25 August 2020 - Ordinary

Good evening everyone. Welcome to the ordinary meeting for Hawkesbury City Council for Tuesday the 25th of August 2020. I'd like to firstly begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of this land, the Darug, Young and Dharug people, and pay respects to elders both past and present. I'll hand over firstly to the General Manager for some procedural matters.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Members of the public observing this meeting are advised that in accordance with Council's coding and meeting practice, the meetings of Council are recorded. In the terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. Recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting of Council meetings. The provision of any information is recorded is voluntary, and if any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting. Recordings will be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations, and the recordings are stored on Council's record management system.

It is expected that any person addressing tonight's Council meeting will refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at this meeting. This request relates to both address to Council and any answers given in response to questions. Finally, it is also requested that if any person participating in the meeting has a mobile phone, that they either turn it off or turn it to silent. Thank you, Mr.

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

No.

No apologies. Have we heard anything from Councillor Ross?

It was an earlier email, Mr Mayor, but I haven't heard from Councillor Ross other than that.

Councillor Tree, have we heard from Councillor Tree?

I believe Councillor Tree may be in the meeting.

She's in the meeting.

Ah, I found her down the bottom there. Yes, sorry, didn't count that one. So it's only Councillor Ross that's missing, as far as I can see. So we'll wait and see what happens with the apologies for Councillor Ross. Do we have any declarations of interest, please?

No declarations.

Yes,

Councillor Wheeler.

I've got a declaration of— I've got a pecuniary interest at item 156 .

156.

Okay. Any others? No.

The minutes of the last meeting, would someone like to move

Those? Mr Mayor, I think Councillor Garrow has an interest in an item, but she currently doesn't have audio to

Speak

Oh, she's dropped out,

Yes.

I believe it's a non-significant non-pecuniary interest for item 161. 161

Okay, I'll write that down.

No further declarations. Councillor Rasmussen, are you moving the minutes?

Yes,

I am, Mr Mayor, thank you. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Lyons-Buckett. You seconded that?

Yes,

I did.

Okay. Audio is a bit slow tonight, I think, so it's been moved and seconded that we accept the minutes. All those in favour say aye. Aye. Those against? Declared carried.

There are no items subject to public address tonight, so we will move through the business paper from the top to the bottom

In that order. There are two items on block. One item is in the ordinary part of the paper, and that is item 160 . The other item is in confidential, so I've been advised we have to actually move into confidential, declare it as block and then move back again. So at the moment the only item we're looking to call block is item 160. Would someone like to move that please? Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. All those in favour? Aye. Those against? Declare it carried. So we're going to move through the business paper in the order in which it appears, and the first item...

I believe is item 154 , if someone would like to. Please use your blue hands from now on, thank you. Councillor Rasmussen.

Move that way. In the recommendation, do we have a seconder?

Please use your blue hands. Deputy Mayor, you're seconding that. Councillor Rasmussen, do you wish to speak on that?

Not at this point, Mr Mayor. I'm getting a lot of noise in the background. Yes, the audio

Is a bit strange tonight. Yeah,

It is a bit

Sorry. I think we'll just persist and see if it clears itself.

Okay.

You didn't wish to speak at the moment? Not at this point, Mr Mayor, thank you. Deputy Mayor, did you wish to speak?

I have a couple of questions, thank you, Mr Mayor.

Okay.

I'm just wondering if there are any other funding options that could be available to assist us with further developing the capability of the remote working for staff. I'm just wondering, I mean, that would obviously be a very good stimulus funding option because the benefits are quite noticeable . But I'm just wondering if there may be any other avenue that money to equip our staff better for this could be arising.

Mr Conroy? Mr Mayor, we'll probably have a better idea as we move closer to the final accounts. This is an interim position. It's still very much a work in progress, but we wanted to give councillors a line of sight into this at the moment. So we can certainly take that on board, and when we come back with the final position, we can explore that a bit further.

Thank you, Mr Conroy. I think that given that, and given that we'll look at this again when it comes to see when it's more final, I'm happy with the way that the recommendation is. However, really, I think into the future, I'm really, the more I read back around the 4.9 million dollars in the last council that was borrowed internally from the development contribution reserves to acquire land, and thus depriving the people of Pitt Town of the works that were done, the more I think that that should be a priority to get that money paid back, because the roadworks in Pitt Town are something that I know those people really want to see done, and I would prioritise paying back that money. I do recall when that money was borrowed, and I think it was a lot of money to take out from when the community would like that done.

So I thank the staff for putting these options forward for us, and I also think that equipping our staff to continue the remote learning—sorry, the remote working—is also a very good idea for the future. Thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Richards.

Councillor Richards, can't hear you, sorry.

Sorry, I thought I clicked it, but it didn't work. Just a couple of questions, first of all regarding process. I understand why this report has come up now, and that's what usually happens. But have we— and forgive me for not knowing the answer—have we in the past had this sort of an interim report come up where council has said, This looks like an intended surplus, so we want to use these funds for A, B and C, or would it be better to wait until we get the final accounts and know exactly what the final surplus is? I'm just wondering, have we ever done this before where— We've said there's a possibility of a surplus, and we want to put it towards certain projects

Mr Conolly. Mr Mayor, this is not something that we've previously provided to councillors. In recent years, the practice has been to present the final accounts, and by that time, a lot of the transactions are already put in place. We're responding to the discussion earlier in the year where councillors expressed a desire to get greater line of sight into the end-of-year position, and this is to do that. It is a work in progress, and we'll keep councillors informed as we move through.

Thank you. I have no doubt you'll keep us informed. I just am a little uncomfortable with allocating money when we're not sure exactly how much that money is going to be towards anything. And I do recall that I had mentioned in the previous meeting and to other councillors that, as I sit on council other sports council, there is an urgent need for an upgrade of a number of facilities, and I'd be happy to get Sports Council to write officially to council and let them know of some key projects that they would actually would like to have put on the agenda. So I would like some Sports Council to be taken into consideration in allocating any surplus, but I'm not comfortable allocating anything until we do have those final accounts.

I understand what you're saying, but right now I think that we need to really see those final figures, and I'm just not sure that the three things that have been put towards us are the three exhaustive options. I do think there are other options out there, and I did make it clear that I would be advocating strongly for Sports Council.

Thank you. So I'll regard that as speaking against the recommendation. Do we have a speaker in favour of the recommendation? Councillor Rasmussen, you've got your hand up. Yeah,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I've got a question, and it relates to the contingency reserve. And I note we're putting some $59,000 towards it, bringing it up to—well, it's a bit more than that. Anyway, bringing it up to some magical figure of $600,000. But I just ask, what's so magical about the $600,000?

Mr Conroy. Mr Mayor, we've reviewed the balance over the last five or six years, and it averages around about $600,000, and we thought we'd give Council the option of bringing it back up to that average. But it's not a magical figure, that's correct, and Council, you know, is not obliged to pursue that objective. Okay,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just a quick comment . Given the circumstances that we are facing and given the difficulties we've got, I'm just wondering whether we should, if there are funds additional or over and above what we require to fund operations of Council, whether we should not consider building up our contingency reserve a little bit higher, because we are in—and I hate using the word—unprecedented situation. So maybe we need an unprecedented level of contingency. That's just a comment for consideration by Councillors. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. Any further speakers?

No? Councillor Rasmussen, you wished to have right of reply. No, Mr Mayor, thank you. Okay, well that was right of reply, so I'll ask you to vote by putting up your hand. If you're in favour of this motion, please raise your hand. In favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Tree. If you're against, please raise your hand. Against is Councillor Richards, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Ross, Councillor Conolly. Declare it carried. Oh, sorry, absent is Councillor Garrow, who apparently we haven't managed to plug back in yet. But I'll declare it carried. Thank you. Move now to item.

Does anyone like to move the recommendation or anything else for item 155, extra council meetings?

Please use your blue hands. Councillor Rasmussen, you

Wish? Yeah, I'll move the recommendation,

Mr Mayor. Councillor Kotlash, you seconding this? Yes.

Yes.

Councillor Rasmussen, you wish to speak?

Just briefly, Mr Mayor. I noticed that there is one meeting date, what would you call it, in balance, and that's the 24th of November because it clashes with the Local Government Association's conference, and it's proposed that we might consider another meeting. I'm just wondering how early we have to decide on that, given that we may or may not need an extra meeting. But I suppose if we put it in there, Mr Mayor, then I guess we can always cancel it, although that's always a bit difficult for staff and everybody else. So I'm just a bit mindful that we leave that particular date out, but I'm happy to listen to other councillors.

I might ask Mr Conroy if he wants to comment on that.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yes, look, we've received advice recently that the Local Government Conference will not be proceeding as an attending conference in the Hunter Valley. It will be a virtual conference and will go for half a day, and it'll be on the day before the 24th. So we don't believe that this is an issue any longer. Clash is not the case any longer. Okay

Well that solves the issue. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Okay, so the recommendation, however, says we consider rescheduling the ordinary meeting. Point two, Mr Conroy, should that say that we do reschedule the ordinary meeting?

Top of page 17

I can't hear you, Mr General Manager.

Sorry, Mr Mayor. I don't believe that we need to consider that rescheduling of that meeting in November.

So what should point two say? Nothing?

I think we can just delete it altogether.

Councillor Rasmussen, are you happy with that? Yes, Mr Mayor, I am. Thank you. And Councillor Kotlash, are you happy with that?

Yes, Mr Mayor, happy with that.

So, Councillor Kotlash, did you wish to speak on this? No,

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Okay. Still got your blue hand up. Any other speakers? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Just a question, if I may. I'm wondering when we're scheduled to meet, the first meeting in 2021 is?

Mr Conroy? Under the new code of meeting practice, Mr Mayor, we'll have to put a report to Council towards the end of the year setting out the meetings for the following year. So Council will determine that later in the year.

Thanks. So the problem that I've got then is if our last meeting under this scheduling is the 8th of December and we don't meet until February next year, which is what we did this year, we will then have a two-month hiatus where Council doesn't meet at all, and I don't find that acceptable. So I've got an issue with our last meeting being on the 8th of December. I think there are two alternatives. We either have a second meeting in December as per this schedule, or we note that we need a meeting towards the end of January in 2021.

General Manager, I've just been advised if we take our point two, then in point one where it's got list of meetings, we should, at the end of the first sentence or in the middle of that sentence, we should put the 24th of November in there.

Yes, Mr Mayor, that's correct.

So, Councillor Rasmussen, are you happy with that? Yes, I am, Mr Mayor, thank you. Councillor Kotlash?

Yes, Mr Mayor, happy with that.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler, did you finish? Yes. Any further speakers? Any further speakers for or against? No. Councillor Rasmussen, you wish to have right of reply.

Mr Mayor, no I don't, but I would like to refer this to Councillor Wheeler. Is she finished her points? I thought she still had more to go.

I already asked her and she said she's finished.

I'm sorry, okay, I didn't hear that. Thank you. Yep.

So you don't wish to have right of reply? No

I don't, Mr Mayor, thank you.

We'll put the motion. In favour of this motion, please raise your hand. In favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Richards, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Ross, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Tree. Anyone against? Councillor Ross, Councillor Wheeler. I think I read Councillor Ross out twice then. Councillor Ross is against, not in favour.

Councillor Garrow is still absent by the look of it. Did I miss anybody?

No.

I'll declare it carried.

Thank you very

Much.

Anybody? No, I'll declare it carried. Thank you very much. Item 156, Councillor Wheeler, you've got an interest .

I do, Mr Mayor, pecuniary interest because my son works casually at one of the proposed recipients of the funding, so I'll remove myself from the meeting. Okay

So

Item 156, does anyone wish to move anything? Before you do, the recommendation has changed, as you probably know. You received an email from the staff today to say that the item 3, Hawkesbury 120 Ski Race Classic, is removed from that list. Okay, so anyone wishing to move the new recommendation? Councillor Rasmussen. We have a seconder. Councillor Kotlash. Councillor Rasmussen, you wish to speak? No, thank you , Mr Mayor. Councillor Kotlash, do you wish to speak? No, thank you . No. Are there any speakers either way? Councillor Reynolds.

Yes, thanks, Mr Mayor. I'd like to move an amendment, if I may. Go ahead. And that the funding, the Hawkesbury 120 Ski Race Classic, be reallocated to support the funding of the Conservation Management Plan for Australian Pioneer Village, which Council

Resolved to do

At a previous meeting.

Okay. Do we have a seconder for that amendment?

Councillor Zamprogno, are you seconding that? Is that a yes?

I am, Mr Mayor, but I reserve my right to speak.

Okay . Councillor Reynolds, do you wish to speak on your amendment?

Only to the extent of pointing out that, you know, the Pioneer Village is a state heritage item that is owned by Council, and as such Council is obliged to have a conservation management plan. You know, it's an important document. Its owners and the Heritage Council understand the place and how they can manage it. CMP should have been in place for Thompson Square back in, whenever it was declared New South Wales, when it had a permanent conservation order on it, and, you know, the neglect for one only occurred last year sometime. So, the member for Hawkesbury, Robyn Preston, has already allocated, I think, $20 million towards the—sorry, $20,000 towards the CMP. They need another eight, and I think this money should go towards that , so we can get this CMP done and then help deal with the issues, resolve any issues that the Pioneer Village has.

Thank you. Councillor Zamprogno, do you wish to speak on the amendment?

I do, Mr Mayor. My support to second this is conditional on an answer that I'll be seeking from the General Manager.

I asked the General Manager for some clarification over a month ago about the status of funding for the Conservation Management Plan for the Pioneer Village. I was given to understand that pursuant to a resolution of Council that it was in the budget and that that had not changed, but since then doubt has been expressed to me about the status of its completion. So if I might put a question through you, Mr Mayor, to the General Manager about whether this is already fully funded and whether this amendment is required, or will do any good.

Mr Conroy. Mr Mayor, I'll just make a couple of points to perhaps clear up some understandings here. The State Government have allocated some funds to prepare a maintenance plan for the Pioneer Village, and that plan has been completed and we have a copy of that. We received that in the last week or so. The Conservation Management Plan has not been prepared at this stage. The history for this plan goes back many years, and it's been an ongoing issue, and we're in some discussions with the Pioneer Village at the moment about how we can bring these matters to a head and bring them back to Council. They have other issues in addition to the Conservation Management Plan. The recent State Government plans for Western Sydney have also resulted in some— A need for them to have a flood strategy for that site as well.

That's severely flood affected, and they have to have a plan for how they're going to deal with that. So at the moment, there are two important documents that are really restricting their ability to progress activity on the site. One is the conservation management plan, and we're in discussions, as I said, in relation to that, and the other is in relation to the flood strategy. And we are gathering information so we can have some conversations with them about those matters as well. So that's the current state of play for the Pioneer Village. Councillor

Zamprogno. Well, with respect, I was trying to attend that answer, and I'm still not entirely clear. I mean, I understand that there are these impediments to the completion of the process, but I'm talking about whether the process is adequately funded. We have a sum of money from the state government, which I suspect is time limited, and there is a resolution of Council to fund the completion of the conservation management plan. I'm less concerned about whether it will be delayed. What's at issue here at this exact moment is whether it is sufficiently funded and whether a gift of money, which is a windfall from elsewhere, will do any good to expedite it

The funding that's being proposed, the four and a half thousand, will not be enough to finish the conservation management plan. And we'd be proposing that we continue to meet with the Pioneer Village and to bring a more comprehensive position back to Council about the various matters that are outstanding. We'd also be proposing to speak to the local member about this because one of the issues does relate to flooding.

But there was a— there was a, forgive me, Mr Mayor, through you, there was a notice of motion before Council dated August of 2019, so a year ago, that — and we resolved to fully fund the completion of the conservation management plan, even if there were delays operationally to its completion. But certainly there was a resolution at that time to fully fund it. Is the General Manager suggesting that it was not fully funded pursuant to that resolution?

I haven't got that resolution in front of me, Mr Mayor. I'd have to go back and have a look at that. As I said, there are a number of issues that are limiting the progress of this site and what happens on the site. One is the conservation management plan, and the other is the flooding issue. And no funds or no attention has been given to that at the moment, and that's becoming as important an issue as the conservation management plan, and that's why we're wanting to have those conversations with the Pioneer Village.

All right then. I mean, I don't want to labour this point, except to say that if there was a resolution, which was my recollection, a year ago to fully fund it in the budgetary process, I imagine that if there was some operational reason that prevented its completion, the funds nevertheless would have been there when they were needed, which is why I'm caught. I'm a great advocate for the completion of this study to the benefit of the Pioneer Village, but was under the impression that the previous resolution of Council provided for the full funding. So I'll listen to other councillors before I make up my mind. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Conolly.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I think I'll speak against the amendment. I think Councillor Zamprogno potentially just demonstrated why this isn't a good idea. We don't have the information in front of us. Ordinarily, when making a spending decision, we would call for a report before making the decision, so we would have all these answers, not be required, not be relying on people's recollection of what was passed and hoping that the staff have the right information in front of them to answer our questions. I'm not suggesting that this is not something that's worth funding. However, I think the only reason we're proposing taking funding from this program is because this program happens to be up in front of us right now.

Council went through a budgeting process and decided to fund the events program for a reason, because it followed through all our strategies that we should do so. So to defund this program for a CMP that is completely unrelated to the program, just because this is the unlucky program that happens to be in front of us now, I think it's bad policy. And I think that Councillor Zamprogno, through his questioning, has indicated there are other avenues to pursue the CMP funding, and it's clearly not going to be as simple as just transferring $4,500 and now we can do it. So I would urge Council not to go down this path of just pulling money because it happens to be in front of us from this program.

Councillor Kotlash.

Thanks, Mayor. I'm also speaking against the amendment. I agree with Councillor Conolly. I'd like to see this funding used for the objectives that it was set out for. And whilst I also agree that Piney Village needs to be funded for the Conservation Management Plan, this isn't the... This isn't the block of funding that it should come out of, and I was just having a quick read of the assessment criteria matrix and, you know, it doesn't really fit. So, a question, if I may, do we have another event application that

Would possibly be a candidate for the funding that has now become available? I was just looking at one of the tables, sorry, I don't know what page it's on, and there was an application that we're waiting on. So, is that a possibility that we could look at funding that particular project? Sorry, I'm scanning, trying to find which number it is. It's on page

156 in , sorry, page 27, and it's number 10, Pound Paws Dog Day at the Hawkesbury, and it said its submission was passed our assessment criteria, but however we're waiting for a further proposal. I'd just like to clarify if that's up for funding at all.

Mr Conroy. I'll refer that through to the Manager of Events and Communications, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yes, that event has been called up on page 49, and we did complete the assessment using the assessment criteria, and the event scored 28. So what usually happens is that once an event hasn't scored over 40, it doesn't receive funding. And in addition to not scoring over 40 , they haven't given us any information about the event location or the date. So that's why we recommended that that event not receive funding.

Councillor Kotlash .

Thank you for that. Yes, I'll leave it at that. I think we'll have to park those funds for consideration at a further Council meeting. I don't like to make these sorts of decisions about funding on the hop

Thanks. If I could just add, this is round one, so we will have additional applications and the money could be spent as part of the event sponsorship round two later in the year.

We've had three speakers against. Deputy Mayor, you wish to speak in favour

In favour of the motion, but

Not— Yeah, the amendment.

No, notion, as in N, notion, but not really in the amendment. I had a question actually around surrounding it, if I may.

Yes, question.

I was really looking to know what other mechanism could we have to expedite—you know, there's clearly an issue here, and surrounding the CMP with the Australiana Village. I'm just wondering if there's a mechanism that we can tie into this motion to have that shifted to something else, or would it require a second notice of motion? A different notice of motion, sorry, that would deal with some of these issues we've just spoken about. So could it be attached to this? I know it's not part of it, although of course it's a venue for events, or would it have to come back as a separate motion , in which case I'll foreshadow an amendment.

Mr Conroy, are you able to answer that?

I'm understanding that the Deputy Mayor is asking, can there be a further recommendation attached to this motion, asking for some sort of follow-up report back to Council on options for addressing the various outstanding issues. Is that correct?

I was going to suggest a briefing at a reasonably soon to address the outstanding issues, for us to get a better understanding of the situation, given that the other things that have been mentioned would actually be things governed by the CMP. So I'm just wondering the best way forward here.

So you're looking for a briefing about the CMP, not about the events funding?

No, no. It's not about the events funding. It's about the CMP and the funding for it as such. I understand if it's better to have it as a separate notice of motion. I was just wanting to attach it in the sense that it could give it a bit of, you know, expedite the process somewhat if we were to get it in place, that we would move to a briefing on this and actually sort it out, given it's such a long-lasting problem for us.

Mr Mayor, could I interpose? You could do that, yes. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll need your guidance on this. I wish to withdraw my assent to second the amendment and state my reason why. On the 13th of August last year, resolution RES185/19/2 was passed by the Chamber. And said that any identified shortfall in funding between the money's already secured for the completion of the conservation management plan and as required to complete the process be factored into the 2020-2021 budget process. So the principle here is that that is a standing resolution of Council going back 12 months, and I am as much as I am in favour of providing all the resources that are necessary for the conservation management plan to be completed, I feel a stronger motivation not to let council staff off the hook who have an obligation to implement the resolutions that are before us.

I feel like if we gift them this windfall , then it makes a mockery of the fact that there was a resolution of Council that was passed 12 months ago and which—

That's the same problem. Are you going to explain why you want to withdraw your being a seconder

Well, you've launched into a longer speech. Well, I believe I've done so and I'll stand by that, but I do withdraw my assent to be the seconder.

Okay, so you're withdrawing your seconding. Is there anyone else who wants to second the amendment?

Nobody else? If no one else, Councillor Garrow, you wish to second the amendment?

Yes? Yes, sorry, I'm just logging back in. I'm hoping you can all hear me now. I've had major IT. I'm also trying to catch up on where we're at with this because I've only come in at the tail end of this discussion.

Okay, well, the original, the recommendation in the business paper was put up. Councillor Reynolds moved an amendment which was very much like your email this afternoon, and Councillor Sam Brogno seconded it but has withdrawn his seconding, so you would like to second that? Yes

Please .

Okay. Well , before you speak, I never actually finished with Councillor Lyons Buckett's question. I assume Councillor Sam Brogno was going to add to what the Deputy Mayor was saying, but he took us in a different direction. Deputy Mayor, I would think that what you're asking is a separate matter to this recommendation and to either the amendment or the motion.

I have no issue with that. I was merely, because we have no mechanism anymore to submit questions or do other things, and because it's a slow process then to wait further, I was merely looking for an avenue where I may have been able to attach it to save us yet even longer of dealing with these.

I'll ask the General Manager, would this be possible to be brought up as general business at the end of the night, General Manager?

Mr Mayor, look, if the mover and seconder of the motion are happy to include a reference to a briefing,

I'm not— The briefing is not about the event.

No, no

It's about the Australia Pioneer Village. That's right.

That's why I don't wish to accept it as another point.

Okay, I'll leave it at that then. Can we have it as an item of general business later tonight is my question. Well, look, I think, to be frank, I don't know that we can do it as general business, no. But I think we have got the picture that the council potentially want to see some more information on this.

Okay.

I'll bring it at notice of motion for the next meeting then.

If that's the way you wish to go, okay.

Well, that looks like it's the only way we can go.

Well, I mean, we could, we could, you and I, and we could address this to the general manager later and ask him to bring it to the next briefing session, which would be quicker than a notice of motion, I would think.

If you want to go that, I'll leave it up to you which way you want to go. Councillor Garrow, do you wish to speak on this matter? On the amendment. You've got your hand up.

Oh no, I haven't put it back down, sorry.

Okay. So we've got an amendment moved by Councillor Reynolds and seconded by Councillor Garrow. We've had three or four speakers against it. Are there any other speakers for or against the amendment?

Councillor Reynolds, your hand is up. You've already spoken on the amendment.

Do I get right of reply on the amendment, sir?

No, you don't, sorry. Only the mover of the motion gets right of reply.

In that case, can I ask a question, please?

Yes, you can.

The general manager pointed out that the CMP should not be done at this stage because a flood strategy needed to be done, and he pointed out that a maintenance plan had just been done.

The question I want to ask him: is

It not

True that maintenance plans and strategies involving constraints on a specific site such as the— Your

Audio is breaking up, Councillor Reynolds, sorry. Is it true? Okay,

Okay. Is it not true that plans such as flood strategies and maintenance plans form part of a CMP?

Mr Conroy?

Mr Mayor, not necessarily, no. And

We've had the maintenance plan reviewed, and it does not qualify as a conservation management plan. It's got elements that are consistent with a conservation management plan, but it doesn't have all the elements. And we've got some information being gathered about what would need to be added to that maintenance plan to start getting it to the point where it could be considered as a conservation management plan. So the other element though is the flood study, and that's quite different to the conservation management plan. And that's only something that's come to light in the last few months.

Follow-up question. Yes. I'm just looking at the guide to conservation management plans,

And it says that management plans can cover a range of matters and changes such as future use, development, management and maintenance. The CMP should include the following components, scrolling down, constraints on the site, which obviously to me, I believe flooding would be part of that site. So the point I'm trying to put to the general manager. Is that according to this document, a flood plan and a maintenance plan would form part of the CMP for the Australian Pioneer Village. So by allocating funding to the CMP, the funding could be used to fund the flooding plan because that's part of the CMP. So I'm just asking, is that or is that not true?

Mr Conroy? Mr Mayor, I haven't got that information in front of me. You know, I can't give a definitive answer.

I think, you know, we all want to get clarity about what can and can't happen on the site and how it can happen, and that's what we're working our way through at the moment.

Thank you. Thank you. Any further speakers on the amendment? If not, I'll put the amendment. If you're in favour of the amendment, please raise your hand. In favour is Councillor Reynolds,

Councillor Garrow.

If you're against, please raise your hand. Against is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Ross, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree. Deputy Mayor, I didn't get which way you went then.

I was fence sitting, I guess.

Yeah, well, that's counted as a no, I think.

And nobody's absent, so I'll declare the amendment lost. We revert to the original motion, which was moved by Councillor Rasmussen and seconded by Councillor Kotlash. Which is the recommendation in the business paper with the Ski Race Classic removed. Councillor Conolly, are you wishing to speak or are you just waving at me?

Any further speakers on the matter?

If not, Councillor Rasmusson, do you wish right of reply? No thanks, Mr Mayor, not necessary. Thank you. No right of reply, so I'll put the motion. If you're in favour, please raise your hand. In favour is Councillor Calder, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Rasmusson, Councillor Lines-Buckett, Councillor Ross, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Sam Pragnell, Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Garrow. I can't see which way you're voting. Was that a yes, Councillor Garrow? You've gone again. Councillor Garrow.

Well, I'll have to declare Councillor Garrow absent, and I'll say that it was carried. Thank you very much. Item 157 is ...

It is the annual conference. Motions for the conference. Councillor Rasmussen, are you moving that? Yes, I am.

Councillor Wheeler back in?

Yeah, can we get Councillor Wheeler back in, sorry.

Councillor Wheeler.

Gone to bed maybe.

Councillor Wheeler, can you hear us?

Somebody sent her a message.

Staff are contacting her.

They have to let you in when you've been out, that's all.

There she is. She's back.

Now, item 157, Councillor Wheeler has been moved by Councillor Rasmussen. I'm looking for a seconder. Seconder, Councillor Wheeler. Councillor Rasmussen, do you wish

To speak on this? Not at this stage, Mr Mayor, thank you.

Do we have any other speakers?

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I think the motions are fairly straightforward. They're consistent with the objectives of Local Government New South Wales. A bit of background information on puppy farms. We know that puppy farms are cruel and inhumane. They cause lifelong suffering for particularly the breeding dogs that are used in the operations. Victoria tightened its laws significantly some years back, and that's now paying off. But part of that payoff is that the breeders are moving into New South Wales, especially into semi-rural and urban fringe areas like ours, where there are large blocks where people can hide an operation that would be unpalatable if it was on a smaller site. Areas like ours also give people ready access to the Sydney market.

We've just done an enormous amount of work to bring our animal shelter up to more modern standards. We've got the numbers of dogs in that shelter right down, and that's the problem with overbreeding of dogs, and dogs with serious health problems due to poor quality breeding is an issue that affects local councils across New South Wales because we're the ones who meet the compliance obligations of dealing with dogs, but we're also the level of government that pays for running animal shelters, often at a loss. So this motion is an attempt to encourage the New South Wales Government to change its legislation in line with the Victorian legislation so that New South Wales isn't prey to unscrupulous breeders moving here.

I will flag here that I intend bringing a notice of motion to this council to reduce our animal numbers in line with Hills Council, which currently has one of the gold standard policies for animal numbers, which has made it more difficult for breeders to keep large profitable numbers of breeding dogs when working outside humane conditions. The motion that I want to speak to particularly is around coercive control. It's vital that all tiers of government are aware of this complex and pervasive form of domestic violence in order to play our part in preventing it. We urgently need reform to the laws in New South Wales so that ongoing patterns of abuse are recognised, rather than single incidents of physical assault.

Coercive control exists as a continuum of behaviours, or a continuing pattern of behaviours, that seek to isolate, reduce the self-esteem of the victim, and allow the perpetrator to gain significant control over them. Currently, it's legal—well, it's not criminal in New South Wales. It's extraordinarily difficult to prove with the current legislation, and councils take some of the brunt of this where we provide services for victims of domestic violence, but also in community services around education and things. It's part of us playing our role as advocates and members of our community.

So I hope that you can support all of these. The sex work one is exactly what it says. It's asking the state government to come good on a recommendation that it made in a joint inquiry to give local government staff and elected representatives information about safe workplaces for sex workers and the approval and regulation.. . And also the,

Sorry, the compliance arrangements around brothels and premises used for sex work. It's a perfectly legal occupation in New South Wales. Councils, again, bear the brunt of the regulation of this, and the state government, when the inquiry report was put up, were very keen that councils be provided with sufficient information to do their job well and not discriminate against either sex workers or people who rely on that service, particularly people with disabilities. So I hope you can support these going to the Local Government Conference. Thank you.

Thank you. Before we proceed, Councillor Rasmussen, it's been pointed out to me that the recommendation point two says that Council consider submitting to the Local Government NSW Conference. Perhaps it should read Council approve submitting , etc. You happy to

Make that change? Yeah, I agree with that, and that's correct. Thank you.

Councillor Wheeler, a seconder, you happy for that change? Right. Deputy Mayor, you wish to speak?

I had a question regarding the questions for the Local Government Conference, Mr Mayor. I was just wondering, given that they are due into Local Government by the 28th of September, is it possible to still submit a question for consideration by Council at the next Council meeting?

Mr Conroy

I refer that to the Director, Support Services, Mr Mayor.

Sorry, could you repeat the question, please?

Submitted. Given that the questions need to be submitted at the end of September, is it still possible to submit one and have it considered at the next Council meeting for the Local Government Conference?

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Yes, that is possible. Council can submit motions right up until that date.

Thank you. Councillor Zamprogno. Thank you, Mr Mayor. As a procedural point, I'm going to request that our endorsement be voted separately in seriatim for the three motions. I don't oppose motion one. I agree that the issue in motion two about puppy farms is a very worthy one, but I'm not completely convinced that Councillor Wheeler has laid out the nexus to local government. It is true that we are responsible for animal welfare, but policy relating to breeding and so forth is shared by several government departments, including Fair Trading, and is a state government issue. So I recognise that we're advocating for the state government to take a position at the state level, so I wanted to hear other speakers.

In terms of motion three, I feel particularly passionately about this and I do support motion number three. What Councillor Wheeler refers to as coercive control can also be termed generically psychological abuse. And in 1998, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in Australia formed what was called the Model Criminal Code. The Model Criminal Code sought to harmonise certain definitions and offences across jurisdictions in Australia. There was, all that way back then, a proposal to introduce an offence of psychological abuse, which was geared not only for the circumstance of domestic violence, but also for cult abuse and other forms of psychological abuse. Only the Northern Territory ever bothered to incorporate that definition into their body of law, and the last time I checked, not a single prosecution had ever ensued to bring somebody to book for psychological abuse, which is a real phenomenon and a real blight on our society.

Now again, Councillor Wheeler vexes me by raising an issue which is not exclusively the province of local government, is the province of other tiers of government.

But because of how passionately I feel about this, I will support Motion 3 also. So, Mr Mayor, guidance from you, would you be prepared to put these in seriatim? I would be prepared,

But I'm asking Councillors, does anyone wish to debate that or will we just let that happen?

No one wishes to debate that? We just will do it in seriatim, okay? All right, Councillor Cutlass.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I support the three motions. I just want to just suggest that we tone down the language a bit in Motion 3. The first point notes with alarm the increasing prevalence—well, I think that's, I think we need to change that to notes possibly the alarming increase. Also, in the, I think the third, fourth paragraph, we've made mention of women often don't report coercive control. I think we need to say victims often don't, so we keep this as— You know, as neutral as possible. But, yeah , I think these are kind of worthy candidates for the conference. I do agree with Councillor Zamprogno that the third one is possibly a little out of our domain, but I'm happy to lend support to that because it is a terrible issue that impacts our community in a very damaging way. Thanks.

So, Rasmussen, you move the motion. Are you happy to make the changes that Councillor Kotlash suggested?

Absolutely. I agree. Totally agree with that. Thank you.

Councillor Wheeler, you seconded. Are you happy to make those? Yes. So hopefully the staff that are listening can make those changes. If not, let me know. Councillor Kotlash, you finished?

Councillor Richards.

Thank you. Just a question to clarify something, please, Mr Mayor.

Have these motions been written and, if voted on tonight in support, will they go to the conference as motions from Hawkesbury City Council for the other councils to then agree to?

Yes, they will.

So they haven't come from anywhere else? These three motions have originated from Council?

I can't say that. I can say that we are moving it as Hawkesbury City Council.

So who wrote them?

Mr Conroy.

Can you answer that?

I don't have any more information other than what's on the paper, Mr Mayor, and who's prepared them.

Who wrote them then? They haven't come out of thin air. So who put them together? Where have they come from?

So, Mr Mayor, my understanding is that they're from Councillor Wheeler.

Councillor Wheeler, would you like to

Explain where they came from? I wrote them, Mr Mayor. You wrote them? I did, all by my very own self. Good on you, Councillor Richards. There you go

And that's completely fine, but why wasn't that stated in the report in the item so that we understand their origins?

Mr Conroy, why wasn't that stated? I'll have to take that on notice, Mr Mayor. I can't answer that .

Thanks. I'd like that to definitely come up in the briefing for discussion, please, because I think if quite in-depth motions like this are going to be put on behalf of Hawkesbury City Council, they can't just, you know, come into a business paper without saying who wrote them or where their origins came from. Because based on this, it could look like they're coming from staff. You're not indicating whether it is a staff-initiated motion or whether it's been initiated by a councillor. So I think it's very important in future to say where they've come from. So as councillors, we've got all the information.

I'll take that on board, but I think what we're doing here is deciding whether we as councillors wish to support them no matter where they came from.

It doesn't matter where they come from, because was it staff or was it councillors? Two very separate arms of this entity.

Well, I wasn't planning to debate that, but we can decide whether we support this even if we don't know where they come from. Councillor Reynolds, you wish to speak?

Yeah just maybe to clarify things, Mr Mayor, as I recall it, Councillor Wheeler sent out an email and contacted all councillors regarding these notices of motion. And I supported, I responded to her message and said that I support them, and that's how I became aware of them. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further speakers or questions? No. The mover was Councillor Rasmussen. You wish to reply? Not necessary, Mr Mayor. Thank you. Okay, then I'll put the motion as amended. If you're in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. Favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Ross, Councillor—

Oh,

Sorry. Point

Of order, Mr Mayor.

Yes, you're right. We're doing it in Syriana. Thank you. I thought we were, but... I rushed into that, so we go back. I'll move the recommendation as it applies to point A, okay, 2A. So we're voting on 2A at the moment. If you're in favour of 2A, please raise your hand. Favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Ross, Councillor Samprogno, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Tree. If you're against, please raise your hand. Against is Councillor Conolly, Councillor Samprogno, Councillor Richards. I haven't missed anyone. I declare it carried. We go now to 2B. If you're in favour of 2B, please raise your hand.

Favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Ross, Councillor Samprogno, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, and Councillor Tree. If you're against, please raise your hand. Against is Councillor Richards and Councillor Conolly. Declare it carried. We go to 2C. If you're in favour of 2C, please raise your hand. In favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Ross, Councillor Samprogno, Councillor Richards, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Tree. If you're against, please raise your hand against this, Councillor Conolly.

Declare it carried. Declare the whole motion carried, with those three points carried individually.

Carried. Declare the whole motion carried, with those three points carried individually. We move now to item 158 .

The 158. Do we have it, Councillor Rasmussen? You got your hand up. You move. Yeah, wish to move it, Mr Mayor. Okay. Do we have a second? Councillor Lyons-Buckett, your hand is up, is that— Yes , I'll second. Councillor Rasmussen, do you wish to talk to this?

Not at this point, thanks, Mr Mayor

Councillor Lyons-Buckett, do you wish to speak to it

Yes, please, Mr Mayor. And I thank the staff for the preparation of the submission along these lines. I think that most importantly is that we have the option, and I'm hoping that I've read that correctly, that we have the option to decide whether to opt in or not once we see the final clause. I do think that the issues raised in the submission are very, very valid, in that particularly around the need to define natural disaster. It

Says that it's given the ordinary

Meaning of the natural disaster being an extreme weather event, and I definitely think bushfires are extreme weather events because I think they're strongly linked to climate change and so on. But a lot of people wouldn't agree with that, so I think that would be problematic for people that see that as the definition. I also think that there's no clarity around defining when a storm may be a natural disaster, and of course we know. That storms, particularly those associated with the east coast low and various other types of storms, can be very, very damaging, and there's no reference to the storms in this area. I always think that when we speak of the vulnerability of the Hawkesbury area, that storms are one really, really big thing that we should refer to because we suffer some really, really bad hailstorms, wind storms and other storms.

We also have had an earthquake, and we do have earthquakes. So I think that that's really a really good point around the definition, and I hope that that's done. We haven't needed this in connection with the bushfires. I note that there hasn't been this issue for any of the properties that were lost. But I think that this submission that we're putting in and the various issues being raised about flood and fire and the constraints around, you know, rebuilding in those areas, I think I'll look forward to seeing what the state come back with with their final clause and how that is, and I'm assuming that then we will debate whether we actually go ahead with including that in our LEP or not. Thank you.

Any further speakers?

No. Councillor Rasmussen, you wish to have right of reply?

No thanks, Mr Mayor. Thank you.

That was right of reply, Councillor Wheeler, sorry. So we'll now put the motion. If you're in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. Favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Ross, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Richards, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Tree, Councillor Conolly. Nobody against, declare it carried. Thank you. Item 159, please.

Thank you. Item 1.5.9, please. Housing diversity. Does anyone wish to move anything on that?

Councillor Rasmussen, you want to move it? Move that one. Thank you. Councillor Wheeler , you wish to second it?

Councillor Wheeler.

I want to make some changes to it, Mr Mayor.

Okay . I'll have to let the motion go ahead with a seconder first. Is there a seconder for— Councillor Kotlash, you seconding it? Yes. Councillor Rasmussen, you wish to speak? No

Just thank you.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Just a few points. I've got real concerns about the build-to-rent notion , and some of it is covered in our submission, but I'm not sure that it's entirely clear. And some of this simply isn't relevant to our LGA. The fact that build-to-rent doesn't kick in until the 50-unit mark, I think means that Hawkesbury isn't going to see a lot of these developments, if any, because that's a significant amount of money, as is identified in the submission. That's a significant outlay for a developer who is— One of the issues, and it's identified, I think, is that it can be sold after 15 years, which is hardly long-term affordable housing under the— Under the stated aims of this new set, what it is clearly is a gift to developers who are large enough to build 50 units and sit on them.

I'm very pleased to see the mention of rent capping. There are mixed messages, however, in this submission, which begins with Council welcoming the build-to-rent provisions, which I'm not sure we do, and then discussing the many problems and shortcomings with this legislation. So I think we need to be clearer about whether we think this idea has shortcomings or whether we think it's really welcome, because we can't be both. And I think the submission is trying to have a bet each way, really. What I would like to see is an additional mention of building standards under the build-to-rent model, because these apartments are built specifically to be let to the non-owner occupier. There is a temptation for the builder to build poor quality stock that has quite high running costs.

So if they're, for example, poorly insulated, not well sited, don't provide natural drying facilities, they become big energy sinks. And it's not the developer who pays, or the builder who pays for that. It's the resident or the tenant who pays for that. And I think if we're thening about making this affordable housing, housing is affordable at a number of points. It's affordable when you purchase it. It's affordable when you live in it, and it's affordable when you come to and from that. And just because it's affordable to build doesn't mean it's affordable in the other bits. And what we have in the Hawkesbury, with our extremes of heat and cold and our tyranny of distance, is buildings that might be, properties that might be cheap at the very beginning point, but are not cheap to live in on a long-term basis.

So I'd really like to see that tightened up. There are problems, I think, that aren't identified with co-living and student housing, particularly around management. So one of the issues that we've had on this Council with boarding houses is the 19 resident cutoff, and under 20 residents you don't need a manager. Who will manage these properties? Where is that provision in this legislation for an on-site manager, particularly if it's to provide affordable housing for people who need some level of management and care? I think the submission on secondary dwellings is particularly good. I would like to see stronger wording around lift access, the section on lift access, where it says perhaps needs reconsideration, and then goes on to detail the problems with not providing mandatory lift access to buildings around aged and disability access.

I don't think it perhaps needs reconsideration. It needs serious reconsideration because it's shutting people out of housing, and that surely is the very opposite of the point of this legislation. So if I could perhaps get some feedback on how they could be amended in the document, that would be helpful.

So, Councillor Wheeler, you haven't suggested any wording for the recommendation

Which we could then put to Councillor Rasmussen to see if he'll accept it into his motion.

The difficulty is that I want changes with not the recommendation but with the submission itself,

And

So that really isn't covered specifically by this recommendation.

Well, it's in point 3. We endorse the draft submission. So maybe you could add something to point 3.

So perhaps amend the draft submission to clarify Council's position on build-to-rent.

Yes

Particularly regarding building standards and long-term affordability

And potential loss of affordable housing after 15 years when sold.

Is there more coming?

There is.

Councillor Wheeler

Provision for management of co-living and student housing.

Hoping the staff are getting all this.

They'll probably come and tell me if they don't. So, do you want to keep going?

And stronger wording on lift access.

Is that it? Yes,

Thank you.

Councillor Rasmussen, would you be happy to incorporate that?

Yes, I would, of course, Mr Mayor. They're useful suggestions. But I think what we'll need is a final version of the submission somehow coming up to councillors. I don't know how we would do that. I'm not sure of the timeline here, but I'd like to see a finished submission, if that's possible, Mr Mayor.

Mr Conroy, what's the timeline for this?

Ask the Director City Planning, Mr Mayor.

Director, we can't hear you, Director of City Planning.

So I'm just looking up the date at the moment, hold on a sec.

31st

Of August. So we could make those amendments and provide an updated brief to the councillors before that date.

Right, but it wouldn't be able to come back to another council meeting. So we'd have to word this, Councillor Rasmussen, that we accept this in draft form and

Require the staff to give us a final version before August 31st. Words to that effect, is that what you're thinking, Councillor Rasmussen? Yeah,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. They're the words I'm thinking. I'm just not sure how acceptable that statement would be, but I think I could live with it. But yeah, I could live with it, Mr Mayor. Thank you.

You can live with it. Okay. Councillor Kotlash, I think you seconded this. How do you feel about those changes, okay? Councillor Wheeler, so you can make that available to the staff in writing, perhaps in more detail in the next little while.

So what we're going to do then is hopefully move this draft submission tonight with With the proviso that the points that Councillor Wheeler mentioned will be added. Okay. So anyone wish to speak? I've had a few speakers in favour. Anyone wishing to speak against this?

Councillor Ross, which way did you wish to speak?

Can't hear you, sir. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I wish to, with your permission, sir, to pose a question to the relevant director in regard to secondary dwellings in rural areas. Oh

Well, I was just looking for a speaker against, so I'll get back to you in a second. Councillor Lyons-Buckett, which way did you wish to speak?

No, I did have some things along the lines of Councillor Wheeler, actually, so I'll wait and let you try and find someone against. Okay.

Councillor Ross, you want to ask a question?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. If you'd be kind enough to direct this to the appropriate member of staff. The element in dealing with secondary dwellings in rural landholdings,

Have staff considered the possibility that such a clause may possibly interact adversely

In comparison to the current situation where, as I understand it, it is, with permission, open to rural landholders who have employed workforce to site those people in separate residences on a particular property. Is there any conflict there seen in this draft document as opposed to the current situation, please? And has it been considered as a secondary question?

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

So that's a different dwelling. You're talking about rural workers' dwellings as opposed to secondary dwellings. This isn't talking about rural workers' dwellings. This is talking about secondary dwellings, which are two different definitions. Secondary dwellings at the moment aren't permissible within our rural areas, as you're aware, and it's something that has been raised as we're developing the housing strategy for Council.

Councillor Ross Yes, I thank the Director for the response.

I'm— look , I'll leave it at that at this

Stage . Still looking for a speaker against. If I don't get a speaker against, I'll wind up the discussion. Any speakers against? Wave at me. No. Councillor Erasmus, and I think you moved this. Do you wish right of reply?

Excuse me, Mr Mayor. Sorry? Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Yep. Councillor Lyons-Buckett, do you

Wish

To—

I wish to speak. I had a question and a

Question . I thought you said you wanted to speak in favour. You have a question. Okay. I

Said some things similar to Councillor Wheeler to add, and I support very much what Councillor Wheeler brought up. And I do wish to say about this particular initiative that I welcome any improvements to the increase in housing diversity and affordability. However, I think that the way it is worded, the build-to-rent opportunities in this area are next to none. And I would have liked if we, as a council, could express to the government that we would like them to offer some other incentives for areas like ours that are unable to carry out these developments at that scale, and also other incentives, because the land values out here aren't high like they are—well, they are in some areas, we know—but they aren't generally as high as, for example, in the city, where the benefits of land tax are enormous to people.

But out here that might not be a big enough incentive to build developments of that scope. So I would just really, I think that because it's such a good idea, build-to-rent, but the way it's worded, it is eliminating probably not just our council, but many councils from participating in it, from people in our area from participating in it. I would simply like us to be expressing that we support it as an initiative, but we would like it to be more encompassing of people that can't deliver it at that scale, perhaps.

That was

Going to ask if we could have a sentence just asking, because I think that that's an important point in terms of we can't do it at the scale that the entire legislation is geared at.

So do you have some wording, and would that be 3D? Is that where you're looking to put it?

Yes, I think that would, yes. Just, I guess just to—

I'm not quite sure how to put it to fit into that. If other people don't think it's essential, I'll just leave it. It was just a point I wanted to make. I guess if we're left out of it, we're left out of it, because we can't do it at that scale, both with our planning and also as a viable economic venture for people, so.

Well, in point A we're talking about—

Yeah, but that may encompass it enough. I mean, I doubt the government would come forward with any other incentives anyway specifically to assist us, so I'll just leave it with what Councillor Wheeler has done. But I very much support what she has raised and added to that.

Thank you. So you've spoken in favour of the motion . Councillor Ross, is your hand still up from before?

Hand's gone. Councillor Kotlash.

I'd like to ask a question, if I may, Mayor. Yes

Sure

Is this the last opportunity that we'll get to make these comments? It seems to me that this is— Fairly hot off the press, and whilst I've read the business paper and I sort of started to get to understand this, I think we're probably going to have a lot more to say when we all get, you know, get our heads around this and think about how it does apply to Hawkesbury. So my question is, should we bother getting these points right, or will we get another few goes down the track?

Mr Conolly.

Mr Mayor, as I understand it, we're going to attempt to circulate something before the 31st, but I'll take it from the Director of City Planning.

Thank you through you, Mr Mayor. So we've got until the 31st of August, which is six days away. The intent would be that we capture any changes by email and try and clarify and, I suppose, gain endorsement through that process. But ultimately, no, we can't be bringing this back to another Council meeting, otherwise it will be posted deadline.

Yes, but the state government process, sorry, Mr—

Wait, and I was just wondering, I was thinking, like, hang on, is there a bridge?

Don't know who that was. Keep going.

My follow-up question is, the state government process, is that all they're going to ask us? They're going to ask us once, give us a very tight deadline, and that's it.

That's what we're aware of at the moment, so I'm not aware of any further engagement around this particular change

Okay.

Thank you.

Councillor Wheeler, your hand is up.

Just a minor change to point B, Mr Mayor. So make a provision for management of co-living and student housing for point B.

Councillor Rasmussen, you're happy with that?

Yes. Councillor Cottlash?

Yes, I am, Mr Mayor.

Any further speakers? Councillor Rasmussen, I just want to, before I give you a right of reply, I just want to point out what we're doing is endorsing the draft submission, but those amendments are going to be added before the 31st. It doesn't give the writer or the staff the permission to add anything else, just those three, just to expand on those three points, okay? So, Councillor Rasmussen, your right of reply, please. Yeah,

Thank you very

Much

Mr Mayor. Not necessary, thanks.

Not necessary. In that case, I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Ross, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Cottlash, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Tree. All those against? Councillor Richards. Declare it carried. I didn't miss anyone, no.

160 is on block, I believe. So we go to item 161. Third party organisations. Someone like to move something? Councillor Wheeler, would you like to move this?

Move the motion in the business paper, Mr Mayor, with an additional point, which I shall just find now.

Sorry

Can I just interrupt? Sorry, whilst I had no audio, I actually had a non-pecuniary, non-significant...

Yes, I just saw that. Are you staying, Councillor Garrow?

Yes, I will be staying.

Okay. Sorry, Councillor Wheeler?

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Sorry, I'm just struggling to find amongst all the things I have open . Sorry, I would like to add an additional point to the recommendation, which is to bring forward provision 3.6, which is a medium priority recommendation for a quarterly report to come to Council from Peppercorn Services. There's proper wording in the clause in the document that I currently can't find.

So this would be point 3, would it?

It would be a, well, it could go as 2D. It's in line with the three items that are there. They're the high priority recommendations, I think. The one that I'm proposing is a medium priority.

So 2D. 2D is to bring forward item 3.6. 3.6, which is the quarterly report provision. Okay. I'm looking for a seconder. Councillor Rasmussen has his hand up first. Are you seconding this?

Yes, yes , I am

Councillor Wheeler, you wish to speak some more?

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, I'm really pleased to see the first of these third-party reviews coming to us. I think they're really important. I would like to hear, though, if there is a timeline for the high-priority recommendations to be carried out.

Mr Conroy? I refer that through the Manager Governance, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Two things are happening. Council is giving consideration to how it is going to implement the recommendations, including the high-priority ones. We've also received some information from Peppercorn Services about the steps that it's taken through its risk subcommittee and through its board to take action to implement the recommendations that affect it. And that information's recently come to us. And there is a plan, if you like, that Peppercorn have put forward through its risk subcommittee for the various actions to be responded to. We would need to get some more detail about the exact timing of those, but it has a plan for the implementation of the recommendations , and that plan is based largely on the priorities order set out in the report.

Councillor Wheeler.

I guess I was hoping for something more definite than that.

I understand the complexity of this, but we've waited a couple of years to get this far in this process. I'd really like to get some resolution on some of this, particularly when it's—this is about Council delegating its service provision to another body. I'm not particularly concerned that that service provision isn't happening, but I am concerned about our ability as elected representatives with a fiduciary responsibility in this organisation to continue to sign off on things like the operational plan, where we allocate money to these third-party organisations without receiving sufficient information to make informed decisions about how we should allocate those funds. So I would really like to know when these things are going to happen. Will it be in this term of Council, or will we be operating on a wing and a prayer for the next 12 months?

Further question then, Mr. Conroy.

Mr. Mayor, we're working to a budget on these items. This is something that came up through the review of our risk register. It was something identified by staff, and we've been working our way through this with limited financial support that we have each year, and we're just working to that budget.

Next report is due to be submitted to the Audit Committee in September, and the third report will be going to the next stage of development shortly after. So we're working our way through it, and this will be the third in less than 12 months that we're starting in the next few weeks.

Mr Wheeler.

Sorry, I think the general manager misunderstood my question. So that answers my next question, which is good. But my previous question is, what's the timeline for these recommendations that we're passing in the business paper for them to be executed and Council to see the result of that execution?

My apologies, Mr Mayor. I might refer that through to the Manager, Corporate Governance again.

And if I could, Mr Mayor, I'll just be excused from the video for a minute because there's a document that I need to get from a desk which is adjacent to me, and if I could just disappear for 10 seconds while I do that. Yep.

I think we'd all like to disappear at

The moment.

We're counting, though, Charles. Ten, nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three.

That's

Not a second. Last off. That's half a second.

These are Council seconds, please.

You've all changed. Apologies,

Mr Mayor and Councillors.

Yep.

The information that I've, as far as Peppercorn is concerned, the information that I've been provided with doesn't, for the most part— I'm going to specific detail about timing. It simply says that it's in a position to implement the recommendations. So, and if you'll just bear with me, I can see if I can find some more specific information about the quarterly reporting.

Mr Mayor, while the manager is just looking at that matter, we will take it on board, though, from tonight, that when we bring further reports to the councillors, we will endeavour to provide some timelines for implementation so that councillors have got an idea of what the way forward is. We do that with the management actions in internal audits, and I don't see why we couldn't include similar timelines for these third-party reviews. So we'll certainly take that on board.

Mr McElroy, have you found it yet?

No, I haven't, Mr Mayor. Council Wheeler, you— I have that detail in front of me, I'm sorry.

Is what's on the board, Councillor Wheeler, is that what you meant? 3 .2D?

Yes, that'll cover it, I think.

And maybe you would consider answering your own question and putting up a timeline, a suggested timeline.

I don't want to put up a timeline that's not workable, Mr Mayor. That's why I'm asking the staff to give us—I don't need an exact date, a ballpark figure. I mean, it sounds from what Mr McElroy is saying that some of this can take immediate effect. So I don't need an exact time that this is going to happen, but within the next quarter, within the next six months would be helpful.

You're the one, and if you're happy to leave it the way it is, that's okay by me. Okay. Mr McElroy, any further information coming? No,

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Okay. Councillor Kotlash, you wish to speak?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I have a question about the recommendation in the business paper, and I note Councillor Wheeler's additions. How did we get to decide which of the 16 recommendations we were going to implement? It seems to me we've spent an awful lot of money on this report . I wouldn't have thought that it was a good idea to ignore some of the high priority recommendations , and it seems as though we have done that. The initial recommendation had three. The recommendation in the business paper has three of those priorities,

One of which is medium priority. So there's two high priority recommendations and one medium. I don't quite understand why we don't have all 16, and then a timeline of how they might be addressed . And I appreciate that there might be financial constraints, but I don't understand why we can ignore any of them.

Mr Finlay.

Thanks.

Refer that to the Manager of Corporate Governance, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. There are a couple that do lend themselves to being dealt with as a high priority, and that's why they were singled out. There are some recommendations, obviously, that apply to Peppercorn, and some that apply to Council, and therefore the Council has a limited amount of control over how Peppercorn goes about implementing all of the recommendations that apply to it, although Council understands that Peppercorn's in general agreement that the recommendations need to be implemented, and is happy for Council to have a level of oversight in the implementation of them. So, in terms of which ones were selected, Council went through them and took a view that if there was some that ought to be dealt with as a particular priority, then they're the ones that are referred to in the recommendation.

There's no particular reason why the others haven't been referred to and could not be implemented as well.

Okay. Thank you. Could I suggest an amendment, if Councillor Wheeler is of a mind to agree to this, that we don't specify the recommendations, that we say that we would like all of the recommendations to be addressed , if not implemented. And then receive some more information on the ones that are going to be addressed first, and then how we then progressively go through. Because to me, the point two in the recommendation, it virtually says that we're going to, the following recommendations are the ones that we're going to implement, and I think that that restricts us. I think that's a shame to ignore the other 13 , well , 15 recommendations.

Councillor Wheeler, are you happy to do that?

I wonder if it would work better, looking at the recommendations in point two, a couple of them contain, 2B for example, contains two high priority recommendations collapsed into a single clause, so it actually covers, so actually there's four covered there rather than three as it looks. I wonder if it would work better if we included a point three that Council receive information about when the additional recommendations will be achieved. Would that satisfy Councillor Kotlash, rather than taking out these high priority things, which I think are important. I think it's important that they're specified, particularly 2A, which refers to all our third party. Councillor Kotlash

How does that ? Yeah

I'm still a bit lost as to how we got to these three, but I think that that's good. No, I'm satisfied with your suggestion of a point three. I just don't want the others to get lost, and if we move this recommendation, I reckon we'll lose the others. So that is good. So point three might read something like. ..

Uh. The other recommendations,

The council receive advice on how the other recommendations, the outstanding recommendations, will be delivered, and including timelines. Okay

Councillor Wheeler, are you okay with that?

Might be better to say remaining rather than outstanding, because at the moment they're all outstanding; we haven't got there yet. Yes Yes

Thank you .

I'm assuming the staff have picked that up. So the recommendation now has point one, and it has point two, which includes a D, and then we have point three as well. And that was Councillor Wheeler moved it, and Councillor Rasmusson , you seconded it. You happy with that? Yes, I am. Right . Any further speakers? Councillor Ross.

You're on mute, Councillor Ross. Thank you. I just wish to ask a question at point 2C. What constitutes a strategic audit plan, please? Mr Conroy? I refer that to the Manager

Corporate Governance, Mr Mayor. Just clarify the question, Mr Mayor, that

What constitutes a strategic audit plan was the question? Yep.

Thank you. Yes, that was it. Thank you, Mr Mayor. My understanding would be that it would be a plan that would... Be focused on the risks identified by Peppercorn in relation to its operations. There are some comments that are made in the report in relation to how the organisation identifies and deals with risk, and that there would be a plan for how those risks would be audited over time

Councillor Ross,

Happy with that?

No, I have some further questions.

Yes.

I would like to be advised of the, if any, financial contribution Council makes through its operational plan as to the operation of Peppercorn Services as point one. Point two is, if there are no financial contributions made by Council, what in kind

Contributions does Council make to the operations of Peppercorn , including staff, building, space, whatever, please.

Mr Conroy? I refer that through to the Manager of Corporate Governance, Mr Mayor.

Yep. There are not questions that I can answer immediately. They are questions that I would need to take on notice. I'm not aware of the detail of the financial contribution. I understand that Council does make a financial contribution, but that most of the activities carried out by Peppercorn Services are in fact funded externally and There is some management by Council and facilitation of those arrangements, but I'm not in a position to provide that level of detail, but I'm happy to take both those things on notice.

Councillor Ross. Mr Mayor, I would humbly suggest that do we not have the responsible accounting officer here this evening who could address those questions, please? Mr Conroy.

Mr Mayor, we'll see if the Chief Financial Officer is available.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. We do have a financial contribution. I was actually just trying to look it up because I cannot recall the exact amount off the top of my head.

And they do occupy a building that we also maintain, so there is an in-kind contribution, if you like, as well.

Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor. I would inquire further in reference to the in-kind contribution just mentioned, I take it that that implies that Council does not treat it in similar fashion to— Our nine kindergartens, preschools, however you wish to describe them, and obtain any financial contribution from the properties which, or property, which is occupied by that organisation. Mr Conroy.

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

Thank you, Mr Mayor. No, I don't believe so. We do not receive contributions for Peppercorn Childcare Building. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. Councillor Ross, any more questions?

No, I would humbly suggest I'd like to make a comment later.

Thank you. I don't think there'll be any later because there's no more speakers with their hands up, so you need to speak now, I would think.

Thank you. I believe this is an unnecessarily complicated arrangement that is being entered into here. As I have previously pointed out to Council, and it must acknowledge this, that Peppercorn Services is a registered charity, and its accounts and information are available on the ACNC website at one's behest.

I believe that because this is an extension of Council, in effect, and this is the means by which Council is delivering Social services grant funded by other areas of government or NGOs, as may be appropriate , that this should fall within the direct remit of Council, and that any such arrangement

As is being indicated here, seems utterly superfluous and should fall within one of the directorates of Council and also be subject to the same audit oversight as is already conducted over the rest of Council's operations by virtue of the internal audit committee. I just find this an absolute maze of bureaucracy and expense,

And furthermore, Council, to my humble belief, is not pursuing recoupment of a reasonable recovery for the use of those facilities in support of government programs. This is, in effect, a de facto cost shifting arrangement, and I cite directly apropos this thing , HCOS operating out of McMahon Park in Kurrajong, which is paying the Management Committee 22 grand a year for the use of the facilities in McMahon Park.

So I think there is a duplicitous... Activity going on here, and I believe that there needs to be some greater turning of the mind of our staff towards striking a balance with all of these things, which brings it under the aegis of Council, including the arrangements up at McMahons Park. To describe this as a purely third-party arrangement is, I think, tilting at windmills. I cannot agree with the proposal here.

Thank you. Thank you. Any further speakers? There's no other hands up. Councillor Wheeler, do you wish to have right of reply?

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'll be brief. I will remind Councillor Ross that this matter is about Peppercorn. It's not about HCOS. It's not about McMahon Park. It's about Peppercorn, and it's been put in place because we have inherited a number of third-party arrangements that many of us felt we didn't have sufficient information about, and which the audit recognised as a risk to Council. I think there is some useful stuff that's come out of this that pertains to all of Council's third-party arrangements , but this is predominantly about Peppercorn, and that's what we are dealing with in front of us this evening. I'm really pleased to see these reports starting to come to us. I'm encouraged to hear that the next one will be with the audit committee by September.

I think we've ... Council has been lackadaisical in these arrangements for far too long. This is a situation that we've inherited, and we're doing our level best within the constraints that we have to deal with them. And I'm pleased to see that that is now starting to come to fruition. I hope from that that both Council and the third party involved, in this case Peppercorn, have a much more clear, solid arrangement that everyone feels comfortable and confident in the execution of. I think that's the very least that we should expect as councillors, but also that the third party is entitled to expect when they deal with this council.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. That was right of reply, so I'll now put the motion. If you're in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. In favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Rasmusson, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Richards, Councillor Sam Pragnell, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Tree. If you're against, please raise your hand. Against is Councillor Ross. Have I missed anybody? No one's absent. I'll declare it carried.

162, Infrastructure Committee. Someone like to move that? Councillor Rasmussen, you're moving that? Yeah, move that. Move that way, Mr Mayor, thank you. Councillor Ross, is your hand up from before?

Apparently so. Do we have a seconder for the motion ? Councillor Garrow, you seconding?

Councillor Rasmussen, did you wish to speak to that?

Not at this stage, Mr Mayor, thank you.

Any speakers? Councillor Wheeler, did you wish to speak? Oh

Just a really picky thing, Mr Mayor. I'd just really like to see all the extra inverted commas taken out of this policy. Evidence-based is a perfectly accepted phrase. It doesn't need to be undervalued by putting cutesy little inverted commas around it. It stands on its own, please. Similarly, transport and entity, and game changing. If it's good enough to use a colloquialism like game changing, don't put it in inverted commas. It doesn't need dodgy punctuation to let it stand on its own. Can we lose the inverted commas from what is otherwise a perfectly reasonable document?

You want to add that to the recommendation?

Or will we just accept that staff will look into it?

I'm just expecting that the staff will do that, yes please. Okay

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

No, sir, Mr Mayor, thank you. Okay

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

Item 163 , Human Services Advisory Committee. Councillor Rasmussen, is your hand up? Leaving that, we have a seconder. Councillor Garrow. Councillor Rasmussen, did you wish to speak to it? Not at this point, Mr Mayor, thank you. Councillor Wheeler, do you want to speak about the inverted commas? No

There are no inverted commas that I'm aware of, Mr Mayor. I just wanted to refer Council to Byron Shire Council, who have a tiny house project, I think in conjunction with another organisation up there, and they've put out a tiny house info sheet for local residents. Their legislation is a little bit different to us. They don't fall under the legislation that allows secondary dwellings on residential blocks in the metropolitan area, so they've had to change some of their stuff. But I think rather than reinventing the wheel, we could borrow a lot of Byron's information. Just a quick question. I'm assuming that tiny houses are allowed under the state legislation as secondary dwellings?

Mr Conroy? I refer that through to the Manager City, Director City Planning, Mr Mayor. Yes, so currently they would be permitted as long as they meet whatever requirements that

Have to go through normal application process like any other application. So my understanding is that they're effectively a granny flat, which means that in a lot of instances they don't have to go on wheels. So I think this is going to be an interesting space to watch, and I commend the Human Services Committee for bringing this forward. I think it's really interesting. Councillor Ross. Thank you

Mr Mayor

I just draw attention to the person who was present at the meeting of the 30th of July. I don't believe I was able to be present at that meeting. I think there may be an inaccuracy in that statement there. Thank you.

Yes, I think you're correct. I don't think you did attend that meeting. So we'll change the minutes to read that way.

I would appreciate, sir. Deputy Mayor, do you wish to speak?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just briefly, I wasn't sure what the original resolution—I couldn't see it in there. I am battling with the business paper on my laptop as I'm away, and I was wondering what the original resolution was around the tiny houses, tiny homes, and did anything come of the working group that was set up within the Human Services Committee? The last meeting of that that I attended as a guest to go along, there was a working group set up that was after the secret garden. We saw that lovely tiny home there, and I just wondered if that had come to anything. I'm assuming it'll come out in whatever this report is on the funding of the project, but I was just wondering if you could just update on whether that came up with any specific ideas for our area.

I think Mr Kearns might have the details of that. I don't want to dob him in, Mr Conroy.

No, we refer that to the Manager Strategic Planning, Mr Mayor, correct.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. So at the last committee meeting, there was a report back in terms of the ongoing discussions about a potential collaborative group in terms of tiny homes. Probably fair to say that there was some further work to do in that regard. So some of the, I guess, there weren't necessarily the same shared aims and objectives to that collaborative group. So the report back to the committee will look at ways that we can actually explore partnership arrangements and actually bring something to fruition.

Thank

You.

I think he said that the working group has stalled for the moment, but they're looking at a way of resurrecting it. Would that be true, Mr Kearns?

That's essentially it,

Yes. Any further questions, Deputy Mayor, was that it? Councillor Ross, your hand's still up from before.

Yes. Councillor Wheeler,

Your hand up from before. Okay. Any further speakers? This was moved by Councillor Rasmussen. Do you wish to speak in reply, Councillor? Not necessarily, Mr Mayor, thank you. Okay. I'll put this. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour is Councillor Calver, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Ross, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Cottleash, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Richards, Councillor Conolly . Councillor Sam Provno, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Tree, Councillor Garrow. I haven't missed anyone. I declare it carried.

Item 164,

Heritage Advisory Committee. Councillor Wheeler, you wish to move this? Yes. Councillor. Are you seconding this? Yes. Councillor Wheeler, you wish to speak?

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'll just speak briefly to a couple of the items in the recommendation. So, in particular, it's probably worth me explaining the issue around the Thompson Square Conservation Management Plan, which councillors may recall Council resolved to send to the Heritage Office for endorsement, so that, which then gives it some more statutory weight. The New South Wales Heritage, which is the new name for the Heritage Office, has sent it back asking that Council detail the heritage impacts of the new Windsor Bridge on Thompson Square. In order to have the Conservation Management Plan, which was commissioned prior to the bridge being put through the square, to have that amended would be quite costly.

So the advice from the Heritage Advisory Committee was that, as Council isn't responsible for the heritage damage done by the Windsor Bridge replacement project, that— That Council ask New South Wales Heritage to reconsider that Council shouldn't be the responsible party for paying for the changes to the CMP to address the damage done. That in fact that would be an RMS responsibility. That the bulk of the Conservation Management Plan is still valid and extremely useful for Thompson Square as a whole, and that effectively Council take the Heritage Advisory Committee's advice and ask New South Wales Heritage to have another look at what is an exceptionally well-written Conservation Management Plan.

The Heritage advisors on the Heritage Advisory Committee felt that voiced a number of times that it was one of the best conservation management plans that ever written. So it's disappointing, in fact, that the actions now of the RMS and the damage done to Thompson Square might render that document less well regarded than it might have otherwise been. The other really exciting thing in the minutes of, or in this report to Council, is the news that the Singleton Mill site should now progress through to State heritage listing, which is really exciting. There's been an enormous amount of work from the Kurrajong-Comleroy Historical Society, Mr Steve Rawlings, who's a member of the Heritage Advisory Committee, and the staff involved, particularly Craig Johnson.

So this represents a huge body of work and some really good recognition of what is quite an extraordinary site as part of the Hawkesbury's heritage. So I'm hoping that the progress to State heritage listing is quick now and we can get better protections for this really valuable site. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further speakers?

Going once and twice. Councillor Wheeler, do you want our right of reply?

Not necessary, Mr Mayor, thank you. In

That case, I'll put the recommendation . All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Ross, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds. All those against, please raise your hand.

Councillor Tree, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Richards, Councillor Conolly. Councillor Kotlash, I missed what you did. You still there?

Councillor Kotlash shall declare absent. Declare it carried. Next item is item one.

Lifestyle declare absent, declare it carried. Next item is item 165,

Local Traffic Committee. Deputy Mayor, you wish to move this? No. Yes Yes. And Councillor Rasmussen, are you seconding it? Yes, Mr Mayor. Deputy Mayor?

No, I have nothing to say at the moment.

Councillor Rasmussen? No , sorry, Mr Mayor, not at this point. Thank you. Any speakers? Councillor Reynolds.

Yeah, I just, Mr Mayor, I'd just like to thank the RMS and council staff who are on the traffic committee for quickly addressing the safety issues at the roundabout in Thompson Square. There was a couple of accidents, one of them quite nasty with a 76-year-old man suffering a compound fracture of his leg, and then several near misses. And since then they've done some work, which now makes it easier for residents to get through the intersection before the traffic lights are commissioned in September. So the members , again, the RMS committee members worked with the Bridge Project team to expedite a remedy to the issues at the roundabout, which would have normally taken quite a long period of time to go through the bureaucratic process. So I just want to thank them publicly. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further speakers?

If not, Deputy Mayor, do you wish to have a right of reply? No, thank you, Mr Mayor. Okay, I'll put the motion. If you're in favour, please raise your hand. Favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Ross, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Richards, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Kotlash and Councillor Tree. Nobody against. Declare it carried. Item 166.

Carried. Item 166.

Councillor Reynolds, you, I think Deputy Mayor is moving this. Your hand's still up from before, Councillor Reynolds. Yes, Deputy Mayor, you want to move this? Yes, please. We have a seconder. Councillor Garrow, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. It's a reasonably straightforward notice of motion. It's come about, I know we have a number of motions already before us regarding sullage, our sullage pump-out system and looking towards the future of what we're going to do about it. But over the past probably a few weeks, I've had quite a lot of conversations with local residents who are very concerned about the cost of the sullage pump-out, which is understandable. And what's come to light during these conversations is that regardless of what information is sent out to them in their rate notices, they really just don't understand often the difference between what rates are and what charges are, and why the costs are what they are, as well as that there's the confusion around the inspection of systems, which we know is done on a cyclic schedule, so everybody's system is inspected on a three-, four- or five-year cycle.

And so I thought that the best thing to do would be, and I have discussed this with the Director of City Planning, to have like a Q and A online session where people could send in their questions of what they don't understand about sullage, and a panel of people to be determined, or the questions could be answered both by staff, but also I think by some councillors, to answer the questions in a way that staff may not, to do with the whole situation and how it came about and the impacts of what happens when some developments come on, when some towns get sewer, and to be able to answer that question of whether there's anything planned into the future for Sydney Water to deliver sewer here, which there is not.

And I think that it would be a really beneficial way to go about it. I do notice that the last places to be sewered were Glenorie and Galston, but I still think that I recall a motion some time back where we did send a letter to Sydney Water and ask if there was any plans for them to put any more sewer on in the west of the river areas, and the answer was no. So I think that this could be a good way, if we were to make a recorded session of Q and A that we could then have as a reference on our website, because it may resonate better with people within the community. If they can see another resident ask a question that they can get an answer for, because it really has been a hot topic of debate, and we know that the costs for this go up every year, and we know that we have to do something about it into the future.

So that's why I've brought this forward, and I look forward to— Us being able to do it. We know that because we've had this online environment that it's quite achievable, that we can do this sort of thing. And I think we could possibly do it for other topics as well. I think that it would be a really good way to engage with the community.

Thank you. Any further speakers?

Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

My initial thoughts with this notice of motion is that I thought that it was jumping the gun a bit. I'm not quite so sure.

I think that rather than having— I don't actually think this is necessary, this notice of motion, because I think if we think back to the notice of motion that I put into our meeting in May, on the 26th of May, I was calling for us to be able to sort of get a handle on the issues that were surrounding this sullage cost issue , and to be able to, when we did consult with the community, to be able to offer them somewhere to go with it. So at the moment, we're really very constrained because we're doing the costs and charges that we come up with are all just cost recovery. Cost recovery. So we're not making any money. We're just providing that service at cost. So I guess I'm— At the moment, I'm not inclined to support it because I think that the explanation of the cost of the charges is not that complex to, I think, warrant a public meeting at this point.

I think it could be something that we consider in terms of the report that we've called for that's already being put into the operational plan. So I guess that, I think it's not that I don't want to engage with the community, I do, but I'd sort of, and I'd encourage anybody that's sort of, that has concerns or ideas about this to sort of come forward and get involved. I'm not saying that we shouldn't do that. But I'd much rather stick to the plan that we had and we all agreed to, so it was unanimous support we had in May, and have a well thought out approach to how we consult on this issue. And I feel that a public meeting at this time, I don't think it's justified, and I think we might likely, it might likely result in a waste of our ratepayers' money.

So at the moment I just can't support it. Thank you.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'm speaking in support of the notice of motion. I think this is something that we need to do for the people who live with this significant financial impost. It's a hot topic of discussion amongst residents in areas like Ebenezer and Bowen Mountain, where they have to pay this cost. They don't have any other options. And they really don't understand why they have to pay this. I think we make a mistake by putting this charge on the rates notice. I would really like to see us uncouple that from the rates notice. And I guess

I would like the Deputy Mayor's opinion on whether she would be willing to add it to the notice of motion that we uncouple the sullage cost from the rates notice, or if that differs too much from her original intent and would need to be brought as a separate motion. But I think we conflate rates and the way rates are calculated and the increase to rates with the sullage fee, and that does us no favours at all. Many of the people who pay this fee are not on high-value blocks, and yet they end up with these very high rates bills, or what they figure is a rates bill because it all comes as a package deal, and that's very confusing for people. We are constrained in what we can do here. The public don't understand that.

People talk about moving because of this cost. They need to know why they pay what they do, why we can't fix it easily, that we are making representations to the state government who aren't fixing it either. And we heard that from the local member when we asked her last week, that she felt that Sydney Water wouldn't make any moves to fix this because these people were not existing Sydney Water customers. So they need to know why other areas like the Blue Mountains receive a subsidy and our residents don't. These are all things that are within our power to explain to people, and I think we need to do that. But we also need to look much harder about how we put out the information around this charge, and I think sending it out as a package deal with the rates notice is a real mistake.

Councillor Reynolds.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'll speak with a bit of experience here. We moved into Bowen Mountain back in, I think it was about 1984 or '85. At that stage, as everybody knows, they're quite small blocks up there. Everybody could have an absorption trench at that time. There are some places up there that still have absorption trenches, even though they're on, you know, basically sometimes under a quarter acre block. In our case, we applied to have an absorption trench, and halfway through the process, the absorption trenches were done away with, but you could have envirocycles , which were quite new on the scene at the time. So we,

It could be

Re-engineered later on to the envirocycle because we couldn't afford it at the time. And then when we went to apply to have the envirocycle, they'd done away altogether with envirocycle-type systems on those building blocks.

I agree with

Councillor Wheeler in that this needs to be a separate charge on the rates notice. Now our community strategic plan confers on us the responsibility to communicate with members of our community when they have issues. Now, I don't know about other councillors, but I've had numerous calls. About the increased sullage fees up on the mountain, because … from there, and it's very hard to explain to them on the phone. I think that meetings, as

Planned here, would be the way to do it. I don't think it should be put off. People need to know now what the situation is. And the last thing we want, as people used to do in the past, the last thing we want is people to start sticking hoses in their tanks and letting them drain down into the bush. So this is a real problem. It's not fair that our people, our community members in this situation aren't subsidised as other councils are. And I fully support the motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Did you wish to entertain the change that Councillor Wheeler suggested?

Yes, I was just going to address that, Mr Mayor. I was just waiting to see if anyone raised any other changes.

So you address it in right of reply, will you?

Well, I was just going to wait until the speakers were. I can speak to it now if you like.

I'm just asking whether you want to

Take

The change that Councillor Wheeler suggested.

I'm happy to have it separated from the rates. I think that would be good. I know that it is for industrial and commercial systems, they get separate sullage invoices, but of course, unlike the residential, they are user, they pay for the volume that's pumped out, whereas the domestic charge is a set charge. So I would be happy to see that go out as a separate rate . But then I don't know. I think I would probably be asking for a report on that because I don't know how that leaves people that pay the sewer amount to the council for the council sewer system. And I know Sydney Water people have it on a separate charge as well. So maybe I would include that as asking. The council are asking the staff how that might be done if we were to separate it from the rates notice and how that would work, because we have such a hodgepodge system across the local government area where we've got people in different areas paying different charges to different bodies.

It makes it a bit complicated. But I think that charges, as a charge, it could be separate if that was doable. General Manager might be able to comment on that.

I think your answer was yes, and that you'd like an extra report on that question. Is that basically what you said?

Just a report.

Sorry? Not

An extra report, a report on that.

Yeah, sorry, an extra point on your notice of motion which calls for a report.

Calls for a report on whether we can issue separately for, I would imagine then that would apply also to the council sewer charge as well as the pump-out charge to be separate from the rates notice.

General Manager, is that within our realm to do that?

Mr Mayor, we can give councillors some information on those options, yes.

Okay.

Councillor Conolly.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, I was going to support the motion. Now I'm going to think about it. I thought the motion was a good idea. Like Councillor Reynolds said, we're getting a lot of questions on this. This is not a — issues is a huge impact on people's lives, and it shouldn't be beyond us to answer their questions. But in terms of sending out different charges separate to the rates notice, I understand why , you know, if we're a council and we're thinking about council in a council-centric way, that might make sense because it helps people realise that it helps people change the way people perceive the value they're getting from council. But in actual practicality for people, I think it's just going to be irritating and infuriating that not only do they get this separate, you know, they get these charges, now they've got to pay them separately and they've got separate bills for them.

They might not come at the exact same time, no matter how well we plan it. They don't, you know, they're not going to know what's coming in one go, and it's just going to be frustrating for people, even though it might make us feel better about it.

If I could just interrupt, Councillor Conolly, I think what the Deputy Mayor is asking for is a report on whether we can do that. I don't think she's saying that we will do it at this point in time.

I understand that, Mr Mayor. I guess my experience on council has been that things gain momentum, and if you're not in favour of them, you don't waste staff time pushing them along. I understand we're asking for a report, and that's why I said at the start of this that I was going to support the motion, and now I'm just thinking about whether this is enough to not support the motion, and I wonder if there was other people that felt like that, whether we might separate the two issues. Sorry

To

Interrupt.

Any other speakers?

I would think that listening to what was said here tonight, there's not a lot of extra information that could be added at a public meeting. I would think that perhaps everything that was said here tonight could be put on a brochure and posted out to all the people who are on a pump-out system. And you might say they won't read it, but the other thing is, if you have a public meeting, not many will come either. So no method is guaranteed of getting everybody there. So I think a brochure in the first place would be a cheaper way of doing this and a quicker way, and getting information out to the public. But that's just my thought. The notice of motion is that we hold a public meeting.

Any other speakers? No. Deputy Mayor— sorry, Councillor Ross, your hand just went up.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm more inclined to the position you just mentioned as being an alternative approach.

There's absolutely no choice— no prospect at the moment other than to create further agitation and concern in the area, because we're talking about very diverse locations of small populations, some of them remote, and the cost of providing anything in the way of public infrastructure, as people in the Blue Mountains local government area found out when they had to fall into line with a requirement of Sydney Water.

If this were to occur within the Hawkesbury, we'd be talking of rates to

Sydney Water or anybody else, possibly in the order of $5,000 per domestic block per annum. to provide on a long-term basis any sort of infrastructure. So

Advising people of what the current situation is, I believe, is quite appropriate so they understand the difficulties. And as for the local member indicating that these people aren't customers of Sydney Water, but perhaps some of our folks should have reminded them that Karajong is in fact supplied by Sydney Water for potable water. So there's a diverse lot of constraints here and service delivery. Some of our people have also got Sydney Water sewerage delivery in townships like Richmond, and they've got this three towns sewerage thing. And people can, if they're interested in this subject, go to the library and look for a consultant report from GHD at the time of the Three Towns development. And

I think

There were discussions conducted at that time in regard to further extensions, and I believe they all were found to be uneconomic at that stage. And no doubt that's the stance that Sydney Water maintains now. And with the current state of government finances, I frankly don't see it being possible even before I drop off the perch. Thank you.

Thank you.

Councillor Kotlash, your hand is up.

May I ask a question?

Yes.

In the notice of motion that we all agreed on in March — in May, rather — could I get an indication from the general manager when those works that I'm assuming have been already put into this operational plan, our current operational plan, when that work is intended to be done? Because I think that has a bearing on this sort of consultation, and that's what I was trying to get at before. So could I get an indication of when that work is going to start?

Mr Conroy?

So,

Mr Mayor, we've started the programming for those projects, but I'll have to go to the Director of City Planning to get more detail.

I'd have to take that question on notice and come back to you. I mean, there's a number of projects at the moment that the core environment and sustainability is operating on and as such hasn't started this project, but I don't know exactly when she will be able to.

Councillor Cotter. Thanks

Okay.

Okay. Any further speakers?

Deputy Mayor and Councillor Garrow, are you happy with what is on the screen?

Yes. Yes,

Mr

Mayor. Okay. Deputy Mayor, you wish to write a reply? Yes,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. And I'm sorry a number of councillors hadn't understood what the intent of this was. It's not to do with the previous motions. I mean, I had a mayoral minute in July of 2018 asking for us to look at the ongoing solutions for the non-sewered areas, and then Councillor Cotterlash had a subsequent one, but it's not to do with that. It's to do with now and to— It was an online meeting that is proposed, as the note from management says. It's something where that we can answer the questions that people have. We've been sending them brochures for years. I asked last year, could they be sent a brochure explaining why the inspection of the systems is done. We've been sending brochures out over and over, and people don't understand it.

My idea was that if we have residents send in a video question that says, Why am I charged $150 when I already pay $2,500 for my sullage pickup? or Why was it that 20 years ago I didn't have to register for pump-out? There's all these questions. There's a history around it. New people in the area don't understand what the consequences are relating to the inspection systems. I went to meet a fellow and have coffee with him. By the time I discussed it with him about the sullage, the conversation had moved to an extra five people wanting to talk about it, and that was in one place in Kurrajong on one morning. So there's a lot of people have been expressing an interest, and when I ask them, they would love to hear the answers.

They would love to know what other people think, and we need to start, even though we don't have the options available, we need to start getting the people to think about what their future is going to be, because they are going to have to be involved in whatever the solutions are down the track. And we do need to explain to them why this is what it is, because it's a very complex thing to move into an area and to be faced with these charges. I'm not sure if we can issue a separate notice or not, but we need to know if that's a viable thing to do. It would certainly make a lot of difference to the people that wonder why, if they're paying for a footpath in Bligh Park through their rates, why isn't everyone paying for their sullage?

It's because they don't understand how the entire rate system operates, and perhaps we could do a Q&A on how that operates so that people have a better understanding. Very simple things of showing people on their rates notice what each specific thing relates to. I think that it would be good if we could just really get that information in a straightforward way, and one of the best ways to do it is to let people send their questions to us and for us to answer the questions. So if people don't want to engage with the community like that, I think it's crucial at this time because these people are very stressed by this, and they deserve an explanation from us. They deserve us to tell them why it is how it is, and that's what I believe that we should be doing.

I've asked several times in the past for more information to be given around this, and clearly it hasn't resonated with people however it's been delivered to them. So when I spoke to staff, they would be agreeable to do an online type of activity that involves this. I don't think it would be expensive. I don't think it would be detrimental. I think it would be informative, and I think that the community from the people I've spoken to would certainly appreciate it. And I think to not do it would be saying to them, Well, we don't care to tell you about how things really are. Thank you.

Thank you. That was right of reply. So I'll put the motion now. In favour of the motion, please raise your hand. In favour is Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Rasmusson, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds. If you're against, please raise your hand. Against is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Ross, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree.

Who's absent? Did I miss anyone?

Because I've got six votes to five here.

I didn't miss anyone? Councillor Cottlas, you've disappeared. Did I count you? With you four against.

Can't hear you, sorry.

I voted against.

Against. So that's seven against and five in favour. Declare it lost.

We move now to confidential. Would someone like to move that we move to confidential? Moved by Councillor Garrow, seconded by Councillor ... anybody ? Councillor Kotlash. Moved to confidential. So for those still watching, the screen will go blank for a few minutes. We only have one item, so we should be back in a little while.

I think we're good, Mr Mayor. We're good. Okay, welcome back for all those that are still listening. Welcome back to the ordinary meeting. We've finished our confidential section and I'd ask the General Manager to report on the results of the confidential section, please.

I'll put that through the Director, Support Services, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. Thanks, Mr Mayor. In regard to item 167, whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Connelly, seconded by Councillor Zembrogno, that— One , Council to take the compulsory acquisition under sections 187 and 196 of the Local Government Act 1993 of an area of land as shown in Attachment 1 to the report in the order of 4.18 hectares within part of 130 Hall Street, Pitt Town, being Lot 2 in DP 76375, for the purposes of creating a retention basin and associated infrastructure. Two, Council to take the compulsory acquisition under sections 187 and 196 of the Local Government Act of an area of land as shown in Attachment 1 to the report for a right of carriageway 15 metres wide and verrable within part of 130 Hall Street, Pitt Town, being Lot 2 in DP 76375, for the purposes of creating an access way to the retention basin and associated infrastructure.

Three, Council approve the making of an application to the Minister for Local Government for the issue of a proposed acquisition notice, PAN, under the Land Acquisition Just Terms Compensation Act 1991, with respect to the acquisition of the land and right of carriageway. Four, Council approve the making of an application to the Governor for the publication of an acquisition notice in the New South Wales Government Gazette under Land Acquisition Just Terms Compensation Act 1991, with respect to the acquisition of land and right of carriageway. Five, Council bear all costs associated with the process of acquiring the land and right of carriageway. Six, authority be given for any documentation associated with this matter to be executed on the seal of Council.

Seven, Council grant delegation to the General Manager to execute any documents on behalf of Council associated with the compulsory acquisition process which do not require the seal of Council to be affixed. Eight, details of Council's resolution be conveyed to the affected landowners together with the advice that Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of its resolution until such time as appropriate documentation to put such resolution into effect has been executed. Voting in favour of the resolution were Councillors Ross, Rasmussen, Garrow, Reynolds, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Kotlash, Zamprogno, Conolly, Tree, Richards and Calvert. Voting against? No, councillors. Thanks, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Smith. Would someone like to move we accept that report?

Moved by Councillor Rasmussen, seconded by Councillor Kotlash. Anyone wish to speak against that? Otherwise, all those in favour say aye. Aye. Carried. Is there any further business, please ? No. Councillor Ross, your hand is up from before

I suppose. No further business. In that case, I'll close the meeting at 9.14 p.m. Thank you very much.