seconder for the minutes, please. Councillor Zamprogno. Any discussion? All those in favour say aye. Those against, declare it carried.

Excuse me, Mayor, I would call for a vote on that, please. Well

I did ask for any discussion. If you're in favour of those minutes, can you please raise your hand. Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards, Councillor Calvert. Against? Councillor Ross, declare it carried.

First item is items subject to public address.

Mr Mayor, just if I can. I don't want to make a pain of this, but on page, whatever it is, there's no page.

It's where

The meeting reconvened on Tuesday the 25th of February, that at 6.30, that's the top of the page, and present, I'm not listed as being present.

So you're talking about the meeting of the 18th, which went on to the 25th.

Yeah, which carried on to the 25th.

Okay. Yes, you were there for the second half of the 18th meeting.

Electronically it's page 29.

Would someone like to move that the minutes be amended to reflect that? Councillor Garrow, Councillor Wheeler. Thank you. Anyone wish to speak against that? All those in favour say aye. Declare it carried.

Sorry, Councillor Rasmussen, I thought you were talking about the other meeting that started on the 25th.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. It is a bit confusing, I know, but there was a... yeah. Anyway

I think we got it sorted. Thank you. I think we have. So there's only one item that's subject to public address, and that's item 47, notice of motion 2. There are two speakers. The first speaker is Mr John Cupitt. Thank

You.

Can I just give you a copy? That's who I am. I didn't attach it to the

Application to speak.

Okay

Ladies and gentlemen, can you hear me okay?

Mr Mayor, Councillors all, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I think most of you probably remember me in some capacity. I represent the people in Oakville, Vineyard and Maraylya in a group called the Oakville and District Progress Association. I came to speak in favour of the motion to share information. The OECD describes open government as transparency of government actions, the accessibility of government services and information, and the responsiveness of government to new ideas, demands and needs, which is to say, to open government information to the public in order to maintain and advance a system of responsible and representative democratic government that is open, accountable, fair and effective.

You cannot keep hiding what you're doing and misleading the community, ladies and gentlemen. If you're going to overspend budget by $8.7 million, it's a comprehensive mismanagement of this business, and we're entitled to know what you did.

Point of order, yes. Point of order. I don't believe that's true, and I don't believe it should be a statement that's being stated.

You're not going to overspend by $8.7 million? Sorry, that's what I thought it was. What are you going to overspend by?

Can we not argue across the room, Mr Cupitt? That figure is to be debated, so please don't make it a... A number. A number that is definite, because it's not

Definite. I think that's what this is really about. We'd like information, and it's very hard to get information from you. In 2017, you delivered the most unfair rate distribution in the history of the Hawkesbury. You undid what the previous council did to make rates fair. You created a new rates category with huge land value differences. You changed the rates calculations. You redistributed the rates burden before applying a 31.29% increase, which was opposed by 85% of the people, according to your polls. You targeted the most vulnerable people in our community for extortion. You forced pensioners, rural people in their 60s, 70s and 80s to subsidise working urban residents and made them pay up to 10 times the average rates, which equates to elder abuse.

You wrote those suburbs out of roads programs for 10 years, denying services. You knowingly designed rates programs which allowed urban residents to pay average rates of 1,100 before the SRV and 1,100 after the SRV, and presumably for political benefit. And you orchestrated a misinformation campaign blaming the land value of general to cover up what you did. Then you refused to provide information under GIPA, and this is not acceptable. You're accountable. We, the community, are entitled to know how you've mismanaged the budget. A quick look at the internet this week showed ads for six new jobs, around 500K of spend. So if you're suggesting that you're going to miss budget by a large number, and I won't quote that number anymore, Mayor Calvert, why are you still spending and why are you still hiring?

What staff have you hired over the last year? What consultants have you spent money on? Where have you wasted our money? You increased rates by, I think, about 8.8 million dollars, and the state government gifted you about 18 million dollars, and you're stating you're going to miss budget by, let's call it a big number. Barry, you're the mayor, and Peter Conroy is earning around $300,000 a year. And if you have comprehensively failed to manage budget, what are you doing about it? Because the first thing would be apparent to me is that you'd need to cut spending. In commerce, people are required to take pay drops when budgets are missed. Are the councillors and staff going to take a big drop in pay to cover the missed management?

Are you going to sack people? Are you going to sack the GM if you miss budget by a big number? There's one other thing, and thank you very much for letting me speak. I think that's about my time, is it, or have I got more time?

Okay, beauty. There's another way to handle this, of course. In the past, we've stood in front of you, and I represented Oakville Rural Fire Brigade and the Progress Association, and we asked you for information and help, and you didn't provide it. There is another way to handle this. We could go to the press. We could go to the Office of Local Government. We could ask those people to step in and ask you those questions. But we're not. We're standing here in front of you people like gentlemen, and we're asking you to provide information. I'd like to just touch on Oakville as a suburb, because over the Christmas break, the Oakville Rural Fire Brigade, we had the worst fire season we've seen in about 20 years.

The Oakville Rural Fire Brigade is the biggest fire brigade in the district. We fielded 80 crews over Christmas, and members defended you all, and they're paying about 10% of their wages in rates, and a lot of them are thinking about moving out of the district. These are people that have worked hard, and they've fought for you people for 50 years. And I'd like to just mention Adam Rutter as well, because Adam Rutter is an Oakville bloke, and he runs the catering crew out of, I've forgotten where that is now. It's over the other side of the river. So you've got Oakville blokes running the biggest fire brigade in the district, putting themselves in harm's way and running the catering crew for the whole district.

So please don't underestimate what the people in Oakville and the surrounding suburbs do. They fight for this district, and they're decent people. Thanks very much for letting me speak today. Please share information. We want to know what's going on. Thank you.

Mr. Cupitt, I was not impressed with some of the accusations you made against this council, that we have extorted people and we're covering up and we've mismanaged. I believe those things are your opinion. No

They're not my opinion. Not a

Fact.

They're not my opinion.

This notice of motion may help to explain that to you, but at this stage they're an opinion. No

It's actually not. Mr. Calvert, Mayor Calvert, I represent a group of 200 people. We meet regularly. It's a respectful group. We have guest speakers. We're well informed, and these are people that are losing everything. Three percent of the people in my group have died in the last year from age, illness and stress. These are people that are being forced out of the Hawkesbury. They were re-rated at the top of the market by Mr. Perrottet bringing the land value adjeneral in one year early, and then you guys calculated your rates and you targeted. Let me put it this way. Seventy-five percent of the district, 19,000 people, are not impacted. Their average rates are still the same. Who's paying the rate increase, the SRV?

There's a few thousand rural residents paying it, and those people are in extreme hardship, and they won't activate the council hardship policy because that simply exploits them further and asks their families to pay a further 10%, and what is already an extortionate situation created by council. I wasn't inviting

You to make another speech . I'm

Trying to explain that it's not my opinion. These are not my opinions.

These are opinions and not facts. Would you be happy to answer questions from council?

Yeah, look, I'm certainly happy to, and I appreciate the fact— Mr Mayor

Has a question for you.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Mr Cupitt. You have raised a lot of accusations and a lot of your opinion, or opinion of people from Oakville. Oakville

And Moralia and Vineyard.

Some people in Moralia and Vineyard, not all. And

Some people in

Oakville. And some in Oakville. Would you stand by your statement that the most vulnerable people have been hit with the rate rise? You consider people with high land value to be the most vulnerable people in our community, do you

Look, the people who come to the Oakville and District Progress Association, they often come up and hug me at the end of the meeting. They're 80-year-olds, Deputy Mayor. They are vulnerable. They are sick. There's a guy who turns up in a wheelchair religiously. There's a lovely old couple, they stand about this tall.

I'm sure there is, but when I asked you— They're vulnerable. I'm sure they are, but do you think they are the most vulnerable people in our community?

They're pensioners. It's elder abuse. What you did by structuring the rates you did, and you knowingly did it, because in January 2017 you remodelled the rates until you got the outcome you wanted, and if you look at three years of data, you can see quite clearly that the urban residents are not affected. Sorry, I asked you a question. And I'm answering it, and if you'd be quiet, I'll finish answering it. No,

Don't be rude, please. I asked you a question. Do you consider people with high land values to be the most vulnerable people in our community?

I consider the pensioners who you attacked with the unfair rates model to be the most vulnerable people in our district.

The answer could have been yes or no. Another question, Councillor Zamprogno.

Mr Cupitt, during your speech you made specific reference of, in the past, appearing in this chamber and representing Oakville Bushfire Brigade, and I recall that on that occasion you wore RFS oranges. Are you presently an active member of the RFS, and on that occasion did you speak with the endorsement or approval of the executive leadership of Oakville Bushfire Brigade?

Thanks, Councillor Zamprogno . Just push the button.

Thanks, Councillor Zamprogno. The answer is yes and yes. I'm still an active member of the fire brigade, and I spoke to Andrew Rutter before the meeting, and all the data that I put on the table about the number of crews and number of staff and what they're doing came from Andrew Rutter. I think I might have actually mentioned that on the day.

Mr Cupitt, you're a liar.

Thank you, Mr— Well,

That's not very wise, Nathan.

Councillor Zamprogno, that's out of order. Thank you. No other questions. Thank you, Mr Cupitt.

Thank you very much.

The other speaker is— sorry, Matthew Bennett, please.

Evening everyone. Matthew Bennett speaking in favour of the motion. I'll try to keep it a little quicker and use less inflammatory language. As a ratepayer, I'm genuinely concerned by the prospect of an $8.7 million operating deficit now forecasted in the budget review. It's remarkable to say the least that the projected operating loss excluding capital grants is approximately 10% of total revenue. It is remarkable that it's $9.5 million worse than the budget that was adopted seven months earlier. It is remarkable that the projected budget for materials and contracts has increased 37%, over $7 million in just seven months. So I ask, where is our money going, and why was the operational budget so wrong?

There may be genuine reasons why these extraordinary variances have occurred. It may simply be poor management. We, the ratepayers, just don't know. After having a relatively quick glance at the alarming changes in the quarterly budget review statement, I understand that, like in many situations, there is no one single reason for the variances. However, I have not spent a significant amount of time reviewing the reports and the underlying causes because it's not my job. You, our council representatives, do spend the time reviewing the situation because it is your job. It is your obligation to the ratepayers of the Hawkesbury who entrust this council to manage their money, to explain what has gone wrong and how you plan to fix it.

It will not be good enough to play politics with this just because such a significant deficit is a terrible look. This is above politics, and that is why I firmly believe this report should be commissioned and further it should be made public. Thank you.

Thank you. Are you happy to answer questions, Mr Bennett? Yeah . Are there any questions? Councillor Rasmussen. Yeah

Thank—thank you, Mr Bennett. I do review the budget, and I also sit on the—pardon me—on the audit committee, and I can tell you you're wrong.

In relation to what?

In relation to the deficit you're quoting.

Okay, the one in the published papers?

Yes, I think so. The one in the published papers? The published papers, yes.

I don't know where you got

Your facts from, but

Tell you what— A clarifying question. Hang on, but that actually wasn't a question, Councillor Rasmussen, thank you. You've got a question, Councillor Conolly? Did Councillor Rasmussen vote for the quarterly budget review last week with those published figures in it? I have no idea. I don't see that relevant. I think it's quite relevant if Councillor Rasmussen is going to sit here and attack speakers.

Well, we're questioning the speaker at the moment.

I got it straight off the council website.

Any other questions for Mr Bennett? No. Thank you very much, Mr Bennett.

You're very welcome, Mr Mayor.

The matter is now open for debate. Councillor Richards, you're moving this?

Yes, I'll be moving this motion. Do we have a seconder

For this? Councillor Conolly. Okay, Councillor Richards, thank you.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and I thank both of our speakers for addressing the council today. This notice of motion is not designed or intended to cause any division in the council. It is simply a request for further information. It's not casting any assertions. It's not casting any judgments. I think that when the figures were put forward to us in the last meeting at the quarterly review, we legitimately had questions that we raised and that we wanted answers to. Now, when we moved an amendment to seek the answers to those questions, it was shot down. Therefore, based on how the meetings go and the procedure of meetings, I've put up the notice of motion to again ask for the answers to those questions.

There is no desire to argue, to fight, to, as I said, throw stones across the chamber at each other. It is simply a request for more detailed information. Now, as you can see in it, it is not focusing on capital works, it is focusing rather on the operational expenditure. However, before I go on, I would like to, excuse me, add a few of my own amendments to the current motion, just very small ones. And I'd like to say that before I finish speaking, if there's anyone else in the chamber who has anything that they want to add, I am more than willing to consider adding it. I would like this to be a very cooperative exercise in transparency for ratepayers, and I think that we owe it to our ratepayers to give them, especially when it comes to the budget, that level of cooperation, which results in the level of transparency that I believe is required.

So, what I'd like to do first of all in adding to the motion is on point two, where it says the number of full-time staff employed, I'd like to add there, and the vacancies, the vacancies, so simple. On point three, the total cost of all external consultants used during each term of this council, I'd like to add, and itemised by matter and cost. And I'd like to also add a point seven to it, that all the information in the report be provided in a manner that the average ratepayer could read and understand the transparency, so basically in simple English and simple language. Before I continue on, I want to just ask some questions of the staff, if I can, so that we can clarify the direction that this debate is going to take.

So first of all, if I may ask Mr Mayor, how did the projected surplus, which I think based on the attachment. That we had to the quarterly budget review statement last meeting, I think it was on page 10, there was a projected surplus of 781,000, if I am correct. How has that projected surplus now turned into a projected deficit? That's my first question.

Before I get an answer, Councillor Conolly, are you happy to endorse those changes to them? Thank you, Mr Conroy.

Scalia.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. So the surplus of 781,000 adopted in the original budget has changed with a number of factors. So the first change is the operational carryovers. So essentially any budget that related to items that were in progress as at the end of June, those funds were carried over, and those funds amounted to about 3 million. Then there was a number of adjustments in the September quarterly review. So the total of that was 6.1 million, and the details obviously are included in the review. And then in the December quarterly review, there was further adjustments amounting to 315,000. So when you add all those up, we come to the total of the projected deficit of 8.7 million.

Thank you. Okay

Thank you very much. So that's where the 8.7 million figure has come from. So obviously, thank you for clarifying that. So for anyone wondering, that's where it's come from. But I know we all have our strengths and weaknesses in this chamber with our knowledge and where we've come from, and mine, you know, is I'm really doing my best here as a councillor to interpret these figures. And so just bear with me as I get this straight. I understand from what was said in the last council meeting that some of that projected current deficit will be minimised when we get to the proper end of year budget. So from what I heard last time, that would be made up of grants and timing differences. Is that correct so far?

Thanks, Mr Mayor. So the 8.7 million deficit included adjustments that did relate to timing differences. So there was about 2.3 million dollars relating to a prepayment of the financial assistance grant. So essentially we received that grant in June. We accounted for it in June. We put it in a reserve , if you like, and then we brought it back out in the September review. However, from an operating result, that has affected the result. So that's 2.3. There was also 3.9 million dollars relating to a liveability grant, so same type of 3.9 million. So same type of scenario where we received the money last year, so again it's just a timing difference. So that leaves about 2.1 million as a deficit that actually relates to not timing.

However, that includes amounts carried over. So should at the end of the year be no operational carryovers, so if all the funds were spent , the deficit, the real deficit, if you like, would be 2.1, taking into account that. A large portion of the 8.7 was timing differences. Generally, what happens is at the end of the year there is, on average, about two, two and a half million dollars of operational carryovers because the work just doesn't neatly—it gets completed as at 30th of June. So, in practice, reality is that as at the end of the year, the actual result may potentially be a balanced result because there'll be that amount carried over. Also, what could come into play, which we have no control of or knowledge at this stage, is whether we get prepaid any grants, whether we receive grants.

For example, with the livability grant, we know there's an additional seven million—sorry, twelve million dollars still to come at some point. So when you receive those grants, we do have to account for them when we receive them, and they can cause large fluctuations in budgets. So the result is 8.7. However, you know, being mindful that, you know, over six million of that is timing differences

So thank you very much. Oh, sorry, thank you. So I wanted to make that clear before people start trying to say that there's political ammunition in this motion, because there is not, because I just want to know the answers to these questions, and I think that a lot of other people do as well. So to clarify from what you're saying, though, we've started the budget last year with a projected surplus of 781,000, but in all likelihood we are ending this year's budget in a 2.1 million dollar deficit, in brackets, depending on the carryovers, right? Okay. But we don't know— is that an accountancy thing you do to show carryovers? Like, I don't know how—I'm not an expert in that, so please You know, do we say that on the budget papers we're going to give to the community, we are in a deficit but for carryovers? You know, I don't know. How do we communicate that?

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. So, just trying to keep it simple. Essentially, when at the end of the year you have unspent funds, the results for the year, the actual results reported will look better because you haven't spent money.

Because it hasn't been spent.

Because it hasn't been spent. So as of June, the results will look— so as June 19, June gone, the result looked better than what the projected budget was because there was $3 million unspent. So, however— But it's

Unspent, but it's slotted to be spent.

That's right Yeah. So, from a budget— Yes, it's earmarked for specific things, so it's not just— it is earmarked for projects and things. So from a budget perspective, we need to keep that funding. We need to bring it across because essentially, if we didn't, we would have to find funds for those projects, for those works in the current budget. So we would essentially have had to look for $3 million, and a lot of these projects are things in progress. Yeah. So

But

They have— even though

They haven't come out of the bank account, they've been spent. It's like someone's, you know, for us, you know, you've got a bill, you've got an electricity bill on the fridge, but you just haven't spent it yet, but it— You will have to spend it. You will have to spend that money. Yeah. Okay. So from what I'm gathering in that, it's looking like we're having— we will have a deficit. There will be a deficit in this budget year.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. As previously advised, so it will depend on the amount of carryovers. I understand. So essentially, if the carryovers... So taking the extreme scenario that we didn't have any carryovers, which is unlikely, then we would be looking at the projected deficit. However, there will be carryovers. Average has been around two, two and a half million. So going off that, the actual result is it's not likely to be a deficit at the level projected . And also, if we do receive grants, we're going to have this whole timing thing happening again. So, and I cannot control that. We do have to account for things in accordance with accounting standards, but it does make it quite tricky to explain in simple terms, unfortunately.

And that's what we're looking for, is in simple terms. And I think that our rate payers will very much welcome something written in that simple terms and in plain English for them.

Are you still asking questions? No

Sorry, I'm continuing. I'm just wrapping up.

Wrapping up would be good, yes.

Yeah, well, they were questions, so there you go. So I don't think that what's in this notice of motion, as I said, is contingent. So we just want to know what's gone in and out of contingency, staff costs, external consultants' costs, legal advice that has gone out on a case-by-case matter and the cost of each of those. What the income will be generated through this biodiversity or through the property management—I'm sorry—biodiversity offsets or the property management. So as I said, it's my strongly held view that this information be provided to rate payers. We owe them accountability and transparency, and I just hope that this motion gets supported because our rate payers deserve it. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I support Councillor Richards' notice of motion. But I've got a question through you, Mr Mayor, to Ms Gallea. The quarterly budget review statement says, and I quote, There is currently an underlying problem of recurrent income not being aligned with recurrent expenditure. If there was a perfect alignment between recurrent income and recurrent expenditure, would there be a net deficit at the end of the financial year? Mrs

Gallea. Thanks, Mr Mayor. So what the operating result means is the difference between operating income and operating expenditure. So if they were equal, then you'll just have a net position . If income was more than expenditure, you will have a surplus. If income was less than expenditure, then you'll have a deficit. So perfect alignment would just be a neutral position where expenditure equals income, which is quite unlikely in real terms. Thanks .

Thank you, Ms Gallea. I mean, part of your answer was just a definition rather than an answer. I understand that if you spend more than you earn, then you have a deficit, and if you earn more than you spend, you have a surplus. It was more a question of if there's any truth to the explanation that reached me that, look, in subsequent calendar years you can have substantial grants coming from other tiers of government, like the financial assistance grants, and in one calendar year it arrives in April and in the next calendar year it arrives in August. But in the intervening financial year that sits between those two peaks, you miss out, and therefore the perception of a deficit is simply because of that mistiming. So I want to know whether that's what's accounting for the deficit or the projected deficit here, or whether It's—that's not the correct assumption. Thanks

Mr Mayor. So what you are referring to, it's what we would call in accounting terms the matching principle. So, the way we have to account for things, you don't have perfect matching. So the grants are a perfect example where sometimes you will receive the income in the one year and you show it as income in that year because that's how we need to account for it. But the expenditure is shown in a subsequent year because it's spent a different year. So that's where you have a misalignment, which can throw those results out, which may show a deficit, but

It's only a

Timing difference . Part of it is. So the financial assistance grant and deliverability grant, which make up over six million dollars of the deficit, is exactly that. So with the financial assistance grant, we received the money. So we received half— start again. For this year, we budgeted to receive about four million. Half of that was received in the last financial year. So we received 2.3 million in 18-19, which we had to show as income in that year. That's how we have—so the income last year looked really good, looked more than what we budgeted because we've got that extra money. From a budget perspective, what that does from an operating income perspective leaves us with a shortfall of two million because we budgeted to receive it this year, but we already got it last year.

And that is why when we have those prepayment of grants, what we do at the end of the year, even though we receive it and we show it as income, we restrict it into a reserve, so we don't go and spend the money. So the 2.3 million we received extra last year, we didn't go and spend that. We put it away because we know we're going to need it this year because we might not get a prepayment for next year, so we might have a two million dollar that we don't receive. So from an overall budget point of view, we're no worse off because we received it last year, but we put it away in a reserve. And we brought it back out. But from an operating result point of view, that result doesn't take into account whether you've put it away last year.

It just says this year you have received or you have not received this income. So hopefully I answered the question. Thanks, Mr Mayor.

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I did have some amendments that I've passed on to Charles. I think he was going to pass them around a hard copy. Of course I support getting this information. Well, this information actually exists and is available. But if it's to be in a different format with specific questions, I think that's a good thing. And I just had some additional points of some other things that may be included. So I'll just let everybody... It will be different now. Councillor Richards has added a point seven, so my point seven would be eight, nine, ten and eleven, rather than including her seven if it was to be an amendment. Sorry.

So you would like to move that amendment?

I would like to move that.

Do we have a seconder for that? Councillor Wheeler. Deputy Mayor, you wish to speak?

Yes, please, Mr Mayor, I do. They're only really minor amendments, and in fact they're just calling more for a bigger time frame so that the public can get the genuine information of the transition. That also we had due to the fit for the future reporting, which did change quite a few things. But if the information is presented for the last six years, it will be quite obvious how we've been travelling and how these things change with things such as the prepayment of the federal assistance grants, with the carryovers and the calling for the carryovers for the last six years. Of course, we will see the recurrent pattern of that occurring, and that will better understand how we have mid-year perhaps a projection which may be alarming to some people.

It is unfortunate, I think, that it was put out publicly as, well, misinformation or rather disinformation, because I do think it was deliberately designed to put it out to the public that there was a projected deficit of $8.7 million, which with this motion coming forward, we should probably — well, not we, people should probably have waited until we had the correct information. So let's get the comprehensive

Report. Sorry, point of order there. I don't know if it is or not. It's completely — in the business paper last meeting, page 10 showed the projected deficit was $8.7 million. That is what it said in black and white.

That's not a point of order. You don't agree with what Deputy Mayor is saying You don't have to agree, but that's not a point of order

Thank you, Mr Mayor. But it didn't say for the financial year, as was presented, and it wasn't — it was taken out of context when it was delivered, as we've heard, and we know about the deliverability fund and the carryovers and the early payment of the federal assistance grants, and that has had a significant impact on that rather large figure that's been presented. As you will see, the additional points are just some changes, changes to the term of which we get the information over, just a minor change for the biodiversity offsets, which of course weren't in the original budget because, as anyone would know, they only came out at the end of last year in December, so they couldn't have been included before.

Just a change in wording to make it property-related activities rather than property management, because it's really centred around being related to all the activities to do with council properties, etc. So our audit committee considers the quarterly reports, and I think that we should have the details of what their considerations were when they looked at this report. And then to include in the report the details of the prepayments received over the last six years and the impacts that these have on our financial position, because it's very obvious that they do have an impact. And unless people are given the complete picture, there will continue to be misunderstanding and so on. And we really need to have it understood as well as possible.

And I think that having a motion to bring this report in that regard with a lot of detail would be very good. Also comparing the infrastructure backlog maintenance and capital works over the last six years will give a clearer picture of what sort of works have been completed in that time as well. So we still know, as Ms. Galea said before, we're not sure what will happen to the very end of the financial year. Of course, we can't know. There's external factors, and we know that there will be uncertainty, particularly in this current economy where external factors are playing a huge part in the downturn in the economy. And at a federal level, we've seen a, you know, government planning a stimulus package like in the GFC to address that.

So we're all going to be impacted, and this is going to happen through to the end of the financial year. So we know we must be careful and accountable for all public monies. I think that the public should be able to get whatever information they can. Often the information's there, and they just can't decipher it from the documents it's in. So I think this is a good thing, and I think that we should— hopefully this report will make it clearer so that we don't have misunderstandings in the community about what the state of the council finances are. And I look forward to seeing the report.

Thank you, Councillor Richards. I need to ask, would you entertain replacing your motion with this?

I'm happy to amend my motion to include the six-year timeframe. I have no problem with that at all, and I'm happy to include those extra points in the original motion with the changes I'd already made, and encompass that extension of time. I'm fine with that.

So you're happy to substitute this as your motion?

Plus the changes

You made. There's changes I'd already made as well. I'd rather just keep the changes I've made. Keep my motion, add the six years where relevant, and then add the 0.789 and 10 to mine, because I'd already added a 0.7, so that'd be 8, 9, 10, 11.

Well, that's what I meant. Yeah. Yeah.

I'd be happy

To do that. You'd be happy with that? Yep Yes. Councillor Conolly as seconder?

More information the better.

And Deputy Mayor, you'd be happy with that? Yeah, that's fine. Okay. So the amendment has become the motion, and the amendment includes your 0.7, Councillor Richards, and the other points you added previously. No,

I had said my motion would be I'd be happy to include those changes to the original motion. Yes. Yes. Yeah.

I think we're agreeing. Yes. Councillor Conolly. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I just want to start with a question, if possible. I'm speaking in favour of the motion.

My understanding of the quarterly budget review was that it was council staff recommending to council to adopt, using the best available information, what we project the result will be based on the available information at the time. Is that correct, Mrs . Gillian?

Yes. So the budget gets adjusted every quarter based on how we are going and any information that we have at the time.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I mean, on that basis, I would ask the Deputy Mayor to consider withdrawing her statement that it was misinformation or disinformation and that it shouldn't have been put out publicly. It was council staff's recommendation that the $8.7 million was the best available projection using the information available as to where we will end up at the end of the financial year. It is not misinformation to quote that. It is certainly not. I don't see how in any way it can be considered improper to put it out publicly. It's a public document already. We actually advertise these meetings. We encourage people to attend, and it's being reported to council publicly. So there's nothing wrong with putting the information out publicly, and it isn't.

It was the correct information. There are lots of things to consider, and there could have been heaps more detail put out. There could have been less detail put out, but certainly nothing about what was put out, certainly if we're referring to the same things, was incorrect. And there was absolutely no restriction on councillors sharing that information, as far as I'm concerned. So I think that that needs to be clarified. Having said that, I would thank the Deputy Mayor for her additions to the motion. I think, like I said, the more information the better. I would never vote against any councillor not getting information they wanted from the council when it should all be, as mentioned, it should all be somewhere.

It's just got to be compiled in a report to council. Yeah, I would hope that this will be supported. All it is is a request for information, and this will put a lot of the context around these discussions.

And I think that the public and the councillors have every right to ask for it. Thank you. Deputy Mayor, you've been invited to withdraw that statement. You wish to do so?

Mr Mayor, I'll withdraw it, but I would like to just point something out, that there was no qualification in this statement that it was based on the available information on the time. It was done, it was worded in a fashion that that was what it was going to be.

You don't have to withdraw it. It's your opinion. All right. No, I won't withdraw it. Councillor Connolly's opinion. I

Won't withdraw it because I expect there'll be a follow-up any day.

Okay. Any further speakers? I'd like to ask one more question, Mr Mayor. One more question, yes. Sorry, I neglected to ask it. It's been mentioned a few times that the $3.9 million livability grant received in advance is a big part of this. Could I just have confirmation, therefore, that we have spent $3.9 million as a result of having received that grant in the current year? Mr Scullia? Ms Perrin?

No, we haven't spent the $3.9 million, and I do not anticipate that we'll be spending $3.9 million between now and the end of June.

So just a follow-up question then: in what way does it impact the financial statements? If we haven't spent it in this financial year or received it this financial year, it doesn't make any difference.

We've spent some of it.

How much have we spent?

Sorry, off the top of my head I can't tell you.

Could we perhaps put that in the motion? Mr Scullia might have an answer.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. So what we've been discussing here is budgets, not actual expenditure. So the budget is for the total 3.9. How much we actually spend out of that will be reflected in the actual results, not budget. So that's why at the moment it's in

There. So just to clarify, Mr Mayor, we just heard that there's not anticipated we'll spend the 3.9, but from what I'm understanding, we have budgeted to spend the 3.9 in this quarterly review. Is that correct? Mr Scullia? Yes. Yes, that's correct. Perhaps that should be addressed, Mr Mayor. Should be what, sorry? Perhaps that should be addressed, that we shouldn't publicly say in the budget we're going to spend it, and then also publicly say we don't intend to.

You have an answer for that, Mrs Scullia?

I can try. So with grants, it can be difficult to estimate the exact timing, especially with something like the livability grant, where my understanding is there's been lots of background work that's happening. So, yeah, I take your point, but at the time... Look, we don't know when the exact timing of that.

My understanding was it wasn't that we don't intend to spend it; it's that we may not be able to spend it. It's a different thing.

Any further speakers? Councillor Ross. You had your light on. Okay, Councillor Rasmussen, thank you

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, I just want to point out that the motion that Councillor Richards has put before this Council is quite different to the motion that was put to Council at the last meeting. There was a deliberate and obviously calculated attempt to link the $8.7 million to the SRV and a couple of other statements along with that. Now, that clearly was inflammatory because it was clearly designed to get this Council to agree to all of that. And it was clearly wrong, as we've heard tonight. It was clearly designed for a purpose, not a purpose that I would consider to be in line with what the quarterly review reported. In fact, if you read the report, and it's not very complicated to read the actual report itself, it talks about a deficit of $60,000.

That's what the report actually talks about, if you read it. And I have read it. Okay? So just get that, and that could have been reported. That could have been put out there, and the Council had, from memory, $720,000, I think it is from memory, in contingency reserves for this very purpose, so that if there is At the end of the day, a deficit, it can be balanced out by using reserves that Council has put away for this very purpose, because there are lots of ups and downs and bumps, as the federal government is finding and as the state government is finding right now. Lots of ups and downs and bumps and things which cannot be predicted prior to today, or when you're calculating a budget 12 months out.

Just can't happen. We know that. We've seen it. We know it. We live it every day today. And the federal government is struggling, struggling to come to grips with that as well. The best minds and the billions, hundreds of millions of dollars spent on hired help to calculate all this. So let's not get too cute about all this. And the fact is, all of this information is available on Council's website, in Council's reporting. And if you go along to the briefings, which the public can't do, but if those of us who can go along, we would have a very clear explanation of exactly what's going on here. That is, it's a timing difference. 6.6 million is a timing difference, an accounting timing difference.

And what the accountants call a matching principle can't happen in local government, which if it could, it wouldn't be shown like this. So it's a misalignment, not because there is an underlying deficit as such, but simply because, and we were very lucky, and we should be thanking the federal government for that, that they actually gave us money earlier than we expected. That's a great thing. The more money we get, the better it is for the community. So, Mr Mayor, I think we need to be very mindful of the fact that we don't mislead deliberately the public about what the council's finances actually look like. And as we have heard, on a track record, on a over many years, what has happened is that there is normally a carryover of close to $2 million.

$2 million. If you add that to the 6.6, you've got your 8.7. So that closest, very close to a balanced budget, very close to a balanced budget.

For as long as I've been on this council, and that's nearly 24 years now, there has always been a balanced budget. Always. Always been a balanced budget. We have always had a report from the external auditors that this council runs a very, very solid financial system . Every year they come up and they stand there and they say the same thing: solid financial record in this council. So for us now to, in an election year, to go out and want to portray this council and its work and the staff. Who work really, really hard, and that's where the rubber is hitting the road at the staff level. I mean, us councillors, politicians, well, we know we get thrown all sorts of rubbish at us. We get used to that.

But the staff are having the same sort of rubbish thrown at them too, and I don't think that's fair. And that's where I want to stand up for the staff. For them and them and them and them, I want to stand up for. So I think it's pretty poor that we are using, in a council election year, we're using these sorts of tactics to play these sorts of games.

Councillor Rasmussen, can you round up now, please?

Yeah. Well, Mr Mayor, I think I am pretty well there. And as I said earlier, I am part of the audit committee, and if there was anything smelly about it, let me tell you, I would be raising it. There is nothing smelly about the finances in this council. It is open, it is transparent, and it's all there if you want to look at it. Now, yes, you can put it in different terms. You can certainly do that and make it simpler. I would agree with that.

But

This—I'm just wrapping up. Thanks, Mr Mayor. And this motion is quite different to what it was last time, quite different. Asking for information by a councillor, every councillor should be doing exactly that, asking for more information, absolutely, 100 percent behind it.

But to play

Games with it, that's wrong.

Thank you, Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you for your indulgence. I would like your permission , sir, to endeavour to alleviate the concerns of both my councillors and the community in regard to the... 8.75 million has been talked about with some feeling this evening. If I could pursue that line with your assistance, I'd be very grateful. In the main, I'm going to need to call upon the responsible accounting officer. The first question I'd like to

Have an understanding of the responsible accounting officer is in regard to the Council's reported operating profit at the 30th of June 2019 . It's my understanding that Council reported a profit of $5.153 million, from the top of my head, and I'm wondering if the responsible accounting officer could confirm that and also confirm the point that the result was inspected by the , audited by the Agent of the Auditor-General of New South Wales and then subsequently

Approved by the Auditor-General herself as being a fair, a true and fair statement of Council's finances at the end of June 2019. Thank you,

Ms. We're asking questions. We need to stop the clock, I think. Mrs Galear, do you have an answer to that?

Yes, thanks, Mr Mayor. So yes, that's correct. As at the end of 30 June 2019, we recorded a surplus of 5.3 million. That surplus predominantly resulted from the prepayment of the financial assistance grant, 2.3 million, and the livability grant. So as advised before, we've received them in last year, therefore we accounted for them in the year, which has shown a more favourable result than it would have otherwise been. Thanks, Mr Mayor.

Further questions? Yes, indeed. I take it from what I've just been advised that the reported result of 5.3 million was favourably affected by 3.9 million livability grant and 2.3 million advance payment of the financial assistance grant by the federal government. Is that understanding correct?

Thanks, Mr Mayor, yes. Yes.

Thank you. In other words, if I could just make a statement, it is true to say that in actual fact, had Australian accounting standards been applied by the Auditor-General,

This council would have reported a 1 million dollar operating loss last year. However, the Auditor-General, in their own wisdom, and for whatever reasons we are not beholden to, decided that at the end of June last year they would ignore— Australian accounting standards and demand of this council, as it probably did with the other 127 in New South Wales, that they apply the livability grant and the city's deal money and the financial assistance grant back as income against that year. Now, that's not matching costs and income in the convention as is applied by the Australian accounting standards. The consequence of doing that is to impact on the next year, which happens to be the year in which we are now operate. That means that

Before we got out of the starting blocks, and unbeknownst at the time of formation of the budget, because the June accounts last year were prepared

Way after, months after, the budget was drawn up and approved by the council. So the council started with a deficit of $6.3 million to start with.

There was no getting away from it. That was ordained by the New South Wales Auditor-General. Very simple, cut and dried. No politicking, no nonsense, no nothing. Now, in addition to that, I'd like to ask the

Financial officer— Another question?

Another question.

Stop the clock, please.

Is it also— Correct of my understanding that the Auditor-General

Has further ordained that this Council, in the current financial year, accept a $423,000 cost in its operating statements as a result of

The depreciation expense related to rural fire services

Mobile vehicles , etc. Please. Thanks, Mr Mayor. Yes, so the Audit Office has directed all councils to bring all the fire trucks on their books, which they previously hadn't been, which means that the associated depreciation also comes on our books and affects our operating result.

Other questions?

Well, yes, we have 6.3 established

From

The prior year. We also have an impost of $423,000 imposed beyond the budget time in this year recently by the Auditor-General, saying, Well, sorry, folk out there in Hawkesbury, you're going to cop this in the neck. So the best part is $7 million is already explained and is unavoidable by whatever action any of us takes in this place, including the community, the general manager, the responsible accounting officer, anybody. I would hope the community can appreciate those

Positions and acknowledge that that

Has an effect on the reported loss

In the quarterly budget review statement by the staff. It is not, as the first and the second speakers tonight have suggested , a matter of indulgence and profligacy by the council or its staff.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Ross. Councillor Treed, you still wish to speak?

I just wanted to ask a couple of questions because the notice, the information in the notice of motion and what Councillor Rasmussen had said. So he said that there was only a tiny deficit and that there's money in the contingency funds to fix anything that we've, any problems we've got. So how much money do we have in the contingency funds then?

Mrs Gulia.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. So currently that reserve stands at around 790,000.

I think that's what I said too. And I said 720.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen. Councillor Treed.

And then from what Ms Gulia has said, that even no matter which way you paint it, the money is still closer, the deficit is still closer to millions and millions of dollars rather than just— Seven hundred thousand dollars or even the quoted sixty thousand dollars. Is

That a question?

I just

Want clarification.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. So the sixty thousand quoted by Councilor Rasmussen refers to the budget result if you take into account reserves. So when we talk about the operating result, as I explained earlier, is just purely looking at operating income and operating expenditure. It doesn't matter whether there's reserve funding or any other funding. So that's the result. With Council, as you would be aware, we do have a number of reserves, and they get taken into account sort of after you look at the operating result. So traditionally councils have been talking about the bottom line, including reserve transfers, and that's where we always spoke about a balanced budget. And the original budget for this year was also a balanced budget.

But when you look, when you ignore the reserves, if you like, and you just look purely at the operating result, which is what we're getting measured against, then that's the 8.7. That's the result. The fact that there is reserve transfers doesn't come into that result. So essentially, if I can explain it easier, the shortfall that we have overall in the December quarter review was sixty thousand. So we couldn't match through income and expenditure or reserves, we couldn't match it by sixty thousand. But the operating result, if you look just look at that result, that's where the 8.7 comes into effect.

Can I ask another question? So are we actually, are we insolvent? Sounds feely if we don't have money. Thanks,

Mr Mayor.

No, so essentially, so we are not insolvent. So insolvency actually refers to cash. So this is sort of not cash. But as we sort of discussed earlier, the 8.7. But 6.6 million of it refers to prepayment of grants. So essentially, we received the cash last year, we put it away, and we brought it against ... this year. So that 6.6 million, we are not looking for that money. We've got it; we just got it last year. So we are not insolvent.

Well, sounds like there's lots of things that clearly don't sound right, and that if we're meant to be able to do all these things and employ all of these people and all that sort of thing, I don't know how we're going to cover it all. So if I didn't have the money in the bank, I'd be insolvent.

Thank you. Any further speakers? You've had a— I

Had a question session. A

Question. You also spoke. You got another question? No

I'd like to move a further amendment, if it's possible. You can move a further amendment. If it would be considered by the mover and the seconder.

We'll put it up and we'll see what happens.

I would suggest that, in addition to the clarification and information being sought—and I'm doing this in the same vein and for genuine reasons— is that I believe, and I think I have mentioned this on a prior occasion, that we should have an understanding of the works, full works program as was presented to the community in our community consultation meetings, as to what projects have actually been completed to date.

What will be then completed through the rest of this financial year, in the view of the staff? And what would be any residual that is, or was indicated would be completed, and may still be awaiting work at the projected outstanding projects at the end of June next year, or this year, so to say?

Councillor Richards, you've been asked if you wanted to add that point. Yes.

Very happy to add that point to the motion

Well, thank you very much, Mr Mayor. That's wonderful. I think that'll help

Mrs Galea wants to talk to that, actually.

Just to clarify, so what you're asking for is the works completed to date, works expected to be completed in the rest of this financial year, and what would remain, and what would be projected to be unfinished as at 30th of June.

Thank you very much. To clarify, Mr Mayor, it's not all works, is it? It's just the works, the additional works slated for the SRV funds. Is that what you're talking about?

No, Mr Mayor. I envisage that those schedules, in total, I think we've already been through that

At a previous occasion. Could I ask a clarifying question then, Mr Mayor? Sure can. I'm very happy to ask that information. Is compiling that going to be a big-time commitment that's going to hold up the rest of the answers, though? Well , it could be done separately.

We'll take that on notice. We'll endeavour to do it. If it's going to be a problem, we may answer it in two tranches, but we would be wanting to get as much information in front of councillors as possible.

Okay. So you're accepting that point? Yes. Can

I clarify something on that point? Councillor Ross, do you mean the list that you want and the list that's incomplete, is that going to be based on being incomplete because we've run out of time or incomplete because we've run out of funds?

Incomplete for whatever reason. Yes, thank you.

Any further speakers?

I have a question.

Question, yes.

One of the speakers here tonight said that there's currently six jobs advertised online with a total cost of $500,000 or so to employ those six people. I just want clarification that that is the current situation for jobs that are actually being advertised, please.

We'll have to take that on notice, Mr Mayor. Take it on notice. Any further speakers? Councillor Wheeler. Thanks

Mr Mayor.

What I think is clear here is that many councillors , and probably until this came to a head, myself included, find wading through council's financial documents quite difficult. And I think until we have to interrogate the data well , we probably think we understand things that are put before council when we don't necessarily understand them. And that, of course, is where briefings come in. And I know we've pushed to shorten— The length of briefings to give us more information prior to those briefings so that we can make those briefings run more quickly and be less of a time impost for councilors. But what this clearly shows is that for these more difficult aspects of council business that require an understanding of accounting practices, and not just standard accounting practices, but the accounting practices that apply to local government, we actually need more time.

And so I find myself three and a half years into council with now having interrogated this data for a couple of weeks, probably better informed about some aspects of council's accounting and still potentially confused about others. But it would appear that the take-home messages from this are that we have, we received 6.43 million at the end of the previous budget term, which is now in the bank in reserves. That money isn't included in the income for this budget, and that budget doesn't, the budget that we passed doesn't include that income, but it does include expenditure related to that income, which means because of the accounting practices, we have this deficit supposedly of 6.43 million initially, added to what is a real deficit of 2.1 million that can be attributed to a variety of things, some of which are within council's control, many of which are not.

And those things include . Sullage fees due to water restrictions, RFS fleet depreciation, which is state government legislation, workers' compensation. We are not in the business of denying our workers adequate compensation, fair and adequate compensation for injury. Pitt Town and Vineyard cost increases because of differences in the cost of the works and the developer contributions when those developer contributions were collected. Valuer general valuation differences, replacement of a broken sewer pump. It's not that we can just turn it off. Contamination of waste.

A drop in the number of DAs and subdivisions and plumbing and drainage fees, which are all down on projected amounts rather than being increased costs that council can control . Some of these things are down because the economy is contracting and that's very likely to get worse. So one of the things that I think, as councillors who are supposed to be determining the strategy of this council, what we really need to be determining is not what we do about these external things. We have to have a buffer for those, and that's what we do with the contingency fund. But what we have to really interrogate is the bits that we have some capacity to control, so that when we come to next year's budget, we don't make those same incorrect assumptions again.

So what I would be hoping while we're going through the budget process is that we're trying to insulate against some of these internal factors and not predicting such high DA incomes.

Nearly all the information that's requested here can be found in every quarterly review and every operational plan. None of this is a secret. This is not, as alleged by one of the speakers, a lack of transparency. We are not hiding what we're doing and mismanaging. This is not comprehensive mismanagement. It's not difficult to get this information. They are public documents. To be alleging that, asking whether we should sack the general manager or sack the staff, this is the clear result of what happens when you jump on Facebook with cute emojis and you make allegations about an $8.7 million deficit that actually doesn't exist. You are ignoring council's accounting practices and a multi-million dollar reserve.

We're not insolvent, we're not broke, we're not mismanaging and we're not hiding anything. All of this information is public. There is no need to frighten the community into starting to ask whether we should be getting rid of staff. That's ludicrous. We have a shortfall of $60,000. We have moved to fix that shortfall. What would be irresponsible would be if we ignored that shortfall and we let the deficit progress. That would be mismanagement. We have not done that. This council has never done that. We have always moved, through the quarterly review process, to buffer for any projected deficit, and that's what we've done in this instance.

Thank you. Any further speakers? Question, Councillor Tree?

I asked questions before I didn't speak.

Very good. Thank you. Just briefly

Even, I've been here for a long time. I haven't been to briefings recently because they're just talk fests and I can't stand them. But when I used to attend briefings, Mr Mayor, even with all the lovely explanations and things, I just don't have a financial brain. My brain says to me, if I've got money coming in, I've got money going out. If I haven't got the right amount of money to pay for the things that are going out, then there's a big problem. And this , I mean, so I'm not, you know, I haven't got the brain to be able to make up anything like this or make anything spiritual about it. I just think, and I think everybody's agreeing that we're happy to get this information. Yes, it's all in those quarterly reviews, but lay people can't necessarily read that.

I mean, Councillor Ross and Councillor Conolly are probably the only two people who really understand it with any great detail because they've got that background. But in terms of— Being able to get your head around it, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for it to be put into a succinct and very straightforward way for people to be able to read it. So it'll be interesting to see when it comes back. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. Any further speakers? If not, Councillor Richards' right of reply.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll keep it brief. I just want to thank everybody for their cooperation in this debate tonight. Although there were some statements said that were inaccurate, and I will refute those. It's, I mean, if you look back at what happened at the meeting just gone, yes, the SRV was included in that motion, but Councillor Connelly, I remember, was the mover of the amendment, I think it was at that point, actually removed it from there, so it was not to confuse people. So I was very happy to do that at that point in time. So I'll just put that on the record and make that one clear. So when other councillors, they were trying to say this 8.7 million dollars is a magical number that's not real, I did write down what Ms Galea said when answering another councillor's question before.

If you ignore the reserves, and if I've misquoted you, please tell me. If you ignore the reserves and look at the operating result, it is the 8.7 million dollars. That's what it is. Whether you might like to say it's not or say it's something else, that was said here tonight in the chamber. That's what it is. So whether it's 8.7, which is the projected deficit now, or whether it does minimise down to the 2.1, as is forecast for the end of this budget term, albeit for those earmarked carryovers, there is still evidence that there is overexpenditure at this point in time. So basically, when this report does come back to council, I'm sure of us, as I said, hopefully in layman's terms, easy to read.

I'm sure that all of us here in the council chamber, whether we have an accountancy mind or not, we'll be able to digest that information, we'll be able to take it on board, and then we'll be able to get clear, you know, clarification on where this council is actually standing. So thank you, everybody, for your cooperation on that one tonight, and I look forward to that information coming to us in April. Thank you.

Thank you. That was right of reply. I'm going to put the motion now. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour: Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards, Councillor Calvert. Absent: Councillor Kotlash and Councillor Reynolds. Declare it carried.

We move now to items on block. Moved by Councillor Rasmussen, seconded by Councillor Richards. All those in favour, declare it carried.

Now move to item number 38. Someone like to move something about item 38?

I'll move the recommendation in the business paper,

Mr Mayor. Moved by Councillor Zamprogno. Do we have a seconder? I'll second that, Mr Mayor. Seconded, Councillor Rasmussen. Councillor Zamprogno, do you wish to speak to it? Yeah

It's just to ask a question about one of the elements of this. I was approached by some residents of Pitt Town who are pleased to see generally the progress

Towards the construction of a new sporting and community complex, but had a couple of related questions, which I've written down here somewhere. Here we go. No, I've got it here. So one relates to the larger parcel of land in Fernadell Drive , the southeast corner of which is dominated by some swale, some sloping land that leads to some drainage channels. So my question for staff firstly is, in order to achieve our ultimate purpose, is it true that that swale is going to need to be capped and filled and replaced with cell culverts? And is the cost of doing that prohibitive in the medium term, or is that part of the plan?

Do we have an answer for that?

Mr Organ. Through you, Mr Mayor, the various options being looked at for the site would require the drainage through the middle of the site to be piped to accommodate two playing fields within that, so they would need to be piped.

So that is part of, if I can call it, the master plan for that site. Concern was raised specifically... Over the fact that that land was part of a 2009 Section 64 plan and therefore might not be available for the uses that the community are expecting of that land. Is that an impediment to the plan for the use of this land?

Mr. Alban

Probably have to take that one on a little bit of notice, but the site itself and its zoning, the Section 64 plan would have been for drainage purposes, but that's not going to necessarily prohibit an alternate use for the land on top. But I'd need to just double check that so that I don't mislead you.

Thank you. And the last remark that I'll make is that the Pitt Town community, I think, are making it very clear that ultimately their desire for this land is that there would not be a combined facility of the sporting and the community complex. They're making it fairly clear, in terms of what I'm hearing anecdotally, is that they would like separate facilities. I know that's not relevant to the item that's on the business paper, but considering that we're looking at this land, I'm making that remark along the way.

Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. A few questions, if I may?

Yes.

I'm unsure of why we need to remove the height limit on that property at Pitt Town. Ten metres is quite high for a residential area. I don't understand why we would need to raise that for the site. Mr. Curds?

So it's recommended to remove because all of land that's owned for public recreation has no height limit. So it's recommended to be removed to be consistent with all other land that is the same way.

Right. So... That's not likely to then come back as something very, very tall and ugly on that site because of the zoning. Is that what you're saying? Absolutely

There's a master planning process going underway in terms of the actual facilities and sporting fields on the ground. That'll determine the actual heights of buildings that's proposed there. But our recommendation was just to be consistent with all public recreation zoned land.

So the community will have an opportunity to have input into a height limit, and we will be able to protect the height limit on that site in the next part of the process.

So, yeah, the community was part of the master planning process, and if the rezoning does proceed, then obviously subject to any further DA requirements.

Thank you. And a further question. I'm not sure why we need to sell the land to provide community facilities. Wasn't this development supposed to come with loads of community infrastructure? Why are we now selling a pocket of community land in order to pay for the infrastructure that the developer contributions were supposed to provide? Yes

Ms Perrin.

A developer contributions plan is, to some extent, a wish list and an anticipation of all the money that's due to come in. As we are experiencing at the moment, if all the land in the Pitt Town area does not get developed, the wish list doesn't eventuate. And essentially, from my understanding, when this was raised, you know, this time last year, the intent was we could sell this land and gain some money in order to facilitate the outcome of this community area.

Councillor Wheeler . Thank you. With regards to the vineyard site, there's a statement referring to that site that the site contains connectivity between significant vegetation , and yet— sorry, that's related to Pitt Town, I'm sorry— and yet it doesn't have any vegetation on the site at all. And I don't really understand how it's got connectivity with significant vegetation, and yet it doesn't have any vegetation. I'm not quite sure what we're connecting it with. Do

We

Have someone to address that, Mr. Kearns? So that's basically reflecting Council's current mapping. There's obviously a process that we're going through in terms of reviewing our overall vegetation mapping and biodiversity layers, and that will clarify that.

Councillor Wheeler. Because I suspect there is no vegetation there. In fact, the picture we have is that there is no vegetation. With regards to the vineyard site, is it possible that we can put some protection on the vegetation on that site? So I know it's a long skinny strip. It does have vegetation up the middle. It's not— it's too small to have any biodiversity significance under the current fairly appalling legislation. But I think it would be, I think it would be good if we could put some protection on that vegetation. It's part of the gateway to Windsor. It signifies a moving into a more vegetated area, particularly as Vineyard is increasingly developed. This Council might say that the vegetation is to remain, but we don't know what will happen down the track.

I think it would be nice to, if we could earmark that vegetation for protection. I think it does have some minor habitat impacts, but also some— Some water, soakage and runoff mediation impacts.

That was a question, I think. Yes.

So if the matter did proceed to Gateway and we can certainly consider the vegetation on that site in terms of further protections for that.

What sort of timeline would we be looking? Would that come back to this council or is that likely to come to the next council?

Obviously subject to the date of getting a gateway determination. So if this council resolved to proceed with the planning proposal, obviously we'd submit it to the department. If we get a gateway, you know, within three months, then we'll progress the matter forward. So there's no guarantee that it's going to be within this term of the council, but certainly endeavour to progress the matter forward.

I apologise, I've just asked you how long is a piece of string, haven't I? I guess I'm looking for some guidance here, Mr Mayor, on how we can protect the vegetation on that site. I'm hoping someone can help me do that, please. Mrs Perrin, Mr

Kearns, do we have an answer to that? Mrs Perrin. Essentially, we will take note of the desire of this council and if it does come back to the new council, then it's something that we would cater for within our report to the new council.

If it's not resolved with this council. Councillor Zamprogno has just

Indicated that he

Would be

Happy

To include a dot point in the recommendation. Is it possible, is it workable, I guess is what I'm asking, to include it, say under point 2(a)(1), that protection be placed on the vegetation on the site.

Yep, we can do that. Thank you.

So, Councillor

I'm happy to incorporate that, and if I take Councillor Wheeler's sense, then the recommendation would now include an extra point under 2A( 2 ) stating that the planning proposal include Council's desire to protect the vegetation.

Councillor Rasmussen, a seconder, are you happy with that? Yes, I am, Mr Mayor. Thank you. Any further discussion? Councillor Rasmussen.

Question, Mr Mayor. I want to go back to the height limit, and I did hear what the planner said about the RE1 Public Recreation Zone. I'm just wondering why we wouldn't go—we're saying we will make it, we'll harmonise it, or make it uniform with that zone. Why wouldn't we consider going the other way, and whatever RE1 Public Recreation Reserve we've got, we would actually put our 10 metre limit on that instead of making it no limits, unrestricted height? I think there's a, to me there's a danger in that, so, but why wouldn't we go the other way?

Mr Kearns.

So, if we're talking about all RE1 zoned land, that's certainly a matter that can be considered as part of our review of the LEP that's upcoming this next year. We're obviously required to have an updated LEP process completed by middle of next year, so that's certainly something we can consider as part of that process.

One more question. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Now, I think we said that the— Any DA that will be submitted for this piece of land, would we set the, or would we apply the 10 metre restriction that normally applies? Or are we going to say, look, this is 12 or 15 or whatever, and we'll let that through? Seems to me that we ought to be saying 10 metres, which is across the rest of the Hawkesbury. We should put the same restriction on here.

That's the same question, isn't it?

Yeah. So the merits of a particular DA are obviously assessed as part of that DA, and whether it's proposed buildings that are a certain height, then they're considered against the merits assessment at that time. So if the LEP is amended to have no height limit, it's still a merits-based assessment as part of the development assessment process. But similarly, if the LEP still has a height of 10 metres, then it's obviously assessed against that criteria.

Any further speakers?

Thank you.

If not, Councillor Zamprogno, right of reply.

None required, Mr Mayor.

Not required. In that case, I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour is Councillor Richards, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Ross and Councillor Calvert. Absent is Councillor Reynolds and Councillor Kotlash and Councillor Tree. Declared carried.

Mr Mayor. Yes, Councillor Ross . May I draw your attention before we depart this element altogether. I thought we just did. The attachment one to item 38 at page 6 of the report has a very worrying word included in the narration.

Councillor Ross, we just finished that item.

Yes, I'm just pointing out a slight problem with the wording.

You can point it out, but it can't be included in the discussion. But tell us what it is.

Well, the subject land forms a slither of generally flat land. This is indicating something rather formidable, a worry. Perhaps the author might have decided

Not to

Use the spell check and we should have had sliver.

I'll refer that to the author.

S-L-I-V-E-R.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. We move on.

Now to item 39. Yes. Move the recommendation. Move on item 39. Second that. Moved by Councillor Conolly, seconded by Councillor Rasmussen. Councillor Conolly, do you wish to speak? No. Does anyone wish to speak?

Oh, Mr Mayor, just briefly. Sorry, have I got the floor? Yes. Thank you. Yeah, I just want to thank the staff for doing this. There's a lot of work here, and it's of great interest to an awful lot of people, not just in the Hawkesbury but across our nation. So there's a lot of work gone into this, and I do want to thank them for whoever did it. I suspect there's one or two or three, but anyway, they've done a great job and I do appreciate the work they put into this.

Further

Speakers? Yes, thank you. Councillor Ross, yes. Thank you, Mr Mayor. With this volume of work that has been completed ,

It would also be wonderful if there was a register, if you like, of the persons—

Oh

Good. Okay. Well, in that instance, it might be a wonderful idea also for us to have in our back pocket that information

To be used in conjunction with a particular type of tourism, which may attract quite some interest in the area and visitation to the area, and afford commercial benefit to the area.

Thank you, Mr Conroy, you taking that on board? Yes. Yes, it's taken on board. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr May. I do want to thank the staff. This has been a very large body of work. It's been funded by the Office of Environment and Heritage. Mr Kearns is to be congratulated for the amount of time and effort his department has put into this, along with Craig Johnson. The council has really progressed its heritage management under this term of council, and the staff are to really be commended on the work that they've managed to achieve in a department that really didn't have the resources that was fitting for an area with such a rich heritage prior to this term. So these are really useful documents. It comes on the back of additional work engaging with groups that manage cemeteries. St Albans is a really notable example where the community has rallied around cemetery management.

Council has organised workshops with members of the community. They've done some really lovely work, and it does attract tourists there. There is quite a lot of grave spotters. Council also does maintain a register. If you speak to the local studies librarian, Michelle Nichols, she and her husband Jonathan Auld have maintained a cemeteries register for more than a decade in the Hawkesbury, and you can access that information through the library.

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you. Yes, I just think it's actually quite an astonishing document. I haven't read all of it yet, I have to be honest. I've flicked through it, but I will read it, and I think it's also a really important historical document for us to have. And there's some really, really interesting little anecdotes and things in there, and the examples of all the various types of tombstones and things like that. I just think it's amazing and wonderful, and I also want to commend the staff on having done it. It's, you know, something that I'll have as some bedtime reading. Before I end up in one. Thanks.

Any further speakers? If not, Councillor Conolly, right of reply Not necessary. I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour: Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Calvert. Absent: Councillor Tree, Councillor Kotlash and Councillor Reynolds. Declare it carried.

Item 40, please. Anyone have the desire to move item 40?

I'd move that, Mr. Mayor

Councillor Rasmussen. Seconded by Deputy Mayor. Councillor Rasmussen, you wish to speak?

No, Mr. Mayor, I think that's enough. Thank you.

Anyone wish to speak? Item 40. If not, Councillor Ross, yes, sorry. I

Found the, if you like, the discussion very turgid and uninformative, and I would request

That more consideration be given to the discussion element of this report in future term to also provide better information for both the public and my fellow councillors, please.

Thank you. Any further speakers? If not, Councillor Rasmussen, do you wish to have right of reply?

Not necessary, Mr. Mayor, thank you.

In that case, I'll move the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour, Councillor Richards, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Calvert. Those against? Councillor Ross, which way were you voting?

I voted for.

You need to put your hand up.

I did.

He didn't hold it there for long. In favour was also Councillor Ross I might. Absent is Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Tree. Declare it carried.

Any further recommendations,

Mr Mayor? Second that, Mr Mayor. Councillor Rasmussen. Councillor Conolly, you wish to speak?

Only to ask a question, Mr Mayor. When will we have reported to us—

Before you go any further, no, Councillor Wheeler is next item, 42. That's 42, isn't it, Councillor Wheeler? Yes. Seems

Completely irrelevant .

Blame

The general manager for that. Councillor Conolly. Thank you. Just a question, Mr Mayor. When are we expecting a further report on the impacts of these land revaluations to be modelled to us on a per suburb basis?

Mrs Galea.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. We can bring something to Council at the next meeting.

Thanks.

Further speakers? Councillor Rasmussen. Yeah,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, given that this is an, what can I say, an opportunity for great discussion and also division in the Hawkesbury and the Council, I'm just wondering whether, in fact, I see the report and to me it's fine because I have the background to understand, you know, what is not said in the report, the bits left out, and there's lots. But I'm just wondering whether we could make this a bit more digestible so that people out there reading some of this will get a very clear understanding of what's actually happening to this and then the implication that flows on for rates. Now I noticed that the current rate— sorry, the current valuations across the whole of the Hawkesbury has gone from 12.6 billion to 14.14 billion.

So people, I might— Think that some people might pull that out and go, ‘Whoa, that’s going to be a big hike in our rates.’ So I’m just wondering whether to forestall any Facebook entries, we could try and get some, you know, a bit more detail, well, a bit more translatable information out there to people so they clearly understand it, so we don’t have to go through the back here, you know, debating it all over again to correct the record. I’m just wondering whether we could do that, because it is a point of contention, as we know, Mr Conroy.

Mr Mayor, we can turn our minds to that and, as Ms Gillea said, there’ll be a report coming in the near future. We can look at that as well. Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Richards.

Thank you. When we get those figures next time, which is the— just to check, it’s the suburb by suburb with the average rate, what the average rate will be based on the new land value. Is that right?

Mrs Gillea.

Yes , we can provide that

Under the current structure. Yes. Yeah. Can we, when we get that, have a side-by-side of the three years ago and the now? Is that possible, please, in that briefing or in that report ? I don’t know where it was coming to. Was it coming to a briefing or a meeting?

Mr Conroy. We’re still working through the details. We’ll try and get it to a briefing and a report.

Okay. If I could have, yeah, the three years ago and the now with the averages, that would be lovely. Thank you.

I think that was a yes. Yeah

Any

Further questions? Our speakers? No. Councillor Conolly, right of reply, if this— If there's no— a bit quick. That was righter to apply. I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand in favour: Councillor Richards, Councillor Connelly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Ross, Councillor Calvert. Absent is Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Kotlash and Councillor Tree. Declared carried.

Item 42, which I think Councillor Wheeler is declaring an interest in

Yes, thanks, Mr Mayor. I'm declaring a pecuniary interest in item 042. My husband is employed by Hawkesbury City Council in Windsor and Richmond libraries. Thank you.

You're leaving? I am. Thank you. Anyone feeling? I'm happy to move, Mr Mayor. Councillor Rasmussen and you seconding that, Councillor Conolly?

I'll second that, Mr Mayor.

You're not. Okay. Seconded by the Deputy Mayor. Okay, Councillor Rasmussen, you wish to speak?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I think we should support this call for a more sustainable funding for our libraries. I noticed last year, I think it was, or the year before, sorry, we were a bit subject to a random cut of some, whatever it was, ten thousand. But then it got made up by an increase of fifty-five thousand from the state government, for which we are grateful. However, the vagaries of this, I think, does give difficulty for Council to manage important library services. So it would be, I think, in our interest to support the Library Association to lobby for and write and do the things that they are suggesting that we should do to make state government aware that we need a sustainable funding model for our libraries in this state.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I'll speak against the motion. I think that, as Councillor Rasmussen said, there's been some small , very, very small volatility in the amount of public library funding we've received over the last three years. If you look at that table, you know, in the vicinity of $10,000, you know, it's nothing major, and then increased more than five-fold the next year. But I think the reason I would suggest, whilst I'm always in favour of putting a handout to the New South Wales Government, asking them to fund our services to a greater degree, I think that's great. But why I won't support the motion is because we're actually calling for the State Government to legislate library funding on a permanent basis.

And one, I don't feel like I've ever been elected by the community to represent their views on permanent State Government funding for anything, being a local councillor. But two, I also, just on the merits of the argument, would disagree that you should ever fix any one particular service, the funding in legislation that then needs, literally needs an Act of Parliament to change the funding in the future. I think that's, you know, I don't think that's the way that anybody ever intended these things to work. And I don't know that we're the people that are representatives of the community that should be advocating for these things. We're elected to local government, not to lobby for State Government budgetary legislation.

Thank you, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Thank you, Mr Mayor

I speak in favour of it. I disagree with Councillor Conolly because I think it's calling on us just to support the association doing that, and we're supporting the association. I think it is particularly important in light of the transitioning type of function of libraries in this day and age, where we see that they're providing much more than what they used to, and in many cases they're filling gaps in the community, particularly in provision of internet. In this area, we know there's multiple areas, myself included, that have had issues with internet for long periods of time. I've been to the library and seen people lined up to be getting internet access in there, students, people applying for jobs, all sorts of people utilising the provision of the internet, which is of course the — sorry , Siri's just recording everything I'm saying and taking away my note.

Yeah. So that's something that they're providing. That's a changing— they're offering a lot of digital services for people that don't have access to them. But also we are utilising our library and our precinct there in the extreme weather conditions, which we know are going to increase. So we've had a number of days over 40 where we've had the library open for longer, and so people are learning it's there and they're learning it's a safe and comfortable place that they can go. So I think that it is undergoing a transformation, and whereas that's not directly linked to this specific notice of motion, I think we need to recognise that any push to get a more sustainable funding model for our libraries is a good thing to move towards because I think they'll play a very big part in the future of community hubs and so on.

Thank you. Further speakers? Councillor Ross.

Mr Mayor, I'm just wondering if the concerns of Councillor Conolly are so pressing upon him that he might like to even suggest an amendment to enable him to, if you like, be collegiate and try and bring the chamber together, please.

He might do that, but it's totally up to Councillor Conolly. I would have thought that when he spoke he would have moved it then, but I will check. Councillor Conolly. Thank you

For your indulgence, Mr Mayor. To take that out of it, we would actually then just be campaigning against a cut that has been replaced with a large increase this year. It wouldn't really mean anything, so I don't think so. So

His answer is no.

Thank you for your advice, Mr Mayor.

I summarised it. I interpret it as no. Okay. Any further speakers?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm beyond the question, if I may, to make a contribution. In

Any representations, I feel it's important, from this Council's point of view, to stress the scattered nature of our population and the fact that we are also providing services at distance, and having to accommodate that as well as part of our community involvement. And I think if that were possibly better appreciated as well, that might add some gravitas to our— Claims, please.

Thank you. We'll take that on board. Any further speakers ? Moved by Councillor Rasmussen, I believe. We should have right of reply.

Mr Mayor, thank you. In

That case, I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour, Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen and Councillor Garrow, Deputy Mayor and Councillor Calvert. Against is Councillor Conolly, Councillor Samprogno, Councillor Richards. Absent is Councillor Tree, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds. Declare it carried.

Next item is item 43.

Move the recommendation.

Moved by Councillor Conolly. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Can we just wait please till Councillor Wheeler comes back.

We're all here? Yes. It's been moved by Councillor Conolly, seconded by Councillor Rasmussen. Councillor Conolly, you wish to speak to it.

Very briefly, I think we should go ahead and adopt this change. We're moving our risk profile from extremely conservative to very conservative, so I don't think there's any great change, but hopefully a bit more flexibility as to what we can do.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. So, Councillor Conolly has hit the nail on the head. I think that we were previously very conservative, and I think it was useful for us to have the consultant come and speak to us at the last briefing, where he pointed out that actually our investment returns are currently less than inflation. So we were not just, we were more than conservative previously, and I think it's time to move on. We're not pushing it. We're not really pushing the barrow out here. This is not a high-risk policy by any stretch of the imagination. We, according to the consultant, are probably still very conservative as far as other councils go, and I think it was useful to hear as well that we're within the parameters that the Office of Local Government would like councils to adopt.

What I would like to do is beef up clause 11.4 to include divesting from financial institutions and companies that invest in fossil fuels in line with Council's climate emergency declaration. I would also like the policy to outline some other ethical concerns, particularly forced and child labour. The long-term economic health of fossil fuel assets has for some time been considered to be poor. Councillor Kotlash and I attended a

Conference discussing the impacts of climate change on councils, and one of the things that we were advised to do at that conference was to divest as quickly as possible within the limits that this policy sets. So not adopt a high-risk strategy where you pick less financially secure investments, but that you do specify, where possible, that the investments that you pick should be ethical and that those ethics should include divestment. Forty other councils, at last count, or the information that I can find readily available, have already divested from fossil fuels. It's a move being made by councils across the country and not necessarily by progressive councils. Several far more conservative councils have also moved that way.

In particular, councils in coastal areas where they can see clear impacts of climate change eroding their coastline, and they're the ones who, until the fires hit at the end of last year, were really seeing the impacts of climate change. I think we've now seen in this council term the impacts— sorry, in this summer— the impacts of climate change much closer to home. This isn't a risky financial strategy by any means. The policy doesn't allow us to adopt a risky financial strategy. It clearly states that we can only pick those investments where they provide the same level of security and the same interest rate as comparable. fossil fuel or non-ethical concerns, but many big investment fund managers across the globe recognise this as a useful and secure strategy moving forward.

And I think, given the mood of this council, given the aspirations of this council to be an actor in pushing for climate change mitigation, I think this is a sensible way forward. So it will be a fairly minor amendment. To

Clarify, you're looking to change the motion?

I'm just moving an addition to the motion, if possible, Mr Mayor. Sorry, I'm just chasing.

Electronic

98. Thank you. So it's clause 11.4 where it proposes to add a clause in the policy. So in the recommendation it would be

That Council adopt the investment policy as attached to this report with the addition of a fossil fuels free clause under clause 11.4.

Can

I get a

Comment on that, Mr Conroy?

Ms Galia.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. So to clarify, it is suggested that we wouldn't invest in those type of organisations. Okay. So we actually discussed this with our advisor when we were looking at this, and the advice was that currently the market is very limited. It may improve in the future, but currently it would be very difficult. To restrict our investments that way. And that is the reason why clause 11.4 is the way it is, to essentially introduce the investigation into those ESG organisations, but without restricting us into where we can invest. So if we were to go down that track, I would suggest that we would have to do, prior to amending the policy, I would suggest that we would do some further investigation, perhaps bring a report back to Council about what the limitations of amending the policy in that manner would be.

Council Wheeler?

I certainly understand what Mrs. Galea is saying, and that is one of the problems with divestment, is that there isn't, until recently, there hasn't been significant market power to push financial institutions to provide these investments, and that is actually the whole point of bodies like councils , increasingly insurance companies and financial investment managers. The push for divestment is to increase that market. It's my understanding that because the clause requires us to only divest where the investment is comparable in terms of risks and investment returns, that it can sit there effectively as a sleeper clause until those investment opportunities open up. And I guess that's what I'm intending to do with this, rather than— Having what is currently a nice but not very directive clause that we would rely on until something else came back to us.

Mrs. Collier.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. So when we discussed this matter with the advisor, what he actually advised is that at this stage, there is actually quite a number of companies that may be investing in those things, fossil fuels, et cetera, that actually do also invest a lot in other good initiatives, and that essentially divestment in those organisations could actually lead to debt investments getting lower. So it can be a bit of a not resulting the desired effect. So that was his advice, that it's not very clear out there who's doing what, and yes, it may look good on paper to say we're not doing those things, but in reality, you know, you may not actually be supporting investments in the right things.

The policy does get reviewed every year, so it will come back to council in 12 months' time, so there is always that opportunity to revise it at that stage as well. What my concern is is restricting ourselves. So we can certainly look at those things when we're doing investments, but having a policy that restricts us from investing, like say, for example, if all the four major banks have some sort of investment in those things, which, I mean, these things, when you start defining them, they can get quite tricky in what's what and what is not. So let's say, you know, all the four banks, four major banks have some sort of association that would really make it difficult for us to make any sort of investment that would be in compliance with the policy in terms of risk and ratings and all that as well.

So effectively, our policy is currently too risk averse to accommodate a divestment clause.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. It's not a matter of being risk averse. So at this stage, the market for those, for the ESG organisations is not mature enough, and there's still lack of clarity when organisations says that they don't do certain things, whether they actually do or they don't. So in reality, when you sort of dig deeper into those things, certain organisations may not actually be doing what they appear to be doing or what's stated that they do. So this is the advice we've got, that yes, there are other councils that have got a more aggressive policy in that regard, but he has told us that, you know, they do have difficulties in practice implementing those things. So I think what we've added here is quite a good step forward.

We haven't had any clause like that to date in our policy. The other thing too, I've spoken to the advisor today. So sitting underneath this policy will be the day-to-day strategy on how we invest, and that will change depending on the environment. So, for example, right now, he said his advice to us, due to the coronavirus, what it's doing to the market and all that, his advice to us would be to continue investing as we have been. So whilst the policy would allow us to go with certain other lower rated organisations, right now the strategy, it would not be wise to actually do that right now. Where

We invest and how we invest will depend on what's happening, but the policy is the boundaries within which we have to work. So I would strongly recommend that prior to actually changing the policy to add something like that, like you're suggesting, is that we would perhaps come back with a report with a bit more detail on what exactly that would mean. Like when we define these organisations, what exactly what are we looking at? Whether they invest in things, whether they— because they could be investing in fossil fuel, but they could also be investing in a lot of other good initiatives, which we wouldn't want to draw money away from.

So, Councillor Wheeler, how do you wish to proceed?

I certainly take Mrs Galea's points. I think

That that's a really valuable insight, I think, into what she very correctly identifies is not a particularly mature market at this point. And I think that it is a limitation of our—

But I just find the current clause a bit soft . Exactly. I might just sit here and cogitate and let other people speak.

If there are other people to speak, otherwise you might not have much time to cogitate. I'll speak so she can cogitate.

No, I think that I do also understand what Mrs Galea is saying in that there are some fossil fuel companies that are transitioning out of it and into renewables or into other areas of investment themselves, and that is a limitation if they did have some good projects and we had eliminated them by their connection to fossil fuels. Is there an opportunity then to give some sort of, in principle— is this what you're trying to do?— some sort of in-principle support for further investigating it? So in-principle support for that, but to be further investigated to return when you can get the information or something.

I think that's what Mrs Galea recommended. So, Councillor Wheeler, have you cogitated?

Well, the Deputy Mayor has done it for me, which is very decent of her. So, could we add either as an amendment or if Councillor Zamprogno is, I think it was Councillor Zamprogno, moved it, Councillor Conolly, I'm sorry, an additional point to the recommendation that Council receive a report on the implementation of clause 11.4 and the potential for divestment.

Councillor Conolly, are you happy to add that? And the seconder is Councillor Rasmussen. He's happy to add that as well. It's been added, Councillor Wheeler. Any further discussion? Councillor Ross.

I'm rather concerned by the responsible accounting officer's response to Councillor Wheeler. As I read 11.4,

The change foreshadowed here is that with this new policy, there is a preference given to ESG, with all other things being equal. And that does indicate a firm inclination on the part of Council to foster ESG investment without prejudicing things. And I think, frankly, that 11.4 is sufficiently strong at this stage. I don't oppose what Councillor Wheeler is suggesting, but I think there is quite an expression of intent in 11.4 as it stands.

Thank you. Thank you. Further speakers? If not, Councillor Conolly, right of reply.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Just to put on the record that I'm happy to support the request for further information, but I wouldn't want that to be taken as implicit support for potentially that objective. And I look forward to considering that in further detail when the report comes back.

Thank you. That was right of reply. I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour is Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Calvert absent, is Councillor Tree, Councillor Kottlash and Councillor Reynolds. Declare it carried.

We move now to item 45. Move that, Mr Mayor. Councillor Richards, I think you declared an interest.

So I do have an interest to declare. Do you want me to go ahead? Yes. Yes, a significant non-pecuniary interest. The item discusses the third crossing of the Hawkesbury River, which I was successful in getting funding during my federal campaign.

So you'll be leaving. Thank you.

Move that, Mr Mayor.

Moved by the Deputy Mayor. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Wheeler, you wish to speak?

Just briefly, Mr Mayor. These minutes came up last time, and there was a concern that they needed to be rediscussed at the Floodplain Committee, which they were last week, and during which the committee, we resolved that the minutes would always be given to the members of the committee prior to them coming back here for ratification to Council. So I think I did speak on the minutes in the last meeting, so no need to do that again. But just to draw that to attention, they have come back to be ratified. That's why they're here again.

Thank you. Further speakers? Councillor Ross.

Through you, Chair, is it possible to have an indication if there was any amendment to the matter

No. The answer is no. Any further speakers? No further speakers. Deputy Mayor, do you want right of reply? Not this time. I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Ross, Councillor Calvert. Absent is Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Kotlash, and Councillor Reynolds. Declare it carried.

Thank you. Item 46, Deputy Mayor. Move

That, Mr Mayor.

Do we have a seconder? Councillor Conolly. Deputy Mayor, you wish to speak?

Just briefly, Mr Mayor, and I'd like to thank the staff for the note by management that's been included, which really encapsulates what the sentiment of the motion was. This was an issue raised with me by a couple of residents in the St Albans area, that they don't get this information. It's not our responsibility, but they felt that if the information was given to Council, that Council was putting out better information at the time than they could get from the Live Traffic app. There's seriously some issue around the real-time dissemination of information during emergencies, and I'm gathering that will be part of the review of the fires and possibly any review of the floods. The main thing was that because for the people who live on the other side, and this was residents in our section of the Wisemans Ferry area, they had no way to make a choice of whether they would drive up through the Central Coast and all the way around.

Someone who had a business in Windsor, because they couldn't get any information about how long the bridge was likely to be closed, and even after the river had gone down, the bridge was closed for a significant time because the person to clean the ramp was actually on the other side of the river and couldn't get over to do it. So just, it's an anomaly, but it's something that impacts those individuals that have to make those decisions, and it's something that there's the capacity to have a better system of communication around that. And this is just simply calling, as the staff have identified, that we give a submission to Transport for New South Wales to actually improve that so that in future emergency situations, people have adequate and accurate information.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I just wanted to add that you may remember we're going to initiate a dashboard, an emergency dashboard for the Council. I had a look at the one from the North Coast, Port Macquarie, I think it is, Lismore, is it? And they have strategic cameras located around the district. I'm hoping that when we get to that stage, we might have some strategic cameras located on the ferries so that people can know whether the ferry is actually running or not. They just go online and look at it. Of course, that'll be a few years off and probably a few hundred thousand dollars off, but I'm hoping that we can do something like that in future so people can have a central place where they can get all that information. Any further speakers? Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor. Vis-à-vis your most recent comment just a moment or two ago, I would inquire of the staff as to why that is not now possible. We have CCTV on the vessel, as I understand it. It would only be a matter of transmitting that through to a point of somewhere within the organisation to view the screen.

Mr. Thornley, do you have an answer to that? Mr .

Organ. Take it through you, Mr. Mayor. I take it that you're referring to the Lower Portland ferry. Oh, indeed. Yeah. So we do have CCTV on there, but it's not for live streaming purposes. We'd need to probably modify that and also look at how we would actually transmit that and the cost of the data transmission, given it'd be through wireless links and so on through there. So it can be used for monitoring in the event of an incident, a security issue, but not as a traffic one. So it'd be some work to convert it to that, as well as to make it live.

But the takeout , my understanding of that would be that somewhere off the vessel there is a recording of that visual information being taken and held. Otherwise, it's pretty pointless if it's purely all within the vessel, and for some unknown reason the vessel were to take the form of a submarine.

Mr. Holgan, do we have an answer to that? Is the data, is the information held on the vessel?

I understand the data is transmitted in batches from the vessel, but not as continuous and live.

Understand. Look, the other point, it's not strictly germane to the information . I'm appalled by the lack of proper signage on Lower Portland Road. It's never been good. It certainly doesn't indicate that there is a ferry there , well back in advance, and there is a straight portion of roadway coming from the Windsor side or Bull Ridge Road side , and I think it needs to be far better signposted and directions, arrows , etcetera, etcetera, so that people know it's there. It's so easy to drive past the entry road. It's just amazing. Mr. Holgan, will we take

That on board? He's taking it on board. That's a nautical term, yes.

Could we take that on board? Also suggest that the Hills might profit by similar things, because it should advance tourism as well.

Mr Organs is going to take that on board as well. Thank you. Any further discussion?

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'll just speak briefly in support of the motion. These issues were also raised with Infrastructure New South Wales and the Department of Planning in the last floodplain risk management committee meeting, where we had a bit of a wrap-up with Infrastructure New South Wales of our flood experiences. And one of the issues was the predictability of closing the bridges, but also the ferries. It was also a matter that came up at the River Users Group meeting that I attended on your behalf last week. So again, concerns from river users about getting some information. The Live Traffic app isn't very reactive and it can be difficult. I want to use the term navigate, but that seems inappropriate given the bad puns already.

Sure. Sorry. It was. I'm very sorry. So I think this is timely and useful. I think that it's been a while since we've had this much water down the river. So they're all things that we need to bring back into everyone's consciousness.

Further speakers ? If not, Deputy Mayor, do you wish to have right of reply?

Not necessary, thank you. Okay

I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour is Councillor Richards, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Rasmussen, and Councillor Ross, Councillor Calvert. Absent is Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Cottlesh, Councillor Tree. Declare it carried.

I don't think we have any questions from last time or next time, do we? Is there any other general business? No. We move into confidential. Moved that way, Mr Mayor. Moved by Councillor Rasmussen, seconded Councillor Wheeler. All those in favour say aye. Declare it carried.

Mr Mifsud, I believe you're going to give us a report on the confidential.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. In regard to item 48, whilst in closed session Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Lyons-Buckett, seconded by Councillor Wheeler, that: one

Council agree to enter into a new licence agreement with the existing tenants of the property known as Hawkesbury Professional Business Chambers, 1 Dight Street, Windsor, as outlined in this report, as well as any new tenants that are secured; two, the General Manager be authorised to approve minor amendments to the licence agreement if necessary; three, authority be given for the licence agreements and any other relevant documentation in association with this matter to be executed under the seal of Council; four, details of Council resolution be conveyed to the proposed tenants, together with the advice that Council 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 the motion were Councillors Ross, Rasmussen, Garrow, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Zamprogno, Conolly, Richards and Calvert. Not present were Councillors Reynolds, Kotlash and Tree. In regard to item 49, whilst in closed session Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Rasmussen, seconded by Councillor Lyons-Buckett, that: one

Council agree to enter into a deed of settlement with Transport for New South Wales, TfNSW, for the Windsor Bridge replacement project. Two, in conjunction with Part 1 above, Council agreed to discontinue the Class 3 proceedings by instructing Council's solicitor to complete and file a notice of discontinuance. Three, authority be given for the deed of settlement and any other relevant documentation in association with this matter to be executed under the seal of Council. Four, authority be given for a copy of Council's resolution to be provided to Council's solicitor, to TfNSW, together with the advice that no binding agreement exists between the parties until the deed of settlement has been finalised and signed by both parties.

Voting in favour of the motion were Councillors Rice, Rasmussen, Garrow, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Zamprogno, Conolly, Richards and Calvert. Not present were Councillors Reynolds, Kotlash and Tree. In regard to item 50 whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Wheeler, seconded by Councillor Rasmussen, that: One, Council proceed to public exhibit and notify the proposed lease to the Upper Hawkesbury Power Boat Club for the clubhouse located at Governor Phillip Park, 1 Livingston Street, Windsor, as outlined in the report in accordance with sections 47, 47A of the Local Government Act 1993. Two, at the expiration of the public notification period outlined in 1 above, the following action be taken: A, should any submissions be received regarding the proposed lease to Upper Hawkesbury Power Boat Club for the clubhouse located at Governor Phillip Park, 1 Livingston Street, Windsor, a further report be submitted to Council; or B, one, should no submissions be received, Council enter into a new lease with Upper Hawkesbury Power Boat Club for the clubhouse located at Governor Phillip Park, 1 Livingston Street, Windsor as outlined in the report.

Two, authority be given for any 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 lessee together with the advice that Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of the resolution until such time as appropriate legal documentation to put such resolution into effect has been agreed to and executed by all parties. Voting in favour of this resolution were Councillors Ross, Rasmussen, Garrow, Wheeler, Zamprogno, Conolly, Richards and Calvert. Not present were Councillors Reynolds, Lyons-Buckett, Kotlash and Tree. In regard to item 51, whilst in closed session Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Lyons-Buckett, seconded by Councillor Wheeler, that one, Council agree to enter into a new lease with Leofari Holdings Pty Ltd for the property known as Shop 6 Glossodia Shopping Village as outlined in the report, two, authority be given for the lease and any other relevant documentation associated with this matter be executed on the seal of Council.

Three details of Council's resolution be conveyed to the proposed lessee together with the advice that Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of the resolution until such time as appropriate legal documentation to put such resolution into effect has been agreed to and executed by all parties. Voting in favour of this motion were Councillors Ross, Rasmussen, Garrow, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Zamprogno, Conolly, Richards and Calvert. Not present were Councillors Reynolds, Kotlash and Tree. In regard to item 52, whilst in closed session Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Rasmussen, seconded by Councillor Wheeler, that one , the current contract for the maintenance and repair of SCADA and PLC communication systems, contract number T0056, between Council and ITECH Corporation and SAGE Automation be extended until midnight on 5 June.

2022 , based on the existing terms and conditions of the contract, to the seal of Council be affixed to any necessary documentation. Voting in favour of the motion were Councillors Ross, Rasmussen, Garrow, Wheeler, Zembrogno, Conolly, Richards and Calvert. Not present were Councillors Reynolds, Lyons-Buckett, Kotlash and Tree.

Thank you. Someone like to move we accept that report. Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Zembrogno, all those in favour? Declare it carried. Is there any further business? If not, I'll declare the meeting closed at 9:18 p.m. and hand over to Mr Conroy.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. There's just three quick matters.