8 September 2020 - Ordinary

The ordinary meeting of Hawkesbury City Council for 8 September 2020. I'd like to begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of this land, the Darug and Darkinjung people, and pay respect to Elders both past and present. I'll now hand over to the General Manager for some procedural matters. Thank you,

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

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

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

Do we know if Councillor Ross is whereabouts?

No. Someone like to give his apologies?

I'll do that. Councillor Rasmussen, seconded Councillor Garrow.

I think he's probably coming because he has a notice of motion on there.

He's just shown up. There he is. So there's no apologies. We're all here. Are there any declarations of interest, please? Councillor Garrow?

I have an insignificant non-pecuniary interest for item 175.

175. Yes. Any other declarations of interest?

No. Okay. You might have to remind me when we get there, Councillor Garrow.

The agenda tonight, there are two items on block, items 169 and 170, and there is one item that has three speakers. That's item 173 . So we will begin with item 173, then go through the rest of the business paper as listed in the contents page. Before we do that, Councillor Conolly, I think you wanted to address Council on a matter.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I want to move a motion with urgency. Okay. Could you give us the gist of the motion, please? I'd like to move a motion regarding the location of the meeting for the 22nd of September. Okay . I regard that as an urgent matter.

So yeah, I'll accept that we

Listen to your urgency motion. Okay, thank you. I did send some text through to Charles earlier today , but I just didn't actually think to have it put up in front of me, didn't know it'd be first. Sorry, one moment. So the motion that I want to move is that the meeting of 22nd September 2020 be held in person at the Council Chamber, with Councillors to also have the option of attending via audiovisual link. Okay. The reason for the motion is obviously that that meeting is to elect the Mayor and Deputy Mayor, among other matters, and I think that that's best done in person and would provide most confidence for the community that the process has been followed as it would be any other year.

Do we have a seconder for that?

I'll second that, Mr Mayor. Councillor Zamprogno, do you wish to speak?

Councillor Zamprogno.

Unnecessary, Mr Mayor.

Anyone else wish to speak for or against the motion?

Doesn't look like it.

So, Councillor Conolly , do you wish to have right of reply? No thanks, Mr Mayor. Okay, would you like to read your motion one more time, please? Okay

I can't interrupt. We supposed to have something on the screen because the minute secretary screen sharing hasn't occurred at my end.

Hasn't occurred here either. That's why I'm asking Councillor Conolly if he'd like to read it again,

Please. That the meeting of 22 September 2020 be held in person at the Council Chambers, with councillors to also have the option of attending via audiovisual link.

Are we all clear on that? Moved and seconded, and there was no right of reply. In that case, I'll put the motion. Those in favour, please raise your hand. We've got to wait for this to disappear now.

In favour is Councillor Calvert,

Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Richards, Councillor Ross, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Tree. Against, please raise your hand. Against is Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Declare it carried, seven votes to five.

Move on to items in the business paper. The minutes of the last meeting. Someone like to move those? I'll so move. Councillor Zamprogno. Councillor Rasmussen, was that you seconding it? Yeah. Any discussion? Any discussion about the minutes?

No. I'll put those all in favour say aye. Those against, declared carried.

We're going to move to item subject to public address, and now that we've finished all those procedural matters, can you please indicate you want to speak by raising your blue hand in the participants column, please. So we have three guest speakers. First guest speaker is Mr. David Wastell. David, I can see you. Can you hear us?

Mr. Mayor, can I just declare something, please?

Yes.

I know this is my motion, but I do want to declare a less than significant non-pecuniary interest before we do proceed. My kids have played Milo cricket for Freemans Reach Cricket Club in the past, but currently do not play. Thank you.

I'll

Send a form in.

Rightio.

Anybody else declaring an interest in 173?

No.

Mr. Wastell, are you there?

I am, Mr. Mayor. Please go ahead. Go ahead. Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of the motion to seek preparation of reports to officially name the two ovals at The Breakaway. My name's David Wastell. I'm president of the Hawkesbury District Cricket Association, where I've served on the executive there for the past 11 years. I've known George Greentree, who's mentioned, and witnessed his dedication to Freemans Reach Cricket Club and to the district for the past 15 years. As a volunteer, George has been the driving force behind the success of the Freemans Reach Cricket Club, whose home grounds are the two fields situated at The Breakaway. When I became involved with cricket locally, the name Greentree was already synonymous with the sport in the Hawkesbury due to George's father, Charlie, and George's historical involvement not only with Freemans Reach Cricket Club, but also with cricket overall in the district.

George has been involved with the Freemans Reach Cricket Club since 1966, where he first played as a six-year-old in an under-13 competition. And after his 29 years of play, he managed to achieve 27 premierships as either a playing captain, coach or a manager of teams for the club. He's been awarded a New South Wales Cricketer Volunteer of the Year Award for the Western Sydney region, and has organised several fundraising events such as Pink Stumps Day, where monies raised for the Jane McGrath Foundation in support of breast cancer awareness . Thank you.

George is a made a life member of the Hawkesbury District Cricket Association in 2018, not just for his recognition for his efforts at the member club of Freemans Reach, but also for his 30 years of service in various admin roles at the district level. He's also coached junior representative sides from under 10s to under 16s. He's also acted as manager for senior representative side for Hawkesbury, which was a successful Martin Shield team for eight years. George currently holds the position of vice president and administrator within the Hawkesbury District Cricket Association. He actively pursues his love of the sport and in doing so continues to help others do the same. I wholeheartedly support the idea to officially name the grounds.

As a way to show the district's appreciation for the contribution and commitment to sport within the district, shown by both Charlie and George Greentree.

Thank you, Mr. Walsall. Are you happy to answer any questions, should there be any? I am. Does anyone have any questions, please?

Doesn't look like it. Looks like you get off scot-free there, Mr. Walsall. Thank you. We also have Mr . Adrian Woodbury to talk to us. Mr. Woodbury, you there? Yes, you are. Please go ahead.

Mr. Woodbury, we can't hear you. You're on mute, I think.

There we go. Good evening all, sorry about that. Also prepared something similar to what David's done. George has had an involvement in cricket in the Hawkesbury for over 50 years. In these 50-odd seasons, as a junior and senior player, George won several HDCA, Hawkesbury District Cricket Association awards as a player, and has also won 14 premierships, many as a captain or playing for Freemans Reach Cricket Club. George has coached or managed Freemans Reach teams for over 40 years, from coaching under-10s teams through to managing first grade sides, including the teams that won seven out of 11 first grade finals from 2003-04 to 2013-14, as well as the most recent one, which was 2018 and 19.

He continues in this role, with retirement nowhere in sight. He's been elected to various roles in the Freemans Reach Cricket Club Executive Committee every season since 1975. George has made a life member in 1995 and he's been president of the Freemans Reach Cricket Club since 1996. George also coached and managed many representative HGCA teams over 21 seasons with varying degrees of success, including the thankless, arduous role of looking after many Martin Shield open men's teams. He was also the assistant secretary of the junior management committee for several seasons back in the days when it ran separate to the seniors, and has been Freemans Reach Cricket Club delegate on the HGCA committee for a cumulative 20 years, and has also served on all the various subcommittees there and continues to serve on the HGCA executive committee, which he's done for the last seven years.

He was awarded the prestigious Hawkesbury District Cricket Association Services to Cricket Award in 2003-04 and was given life membership of the association in 2018. What I can say is that we're at Freemans Reach Cricket Club very proud of George and his many achievements, and we thank you for discussing this and considering this worthy achievement.

Thank you, Mr Woodbury. Are you happy to answer any questions, should there be any? Indeed. Do we have any questions for Mr Woodbury?

Nope.

Looks like we're not in a questioning mood tonight. We have a third speaker, Mr Mitchell Elvery. Would you like to speak now, please?

Yes. Good evening, Mr Mayor and councillors. Just wanted to basically reinforce exactly what Adrian and David have mentioned regarding George. I've only known George for the last two years in my role at Cricket New South Wales, and what I'll be speaking on is on behalf of Cricket New South Wales. Just want to say that up front. As mentioned, I've known George for the last two years since starting my role as cricket manager for the Hills Hawkesbury region. And one of the first things I was told to do when I started my role was make sure you know and get to know George, given his level of respect within the community and his involvement on both an association and a club level with Hawkesbury and Freemans Reach.

It's been an absolute honour getting to know George over these last two years, in both a professional and a personal aspect . And Cricket New South Wales and myself cannot thank George enough for his contribution to, again, both the association and the club level of cricket in the region. And myself and Cricket New South Wales as an organisation wholeheartedly support the motion to name the breakaway ovals George and Charlie Greentree Ovals . So I'll keep it nice and short and sharp, but on behalf of Cricket New South Wales, we are very thankful and supportive of the motion.

Thank you. Are there any questions, Mr Elbery? No. Thank you to our three guest speakers. Councillor Richards, I believe you're moving this.

Yes, I am, Mr Mayor. Thank you.

Do we have a seconder, please?

Councillor Kotlash, I saw your hand go up. Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. And I'd like to thank David, Adrian and Mitchell for coming live onto our Zoom council meeting tonight and offering those supportive and very generous words about George Greentree and his father, Charlie. Now, Mitchell, I just wrote down what you said in your speech there, where you said if you want to, if you're involved in cricket in. .. I think that was something that anyone who's picked up a cricket bat or a ball in the Hawkesbury has done, and I certainly know George and his father Charlie are. Now , George, if you're watching tonight this unfold, you would have heard these three speakers say some absolutely brilliant words about you and your dedication and contribution to not just the Freemans Reach Cricket Club, but Hawkesbury District Cricket as well.

And I think that that contribution, not just George but his dad Charlie, to the area makes it worthy of honouring that community participation with the naming of these ovals. Now, as you can see in my notice of motion, it's been quite a journey to get this motion. George and I had these discussions when his father unfortunately passed away, and we took that up with council staff as to how we would honour his memory in perhaps acknowledging the Breakaway Ovals in his memory. So, I won't go through it all again, but outlined in my notice of motion there is how someone must be passed away for 12 months before we can name something under the geographical names board. But in further consideration with staff, there is quite a legal process to be involved to get this one underway, which is why this motion is calling first and foremost for a report and not for consideration of tonight in this motion, because we need to check through all of those legalities.

And that boils down to the fact that what we consider as Laws Farm Road, which is the Breakaway, is actually geographically not where the geographical names board has located that reference. So, we've got staff doing some homework on that, hence why we're asking for a report tonight. But I found it a very fitting moment to go through The history that Charlie and George have both contributed to the area. Now, you'll see in the motion I've taken the idea to the Hawkesbury Sports Council, who gave unanimous support at that time to naming them the Greentree Family Ovals. Now, after further consideration with the Greentree family, my personal recommendation, considering we have two ovals, would be to name one Charlie Greentree Oval and the other one the George Greentree Oval, rather than, as I've said in the report, the alternative, which is collectively calling them the Greentree Ovals.

I certainly believe that both of these gentlemen deserve individual recognition for what they've contributed to cricket in the Hawkesbury. Now, I was going to go through some of the details that I've mentioned in my notice of motion there for both Charlie and George, but it seems that our lovely three speakers have given us a lot of history there in terms of their dedication. And sorry to interrupt, but the timer is not going on my screen. I don't know how long I have left.

Just keep going.

Just keep going. Okay, wise words, Mr Mayor. You know me. That means I'll just go on forever. I

Don't think so.

You'll cut me off, I'm sure you will. So, you know, having a history—we're in now 2020—and involvement for George since 1966, where he played initially in under 13s as a six-year-old , and continued that involvement, and once he stopped playing, continued in the coaching role, was the secretary, I think, when he was 14 years of age and kept that role for 21 years, and has been the president of the club for the last 25 years. I mean, when we talk about volunteer organisations and volunteer service, this takes the cake, as this is someone in the Hawkesbury that should be recognised and honoured in such a way. And I think that anyone who has been involved with Freemans Reach Cricket Club... Would know.

I mean, obviously currently what George does for all of the kids, boys and girls, and of course all of the adults up to A grade, I think it's first grade, sorry, I get my lingo right, what he does to mentor them. As he said, he's there on call to pick them up from late nights out celebrating. He just doesn't switch off from supporting the people that come through this club and then who are also good enough to make it into representative cricket with Hawkesbury. So I'd like to put forward my notice of motion tonight to seek that report, which will come back to Council when done, and I will chase up that report to make sure it's brought back to us in a timely manner so that we can make a decision on this naming of the breakaway after the fantastic, dedicated and high-achieving Charlie and George Greentree.

Thank you.

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

Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor. I'm speaking in favour of the motion. I support the naming of the ovals after the Greentrees, especially George. I spent many a Saturday afternoon as a young fella in the late '60s chasing sixes that had been belted to the boundary by George, and much to his delight, I remember him still laughing at me. So I think it's only fair and proper that someone who was a local bloke I went to school with, I think that this is a wonderful sporting monument to a good local fella. So

Thank you.

Thank you. Does anyone wish to speak against this motion?

No. Councillor Richards, would you like right of reply?

Just briefly to say that, you know, these are the sorts of things as a councillor that are the feel-good moments, and I'm not sure how the vote will go, but these are the things that you love doing as a councillor in your role, which is acknowledging contributions of people in our community to the area in such a valid way. And I really hope tonight that we get that support to proceed with this journey, to get the information back to us as councillors to make that final decision. Thank you.

Thank you. That was right of reply. So I now put the motion. If you're in favour, please raise your hand. Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Richards, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Ross, Councillor Samprogno, Councillor Lyons-Bucket, Councillor Conolly, and Councillor Tree. I didn't miss anyone. Nobody against. Declare it carried unanimously. Thank you.

Now move to item 168. Before we do that, however, there's two items on block, items 169 and 170. Would someone like to move those two be heard on block?

Mr Mayor, Mr Mayor, a moment. If I could beg your indulgence, I was hoping to speak to item 170 . Do we have the ability to unblock it?

Not usually, no, but I'll ask the general manager for his advice .

Mr Mayor, it's a council convention, I believe, more than a

Legislative compliance. I think if councils are minded to do it, they can probably do it. But Laurie or Charles,

Any views?

Thanks, Mr Mayor. The requirement is to have those in by three o'clock if you wanted to have an item listed. However, there is discretion for council to allow that to happen if they so wished.

Okay, so there's discretion. So Councillor Samprogno is moving that item 170 be heard and not be on block. Do we have a seconder for that?

Councillor Ross. I would like to add to that motion, sir. You want to add to it? Yes , 168 as well, please, for a question. 168 is not on block. Oh, sorry. Okay, fine. Well, I withdraw that then, but I second. Okay. We needed to have a discussion on this. Does anyone want to speak against it?

No. I'll put that. Councillor Garrow, you wish to speak against it. Were you voting early?

I'm wishing to speak against it. I recall I requested a similar action to be taken at a previous meeting, and I was told that it wasn't permissible.

Okay.

It's been put by Councillor Zamprogno, seconded by Councillor Ross. Any further speakers?

No.

I'll put the motion then. If you're in favour, please raise your hand. In favour is Councillor Ross and Councillor Zamprogno. If you're against, please raise your hand. Against is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Conolly and Councillor Richards. Declare it lost. So there are two items on block, 169 and 170. Would someone like to move those? Councillor Conolly moved it, Councillor Lyons-Buckett is seconding it. All those in favour say aye.

Those

Against?

Declare it carried. Mr Mayor, I'll beg your indulgence to make an extremely short statement, and that's to say that it's disappointing that I couldn't get the support of my councillors to merely remove an item from on block. There was a community representative who was desiring to address the meeting on the Colbee Park master plan who had sent me detailed notes , expressed their apologies at the last minute that they could not present and asked me to present. In their stead, they are now going to be denied that opportunity to have that commentary back to councillors.

Thank you for that brief statement.

And did someone move that? Councillor Conolly moved it, and Councillor Lyons-Buckett seconded it. Councillor Conolly , do you wish to speak on that?

No.

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

I thought we moved what was on block.

Did we?

I thought we already did . 1.6.9

And 1.7.0. Happy to move either.

Yeah, that's what I seconded, to move those on block.

Okay. Well , that's been moved and seconded, and I thought we voted on it. Although in favour, and I did vote on it, but anyway, all those in favour of moving those two items by block say aye. Those against? Carried. I'm sure we've done that already, and we went to item 168. Councillor Conolly, are you moving 168? Yep, happy to. Deputy Mayor, are you seconding it?

No. Can't hear you.

Yes, I'll second it.

Councillor Conolly, do you wish to speak? No,

Thank you. Deputy Mayor, do you wish to speak? No, thank you. Do we have a speaker in favour of the motion 168? Councillor

Reynolds, your hand up from before

Councillor Wheeler.

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

Yes, please.

I've sent the details to Mr McElroy. I would like to—the amendment basically seeks to retain the $50 gift. Limit .

We have a seconder for that. Councillor Garrow. Sorry, I'd be happy to withdraw the motion, Mr Mayor, and support that.

I'm happy with that also.

Happy to withdraw your motion and let this be the motion, is that the— Yeah, that's how it works. Yep. Yes. So this is the motion now moved by Councillor Wheeler, seconded by Councillor Garrow. Councillor Wheeler, do you wish to speak to it?

Just briefly, Mr Mayor. I think this is simply a matter of transparency and accountability, and I think it's what the residents and ratepayers expect of us. A hundred dollars from as many separate businesses or individuals as you like is a significant sum of money added up over a 12-month period. If you can have a hundred dollars from each, we should all be able to function within the $50 limit, I think. If you took a hundred dollars as a gift from 12 different businesses across a year, that would be $1,200. If you did it once a week, that would be more than $5,000. I don't think that passes the pub test. A hundred dollars is a significant limit. It's quite a lot. If it was a meal, it would be a significant meal, probably more than would adequately feed a single person.

It would be an expensive item of clothing or a significant amount of alcohol, for example. I don't think it passes the sniff test. I think $50 is more clearly within community expectations. We've not had trouble sticking to this in the past, so I suggest we retain it. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor Garrow. Did you wish to speak on the matter? No,

Thank you. Are there any further speakers? I can't see the participants list at the moment. Mr Mayor, I have a question. Councillor Ross, yes, I can see it now. Yep. Thank you. With your indulgence, sir, seek staff response to the following question. At page number 11 of the business paper, the second last dot point states as follows: Panels of conduct reviewers can be appointed or terminated without a resolution of the Council. However, when I go to page 14, 1.4, in terms of the last sentence within the grouping described as part 7, it says the following: Panels of conduct reviewers can be appointed with a resolution of Council.

There appears to be a direct contradiction in those two statements. I would seek clarification, please. Mr Conroy, please.

I might refer that to Mr McElroy,

Mr Mayor.

Mr Mayor, that is an error in the table on page 14. The comment that Councillor Ross has referred to on page 11 of the report in the second dot point. Is correct . That reflects the position under the code. The words in the table on page 14 should say panels of conduct reviewers can be appointed without a resolution of council, not with. Councillor Wheeler

Would you like to change your motion so that it includes making that change on page 14? Certainly, Mr Mayor. I'm interested to hear from Councillor Ross if in fact he is happy with that change, because I know there is that we do, I think we can keep the, or we can

Retain a provision to appoint a review panel. So I'd be curious to hear Councillor Ross's opinion on that.

Yes, I was going to get back to Councillor Ross, but you would be happy to make that change, Councillor Wheeler? Yes. Yes, I would. Councillor Ross, given the response from staff, did you want to follow up on that?

The next question which follows from that is, is it within the province of either council as elected or the operational staff to appoint panels, or is it purely the province of one? I'm not quite clear on the explanation provided, sir. Mr Conroy.

I'll refer that to Mr McElroy again, Mr Mayor.

Mr Mayor, so the amendment to the code is that a council can appoint or dismiss a panel without having a council resolution. The council, if it chose to, could require that the council appoint or dismiss a panel and/or dismiss a panel by way of resolution. The Code of Conduct permits a council to serve provisions which , in the council's view, strengthen the code. So that would be permissible.

Councillor Ross.

Right. Right

Okay. So as I understand it, Councillor Wheeler has

Suggested that it should be the province of staff to act upon that area, or within that area,

To appoint panels, as I understand it. Is that— Councillor Wheeler has agreed to change the wording on page 14 so that it's the same as the wording on page 11. Right. So the word with becomes without. Well, the whole thing can be scrubbed out and replaced with, ‘ Panels of conduct reviewers can be appointed or terminated without a resolution of the council.

I've got no objection to that, I believe. Thank you. Okay. Did you have any other questions?

No . You're on mute, Councillor Ross. No,

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you for your inquiry . Deputy Mayor, your hand is up.

Sorry, Mr Mayor. I was just going to question , but it's been answered. Okay

Any other questions? Any other speakers? Councillor Wheeler, do you want right of reply? Not necessary, Mr. Mayor. Okay, so it's Councillor Wheeler's motion plus changing that wording on page 14. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Rasmussen, and Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Ross, Councillor St Brognau, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree. Declared carried unanimously.

We now go to item 171,

Proposed road closure. So I'd like to move something. Councillor Rasmussen, your hand is up. You're moving this.

Yes, Mr Mayor, thank you.

Do we have a seconder, please? Councillor Wheeler, you're seconding this? Right. Councillor Rasmussen, do you wish to speak?

Other than to say it makes a lot of sense, Mr Mayor, for this to happen. So I think the staff report accurately accounts for the reasons for why we might do this, and I think it makes, as I said, makes a lot of sense. So that's about the size of it. Thanks, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Wheeler, did you wish to speak? Just a couple of questions if I may, Mr Mayor.

Yep.

So the first is, I'm wondering if this has any implications for Council's bottom line. I remember back when we had to revalue our roads, and that had a significant impact on our quarterly review and our asset values . If we are effectively handing this piece of road over to the state government, and the state government gets the money from that, and I'm wondering if this is going to show up in our budget down the track.

Mr Connelly.

I refer that to Mr Mifsud, Mr Mayor.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. So all Council-owned roads are valued and find their way onto Council's financial statements , or into their books. If Council were to dispose of this land, then that parcel of land, the value of that parcel of land would fall off Council's books.

Is that likely to be a significant sum?

We don't have a valuation for the property, and that won't occur until the whole process is dealt with and goes to the Crown, and then they will negotiate the price. But I'd imagine in the tens of thousands of dollars.

And will that impact on our OPR?

I'd have to take that on notice. I believe, I think maybe Ms. Galea may be able to answer that if she's there.

Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So the process of revaluation is undertaken not road by road, but by class of assets. And every so many years that class of assets get revalued. So having one road coming off our books would not have a significant impact, and it will all depend on the unit rates applicable at the time. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler. Thank you. A second question, if I may, Mr. Mayor. It seems that this has occurred because of a mistake by a private certifier, and we are now losing a part—well, we're losing the value of a parcel of land. It's clear that we haven't used this parcel of land, and this is probably a better outcome long term, I think, certainly for the resident who lives there. Is there a means of Council dealing with the private certifier so that this sort of thing doesn't happen to other residents or to other Councils, where this is—it's not costing us significantly in terms of money, but it is costing us staff time.

Mr Conroy.

Refer that to Mr Smith, Mr Mayor.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Maybe the Director of City Planning might be able to provide some advice.

Through you, Mr Mayor. Well, in relation to private certifiers, if Council finds that there is a fault or wishes to lodge a complaint or an issue, that used to be to the Building Professional Board, but now we've referred those to the New South Wales Fair Trading, and there's a whole process of a report to go through, and then we would consider whether there was justification to

Basically take action or to do anything with the certifier in terms of their decision making.

So no is the short answer, I think, which is disappointing, I think, because this is actually a Council asset, and the upshot, I think it will be really good for the resident. And I'm genuinely happy for the resident because I think we probably have these little dead-end bits of road that we don't do anything with, and we probably should. We should hand them back, I think, to the people who can get some benefit from them. But it seems pretty miserable that this is a Council asset. Someone else has made a mistake, and we're now handing money to the State Government. There is a deep part of me that really resents the fact that we have to pass this over to the State Government, and I wish that there was some other way, that I wish Council could get the value of Council's own land.

The State Government seems to charge us every time we turn sideways, but when it comes to them disposing of a piece of our property, it seems that they get the money, and that seems remarkably unreasonable to me. Thanks.

Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. With your indulgence, could I inquire of staff, please. This , in inverted commas, discovery, was it stimulated as a result of a development application or some such that is in process in the

Planning area of the Council at the moment, sir, please? Mr Conolly.

I'll refer that to the Directors of Support Services and City Planning. Between them, they'll work out who's going to answer this.

That counts. Yes, this came about as a result of a development application being lodged with Council for, yeah, for other, in terms of the restaurant that they would like to open up.

Councillor Ross,

Any more questions? Yes, indeed. Thank you. I seem to remember that when Council had some purchase in regard to planning matters, that this general area came to its notice with a development application regarding outdoor dining areas and effluent disposal, etc. Is that a correct understanding on my part,

Director?

I'm not aware of the complete history of the application. I'm just aware that in recent discussions with the applicant that we became aware that there was an issue around this public road that needed to be resolved before an application, a new application could be lodged and addressed .

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Could I inquire, is that a Section 96, in other words, a modification to a pre-existing development application?

No, this would be, once this is resolved, the applicant would be lodging a new development application.

Would that constitute, in effect, a modification of a prior application that , I take it from that, that this is totally a new enterprise by this particular landowner that they would have in mind, should this occur?

No, there have been previous applications in relation to this property, but in relation to what they want to do now, it would be a new application that they would be lodging once this public road issue has been resolved.

Right. This is a ski park or something similar, is it?

No, no. They have some growing vegetables, organic vegetables, which they sell to businesses, and they have a large structure which has, that they're looking to turn into a restaurant.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Officer.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just on the point that Councillor Wheeler was saying that the asset is foregone and ends up in the coffers of the state government, I guess you could call it profit, profit shifting, and they need the money, I guess. But more importantly, Mr Mayor... The asset, if and when it comes off council's books, will that also have a flow-on effect on the maintenance schedule in the current, or in the budget for council?

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

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Because it is only the one road, it will not have an impact on the overall cost to maintain. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

I could probably add a bit to that, is that the road's unmade, so there's no road there at the moment. So therefore there's no maintenance ongoing on the road, and obviously there'll be no maintenance on the road in future as well.

Thank you.

Council Rasmussen, do you have any more?

No thanks, Mr Mayor. Thanks.

Any further speakers? Councillor Rasmussen, I believe you moved this. Thank

You, I did. No, I don't. Thanks very much. I don't require a right of reply, thanks.

Good, so I can put the motion. In favour of this motion, please raise your hand. In favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Ross, Councillor Samprogno, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, and Councillor Tree. Did I miss anyone? Declare it carried. Item 172.

Which is the committee . Councillor Garrow, you're moving this? Yes. Do we have a seconder for that? Councillor Richards. Councillor Garrow, do you wish to speak?

Councillor Garrow, we

Can't hear you. Apologies. I just wanted to commend the staff on the work that they have been doing on this. We've been — it's been a bit of a break between tourism committee meetings for numerous reasons, one of them being that we did not have a council staff member. We actually still do not have a council staff member on tourism, and we do not have any funding on tourism. We had been hoping that funding would have come through from the state government with residual funding from the Destination New South Wales and Hawviac committee funding, but that did not come to fruition. So as you will see in the minutes of this meeting, we have requested that staff take some alternative— do some work to get some alternative funding, hopefully from some grant funding or the like, so that we can get some funds to use for our tourism.

There's been a bounce-back program that has come through some economic resilience funding that the Sparley Group have been working on, and that's created some really wonderful relationships with industry amongst the community. And having this extra funding would really help in fostering further relationships with greater parts of our tourism community as well. And I have to really commend Amanda Keeney on the work that she's been doing in building these business relationships, both in tourism and in the greater business sector of the Hawkesbury.

Also, the Vic we, um, with the Vic have done an up- have done a re-skin and a refurb. Those of you that have been past or called in and seen what's going on, and the amazing work that's gone on in there. Mary and her team in the Vic, they go above and beyond for local tourism, and they really are a wealth of knowledge. And seeing some great stuff you would have seen coming out through social media, with a lot of the work that they've been doing there, and Suzanne's been working very closely with them as well. So that's all really wonderful to see, but we really need to keep pushing tourism within our council and within our community, and we simply cannot do that without funding. And so that's what we're really, the biggest thing that we're asking for is for someone give us some money so we can get some more work done within the tourism sector.

The state government didn't give it to us in a lot of money that they had. Let's hope they can find some somewhere else. And thank you to Linda and Amanda and her team for all the work that they've been doing so far in the tourism sector. Thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Ross, is your hand up from before? Did you wish to speak on this matter?

Up from before. Councillor Garrow, your hand's still up. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Just a question, if I may. There's mention in the minutes of a clean-up of Windsor Mall. Could I ask what sort of timeline we've got on that? The Town Centre's working group is quite keen to see the same thing happen.

Mr. Conroy. Refer that to Director City Planning, Mr. Mayor. Okay,

Thank you. Through you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for the question. Yes, so we met with some contractors on site last week to basically show them through the scope of works, and we're just waiting on a time frame now. We're hoping that that can be done in the next couple of weeks. It just depends on the contractor's availability. And once we've got a confirmed date, I'll be able to let the councilors know.

Any committee members.

Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yeah, I just want to support and add to a couple of comments that Councillor Garrow has made, and I guess one of the things that is really important for this local community and our local economic progress is tourism. It's been like that for quite a while, and it's been an up and down yo-yo journey for tourism, as most of the tourism operators will tell you, and I've been in this business for a long time now. But I think it's important that we supercharge tourism in the Hawkesbury. It's needed now, right now, and if we could get some of those resources that the Tourism Committee discussed recently, if we get that going, I think that would be one step anyway in the direction of getting tourism supercharged in this area.

It's critically important, and it's sad that the state government didn't allocate any funding for this sort of resource. But anyway, I think we're just going to have to keep finding little pockets of money, funds somewhere to get tourism really, really firing in this LGA. It's critical to our jobs, good jobs, future jobs. It's critical to our local economic health being. So if we can do that, Councillor, that would be good. Thank you.

Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I too just want to echo the words of my fellow councillors who are on this committee, Councillor Garrow and Rasmussen. It's been an interesting council term since we actually officially made tourism a committee. During these last few years, we've had a significant investment by the state government to a tourism campaign, which sort of put our council plans or anything we wanted to do on hold. But it is right that it basically all does come down to funding and anything that we would want to do as a council in that respect. We are lucky that we do have the Rivers, Just the Beginning campaign, and with the opening or the renovations and the reopening of the Vic, to have that beautiful image up on the wall there is something pretty special.

So along with the improvements that the Liveability Program will bring to the Hawkesbury, we'll certainly be able to market that out there and hopefully get some more visitors. But it's been a very difficult 2020, I think, for tourism, where at one point after the bushfires we are literally begging people to come to the Hawkesbury and support our businesses, and then with COVID basically telling them to go away and stay away because we've been quite a safe and healthy community here in the Hawkesbury and didn't want anyone bringing anything in. So those mixed messages are very difficult for a sector like tourism. So hopefully moving forward we'll be able to put a lot more passion and commitment into getting more visitors into our beautiful area, supporting businesses and jobs.

Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just wanted to... To ask a question about the third recommendation, which says that the committee

Has said that the Tourism Advisory Committee recommends that Council take action to gain additional resources to support tourism initiatives and activities. Whilst I agree that that's a good statement and I agree with it, this seems like it might turn into a bit of a circular problem. If we don't have staff to do this,

Aren't we relying on the committee to say, you know, I mean, are we looking for grant funding? Are we looking for staffing? Not quite sure that that statement is actionable, I guess. And I was just wondering whether there was something behind that that's just not being captured.

You know, it seems to me that the advisory committee hopefully has all the people that are working in this space and know what sort of grants are coming up or, you know, know how to leverage some funds. On the other hand, Council might be able to appoint or at least give some staff time to those activities. So just a little bit of clarification around that third recommendation would be good. Thanks.

Mr Conroy. I refer that through to the Director City Planning, Mr Mayor.

Through you, Mr Mayor. So essentially, the Tourism Committee is aware that yes, we have the VIC that has a clear function and role, but what we're potentially missing is another dedicated officer potentially that can spend more time around implementing a range of tourism actions that have been identified in Council's Tourism Strategy, as well as working with the committee on any other matters. So we've been fortunate that we've been able to get funding through various grants up until this point and running programs like the Bounce Back Program, but using consultants. The trouble is that's grant funded, and when those grants run out, it's how does Council sustain work with the tourism industry, which is a key industry for our local government area.

So the Tourism Committee was basically seeking that council staff look to see if we can get grant funding for a role and/or other programs and/or potentially, you know, is it a budget bid that we could do through Council's own operational plan process, either or both, essentially.

Thank you. So, yeah, okay. I guess it's, I'm happy to

Leave that as is, but I mean, I'm happy to support that. So are you going to come back with some options about how we might be able to deliver that

Recommendation

Yes, essentially as the Tourism Committee keeps meeting, we will be, through our normal process, seeking grant funding for this as well as any other works that we want to deliver. But we will also be having a conversation with Destination New South Wales. We're aware that their destination management plan is pretty much at an end, but the question really begs the question, you know, what next? How can we continue working with them to continue supporting tourism for the Hawkesbury? So that really is part of the next step to see how can we work with them? Are there any potential sources of funding for ongoing tourism support within the Hawkesbury? Okay.

Thank you. I'll leave it at that. Thank you.

Deputy Mayor.

Deputy Mayor, you there?

Sorry, sorry. I'm having trouble with my internet and my iPad. I'm sorry. It just was another question, and it possibly overlaps what a couple of other people have said, but it's around funding. I just wondered if there was any specific stimulus funding related to COVID that have been directed towards tourism that we could tap into, and if so, if within—it looks like we've got a whole lot of parts within the tourism committee going on—but do we have any actual ready-to-go things if we were to be able to fund something, as well as bounce back? I know that that's one of them, and also the ones connected to the bushfire, but I thought I heard recently there was some more money put out for tourism, so I expect that we're getting all that information, but I'm just wondering if there's anything else just ready to go straight off that.

Well, we have a number of projects that have been identified in our tourism strategy. The issue, though, is you still need a body to help manage. If we get grant funding, you still need to be able to manage that grant funding and roll out these programs. So we're at a point now where a lot of the current programs are coming to an end. We will be seeking other grant funding so we can continue supporting our local business industry, whether it's tourism or other. But yes, you know, I suppose we're wanting—I'm wanting both a body as well as money to roll out programs. Thank you.

There are no more hands up, so Councillor Garrow, do you wish to have right of reply?

Couldn't hear you.

Not necessary, thank you.

Not necessary? No. Okay, I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Rasmusson, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Ross, Councillor Richards, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Zamprogno. Absent is Councillor Tree. Declare it carried.

Item one.

See, notice of motion by the Deputy Mayor. You're moving that, I assume? Yes, moving that, Mr Mayor. And Councillor Rasmussen is seconding it.

Yes, I am, thanks.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. It's another question to go with the local government conference. I think it's fairly self-explanatory. As we know, the IPART reviews that are carried out cover a number of areas such as energy, water, transport, local government, and many of these have a relationship with climate change. And yet climate change is not generally included as a consideration in their terms of reference. So, for example, when they did the review of contributions plans, it was not one of the considerations. So, for example, with us putting in a plan for future costs associated with providing infrastructure and so on, we have to be mindful of what impacts there could be associated to climate change, such as the provision of drainage, etc., for the future given the likely increase of inundation in various, in our rainfall, etc.

So it's another question to go in with our other ones that came up last week. My apologies for not having submitted it by then. I missed the deadline, but it's another one to go to the conference paper.

Councillor Kotlash, your hand up from before. Would you wish to speak on this matter? Can't hear you, sorry.

Sorry, I forgot to take it down.

That's okay. Councillor Rasmussen has seconded it. Did you wish to speak?

Not necessary, Mr Mayor. Thank you.

Okay. Are there any other speakers?

Deputy Mayor, do you wish to write a reply?

Not necessary, thanks. Okay

Well, I'll put the motion. All those in favour, raise your hand. Favour is Councillor Kalb, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Ross, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Kotlash. Those against, please raise your hand. Against is Councillor Richards, Councillor Sam Prodnow, Councillor Conolly. Absent is Councillor Tree. Declare it carried.

The clear carried. Item 175. Councillor Ross, this is your notice of motion, you moving that. Do we have a seconder, please? Do we have a seconder, please?

Mr Mayor.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett

I'm happy to second it, but I was going to suggest a change to it, if I could, if Councillor Ross would be open to that.

You can second it and then amend it.

All right. Well, I'll second it

And then amend it. Councillor Garrow, you declared an interest in this one. Yes,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I had a non-pecuniary interest, thank you. I'm on the board of the Peppercorn.

Okay. You're staying for this?

Yes, I'll be staying.

So, Councillor Ross has moved this, Councillor Lyons-Buckett has seconded it. Councillor Ross, do you wish to speak to it?

Councillor

Ross.

Yes , yes, thank you. I'm unmuted myself. The point in raising this is that the, at point 1, the memorandum of terms of delegation is a most important matter to be re-enlivened at this juncture, and the reason for that is clearly spelled out by, or was clearly spelled out by, the general manager. who occupied the chair in 2013, who indicated that funding agencies were not happy with an overall referral to Section 377 of the Local Government Act, but wanted a specific deed of delegation from Council to Peppercorn.

Without that, Peppercorn potentially will lose 80% of its funding. And the reason I say that is that the financial accounts for the year ended June 2019 indicated that nearly $2 million of external grant money is provided to Peppercorn to operate the services which it provides the community. And that to continue unaffected , at least on an interim basis, requires this delegation to be reinstated so that it is there, even though it is, shall we say, not fit for purpose today. And that is why I suggested that this six-month timeframe be allowed in there to enable Council staff to update the terms of delegation and hopefully put that to a meeting of Council and let's get it passed and that can be an ongoing matter.

And then, in reviewing the four years of Council, which have almost expired in terms of the affliction of time, we've heard nought from this organisation at any Council meeting until recently this subject was brought up. But in terms of understanding what they do out in the real world and who they service and so on, I think we all have some appreciation of having seen peppercorn vehicles labelled thereby, but apart from that, we know very little of what their activities are or what their involvements are. And because of the level of funding being so heavily dependent upon government, or NGOs reliant themselves upon government to fund services as I understand it are delivered , it is from time to time no doubt the situation where governments or NGOs change their minds about the services they are prepared to fund, or governments also have a habit of changing such things as we know.

But this Council and my colleagues are not aware of any of this sort of thing going on, which I think is a deficit. And in that regard, I felt that some form of reporting, at least on a quarterly basis back to Council, would be an appropriate means by which we could start to be put in, if you like, or within an information loop. And in turn, that will , to a minor degree possibly, but certainly provide the community a means of understanding where Council is involved in outreach services and so on, and some idea of the scope of those, and possibly even assist some people to direct their attention should they be seeking those types of things. So that was the reason I felt we needed to bolster what occurred on the meeting of August 25.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ross

Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just have a question or two first. When I read this notice of motion, I thought a lot of it was covered by the previous resolution, but I'm taking on board what Councillor Ross just said, and I wondered if I could have a comment on the impact of funding in terms of what Councillor Ross just raised.

Mr Conroy.

Mr Mayor, the advice that we have is that the current

Memorandum of terms of delegation is still on foot, and we're consistent with the previous resolution of Council. We're planning to bring a report back to Council on a range of matters, as was requested at last meeting. So point three of the resolution from the last meeting was exactly about bringing that information back to Council. But in the intervening period, all the previous arrangements are still on foot, and Council at the last meeting, you may recall, also asked for the quarterly reporting to occur. So I would have to seek further advice from Peppercorn beyond that. Thank you. I do, I agree totally with the sentiment of this notice of motion, even though I do think that we have covered a proportion of it in the previous resolution, and I'm happy

To support it . But what I was going to either ask Councillor Ross to amend his motion to be, or possibly to move an amendment, would be to expand it somewhat to apply this requirement of quarterly reporting and regular reporting to all our third party organisations. We have a number of reviews coming up, and going along with that, I'd also foreshadow into the future that we should be workshopping a policy framework to cover our interaction with third party organisations, because it's become apparent that we're not receiving enough information. But for the moment, that's probably too complex to add in here. But for the moment, if we could expand it that we would get quarterly reports from all our third party organisations.

And also, again, I would ask if Councillor Ross would include requesting the minutes from these organisations. I can't see why we would not be getting the minutes of the meetings from the Sports Council, from the River County Council, from Peppercorn, etc., subject to any confidential information obviously being redacted or whatever. But I think that it's time that we get this sort of information given to us, and we have asked for it before. I looked today for some minutes online for the River County Council. I couldn't find any, and I think that we need to be requesting this. It's high time. Had we been getting minutes about some of these organisations, we may have seen if there was any issues developing.

And I think that because they are third parties, we have representatives on these various boards or committees, and we have not heard anything in the four-year term, as Councillor Ross just pointed out. So, would you be happy to include that, Councillor Ross, to request the minutes and the quarterly reports for all the third party organisations?

Mr Mayor, may I respond to that please, sir? You sure can. Ah, thank you. Look, I really believe that that's quite appropriate , if you don't mind me saying, and I do appreciate the input from the Deputy Mayor. I think that would be good because I know, for instance, in regard to the Sports Council, I think it goes back to about November 2016, from memory,

Or possibly 17, I'm not sure which, but we used to receive at least a monthly email inviting us to their committee meeting. But that somehow or another ceased . So even if we did have the time then, we could have, were at least afforded an invitation. We've had no communication from them, and I think it would be appropriate, and also to know what they're actually doing would be, frankly, abhorrent. So yes.

Thank you, Councillor Rossi, you've accepted that change to motion. Thank you. Deputy Mayor, did you want to say anything else?

No, that's all. Thank you.

Okay.

Point of order, Mr Mayor. Councillor Conolly, yes. I would just draw your attention, Mr Mayor, that to expand this motion to include all third party organisations is probably not in order, in that we haven't given any notice to any of these organisations that we intend to do this. There's probably no reasonable basis for Council to do this sort of business without providing notice to the community or the organisations affected, and I would certainly feel uncomfortable doing it on the run, and I would suggest that this sort of business we should advertise and give notice of.

So would you be happier if Councillor Ross's notice of motion asked for a report from staff on how we could manage that process? Well, I guess, Mayor,

It's not really about— I appreciate that. It's not really about what I'd be happier about. It's just about the code of meeting practice and whether it's appropriate for us to expand. Would it be more appropriate? Well , I think any motion tonight that deals with things that clearly haven't had notice given is a problem. We've given notice to the community and to Peppercorn that we intend to discuss Peppercorn and make a decision. We haven't given notice to any other community group that we intend to discuss, or they haven't had a chance to address us. So I don't think it's fair to do any business regarding other community groups.

You don't think it's fair to even ask for staff for a report on how these regular reports could come to Council?

Look, I mean, you've got to make a call, Mr Mayor. My position would be that the code of meeting practice is quite clear that if you want to transact business at a Council meeting, you've either got to give notice or move it with urgency. I don't believe you could argue that other community groups have had notice that we intend to do this tonight, whatever decision we take, and there's been no urgency motion, so my view would be that it's not in order.

Mr Mayor, could I please say something? It's not community groups. It's Council third-party organisations. I'm

Inclined— It's a fair bit of crossover between those two classifications, though, Deputy Mayor.

I'm inclined, Councillor Conolly , to let it through provided it asks staff for a report on how these external bodies can report to us, rather than just saying that we want the bodies to report. I don't see that as conducting business without notice because— Staff will give us a report and then we can talk to the bodies concerned after that. So it's still a negotiation or advice phase. So if Councillor Lyons-Buckett, if that's what you're moving, that we call for a report, then I'm happy with that. Is that what you're moving?

I'll defer to ... his notice of motion, so he can have the call on that, I think.

Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and I respect my colleague's comments.

In relation to that and the objection that has come forward, I would put it to the colleague that we are talking about the disbursement of ratepayer money.

We are a public institution. We're required to be transparent. We dole money out, and there is no transparency. accompanying that. I think, with due respect, the matter moved, the request made of the mayor to add to this, whilst it's without, shall we say, notice, I don't believe it requires us to go cap in hand to these organisations, which we are quite

Involved in funding. And certainly in the case of the Sports Council, we are predominantly the major funder. They have sources of about 150,000, 170,000 a year from their membership, but the council is spending, including capital works, anything up to 1.3 million a year. And for that not to be transparent, I just think is unacceptable. There are possibly the situation at Hawkesbury River County Council, I'm not aware of, frankly. Can't speak to that. And there is a slightly different situation in McDonald's Park, but I'm sure that the committee there and the folk there would also be, because I do represent council on that committee, be quite happy to share knowledge of what is going on at that site, and perhaps it might even expedite works and programs that they are liaising with council staff upon. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Conolly. I'm going to rule that the motion that Councillor Ross is putting forward as changed by the Deputy Mayor is in order,

Unless you would like to challenge that. No, no challenge, but I did want to make just a suggestion in that case, if possible. Yes. Just the wording in point 2. Perhaps it could be changed slightly to say exactly what we mean. It says at the moment that each quarter we would welcome a report. I think what we're saying really is we were going to require a report. And I think at the moment you could kind of read that to be that we'll ask for one and see if it comes, or that we need it in order for the funding to continue. So I think we should probably fix that up

So you want to change welcome to require? Well, I might not vote for it, but I think if you're going to do so, it would make sense to make sure that's clear. Okay. Councillor Ross, are you happy to change that wording?

Indeed. I'm very pleased that my colleague would have some input into this motion, so

Thank you very much, even though he may not vote for it. Yes.

Well, it's a hard world, sir. It's a hard world.

Okay. Councillor Kotlash— oh, sorry, Deputy Mayor, did you finish what you were doing? Yes, thank you. Okay. Councillor Kotlash.

Mr Mayor, I'm confused because point 2 says that we call for this quarterly report, but yet in our last resolution from our meeting on the 25th of August, it says, Recommendations 15 and 16 of the Auditor's Report,

That we

Activate those recommendations. Now those recommendations, number 15, is peppercorn to provide a quarterly report demonstrating adherence to any agreed performance and quality standards for each service activity by the funder. I mean, this is already happening, so— I mean, it's okay that I guess that we have another notice of motion to say what we've already got a resolution to do. Possibly I would suggest that we could strengthen it if Councillor Ross is agreeable, because the one thing we've missed in all of these discussions is actually getting a report from staff about whether what we've decided

To , or what we've agreed that the Peppercorn services, what they deliver, is actually still going to be value for money for our ratepayers, still going to be appropriate, and that's, you know, whether things change. So what we've just said, and if I could have that, sorry, if

What we're doing is asking Peppercorn to report on how they're going on those particular performance levels , like it says in points recommendations 15, 16, that's fine. We could keep going and they could keep reporting that they're doing fine. Whether things change or not, and whether circumstances change or not, that's when we have to get an additional report, and that's what I was hoping that would come as a consequence of this audit. The next stage is, you know, are these services adequate? Are we getting value for money? And does anything else need to change? I guess that, and I think I agree with Councillor Connelly that in this particular notice of motion, we should possibly just stick to Peppercorn Services.

In saying that, I'm expecting that we're going to get reports from our other third-party organisations, so then we'll be able to put an extra resolution to say that we want to have an additional report about, you know, the services that they offer and whether they're current and whether they're value for money. So I suggest that we amend point four to say that

We get staff to provide a report on how this particular entity is value for money for our ratepayers, because we haven't got that. We haven't got that mechanism anywhere. We've got repeats of what we resolved last meeting, but we haven't got anywhere that says we're going to actually look at our third party and have a look and see whether that is still value for money, because we're going to have to do that at some stage. I don't know the timing of that. That's what I would ask the staff to do.

I don't think I can support this notice of motion in this form, although... I agree with some of it because it's what we've already resolved.

I don't think it's appropriate for us to say that we should get a quarterly report. A quarterly report might not be appropriate for our other third-party providers . I don't know that yet, and I think that, just on that note, maybe we should just keep this to Peppercorn Services . So if Councillor Ross is, and the Deputy Mayor is willing to change point four, that would sway my vote. Thank you. So

Could you tell me what point four should say, according to you, Councillor Kotlash? I

Think it should say something like, we get staff to provide us with a report on the review of the services being delivered so that we can be satisfied that what we have in place currently continues to be the best way we can spend ratepayers' money . And

You're applying that only to Peppercorn

Yes, at this stage. I think we need to remember this and apply it to probably each of the other third-party entities when we get the audit reports from them. We probably have to also look at that. But I think, yes, just for the time being, let's just stick to Peppercorn Services. So that wording again, a review of the services being delivered so that we can be satisfied that we currently have in place, what we currently have in place, rather . Continues to be the best way to spend ratepayers' money.

Councillor Ross, are you of a mind to change point four to read that way?

Mr Mayor, I am not. And the reason I say that is that I don't believe that my learned colleague who just spoke appreciates that Council's input into the funding of this organisation is somewhere between six and seven percent of its revenue. The in excess of 80 percent is being funded from without.

In that sense,

Peppercorn is the supplicant of the grantors. It's the grantee. Peppercorn is there to deliver these services on behalf of Hawkesbury City Council in accordance with the acquittals demanded by these government agencies, Department of Education, et cetera, et cetera. There are at least six funding bodies I was able to cite from their financial accounts. Now, they are the people who are calling the shots in terms of what is being provided, the level that it is being provided at, and presumably also they have some check or measurement upon the quality of those services. What I am hoping that we as the Council will be able to learn is not from staff, but from within each of those relevant bodies, because staff are overloaded and are only going to have to get information from those bodies themselves. Councillor Ross,

You've actually already spoken on this matter. I just wanted to know whether you would accept that change to point

Four. No, I'm sorry. The answer is

No, I believe.

That is correct. I was trying to give an explanation to my colleague. So

You want it left exactly as it is on the screen? I

Think that would be more appropriate, sir. And we've already got suggest point three, which may be not as well or deftly worded as might be required, but I think it clearly indicates that we want something better than nought.

Okay, Councillor Conolly , your hand is still up. Did you wish to speak again?

Yes, please, Mr Mayor. I didn't actually speak before, I just moved to point of order. Yes, you did. I just, yeah, look, I also would not support this in its current form. I don't disagree with pretty much anything that's been said in regards to regular reporting. I think it makes sense, but I think there are challenges with doing this sort of things just sort of on the fly without too much thought. Point four as it currently reads, I don't think can be implemented by staff effectively. We haven't given a definition of what we consider a third party organisation or a list of who they all might be. We've had a few organisations mentioned tonight, the Sports Council, the River County Council, Peppercorn.

Other than all having been mentioned here, they really don't have much in common. There's no characteristics you could use to say they're all third-party organisations. They're completely different. Hawkesbury River County Council, we just have a delegate on, or two delegates on, and is a statutory body. The Sports Council is something we've come up with, and we— is at our absolute discretion, I understand, and Peppercorn's different again. So I think if we were going to do this, we would need to at least list out which organisations we require this of. And I think, Mr Mayor, it would just make more sense that Council call for a report from staff into the mechanism of requiring third-party organisations to report and have them at their meetings come to Council.

I think this is just problematic. Didn't have a problem with the original notice of motion, but now we've gone and done this without giving anybody any notice. And, you know, I think you're— Mr Mayor, also draw your attention to your original comment was it would be in order if we were calling for a report, then you ruled it would be in order even without calling for a report. I think that's probably the way forward, and if there's not an inclination to do that, I just wouldn't be able to support it.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. On initial reading, I wasn't convinced that this motion was necessary, but after hearing Councillor Ross speak, I'm convinced that it is. And so I want to thank him for this, and also to thank him for sticking to his guns with this proposal or this motion, and also the inclusion of the information from the Deputy Mayor. Councillor Ross is correct in that this is a significant amount of ratepayer funding. There is something that all of these organisations have in common, and that is that we pay them a significant amount of money to carry out services on Council's behalf. The other thing that they have in common is that we receive very little information in return. I've been raising this for a number of years now, and I'm becoming increasingly frustrated.

I have raised this at each time the Operational Plan has come to Council and at several quarterly reviews, that I don't feel that I am— Performing my fiduciary duty effectively by voting to allocate funding to organisations who do not provide any form of reporting back to Council. I do agree that the quarterly review element was added to the previous motion because I added it myself, but I think Councillor Ross has fleshed out some things that could be included in that report, and that has probably given it a bit more meat. Point, Councillor Ross's point three will give us an indication of value, and it certainly doesn't preclude additional items should staff or councillors feel that they, or the organisations themselves, feel that they're worthy of reporting back to us.

And I don't think any of this precludes us from seeking further information. I don't think that adding the Hawkesbury River County Council and the Sports Council should prove to be a significant impost on those organisations. The Hawkesbury River County Council already produces minutes and a quarterly review under its organisational structure, not that we've ever seen any, so I don't think that should be a problem for that organisation. Certainly the Sports Council provides minutes, or prepares minutes, again not provided to Council. I'm not sure about the quarterly review, but it surely should be a reasonable request given the asset base that the Sports Council is maintaining. Perhaps we need to give them three months' warning to allow that to happen.

But again, I don't see that as being too difficult. So I'm supportive of this notice of motion. I've changed my mind on it. I think it's a good, transparent and reasonable way forward for Council, and I thank Councillor Ross for bringing it to us.

Thank you, Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I completely applaud Councillor Ross on his intent, and I have no issue with the minutes of any of Council's third-party committees per se or organisations coming to us as councillors. I think that I've been blowing on the transparency trumpet a lot in this Council, and I think that I would be hypocritical if I did not support all of those minutes, or at least some form of reporting, to come back to the twelve of us, because we do need to exercise our duty in looking after ratepayers' money and knowing that it's going in the right place. However, it's the way this notice of motion is worded that I can't support that intent, Councillor Ross, and perhaps if you could change things a little bit.

I would reconsider, but first of all, the point one, I don't know what those memorandum of terms of delegation are. Have we been provided with them, and have I missed that? Can I just clarify that, please, with any of the staff, because I don't know what they are.

Mr Conroy. So, Mr Mayor, can I have the question again, please?

Though in point one, it discusses memorandum of terms of delegation initiated in 2013. Have we been provided with them?

They were referred to in the auditor's report that was presented at the last Council meeting. I'll ask the manager if there was actually a copy, but I don't think there was a copy attached to the report. Okay,

Thank you.

Mr McElroy.

Mr Mayor, no, there wasn't a copy of that document attached to the report.

All right, thank you. So, I'm actually extremely uncomfortable with supporting something, as mentioned in point one, that I don't even know what the memorandum of terms of delegation are. So, I can't support something I haven't read and don't know what's contained in that information, so I can't support it based on that. Secondly, Councillor Conolly suggested to the Mayor that just asking these third-party organisations to provide quarterly reports without notice was wrong, and the Mayor did say, Then let's get a report from staff. And Councillor Kotlash was absolutely correct in pointing that out, that point four does not ask for that to happen. It just says that they need to provide it now.

That point four should be amended to say that council staff provide a report so that these organisations can receive the notice and can then come and discuss things with us as a council if they so wish. So, the fact that we're not calling for a report there, I obviously have a problem with points one and four. I don't have a problem with point two or three, but I'm not going to vote on something where I don't have the content of the information. But I will reiterate that if something did come back to council in a different form, asking for a report on to give the minutes or reports on all of those external committees, then I'm all for it because— We as councillors need to have all of that information to do our jobs properly.

Thank you.

Thank you. In my own defence, Councillor Richards and others, when point four was first brought up, I did say that I would prefer it to be calling for a report, and that I could then easily rule it in order. But I didn't eliminate the fact that I could still eliminate it, still rule it in order without the report. And so when Councillor Ross decided not to call for the report but just have what he's got there, I decided I would support, I would say it's in order. I don't think I contradicted myself. I just expanded what I was doing. Councillor Sam Progner.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I feel in a bind about this. I'm all for measures that improve council's accountability and transparency, and I do agree that sometimes there are issues with the way that we interact with third party organisations, Councillor Wheeler, I think put that fairly well. But I'm also confused. I'm having genuine difficulty in passing Councillor Ross's motion . I'll make a couple of further remarks. I sit as the chair of one of those external organisations, the Hawkesbury River County Council. I spent several hours with the general manager of that organisation only this afternoon, and the way in which we communicate information back to the member councils was on the agenda. So I've been discussing that only this afternoon.

But it did make me mindful of the fact that some of these external organisations have their own boards or executives, and , you know, we can't be too prescriptive in demanding of them a particular report or reporting format . And indeed, in the case of Peppercorn, the in-consult report that was presented to Council had a raft of recommendations, and I'm reasonably confident that staff are capable of taking on those recommendations and actioning them as appropriate. And I don't know that we need to micromanage this process through a notice of motion. So I'm still listening very carefully to the discussion. I can see a diversity of views, but at the moment I find this very problematic.

Thank you,

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I did move, bring forward this amendment, but I hadn't actually spoken on it yet, so I was speaking in favour of it. I've also been interestingly listening to people putting forward views. I don't think that this is anything unusual of how we would deal with a notice of motion. I think there's notices of motion in here all the time that are amended on the spot and so on. And as Councillor Ross so rightly points out, these are organisations that Council gives funding to . They're not community bodies in their own right. So to date, we're not getting any information back from them, and that in itself is really problematic. I don't recall ever getting anything back from some of them in the Council chamber.

Now, we have, for example tonight, Councillor Richards had a notice of motion, which was a wonderful notice of motion, and it came out of something that had gone to the Sports Council and a resolution of Sports Council. I think that's the first time I've seen a resolution of Sports Council ever being brought into the chamber in any shape or form. So surely we should be knowing what other things are going on there. So that's behind the request for the minutes, because it would be good for all of us, when we only have one delegate on something, it's good for all of us to see what's actually happening. I think that Councillor Kotlash was confused about it, and to just help her on that, I had said that I would foreshadow bringing a motion to actually—I think what we really need is we need a proper policy framework around how we have the interaction with these third-party organisations.

But this is an interim measure, if you would like, to call on some accountability, which has been very outstanding. And as Councillor Wheeler suggested, we could—the mechanism of this could be to—sorry , I've just been told that my—I'm breaking up, my internet's not good. Sorry. I think that Councillor Wheeler raised it, that we could write to the organisations and inform them that we had a resolution that we would be requesting quarterly reports from them, and I think this is quite within our right to be able to do that, given the position that they are third-party organisations. And there's not many of them. The third-party organisations are the ones that we put funds into, and they're all listed, I expect, in our operational report.

I think that in terms of Councillor Richards, the notice of motion came out last Thursday. The memorandum of terms of delegation could have been requested if you hadn't seen them before. And I think that, you know, sometimes we have to do a bit of homework about things if something's mentioned, and they were mentioned in the last report as well last week. So I'm happy to support this. I think that we really need to start getting this information in. We know that there's some more reviews that have been done that will be coming forward, and hopefully once they're all in, we can develop the framework which shows us how exactly we require the reporting to be done in more detail and so on. But for the interim, we should be getting some accountability from these organisations.

We've been asking for it for years, and I don't think it's either unreasonable. I think it's our responsibility to ratepayers that we are asking for this information to be given to us. So I support Councillor Ross's notice of motion.

Councillor Ross, your hand is up, but you do have right of reply.

Right. Deputy Mayor, there is no amendment. Councillor Ross just changed his motion to 20.4.

Sorry, I said I amended his motion. Yes I gave amendments I hadn't spoken on it. Sorry, so I was speaking in favour of the motion which I had amended something on.

Thank you. I was just clarifying in case you thought I was going to put an amendment up to vote on, but it's just the one motion.

Thank you. Is there no further speakers? Councillor Rasmussen, yes, please.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Could I just ask the staff what additional information , if you overlaid Council's previous notice resolution with this particular notice of motion, if you overlaid the two and took out item 4, what new information would be required, or what additional information is required in this notice of motion that isn't required in the previous one?

Mr. Conroy. Mr. Mayor, as I said earlier, they're basically the same. 4 is the major distinguishing feature between the two proposals.

Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I too am in favour of greater transparency, and I will just cite to— An organisation that I chair, the Friends of the Hawkesbury Art Collection, and we always send our minutes to councillors, as far as I'm aware. The secretary does it. We're not a third-party organisation. We receive funding from council. But we do do that because we do want councillors to know what's happening on the arts and the culture front, as far as we are concerned. So further and better transparency is great, absolutely important, and should be the case. I'm just mindful too of the extra workload

I guess is the way perhaps you would say, on these other organisations. But if given sufficient notice for this to happen, I really don't see the issue here. And as some councillors now, I guess because of my long tenure on council, I've been on several of these committees as a councillor's representative, so I know what they do and how they function. And including the audit committee, some of you councillors will know that when the audit committee minutes go to council, I think it was the last one, it might have been obviously a few more months ago than that, where the in-committee report was tabled with those minutes , that's where some of that information that Councillor Ross is talking about here, that's the delegations part of it, was certainly available for any councillors to scrutinise and find out about.

So councillors' information is there. I guess it's just a matter of going through it, as Councillor Ross seems to have done in greater and very particular detail. But Mr. Mayor, I think. I think there's notice of motion. As it stands, it's not going to create a lot of extra work for staff. And as the general manager said, when you overlay the two, there's not a lot of difference, but except for item number four, and I think that's the carrier of this motion, and I will be supporting it.

Thank you. Any further speakers? Can I say that I think it's very unfortunate this notice of motion has become so complicated and messy. But when I first saw it with points one to three, I wasn't planning to support it, but I will be supporting it because of point four. Point four is something that I've been looking to do for a long time, is to have all our third-party organisations provide us with information, better information. And I also wanted the staff to provide a report on how those third-party organisations are performing. So I'm not completely happy with point four, and I would be much happier if we got rid of points one, two and three, and just had point four and expanded that to say that we ask the staff to provide a report.

But this apparently is what Councillor Ross is putting forward, and if points one, two and three only double up on what we passed last time, then in my mind points one, two and three cannot cause any harm because we've already passed those three things. So the only active point here is point four, and even though it's not- Worded exactly as I would like. I'm happy to support it in this form because I think if we have dealings with third party organisations and we provide funds for them, then I would expect that they should expect to report to us regularly about what's happening with those funds. If anybody gets funds from a state or federal government, like grant funding, there's always a report that you have to give back on a regular basis to say what you're doing with the money.

I don't think that is onerous or unexpected. So I don't think that what point four is asking is unreasonable. I think it's quite reasonable and should be expected and should be happening already.

Councillor Richards, your hand is up. Did you want to speak again?

I didn't want to speak again. I just wanted to ask if the staff could please send all councillors tomorrow a copy of those memorandum of terms of delegation if that was possible, please.

Okay. Thank you. No further speakers. Councillor Ross, do you wish to have right of reply?

Yes, sir, if you don't mind, it might take a few minutes as well. Yes. If I may proceed. Now, the first point I wish to draw to everyone's attention is that point one is absolutely crucial in this notice of motion. The reason is that I am saying that

A delegation from council must be provided to Peppercorn for it to legally receive funds from these other... Green too, is whether it be the Department of Education or other state agencies. So the fact that I'm calling for the memorandum as it was, except for the date, to be re-enlivened is crucial in putting to right what has been, if you like, an oversight. Secondly , I do not subscribe to the comment made by staff that this is already a current document. I draw your attention to the meeting of 10 September 2013, item 1.82, and attachment there, attachment 1 there too, is the, are the terms of delegation. Councillor Richards can pull those up and print them off and read them herself quite readily.

I could do it, and I'm a bit of a Luddite. The other thing I would point to everyone about is that part 8 of that document says the MTOD will remain in force for a period of four years, and that was also stated in the in-consult report. Now, that was qualified by some doubt as to whether it, in fact, only operated until the end of that term of that council period. But regardless, it was not in excess of four years. In other words, it's out of date. That's why I have called for the re-enlightenment of that document, just to get us up on the rails with something, to satisfy funding grantors .

Now, that really is important.

The calling for communication and report from these organisations, I don't think is an extraordinary requirement when we've got millions of dollars of ratepayers' money being doled out, and we hear nothing, learn nothing, and know nothing of what is going on, or the benefits, or indeed the challenges that come as a result of that. In the case of Peppercorn, we don't know what the changing scenario is in terms of community outreach. And with all due respect to Councillor Kotlash, I believe that supporting this will help flesh out the information which I think she is seeking. We can't exactly control the value for money per se if we are, or if, should I say, Peppercorn is equitably acquitting those grants and the fund provider is happy.

That is really it. But at least information will give us the possibility of understanding if Those programs are consistent with perceived needs within the community, whether it be in psychological or mental health areas following the bushfire and flood ravages that we've all experienced, or even COVID-19. Those things will, I think, be drawn out with the opportunity to receive reporting from particularly Peppercorn and in regard to HSC. Well, it's an absolute void. And the councillor who suggested that the notice of motion brought forward tonight is the first, I totally agree. And that was a great little piece of communication. But, hey, can we not have an ongoing relationship? And I'm sure it would be to the betterment of both the community and this council.

Thank you .

Thank you. That was the right reply. So I'm going to put the motion. If you're in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. In favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Ross, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Rasmussen, and Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Richards. If you're against, please raise your hand. Against is Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Sam Proctor, Councillor Conolly. Absent is Councillor Tree. Did I miss anyone? Declare it carried. Thank you. We're now going to move into.

Thanks all, I believe. Thank you. Would someone like to move that way, Deputy Mayor? You're moving that. Yes. Seconding is Councillor Richards. All those in favour? Roger. Those against? Declared carried. We'll go into confidential , and for those people who are listening at home, the screen will go blank in a minute, and then we'll be back after that.

Everybody, I would ask Mr. Mifsud if he'd give us a report on what happened in the confidential section of the meeting.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. In regard to item 176 whilst in closed section, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Richards, seconded by Councillor Lyons-Buckett, that: one

Council agree to accept Transport for New South Wales' offer for payment of Council's legal costs as set out in this report; two, authority be given for any other relevant documentation in association with this matter to be executed under the seal of Council; three, authority be given for a copy of Council's resolution to be provided by Council's solicitor to Transport for New South Wales. Those in favour of the resolution were Councillors Ross , Rasmussen, Garrow, Reynolds, Wheeler , Lyons-Buckett, Kotlash, Zamprogno, Conolly, Richards and Calvert. Councillor Tree was not present.

Thank you, Mr. Mifsud. Would someone like to move we accept that report? Moved by Councillor Lyons-Buckett, seconded by Councillor Zamprogno. All those— anyone wish to speak against it? If not, all those in favour say aye. Declare it carried. Is there any further business, please? If not, I will close the meeting at 8.32 p.m. Thank you very much.