12 May 2020 - Ordinary

Participating in this meeting has a mobile phone that they either turn it off or turn it to silent. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Mr. Conroy. Just double-checking with the technical people that we're actually working properly. I'm getting conflicting responses here.

Is it all working properly?

Nobody knows. Carry on regardless. Is that the idea?

I

Think

So. I'll just make an inquiry, Mr. Mayor, and I'll come back to you, okay?

Thank you.

For those of you who are interested, I just had someone poke their head in my door and say, Sorry, we're not on air yet. So we may have to repeat all that.

Mr. Mayor, from this end it says we are live.

If that helps. Mr

Conroy, we're live . It appears

We're live, Mr. Mayor.

We're streaming. Great. Okay, we'll move on to apologies. We have apologies from Councillor Tree. Do you have any other apologies?

Councillor Ross, is he here?

We'll take apologies from Councillor Ross. Someone like to move we accept the apologies. Moved that way. Councillor Reynolds. All those in favour say aye. Aye. Any declarations of interest?

None. Okay.

The minutes of the last meeting. Is there any discussion of the minutes?

No discussion. Would someone like to move we accept— Move the minutes Mr. Mayor. Moved by the Deputy Mayor, seconded by somebody I missed. Councillor Brogden. All those in favour of accepting the minutes, please raise your hand. In favour: Councillor Calver, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Cotterell, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Wheeler. Is that a yes from you, Councillor Rasmussen?

Yes, it is, Mr. Mayor, thank you

Absent is Councillor Tree and Councillor Ross. Declare it carried.

There are no items subject to public address tonight.

Mr Mayor, I think we've missed the acknowledgement.

Acknowledgement of the— Of country. No, I did that right at the beginning. Perhaps we weren't online at the time.

Is that the problem No, you were. No, you were. Thanks, Mr Mayor, I didn't hear it.

Okay. There are no items subject to public address. So therefore the next item is Mayoral Minute, item number 82.

Item number 82 is about the inequitable and inconsistent application of the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority waste levy. As you know, the New South Wales government taxes councils for putting their own rubbish into their own tips. And what I'm seeking here in this Mayoral Minute is to get a fairer distribution of that tax across the state, and also to get a greater level of return of that tax back to councils, particularly our council. At the moment, our council is paying $3.25 million a year to the New South Wales government to put rubbish in our own tip. And that is $1.45 million more than Wollondilly and Blacktown pay because they've got a different classification to us. Even though we pay $3.25 million, we only receive back approximately $100,000 a year.

The irony is that the tax was imposed to try and attempt to force councils to reduce the amount of waste that is going into landfill. Now the way to reduce waste, of course, is by— Possibly by education programs with the community , possibly through awareness programs and other similar programs. In order to do that, however, councils need money to do that. But the money's been taken away from us by the state government and not returned. So we don't have the financial resources to conduct those programs. So it's a vicious cycle. They take the money away from us. We can't afford then to address the problem, so they just keep taking the money away from us. So what we're asking to do is to break that cycle, to try and get the state government to not tax us firstly at the same level as city councils, because we're not a city council, and secondly to give most, if not all, of that money back to councils so we can use it for campaigns to actually reduce the amount of rubbish that goes into landfill.

So what the recommendation is that we write to the local member and to the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority seeking a review, and that we look to address the inequity of the waste levy boundaries and seek higher levels of reimbursement of the waste levy. That's the meal minute. I commend it to you. Are there any other speakers?

Looking for blue hands. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Yeah, look, I am very happy to support this Mayoral Minute, and I thank the staff for collating the information that came to us, I think, at the previous council meeting. Could I request, Mr Mayor, that you add to the recommendation and copy in also the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Environment, in this case, I think Minister Kean. This has been an ongoing issue for local councils. Local Government NSW has long campaigned on this issue, currently to no effect. We're not the only council dismayed at the hiving off of ratepayer and residents' money to state government general revenue, but I think we have an additional case around the significant extra charge treating us as a metropolitan council.

I agree with you, Mr Mayor, that this is indeed a tax. It's an outrageous impost on our residents, and I fully agree with the idea that the polluter should pay, but in this instance, we're charging residents and ratepayers and letting corporations off scot-free for much of the waste that's generated. This is our waste going into our site, using our staff and our infrastructure, and yet the state government is collecting $3.4 million from our residents if you subtract the paltry $100,000 that they hand us back. We could have a state-of-the-art waste facility with this money. We could have a proper resource recovery or tip shop, which the community has been calling for for a number of years. We could have green waste and compost, building waste, food and garden organics, solar power on site, a full resource recovery, and instead, that money...

Our money out of our local government area is sucked off into state general revenue. Councils are really restricted in what they can collect money on, and the state government has much greater capacity to levy taxes on the residents of New South Wales. And yet here we are collecting 3.4 million for the state government and getting nothing in return.

It's quite staggering that we are considered metropolitan only when it suits the state government, and regional when it suits them as well. And usually the criteria seems to be financial. So we're not sufficiently metropolitan to get 2.5 million dollars to upgrade our planning documents, or to pay metropolitan councillors' salary. But we are metropolitan when it comes to charging us extra for waste. It's unprincipled and inconsistent from the state government, and we really do need to rail against this. We are providing the service, we are providing all the infrastructure, and yet they are collecting all the profits, and that simply isn't good enough.

Thank you. Any other speakers? Councillor, Deputy Mayor, sorry.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I totally agree with what Councillor Wheeler just raised, and she did raise a number of the points that I was just going to raise, particularly about the fact that we are treated metro and rural at the whim of the state government. So we don't have a say when we are part of the metro, and we don't have a say when we're not. And this is a blatant example of that unfair treatment in the collection of the higher rate. I think I'm also very happy to support it. I think a couple of things in addition to that, I just think writing to—who is it we're writing to?—the local member and the EPA, I just really don't think that's going to get us anywhere because we've already actually done that.

So we put in a submission to the EPA before, and I was reading through the resolutions, we've raised these things with the local member. I'm wondering if we can have a more forceful action in this regard because can we meet—can we perhaps ask Local Government New South Wales to facilitate us a meeting with the Minister or something? This is quite a serious issue, and I think that we really need to ramp it up a bit if we're to get some result because we— do I only have 20 seconds left?

Sorry, I'm

Watching the timer. Yeah, I just think we have to go a step further and get some, a bigger action than just writing a letter, because the letters have been ignored and we've done this over and over. The other thing is that I think we, even though we do put this information out in part to the community, I think that we need to make it clearer that when they're asking for things that we can't deliver, part of that is because our lack of resources. We simply don't have the resources to do a lot of the things that they expect, and they may not understand why that is. And this is a very clear deprivation of funding that could assist with that. And the third thing is that I think that while we're doing these either letters or delegated meetings and so on, that we also suggest not just us having the money back, because if that's not a possibility, we should be suggesting that there is a fund set up to deliver critical infrastructure for the waste sector generally, whether that be on a regional level or whether that be on a local level.

I think that the government has to put that money into the waste sector, even if it's not at our particular facility. They should be putting it into dealing with waste across the board. And I think that we need to be quite forceful in getting our point forward about that. And I hope, I don't know if you're prepared to add something to make it a little stronger to actually take more action than simply a letter, but I would prefer to see that we have someone actually meet with people who can really hear the impacts of what's happening with us having that unfair system foisted upon our people who, of course, you know, may not necessarily understand how the system is set up to deal with that.

So you're suggesting we meet with relevant ministers, and Councillor Wheeler was suggesting we write to relevant ministers. Can I put those two things together and say that Council looks at having a delegation to the relevant ministers on this matter?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd appreciate that very much. I think that we have to take it beyond simply writing to the local member, and we need to take it to somebody who's more prepared to engage with understanding what's going to be happening in the future here very shortly with waste, as we need to deal with it in a much bigger way, and we need to improve the infrastructure around it.

Thank you. Happy to make those changes. Councillor Sam Progner.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I've got a small insight that might be of use. Our previous state member of parliament, Dominic Perrottet, was addressing a political meeting, a public meeting, so I feel that it's okay to disclose this, was addressing a political meeting locally in June 2015, and the topic of conversation was the categorisation of our seat as regional or urban. And the point was made that we aren't all one or the other. Your argument, Mr Mayor, is premised on the fact that people in fully regional areas pay much less, but it's not true that we're completely regional, but we're not completely urban either. And yet the only choice that's put before us is to be either one or the other. Well, Mr Perrottet was talking about the advantages of this seat, this area.

Being categorised as regional instead of metropolitan for a variety of purposes. Now, in the context of infrastructure, he thought that if we were categorised as a regional area, that we would be eligible for a smaller pot of money, but that we would be closer to the top of that list, and therefore there would be a net positive benefit to us. So my suggestion, Mr Mayor, is that if we're writing, that we might also include the Treasurer and point out that this is an idea that he has himself espoused for this area, for the benefit of this area, in the past as something that is logical. That's my contribution.

I'm happy to add the Treasurer to the mailing list. Yes, thank you. Councillor Reynolds.

Yes, thanks, Mr Mayor. I speak in favour of the Mayoral Minute, and I thank you for bringing it forward. I would just like to offer my support to the words that have already been spoken, but I'd just like to point out that the Minister for the Environment, Mr Kean, does meet with councils

Over environment and energy matters. In March, he met with Avon Council regarding environment and Singleton Council regarding energy. So I think it's appropriate that we seek a meeting with him. It's not out of the ordinary, and I agree with other Councillors that once he realises our situation, that hopefully we'll be able to stop this massive cost shifting that's happening and get our waste facility really happening. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Reynolds. Are there any other speakers?

No.

My right of reply then. This matter has been around, as the Deputy Mayor said and Councillor Wheeler said, it's been around for quite a few years . And I don't know which government started the process and when it was started, but as I said, the original aim was to reduce landfill, and I think that has totally backfired because, as I said, without the funding, we can't do much to reduce landfill. So unless we get the money back or, as one of the councillors said, unless the state government spends the money directly on waste, then the amount of landfill is not going to be reduced through this process, through this tax. Only a couple of months ago I went to see Minister Kean as President of WesROC with a couple of other WesROC councils to address this very issue.

He is aware of it, and we addressed it from a Western Sydney perspective . He was most sympathetic. He listened to us and said he would look into it. But the idea of my minute tonight is more to bring it home to a local level because I don't know whether the local community is totally aware of what money we pay to the state government as a tax. I know during the fires and during COVID, when the tip was under stress and under pressure, we got a lot of criticism from locals about how much we're charging people to put their rubbish in the landfill. And I just wanted to make sure the local people realise that it's not us that's imposing the cost and the tax. It's being imposed on us from a state government level.

So. That's what the mayoral minute was mostly about, but it was also about talking to the local member, making her aware that it is a local issue as well as a statewide issue, and putting some pressure on her to follow up on our behalf. But I'm very happy to send this to all the ministers that you suggested and follow it through and see if we can organise a delegation from our council as well to see if we can get some attention paid to this issue. So thanks for your support. I will now move the recommendation. All those in favour of the recommendation, please raise your hand. Favour: Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Cotlas, Councillor Samprogno, Councillor Lyons-Bucket, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Rasmussen.

Against: Councillor Ross. And abstent is Councillor Tree. Did I miss anyone? No. I declare it carried. Thank you very much.

We have to wait for three seconds between the items, by the way. The next item is item number 83, which is also a Mayoral Minute. This Mayoral Minute is about transport in the Hawkesbury.

I wanted to point out that this Mayoral Minute has several trigger words in it, such as bridge and third crossing, and words to that effect. And I'm assuming that some councillors are ready to engage in quite a strong conversation on those matters. But really what the Mayoral Minute is about, when you read it carefully, is that we're asking the General Manager to get some quotes on employing a consultant to prepare a report or a strategy. So the question is, do you want to ask the GM to get those quotes, or do you not want to get those quotes? Because when we've run into other issues in the past where we've been asked to provide our response, our position, we've been found wanting. We've been found we haven't got a position, especially on transport matters.

What I'm trying to do here is to put us in a position where we are ready to give our considered opinion on matters such as North Richmond duplication and matters such as that that happen across the city, and to employ someone, if possible, to make it an objective strategy , an objective position, not a subjective position based on people's politics or background or the history of the area. I'm trying to get this away from politics and make it objective. That's the thrust of the motion. That's what it's about. And I'm hoping that when we discuss it, people will see it in that way and not take it on as some kind of avenue to bash people around the head with what's happened with certain bridges and other bridges, because that's not what it's about.

So I'm hoping you don't use this opportunity for those kind of squabbles, but you just consider, do you want to support the mayoral minute to get some quotes to employ someone to give us an objective position. The mayoral minute doesn't ask that we actually employ someone either. It asks that we get quotes. Those quotes will be brought back to council, and council at that stage can say, yes, we've got the money or no, we haven't, and we don't want to employ someone. So that's what this mayoral minute is all about. And on that basis, I urge you to support it. Do we have any other speakers? Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just have two questions. I won't speak at this point, but is there a time frame on any of this, just in light of the progress of the Richmond Bridge duplication procedure that's going on? So is there a time frame attached to this?

I didn't put any time frame in. I was hoping we'd get the quotes back as soon as possible. Mr Conroy, did you want to comment?

Mr Mayor, we're expecting that we'll be approached by mid to late July by the state government in relation to having a position on the crossing at North Richmond. And it's desirable that we've considered engaging somebody and have them in place, if that's what we want to do, ahead of that date so that we can have a position. So the idea of tonight would be, if Council was of mind to endorse this, would be to commence the process to get those quotes so we could report them back to the next available Council meeting.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr Mayor. The other question was regarding something you just said, which was that we would be asking someone to help us give an objective position. I'm just wondering why we wouldn't be asking the community what the position was, because we really want to be doing what is best for this community as a whole in the future. So by saying that, do you mean we would be getting somebody to run an objective process as such, which would include some form of community consultation, or is it just to workshop with councillors? I wasn't quite sure what the intention of it actually was.

My intention has always been to include the community in any of those decisions. But in some cases there's been a lot of community consultation on these matters, particularly the North Richmond duplication, and in some cases this person may be able to just access that information straight off the shelf already. So I wasn't suggesting that we necessarily have to go back and ask the community everything from the beginning, but definitely we should include community consultation, yes.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll speak in a moment. I'm just processing what it's about. Thank you.

Councillor

Ross,

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor. I'm generally in favour of the proposal. However, I would see this as a variation to the draft operational plan put forward for the coming year, and I'm wondering how are we going to approach the funding of such a project, please.

My answer would be that when the quotes come back, we can work on that because the general manager will probably tell us then where we might be able to access the money, but I will hand that over to the general manager.

Mr Mayor, the process that is outlined in the Mayoral Minute is obtaining the quotes and reporting back to Council, and then Council will have the option of determining how it might want to fund that. And yes, we would provide options for Council to do that.

Councillor Ross, any more?

Looks like Councillor Ross is

Finished. I would suggest that as, based on the prior—on the earlier answer from the general manager,

That the anticipation would be that, whilst it's fine to get quotations now, I'm not disputing that,

It seemed from the way the previous answer was constructed that Council would be seeking to engage in this suggested process in July, therefore it will affect the operational plan, and I just put it to everybody that— That seems to be the line of reasoning applied earlier.

I'll take that as a statement. Thank you . Councillor Reynolds. Thanks, Mr Mayor. I have a question, if I may, or a couple of questions. In your Mayoral minute, you say you want to work with the community to develop a position in relation to existing traffic conditions and congestion in the vicinity of Richmond and North Richmond. Now, I assume this involves the selection of an option for the North Richmond Bridge duplication. Is that right?

Well, we're waiting on the options to come out and hopefully the timing will be such that we can participate in that in an objective way. But there's no guarantee that by the time we get this person on board, those options haven't already gone off the table. So yes, that is the aim, but we can't be sure. But I'll ask the General Manager if he wants to comment on that too.

I think the idea of bringing this up as a Mayoral minute tonight gives us the opportunity and time to go through some of these processes in a more timely way so that we do potentially have time to participate in a responsible and active way in some of the transport issues that are coming on in the near future.

Councillor Reynolds. Thanks, Mr Mayor. I support the Mayoral minute. I just have a question. Regarding the timing, in that the options report, as I understand it, is due July and we'll have 28 days in which to respond. Is that enough time for us to engage someone, considering we're, what, two months away? Is that enough time to engage someone and consult with the community adequately , especially those that are impacted by some of the options, like the residents and property owners along Southy Road, Ingles Lane, Yarramundi Lane? Does the General Manager and perhaps the Director of Infrastructure consider that's enough time to adequately carry out that consultation? Mr Conroy.

Mr Mayor, I think it is an adequate amount of time, given some of the information that's already available and some of the historical information that's also available as well. Thanks

Mr Mayor. I'll speak later. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Richards

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just have questions for now and will reserve the right to speak a little later on. My first question was confirming for our residents that the options report has not been made public, but we've already had that answered with Councilors asking the same question, so thank you. So my next question would be, I understand the timing that the General Manager has just said about the options report becoming public, but is your memo minute based on the fact that Councillors were offered confidential information, a briefing session last week, that the public is not privy to yet?

Is it based on the fact that we know more than the public knows at this stage? So you're seeking somebody to consult the community when the community hasn't had an opportunity to respond to information that's not public yet. I'm just asking you about your timing in that respect.

No, if you look at the heading of the mayoral minute, it's about long-term transport in Hawkesbury and having objective planning for that. The fact that the options report is due in July is maybe a happy coincidence, and maybe the fact that it's coming prompted me into putting this up. But it wasn't because I knew anything about it. It's just another example of how the council needs to be ready to have a position on matters of transport as they come up.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Are you saying that council itself, even though the council has made a resolution on this item, I think the date was Feb last year, as per the email received this afternoon with all of the resolutions attached. Council has a position on the third crossing. Are you saying that you want to go and get quotes for an external consultant because council has an inability to communicate with the community direct? Now, my observation would be the fact that we have had excessive consultation in the fit for the future process, that we do know how to run a community consultation meeting. So I'm asking why you believe we need an external consultant to do that all of a sudden.

I don't believe we need an external consultant because we are lacking in community consultation. What I'm saying is that we need someone who can put all the bits together in an objective manner and come up with a strategy that is not based on any kind of political input.

So are you saying our staff have the inability to do that?

I'm saying our staff do have the ability to do that, but at the moment there's not enough of them, and we need a consultant to help out.

So what's your estimation, or the staff may like to ask this, their anticipated estimation in how much this consultant will cost?

Mr. Conroy, do we have an answer for that?

We don't have an idea at the moment, Mr Mayor. We'd have to start those discussions with the relevant parties to see what that was going to be, and then we would bring it back to Council.

Thank you, and my last question is basically, are you saying, I mean there's been debate in this chamber before about how there's much community consultation the RMS has done, and in fact there's members of this council on that committee that could speak firsthand. Are you saying the RMS have not consulted the community enough in this process ?

No, I didn't say that at all.

So where do you believe it's lacking that this needs to be done on a second level of government?

It sounds to me like you're talking about the duplication, North Richmond. I'm talking about a long-term transport strategies across the whole Hawkesbury.

So would you say that the traffic study that we just undertook as a council that had a massive budget blowout isn't enough data to be able to put that together?

What I'm saying is, and I said a few minutes ago, there's a lot of data out there already, data from such studies and data from community consultation, and this person could be employed to put it all together, because at the moment it's in bits and pieces related to separate projects.

Thank you. I'll reserve my right to speak later. Thank you.

Thank you , Councillor Conolly.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, I won't be in favour of the mayoral minute. Whilst I think that, of course, we should have a position in relation to the third flood resilient crossing of the Hawkesbury River, we do have a position in relation to that. We've already adopted that, as just mentioned. At the moment, it might be a happy coincidence, Mr Mayor, but we can't pretend that there's not a process very much underway by the RMS looking at what the options will be for the third crossing. And I know, to your previous answer, you said that this isn't about just a bridge; it's about a long-term— Traffic plan, but the way the motion reads is, to a position in relation to a third flood resilient crossing of the Hawkesbury River.

So it is very much about this project, despite that assurance. As Councillor Richards just mentioned, the RMS is currently undertaking a community consultation process to develop its options report. Council has already spent significant ratepayer funds developing, gathering data and developing a traffic model in regards to long-term traffic planning at North Richmond. I can't see any justification for Council to go and spend even more money on more consultants for more studies of this traffic issue. Whilst I can certainly foresee that in the future, if there's an option release that we haven't anticipated, or even one that we have anticipated, we might at that point need outside expertise in order to look at what the impact will be on Council's local road network and, you know, Council, as a legitimate stakeholder, have an interest in that.

However, I don't believe that we should be saying, coming out ahead of the RMS, and effectively what we're doing here is deciding that the RMS's community consultation won't be effective and we need to do our own. Yes, we're a different level of government, but the community that we represent is the same community that our state member represents and the same community that the RMS represents. This is the same people we're going to be asking the questions of. If it comes out and Council decides that when the options report comes out or when the consultation is finished that we're not happy with the consultation or something is glaringly wrong with it, then we should, of course, revisit it. We have a role; we're local representatives.

But to get out ahead of it and decide, despite the fact we spend so much time complaining about cost shifting, to get out ahead of this and decide we're going to do our own consultation on top of what the RMS is doing before we've even seen what the RMS has come up with, I think is a waste of money and not our position. So I won't be supporting it.

Thank you. Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. As I understand it, Mr Mayor, and I think you've raised this earlier , and I want to ask some questions, but this is not a consultation process. My question relates to the terms of reference of what this consultant would be given. I would have preferred to see a few dot points on what, in detail, what we're going to be asking the consultant to do, other than what, do pros and cons of the information that is available out there, or— and will there be at the end of it a solid recommendation for one particular process or one particular crossing or one particular traffic option?

I'm not clear on that. And of course that also, depending on the terms of reference, in that will be the amount of time available to cover those terms of reference, and also the cost. So that goes to Councillor Ross's point, I guess. But Mr Mayor, so my question is, have you got any idea what— to refine it—any idea of the terms of reference that we would be giving to the consultant?

Do I have any idea? Well, my idea, as it says in the heading of the mayoral minute, is to look for strategic transport routes and connections within the Hawkesbury local government area. I was thinking that our first issue is, are we going to get a quote for a consultant? If we do that, then when we get a consultant, then we can sit down and work out terms of reference in greater detail at that stage. That was my thinking.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, but to get a quote, you really have to at least rough out what the consultant is being asked to do, and he or she won't be able to give a quote unless they've got some idea.

Well, I think I just gave you the general idea: the heading, strategic transport routes and connections.

Any further, Councillor Rasmussen?

Sorry, Mr Mayor, no thanks.

Councillor Sam Prodno. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Look, I share Councillor Rasmussen's concern over this because the requisite expertise that you enjoin to undertake a community consultation is quite different from the very technical expertise that you retain to synthesise something out of a regional traffic study, for example. And the mayoral minute doesn't make it as clear as I'd like it to about whether this is a new consultation process or whether this is a technical interpretation process . Furthermore, if, as you state, this is merely a request for quotes to be obtained, then the expert wouldn't be engaged until this was reported back to Council and some further mandate was obtained for that process.

But of course, that takes us almost up to the release of the options report in July, and I would probably prefer to wait until then. I agree with Councillor Conolly that we don't know what's in the options report, and I think that we will have time to respond. If necessary, to what's in the options report at that time. Lastly, I'd just question the need for this to come up as a mayoral minute seeking this mandate if all we're asking for at this point are quotations. I'd have thought that you could have asked the general manager to have obtained quotes without that mandate, and they could have just been reported to a council meeting, and then we'd know the kinds of sums of money that we were dealing with.

So, for those reasons, I feel uneasy about supporting this tonight.

Thank you. Councillor Richards

Thank you. I just wanted to confirm that again, Mr Mayor, just another question, not my statement yet. Did you record that you want to go and obtain quotes from a consultant with no options report made public and with no terms of reference to base your request for quotes on? I just wanted to put that on the record, that that's what you're asking us to do tonight.

You could say it that way if you— That's

All, Mr Mayor, thank you. I'll speak in a moment. Thanks for confirming that we are going to ask for quotes without knowing what we want.

No, I said you could say it that way.

Well, you haven't denied it.

I haven't said anything. Deputy Mayor , Councillor Conolly, are you still wishing to speak? No. Scrub your hand off, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor . I've got so many thoughts about this just coming forward because, as an idea, I think it's a really good idea, but I've got a few issues around what exactly it is. I'm not really understanding exactly the context of it. So— I would really love to see us do something like this separate from the individual bridge issue. I think as part of an overall strategic planning that fitted in with our land use planning, that fitted in with, you know, other strategies that we've got coming forward, it would be a really good idea because we can't really plan for transport unless we know what our future land use is going to be. Or we've got studies such as employment land study and rural land study.

We've got a whole number of studies coming while we do our LEP, and I think a transport strategy as part of that would be a really good thing to link in with that overall. I think we should have that. And much like has been done with the Greater Sydney Commission, where they've done the plans for the three cities and they've done the transport plan for the future, because I think what is missing with the infrastructure delivery in this area is any future planning for anything. And I am going to mention the other bridges, but not in a controversial way, just to actually say that we've got currently, we've got the Windsor Bridge replacement project, so that is a replacement project. It's not going to address traffic issues there.

We've got a proposed Gross River Bridge. The intention of which is to deal with the additional traffic from Redbank, not designed to be an answer to the current traffic problems, so it has a specific purpose. Then we've got the proposed duplication of the Richmond Bridge, which is a duplication bridge , and judging from what they've said, quite likely to be next to the bridge that's already there, with some routes coming off it on the other side. So that's fair enough. That will deal with congestion problems between Richmond and North Richmond, but it won't really ever address for the future. So it's not something that's really upgrading the exit out of Sydney, for example, which we have one of the major exits leaving Sydney, and that's not really going to do a lot for that part.

Then we have a community that doesn't want a superhighway that is an exit out of Sydney to take it across the mountains. So we've got these sort of conflicts there within what the community say they want and what we're going to get and what we are now proposing to look at. So I'm quite confused because there seems to be so much going on, and a lot of the problem is that in the past we haven't had this looked at holistically, and we haven't ever really looked at how we get people from one side of the river to the other most effectively. But we also need to look at what is the future across the side of the river, what is the intended extent of development and opening up of the lands across the river that would require future infrastructure.

So I'm gathering that a strategic transport plan would be looking at that not just in terms of road traffic, but public transport and active transport on top of it. And I would be really pleased to see that sort of strategic planning occurring. But I can't see how—I've got an issue with thinking we can do it in... in isolation without doing the transport, without doing other planning, without tying in really tightly with other strategic plans that we're doing. So I think it ties in very closely with both land use planning, but it also ties in with state government projections for the future, and we can't ignore that. So I'm happy to see it done, but I'm just really not—I just can't get my head around exactly what this proposal at this time.

I understand it's just for quotes, and that's fine, but I would think that to get a quote, we would have to be saying what else has to be part of what we're going to be looking at, and that's the bit that I feel is missing at this point. If somebody can elaborate and tell me what else we would have in there, I don't think it's going to be beneficial with the Richmond Bridge issue because I think that is well underway and that that's going to proceed. But I do want to see an overall strategic transport plan for this area. It's been long lacking, and to be honest, I thought we had a resolution to do that at some point, but maybe it was just in our discussions for the community strategic plan.

So, yeah , I'm still wanting to hear what other councillors have to say. Thanks.

Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor. I voice some of the concerns of the previous speaker, and I would point out also that, in effect, we have strategic planning by default because we've got two exits. of Sydney , already with Bells Line of Road and the Putty Road. So it would appear in the long run that both of those have had such large amounts of expenditure already incurred that they will be significant players in the longer term.

What I believe the previous speaker was alluding to, in a sense, was almost this proposal that has gone back probably for all your time on Council, and the same with one of our colleagues, who has talked about how do we join the west beyond the mountains to the east through the Great Dividing Range. That's the strategic link that seems to be totally missing in any thought process of the state government at least, and they seem not willing to engage upon that discussion in any meaningful fashion, which is most unfortunate. So what it appears to me is that this is coming down to really

The matter as finally , if you like, refined by some of the other councillors, and somewhat clear in your own recommendation that We are in effect talking about the third crossing of the Hawkesbury River

And what we're doing there is, in a sense, indicating, as one of the other councils said, possibly we are not, and I would agree I'm not happy with what appears to be the line being taken by RMS in a very... Similar position to the way the WBRP Windsor matter proceeded and is likely to proceed on a similar basis, unfortunately. And the other thing that's not clear, and I would question you upon, is what sort of person are we seeking in terms of providing consultation? Is it a traffic engineer, a community engineer, or what? It's very unclear from the way the ebb and flow of this discussion has proceeded, sir.

Thank you. Councillor Reynolds. Thanks, Mr Mayor. Just a few more questions, if I may. One for the General Manager. When it comes to planning and land use, especially on the other side of the river, what comes first, the land use planning and then the infrastructure to suit, or is it the availability and the cost of infrastructure to get people to the other side and then the planning for development? Mr

Conroy. Mr Mayor, they are related, and a lot of that information is already available in terms of material that's been prepared by the Greater Sydney Commission, by the Department of Planning, by Infrastructure New South Wales, and by Transport . The

Issue is that no one has knitted all these issues together in relation to Hawkesbury, that things are proceeding and continue to proceed in a piecemeal fashion. So the challenge is reviewing all that available documentation and starting to consolidate that in a way that's relevant to the place of Hawkesbury. And that's the piece that's missing at the moment, that long-term position for Hawkesbury.

Just a further question on that issue, if I may. For example, perhaps I didn't ask my question adequately . Say, for example, a consultant was to come back and say the ideal place for a third crossing is just downstream of Yarramundi Bridge.

Would that affect planning on the other side of the river as compared to a consultant coming back and saying the ideal place for a third crossing is downstream of Pitt Town?

Mr Conroy. I don't think a consultant is going to come back with one option. I think, you know, the normal process is that you review the data and the information, and you look at options that respond to that data and information. And normally options have pros and cons. And if I was unclear in my previous answer, I apologise. You're looking at all of that information that you referred to in terms of land use, but you're looking at how it relates to transport as well. The two do interact with each other.

Regarding, for example, the Mayor or Minister to seek a quote, how much in staff time will it cost to go through the seeking a quote process?

Mr. Conroy. So, Mr Mayor, Councillors, what you'd be doing is fleshing out the likely scope of work, and by that I mean the nature of investigations and activities, and you'd be looking for a range of hourly and daily rates and weekly rates that you would then narrow down to work with one or perhaps two consultants and counsel to firm up a very clear way forward and then finalise a position. So the initial exercise is very much explaining the range of issues that would need to be under consideration, and then looking for some hourly rates, daily rates to give an indication of the relative costs of competing consultants, and then bringing that back to Council with a likely way forward. So

The actual cost to Council in seeking a quote is minimal , would you say?

It's not going to be that expensive, no.

And the scope of work would be developed with the consultant, is that right?

It'd be developed with the consultant and with Council, that's correct. Okay,

Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Councillor Garra.

Question regarding the scope of works, and I was curious as to how we could actually get a quote without a scope of works, just running on a title, but he has just answered that question for me. I still am quite puzzled as to how that would come to fruition. I wouldn't think that I could ask for a quote for a new kitchen and not tell them exactly what it was that I wanted.

Thank you. Councillor Richards. Thanks.

Sorry, more questions. When you say engage a consultant, is it a consultant singular or consultants plural? And if it's plural, or if it's singular, which one are you getting? A community engagement consultant to do the, seek the answers from the community, or are you getting an engineer to actually come up with your own option, or are you getting a traffic consultant to be able to put together the data that you need to be able to make a report? Because what it sounds like you want would have to have consultation from all those three experts in the field. So can you please clarify if it's one consultant or you're going to go and get a report from all of those consultants to be able to come up with your final conclusion?

I might ask the general.

Mr . Mayor, it's not unusual to find consultants that work in transport that also have a lot of experience in terms of community engagement and report writing and research. That's the sort of skill set that we'd be looking for, and we'd be, I would imagine, looking for them to work with our own community engagement staff in terms of the consultation process.

Councillor Richards.

I'm still not speaking yet, but I would probably strongly urge you to consider suspending your motion and actually coming back to the councillors with something that has substance and clarity. But that's just my thoughts. Well

Councillor Richards, I have no one else listed to speak, so if you're going to speak, I think now is the time.

Oh yeah, okay. I'd be happy to. All right. So I think that in listening to this debate... There's no point at this point making it anything political. I think our community has seen way too much division when it comes to discussion of bridges in the past, and quite frankly, they just want things to be built so that their day-to-day lives actually eases the congestion. And I'd like to think that this council is going to participate in that process without actually having an extra cost burden to our ratepayers. Now, you have an operational plan that is currently on public exhibition, and we are here tonight debating that we want to go and spend more money from God knows where, because right now our revenue and our expenditure match dollar for dollar.

So you're going to tell me that we've got X amount of unknown dollars in the bank for X amount of unknown consultants for an X amount of outcomes that you actually want to do. You actually want to go and get consultant reports when you don't even have a terms of reference, you don't even know what you're asking for, and you want our ratepayers to blindly, in all good faith, think that that is okay. When there are questions already about the excessive use of consultants in this council, and as I said, we've got a budget that only just balances, and the next item you bring to Council at the next meeting is to spend more money. It doesn't send a very good message to our community. You have a position on this bridge.

I think this mayoral minute is way too preemptive in its appearance on our business paper because the options report has not become public. There is no discussion in our community about what those options will be for that third crossing. Yet we're here running, bolting out of the gate without the buzzer even going off yet, as I said, to go and get consultants for what you can't even clarify. So when the community raises doubts about the direction of this council, you can clearly understand, after someone would have listened to this debate, why they raise those questions. And I think that can be cemented by the fact that so many of our own councillors even have questions when it comes to this Emerald Minute.

Just let me have a quick look. I had a whole bunch of things that I wanted to say here.

Basically, council is also preempting that they don't like an outcome of something that we have been, or councillors have been told in a confidential briefing. So you're going out there, there's been Facebook posts, et cetera, going out there to the community saying stuff that hasn't even been released by the RMS yet. That's unacceptable. What you're also doing is saying that you are unhappy with the process that the RMS has consulted with this community so far in this project. Now, this has been, as the RMS have said, the most consulted project in their history. If I am wrong, then I am happy to be proven wrong, but that is what I have been told. And as I said, there's members of this council who sit on those committees and could quite rightly voice how much participation they have had in that process.

We have a traffic report that again has been debated in this term of council that was supposed to be $100,000. I'm not going to ask the staff to tell me now, but I know it's somewhere around the $200,000 mark. That budget blowout is massive. And now you're asking us here tonight to go and get quotes off. Again, you can't tell us who you want them from. You can't tell us what you want them to do other than come up with a position. Well, you know what? I think the 12 of us all have brains. We all are able to come up to a position ourselves based on the information at hand without having to dig into the pockets of our ratepayers any further. So obviously, from what I'm saying tonight, I won't be supporting this position.

I had a lot of other points I was going to make, but I think I'm going to save them for next time because I'm sure this will come up again. But quite frankly, I can't believe that what is on the table tonight in this mayoral minute to ask us to do as councillors, it is unacceptable. We are the guardians of ratepayers' money, and I will not be participating in throwing it away willy-nilly like this when you can't even clarify what you want to do with it. Thank you.

Thank you. A couple of other hands have just shown up. Councillor Reynolds, I thought you'd spoken already. Mr Mayor, I'd ask a series of questions. So you wish to speak? Yes, if I may. Okay. Thank you. I'm sitting on the fence regarding the mayoral minute. I do see the need for a strategic traffic study. In fact, it was one of the findings of the parliamentary inquiry into the Windsor Bridge that they could not believe a new bridge was being built without a Hawkesbury traffic study being completed. As far as budget blowouts go, we're asking for a quote. We're not asking to spend money. We're just asking for a quote. It's up to us whether we go ahead with that quote. And as far as budgets just balancing, that's what budgets do, man.

They balance, you know. If balance is in surplus, people have paid too much in rates. If it's a deficit, they haven't paid enough in rates. As far as the just build it statement

That's what got us Windsor Bridge. That's what got us a bridge that, what now, $137 million? I mean, we need to have a good think compared, along with the duplication of the Richmond, North Richmond Bridge, which is not a third crossing. Even the RMS don't call it a third crossing. Combine that with Windsor Bridge, $387 million is being spent on bridges here, and we still won't have a third crossing.

I find that, and I know the community will find that incredible , that the state government, we've allowed the state government to do that. And if other councillors have said it's a state government issue, we shouldn't do it , this is what the state government has given us : $387 million out of state coffers, and we still don't have a third crossing, and we don't have a traffic solution for Windsor. That's without going into everything else. We do need a traffic , a strategic traffic study for the Hawkesbury. That was the whole idea behind the traffic study and the development of our traffic planning model. Obviously, the fact that we have that model now will keep any future study . on costs, and it's an RMS certified , if you like, traffic model, so there can be no backlash from that.

Up until now, the infrastructure in the Hawkesbury appears to have been developed by the Starting Kruger chapter of the Hawkesbury Liberal Party. The Windsor Bridge thing, you know, was put together by a couple of bulldozer drivers, a salesman and a real estate agent. So there was no strategic input into it, and Council went ahead with that option three years before the option report came out. So I think we need to plan for the future. We need to plan carefully. And the just build it thing really , really, really irritates a lot of people here, because just build it has got us absolutely nowhere as far as traffic solutions go.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I've sat here going back and forth over this mayoral minute. I applaud the intention of it. I'm not entirely certain at this point about the execution, although Councillor Richards' speech has done much to sway me.

Council isn't pre-empting anything at this point. Council is asking for quotes. Getting quotes is a responsible thing for a council to do when they believe that they need more evidence to make a considered position. We are being asked by the RMS to give a position on the proposed duplication of Richmond Bridge. That's not just a bridge widening; it's a bridge with lasting consequences for North Richmond and Richmond. There's only one traffic engineer on this call that I'm aware of, and that's Mr. Organ. The rest of us are basically taking a stab in the dark, hoping that the segments of the community that we pay attention to are taking us in the right direction. If ever we needed the inputs of an independent traffic consultant, it's now.

I've been part of that Windsor Bridge consultation process. It is representatives of handpicked groups gathered by the RMS and presented with information. They're not necessarily representative of the community as a whole. They're not necessarily representative of the goals and wishes of this LGA. They are a collection of assembled groups that the RMS has identified and brought together. The information that we saw at the briefing last week wasn't confidential, and it has been shared with the community representatives involved, and all of them have been free to take that information back to the groups that they represent.

I have to say Councillor Conolly has far more faith in the RMS and the state government than I do, and that's probably unsurprising given the debacle at Windsor that we're witnessing now playing out in its end stages. And I think that both the Deputy Mayor and the General Manager have outlined the piecemeal approach to transport that we've experienced here. We have two of the major exits from Sydney. Both of those exits are flood prone, and both of the areas that require evacuation over those exits are fire prone. And we've seen in the last four months the devastation of both of those natural disasters.

A traffic study is a responsible position for this council to take, particularly now that we don't have control over our planning. We now are responsible for the strategic end of our planning, with the development of the documents that do that. We don't get to sit here and determine DAs anymore. That's given to an external body who rely on the information that we set up as part of our planning documents for them to use. So if ever we needed high-level, evidence-based models to guide those decisions, it's now.

If we were asking for money to pay immediately, I would have serious concerns and wouldn't be able to support this Mayoral Minute in its present form. But we're currently asking for quotes, and this will come back to us. My major concern is that this will be too little, too late, and that we won't get enough information to have an evidence-based position by mid to late July when the state government is asking us for a position. Let's be really clear how those routes that the state government is proposing for the Windsor Bridge duplication were derived. Those of us who are part of that process were gathered at the North Richmond Community Centre, broken into groups of three or four, given a map and two coloured textas, and told to draw proposed routes on that map.

The number of traffic engineers involved in that were precisely zero. We drew lines on a map with a coloured texta, and they have become the Windsor Bridge duplication options. We urgently need a considered, evidence-based, well-thought-out position on the Richmond Bridge duplication and the further crossings of the Hawkesbury River if we ever get the state government to stump up enough money to give us a proper, flood-free traffic-improving solution. We're not going to get that sitting here with our fingers crossed, which is what we're doing without the use of an independent traffic consultant.

Thank you. Councillor Cotless.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. It's lucky we weren't going to get political on this issue. I just want to say that I thought, I think this is a great idea. I read it completely differently. I read it as being a strategic traffic routes and connections project . I didn't read it anything in about the Richmond replacement bridge. But anyway, I suppose if we're lucky enough, if we do get a consultant on board that's able to look at all of this data and make some sense of it, if we're lucky enough that they can do that by July, well, well and good, but we have to start this process. And I'm glad that we brought this to the Mayoral Minute. I'm glad that you haven't scoped it, because I think that it depends on who's out there and developing this sort of strategic approach is going to take a bit of time, and I think that's probably a really sensible approach.

So I'm really happy with this, and I will support it. And, yeah, the sooner the better. Thank you.

Thank you. There's two hands here: Councillor Wheeler and Councillor Lyons-Bucket, but I believe you've both spoken already.

Mr Mayor, I just, I was just considering, I was considering because I've been really listening carefully to what the councillors say, and I think there's a lot of, there seems to be a lot of confusion. There's, I know that how I've interpreted is different from how several other councillors have interpreted it. And whereas I understand it is only for a quote, I'm very, very happy to be looking at a strategic thing, but I am just wondering if, because if we want to do it, as you said, if we want to all move forward and we want to come up with a plan that is for the future and not specific to these individual things, I am just wondering if we should defer it and come back with some sort of a more definitive objective of it, because it reads in the recommendation that it's about Richmond and North Richmond, but I would think it's an area-wide, I gather it's an area-wide strategic.

It says in the heading it's a strategic transport routes and connections in the Hawkesbury local government area, and then the recommendation says to get a position just on two specific items. So I'd really like to see either the recommendation expanded to be the entire area because we can't do things in little pockets anymore. If we're going to do a strategic plan, it needs to span over the whole thing. So I've got a question whether you want to somehow make that a little bit more expanded, or would you accept an amendment to defer to bring it back? Because I think that if it just had a little bit more understanding, there might be more support, because I can see some people think it relates specifically to a bridge, some think it relates to something, but I don't think there's any one of us that doesn't want to have a strategic plan into the future of an entire transport plan.

Would you consider if we remove points one and two from the recommendation. So it says that Council staff initiate a process to obtain quotations from relevant parties to work with Council and the community to develop strategic transport routes and connections within the Hawkesbury local government area.

I would be happier with that because I don't think connecting it to, and then we can see what sort of cost that is, but I don't think connecting it specifically to that bridge, which is currently under an options process and a consultation process already. I just think that it's, you know, I mean, I wish we'd done this 20 years ago, but I think that, yeah, I think either changing it to that or deferring it would be my personal preference.

Well, what I might do is put it up in that new form, and you can foreshadow an amendment if it's lost. Your amendment could be that we defer it. How does that go?

That sounds quite adequate. Thank you.

Any further speakers?

Nope. Well, write a reply. What I was trying to do here, I was trying to create a racehorse, and what councillors have been doing is turning it into a camel, from what I can see. In fact, some people want to even shoot the racehorse before it even leaves the starting block. And some people are thinking there's some kind of conspiracy involved here, and I'm trying to slow things down. It's just the opposite. I'm trying to hurry things up. I'm trying to get us to get involved. And yes, someone said— In your speech is that I'm trying to get ahead. Yes, I am trying to get ahead, but that's, to me, that's what has been missing in this council over the last 20 years, that we never get ahead. We always react to what's happening.

So yes, I'd like to get ahead by having this person in place, and it's not a conspiracy in any way. Councillor Sam Brogno asked me why I didn't just ask the general manager to get some quotes. The answer, Councillor Sam Brogno, is that I'm trying to be inclusive. I would like all of us to be on board with this, not just me and the general manager, and that's always been my approach, and hopefully you will embrace it in that way.

Now, the North Richmond Bridge options paper that's coming up may have prompted me to do this, but perhaps the actual recommendation should have been more general rather than related straight to the North Richmond duplication. That's why I'm happy to put the amended Mayoral Minute that is on the screen. Hopefully you can all see that amended Mayoral Minute at the moment.

Some people have said that they didn't think what I put up was tidy enough. It didn't dot all the i's and cross all the t's, and therefore their response was, Therefore we do nothing. To me, that's not a proper response. If it's not tidy enough, then we can always tidy it up, and by getting the quote and getting someone in place, then we can tidy it up. Then we can do all the work on what terms of reference are and where we're going with it. I'm putting it up as a general direction that we start to take control of planning, especially transport planning in this area. It's a general direction, and I'm asking you to help me take the first step. And I think the first step is to get a quote, to see if we can get someone in place.

So I'm asking you to just take that first baby step, to take a quote, and then after that we can see what we can do with it. So I appreciate all your input, and I hope I've answered your questions. And I'll just reiterate, this is not a conspiracy. This is an aim to get all of us heading in the same direction in terms of transport and in this area in the long run. So I'll put the mayoral minute now. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Ross,

Deputy Mayor. Have I missed anyone else in favour? Yeah, Councillor Rasmussen. Councillor Rasmussen, and that's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Those against, please raise your hand. Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Garrow. One, two, three, four, seven and four are eleven. That's the magic number. Councillor Tree is absent. Declare it carried. Thank you very much.

Block, we have one item on block, and that is item 91 , the Local Traffic Committee. Move, Mr Mayor. Second that, Mr Mayor. Councillor Rasmussen. Any discussion? I'll put that. All those in favour say aye. Aye. Carried.

Carried. Next item is item number 84, I believe.

Recommendation

Mr Mayor. Moved by Councillor Conolly. Seconded, Mr Mayor. It's a RAS. Councillor Conolly, do you wish to speak?

No, Mr Mayor.

Anyone wishes to speak?

Deputy Mayor, you've got your light on. You're on mute, sorry. Councillor Wheeler, you've got your light on.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. No, I can't support the recommendation in the business paper. The house in question, if you look at the DA, is the house proposed is 561.8 square metres in size.

Can I just clarify that we're not, that they're asking for an additional 600-odd square metres added to the building envelope. Is that what we're asking for here?

General Manager. Mr Mayor, I will refer that to the Director of Planning, City Planning

Yes, so essentially they're asking to increase the building envelope, and sorry, I'm just scanning through my documents.

They're wanting to go outside of the building envelope by 400-odd square metres.

Thank you. So,

Yeah, so I'm—

Yeah, almost 450 square metres.

That's larger than some house blocks in many of our towns. That is a staggeringly large house and a staggeringly large increase to the building envelope. Now, people are quite within their rights to build houses as large as they want to, but there are covenants on this block that were in place well before the DA was drawn up for this property.

Those covenants should not come as a surprise to this landholder, and they should be acting within them. What on earth is the point of having covenants put in place during a subdivision to protect vegetation when the landowner can just come to us down the track and have them revoked like this? Why bother? Why bother trying to protect vegetation when down the track you can just draw a really large house, ask council, and get whatever you like ? A previous council made a reasonable decision when this subdivision was drawn up to protect this site, still allow housing, but protect this site. And this recommendation calls for us to ignore that, and I can't support it

Thank you. Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Through you, sir, I'd like to inquire of the Director of City Planning as to why this matter has come before council tonight, please. General Manager.

Through the Director of City Planning, Mr Mayor.

We bring these items to Council because we do not have delegation to make these changes. They can only be made by Council.

Councillor Ross.

You're on mute. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Is the staff unaware of resolution number 43 of the meeting of the 12th of March 2019? Please respond.

General Manager, are

We aware ?

Off the top of my head, Mr Mayor, I'm not aware of it. I don't know about the Director of City Planning.

I'm not aware of that. If you're able to tell me what you're talking about, that may be helpful.

Yes, I refer you to the minutes of the meeting of the 12th of March 2019, which has gone black on my iPad. It refers to exactly the same property at which both I moved the adoption of that removal of the government, and it was seconded by Councillor Conolly on that occasion. So why the heck has it come to Council tonight, please? General Manager.

Mr Mayor, I'll have to refer that to the Director of City Planning.

Okay. I don't recall off the top of my head the exact. I remember doing a report to Council last year. I can't remember the exact whether it was this property or a similar property, where we were dealing with the covenant issue at that point. But I'd have to check on the property whether it's exactly the same one.

Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor. I can assure you it is the same property at the same address. It hasn't moved. I'm just absolutely surprised and astounded that this has come to council, and I think it is fitting for us to understand there is a different constructor mentioned, as opposed to the one being drawn up tonight. It looks like the property owner has been shopping around for another lot of plans, but there was a motion passed at that meeting, which I believe is still relevant. I don't know that there's been any rescission motion passed.

Councillor Ross, you've had the business paper since about Thursday. Maybe you should have asked the general manager in between now and then, and it could have been clarified so at the meeting tonight we would have the information available rather than asking people to jump and answer things that they haven't got information. General manager, do we have an answer to the latest question?

We'll have to take it on board, Mr. Mayor. I don't have an answer at this stage.

Councillor Ross, any more? Yes, thank you, Mayor. I would have assumed that other people who are more adept at the current technology would both be able to use a laptop and have an iPad or something alongside them as a point of reference through the course of the meeting, sir. Thank you.

I'm sure they can. Any. .. you finished, Councillor Ross? Looks like it.

It's a point of order, Mr. Mayor. Yes. That's probably not a point of order, but with your indulgence, could Councillor Ross just repeat the resolution and date, just so if we wanted to look it up we could while other people are talking.

Councillor Ross?

I've just found

It.

Resolution number 42, 12th of March 2019, in the minutes.

Thank you. Yeah, it is the same. Councillor Sam Progner, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm reading this item carefully, and I can see quite a lot of detail about what is being proposed, but I can't see any detail about why. And I'd just like to reiterate Councillor Wheeler's question, and that is to say, despite my innate belief that people should be able to do with their land as they please, nevertheless, this particular property owner entered into a covenant, the purpose of which, as it says here, was to protect the existing vegetation and locate any future structures in the southeastern corner of the lot in close proximity of each other. So I find it difficult to make a decision on this if there's no articulation as to why the applicant feels that it's justified to have the covenant varied. I see information about what's being proposed, not a word about why, and in the absence of that, I'll be voting against it.

Perhaps you'll suggest it could be deferred or something?

Point of order, Mr. Mayor, again.

Hang on, I'll just see if I'm going to answer that question first.

Well, I mean, I'd be happy to move for a deferral if that resulted in some justification . Now, under other circumstances, if an item like this came before us in the chamber, it's highly likely that the applicant would be addressing us from the gallery, and that question could be put to them. I just wanted

A yes or no, Councillor Sambrogno. I'm trying to clarify what you're aiming at, okay? So are you aiming for a deferral or not?

If it yields the information that I feel is missing, yes. Okay,

Thank you. Councillor Conolly.

Yeah, Mr Mayor, just looking at the minutes, I would suggest that it's actually out of order for us to consider this at the moment. It seems like it's a direct contradiction of something we've already resolved, and that needs to be rectified. We can't just go and resolve something different. So I think that it should be struck as out of order and we should consider it at a future meeting.

General Manager, can I have your comment on that, please?

Mr Mayor, I've found the item, and I think we should defer it pending further information.

Councillor Conolly, is that happy with that? You're moving we defer it, Councillor Conolly. Do we have a seconder? I second that,

Sir .

Councillor Sambrogno has already seconded it. All those in favour of deferral, please raise your hand. In favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor College, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Ross, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Sambrogno, Councillor Richards, and Councillor Rasmussen. Absent is Councillor Tree, declare it carried. Thank you. The next item.

Thank you. The next item.

Item 85. If someone would like to move something

Digital floodplain management. Mr Mayor. Through that way,

Mr Mayor. Carla, make a suggestion. A

Suggestion. We haven't actually moved anything yet

Move the recommendation, Mr Mayor.

Second that, Mr Mayor. Seconded by Councillor Rasmussen . Councillor Richards, was that you wanting to make a suggestion? If

You want to hear it now.

I'd love to hear it now, thank you

Thank you . I don't know if there's an appetite for this amongst the other councillors. I haven't even discussed it with anybody, just thought of it. We have quite a budget there for conferences. I know that this particular conference doesn't cost a lot of money, but I really don't know during the COVID restrictions and crisis at the moment whether it's a good look to the community that we go on spend ratepayers' money on going to all these different conferences. So I was wondering if there was an appetite in the room to suspend our participation in conferences until this is all over and just send the right message to the community in that regard.

It's online. I'm

Still talking about if they come up, other conferences that come up in the business paper. We've got a budget there in the business paper, and I think it's a good idea to suspend the spending money on that. I just think that's something that we could do as councillors.

Including this conference? This

Conference, as I already stated, is a minimal conference. I don't know if people were wanting to participate in it or not, but I don't think leaving the area and going and spending money on hotels, et cetera, you know, during this COVID crisis, or even post it while we're trying to get our budget and things like that in order, is a good look.

So you're maybe suggesting a 0.4, which talks about our conference policy during COVID-19. Is that what I'm hearing

That's exactly what you're hearing, Mr Mayor, yeah, a 0.4.

And the 0.4 would be words like we don't suspend

Maybe attending conferences until the COVID crisis is over, and post the COVID crisis actually looking at what's left in the budget from that point on there

But you did say we can spend money on this conference, so I need to clarify.

I said it's a minimal cost. It's not like we're going and spending money on hotels, et cetera. What was it, $300 for registration?

Distinguish online or not online, like physical conferences as opposed to online conferences. We

Can distinguish that exactly. My thoughts are along the lines of going and staying in hotels and running up big dinner bills, et cetera. I just think that's something that we shouldn't be doing, and this item in the agenda brings that to the forefront. And I was wondering if councillors were happy to, if you want to add a 0.4, just do that.

Okay. Councillor Conolly, as mover, are you happy to add a 0.4 like that?

No, Mr Mayor.

You're not happy to add a 0.4?

No.

Okay. Councillor Richards, Councillor Conolly is not happy to add a 0.4.

Well, that's disappointing because I don't think our community want us going on holidays, so that's fair enough. Okay. Not this conference, I'm saying conferences in general. Yeah

I know. I

Think it's a bad look.

Okay. Councillor Conolly, did you wish to speak to the motion?

Oh, look, only to say, Mr Mayor, very briefly, that I certainly understand Councillor Richards' point, and I wholeheartedly agree that if there's anything unnecessary, we shouldn't be attending. But I do think that is always the case. We don't, I don't think that COVID... Keep referring to COVID-19, but I don't think any time of natural disaster of whatever kind it is is a good time to be left out. So if there's information we need to hear, if there's things we need to be a part of, we should. That's the reason we budget for it in the first place, so that we have access to the information and the latest updates from experts. So this one in particular, I think we wouldn't want to miss in the Hawkesbury Council wouldn't want to miss the Floodplain Management Australia conference to see what's happened in the last year and hear from those people. So I think we should be attending.

I might clarify, Councillor Conolly, that Councillor Richards was not saying we do not attend this conference. She was saying, forgive me if I get this wrong, Councillor Richards, that we don't physically attend any conferences until

A foreseeable future when the COVID crisis is over, but we can still attend online conferences .

Yeah, yeah, I understand that. I guess my point was more that we shouldn't ever be physically attending conferences that aren't necessary. So I don't see that that's unique to this time.

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

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Just a question to begin with. This conference is next week . I'm wondering why it's coming to us so late in the day.

General Manager?

Mr Mayor, my understanding is the conference was originally cancelled and then it's been reconvened as a virtual conference, and this was the earliest that the relevant staff member could get the report up.

So can I suggest if this happens again that we don't need a report to come to Council for those councillors who are likely to attend this conference because in... Particularly those of us who are on the floodplain risk management committee are likely to put our hands up for this conference to know that it's on. Many of us work. We would really like to attend this conference. We make huge efforts to rearrange our working lives so that we can participate in things like this as councillors, because we know that it's important. We know that these are really, really important sources of information.

A week isn't enough notice to give to an employer that you're out of action for two days because of council. So this really needs to come to us well before . I understand that we're in extraordinary circumstances, but

Councillors who are massaging other employment in order to keep ourselves clothed, fed and housed are already trading on quite a lot of generosity from our employers quite frequently. So we really do need more warning than this . I want to thank, and that doesn't have to, the warning doesn't have to be a formal recognition at a council meeting. Just flick us an email saying this is on, we'll discuss it next meeting. But here's a heads up if you want to go, tell your boss that you're going to skive off for a couple of days, because that's the position you've left me in. I've now got to go and beg my boss to rearrange my week .

It's a bonus, I think, that this is only going to cost us a few hundred bucks for six places. I think we'd be mad not to take the six-place login. I wonder if we can't fill all the places. There was a request previously from some members of the Floodplain Committee to attend the conference, and we told them that they couldn't because the cost was prohibitive. If we can't fill six user logins and we're paying for them anyway, I wonder if we can open that up to some additional people. I note that there is $35,000 left in the conference budget. We've been, in part due to COVID-19, but also I think because we've been reticent to attend things knowing that we have a tight budget, and also because many of us are stretched for time, we've been reticent to put our hands up for conferences, and now we've got this $35,000 left over.

And I think we've pulled some of the councillor allowances out of the budget in order to balance the books. I know that there are a couple of councillors, and I'm not one of them, who are struggling with IT equipment, with iPads that are now more than four years old that really aren't up to scratch anymore. Perhaps a small portion of that $35,000 could be used for IT upgrades for those who need it. Those of us who don't need it, I think, are quite free to opt out. My iPad and phone are fine, and I gave back the laptop years ago. But for those who need it, I think perhaps we might be able to use a small portion of that money, and then I think we do need to send the rest of it back into plugging some of the other holes that COVID-19 has left in our budget, because this is windfall funds.

I want to make it really clear that conferences aren't holidays. For those of us who attend conferences, they're work, and they're quite hard work. They start early in the morning, they go all day, and on into the night. If you're going to a conference and you think it's a holiday, you're not paying attention . We can't go to conferences at the moment anyway because the COVID-19 restrictions mean that no one can travel, no one can stay in a hotel, and no one can cross the majority of the state borders. So our likelihood of spending any money on conferences in the foreseeable future is pretty limited. But this is really vital information at this conference. We are the most flood-prone LGA in the country.

It is vital that we have a seat at the table to hear the research that's been generated, to hear how it pertains to us, and also for our extreme flood risk to be recognised and dealt with by authorities. So I'm pleased this conference is still going, but some warning would have been lovely.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you. I did understand Councillor Richard's sentiment, but of course, as Councillor Wheeler just pointed out, we can't have gatherings of that size to be going to conferences. And also, like Councillor Wheeler, when I go to a conference, I generally attend every single session and work the entire time. The Floodplain Conference is a conference I've been to every year I've been on council, not to enjoy it as such because I often find elements of it quite distressing, but because I believe that our vulnerability here means that we need to have the most up-to-date information, and it's been highly valuable in informing us on developments around flooding, particularly to hear from the people in Queensland, for example, who have suffered such bad floods, and also to see the latest technologies and so on.

So I would be hoping to attend this conference online next week, and I do have a question: is our Hawkesbury staff member presenting her presentation?

General manager, do we have an answer? I

Don't believe so, Mr Mayor . Hang on, Derek.

Yes, no, she's deferred her presentation to the conference next year. Okay,

Thank you. Nevertheless, I'm sure it will be a very informative and interesting conference, so thank you.

Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yeah, I want to endorse particularly this conference and it being online. I think that's obviously the only way it can take place. But these conferences, and I've been to a number of them over the years, not recently, but certainly over the years, and they are really, really valuable for us. And as several councillors have said, we are the most flood-prone council area probably in Australia, as far as that's certainly what they tell us. And with close to 90 metre floods and a PMS of 25 metres, I would reckon that would be close to correct. So, Mr Mayor, I think we should certainly go to this one. And if we can get, I think the fee for six , yes, six logins is $300, so if we can get some of our floodplain management committee people to attend, that would be good as well, or offer them to attend, that would be good as well .

Now, the other thing, I guess on a broader point, COVID , well, SARS-CoV-2 is going to be around for a very long time, I suspect, probably forever . And until we have a vaccine , which may not happen, but if it happens, you know, the prediction is that it'll be at least 18 months away . So clearly we need to define at which point we say it's okay to go or not go to conferences, just to put that up there. And the third thing, it's disappointing to hear that, you know, we put it out there on live streaming that when councillors go to conference, that we not rake up, you know, big dinner bills. Certainly isn't the case in my case, and a lot of conferences, in fact, have built into their conference fee conference dinners.

And relatively little money is actually spent on so-called raking up big dinners. And I think it's sad and a bit disappointing that that sort of image is going to be pushed out into our community because it isn't true. Thank you, Mr.

Thank you, Councillor Rassmussen. Are there any other speakers? I noticed our Councillor Wheeler, your light is on.

Sorry, Mr. Mayor. Deputy Mayor, your light is on.

No. Any other speakers? If not, Councillor Conolly, do you wish to have right of reply? No,

Thank you.

No right of reply, then I'll put the motion. All those in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. In favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Ross, Councillor Wheeler. Deputy Mayor, I think. Yes. Councillor Garrow, Councillor Sam Brogno, Councillor Richards, Councillor Rasmussen, and Councillor Conolly. Absent is Councillor Tree. Declare it carried.

Item 86.

Moved that way, Mr Mayor.

I'll second. Moved by Councillor Rasmussen, seconded by Councillor Zamprogno. Councillor Rasmussen, do you wish to speak, Mayor?

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Yes, just, I guess briefly, the report outlines quite a large number of actions and changes that have been so far done by our staff in creating and adapting to the COVID-19 pandemic. And I applaud them for doing that, and particularly the general manager, because, as we all know, it's very difficult to have your workforce working from home and other places and distancing and so on. But I think the measures that have been taken so far, I think, are to be applauded, and I think we'll certainly make sure council is delivering to the best of our capacity, delivering the services that the community expects from us. I've said on a couple of occasions now that I really would like to see a coherent overall transformational plan, because clearly council operations are not going to be the same as they were before the pandemic.

So I would really like, pardon me, a transformational strategy and plan so that we have some idea and the community has some idea what— Yeah, I want to expect from Council over the next 12 to 18 months.

Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Ross, you wish to speak.

Thank you, Mayor. I just wish to inquire at page 29 in relation to this item.

Other capital and non-capital projects, which indicate that other contributions amount to 1.37 million.

I'd like to ascertain whether that is all attributed to the State Government, please.

General Manager.

You're on mute, General Manager.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I refer that to the Director Infrastructure and the Director City Planning.

Mrs Perrin.

So, yes , some of the works that are non-capital in terms of business improvement and business support initiatives that have been going on,

Then there are a number of non-planning items in terms of planning support that we've been giving people. I

Think the question is , are they all State Government funded? That's the question, I think.

Yes, I'm— There's a mix of state and federal government funding, from my understanding,

In the bottom table.

Page 29. I

Can probably add something to that. Some of those council funds for projects that are already budgeted, such as some of the building works at Bilpin, Oval Precinct, St Albans, and the bottom one there, the local tradies employment, using council funding out of council's maintenance budget for buildings to supplement additional works, provide some contribution. I would add, though, that at this stage there is no program , no criteria, and no knowledge of whether matching funding would be required. However, normal practice for any grant program is the more that you can contribute, either by your own resources or by other matching funds, obviously enhances the prospect of success.

And some would be considered just works in kind as well, in terms of council resources as opposed to actual funding.

Councillor Ross, does that answer your

Question?

Not with clarity. I would like, on future occasions, for these other contributions be identified as to the source of funding, whether it be internal or external, and if it's external, at least some indication as to who that is, please. Thank you. This is after all public money. Okay.

Have you finished with yours? Questions ?

Councillor Ross? Finished. Okay .

Councillor Sam Prodnow. Thank you, Mr Mayor. When we're considering a report about the impacts of COVID-19, I think it's appropriate for us as councillors to state that our first and primary interest is the welfare and morale and rights of staff, and I hope everybody's bearing up well, and I hope that the general manager conveys that on behalf of the councillors and the staff. Next question is, and not now, but, you know, certainly at some point it will be useful for us to have some sense of the uptake of these hardship provisions that are being extended to tenants or ratepayers. I know that we recently reviewed our hardship policy relating to rates. My understanding is that very few people take up that option, and I'd be interested to know in a few months what the uptake of these hardship provisions are, and I'm just hoping that staff can take that on board.

The third and final point that I'll make is, to the degree that we've drawn up a list of potential infrastructure projects that are shovel ready or can

Be brought to a position of being shovel ready, I'm disappointed to see the upgrade of Brennan's Dam Road is not even on that list. I know it's a well-worn soapbox for me, but I'll provide two justifications. One is that Council had been prepared previously to resolve to consider upgrading Brennan's Dam Road if other windfall funding. Had been available, such as the Roads to Recovery funding, and we had received briefings as recently as March this year that identified and affixed a cost to a low-cost option. It was $550,000. And in March of last year, we received a more extensive briefing that suggested a range of options priced between $1 million and $3.15 million. So obviously some thinking had been given to the scope and cost of that, and I'd prefer to see that added to the list.

I know it's an ambit claim, but I was wondering if we could have that added to the list of potential infrastructure projects that we send to the state government. Thank you.

Are you asking that that be added now? I am, sir. General Manager .

You're on mute, sorry. We lost you.

We will pass on those details to staff that were conveyed by Councillor Zambrano . We are proposing to provide an update on the response to the hardship provisions and the rates at the next quarterly briefing next week. We're collecting data and we'll be able to report on that. In relation to the infrastructure, my understanding is that the director circulated a list to councillors before submitting it to the Deputy Prime Minister some weeks ago, but maybe the director can— maybe I've got that wrong.

I'm sorry, Mr Mayor. Yeah, that list was distributed. Just in response, the list is somewhat curtailed simply because the requirement at that stage was for projects that were ready to start within three to six months. More extensive works required for Brindisdam Road, all of those other options other than the very, very low cost, which were included in next year's budget . is for requires services and road widening and land acquisition. And whilst might be desirable, but probably not going to start within three to six months.

Thank you . Councillor Wheeler

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I want to thank the staff for putting this report forward as a result of a notice of motion I moved a couple of meetings ago, and I hope that those of you who supported that notice of motion now feel that this was worthwhile, and those of you who didn't can see that what I was—I wasn't asking for some grand and glorious construction, but simply a document that lets us know what we have done in response to the probably largest pandemic to hit in more than a century . I also want to thank the staff who are involved in continuing to maintain services for council. This is a really anxious and difficult time, particularly for frontline staff, and they've done extraordinary work in keeping things running.

We are, at the end of the day, a service organisation, and we have maintained many of those services. Some of them we've had to curtail, but we've done our level best, I think, to keep those services up, and hopefully we can now start slowly reopening the things that we haven't been able to keep running. One of the things that I'm particularly proud to see in this document is that we have retained all our staff, including casual staff. Not all councils can say this. We haven't stood—it doesn't appear that we have stood down a lot of staff to use up their leave either. I heard of an employee of a neighbouring council who has been stood down till September to use up all of his annual and long service leave.

He will go back to work with no leave. That's a really undesirable outcome for an employee, who then goes from fairly secure leave arrangements and employment conditions to feeling quite precarious. And I'm glad that this council hasn't done that to our employees, many of whom are members of our community who live and work here as well . I think the council signing up to the Splinter Award has probably helped with retention and deployment of staff in other areas, and so I thank the staff for their negotiations with that as well. I note that there is relief for businesses that use the deck at Thompson Square, and also those that use Footpath Dining, that council is providing relief for them in terms of reduced or refunds on usage fees for that.

My understanding is that there isn't a lot of funding yet for shovel-ready projects at this point. The state government, I think, is proposing low-interest rate loans for shovel-ready projects, which probably wasn't what we were hoping for. It may bring the works forward and improve local employment while those works are completed, but probably isn't the big economic push that we were hoping for. But it's good to see that we have a list. I know when the Director of Infrastructure sent that list round, I very enthusiastically sent him a number of pet projects, and I see a couple of them made the short list there. There's a couple that didn't make it, but I think it would be particularly some of the heat mitigation projects and tree planting would make a really long-lasting difference, and the stuff around bushfire resilience and sustainability.

Some of these things will have long-term economic payoffs for council, and I think that's a useful thing for us, a criteria for us to be looking at when we choose projects going forward. So I thank the staff for this report, and I thank the... Council's management team for doing their level best for ratepayers and staff at this really difficult time. I know it's been really stressful for our staff, and hopefully we're now seeing some light at the end of the tunnel.

Deputy Mayor, you're light on.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you to those councillors who so eloquently put the thanks to the general manager and the staff. I echo those sentiments completely. I just have one question. It was with regard to point 3, which is on page 26, regarding the rental relief. I'm just wondering what the criteria or what the information given to any not-for-profit tenants in council buildings was. I don't see it listed there.

General Manager.

Through you, Mr Mayor, as we've said a number of occasions, we've looked at each matter on a case-by-case basis, and it's about people just being able to share with us information to demonstrate that there is some financial impact . Now, sometimes organisations are funded from government, so some of their income is quite stable. So, as we've said on a number of occasions, each of these entities is a unique situation. There's a lot of variation happening across the community in terms of the impacts, but we're certainly encouraging all these businesses, these organisations, to come and speak to us and share the necessary information so that we can appreciate their level of distress and make an appropriate arrangement. That's sort of the approach that we're taking.

So they should come to you, for example, if they rely on money they might get from a fundraising event or something, and they can't hold that because of this, and they're in a council building, they could come to you and express that projected declining in turnover, so to speak? Yes, we're

Encouraging them to do that.

Thank you.

Any

Further speakers? Can I just add my name to the list of people who want to thank the General Manager and the staff for the way they've handled this crisis. I think it's been exceptional, and it's something we couldn't have foreseen, but we've managed to make a big difference to the way the community is being serviced at the moment. The thing I wanted to actually follow through with, and is not in this report, is the future. What are we going to be doing in the future? Are we going to look at, for example, trying to keep many of our workers working from home? I think if we can find ways of doing that, I think that is a great opportunity for us to look at changing the way employment works in our society.

I know that a lot of people are at home at the moment because they're in isolation and they're not actually working from home. But at the moment, the traffic in Sydney is down by 50 percent, and people on public transport is down by something like 80 percent. Now surely if we can capture some of these ways of getting people to work at home, then we can reduce the pressure on our traffic, on our public transport. And I had a meeting of Westrock executive last week when I've asked the Westrock staff to have a look at trying to gather information around Western Sydney about what is possible, especially in local councils. What is possible? What can we maintain ? What can we keep from this crisis that actually might be beneficial to us, especially in terms of traffic and management of resources?

So I'm hoping that we can do that over the next six months or so and maybe make some recommendations. Not to local, just local government, but to all business. And I'm not saying that all businesses will fit into this. Obviously, if you're making car parts, you can't do it from your lounge room. But there are some jobs that can be done from home successfully, and I think we really need to consider that in the future. Anyway, there's no further speakers. It's been moved by Councillor Rasmussen. Do you wish to have right of reply, Councillor Rasmussen?

No, Mr Mayor, but other than just to reiterate what you've just said, and that is that hopefully we will come up with some recommendations as to how the future council will operate after this, because we can't just go back to the way we were. I mean, it's much more efficient in many ways the way we're dealing with work now, and hopefully some of it will be retained, and hopefully we'll get a transition plan up to council to endorse

Thank you. I'll put the motion then. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Ross, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Richards, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, and I assume Councillor

Rasmussen. Yes, thank you.

Abstent is Councillor Tree. Declare it carried.

P7.

Road naming, do we have a—

Yeah, move that way, Mr Mayor.

Do we have a seconder? Councillor Wheeler, is your hand up? Yep. Seconded by Councillor Wheeler. Councillor Rasmussen, do you wish to speak on that?

Not necessary, Mr Mayor, thank you.

Anyone wish to speak on that?

No?

No one wishes to speak. Well, it's been moved and seconded. Councillor Rasmussen, do you want to use your right of reply?

Not necessary, Mr Mayor, thank you.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Cotler— your hand up— Councillor Rasmussen, against, Councillor Ross, absent is Councillor Tree. Declare it carried.

88. Moved the recommendation, Mr Mayor.

Second . Seconded, Councillor Rasmussen. Councillor Zanprogna, you wish to speak on that?

No,

Mr Mayor. Deputy Mayor, you wish to speak on that? Yes,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd like to thank the staff on this comprehensive update on the council resolutions. It is good to be able to keep track of them, and I see that it's evolving in the amount of information that's contained in them to enable us to keep track of how they're going. And, I mean, this stems from a notice of motion from, I think, about 2014 that I brought to council so that we could try and keep track of them. I just had a couple of questions because I do see in there some things, and there is a resolution 213, which is to discuss, have a workshop to discuss outstanding resolutions, because I had brought forward that we can't just have them there and have them lost and forgotten about.

We need to revisit the ones that are outstanding so that we can prioritise which ones we move forward to to tie that in with our budget and so on. So I just wanted to raise a couple of the ones that are sitting in there waiting for more information or whatever, but which may be able to be actioned upon further, and I just wanted to draw attention to them. One of them is resolution 38 on page 3 of attachment 2. It regards the heavy vehicles on local roads. And I think, can we, have incorporated into that an update of any funding which could be available from the state government to assist us in that, given that we had heavy vehicles, an increase in heavy vehicles on Freeman's Reach Road and Kermond Road due to the closure of the Windsor Bridge in the floods, and we now have 12 weeks of closure of Freeman's Reach Road.

And so we're going to have a lot more traffic going around on that road, a lot of heavy vehicle traffic. It's very apparent when you drive on it that it is deteriorating much more than simply the rural traffic that would just be on it for the people that live out there. So I'm asking if that can be looked at in the ongoing investigations. The other thing is resolution 203 on page 20, which was about the preparation of the emergency management guide, which I have been pushing for for some time. And it looked as if we asked for some funding and we didn't get any, but can we have some continuity in still trying to get funding for these things? Now more than ever, it's more important that we tap into the available grant funding surrounding any form of emergency management.

And if we could probably work to get some money to actually assist us in getting an emergency management guide out, it would be wonderful if we could do that. I note that we will probably have some money left over from the budget for conferences. We also won't be putting money into the Stedford this year, I note, and so various things like that. I'm wondering if some of that money can be reallocated to these smaller things that could actually be quite meaningful for our community to have this sort of information.

The other thing was that some time ago I had brought forward a motion about illegal dumping, which is a vast problem in our area, as we know. And I had actually spoken to Dominic Perrottet about it at the time. And I'm just wondering, it's in there, resolution 81 on page 47, but this doesn't mention anything about any discussions about illegal dumping. It's got a list of what has been discussed with the local member, and I'm just wondering if, as well as having a list of what's been discussed, if we could at some point have the outcome of those discussions, because we all know that you can have meetings with any politicians and it doesn't mean that you actually get any results. So it's no point just having that as the final thing in a resolution that somebody has had a meeting.

We really need to be advised of whether anything came of those discussions or not. There's quite a few like that that involve going to the local member. There's another one, Resolution 64, which was where we resolved to actually assist to get a meeting between the local member, Robin Preston, and the Australian Paramedics Association to facilitate that, to make it easier for the representatives pushing for more paramedic numbers, acknowledging that's not our core business, but we had resolved that we would help them because they are really trying to get more ambulances in this area. So I'm just wondering if that could also be followed up, and any of the outstanding ones that involve having sent correspondence, if we can actually get the copies forwarded when that correspondence is received, and not just have things shut off as complete if we get an answer.

Often it will require a follow-up, and I'm happy to bring a motion to get a mechanism to do that if one doesn't exist, but I think that we can't just leave things. We can't just say we once wrote to a minister and they just wrote back with a pro forma letter. We want to progress those issues that we've brought forward, and so I would like to see, advice from the general manager, if that requires a separate notice of motion to introduce a mechanism to do that, or whether that will become standard practice to follow up on correspondence if there's an issue strongly brought up by the council that we should pursue beyond, you know, just that thing. If I could have an answer to that, please.

General Manager. Mr Mayor, I don't think we need a notice of motion on that. We're building this off our document management system, and so we'll speak to the staff about how we get that functionality into this process going forward.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I know my time just went. I did just see, I have one other question. I notice there's a number of outstanding resolutions regarding resilience, climate change and emergency management. I'm just wondering if these are all proceeding as part of the framework of the resilience planning that is taking place, and if that's where we're going to see them appear. Can someone confirm that, please?

General Manager. Mr

Mayor, we're starting the planning for some of those matters this week, as it turns out. Some of the other matters, we're working with the broader group of metropolitan councils in relation to resilience. We have staff attending to those things. But I'm happy to take that on notice and give an update in the

Context of where those resolutions might sit in those various processes.

Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Ross, you just made it back in time. I think your light is on. You wish to speak? Yes,

Thank you. I draw attention to the attachment to item 88, page 10 , I believe, resolution 123, in relation to the matter

There at that item. The information here seems to be contradictory to that which— was provided verbally during the course of Council considering the

Matter of the LEP earlier in this year. And I'm just wanting to confirm that the statement here is correct, in that it is stating that

Planning proposal being finalised in order to submit for Gateway determination . I understood from responses received during the LEP discussion that the statement was made there, and with a degree of certainty, that the matter was indeed before the Department of Planning and had not been acknowledged by them over a period of 18 months. And this is a very different response. Could I please seek clarity, General Manager?

Mr Mayor, I might refer that to the Director of City Planning, but again, we may have to take this one on notice, but I'll refer it to the Director.

Yeah, I'll just clarify, but in terms of, I am sorry, having trouble with my technology at the moment, so I can't read the attachment at the moment. But when, in terms of when we write the reports, they're done, you know, at a different sequence to when we get information. So essentially we are getting information from the Department around a various number of proposals more recently, which have not made it into the update on these Council resolutions. So there might be a mismatch in terms of update information and when this report is prepared for Council.

Mr Mayor, that raises the question of credibility of this document that we've been handed tonight, in terms of its appropriateness at this time. I find that quite extraordinary.

Thank you . Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Wheeler, I think your name's up there.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Just a couple of inconsistencies in the document. Page— so your surname is misspelt in a number of resolutions on page five. Yes. You've got a very French calvaire. My

French

We might want to tidy up. And there also seems to be a bit of inconsistency in the note text column for some of the resolutions that look like they're internal memos. I know we're ironing out our resolutions management software, but some of them are very cut and dried, talking about exactly where things are up to, and some of them contain internal information about directing staff to do various different things. So I think we probably need to have a bit of a tidy up so that they're consistent.

These are really interesting documents, I think. They really highlight the aspirations of this council, our attempts to make really solid changes to what happens here. They show how far we've come, I think, and how much ground we still need to make up. Some of them are a bit depressing in that we keep on trying the same old things and we don't seem to be getting anywhere on a number of them. I'm a bit dismayed to see that the resolutions on urban heat, tree canopy and climate change are still outstanding. But it's good to hear from the general manager that we are starting to do some of this stuff as part of our resilience planning. These resolutions are consistent with our community strategic plan and our climate emergency declaration.

They're not optional. They are core business of council dealing with an ongoing crisis around climate and resilience, and we need to get on with them. And I'm hoping that in the next 12 months we will see real action on these items because they're vital if the Hawkesbury is going to be livable into the future

Thank you. Any further speakers?

Can I just say that I actually brought this matter up first in council in 2001. I brought up a question for a tracking mechanism to track our recommendations and our motions and our notices of motion. And most of the general managers since that time tended to put it in the too hard box. And I want to commend our current general manager who took it out of the too hard box and has actually managed to make it work. It still has some problems and as the deputy mayor pointed out, we need to add to it to make it more useful in future. But I think we have here the beginnings of a good mechanism that's going to help us move forward. As you go through it, as Councillor Wheeler said, it's a very good history lesson.

What we talked about and when we talked about it is all quite interesting. But in many cases, those things still remain unresolved, and that's really what the tracking mechanisms should be all about. What is still unresolved and what are we going to do about it? Because things tend to just fall off the table or disappear. So now that we've got this excellent tool, I think we might be able to make some difference in the future. So I thank you very much, staff and general manager, for managing to do this. I think Councillor Zamprogno moved this motion. Do you have a right of reply,

Councillor Zamprogno? It's only to concur with your remarks, Mr Mayor. I do agree. Very often the commentary that I receive from ratepayers and people who do business with Council relates to follow up and follow through. And it's very timely that we address this. Only today, representatives from the Pitt Town community were reminding me that there was a bus tour that occurred in Pitt Town. I asked a question of Council in July 2018 where that action item list was up to. I can see the general manager smiling because he knows exactly what I'm talking about. And there'll be another notice of motion coming from me soon to pursue formally a further update on that. So I'm glad that we have these mechanisms in place, and I hope that we continue to tighten those screws. That's it.

Thank you. It's been moved by Councillor Zamprogno and seconded by Councillor Rasmussen. If you— I'll put the motion. If you're in favour, please raise your hand. Favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Sam Progner, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Richards, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons, Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, and I assume Councillor Ross. Councillor

Ross, yep, thank you.

Any against ? Councillor Ross against. Absent is Councillor Tree. Declare it carried. Thank you.

Next item is item 89. Move that way, Mr Mayor. Moved by Councillor.

Did Councillor Reynolds vote on the last item?

Yes, he did. And

I read his name out. Yes , he did the Vulcan thing, which I... Yeah. Moved

By Councillor Rasmussen. Second that Councillor Conolly, I think that was. Councillor Rasmussen, you wish to speak?

Not necessarily, Mr Mayor, thanks.

Councillor Wheeler, your light's on. Do you wish to speak? That's from last... No

Sorry, sorry, Mr Mayor.

Anybody else wish to speak

Speak now? No. Okay. Councillor Rasmussen, do you want to have right of reply?

Not necessarily, Mr Mayor. Thank you very much.

Okay, been moved by Councillor Rasmussen, seconded by Councillor Conolly. I'll put the motion. If you're in favour, please raise your hand. In favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Sanprogno, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Richards, Councillor Cottlage, Councillor Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Rasmussen. Rasmussen, thank you. Any against? Councillor Ross, did you vote? You're against, are you? Councillor Ross against. Councillor Tree absent. Declare it carried. Thank you.

Item number 90 . Second that, Mr Mayor. Councillor Conolly and Councillor Rasmussen. And Councillor Conolly, do you wish to speak?

No, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Wheeler, your light's back on. Does that mean you wish to speak?

Yes, please, Mr Mayor. Just a quick question. I'm just wondering if there's a reason why we wouldn't include a list of nominees in the minutes of the meeting. We've included a list of who won each category, but the nominees aren't there.

General Manager.

Mr Mayor, I might refer that to the Manager of Communications.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. No, we haven't included that list previously, but we can include that if Council would like.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I think it would be a nice gesture. I know that we asked that the nominees all be invited to the ceremony and that their names be listed on the back of the program, but that tends not to be a lasting reference. The fact that the minutes come to Council and go into the Council business paper and are minuted then means that those nominations are on record, and I think that would be nice for the people who are nominated. It's a big deal to be nominated. It's a bigger deal, of course, to win, but being nominated is also nice, and this would give a lasting public record for them if we could include that. Thanks.

So, Councillor Wheeler, you're looking to change the recommendation so it includes that. Councillor Conolly, are you happy to have that inclusion?

No, actually, I was going to speak to that point, if I could.

Go right ahead.

So we actually spoke about this at length in the committee because I actually had the same sort of feeling as Councillor Wheeler, that we should publicly acknowledge who was nominated. But the reason the committee didn't want to do that was because there are some categories where there might have only been one single nominee or only a couple of nominees. And to publish a list of one nominee and then that person was awarded takes away from that award somewhat if you were the only nominee. It also meant that then you've got people comparing themselves to other people in the community and having discussions about who should have won the award, which, you know, these aren't, you know, these are our community awards.

They're not for that. We don't want to sit around arguing about making people feel bad or comparing different people in our community to each other. So whilst I certainly agree with the sentiment, I would caution against publishing a list of who was nominated for each award. Perhaps we could, I think what we did at the actual, at the ceremony is publish a list of all people nominated for all awards without putting the names against specific awards. I think that might be a way to go if we want to record it in the minutes.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, look, I think that's a good suggestion. I'll be guided by Councillor Conolly on that. I think he's made some valid points. I think that that's quite fair. Thanks.

So for clarification, Councillor Conolly, are you looking to put in an extra point which says something like all nominees be recorded in general?

Well, yeah, I think it's a reasonable point. So perhaps what might need to happen, without being too technical about it, is that we just defer the consideration of the minutes and ask council staff to insert a list of all nominees into the minutes so they can be considered. Is that

If you want a change to that, do we have a seconder for that? Sam ? Is anyone wish to speak against that idea? No. Does anyone want to speak about that idea?

No. So it's been moved by Councillor Conolly that we defer the minutes and they be brought back with the list of nominees included.

Did

I get that right?

Yep.

Sorry, yep. Councillor Ross, you're waving your hand around. What does that mean? He's voting. You're voting already, are you? Yep.

So Councillor Connolly's moved that, and Councillor Rasmusson, you're happy as seconder to go that way?

I am indeed, Mr Mayor, thank you.

Right. So now Councillor Ross will move the recommendation. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Ross, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Richards, Councillor Kotlasch, Councillor Lyons-Bucket, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Sam Pro. Councillor Rasmusson. Councillor Rasmusson. Councillor Reynolds, are you here? No. Absent is Councillor Reynolds and Councillor Tree. Declared.

Next item is on block, item 91. Do that away, Mr Mayor.

We've already moved it, I think. Oh, have we? Okay.

Item 92 is a question with notice. There's a question there and there's an answer. I don't think we need to necessarily do anything with that.

Any further business?

I think there's outstanding questions in that question, Mr Mayor.

You have some extra questions to add?

No, there's questions in there that have not been answered.

Well then you would need to resubmit and ask for more better answers. Is that what you're asking for? Rather

I would imagine that given I've submitted them as questions, that I would be entitled to answers to them. We can speak on this item.

No, we really can't speak on this item. I had that clarified this afternoon. All we can do is ask further questions.

When will the questions that have been answered in the questions be answered in that case?

They may be answered tonight if the answer is immediately available, otherwise they may be taken on notice.

Would you like me to read out the questions that are outstanding in that case?

You can read them out, yes please.

So one of the questions is, when will the report, and I refer to the report that Council requested on the 31st of October 2017 in resolution 339, when will Council be provided with that report? When did Council determine that the program detailed would be held? When were councillors informed of the program and invited to participate? When will the information about the questionnaires and the answers given be provided to all councillors, and how will the information be disposed of when no longer required ? And then I have a series of additional questions that I can submit separately, if that's what you wish.

You can submit them now if you wanted to, or you can submit them separately, whichever you like.

So, well, firstly, I'm particularly interested in getting answers to the questions that I've already submitted.

Okay. General Manager, do we have those answers available?

So, Mr Mayor, in relation to the first question, it is correct that that report is still outstanding, and we've been having some discussions internally, and we think we'll be in a position to report on that in the next two months or so, just after we've had a chance to fully review the process in relation to the two event series that have happened, one in 19 and one in 20. In relation to when did we determine a course, I don't think we've determined a course as yet. We were exploring a particular course. We got some feedback from Council that that wasn't what they wanted to see, and we've been exploring alternative options. And we're happy to provide some feedback to Council about those alternative options, and we can do that, as I said, in the next couple of months.

I'll have to get some details on the other questions that were asked in terms of Councillors invited. And at the moment, all the documents are stored on Council's records management system, and there are State Records Acts that... The guide, how documents are retained and then disposed of, and those documents would be managed in that way. And we can provide details of that as well.

Councillor Wheeler, did you have other questions?

So, yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor, and thanks to the General Manager, because it's quite clear then that this program has gone ahead without council say-so.

Is that a question?

Well, no, it's a response to the General Manager's answer to the question. And it would appear from Facebook posts, which is how other councillors found out that this had occurred, that two additional questions were asked that are not detailed in this report, and I'm wondering why they were not reported here, and when councillors will be provided with this information. They are questions that relate to Westfields and whether 100 acres of land at Glossodia should be used for housing or farmland. General Manager

Do we have an answer

To that ? Mr Mayor, I wasn't aware that they were part of this question. I thought this question related purely to the resolution of 3339 of 31 October. I'm happy to follow that up. If we've made a mistake there, I apologise for that.

Any further questions?

I'm wondering how the questions were developed and who wrote them, and what the intention is to do with the information that was obtained, because it certainly hasn't been provided to other members of council.

Thank you. Any other questions? Councillor Connell, you've got a question.

I just want to speak on the item just really briefly, Mr Mayor, if possible.

We're not speaking on the item because all we're doing is accepting questions.

I would actually, Mr Mayor, just if you could indulge me, just challenge that interpretation. It wouldn't make sense if we could ask questions and then never get a chance to respond or say anything about the answers provided. And my comments were going to be directed to the fact that whilst I don't necessarily agree with Council Wheeler's conclusions about this information, these questions are not ambiguous and they have not been answered, and that's a problem. If the question is, when did this happen? the answer can either be a date or it did not happen. And this is not the first time this has happened, so I just wanted to draw attention in a public setting that we only get the chance to ask questions and notice in writing in advance, and then if we don't get an actual answer to a very specific question, the whole thing is rendered quite pointless.

We need to look at our code of meeting practice, I would imagine. At the moment, Councillor Wheeler has asked for those questions to be re-asked and is still seeking answers to them, so the matter isn't over yet. Any further questions?

Yes, Mr Mayor, I had a question just regarding which clause in the code of meeting practice is it that says we can't speak on questions? I thought we had resolved that we could speak on questions.

General Manager.

Mr Mayor, my understanding is that from the time that I've been here, we have questions and then we have questions on questions, and if we can't answer them, then we resubmit them to the following meeting. That's been the practice since I've been here. So if I've misunderstood something, I've misunderstood it, but that's been the historical position.

I was under the understanding that it all changed reasonably the last time we changed the Code of Meeting Practice, because I believe now that— I'm not sure if public can speak on the questions, but I do think it was something Councillor Wheeler raised. Maybe she could clarify on that at the time. I think we definitely did change it, just not for this particular question, but for all questions that come. I know in the past we have had debate and comment on other questions that have come in like this. I'm just wondering why this one's different.

I specifically asked that question this afternoon and got the response that I already gave you, that I was told all that can happen with questions is you can have further questions. If you like, we could take that away, and the general manager said he'll take it away and we'll have another look at it. But at the moment, that's the advice I've been given and that's what I'm operating on at the moment.

Councillor Ross, you're live

Okay. That is correct, Mr Mayor. I refer you to, I think about two meetings ago, where in which I attempted at the end of the meeting to ask orally for a question to be placed on notice, and you berated me on that occasion for doing so. There appears to be a distinct exception have occurred here again tonight.

Can we get clarification on this whole matter, please, because this is most unsatisfactory. Thank you. And I believe it's unconstitutional apart from anything else. It's a denial of our right to political— This course , as is appropriate apparently in the state or the federal parliament, but not in the local government area. What a lot of rubbish

That's not a question, that's a statement. As I pointed out, we can have questions on questions. So if there's a question with notice, then that can be followed with other questions related to it. What you asked for a couple of meetings ago was a question without notice, which you just wanted to bring up at the time, which I said you can't, and I'll stick to that. But we will clarify that between now and the next meeting so we know for sure how this all works, okay? But the current advice that I've got is that where there's a question with notice, all that can happen with it is that further questions may follow.

I understood that was not the procedure that was being adopted with a previous representation that was being made prior to my appointment of you, sir. I took it, although I may have wax in my ears, that you were seeking

Knowledge of further questions to be raised by that particular councillor.

I don't want to get into a debate about it now, Councillor Ross. We're going to get further clarification and bring it back, okay

Councillor Weir, your light is still on from before or is it on again?

I've got a further question, Mr Mayor. Is it now this council's policy that the mover of a motion, as is indicated by the response to these questions, now is entitled to enact that motion, or the intent of that motion, without a report coming to council as resolved, without council being fully furnished with the details, including costs? Participation of other people's children, minors, and local primary schools, and the exclusion, the clear exclusion of ten other members of this council. Is that now council's policy?

To take your question on notice, Councillor Wheeler.

Any other questions?

No. Is there any other business? If not, I'll be closing the meeting.

No other business. Meeting closed at 9.17 p.m. Thank you very much.

Okay. Good night, everybody.