28 April 2020 - Ordinary

2020. I'd like to first acknowledge the traditional custodians of this land, the Darug people, and pay respect to Elders both past and present. I'll now hand over to the General Manager for some procedural matters.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd like to begin by advising staff that are in the building that we do have some emergency procedures in place, and that if need be, we'll follow the advice of our wardens and proceed in an orderly manner. I'd also like to advise members of the public that in accordance with the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of the Council are recorded, and 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. If we were to have people speaking tonight, the provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary, and if any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting.

But that's not the case tonight. 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.

Finally, it's also requested that if any person is in attendance and has a mobile phone, that they either turn it off to silent. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Conroy. Do we have any apologies, please?

Nope.

Do we know about Councillor Ross?

No word on Councillor Ross. We'll put him down as apology at this stage.

Move that way, Mr Mayor. Okay, thank you. Do we have any declarations of interest?

No declarations of interest? No.

We move to the minutes, and I believe Councillor Ross wanted to discuss the minutes, but he's not here. So would someone like to move that we hold the minutes over for a little while in case he turns up? Move that way, Mr. Mayor. Councillor Rasmussen. Seconded, Councillor Reynolds. All those in favour say aye. Aye. Declare it carried.

Now the order of business tonight is the same as the table of contents on page one of your book, because we don't have any public speakers. There is one item to be moved on block, but that's in the confidential section, so we might move it then. So the first item up for discussion is item number 72, the draft operational plan. Would someone like to move something?

Move that, Mr Mayor. Moved by Councillor Rasmussen.

Second,

Mr Mayor.

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

Thank you, Mr Mayor. The first thing I want to say is that I guess we have all noted that this is a balanced budget for Council, and balanced budgets for this Council has been a regular feature for many years that I've been on Council, which is good. So I want to congratulate the staff for the very solid hard work that they've done in order to achieve a balanced budget. It is what we need now, and it's certainly good to see that we can achieve the operational things that we have told our community that we would, and we can still deliver a balanced budget. And I just want to note that I don't, I didn't see or haven't seen, and I might have missed it, any deficit, certainly not an $8.4 million deficit. So in case anybody else has found it, please let me know. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen. Any further speakers?

We could. You can raise your little blue hand and it comes up on my screen. I've got one blue hand, and that's Councillor Wheeler.

Councillor Ross is here now.

Yes, welcome, Councillor Ross. I'll mention before we move any further that we— you wanted to speak about the minutes, so we've held them over till you got here. We're going to do it after this item,

Okay?

Councillor Wheeler, you wish to speak?

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Just a few questions, if possible.

There's $5,000 there allocated for Councillor mobile devices. I'm a bit— I don't know what we would be spending five grand on, given that we've all currently still got working devices . I think we were due to swap them over after the council election. I'm not sure that we need to do it, so it would be interesting to get some information about that. I'm also interested to know which bit of King Road we're looking at fixing up, King Road in Wilberforce. We've done two large tracts of road now, and so I'm wondering which end we go to finish off. And then I've got a few questions about the Wilberforce School of Arts and also the sullage fees. Do you want me to give you those now, Mr Mayor, or—? No, you

Might stop at that point. I'll ask Mr Conroy if he's got some answers to the first ones that you put up.

So, Mr Mayor, we may direct the first question to the Chief Financial Officer.

Question about the phones. That's correct.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I believe that that's an allowance for any breakages that might happen. So it's not the big full-on replacement that would happen at the council election. We've actually removed that allocation in line with the advice that the election is going to be postponed. So there's just an allowance we have there just in case there is any breakages in devices for the councillors. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Mr Conroy , the

Second

Question, I think

Was King Road. In relation to King Road, the details of that will pass that to the Director of Infrastructure.

Yes, the works in King Road will be the remaining section from Putty Road back down past the shopping centre to the recently reconstructed section. So it'll finalise it all the way up to Putty Road.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. That's good to hear, because that was something that came up in our community consultation about Putty Road, and I'm hoping that that five grand for mobile devices can just go back into general revenue and that none of us breaks anything.

A couple of questions about Wilberforce School of Arts. I understand that the new works are to replace the kitchen, which was never particularly satisfactory when it was put in 20 years ago. The community has done quite a bit of work in that kitchen to bring it up to some sort of capacity to deal with that building seats 100 people. And yet in 2000, when the building was refurbished, Council put a domestic stove into it, refusing to provide what the community had asked for. So I'm pleased to hear from my conversations with the Director of Infrastructure earlier today that a proper industrial kitchen is going into that building, because it's a very well-used building. What I would like to do, though, is put in a plug for air conditioning for that building.

It's currently got radiant heaters, which get used a lot. You can see them. You can see them radiating heat and churning through electricity as you drive past when they're turned on. But they're not particularly efficient to run, and that building is very hot in summer, which affects its use. So I'm hoping that air conditioning can be considered in those works. So I'm keen to get the Director of Infrastructure's comments, if possible, Mr. Mayor.

Mr. Conroy.

Mr. Mayor, we'll direct that to the Director of Infrastructure.

Thank you, General Manager. Yes, the works in the School of Arts building comprise the kitchen renewal, accessible toilet, bring it up to current code, asbestos removal in high-risk areas, and we've also got an allowance in there for investigating improvements to the heating and ventilation, which may include air conditioning. It's depending on what other issues we find when we do the other works, the more urgent works, we may be able to extend that to air conditioning. That's something we'll need to investigate within that available budget.

Councillor Wheeler, you had some more questions?

Two more, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to know what representations we've made to the local member or to any other government body regarding the sewage fees. They're staggering in the operational plan, a really significant cost impost on households based on the fact that we are entitled to no subsidies for this service. So what are we doing about that? We've talked about this for years. Where are we on getting something done on this?

Mr. Conroy.

Mr. Mayor, as you know, we met with the local member last year and also the previous local member the year before and discussed the issue of salvage fees. And the response has been because we don't fall within the catchment for Sydney Water, we're not given the same support financially that other areas of metropolitan Sydney, such as those in the Blue Mountains, get. That's why our salvage fees are significantly higher than our neighbours in the Blue Mountains. And in those discussions, there was no scope to consider an arrangement to provide some financial assistance that could be agreed on.

Thanks, Councillor Wheeler. Another question.

Final one, Mr. Mayor. There's 1.3 million allocated to the Sports Council. Do we have more details on how that's being spent, and when is the review of our third-party arrangements coming to Council?

Mr. Conroy. So, Mr. Mayor, I might get the Director Infrastructure to answer the first part of that question, and I'll answer the second part in relation to the third-party arrangements.

Through you, Mr. Mayor, the Sports Council is comprised of two components, one which is the operational area , and the second part, which is their capital works. We'll be obtaining a detailed list of their capital expenditure prior to paying those funds. The operational funds basically go towards their upkeep of fields and general maintenance and mowing . So that's their operational, and the figure for the— $

457,000, which is for the capital works, we'll obtain a list from them as part of identifying their priorities with their various sporting groups.

Mr Mayor, in relation to the third party reviews, we've just completed the first review in relation to Peppercorn , and the results of that review will be presented to Council in the near future. That then has provided us with the opportunity to continue on with two further reviews. We've had a commissioning meeting with the Hawkesbury River County Council to bring that review to a formal commencement, and we've had some informal discussions with the Sports Council, again alerting them to the fact that we'll be starting that review in the near future. We aim to complete both of those third party reviews, that's the Hawkesbury River County Council and the Sports Council, by the middle of the year.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler, did you wish to speak as well?

I'm not at this point, Mr Mayor. Thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Sam Progna.

My apologies

I had to

Unmute myself. The first observation I want to make is that, unfortunately, this operational plan again entrenches a rating model that I and my fellow Liberal councillors have objected to for the last four years, and that makes it problematic for me. However, passing over that, I wanted to just draw attention to a couple of small things. On page 50 of the operational plan, there's a sum of $150,000 pledged towards public domain improvements in the Pitt Town town centre. Now I wanted to get an assurance from Council staff. Else I'll add it as a dot point to our resolution that some of those funds be used for the toilet amenities block that the state government's given us some money for in Bonavista Park.

I'm given to understand that that money from the state government is time limited, and unless shovels are in the ground within a certain time frame, we will lose that money. So I just want to get an assurance that that allocation includes the allocation for Bonavista Park.

Mr Conroy, can we have any information on that question?

So yes, we've got some funds that are set aside for Pitt Town, and the normal practice is that we would liaise, work with that local community to determine how those funds should be expended. However, we know at Council that the matter of the toilets in Bonavista Park has been a longstanding desire of that local community, so it's likely that that will be one of the uses that that community will want to see those funds allocated to. And we'll certainly be able to pursue that. We've already had contact with the Pitt Town community to advise us that they've received those funds and to express a desire to work with us to get the balance of the funds. So I'm reasonably confident that we'll be able to agree to that outcome.

So Councillor Zamprogno's question, I believe, was should he have it included in the recommendation or will it happen anyway?

I think, Mr Mayor, the normal practice is that we let that community make that decision. It's whether the Council wants to direct it on this occasion, and I would leave that up to the Council. Thank

You

Councillor Zamprogno.

Well, I suppose what I'd add is that if monies had been put aside for that, if monies had been put aside for that anyway, and there was no need to erode the $150,000 itemised in page 50 of the operational plan, then I'd be a fool to do so. However, if the money wasn't coming from anywhere else, I'm keen to ensure that Council isn't the impediment that prevents that money, that project from commencing in the financial year.

So I don't have an answer to my question, that is to say, should I have it added as a dot point or not?

Can I make a suggestion?

Sure,

Can. Well, seeing the recommendation is for this to go out on public exhibition, perhaps Councillor Zamprogno could speak to the people in Pitt Town who may be interested in furthering this and have a submission made, and then when it comes back it could be specifically allocated based on what the community thought or on some process like that.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett is entirely correct. If it's only going out on exhibition, then this isn't the crunch point. The other observation I'd make is to concur with Councillor Wheeler. I was thinking of this recently. If there were certain lease arrangements on the technology that we use that aligned with what was expected to be the term of Council, then we might be in a position where the Council goes on for an extra 12 months, but the lease on those items of technology, be they phones, printers or otherwise, falls due. Maybe council staff could address that question. I myself have no objection to just continuing to use the same phone and iPad and printer that we've been given for an extra 12 months. I don't think there's any need to do that, except that our lease arrangements may have been aligned to the term of Council.

Mr Conroy, are our lease arrangements aligned to the term of Council?

So look, we'll take that on board, Mr Mayor. I can't answer that in a definitive way at the moment.

That's me done. Thank you. Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just have a question. There's another item in the business paper tonight regarding a notice of motion that I put up a while ago, asking some questions about the budget. I understand that tonight's recommendation in this item is just to go to public exhibition. So I would just like to clarify if before this item does come back for approval, will that notice of motion report be available to all the councillors before that happens?

Mr Conroy? Yes , Mr Mayor, that will be the case.

All right, thank you. I won't go into a lengthy debate tonight, suffice to say that as per every year when the operational plan comes up with a rating structure that I simply don't agree with, I won't be supporting it tonight. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just a couple of points. Firstly, to pick up, we'll go back to the sullage subsidy question. I agree entirely with Councillor Wheeler that this has been an ongoing issue for as long as I've been on Council, and unfortunately, fortunately, that's been a long time. Can I just point out that The Sydney Water catchment, and that seems to be the justification for non-subsidy for us, for Hawkesbury residents. Can I point out that there's a Sydney Water treatment plant at North Richmond, and that that plant draws its water from the Hawkesbury-Nepean River system, and that water coming out of that water treatment plant supplies water, potable water, to some of our communities west of the river.

So I would have thought that there was an argument, or at least a partial argument, that Sydney Water does have a catchment in our area , in fact the main river catchment, and therefore we should equally qualify, at least to some extent, for that subsidy. I'm just wondering whether, Mr Mayor, we could raise that argument or that proposition, if it hasn't already been done so. And secondly, on the IT equipment,

The equipment is now, or will be by September, four years old.

I'm running anyway on Council's laptop, Windows 7, and as we know that is no longer supported and hasn't been supported for some eight months or so, so that needs to be updated . The iPad that I've got anyway is very clunky, very clunky. The iPhone is at least three versions, I think, maybe four versions old, and probably will need a bit of an upgrade in terms of speed and capacity , but more importantly in terms of its ability to receive and transmit signals. You know, there's quite an upgrade in the latest iPhones in terms of receiving and transmitting signals, and where there is an issue, and I have one at Yarramundi, where there's an issue with mobile networks, that makes quite a big difference.

A number of times the caller will just be dropped out because the phone, it could be the phone, it could be the network. Either way, there is an issue, I think, with the IT equipment. But if it has to, if we have to support it and clunk on for another 12 months, I guess so be it. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen, and that's an interesting point you made about the Sydney Water catchment. Mr. Conroy, I forget whether we mentioned that to the State Member last time, but will we be able to mention it to her next time?

That issue is still outstanding. It's one of the matters we're preparing that letter on at the moment, and we were given the option to come back and argue further, and that is part of the argument that we're putting forward.

There you go.

Deputy Mayor, Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Firstly, just on that issue, I've had a number of representations about the Sully issue over the years, both personally dealing with both Sydney Water and with local members, and also with former member Mr. Pirouet, and I've never heard that as a reason before. The reason I've always been given is that the Blue Mountains people get the subsidy because they have a lot more infrastructure that has been put on over the years. So when the areas of Yellow Rock and out in that area were sewered and put onto reticulated sewer, that didn't leave a lot of people having pump out, and they only have a relatively few number of households that still rely on the pump out situation. And that was always the reason.

I've never heard that about the catchment, and that quite astonishes me, because if we're not considered to be in the Sydney Water catchment, I just don't understand what that's about. Anyway, hopefully that can be clarified. That was just with regard to that. With regard to the operational plan, I'd like to congratulate the staff on both this document and their flexibility and their work in dealing with not just the earlier disasters we had, but the COVID-19 disaster, and how much work they've put in to adjusting our various documents and reports and so on. I think that they need to be congratulated because reading through it, I see that we're still on track to So, we're still on track to reach our fit for the future benchmarks, even though the state government has said that this isn't a requirement.

And I think that's very admirable, and I think it's very—it's been very sound in the way that this has been administered and delivered to us, and I thank you very much. And I think that when the community see this, I really urge them to ask questions if they have questions about what's in the report, because things do come up like the sullage issue and so on. I've explained over the past week or so to a number of people about that sullage cost and about the various, as we've had explained, about the various issues with if we have a declining number of people using that as a service, that it then becomes more expensive. So sometimes people require a little bit more explanation about those things, and that's why I would urge people who have concerns either on that front or perhaps to access the hardship provisions, as we know we're in a term of great uncertainty at the moment and facing many challenges.

Many households will be, as well as the council, and some people will be doing it really tough. So another item that we have on tonight is about the hardship policy, and I would urge people who are having hard times to come forward and speak to council staff or to speak to a councillor to assist them with that. Also, I think we're coming into our final, third and final instalment of the special rate variation, and I think from within this document you can see the value that has been achieved by having had the special rate variation introduced. We've had so many improvements. We'll have one more increase, which is the 6.9% increase coming in in July this year, but I think that the level— Of improvements and upgrades, we've been seeing work done in areas that we just haven't seen here for decades, in the kerb and guttering and the footpaths and things like that.

And I think the community, on a whole, does appreciate it. I know there's some pockets of people who don't agree with it, but when people see how many improvements and what a higher level of maintenance there has been, given the very challenging times that we've had, I think it's very much appreciated by the community. So to have another year of these projects going on is a very good thing for our community, even though it's been a little bit of an imposition for people to have the three years of increases. I think that they have seen where their money has gone to, and I think in the long run it has put us in a much better position in terms of how our local infrastructure is looking at the moment, particularly in comparison to the past few decades.

And I think that, I'm just having a look at my notes, we've seen a report reflecting within this document also people may have questions arise about their land valuations. I'm going to run out of time, so I was going to talk about the land valuations, but people should ask questions. My main point is ask questions if you have issues about what you're reading about.

Thanks. Thank you. Councillor Wheeler, you've got your hand up.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I just wanted to follow on from the Deputy Mayor and congratulate the staff and thank them for their work on this document. It's been a really rugged six months financially. We've seen other councils sacking staff. Geelong Council has sacked more than 500 staff during this pandemic. We're still implementing infrastructure improvements that are long overdue and that will provide local economic stimulus. We've retained all our staff, and as one of three large employers in the LGA, that's a core piece of our responsibility to this community, is to make sure that the people who work here can rely on their jobs at this council. Our debt service level is still low. Our fit for the future benchmarks are still on track.

So the staff should be really proud of their work here. Drought, fire, flood, and now pandemic. Three years ago, we couldn't have handled this onslaught because we've made some really tough decisions, and we've faced quite a lot of animosity and campaigns frequently based on misinformation. And yet we've pushed through. We're now in a position to withstand this, and I really want to congratulate the staff and thank them for their work with this. There's some really good stuff in this operational plan. A million dollars in new footpaths from a council that for a couple of decades didn't have a new footpaths program because they couldn't allocate money to it. Four million dollars in public domain and recreational facilities improvements, and that should see local tradespeople and local businesses employed, but also our local business areas revitalised so that they can continue to improve as well.

So there's some really good work in this operational plan, and I can't overstate how proud I am of our staff and how pleased I am that they've pulled this together.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Do we have any other speakers? No one's got their hand up.

Councillor Ross, you've got your hand up. You need to put your little blue hand up if you can. You know how to do that? No, I do not.

Well

Anyway, I saw you yell out—

Do you want to speak? You can speak now, anyway, but if you can look for the blue hand down the bottom when you get a chance.

I've been searching for it in vain.

Thank you, Mayor. Questions, if I may?

Yep.

The first is in regard to the emergency services levy.

Where do we stand with that in terms of State Government announcements, Wes?

Mr Conroy? I'll pass that over to the Chief Financial Officer, Mr Mayor.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. So, we budgeted for next year based on the amount that we were charged in this current year, which was an additional $ 136,000 on the previous year. So, just reading what the State Government has announced, we're still working through the details, but it appears that they would cover , for 2021, they would cover that increase. So, that will be something that will be a saving for us in next year's budget. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thanks, Councillor Ross.

Thank you for the information. Now, following upon that, I understand that there were announcements made by the State Government last Friday. Could we receive some update as to their impact on this operational plan or lack thereof, thank you, Mr

Conroy. I'll need to get some more specific information about the information that was released last Friday. There's been quite a lot of information released over the last couple of weeks. I'm not sure specifically of the Friday information.

Councillor Ross. The first was in relationship to council pay rolls, as I understood it. There was something put out by LGNSW on Friday of last week, and I think also an announcement from the Minister and also the Premier.

I'll ask the Chief Financial Officer, Mr Mayor.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. So, what was announced by the State Government late last week, over the weekend, was in relation to the Job Retention Allowance that previously councils were not eligible for. So now councils are eligible for it. However, they do have to demonstrate financial distress. So there are some criteria that we would have to demonstrate that we meet to be eligible for that payment. So that's essentially, if we had staff that were not gainfully occupied and we had to stop them working here, that allowance would allow us to keep them on. So far, we've been quite lucky that I believe most of our staff are still gainfully employed, so it's not something that we need immediately. But if we do need it, provided we meet the criteria, which we're still looking into, then we would be eligible for that. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. Councillor Ross. I

Believe there was a second leak. Could the CFO please advise us as to what the other element was, please? Mr Conroy.

Yes, we'll ask the Chief Financial Officer to answer the second part of the question, Mr Mayor. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. So the other part of the assistance announced by the State Government related to TCorp loans. So there has been, now for a few years, funds available for councils to borrow at low interest rates, and essentially what they've done, they've expanded that fund as well. The other thing they also do is they said that they could act as guarantors for commercial loans. So that would be for us if we needed to go and get external loans, you know, because there's a bigger pool of funds available, would make it easier for us to access those funds. However, we have been able to use internal borrowing so far. So at this stage, we will not be utilising that, but it's there available if we do need it. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. Further questions? Councillor Ross.

Thank you, yes. The next one relates to disaster recovery. As I understand, the situation applies particularly in the case of Hawkesbury as a result of both the fires and the floods, that disaster recovery funding

May result. Now, I am wishing to inquire as to whether that has been incorporated in the current draft operating plan, please. Mr Conroy.

Mr Mayor, we'll ask the Chief Financial Officer to account for how the funding is being treated. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. So, there is no allowance for natural disaster grants in the draft budget for next year, and that's because due to the way we have to treat grant funds, it would be better to wait till we get those funds, and then estimate how much of those funds we will spend in the year and bring it to account accordingly. So, at this stage, there is no budget for grants in next year's budget. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor. Further along that line of questioning, sir, I would draw your attention to the fact that those matters have been, shall we say, have taken their course some time ago.

Are we able to glean from the staff an estimate as to the impact disaster funding may have on the draft budget as it's now presented? Thank you, Mr Conroy

Mr Mayor, we've already received grant funding in this financial year. We've received 1.3 million from the Commonwealth Government. We've also received additional funding from the New South Wales Government, and there's further funding opportunities underway at the moment. Those matters will be brought to account as part of the quarterly review because the funds have been received in this year's budget, but then they will be expended over the next... 12 months or so. And so we will account for that expenditure in the budgets as we go forward, but after they're brought to account in the March quarterly review.

Councillor Ross. Thank you. I understand from the general manager's commentary just provided that he was speaking in regard to particularly the announcements from the federal and state governments in regard to fires, and not specifically in regard to the disaster recovery element. I'm inquiring at this juncture in regard to the disaster recovery element, and are we expecting to recoup that in the financial year ended June this year, or will it flow over into the budgetary period about which we are speaking tonight?

Thank you.

Mr Conroy.

Mr Mayor, I'll ask Mr, the Director of Infrastructure, just to deal with this initially. We certainly have made arrangements with the state government for the costs incurred as part of the recent disasters. After the director answers that question, we'll then answer some further details.

Through you, Mr Mayor. There's two components, and as Councillor Ross has indicated, we've had fire and floods. So the fire— Under the natural disaster funding arrangements, we'll be making—there's very little damage as a result of the fire to council infrastructure itself. The largest component of that is claimed through what we call the Section 44 claim, which is back to the state government for the costs incurred. So those claims are being finalised now by the council and the local RFS, and they'll be forwarded off for payment for those costs that we've incurred. So they may come in to be reimbursed in the current year, or it might come into the next financial year stage. We don't know the timing of that.

Second component, particularly with regard to the flood damage that occurred under the disaster funding arrangements, that's essentially for our roads, our public reserves and so on are not eligible for that funding. So we've made, again, the assessment. We've put the claims in through RMS, who manage that component for the state government under that, and again we'll be awaiting on their inspection of those works. We've fully documented the condition before, what we're doing afterwards and what works we've done, and we'll be —generally the arrangement is they'll do a joint inspection with us, review our documentation, and then we'll receive the funding. Again, I don't know whether that will be in the current financial year or will extend into the next financial year, and then whatever the appropriate accounting treatment will be for those.

Mr Conroy. Mr Mayor, in addition to those initial disaster responses that the Director of Infrastructure referred to, as I alluded to earlier, we've received grant funding from the Commonwealth and State, and we've reported that to Council. And in late March, Council adopted a plan for expending those funds. Some of that expenditure related to immediate recovery issues such as removal of dangerous trees near properties, but some of it relates to longer-term recovery initiatives to do with business recovery and broader community health and wellbeing recovery. So we're likely to expend a range of funds, but as I said earlier, we'll bring those funds to account as part of the next quarterly budget review, and then we will report the expenditure over the coming months , if not years.

Thank you. Councillor Ross, do you have any more questions?

I would just like to round up on that matter of disaster recovery generally. So

I'd like to confirm my current understanding from what the staff have just said, that there may be funds recouped prior to June 30, but they also may be further delayed until the following financial year, which budget we're speaking of this evening, and that. At this juncture, particularly in relation to the flooding element, I'm wondering if it is possible to gain some indication as to the amount of recoupment that Council is anticipating, if its claims are fully met. Thank you. Mr Conroy, please

Mr Mayor, we'll ask the Director Infrastructure to answer that question.

Yep. Through you, Mr Mayor, I don't have those figures at hand here. As I said, we're still finalising what's eligible and what's not. As soon as we have figures, I can provide that to Councillors. Unfortunately, I can't provide that tonight.

Thank you. Councillor Ross.

Just make an observation in that regard. I understood from the prior answer to the one just received that the claims were already in with the RMS. Could I seek clarification, please? Mr Conroy.

Mr Mayor, we'll ask the Director of Infrastructure the follow-up question.

Through you, Mr Mayor, there are a number of claims that have been submitted. I'm not entirely sure whether there are other claims that will be accepted, and we're still in discussions with RMS on making that final claim. At this stage, it hasn't been finalised. However, we have been in discussions with them over key projects as we work our way through what's a fairly extensive list of damage in our northern areas.

Mr Mayor, I just think there's a further point to be made there, and that is that the lodging of the claim is not a guarantee that you get all the funds. There's a review of those claims, and that's why the Director is not able to give a guarantee of what funds we will receive, because that will be the subject of a further review by the State Government.

Thank you. Councillor Ross, how are your questions going?

Very well, thank you very much. Thank you for your consideration . I'm always

Considerate .

Well indeed, thank you so much. Further, I'd like to inquire in regard to the riparian areas adjacent to the Colo River. Is it indeed Council's responsibility to remove any debris in the riparian areas, or is that a State Government responsibility?

Is this to do with the operational plan, Councillor Ross?

Yes, it is.

In which way?

You've dropped out. You're muted, sorry.

Sorry, yes, keep going.

Sorry, Mayor. Because if Council is obligated to do those works, I'm wanting to understand whether this is being taken into consideration, and is Council in fact involved in this? And presumably, the nature of the damage, which has been obviously quite extensive, would necessarily flow into the following financial year, the budget about which we are speaking this evening.

Thank you, Mr Conroy. Mr Mayor, we'll refer that to the Director of Infrastructure.

Through you, Mr Mayor, the issue, as I've indicated earlier in my response, generally the public reserves are not eligible under the Natural Disaster Funding Arrangements. Council will incur some costs in the current year, and we've met that through our maintenance and tree budgets in terms of cleaning up debris in Colo Reserve and a number of other tree and, yeah, non-eligible areas. So we incurred some costs with those. They've been met out of the current year's maintenance and operational budgets. In terms of works on—you refer to riparian areas. Generally, council— they're not council lands. Council doesn't own the bed of any of the navigable waters, the rivers, the Colo River or the Hawkesbury River.

The water on top basically is part of — Maritime function , Maritime Services function. However, unless they're navigable hazards, they won't get involved in that. So there's very little work that Council, as I understand it, needs to continue to do in those areas. We've completed basically the cleanup of our public reserves , and those costs are incurred by Council, as they're not eligible. But if there were specific sites that you have, happy to have a look at those, if there's outstanding work to be done.

Councillor Ross.

You're

Muted again, sorry.

Thank you very much for that answer. It leaves me a little bit in a quandary as to understanding who would look after the damaged riparian areas in the way of the state bureaucracy . Perhaps that could be subject to some information later from staff for us, please. Okay. Do you

Have any more questions?

Yes, I do.

I'm unsure as to the inclusion in the grants that are shown as to the inclusion of anything to do with the city's deal. But it appears on the surface that there may not have been any inclusion of those grants within the proposed... Operational plan. Is that a correct assumption, or am I in error there,

Please? Mr Conroy, please . Chair, we'll

Probably share that answer between the Director of City Planning and the Chief Financial Officer. We'll maybe start with the Chief Financial Officer.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. You are correct. There is no provision for the livability grant in the draft budget. As I explained earlier, with grants, we need to wait till we get them and then estimate the matching expenditure we will spend in the year and budget accordingly. There are funds that we have received in the current year, and there is more to be received. However, we will not bring them into account into our budget before we actually receive them. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you.

I'm not sure if the Director of City Planning has anything else to add.

Essentially, the stage we're at now is we need to bring the draft master plan and public domain plans back to Council for the one exhibition and have them finalised. And then we will move into the point where we're able to develop more detailed specifications and roll out of works based on a prioritised basis. That is still subject to Council. And then once we know that, we'll be able to then work out what budgets, or in terms of the grant, how we then phase the grants and the expenditure over the next coming years.

Thank you. Councillor Ross, do you have many more questions?

No, this is the last subject area question. Last question. Okay. I did say subject area, sir.

Subject area,

Okay. Thank you very much. Let's clarify things. In regard to the city's deal, I understand from our briefing session that the funds that have been received and the funds that are going to be received in this current financial year will appear both as an asset in terms of the effect on Council's bank deposits or term deposits, et cetera, and be shown as liabilities on the balance sheet only and not be reflected in the revenue statements. Is that a correct understanding, please?

Mr Mayor, we'll ask the Chief Financial Officer to answer that question. Yes

Your understanding is correct. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Mayor. Could I further inquire, please, as to the expenditure that may have already been incurred with people like the consultant who briefed us earlier on in regard to expenditure there, is that being incorporated

In operating expenses as we go and affecting also the future budgetary situation as is reported tonight, or is that being, shall I say, sidelined? Thank you.

Any expenditure in relation to the work that URBIS are undertaking, that's being accounted for in the current financial year, not next year's budget, this budget that we're considering now.

Mr Mayor, the Chief Financial Officer may also have some clarification on that as well. Yes,

Thank you. So yes, as the Director of City Planning has said, any expenditure that's incurred gets accounted for in the year in which it occurs. So in terms of budget, it will be an estimate, but in terms of actual expenditure, it has to be accounted in the year in which it occurs. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Councillor Ross.

You have some more questions in this category, I believe.

Yes, just one further point of clarification. I would take it that those considerations have been brought into consideration of the draft operational plan, and that there is no expenditure there in relation to the city's deal that has not been, if you like, compensated for by the appropriate funds that would be offsetting that. Thank you.

Yes, Mr Conroy. Mr Mayor, we'll ask the Chief Financial Officer to answer that question.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. There is no expenditure budgeted in next year's budget for this city deal. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you.

Any more questions in the category, Councillor?

No, no, thank you, Mayor. That is fine. At some juncture, after other councillors have possibly wanted to speak on the operational plan, I would like to make an offering as well.

Thank you . So you don't wish to speak now. You want to speak later, is that

I think other councillors who may wish to make a contribution might like to do so, and mean not to hog the microphone.

Thank you. Yes, they may. And if you, Councillor Ross, you look at the right-hand side of your screen, there should be a list of participants. Have you got that?

You're on mute, sorry. Can't hear you.

I'm not blessed. I see at the bottom of the screen that there are 23 folk participating in the meeting, but other than that, no.

In the bottom right-hand corner, it should say raise hand. Have you got that?

No, I've only got reactions.

So can I interrupt, Mr Mayor? I think he needs to click on the participants down the bottom of the screen, and in that section he can click on raise hands.

You see participants at the bottom of the screen. You click on that. I've just done that, and thank you very much for the guidance. Bottom of the right-hand corner it says raise hand. That's the one. Okay. Councillor Reynolds, you wish to speak.

Yes, thanks, Mr Mayor. I would like to echo words from previous speakers in congratulating staff on what I think is really good work. It's an extensive and detailed document, especially, you know, the program of works. I remember the general manager commenting, must have been 2017, I think, when we went to the first of our community consultations and we had the program of works, and he said that in all his time of working in local government, he had never seen such a detailed document about where council intended spending its money as it came in. And that has been carried on year after year, and it's here with us again. And I think that it's great work from staff, and it shows how transparent this council is.

I , regarding—I don't want to get in, like, taking pot shots or anything—but regarding comments by the Liberal councillors, I just suggest they look at the previous rating structures. Prior to 2012, rating structures had always been ad valorem. This was under councils of their particular flavour, and so there was no base rate. When we came to council, when we were elected in 2016, we had the bizarre situation where you could have one person on a quarter-acre block paying more in rates than their neighbour right next door to them, who was on five acres.

This is like same roads, same services, same everything. And so we had, in effect, the asset poor subsidising the asset rich. And that was one of the things we took to the election in 2016, and that's one of the things we have done, because I don't see how making asset poor residents subsidise asset rich residents. I cannot see how that can be equitable, and I wish that they would have a look at the way that was worked out and its impact on some of the , you call it like, lower income demographic, on some of the lesser valued properties in our LGA, which makes up the majority of the people. I wish they would just have a look at that and perhaps take a look at it from that side. But again, I think this is a great document.

The Prime Minister said not long ago that in regards to this pandemic, that we have to share the pain to get through it, and he's right . And I think that when we came to Council, you know, the state of the finances, the state of our assets, the lack of maintenance, you know, we had to make really hard decisions, and, you know, we knew that we'd cop some on the chin, that was fine. You know, we don't have glass jaws, and now we're coming out the other side and this document is proof, and I'm really proud to have been part of this Council and I support this document. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler, your hand is still up, but you've already spoken. Sorry, Mr Mayor.

Okay, Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. It's a couple of questions, if I may, and they relate to the budget, and I'm particularly referring to biodiversity offset sales . Now I could have missed it, but I couldn't see any projections or reference to likely biodiversity sales in the budget. I'm just wondering whether that was not suitable to be put in this budget, but maybe future budgets, or have I missed it? And that's the first one. Do you want

That one first, or do you want to? Yeah,

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Mr Conroy. Mr Mayor, we're not in a position to finalise our position in relation to that. We're still doing the necessary environmental research to identify which properties are potentially available, and then we can bring those matters to a report and Council, and then we can start pursuing that opportunity.

Thanks. Councillor Rasmussen. Yeah,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just highlight the fact that the new Badgerys Creek Airport Corporation , I think they spent 68, I might have been 78 million dollars buying biodiversity offsets in councils around the, or adjacent to the airport. So there is money out there to be gained. The other question, Mr Mayor, that I had was about watering our parks and gardens using our own recycled water from our water sewage treatment plant. I couldn't see any infrastructure spending to reticulate water to, for instance, the parks in Windsor or Richmond or close by. You know, summer is always a difficult time for our parks because water is short , and, you know, the grass goes very brown and hard, surfaces and so on. So I'm just wondering, given that we do have that , we're lucky to have that resource, just wondering whether it was in the budget. I just couldn't see it. Thank you.

Mr Conroy.

Refer that to the Director of Infrastructure, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. We haven't included anything specific for the introduction of extension of the reticulation of our recycled water. We're currently doing strategic planning for meeting the nutrient offset scheme. One of the options within that study, though, is, however, the investigation of using... At the most cost-effective use of irrigated water to meet those environmental standards that we're required to meet from 2024. We're also exploring some of the other opportunities, which are at lesser cost of getting additional customers on the existing system. But as I said, we're doing the cost-effective, assessing the cost effectiveness of extending those schemes. If there are particularly dry times, as said during the last drought, seems so long ago, we actually did use some recycled water in tankers to irrigate some of our major significant trees.

We can always do that again if those circumstances arise.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen. No, thank you, Mr Mayor. That's great. Thanks very much.

Just, it seems to me, questions that have been asked here, the same questions that were asked at the briefing session a week or so ago. It just makes me wonder why we bother having a briefing session if we're going to ask it all again. Are there any other speakers? Councillor Ross, you're the next one .

Councillor Ross, your little blue hand is up for speaking.

Thank you very much, Mayor. I don't, frankly, share this same optimism as my fellow councillors in regard to the draft budgetary presentation. I think it's on very thin ice at best.

Referring back to the occasion on which the SRV was prepared, Going back into 2017, and looking at the documents there earlier, it was quite clear, for instance, that the cost of payrolls was very decidedly pointed as being only 35% of operational expenses at that time, in comparison to what other councils were expending at a higher level.

The current operational plan, as presented by staff at this juncture, has increased that 35% to 37%, and I again point to the divergence of opinion. I believe that the organisational structure of the council is a matter for the council elected, and not a plaything of the operational staff. And I am very concerned that the payroll area has improvements to efficiency and so on and so forth that were all cited as being part of the Fit for the Future campaign have not been met and are unlikely to be met. And I further am rather concerned that

Obvious situation where The current payroll, as indicated in the draft operational plan, doesn't appear to stack up very well against the six-monthly quarterly budget review statement that we were given, and we haven't been afforded the nine-month operational quarterly operational statement to March, although that was requested. And I believe that the payroll budget will, as indicated at 31 point whatever it is million, is likely to be exceeded by anything up to a million dollars. So that takes a good portion of the 1.6. I further believe that the legal expenses have been grossly understated as well and are very optimistic. It certainly is not in conformity with what the current situation is in regard to the situation as applicable in the current year to

The financial year ended June of this year. Looks to be heading north up to the levels of the previous year, which were 800,000. If something of that order is repeated, there goes the surplus. Now, I, in my questioning earlier this evening, have indicated, and I think the staff would agree, that there is quite a lot of uncertainty also as to the amount of—

Grants that in effect will come as a result of the natural disasters which the council has incurred, and I'm prepared to accept those understandings. That may be council's resort to trying to balance the budget in the ultimate.

It's also fairly apparent that

The lack of information in regard to the notice of motion, which was referred to by one of the other councillors earlier this evening, had we been afforded the opportunity to consider that information tonight, in light of that information, we would have been better informed as to the prospects for future expenditure tied up in the operational plan as put to us tonight.

Councillor Ross, your time is up. Thank you. Thank you for that. I just wanted to reiterate that this is a draft plan that is going out on exhibition. It's not our final plan. So there will be an opportunity for these matters to be addressed, I would think. Councillor Zamprogno, you've got your hand up, but you've spoken before. You want to ask some questions, maybe? Well,

If you're prepared to take my previous contribution as a question, now I'm going to make my statement for or against the operational plan.

Okay. Yes , I'll do that.

Okay then. So I couldn't let Councillor Reynolds' comments about the rating structure go unchallenged, and the best way perhaps to challenge them is to quote directly from the IPART Council Rating and Revenue Manual. Which says, the fairness or appropriateness of rates may be considered in light of two criteria. The extent to which those who receive a benefit of council services pay for those services, and two, the extent to which those who pay for council services have the ability to pay for those services. At best, the value of land can only be said to approximate the ability to pay. The value of land is often no indication of the means of the owner. The Liberal Party's position concerning our rating structure springs from this principle, which is articulated in the IPART guide.

What we are seeking to do by having a base rate floor is to mitigate a phenomenon that has occurred in recent years where there are distortions of land values that cause people to pay disproportionately more, even though their access to the services are comparable. So the situation that Councillor Reynolds was alluding to serves as a perfectly serviceable example, and if the two neighbours had equal access to council services and more or less equal ability to pay, that's the situation that we're trying to remedy. And for that reason, I too will be voting against the adoption of this operational plan.

Thank you. Councillor Reynolds, you possibly wish to claim you've been misrepresented. Is that why your hand is up?

No, Your Honour, I mean, Mr Mayor, sorry. I wish to ask a question, actually. The question, yes. Councillor Zamprogno, in his soliloquy, just raised the issue of the IPART report. I wanted to ask the general manager whether there was any indication from the state government or the member from local government as to whether the state government was going to adopt any of the recommendations from the IPART report, of which Councillor Zamprogno was so fond.

Mr Conroy.

I'll have to take that on notice, I'm afraid. I'm not familiar with the current state thinking.

I would just like to point out that the IPART report also— It is a question, and it alludes to the capital improved value of properties. And I'm glad, to me that would be the ideal way. That doesn't sound like a question, Councillor Reynolds. Well, you've allowed other councillors leniency, including Councillor Zamprogno, who made a statement. It wasn't a question, and then you've allowed him to speak again. So I'm just pointing out— That's

My decision, Councillor Reynolds.

Are you going

To ask a question, or are you going to make

A statement? I wasn't going to, Mr Mayor, but obviously I'm upsetting you, so I'll just stop, okay?

Thank you. I'm not upset. I just want you to ask a question.

If you want to ask

A question,

Go ahead. Yes, I do. I do want to ask a question. In addition to the previous one, I was going to ask the general manager whether he had heard anything about capital improved value becoming one of the bases upon which rates would be adjusted, because the state government said, despite Councillor Zamprogno's words, that it says in the legislation that the value of property is the best determinant of the owner's ability to pay rates. Now, I don't agree with that. That's in the New South Wales Government's legislation. I just wanted to ask the GM whether he'd heard anything about capital improved value becoming the base rate rather than the current land value system as it stands.

Mr

Conroy. More speculation than anything firm. Nothing, heard nothing firm along those lines . Thank you, sir.

No one else has their little blue hand up. Councillor Ross, is your hand up from before, or you..

Or did you have something to add? You had many questions and a speech.

Can't hear you, sorry.

Still can't hear you

Now I can

Thank you very much. I do have a question, but I'll defer to the Deputy Mayor, who might like to question something.

Yes, she might. Deputy Mayor?

You're still on mute, Deputy Mayor. Sorry.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I did have a question. It may have been raised in a briefing, but I don't think that means that we can't raise it again, because I do think it may be something that we could ask through you, Mr Mayor, for the Chief Financial Officer to explain. And that is if we have any information relating to the variation in the land values from the valuer general and how people may better understand the various reductions or increases that are included in the current rating, for the current rating structure. Thank you.

Mr

Conroy, please.

Mr Mayor, we'll refer that to the Chief Financial Officer.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm not quite clear what the question was, but in regard to the land valuations, the ratepayers will receive the formal valuation notice sometime in May. Obviously, we've based the rates for 2021 will be issued based on those valuations. And if ratepayers wish to understand how the rates are calculated based on that, we'll be more happy to explain that as the questions come in.

Deputy Mayor?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yes, it was just that some people don't understand the impact. I guess the better time is once people have their notices, that perhaps we could give an explanation that tells people how these values are arrived at, because we know that a lot of confusion comes with the variation and how that impacts the yield across the local government area. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks for the clap, Emma.

Councillor Ross, you've already asked many questions, and I've been accused of being too lenient tonight, so are you sure this other question is something that really has to be put forward?

Drop

The gavel on me then, sir. That's fine, thank you.

Okay, I will. Any other speakers, please? No. The mover of the motion was Councillor Rasmussen. Do you wish to have right of reply, Councillor Rasmussen? Yes, thank you, Mr Mayor, for that opportunity. Mr Mayor, firstly, what I'd like to just point out that employing staff in our local area at this particular time of difficulty, with lots of people all over the country losing their job, their income and maybe even their businesses, I think is a good thing and should be valued . I think we should understand that the country will incur a significant

Debt

Over many years now from the federal government's 150, sorry, $ 130 billion.

And that money in the main will be directed at the JobKeeper grants , financial cash grants to businesses to keep as many businesses employing their staff as is possible. So, you know, the whole nation is focused on keeping staff going as best they can without loss of income and all the consequences that go with that sort of loss of income to families. So I just want to make that point first up, Mr Mayor. The other points I think that are worthy of note is this. I think, and I think Councillor Reynolds pointed this out as well, I think this council has delivered in spades for the community, and it's what the community voted for in 2016 at the last election. It's quite clear that, you know, with the SRV clearly articulated, explained where the money would go, where it would be spent, and at what timeframes, has clearly been something that the community has valued and continues to value and will continue to value into the future.

So I think this council, in my book, has delivered, as I said, in spades. Now let's talk about fit for the future, because that's the state government's rule of thumb or ruler that they put over councils to see whether they're actually doing their job or not. And if you have a look at the business paper, business report on page 15, what you'll see there is the fit for the future benchmark. And if you go down the operating performance ratio, we have got it at, it should be at zero, that's the benchmark. We've got it at 0.002. In other words, we are slightly better than the benchmark. Own source revenue, another benchmark, the target is 60%. We've got it at 83, so we've well exceeded that. Building infrastructure renewal ratio, well exceeded that.

Infrastructure backlog ratio, we've exceeded that quite a bit. Asset maintenance ratio, exceeded that. Debt service ratio, we've exceeded that. Operational expenditure per capita should be decreasing, and it is decreasing. So I don't know what, councillors, how much more we can expect from our own decision making, and that of the staff under very detailed direction as to what this council wanted to achieve over the four years. I don't know how much what else could be asked of any of us. I think we've achieved well . We have got a balanced budget, a balanced budget, not a deficit, not a surplus. There's no surplus here. We're not looking for a surplus, a balanced budget. So we're well placed to deal with the uncertainty that clearly are clearly going to come at us in the near future and in the medium term future.

Clearly the future operations of council will be significantly different to previous years. I think all of us can see that. You know, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the past is not going to be a predictor of how things will operate in the future at council or anywhere else for that matter. And I'm hoping that Council will soon start to grapple with and develop a transformation plan for how we will deal with the future. There are lots of unknowns, I know, but that shouldn't stop us from developing a transformation plan which will guide us into that future. So, Mr Mayor, I would commend the budget and the operational plan to councillors because I think we need to get on with this part of it because we have got an awful lot of additional challenges as the future rolls on and this COVID-19 takes its toll across the economy and our local area as well.

So, Mr Mayor, I commend the budget to councillors.

Thank you , Councillor Rasmussen. Now, before we vote on this, I wanted to explain two things. Firstly, after I've called it motion won or lost, we have to all keep quiet for three seconds while the staff reset the audio for the next item. And secondly, I'm going to ask you to vote by putting up your hand, your physical hand, not your blue hand. But I can't see Councillor Rasmussen and Councillor Tree, so they are going to have to either put their camera on or tell me what their vote is . Okay. Mr Mayor, can you see my thumbs up or not? I can see that. So, as you move the motion, I was assuming you were going to vote in favour of it. So if you're in favour of this motion, please raise your hand. Favour of the motion is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow,

Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Wheeler, Deputy Mayor, and Councillor Rasmussen. If you're against, please raise your hand. Against is Councillor Richards, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Ross, Councillor Tree. Did I miss anyone? No. Declare the motion carried seven votes to five. Three seconds.

Okay, then the item we overlooked, went over before was the minutes. Is there any discussion on the minutes of the meeting of March the 31st?

Move the recommendation, Mr Mayor.

Second that, Mr Mayor. Moved by Councillor Conolly, seconded by Councillor Rasmussen. Councillor Ross, did you wish to speak on this matter? Yes, I did.

I just wish to draw attention to councillors. I presume they all in the possession of the same email I received on the 6th of April in regard to the on-site sewerage management policy that Council voted upon at the meeting of March 31.

The email I received from the Director of Planning stated as follows, if I may quote, it's very brief. I am following up on the question raised at the Council meeting held 31 March in regards to on-site sewerage management policy. The on-site sewerage management policy covers all on-site systems that are not connected to the Sydney Water sewer system. Regards.

I just wish to draw your attention to the fact that that statement is not

In conformity with the policy that the Council adopted at the last meeting.

So are you saying that the minutes are incorrect?

I am not saying the minutes are incorrect. I am alluding to the fact— That the policy as voted upon by the Council did not include the embracive statement latest supply, and that as such, that policy document is erroneous as it currently stands. And I would therefore seek your guidance as to how it might be corrected, please.

So you're saying the minutes are correct, but the document that was presented at the meeting was not correct.

Quite so.

Well, unfortunately, all we're doing right now is saying whether we accept the minutes or not. If you think that document is incorrect, I suggest you write to the General Manager and ask for it to be brought back to a future Council meeting. The question here right now is, do we adopt these minutes or not? And you have no problems with the minutes? You think they're correct? Is there any other discussion about the minutes? It's been moved by Councillor Conolly, seconded by Councillor Rasmussen. All those in favour say aye. Aye. Declare it carried.

Waited three seconds. The other thing I would draw your attention to is that if you wanted to

Unmute to say something quickly, you can hold your space bar down. When you're holding it down, you'll be unmuted, rather than going looking for the thing to click. Okay. The next item is— Excuse me, Mr Mayor. Yes.

Sorry. You didn't call out who voted for that last one for the record.

Well, for the minutes we don't normally do that, but we can do that if you like.

We do. We record all votes now.

Okay. All those in favour of the minutes as moved, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Tree and Councillor Rasmussen. All those against, please. Councillor Ross, declare it carried.

Move to item 73. Do we have any discussion on item 73, please?

Move the recommendation, please, Mr Mayor.

Moved by Councillor Conolly. Do we have a second? Second that, Mr Mayor. Councillor Rasmussen. Councillor Conolly, do you wish to speak?

Just very briefly, I think it's quite timely that we go ahead and review our policy to make sure it's up to date and easy for people to access, given that the community's been a bit battered and we're likely to have people from all sorts of the situations that have happened in the last few months that are going to be looking for help. So I think this is a good change. It'll just give Council a lot more flexibility to deal with hardship and assistance as it's required.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler, you have your hand up.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Yeah , I'm pleased to see that we're reviewing this policy. I just have a question, I suppose. There's a $10 minimum a week payment for someone who takes on a hardship or a payment plan, which is $520 a year. Now, if I'm on an unemployment benefit that reverts back to the previous level of the JobKeeper allowance, which is around $40 a day, which the Prime Minister says we'll probably be doing by September, when apparently we're going to be getting back to some sort of normality, paying council a fortnight's worth of my income isn't going to be very likely, I wouldn't think, given that that is a below the poverty line level already. Are we required to collect that $10 a week due to some statutory requirement, or is that something that council has set up?

Mr Conroy. Might I ask the Chief Financial Officer to comment on that, Mr Mayor?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. The $10 is something that this council is proposing, and intent behind that is that there is some payment being made. We don't want people to fall behind and accumulate a huge amount. However, the payment of that $10 can be deferred to a later stage. So if someone feels that they cannot make any payments at all for the next three months, we would commence an arrangement, which could be just $10 per week, to commence in three months' time. So we have got that flexibility to do that. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I understand the desire not to push people further into debt. It's not clear to me from reading this document that that $10 could be deferred, and I think it's likely to push people further into financial difficulty if they feel that they're now obliged to pay $520 a year to us when they're really on some of the social security payments at their normal rate. People are flat out eating on, let alone paying council. So I really would like us to give that further consideration. If we do keep it, it needs to be much clearer that that payment of $10 a week can be deferred. I think it's also quite clear from this document that pensioners are not going to be thrown out of their homes by council for non-payment of rates, which is one of the allegations that has been thrown at this council.

It's very clear that if you're on a pension, you may defer your rates until you sell the house or the house is passed on to your family and they decide, and they have to deal with the asset. So the idea that council is driving pensioners from their homes is pretty comprehensively debunked by this hardship proposal . I'm curious about the guideline that fronts this document, and I wonder if I could get a bit more information about what the purpose of that guideline is and who the audience of that guideline is. Is that an overarching guideline for us and for the staff, or are we putting that out to the public?

Mr Conroy. Mr Mayor, we'll refer that to the Chief Financial Officer.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. So the policy itself obviously provides a framework for staff to work within, but it's also a public document that's available on our website. It is acknowledged that the policy is quite detailed, and that's one of the reasons why we've improved the flow and we've put the hardship up front. But it is still quite detailed, and it needs to be because it does need to provide for the various scenarios. So what the policy is proposing is that from time to time, if situations arise like the natural disasters or the COVID-19, where we need to react quite quickly, is that we are able as staff to issue a guideline that deals specifically with that situation, like what we've done in this situation.

And that's an acknowledgement that the policy itself, in line with what's required with the policies, will have to go out on exhibition. And we will do that, but in the meantime, we are asking to apply a guideline to be able to enter into those arrangements now, not when the policy comes back after exhibition. So

The policy at the moment

Is asking for it to include a provision for Council to be able to develop those guidelines as they arise. The one that's been developed, the natural disasters and the COVID one, is the current example of what a guideline is, and it is what we have rolled out. And if there are changes to that, we can certainly roll out those changes. So that's the intent, that in future, so say if in a year's time we had some other situation and we needed a different type of assistance to be provided, we would be able to develop a guideline specific to that situation without having to change the overarching policy, because the principles that are in the policy will not change. It's just more this specific assistance that we would offer specific to the situation.

Thank you

Councillor Wheeler. So what would, so what do the residents see if they have a query about this? What do they see? What will we give them at the moment?

Mr Conroy. Mr Mayor, refer that to the Chief Financial Officer again.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. So what has been developed is on Council's website there is what we call a web tile, so it's quite evident, and it talks about assistance with payments. When they click on there, it takes them to two web forms. So one is for the natural disasters, the other one is for COVID, because we do need different information for each of those respective situations . And essentially they complete that form. That form comes into Council, and then a staff member calls the person and they have the discussion about a payment arrangement that suits their situation. So the policy, the overarching policy, will be on the website with the policy.

The web forms are there, and if Council adopts the guideline tonight, that guideline can be placed where the forms are. That way that's the background to people what they get before they complete the form and before we contact them. So that's where that guideline will go. We haven't put it there because it hasn't been formally endorsed by Council, but that's the intent. Thank you, Mr Mayor And sorry, also, if I may add, on the rates notice there was a message that essentially said that we are willing to help people through this and suggested that they visit our website, give us a call or send us an email. So that was the initial way how we told ratepayers that we're here to help. And then it goes from there, whether they go on the website , they call us, then that's where the web forms and the guideline come into play.

Thank you, Mr Mayor

Thank you

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. So I'm still not — I get where the guideline sits. I'm not sure of the merits of having something that this formal and written in . It's very council-speaky, I think, which works really well for us, but I'm not sure it's what the general public needs to see when they're coming, for instance. So I'm hoping that we can perhaps beef up a little bit more of the information that sits behind the web tile to reflect the guidelines and council's position on this, but isn't quite so objectives, background, definitions. We need to look like we're ready and willing to help people. By the time people get to this point, there's usually some level of desperation and discomfort. So this needs to be a document that they can really easily read. This is quite clear what this says. I'm not saying that, but I don't think it's a good public interface document at this point. Thanks,

Mr Mayor. Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd like to follow on with the questions and the queries and comments that Councillor Wheeler has just made.

I'm a bit confused because the recommendation in the business paper doesn't say anything about the guidelines, and so I understand that we could put the— The hardship policy on public exhibition. But if I heard Mrs Gilea right, we want to start using the guidelines and the forms immediately. So I think we need to have point three in the resolution to say something to that effect. Having said that, that's one issue, so we need to get that into the resolution. But if you look at the actual guidelines, I agree with Councillor Wheeler, they aren't clear really at all. I think that we need to separate the fires, the floods and the COVID-19 forms because they are different. They might very well apply to, all of them might apply to some people, which would be unfortunate for them, but that's the reality.

Also, we've referred to the natural disasters as the 2020 natural disasters, but in fact the fires were definitely before 2020, so that's 2019. So that's sort of, we need to be a bit more conscious of how people will read this. And I don't think we really need to have objectives of the guidelines. The guidelines should be so clear that you don't need an objective statement. For instance, it says here the objectives of the guidelines are to provide financial assistance to ratepayers, da da da da da. Well, that's not actually what the guidelines do. The guidelines should be for people to understand the process that they have to go to in order to get to talk to somebody or to staff. the ball rolling to get some sort of assistance.

So it's just that sort of confusion with how this document's written that I think needs to be changed. And for instance, in the definitions, it's got stakeholders, council directorates, ratepayers, organisations and individuals using council's goods and services. That's really quite confusing. I think we have to, I think we have to take a step back and think about who's going to be reading this. And I agree with Councilor Wheeler that the people that are going to the council website, that are in the position that they need to get some immediate assistance because they're really, you know, struggling, they don't want to be reading this sort of thing. So I think we need to do a lot of work on that.

And the, you know, the legislative context, that's great, but, you know, not for these guidelines, I wouldn't have thought. Now, a few things about the policy. If we wanted to make the policy clearer to read, I would think we should split it into hardship, have three different policies: hardship , pensioner concessions, and debt recovery. Because it seems to me that there's different legislations which all of those relate to. And when you're reading the policy, it jumps around and talks about different who it applies to. So it sometimes it might Applied to somebody that hasn't paid an invoice that Council has sent them. So that's a different thing from the hardship thing. And I think it would be easier to read a hardship policy that was just about that.

I'm assuming that there's not time now to change the policy in ... but we might be able to leave it out of it. I would have left the pensioner concession part out of it, since we took it out of the title.

So I think maybe the way forward on this is to simplify the recommendation. And I'd like to propose an amendment and put a point three into the recommendation, if I could, and that point three would be that whilst

The policy is on public exhibition, we start to work on the guidelines that go on

Our Council website, because clearly that's what we want. We can't wait 28 days and then another couple of weeks till this comes back to Council. Can I just get a bit of clarification on that timing and whether I've got that right in my head at this point in time?

Mr Conroy.

Mr Mayor, the intention was to apply the spirit of the policy whilst it was on exhibition, because we've got people that are experiencing hardship at the moment, and we didn't want to defer those requests pending the outcome of the exhibition process. I think the point that the councillor is making about working on the guidelines, I think there's scope to do that. And I think we can. I think what we need is an indication from Council that they're happy with the spirit or the intent of the policy and guideline, but they'd like us to do more work before we formally exhibit it. That gives us some authority to progress any hardship matters, and we can report those back to Council when we report the work that Council's asking for back to Council at maybe the next meeting.

Can I clarify there that you're saying that we should postpone the exhibition of the policy and the guidelines, or just the guidelines?

Or did I misunderstand? The dilemma for us is that the current policy is not as helpful as it could be. And the objective of this exercise was to try and make the policy a more helpful document and to provide greater guidance to staff. But it still has to work within a legal framework. There are still obligations that we have to fulfil under various acts and regulations. For that reason, staff proposed a guideline to provide a more informative and hopefully helpful... Interface between the policy and the community. So the first thing that the community would see would be the guideline, and that would be informed by the policy. So if Council was happy

With the intent of the policy, I would be suggesting that we place it on exhibition, the scope for some minor amendments as part of that process, and that we continue to work on a policy that Council believes more effectively represents Council's desires in terms of providing financial support and opportunity to people that have been affected by the bushfires, the floods, and now the COVID-19.

So, Councillor Kotlas, how do you

Wish to proceed?

I'm getting a bit confused. Forgive me. I thought that we had to get the policy on public exhibition as soon as we can, and now if that's not the case, I would like to see this deferred, and I'd like to see it come back to us as three different policies. Now , I think the reason I think that that would be best is we have to understand that the people that are reading these policies are coming for a particular item. You know, a pensioner who wants to find out about concessions is not probably going to be that interested in debt recovery. I guess my point is, I think we could have three separate policies. I don't think that that's necessarily going to be too onerous, but it would be a lot easier for people to read.

And then, I mean, I understand we can, you know. .. Then anything can hang off those policies. The guidelines at this stage, I don't think add anything to people's understanding. I guess that's my problem. So, sorry, Mr Mayor, could I just get that clarified?

Mr Conroy, are we able to defer this, or are you suggesting we go ahead and during the exhibition period we rewrite it, or something like that? I think, Mr Mayor, we need a statement from Council that they're supportive of the intent of the documents that have been prepared and would support staff implementing the intentions of those documents, because we're already getting requests for hardship. And that's why we've tried to deal with this in the way we have, to give us some scope to be able to do things straight away. So I think we need an endorsement of the intent of the policy and the intent of the guidelines, and we need the authority for staff to implement that intent whilst we bring back revised policy and guidelines for Council's endorsement. Councillor Conolly, you're the mover of the motion. Are you interested in changing your motion to read like that?

My understanding is that it already reads like that in a sense. I just wanted to clarify, Mr Mayor, if I could sort of a question. Yes. Just to clarify my understanding, from what I understood, that this is a policy of Council which sets out the legal ways and avenues that Council staff have to go about these things. It's not necessarily the primary public document, which doesn't need Council's endorsement. It's just an operational matter of how that's presented, and that was what I understood the guidelines to be, is that staff's presentation to the public of what the policy, and they're drawing on what the policy allows them to present. If that's the case, then surely we could put this on exhibition as suggested.

And if there was ways to make the guidelines better, that could be communicated to the staff from Councillors. And I would have, if I understand correctly, that doesn't need Council's direct endorsement for the document, just for the general spirit of how we're dealing with it.

Mr Conroy, your comment on that? Councillor Connelly's assessment of the situation is correct. So we can continue with the recommendation as put forward by Councillor Connelly. And according to Councillor Connelly and the General Manager, that addresses your issue, Councillor Kotlash. What do you see?

No, I don't. I'm sorry, no, I don't think that that does, because I think that the

Intent of reviewing this policy was to make it easier to read and streamline it. Putting the hardship as number one in the policy does not do that. It needs to be written in such a way that we understand what the processes are. Let's go back to what Councillor Wheeler was saying about the ten dollar, you know, was that mandatory, that people needed to pay that ten dollars? Well, no, it's not. There are other mechanisms. We have to have all of those mechanisms explained in our policy. It doesn't necessarily have to be terribly onerous. It's just a simple explanation of how we are going to deal with this sort of thing. And I think that what the General Manager said before would be a better outcome for us at the moment, is that we defer putting the policy onto public exhibition. We change the recommendation to say that we

Endorse the intent of the policy and the guidelines, but in the interim we give the council staff and the General Manager the direction that they need to get on with this. Okay

Councillor Conolly, you're not happy to make that change.

So I'll propose an amendment, if I may, Mr Mayor.

So you'd like to move that as an amendment, Councillor Kotlash?

Yes, please.

Do we have a seconder for the amendment? Councillor Wheeler.

Councillor Kotlash, you wish to speak to the amendment?

Just briefly, just to wrap this up, I think we have an opportunity here to review some policy, you know, our policies. I think we have an opportunity to streamline our policies. Once we get the hardship policy, which I think is the thing that we are mostly talking about now, we aren't talking much about pensioner concessions or debt recovery processes and policies. So the thing that we're really concerned with now is the hardship policy, and we have the opportunity to get this right. We also have the opportunity to get it to be structured in such a way is that when other things occur, like the COVID-19 pandemic, that we are able to act quickly and without having to go back and revise our policies. So , and the other things I've said, it needs to be rewritten into a better sort of language for public consumption and just rearranged so it flows better. The...

There's some typographical things that need fixing, but that's okay. I think that's really all I'd say. If we do it this way, we won't hold up people putting, ringing us and getting in touch with us to get that support. That's the main thing. We're not going to be holding people up, but we are going to be in a better position to get a better document and better policies out of this. For

The purposes of clarity, can you explain what your amendment is again, please?

Yes, I'd say the amendment would be in a similar vein to what the general manager said before, that the recommendation is that Council endorse the intent of the draft hardship and debt recovery policy as Attachment 1, and that it not be put on public exhibition until it— oh, well, I think we can probably just leave it, full stop after Attachment 1. So we endorse

The intent of that policy.

Yep.

And also what I said before is there was no indication of what we were doing with the guidelines. So if we want to give staff some endorsement to keep developing those guidelines, then point 2 would read that we again give—

Given endorsement of the intent of the guidelines that are included as attachment two.

And the, I suppose the third point, if we needed one, was that we immediately,

That we. .

Sorry, I don't know whether we need to say that we will deal with everybody's hardship applications immediately. I think that's a given because of the... So can I just ask to see this up on the screen because I'm getting really confused with all of this wording.

So we have two points. The first point is to endorse the intent of the policy, and the second point is to endorse the intent of the guidelines, but ask the staff to keep developing those guidelines.

Mr Mayor, I've got some words if that's helpful.

That would be very helpful, thank you.

I can't type them in, unfortunately, because I'm running Zoom on my iPad. But I could turn the video off if necessary. That one, that Council supports the intent of the hardship and debt recovery policy as displayed in the business paper. Two, staff make amendments to the policy to make it easier to find the relevant provision, ensure the objectives include hardship beyond that caused by natural disasters, and three, an easy read version be placed on Council's website.

Councillor Kotlash, is that? Yeah.

That's

Good. Yes, that's getting closer

That's your amendment? Yes

Mayor, are you happy for me to just turn the video off and type that in for the staff?

Wait till Councillor Kotlash agrees with it first. Councillor Kotlash.

Now, I just wanted to know what Council Wheeler's last point was about putting it on the website. I'm not sure that — do you mean once the guidelines are finished and rewritten, that we put the guidelines on the website?

I'm not sure that holding off is a particularly good idea, given that people are now receiving their rates notice. And I think the spirit of point one is that we endorse this policy being used before we've seen it in its— I don't think we're changing the intent of the policy. I think we're changing the arrangement, and largely it's almost a semantic discussion about what the policy looks like rather than what the policy intends to achieve. And I don't think that any of us disagree. I don't think any of us are arguing over what the intent of the policy is. So I think the guide, apart from that amendment to a part of the guidelines, I think an easy read version of the guidelines could probably go on now because now is when people are going to need it. Sorry,

Thank you. I misunderstood you. Yes, that's perfect. Thank you, and thanks for helping me out there. I can't read and think and type at the same time. Thank you for bearing with me, Mr Mayor.

Yes, Councillor Wheeler, if you'd like to type that up, please.

I'll just disappear for a moment.

Councillor Garrow, you might have to wait till that typing's done. Is that okay?

Any others? Now, I've got a whole list of speakers lined up. We're actually currently debating the amendment. The first speaker I've got is the Deputy Mayor, but if you want—

I did have mine up to speak on the motion. I'll just wait a moment, maybe speak on the amendment in a moment so someone else can go before me.

Councillor Richards, you're next. Which do you want to speak on? Yeah,

Thank you. I wanted to ask a question to the staff. First of all, my concerns are when one of our residents applies for this hardship policy under any of the possible banners that they could apply under, whatever their circumstances are, that their dignity and their confidentiality remains safe . And I want to know which members of staff, or at least which directors, will be privy to that information, and also get a guarantee that that information won't be accessible by any councillors

Mr Conroy. Mr Mayor, the information that we receive is protected by the privacy provisions that we operate under, so it can only be used for the purpose for which it was collected, which in this case would be in relation to hardship, and only those staff that are involved with assessing and receiving and assessing hardship applications would be able to be aware of those details. We would tend to limit the involvement of staff in this to a few so as to ensure that there's very limited availability of this information, but it would sit within the support services directorate, so that's with Mr Misfud. Thank you .

Just one more. Yeah, just one more quickly, thank you, Mr Mayor. Again, I need to see what the amendment is going to say because it seemed a little confusing with all of that dialogue. No disrespect. I need to see what it says before I can comment further. But we were putting this out to public exhibition. Now, just confirming that was 28 days. I don't have the— I'm looking at the Zoom screen, not my business paper at this point. But my concern is the length of time associated with delaying this any further. So can we get some— however this vote goes down, can we get some level of guarantee from the staff that people in the meantime who can't pay their rates won't be pursued heavily for those rates and get those sort of letters that Council does send out saying that you've got a debt until we actually sort out where we're going with this policy, please.

Mr Conroy. Mr Mayor, we're aware that this is a very important issue to councillors. We'll be making sure that we don't pursue any legal action in relation to any of these matters, and we'll work as quickly as we can to bring this to a conclusion so that everyone's got the certainty that they desire. I think Councillor Reece is the most— the amendment is saying that we endorse the spirit of the policy and the guidelines, which means we start using them straight away. I think that's the intention.

Yeah, my question was just making sure that regardless of what direction we take, there's no delay ensuring that people can apply for that, but we're also not going to be heavy-handed in the meantime either.

Okay. Councillor Conolly.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'll just speak against the amendment. I think that it's probably not a good look for us to be now, in the middle of all this, going back and forth and delaying putting on exhibition a hardship policy right at the one time when everybody needs it. I think potentially there's probably— I think we need to be a bit more realistic. I'm going to a point that a couple of people made about who's going to be looking at this document, and a point was made that people who are looking at this document are likely to be experiencing hardship and so on. And I actually would contest that. I think people who are experiencing hardship are not likely to go ahead and read a very long hardship policy.

They're likely to go on a council's website and see what the guidelines say. I think perhaps the use of the word guideline has maybe thrown people a bit. I would think it's similar to, you know, if I go to the bank's website, I'm going to look at their hardship page on their website. I'm not going to go and look at their 400-page hardship policy and read through it and try and understand the legal jargon. So I think this is similar. The policy sets out what we are giving our staff, within the legal restrictions, what we're giving our staff the right to go ahead and negotiate, where those boundaries are. But the public communication is obviously what the guidelines that have been crafted and the messaging that's put on the website and the things that people on the phone are saying.

I don't think it's realistic to say that people are going to, you know, if you're a pensioner and you need help paying your rates, I don't think you're going to go to the policy and start reading through. I think you're likely to jump on the website or on the phone. So I don't think we need to be too worried about the semantics, as the word was used, and the setting out of the policy and, you know, whether or not the right stakeholders are listed and so on. I think if we're happy with the intention of the policy, we should put it on exhibition. If there's important changes that don't change the policy outcome of the policy, we can always make those changes in this 28-day period anyway. But I don't think it's a good look for us to be mucking around and not putting this on exhibition at the moment.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Your hand is up. Are you still around?

Yes, Mr Mayor, I've emailed that amendment through. I'm not sure that Councillor Conolly is clear on the intention, and that's understandable given that he hasn't seen the words yet. The problem that I see here is that there isn't sufficient information for members of the public to read. Many people, particularly people who are experiencing financial hardship for the first time, spend quite a lot of time finding information that tells them whether they're eligible or not, and working out how they can. Many people contact Council as the last resort, not as an information finding exercise, and I think we owe it to them to make sure that the information that they have access to is clear to read.

I don't think we need to delay putting this out on exhibition by any longer than two weeks, frankly. The changes that are suggested in the amendment are not lengthy. There are minor reordering, and there is a problem in the guidelines. If you read the guidelines carefully, it talks about hardship based on natural disaster. People experience hardship all the time due to changes in financial circumstances, and that isn't clear from those points in the guideline, and that needs to be changed before this goes on public exhibition. The call for an easy read version is really deliberate. It doesn't mean something that has less words in it. Easy read is a very particular requirement used for people so that people with low levels of literacy, people with an intellectual disability, or people who are finding it difficult to engage with a medium for whatever reason, including the fact that they might be reading it on their telephone whilst in the kitchen, surrounded by screaming kids, watching their lives fall apart, can digest this information quickly and readily.

And we're not providing that currently in the current form of— It's a means of giving people all the information that they require in a very easily digestible form. It's not something that someone can do easily. We may need to find some advice on this. It won't take very long. It's only a page-and-a-half long document, but I would urge the staff to— To take this suggestion on, and if this amendment becomes, if this amendment gets up, it's more than a suggestion. We need easy read versions of all our documents, but we particularly need easy read versions of documents that affect people's access to information that can make their lives easier when they're incredibly difficult. It's, we need, this is in council speak.

That's not good enough for people who are experiencing hardship.

Thank you. Can I ask the staff whether that's available to go up on the screen yet?

Yes, no, maybe.

Not yet.

If not, Councillor Rasmussen, and you're listed to speak.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, I think what's probably missing , and that should have been perhaps part of the documentation for councillors, is what Councillor Wheeler refers to as an easy read or simple English document. And had that been there, maybe we would all have been a bit more comfortable and we wouldn't have taken so long to come to a conclusion, which in my book, and I agree with Councillor Conolly very strongly on this, look, these circumstances have been out

For a while now. We are months and months into the firestorm that hit New South Wales, you know , last year and early this year. We had the floods, and now of course we've got the COVID-19, and we are, you know, many weeks into that. I don't know that we can. We have had that policy now under development for that amount of time or close to. I don't know that we want to delay any further. People out there now are hurting. They need to have access to what Council can do for them by way of deferment , whatever arrangement can be made. And I'm not sure, Mr Mayor, that the spirit of things or intent of a policy is going to give legal sufficient legal cover or foundation for staff to make, you know, financial arrangements that may or may not become part of, you know, estates or whatever.

I just don't, I'm not comfortable with that. My view would be that we put it out on exhibition now. Council staff, as quickly as possible, develop a communications easy read document that can be put on Council's website that people can easily access, as Councillor Conolly said, because that's where they'll go to first or ring up, and then we see what happens in terms of the 28 days. We've still got 28 days. That's a month to wait before the policy comes back to us, and we then adjust it or whatever we do. People are hurting right now, have been hurting for months, and it needs to be got out there now. They need to know what this Council is going to do for them right now.

Thank you. Councillor Ross, you're listed to speak as well.

Councillor Ross. Thank you. Yes, I'm just looking at the

Amendment recommendation. I'm not at all happy with the progress of things. I believe that what is required is that the policy be split into three separate policies, and that the hardship go out on exhibition straight away, and the rest can be done later. And yes , by all means, a document of explanation

To be put on the Council's website to facilitate the completion and application processes suggested by those previous members. Thank you

Thank you. Councillor Zamprogno, you indicated you wish to speak.

Yes, Mr Mayor. Look, my dilemma here, listening to both sides of this debate, is that I feel caught between two desirable outcomes. I agree with Councillor Conolly. We shouldn't waste any time in placing this policy on exhibition because it undoubtedly represents an improvement over its predecessor . But equally, I agree with Councillor Wheeler when she says that we should be making further amendments that make it easy to read, easy to understand, easy to access. And I'm wondering why I'm in the position where I either need to vote against the amendment or for the motion when we should be able to have both. I'm inclined to vote against the amendment, but only because I believe that I think Councillor Wheeler's worthy intentions can be achieved in the 28-day exhibition period by way of a submission.

That's what the exhibition period is for, and then we can consider its improvement. But the thing is, we wouldn't have lost any time by failing to put it on exhibition tonight.

Okay. Thank you. The reason we have both of them is because Councillor Conolly didn't want to change his original motion. Perhaps you can impress on Councillor Conolly that there may be a way to compromise. I

Won't presume to speak for Councillor

Conolly. Mr Mayor. Yes.

I have Councillor Reynolds down to speak, but Councillor Deputy Mayor, you were down before and you wanted to reserve your right to speak.

Yes, I would like to speak about the amendment. Little like Councillor Zamprogno, I can see both sides. I'm inclined to think that we shouldn't defer. I also find it problematic to say that I support the intent of the policy when there is an intent to change it. We have an existing hardship policy, which I also support, and I do support streamlining it and trying to make it better. But I think that I thank Councillor Wheeler for bringing her notice of motion to have it reviewed, and I would like to see the specific things that she has raised included in it, particularly clarification of that minimum payment situation. And I've got a question as to whether we can make any changes to it now and vote for it before it goes out to public exhibition. Is that possible to make some changes tonight that we may be able to do?

I believe it is possible to make changes tonight before it goes out on public exhibition.

If that's the case, perhaps Councillor Conolly would be open to a couple of changes to the original motion that would be a couple of changes in the document. The reason for that being, and I agree with the easy read version and so on, but I also think that both Councillor Conolly and Councillor Rasmussen have made a very good point in that we must get this policy out now. We've committed to doing it and it is really crucial that we have it, but it's also crucial that we have it worded in the way that clarifies it very easily. I don't think the setting out of it is an issue in terms of how it reads specifically, as long as the content is there. So I would promote including any content that's missing into the document and then within the exhibition period coming back and having it reworded or reformatted into a more readable version or something that people feel is missing.

I think it's very bureaucratic to suggest that we have to do three policies. I think we can have one policy with three sections in it, and that I think we can easily move that around if we're not changing the content or the spirit. And I think that the staff are wanting this policy to be in place so that they can be delivering it to the public. I also think it's really important that the guidelines are in plain English in a very easy way, and in fact just a simple fact sheet could be done for the public. But it is so important to include the legislative requirements because that's the source of us not being able to simply say to people that you don't have to pay your rates. So we are bound by the legislation that we have to apply the rates and the charges.

And then we can be flexible within how we get the people to pay that if they're in hardship, but we simply can't waive them. And I think that we need to promote that legislative requirement, because I have had people say to me, Why can't you just waive the rates? I think it was Councillor Kotlash who raised about the different reasons, or maybe Councillor Wheeler, about sometimes whether it's from flood, fire, COVID-19, or just general hardship on the day-to-day basis. I think it would be good to clarify that. And particularly, we need to have clarification around those sort of things, because sometimes we do get state government assistance, as we got with the fires. So there is definitely more clarity, but I'm just wondering if we can somehow work this so that we can have this dealt with tonight, so that we don't have to defer it.

Thank you. I don't think we've got any other speakers listed, but you've posed a few questions for Councillor Conolly to make those changes. Councillor Conolly, do you want to consider that?

Unless I missed it, I don't believe there was specific changes that were mentioned. I'm very much in favour of that course of action, but I didn't really catch what those exact changes were.

It was the changes that Councillor Wheeler raised initially, which were around getting some clarity around whether people could defer even if the minimum rate was applied, so the $10, I think she said it was, over a year, so $10 a week, just to clarify that that can be deferred so that people aren't unaware that, you know, just so that we clarify around that particular clause. She would probably have some wording for that. And then I would expect whichever of the other elements of missing content had been raised by people specifically, rather than simple formatting of a document or headings or which order you put things in. Because we can bring back a document for adoption that has that changed after we have public feedback, because I actually think it's also really important that at this point we get it out to the public and get their opinion on what we're doing.

Councillor Conolly.

Yeah, I just, again, I don't want to labour on it again. I just, I don't think we're adopting the guideline. So that minimum required for $10 a week, that's in the guideline, which we're not adopting, so that could be changed at any time by staff. That was my sort of what I clarified earlier, I thought. So I don't think that, I mean, I'm happy to stick that in the motion if somehow we can get it in there, but I think more the point is we put the policy on exhibition and then tomorrow morning or tonight or whenever, you know, any councillor can have lots of discussions about the guideline and it can be changed because it's not ever been endorsed by council. It's just a staff document.

We're in between a rock and a hard place.

I'm just trying to get my screen fixed at the moment. It's gone funny.

Mr Mayor, can I just ask a quick question, if I can?

Yep.

Clarification. On page, in the actual policy that we're

Debating to go on to

Public exhibition , the— on , sorry, it's page nine. It says in the assessment process section , in cases of genuine hardship, each case is to be referred to council for consideration in accordance with council's adopted policy . Can somebody please tell me what that means? I mean, it's a — this is the actual policy, so in accordance with the policy, and does that mean it comes to council? I mean, there are lots of examples in the policy, the draft policy that we are debating to put to public exhibition that have lots of things like this in it. Can somebody explain what that means to me, please?

Mr Conroy, can you explain what that means, please?

Mr Mayor, I'll refer that to the Chief Financial Officer, and if the Councillor could tell us exactly whereabouts on page nine.

Right at the top.

7.1.5 assessment process.

So,

On page nine or page seven?

Seven, sorry.

All right, okay. For

Some reason it says nine on the other screen.

Okay, I'll refer that to the Chief Financial Officer, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. So probably that can be a bit clearer, because what it's referring to, on page five there's a table with the roles and responsibilities, and the first one in the table there says that the General Manager, Director Corporate Services and the Chief Financial Officer, either one of those can determine hardship approvals and pensioner concession applications. So that's what it's referring to. Probably it is not very clear. We wouldn't, like it wouldn't be practical anyway for hardship applications to come to Council, especially now.

Oh, absolutely. Yeah

Yeah. So it's not intended to come back to Council as in the elected body. So that perhaps can be clarified. It is intended to be, you know, come to Council for considerations by those authorised officers.

Okay. Mr Mayor, can I just ask another quick question? The next paragraph it says, applications for hardship must be received in writing on the approved hardship rate relief application form. Is that what we have? Are they the forms that... are on the Council's website now.

Mr Conroy. Mr Mayor, refer that to the Chief Financial Officer.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. So I think probably this is where to clarify the difference between the policy and the guidelines. So the policy is intended to cover all hardship, so not the specific one that we have now, but any type of hardship. So, for example, if somebody is ill, for example , and they can show us that they cannot pay, that would be classed as hardship and they would have to fill the form. The intent of the guidelines, so the policy is quite high level and it pretty much sets what we can and cannot do, mostly from a legislative perspective. And when this policy was reviewed a couple of years ago, we did also do a comparison with other councils, and also the hardship section in particular, it's actually a template that was issued by the Office of Local Government, I believe.

So it's quite standard when you look around even other councils what a basic hardship policy would have in it. The idea of the guidelines was, as Councillor Conolly explained before, it's a working document that we would be able to issue in any situation that arises. So in this case, the guidelines specifies what type of assistance we would offer for natural disasters and COVID-affected people. So that guideline, not overrides, but supposedly is more specific in terms of the hardship provisions, and it goes into the detail to say that, for example, for COVID and natural disaster impacted people, we will not charge interest. In the normal, in the overarching policy, we normally would charge interest , and that would apply to people that do not put the application through the forms that we have.

So the guideline is intended to be specific, to specify exactly what we're going to do in this situation. It would be helpful if those guidelines do not have to be formally approved by Council prior to staff adopting them. We have already received quite a number of forms. We've rang those people, we've entered into arrangements. It would have been very difficult to say we have to wait, you know, 28 days to be able to help you. So the idea of a guideline is exactly that, not to have to wait for exhibition. So that was the intent in this case. So going back to the exact question by Councillor Kotlash, so the form it's referring to at the moment in the policy is the generic form that anyone would complete.

But in the case of COVID and hardship— sorry, COVID and natural disasters—they would need to complete the forms that have been specifically developed for those two situations. In those forms, we do have two separate forms, and that's because the two different events have brought with them different types of assistance by other levels of government. So we want to know those people that apply what type of assistance they're getting. And for the natural disasters and the COVID, those two things were different. So again, if we do have, hopefully not, but some other unfortunate event , it would be helpful to have the flexibility to develop a guideline specifically for that event, which might be completely different.

We might have different sections of our community impacted. They could be impacted differently. So the idea of all— Of all this is flexibility. We do, we always take arrangements, not just now. The intent has always been to work with the rate payers based on their ability to pay. So it's all about always having a conversation. So as I said earlier, if they cannot pay the $10 per week right now, that's fine. They can start paying the $10 per week when they can. We have had quite a number of arrangements entered into in the last week, and they've actually been surprisingly more—like, I actually thought that people would ask for much more extension than they have actually asked. People generally do not want to accumulate debt, so as much as we want to help them, and we're doing, people generally want to work with us not to accumulate a huge debt.

And that's not just now; that's always been the case. So yeah, so policy is a general thing. It's very legislative-based, and it does need to be detailed, unfortunately, because it is also what guides staff . It is actually quite challenging to make it any simpler, because by making it simpler, we would miss things and we would have loopholes in the policy, which is what we don't want. So it is a very formal detailed document, and as Councillor Conolly referred to earlier, I mean, in practice people do not go and read the policy. What people do, they ring up and they say, I cannot pay my rates. I need help. How can you help me? That's generally what happens in practice, and that's when then staff actually use the policy to know what they can and cannot do to help them.

It is not the first point where people go, and when someone calls, we may refer them to it, but we don't say, Go and see what's in there. We would tell them how we can help them, because that's what they want to hear.

Thank you very much for that. We, I had some technical problems, and I lost all of you for a little while there, which is not always a bad thing, I suppose.

But you're all back now, which is wonderful . What we've got is an amendment and a motion, and people have been looking for compromises, but it sounds to me, Councillor Kotlash and Councillor Conolly, neither of you want to find a compromise. So we've still got the amendment on the books , and there's about four people who've indicated they still wish to speak. Now, Councillor Kotlash, you're on the list, but you've already spoken on this. Did you— your hand stood up from before?

Sorry, Mr. Mayor, it is, and I will put it down immediately.

Councillor Ross, your hand is up.

Did you wish to speak?

Councillor Ross. Not at the moment, thank you. Well, there won't be any other moments, I think. Councillor Reynolds, do you wish to speak?

Yes, please, Mr. Mayor. It's a question, actually, to Mrs. Galea. Taking on board her comments that she just made, could she give us an idea of, compared to last year, this time kind of last year, what the difference is in the number of requests for assistance in financial hardship? Has it increased because of the fires, the floods and the COVID, or is it kind of about the same?

Yep. So as a general comment, we don't really— we haven't really received, like prior to now, applications, formal applications for hardship. What we do get is people wishing to enter into payment arrangements. So in that case, they wouldn't go through this whole process. We would just enter into a payment arrangement. Because we've got a specific form and process for the natural disasters and COVID, we have got those numbers, and since Wednesday, so... Just under a week, we've received 40 applications through the COVID natural disaster forms, two related to the natural disasters and the remaining related to COVID. So we are watching quite closely because it'd be interesting to see. So essentially, ratepayers received the notice, so generally there's a reaction straight away.

It'd be interesting to see whether we keep getting those daily calls, say from, you know, from now on, and whether there'll be a spike closer to the date , to the due date, which is the 31st of May. So I don't know how that's going to go. It'll be interesting to see. But certainly it was, well, like the forms we received, people seem to have coped quite well with filling the forms and entering into various type of arrangements. So there's a mix of things there. There's people that just want to pay it, you know, in six months and be over and done with, others need more help. So, yes, so it's certainly they have responded quite well to the forms from what we can see. Thank you, Samir.

Just a further question, if I may. Emma, compared to last year, the result, like you said, we've had about 40 since last Wednesday, which I think is a high amount. Has that occurred like last year in sort of, you know, number?

Not to that extent in a short period of time. So we have, I don't have the numbers with me in terms of how many payment arrangements we have, but we do have a number of those arrangements. But yes, certainly we wouldn't normally get like 40 arrangements in the space of a few days. So it's certainly a spike compared to any year. Okay

Thanks very much, Emma. Thanks. Deputy Mayor, your hand's up. You've already spoken. Hand up from before.

I have spoken, but I would like to offer another solution if that's possible. If there's an issue with the number of times we speak, can we perhaps resolve into committee of the whole or something so that we don't have the speaking limitations? Because I think I'm gathering from a few councillors that people are wanting sort of to support both sides, and I think we can probably come to a happy medium and get this sorted for tonight so it can go out on exhibition.

Can you clarify what the happy medium is, please?

Well, I think the happy medium would be if Councillor Connelly was willing to include a couple of changes that Councillor Wheeler had previously suggested, which was that to have the clarity around being able to have—I know Councillor Connelly is going to say it's not applicable—but for Councillor Wheeler to have that included, and also to have the clarity that it's for any hardship rather than just the natural disasters, to have that very clear, and also to have that amended on the website where we have a website that just refers to COVID-19 or bushfires, that the hardship policy is for everything, and also to generate an easy-read version of this whole thing to go out to the public and to be kept. Would Councillor Connelly be happy with that?

Councillor Connelly.

Yeah, yeah. As long as the intention is to change the wording of the policy, because I think that's where we're getting mixed up before, is people want to change the wording of the guideline, which we're not discussing. But if there's something in the policy that needs to be changed, and it can be changed quickly, I think that's a really good outcome, as I said before, and I think the Deputy Mayor for the suggestion.

I think that's maybe Councillor Wheeler would want to give a specific wording, but yes, that's what the intention was, plus to add a point about the easy read version, which was in the amendment.

So you agree with those changes, Councillor Conolly?

Yes, we haven't heard them yet, but yes, if Councillor Wheeler or Councillor Kotlash could tell us which clause of the policy needs to change and what it needs to change to, I think that'd be a good way forward. And also to include the easy read version in the motion would be fine.

Who's going to provide the information for Councillor Conolly?

I'm having a bit of an IT problem .

Yes.

It tells me I can't access the business paper because it's on my desktop because I've timed out, so I can't find the exact clause. But it's the reference to the $10 a week minimum payment.

If we know the clause, Councillor Conolly, do we have to quote it right now, or are you just happy to take it on belief at this stage?

Mr Mayor, again, I'm a bit confused. I don't know that the $10 per week was mentioned in the policy, but maybe that could be a question to staff. I didn't believe it was.

Mr Conroy, is the $10 mentioned in the policy I

Refer that to Chief Financial Officer,

Mr Mayor.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. My suggestion would be to have a minimum requirement because people are able to defer payment. If they cannot afford to pay the $10, it doesn't matter; we would just defer the payment. But it does help once they start the arrangement to start chipping off at the amount outstanding. So, and from the 40 applications we've got so far, the $10 hasn't been an issue. In fact, minimum, like, payments that people want to make are much higher than that, and that's their own voluntary amount . So I don't believe $10 is an issue, because someone

This is Gloria. The question is, is the $10 mentioned in the policy? Oh, sorry

Sorry. No, because it is specific for the COVID and natural disasters guideline.

So it's in the guidelines, not in the policy?

No. But generally, whilst there's no amount specified in the policy, we would encourage people when we enter into arrangement to pay a minimum amount every week.

So, Deputy Mayor, what you're suggesting is about the guidelines, not the policy. Is that right?

Yes. Well, whichever it was in, there's a suggested clarification around it. So if that's not necessary to change the policy, and we are changing the guideline anyway, I expect that would be done. It was, I was just suggesting to try and incorporate as much as possible from the amendment into the existing recommendation so that we can move it forward. I can't see the amendment now, so I don't know, I can't recall what it said. But there was a requirement of, and Councillor Conolly, I think, has agreed to add a provision onto the recommendation to get the easy-read version, which I think everybody agrees with is necessary for this policy and for all policies, probably for people to understand that. And I'm of the understanding from the recommendation that this will only come back to Council if there are submissions during the exhibition period. Is that correct?

Mr Conroy, is that correct? That's the way the current recommendation reads, Mr Mayor. I think we've already asked Councillor Conolly several times whether he would—

I've got a proposed solution, if it might work, given that sort of misunderstanding about the guideline has been clarified again. Perhaps a motion could be that we put it on exhibition, that we also develop an easy read version, that it be reported back regardless of whether there are submissions, and that all councillors have the opportunity to communicate with the Chief Financial Officer and General Manager over the next week with their views on any changes that are required to the guideline.

Councillor Cotless, would that meet your requirements? Please say yes.

Yeah, no, it doesn't. But for the sake of getting this, a resolution here, I'm willing to do it that way. What I will say is that remember why we're doing this is to help people, and this not putting this policy on public exhibition and fixing the problems that it has is not going to stop our capacity to help people. So I'm not sure why we're actually debating it, but I'm happy to have that extension on the original recommendation. I don't think it goes far enough. I think we need to rewrite this policy. Well

It's coming back, so we will have the chance.

That's right, but I think the way I want to rewrite it might morph into three policies, but don't worry

That can still be done, I believe.

Oh, okay. If that can be done, if we can have major changes to this policy, I will be happy with that.

I believe that's the case.

Okay.

Did anyone manage to write down what Councillor Conolly said ?

Maybe not. Yeah, Councillor Conolly did. Yes.

Would you like to repeat, Councillor Conolly, as best you can?

Yes. The motion be that we place the hardship and debt recovery policy on public exhibition, that it be reported back to Council regardless of whether any submissions are received, that Council develop an easy read version for publication, and the final point, that councillors have the opportunity to communicate with the Chief Financial Officer and General Manager about any changes required to the guidelines.

Councillor Kotlash is withdrawing her amendment. Is that the case? Yes. Councillor Conolly moved this and Councillor Rasmussen seconded it. Councillor Conolly, do you want to have— sorry, another hand came up. Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just very quickly, we have a community at the moment that's in dire need of assistance in many ways, shapes and forms, and this is something that our Council can offer to do for them. And the fact we've debated semantics like this for as long as we have on this item completely goes against how desperately we actually have to help our community. So my fear is when this item does come back at the next meeting that we're going to do all of this again. So what I would like is if there's some way that whatever changes are going to be made and put to Council, we can have them at the next briefing so that we don't waste this considerable amount of time when we need to get this document up and running to the public and actually have councillors look at it, see it, approve it, and make sure that at the next meeting it's actually passed and actually out there available to the public without having to go through this rigmarole over again.

Thanks.

Thank you. I think we all tend to agree that we want to get this out as quickly as possible. Councillor Conolly, do you wish to have a right of reply?

No. Well, I'm going to put the motion. Once again, I can't see Councillor Rasmusson or Councillor Tree, and you can tell me what you vote or you can put your video on. So I'm going to move the recommendation as put forward by Councillor Conolly. If you're in favour, please raise your hand. In favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Garrow, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Sam Probner, Councillor Conolly. Councillor Rasmusson, you in favour?

Yes, Mr Mayor, I've got my little blue hand up.

Oh, your blue hand. We

Don't need your blue hand, okay. Do

What?

What do you want, a red hand or a pink hand?

All those against, please raise your hand. Councillor Ross, Councillor Kotlash. Did I get everyone? I declare it carried.

Okay, we now move to item 74, which is

Information regarding council spending during the 2016 to 20 term. Move that way, Mr Mayor. Moved by Councillor Rasmussen. Do we have a seconder?

Do we have a seconder?

Yeah, I'll second that.

Councillor Reynolds. Councillor Rasmussen, do you wish to speak? Yes,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I think the report explains it quite clearly and compellingly. There's an awful lot of things to do, a lot of moving parts in council right now, lots to do, and yes, there wasn't sufficient time to get it all together and signed, which perhaps was a bit unnecessary anyway. But the way that it's being explained and that it will come back with better particulars, more and better particulars in May, I think is the right way to go for us and staff.

Thank you. Councillor Conolly.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. There's probably not much point in too much debate, given that it is what it is at this point. I just wanted to express my disappointment that it wasn't able to be produced prior to us looking at the operational plan. You know, this is information that a few councils were keen to point out was easily and readily available and already there, and we could all just grab it ourselves, but staff haven't been able to have the opportunity to put it together in the time limit, unfortunately. But we will get it before finally adopting this year's operational plan, so just have to wait and see and hope it does come in May.

Thank you. Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Councillor Connelly has summed up my thoughts exactly, and considering I was the mover of the motion, I was extremely keen to have this information available to us before the operational plan actually came before us as well. I don't think that, obviously I voted against it when it came up earlier tonight, but I don't think that as councillors we can make any informed decisions properly on where we're going or the direction of this council is going in a financial capacity without that different information. I've got a question. I mean, I'd like to know, why was this information unable to be collated? I mean, was there a direction not to collate this information? We were told at the last meeting that we were going to be able to get this information quite easily.

It was a matter of putting a few tables together. So I'm curious as to why there is such, is there delay in this? I mean, the appetite from the councillors at the last meeting, I think, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure it was unanimous support to get this information as quickly as the staff could to the councillors and to the public in general. And I just, I am disappointed that this is the case, and I don't believe that any of us are in the capacity to make a decision about where this council goes financially without this information. I actually believe it is that fundamentally important that we have it.

So there was a question there?

I'd just like some feedback on to why it wasn't able to be collated when we were sort of told that the information wasn't too much of a burden, or if it is too much of a burden, were there directions or anything like that to reprioritise other things, and what other things were put in place of not allowing us to have this information?

Thank you, Mr Conroy. Mr Mayor, at the time the resolution was passed, the 10th of March, our intention was to present the budget to Council in the first week of April, and all the work on that version of the budget had been carried out and a briefing had been prepared. After the 10th of March, there were developments across the nation that resulted in a decision for us to review our entire budget. So the focus of staff activities then became the review of the entire budget, and that's what we've been working on throughout this period primarily, with a view to presenting the information to the briefing and then to tonight's Council meeting for the adoption of the revised operational plan. As I've previously outlined to Councillors, staff worked over the Easter break to do that work.

The amount of work involved was enormous, and there wasn't the capacity to do both the complete review of the budget and to prepare this report within that time, and that's what the report explains.

Thank you. Councillor Reynolds.

Oh, I haven't finished.

Oh, you haven't finished. Sorry, please continue.

Thanks. If I've missed it, please inform me, but when there was a, and I'm not getting into a projected deficit argument here, but I'm highlighting that when we were told a couple of meetings ago that we would have a projected deficit, it was stated in that report that the way the Council would get themselves into a financially viable position was with an array of biodiversity offset plans and also reshuffling or rearranging or looking at the property portfolio again. Have though, they were the two points in that report that staff had said they were hitting their hat on in making sure we could get into a position of being in at least a surplus or at least in a balanced budget. Where are those details that was so heavily based on in that report? Where are they now as to how we're going to proceed with those two points?

Mr

Conroy.

Mr Mayor, those details will be presented when the rest of the information is presented in May. As I think I answered earlier, we're in the process of preparing that information in relation to biodiversity. There have been changes in legislation which have interrupted that process, but we'll still be reporting on that to Council as part of that report. And my recollection is that we were talking about the long-term situation at Council, and long-term those two elements, the property strategy and biodiversity, will be contributory items to all of the other work that Council's already committed and achieved.

Councillor Richards.

Thank you. Finished, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. Councillor Reynolds.

I'll speak in favour of the recommendation. I find it hard to believe, given that this notice of motion—I wasn't at this meeting, so I didn't vote for it—but this notice of motion was on the 10th of March, and since then we've just gone into the biggest pandemic to strike the world since the Spanish flu of 1918. We've seen the shutdown of the economy. We've seen in every state, we've seen borders closed. We've had staff having to deal not only with the pandemic but also bushfire relief, a Royal Commission into the bushfire, flood recovery, staff turmoil, isolation, New South Wales and federal legislative changes. And here we are having people demand that a notice of motion to do with financial figures.

Which are available if a councillor wants to go through and look at the documents that they were represented, were given as part of the budget position for each year over the last four years. This isn't just a request to do with this financial year; it's to do with the last four years. And if you look at the actual request itself, I mean, there are 12 points. You know, it's not just a simple, you know, plug and chug put into a computer report. There's a lot of work that goes into this, and I'm disappointed of the attitude given the stress , just the stress that our staff have been under in the last period of time since this motion was passed. I'm really disappointed that people don't have the empathy

To appreciate what our staff have been through, given that this report just isn't here now because they demanded it back on March the 10th. Personally, I find that pretty pathetic, and I think our staff need to be cut some slack.

Thank you, Councillor Reynolds. There's no other speakers listed with any blue hands up. So, Councillor Rasmussen, you wish to have right of reply

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yes, I do. And I want to echo , with a couple of other echoes, Councillor Reynolds ' eloquent statement about the need for us councillors to understand what it is that the staff go through to develop and completely reformat and rework a budget in that sort of time frame. And if we recall what the General Manager said, that all of the staff worked over Easter. Now, I don't know how much more councillor, or any councillor could expect or want from our staff. Several of them, many of them, are working now from home , as rightly so, and it is a difficult situation. Has anybody listened to the national debate? Parliament , our highest place of democracy, isn't sitting. There was a one-day hands up, $ 130 billion went through Parliament.

And that was it. One day, gone. Right? There is now on the books of the national accounts, in the order of five to six hundred billion dollars of debt and deficits for as long as the eye can see now, and probably rightly so because the nation needs it. Now, here we are, council staff at a lower level have gone through similar. They haven't produced deficits for us. They've produced a balanced budget. I mean, they need blooming accolades, not, Why haven't you done this? I'm disappointed that you didn't work harder over Easter.

And for goodness' sake, councillors,

Let's just be sensible.

Thank you. That was right of reply. And there are no further speakers, so I'll put the motion. If you're in favour, please raise your hand. Favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Garrow. Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ross, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Tree, and Councillor Rasmussen. All those against, please raise your hand.

Nobody against.

I only recorded 10

Votes then.

Must be abstaining. Okay, well it's 10 in favour, so I'll— Sorry,

If something's an audio issue, I was voting against.

You are, are you?

Yeah.

10 in favour, one against. Any others against?

Councillor Richards, did you vote on this?

Can't hear you, sorry.

Sorry, I didn't have the Zoom screen on, I was on the business paper. Against. Thank you. Against. Okay, I declare it carried 10

Votes to 2

Thank you.

Item 75.

Moved that, Mr Mayor.

Moved by the Deputy Mayor. Do we have a seconder? Second. Second that, Mr Mayor. Seconded, Councillor Rasmussen. Deputy Mayor, you wish to speak on this?

Yes, please. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I think it's very encouraging to see the state government introducing a 20-year waste strategy, which includes some essential moves which have been a long time coming in New South Wales, particularly the use of single-use plastics, the banning of single-use plastics and so on. From a personal level, I think reading the strategy, I would think it doesn't actually capture sufficiently the need to view waste as a resource rather than as a problem, and it still also includes some measures which are quite punitive and not necessarily conducive to encouraging all sectors to fully embrace the opportunities that exist in the waste sector at the moment. However, I think that it should be pushing more on things such as, you know, working towards getting rid of unnecessary packaging and so on, but that's not specifically to do with our submission, so I'll leave that.

It is good to see a commitment to the principles of the circular economy. We are moving that way, and we have to move that way. So I find the council submission is very good in what it's putting forward. I agree with it, and I'm very pleased that it acknowledges our commitment to ESD principles, particularly the principle of intergenerational equity. I do think that if the state government is genuine in addressing the waste problems into the future, it really has to commit better to some critical infrastructure in the waste area. And I think that this is not adequately expressed in their document. And I think that in ours, we maybe brush over it a little bit because it really is the key to being able to move into the future in this area.

The inclusion of the Westrock report is good, which gives some examples, although it's quite outdated, so it's from 2015. And since then, we've had so much change within Western Sydney with the city deals and with the very large projected population growth. And it does actually put our facility in that report as a priority to be a mixed waste facility. And I wonder how, if that is a priority that we're holding or if that's held at a regional level, or I would just like to see that information updated. Last week, we had the first online meeting of the working group to look at the food waste, and it was a highly productive meeting . We, I think that we're really going to be able to come up with a pilot program that is going to be a tangible move towards going back into composting and dealing with food waste.

I can understand within our submission the challenges that are put forward from a geographical sense. It's very difficult to collect waste over a large local government area. So some of the ideas that we discussed the other night were around maybe partnering in various ways using a council facility, but having other means of collection. We really had so many ideas because we have some really good experts on the waste committee working group, and so I'm quite excited to see what comes out of that. That the aim of that working group being to come up with a trial to present to Council about that. So I think that in terms of the submission, I did think that Council's putting forward some good points.

I still think that there's many more opportunities in this area that aren't being capitalised upon, and I do think that we're in a position that we can be really involved in that. So I thank the staff for writing that submission and for putting forward such good points to the State Government. Hopefully they'll be listening. But I think one of the bigger missing things is that there really isn't enough information about Western Sydney and dealing with waste into the future when they have such a massive projection for population increase.

Thank you. Councillor Reynolds, you wish to speak.

Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor. I speak in favour of the recommendation. I find it pretty staggering that, you know, our ratepayers are paying over three and a half million dollars a year in waste levy charges, and as our report states , we only receive $100,000 back out of that three and a half million dollars. And the idea of the waste management, or the waste levy charge, is to improve recycling, reduce waste, etc. And to quote someone from Macquarie Street, it's scandalous that the government will invest only 16% of the $2.1 billion. Raised by the waste levy over the next four years into reducing waste, despite the massive and unsustainable increase to landfill predicted. I think that's something we need to consider.

I mean, apart from that, I come back to, you know, the ratepayers are getting $100,000 back to look into recycling and reducing waste, even though they pay $3.5 million for that research. The second point I want to make is that, again, it's similar to the sewerage charges where Sydney Water doesn't consider us part of the Sydney Water catchment, where, you know, the waste levy boundaries see, you know, Blue Mountains and Wollondilly pay only $82.70 a tonne, and we're charged $143.60 a tonne. And again, the report from staff shows that if we were charged at the same rate as Blue Mountains and Wollondilly, you know, ratepayers would save nearly $1.5 million a year. So I think these numbers alone that are included in the report shows that I think every councillor should support the recommendation.

Thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Following along from Councillor Reynolds, I also wanted to bring up those points about the waste levy. I think the residents of the Hawkesbury need to be clear on this. We are currently paying $3.425 million into the New South Wales Government coffers to pay to dump our waste in our hole on our land using our staff, our trucks and our resources. How is it possible for the state government to justify

Hiving off that sort of money from a council the size of Hawkesbury? 3.425 million.

And whilst not considering us a metropolitan council for any time that they can pay us any sort of money, they consider us a metropolitan council when it comes to charging us to dump our waste in our hole on our land, to the tune of $1.4 million difference. Now , I'm not sure what it is about the Hawkesbury that makes them think that we're metropolitan, but if they'd come out and see the facilities that we're given, the public transport that the state government gives us, and the money that they hand over in grants, they might find that they are very sadly mistaken, and we are in fact more rural than large slabs of Wollondilly, which is now being heavily developed. I've got a couple of problems with two of the statements made in our response.

One is the statement on page 50 about food and garden organics not being compulsory across councils. I don't agree with that statement. I think it will have to become compulsory, and we probably just need to get on with the collection of food and garden organics. Some councils are just going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century, and that's the state government's role. And they are the same councils that will have to be dragged into the 21st century on all aspects of emissions reduction, climate change mitigation, and regenerative activities, unless they think there's a buck in it or it's made compulsory. They simply won't do it. The other comment that I'm cautious about is towards the end of the document where it refers to energy from waste.

I think we need to make it very clear that energy from waste is one of the last resorts. The only thing that energy from waste is better than is landfill. Resource recovery needs to be pushed as the standard that this council aspires to. I'm really wary of any mention of energy from waste. There's a big push on for it at the moment, and I'm not sure that that's really governed by anything other than it being cheaper than sticking it in a hole. I'm very pleased to see polystyrene mentioned. It's one of the big waste issues that we have in the LGA because we don't have a collection point. It's particularly problematic for businesses, and until we get businesses who sell particularly large white goods being responsible for the waste that they send out in their packaging, I think it's going to fall onto councils to try and come up with a method of dealing with polystyrene.

And I'm also pleased to see a push for end markets for recycled content, another area that I don't think we do enough of, either as a council and certainly not as a state. Thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just want to echo what Councillor Wheeler has just highlighted, and I thank her for that detailed analysis of how the whole thing works, and I'm pleased that she is into that detail because it helps all of us. But my point, I guess, is broader than that. She raises the absolutely— Fundamental point about letting the ratepayers know how much money they are actually paying to the state government coffers. Now, I'm just wondering whether those numbers of 3. 5 million, I think it was, versus 100,000, could we put— is it possible to put those numbers on the back of an envelope? I recall some time ago when there was a carbon tax issue that the council put something like that on the back of an envelope, because that seemed to be, you know, the flavour of the month of the council at that stage.

Maybe we could do something along those lines too. That is, highlight what the ratepayers are actually paying to the state government to keep their coffers going, and what little they're getting back to do research on waste use and so on, reuse and so on. So I'm wondering whether we could do that as a question, Mr Mayor.

A question. Mr Conroy, do you have an answer to that question, please?

That's a decision for council to make in terms of policy direction and whether it wants to take that course of action. It's up to council if it wants to do that or not.

Thank you. Councillor Rasmussen, you're finished?

Yes, thanks, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. Councillor Conolly.

Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor. I just wanted to echo what Councillor Rasmussen was just saying. I think I actually agree. It's actually, it is ridiculous. You know, similar to the carbon tax, the waste levy was brought in to price an externality to the market and to price the cost of waste to society. And you can understand that as a broad policy initiative of somebody who thought they were really smart in Macquarie Street once upon a time. But realistically , it is what was just described. It's just hiving off money locally, sending it to the state government, and for a very long time, it's not all been used for waste initiatives. It's just, you know, just moving money around. So yeah, I agree. You know, we're using our own resources to process our own waste and our own land.

Why should we be paying for, you know, an environmental feel-good levy that's not actually going into waste reduction at all? I couldn't agree more.

Thank you.

I, of course, agree with that as well, and I think we stated it very strongly in our submission, and it's a good strong position. I think one of the problems is there aren't many TIPs left in Sydney, and us TIP owners are becoming the minority around here. We don't have as much influence as we used to have. I know Wesroc has been campaigning very strongly on these issues, and I had the pleasure of meeting with Minister Kean a few months ago to talk about that very issue. He did say he would take it on board and do something with it. I'm still waiting for the response. I also want to point out that this document that we've received is an issues paper, and according to its beginning, it says the issues paper has been prepared to help shape the development of a long-term strategy.

So the document itself is not a strategy; it's an issues paper, and they're inviting us to comment and have input. And I encourage everyone to do that because I would hate to think that what is here in the issues paper actually becomes the strategy, because it doesn't address many of the issues that you've brought up in your speaking, what you've said here tonight. So I'm happy to vote for it as an issues paper, but I wouldn't be happy to vote for it as a strategy. Any other speakers? Councillor Ross.

Thank

You, Mayor.

I believe the report is a very good report, actually.

The shortcomings that you've just advised us of, Mayor, are specifically related to our state colleagues who have known about most of these things for nigh on 40 years now,

As have the federal levels of government, and have all , one way or another, avoided confronting what is indeed a very serious matter. And far be it for me to suggest that it was only a change of

Stance by people offshore who have

Resulted in some more determined fixation of

View and thought being placed upon this.

Indeed, as Councillor Rasmussen said on an earlier matter, we don't know what the future holds, but we for sure and certain are facing changing times and changing ways of doing many things. And one of them has to be this matter of

Waste generation and its

Avoidance in terms of landfill operations in favour of a more circular economy. And whilst this is a discussion paper, it needs to be a call to action from local government to the state and federal authorities to stop sitting on their hands and actually go out and

Promote

The repurposing of various forms of waste, which are not being done now, particularly with these rigid plastics and so on that we allegedly recycle, but are just being stored up in

Fire-prone facilities, as we've seen in Victoria, to the ultimate

Cost of the community without any benefit. And what's more, it just continues on with, if you like, the promotion of chemical processing of hydrocarbons, which is unwarranted when we already have the material there that could be recycled. and repurposed in a better fashion.

Governments are going to have to

Actually put their hands in their pockets, whether it be through the ill-gotten gains of these waste levies or directly from taxpayers to support the recycling within Australia

To a very significant extent across all areas of waste

That is present in the community, particularly in the food industry and the supermarkets and other manufacturers supplying them with food stuff

Mr Leader, off the second, please . I don't feel real well at the moment. Deputy Mayor, are you able to take over for ten minutes?

Yes, Mr Mayor. Thank you. Look

I think I should conclude on that basis and trust that the Mayor is not inconvenienced for the rest of the meeting, sir. Madam.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. Are there any further speakers on this item? There's no other hands up . I'll just do right of reply then and hand over to myself . Thank you to the councillors who raised what I had forgotten to raise, which was specifically about the waste levy. I think we all know there's such an element of unfairness connected to this, both in the sense that we are charged the metropolitan rate, where at times we are not considered a metropolitan council. We're certainly not considered metropolitan councilors, but we sometimes are, sometimes aren't, and there needs to be a fairer system around that. In terms of the amount we get back, we get back less than 3% returned to us from that levy , and if we had a much bigger proportion come back either to us or even to a central fund to set up some proper operational facilities for dealing with waste into the future, that would be much more preferable.

And this paper is missing that. Whereas it is an issues paper, we're not voting on that tonight; we're voting on our submission, which adequately covers the points that are specific to the Hawkesbury. I do agree with Councillor Wheeler regarding the inclusion about energy from waste, but I note that we do say it is a last resort, and yes, the only other option is better than is landfill . So I've lost one of the notes. I think that I would be happy to see another initiative. I do think that the dockets you get from the waste management facility do say how much of that is the waste levy. I think I'm correct in that, but I do think that it is something we really need the community to understand.

We also are very lucky to have staff who do a great job in the waste facility management area, particularly in terms of education, and we still need to educate the community further. I think that the state government has a long way to go. There was, previous to this issues paper coming out, there were other submissions put in, and I did read those from a number of organisations and council areas, and the state government hasn't taken up, for example, we of course said the same thing in our submission back then about the waste levy, and they haven't taken up all the issues that councils had submitted to them, but they are making some headway, and it's essential that we do at all levels of government be adapting and looking at better options within the waste sector.

So

That's me finished. So Mayor not back in . So no further speakers. If you put your hand up, we can vote on item 75. All those in favour? Councillor Garrow, Councillor Ross, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Richards, Councillor Sampragno. Councillor Conolly, is that a hand? Yes, Councillor Conolly. Councillor Rasmussen.

I'm in favour

You're in favour. Councillor Tree doesn't seem to be still with us . Okay, so that's everyone, 11 in favour. Thank you . Yes, we'll let him.

The Mayor's thing monitored, yes.

Thank you. Was item 76 on block? I don't have a list of anything, so I don't know.

Yes, it is, and I moved that way, sorry, Deputy Mayor.

Second that. It's not on block. It's nothing's on block apart from one item in confidential.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. So moved Councillor Rasmussen, seconded Councillor Conolly. Any discussion on that?

Yes, Madam Mayor, Deputy Mayor. I want to highlight a couple of things. Firstly, that some years ago, probably about 15 years ago now, maybe a bit shorter , the investment fund—sorry, the funds under investment

Averaged about 20, from memory, about 21 to 23 million dollars. This council is now regularly clocking up investments of 50-plus million of investments. Now, there are obviously good reasons for that, but I think it needs to be highlighted to people listening that this council has that capacity to invest in very high security markets. Secondly , this council has recently adopted an investment , very conservative investment policy, and had previously a much more conservative investment policy, which has served us really well for a number of years, and the new policy will serve us equally as well into the future. And that just sets us up really well for dealing with, you know, the fog that's obviously enveloping us out there as this pandemic takes hold. So they're the two points, main two points. But the second thing is... Sorry, the third thing is that I was looking at the recommendation

In the business paper, and then I looked at page, which most councillors would have seen, on page 56. The last bullet point there says that this is the business paper recommends that Council undertake cash flow planning to determine what pressure any of the initiatives to support the community, so on. Now, I don't see that in the— to pick that up. That's not picked up in the main recommendation of the business paper. So I'm just wondering, the business paper recommendation is basically that the monthly investment report for March 2020 be received and noted. I think, if we are—and I think it's a good idea— that we pick up the point that is made on page, what did I say, 56, that bullet point, last bullet point, that Council does undertake cash flow planning to determine what pressure, because there will be enormous pressure on the cash flow going forward, as we've heard.

There will be people seeking hardships, there will be drop in incomes, there will be many, many pressures on Council's cash flow. So I think I would like to add, Madam Deputy Mayor, I'd like to add that part of the business paper's recommendation into the main body of the recommendation, if that's okay with you.

Well it's fine with me, but I'll ask Councillor Conolly if he is happy with that to be added on. Councillor Conolly?

Yeah, I expected that would be an operational item, but assuming that the staff have no issue with that being added, I don't see any problem with it being added either.

Mr Conroy. No issue, Madam Deputy Mayor.

Thank you. We'll add that on so that becomes part of the motion. Any further discussion?

Thank you, Madam Deputy Mayor.

Any further discussion? No further— oh, sorry, Councillor Wheeler.

Madam Deputy Mayor, just to reiterate Councillor Rasmussen's comment, this would be one of the few examples, in my opinion, where it's good to be highly conservative in this instance.

Thank you. Are you finished, Councillor Wheeler? Yes. No further discussion. Councillor Rasmussen, do you require a right of reply?

Not necessary, Madam Deputy Mayor. Thank you.

Okay, we'll vote on that with Councillor Rasmussen's added point. All those in favour? Councillor Garrow, Councillor Ross, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Richards, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, and Councillor Rasmussen. The motion is carried. Next item.

Move the recommendation, Madam Deputy Mayor.

Okay. We'll just see what it is. Okay. Moved Councillor Conolly, seconded

Councillor Rasmussen. Item 77. Yeah.

Thank you. Any discussion, Councillor Conolly?

No.

No discussion. Any other discussion?

Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I just continue to raise the point, as I have, in that the organisational structure is a matter for Council. It appears not to be being adhered to, and I take extreme exception to the way in which three positions of late have been not put before Council in terms of altered organisational structure. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. Does anyone want to comment on that, Mr Conroy?

No, Madam Mayor. We've raised these points in the past. The Council adopted the structure, and we've made refinements, as we said in that report on the way through. This is a replacement position. It was an existing position. It's been refined, as that report said in 2017, re-advertised, and we've recruited. Okay,

Thank you.

Councillor Reynolds.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. In regard to Councillor Ross's statement and his earlier statement on another item, I was led to believe that operational matters and staff matters were an issue for the General Manager, and that the Councillors themselves take no part in the hiring and firing of staff below the General Manager. Is this a legislative issue, that this is indeed the case, or is it a policy of this particular Council that the General Manager has complete autonomy over staff underneath him?

Mr Conroy. Madam Mayor, under the Local Government Act, we're required to present Council with organisational structure for endorsement within 12 months of the new Council being elected. That, I think, happened in about August 2017, at which time Council endorsed the existing structure of three directors, and at the same time, Council noted that there would be ongoing review and refinement of the structure moving forward as opportunities arose. That's been the case ever since. Each year, we put forward a budget, an operational plan which outlines our priorities and objectives, and Council has each year endorsed that operational plan. As I said, with this particular position, it's a replacement position.

The focus has been sharpened, we've recruited and filled the position, and now we're coming to the point of dealing with the governance elements that sit with the position. It's a normal process that occurs across New South Wales.

Thank you, General Manager. Councillor Ross, did you have a question?

No, I wish to claim misrepresentation.

All right, you may proceed with your misrepresentation.

I put it to fellow councillors that it is not Council's situation that it endorses the organisational structure; it is Council's requirement to set the organisational structure, and in that regard, I— Take strong exception to the comment Mr Ross recently made. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. Any further discussion?

Right of reply, Councillor Conolly.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. Just to address that point, only because I wouldn't even address it if it just keeps coming up over and over again. I think the General Manager has expressed the view that Council's adopting an organisational structure is setting out the overall directorates and how the division of labour will be set out, and the General Manager and other staff will then fill out that with individual positions. Councillor Ross seems to be of the opinion that setting the organisational structure means naming every single position in the organisation. Personally, I don't believe that is the case, but I would just urge, without being disrespectful to Councillor Ross, to test your position with the Council rather than continually bring this up as an issue.

If you believe that is the case, move a motion at some point in time and see if the rest of us agree with you, and we'll get an answer one way or the other as to Council's position on it, so we don't have to keep debating it every time something comes up.

Thank you, Councillor Conolly. I'll put the motion to the vote. All those in favour? Councillor Garrow, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Richards, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Rasmussen.

Yes, Madam Mayor

Yes, you're voting for it. I am. Thank you. Voting against? Councillor Ross. The motion is carried.

Next item. Move the recommendation, Madam Deputy Mayor.

Okay, I'll just see what it is. Okay. Moved Councillor Conolly, seconded

Councillor Rasmussen. Item 77. Yeah.

Thank you. Any discussion, Councillor Conolly?

No.

No discussion. Any other discussion?

Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I just continue to raise the point, as I have, in that the organisational structure is a matter for Council. It appears not to be being adhered to, and I take extreme exception to the way in which three positions of late have been not put before Council in terms of altered organisational structure. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. Does anyone want to comment on that, Mr Conroy?

No, Madam Mayor. We've raised these points in the past. The Council adopted the structure, and we've made refinements, as we said in that report on the way through. This is a replacement position. It was an existing position. It's been refined, as that report said in 2017, re-advertised and we've recruited. Okay,

Thank you.

Councillor Reynolds.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. In regard to Councillor Ross's statement and his earlier statement on another item, I was led to believe that operational matters and staff matters... were an issue for the general manager,

And that the councillors themselves take no part in the hiring and firing of staff below the general manager. Is this a legislative issue, that this is indeed the case, or is it a policy of this particular council that the general manager has complete autonomy over staff underneath him?

Mr Conroy. Madam Mayor, under the Local Government Act, we're required to present Council with an organisational structure for endorsement within 12 months of the new Council being elected. That, I think, happened in about August 2017, at which time Council endorsed the existing structure of three directors, and at the same time Council noted that there would be ongoing review and refinement of the structure moving forward as opportunities arose. That's been the case ever since. Each year we put forward a budget, an operational plan which outlines our priorities and objectives, and Council has each year endorsed that operational plan. As I said with this particular position, it's a replacement position.

The focus has been sharpened, we've recruited and filled the position, and now we're coming to the point of dealing with the governance elements that sit with the position. It's a normal process that occurs across New South Wales.

Thank you, General Manager. Councillor Ross, did you have a question?

No, I wish to claim misrepresentation.

All right, you may proceed with your misrepresentation.

I put it to fellow councillors that it is not Council's situation that it endorses the organisational structure. It is Council's requirement to set the organisational structure, and in that regard, I take strong exception to the comment Mr recently made. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. Any further discussion?

Right of reply, Councillor Conolly.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. Just to address that point, only because I wouldn't even address it, but it just keeps coming up over and over again. I think the General Manager has expressed the view that Council's adopting an organisational structure is setting out the overall directorates and how the division of labour will be set out, and the General Manager will then, and other staff will then fill out that with individual positions. Councillor Ross seems to be of the opinion that setting the organisational structure means naming every single position in the organisation. Personally, I don't believe that is the case, but I would just urge, without being disrespectful to Councillor Ross, to test your position with the Council rather than continually bring this up as an issue.

If you believe that is the case, move a motion at some point in time and see if the rest of us agree with you, and we'll get an answer one way or the other as to Council's position on it, so we don't have to keep debating it every time something comes up.

Thank you, Councillor Conolly. I'll put the motion to the vote. All those in favour? Councillor Garrow, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Richards, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Rasmussen. Yes

Madam Mayor. Yes

You're voting for it I am. Thank you. Voting against ? Councillor Ross. The motion is carried.