13 October 2020 - Ordinary

Tonight's ordinary meeting. I'd like to begin by acknowledging the Dharug and Darkinjung people as the traditional custodians of this land and pay respect to all Elders past, present and emerging, and hand over to the General Manager to go through the business.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Members of the public participating in the meeting this evening are advised that in accordance with clause 5 .18 of the Code of Meeting Practice, the meetings of Council are recorded.

In the terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting of Council meetings. The provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary. If any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting. The recordings may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations and the recordings are stored on Council's record management system. For the benefit of those persons who will be addressing the Council tonight, it is expected that you will refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at this meeting.

This request relates to both your address to Council and any answers given in response to questions from councillors. Finally, it is requested that any person participating in the meeting this evening, if they have a mobile phone, that they either turn it off or turn it to silent. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. Any apologies? I think all 12 councillors are here. Any declarations of interest?

Councillor Reynolds

Item 203, older care or pecuniary interest.

Okay. Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Item 204, LEP reference group.

Okay. And Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yes, item 204 also

Okay. Thank you. And also, Mr Mayor, I'd like to declare an interest in item 197

Thanks. Okay.

Thank you.

So tonight we have one item with public speak, which is item 192. We have one public speaker, Mr. Peter Nicholson. I'm not sure if he's in the meeting.

He's being ushered in at the moment, Mr. Mayor. Okay, Mr. Nicholson, thank you. No

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening, councillors and staff, and Mr. Mayor, of course. So it's good to be back at a council meeting. It's been a while, and hopefully nobody will be trembling with fear at my appearance.

And, yeah , we can just get into this. I'm not actually going to ask any silly questions about who wrote this Mayoral Minute, but I am going to say I don't think it's been given a great deal of thought. And it seems that the Liberal councillors in particular are pretty much stuck on this method of rates having to have a 50% base, because we've been going through the same process for, I think, the last four years.

It's something that Dominic Perrottet came up with when he was telling Oakville people that council was going to rip them off with their rates, and the only way to save them from having to pay their fair share was to have a 50% base rate. He seems to have forgotten that the rural residential was also removed. But there's a lot of evidence that says that base rates aren't the best option, and that's why 74% of Sydney councils use a minimum rate rather than a base. 62% of regional councils use a base amount, but only 15% of New South Wales total rates are raised by a base amount. So most councils don't use anything like a 50% base. I randomly chose 13 of the current 128 councils to see what that revealed, and three councils used a 50% base as part of their residential rates.

Most of them didn't use 50% at all. And for those who can't really follow the process, really need to look at what other councils do in terms of how they generate their rates so that they're fair and equally distributed across the LGAs. And what most councils tend to do is use a centre of population method. It's not that hard to follow, and Hawkesbury Council's actually used it in the past, although that created a lot of centres of population that all had the same rate, which kind of defeated the purpose. But it's much fairer than a 50% base.

And I don't think that councils should lock themselves into a basis which penalises the asset poor to subsidise the asset rich. It should be a lot easier to influence the vote in the election next year if you do, though, because I can explain to 99% of the 2,200 ratepayers in Bligh Park why their rates will increase while the acreage owners pay less. I can also explain to every single ratepayer in Hobartville why their rates

Go up as well. That's every single ratepayer in Hobartville will pay more with a 50% base. Every one. 97% of the 2,200 in South Windsor will probably change their vote to get an equitable method too, because their rates will also go up. But every single ratepayer in Windsor Downs will get a rate reduction. So using the 50% base will be great for the independents in the next election because it will basically guarantee that they can influence the rates. Because it was the independents who removed the previous porter system that screwed everyone over last time and created all sorts of angst, and we can do it again. Now, IPART did review the whole council rating structure a few years ago and released a report which shows the base amount is a good way of recovering fixed costs on council.

But most of their emphasis was on places that have a lot of units. It doesn't seem to work so well when there's individual properties. Page 16 of their report stated the property-based taxes such as rates are generally regarded as equitable because property values correlates with wealth and ability to pay. Now, if we're saying that wealth and ability to pay correlates with property values, then you would expect that the higher value properties would pay more in rates. A 50% base rate means that all the below average properties pay more for rates in comparison to their property value. So I don't know why council would want to skew the rating structure away from everyone being treated the same as they are now under the current method.

And it's kind of weird that people with a lower ability to pay would actually be asked to pay more. So I won't go on as to why this was raised as a mayoral minute when it's actually a matter of process and should be reviewed as part of the budget. But I'm happy to answer questions for any of the councillors, although I don't have a working with children certificate currently, so. I might have to decide which councillors I can answer and which ones I can't. Mr Mayor, I

Call him into order. Was

There any questions for Mr Nicholson?

No questions. Thanks, Mr Nicholson

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillors. Well, I'd like to move this Mayoral Minute. I was, upon being elected Mayor, I was contacted about a lot of issues from a lot of people, as you'd expect. But the thing that's come up the most frequently and the most passionately amongst people with me is the rate restructure, and people have been urging me to do what I can to bring this issue back up into the light again. This previous speaker was correct. This has been going on a long time, and it was in 2016, I believe, or 2017 probably, that we actually changed the rating structure and brought in a 30% base rate. Here, we're suggesting a modest change. We're not suggesting a return to a previous system. We're not talking about introducing a rural residential category.

We're talking about a modest change of increasing the base rate from 30 to 50%, the effect of which would be to decrease the impact that land value has on the rates. That's quite correct. It's not correct that there would be no correlation between property value and rates, and it's not correct that people with lower values would be asked to pay more. There'll still be a correlation with property value and rate and total rates, as there is now. Instead of the base rate making up 30%, the base rate would make up 50%. We believe, and we've communicated this many times—we, I mean the Liberal councillors have said many times that we believe this is much fairer. It'll reduce the big swings and variations we get every time that we have a revaluation across the LGA, because— It will be less reliant on land value.

And look, the reality is that there are some services, and most council services are used by everybody. And by bringing in a 50% base rate, we're saying there needs to be some fairness about what people are paying. Yes, there can be a 50% element which is tied to land value, but there can also be a 50% element which is not, which is just paid by everyone the same. In terms of, you know, I think the speaker previously mentioned that we'd be moving away from a system that treated everyone equally to a system that didn't. Again, we're not changing the system, we're just tweaking the base rate from 30 to 50%. It doesn't change anything in the current structure other than that. So I commend this for consideration of councillors.

Deputy Mayor— sorry, Councillor Zamprogno had his hand up first, sorry.

I'm happy to yield to the Deputy Mayor and speak after her.

It's okay, go ahead.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you, Deputy Mayor. I'm happy to endorse the Mayor's Mayoral Minute, and I'll set my thesis forward as follows. We on Council have an obligation to adhere to the directives given to us by the Office of Local Government in what's called the Council Rating and Revenue Raising Manual. That document, which was written in 2007, sets forth a variety of principles that includes the benefit principle. In other words, that council rates should be proportionate to the benefit or the services that are provided to residents through their rates, and it should also be proportionate to the ability to pay, and that we are legally obliged to be mindful of both of those principles.

Now that rating manual also states that land value is at best only an approximation of a resident's ability to pay. And where a circumstance arises where there's a distortion of land value, that it is entirely appropriate to use the base rate lever to provide more equity in the system. And because of the value general coming through and revaluing people's land in a variety of suburbs, and particularly those suburbs that lay adjacent to development, the average rate rise in an area like Oakville has been 57%. But that's only the average rate rise. Some families on fixed income and enjoying precisely the same access to services as other residents are now paying twice or three times as many rates as their neighbours in an adjacent suburb, and we don't think that that's fair.

If I could employ an analogy, if a group of friends went to a restaurant and enjoyed a succulent Chinese meal, and that at the end of that meal, everybody who had eaten equally, some were paying $30 into the kitty, and some people were being asked to pay $60 or $90 into the kitty. When they had all eaten the same amount, there would generally be consternation because that would not be regarded as a fair circumstance. The people who have become the victims of land value increase or land value speculation are enjoying more or less the same access to services, and their income is equivalent to the income of people in many other suburbs. By putting the base rate back up to 50%, which was the case between 2013 and 2017, more equity is introduced into the system and we keep faith with those residents who have been bitten hard by something that is not their fault.

And we also keep faith with people when councillors also, in this term, hit them with several other double whammies, such as a changing to the rating formula that abolishes the rural residential category and then imposed a special rate variation on top of that. Now , to answer the criticism that's bound to arise that this will mean that some other suburbs will have rate increases, what we're talking about when distributed across the remainder of the suburbs of the Hawkesbury is that those rate increases could be $10, $40, $50, or on that order, whereas those people that have suffered under rates that are double or triple what they paid only four years ago will get some well-deserved relief.

So I agree with the Mayor that this is a minimal change and that it's something that we really should consider. And I do invite my fellow colleagues to take the political element out of this and to see the objective and logical merit of the argument that I've just put forward. And I commend the Mayor's Mayoral Minute to you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I do have to say I'm quite surprised to see a Mayoral Minute come forward like this from you without any request for a report on this and without any supporting information whatsoever. There are no figures regarding what the impacts of this would be. We know that we've had a land valuation last year, and so based on that, we don't even know what sort of an impact the change to a base rate would give. And I think it's both unfair and irresponsible to ask the Chamber to take a decision in the absence of any of that information. It is something that you yourself have been very strict about imposing on other people's notices of motion, that they call for a report so this could be properly considered.

I think that the land valuations done last year may make a difference from what we saw when we looked at this as an issue several years ago, and I would like to see what that sort of difference was, because we have to be responsible in imposing any of these changes, and they're not only minor changes; they could be major changes. We don't know because we don't have any information. I think it's unfortunate that the state government rate review, which took about five years to be released to the public, doesn't really offer us any assistance in having another look at how our rating can be done, because I don't think any of the current available systems really deliver fairness in the true sense of the word.

I think somebody is always disadvantaged, regardless of what system we put in place. So I think that that was unfortunate. In particular, the most unfortunate thing of it all was the refusal to increase the pensioner rebate, which has not been changed since 1993 and remains at $250, which is pitiful and sad for all those people who are struggling with their rates. I'm just, I'm a little at a loss because I wonder with how much sincerity this has been brought, given the absence of any information about it. And Councillor Zambrano has raised a couple of issues that I'll just address, and that is about the valuer general and the land valuations which have been imposed on our properties, which are on the interface with Where development is occurring.

And of course, as the development creeps out further, we are always going to have an arc of people on that exact interface that get these high land valuations and yet not corresponding with that is any certainty from the State Government of what they are going to do. So, for example, an area like Oakville has much uncertainty about whether it will be rezoned in any way. It has uncertainty about the proposal of the M9, and yet the Valuer General has raised their land values to such a high extent. So I think that within this whole exercise, we should be requesting some sort of either certainty or some sort of mechanism by which we can transition these people that fall into these very high land values so that they are delivered fairness.

Fairness doesn't necessarily come by imposing on another section of our community to pay more rates in that respect. I don't think Councillor Zamprogno's Chinese restaurant analogy was very accurate at all. I've never seen anyone go to a Chinese restaurant and all eat the same amount anyway. But I don't think that it was a fair way to put that. I think this is a much more serious situation than this. I'm always happy to look at anyone's proposal, to look at fairer systems in everything, but I don't think that this is the way that you do it. I don't think it's in the spirit of going into this bonus year that we've got within our council, where we do want to set things in place before the next council comes.

But I believe if we want to work together, we have to do this in a responsible way. I don't think this is responsible. Someone may call to have it looked at in more detail, but that should have really been here initially within this Mayoral Minute, which should be calling for a report, and then we can look at things. I know the Speaker raised the Centre of Population mechanism. I think we looked at that and dismissed it before, but we should always be open to looking at whatever's available. So I can't support this Mayoral Minute at this point. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor. I might just, before we go further, just explain the process from here, because I think there might be some misunderstanding about what we're doing here tonight. This motion is about the following financial year and is the start of a process. It's not the end of the process. So if this mayoral minute was to be adopted tonight, it would form part of the structure of the development of the operational plan next year. It would be reported back to Council on multiple occasions for us to review, put on exhibition, and finally to adopt. So we're certainly not making a decision here with no information. We're giving, if it was Council's wish to go ahead with the mayoral minute and endorse it, we would be giving Council staff some direction as to how to prepare the operational plan.

And also the structure wouldn't just apply to this current lot of valuations, it would apply to all future valuations. So whether the current valuations change is actually not particularly relevant to the structure of the rates.

I think, thank you for that explanation, but I think that's not clear. The mayoral minute actually says to implement a change in category from 30 to 50. It doesn't say investigate or consider. It says to implement.

Sure.

So that would mean there was no scope for actually looking at it in relation to all these other factors that come up.

Yeah, and I definitely take that feedback in future. I've sort of worked on the assumption that Council's understood the budget process, but I could have put that in the background for what the process is from here. That's certainly true. Councillor Reynolds. Yes,

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. With your permission, I'd like to move an amendment. Yep. That is that we defer to a briefing from staff about the effect of changing the base rate in relation to the latest property valuations from the valuer general. I agree with the Mayor that we need all the relevant info, information and data before we consider the impacts of changing the base rate.

I too read the Mayoral minute as us locking in a base rate at 50%. It doesn't say consider. It says— I don't have it in front of me because I'm reading my notes—but it says, you know, base rate. I just—

Another question for you, Mr Mayor.

Mr Mayor, I second that. Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you. Just a question for you, Mr Mayor. You said in your introduction that rates will drop for more expensive properties, but that doesn't mean an increase for cheaper properties. And so if there's a drop in rates for more expensive properties, but there's no increase for cheaper properties, where does the money come from?

Sorry, what I said was, Councillor Reynolds, that if we were to implement this change, it wouldn't mean that properties at the lower value pay more than properties at the higher value. Land value would still be making up 50% of the calculation.

So they wouldn't pay more? Okay, so someone, for example, with a property worth—obviously, a property worth like $200,000 wouldn't pay more in rates than a property worth $2.5 million. Okay, I can see the sense in that, but I could say a lot more, but I don't think that it's fair to debate the matter when we don't really have all the information. And I hope that you yourself will support that we defer to a briefing where we have all the information and we can do the right thing by the community. Thanks.

Okay. Councillor Rasmussen, did you wish to speak on the amendment?

No. Well, I would speak in the first instance on the Mayoral ... So we first

Have to deal with the amendment before we can speak to the motion.

Okay. I want to— yeah, okay, I'll speak in support of the amendment. Okay. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I would agree with the need to defer this for a further look by councillors in the format of a briefing where you can ask much more detailed questions, and we can get a better view of why precisely it is that the Liberal councillors want to now go down this pathway again that we have been down many, many times over many meetings and briefings in the past. So I would like to hear a bit more as to what the motive behind this minute has been brought forward. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor Rosson. Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I speak against the amendment.

Firstly, we as a council considered this situation in 2017-18, and we came to a decision at that time, which I believe is still appropriate. The proportion of 30% was also,

Mr. Mayor, your group's position up to and including 2012, as I understand it. So this is a matter of

Purely seeking some revision because of some perceived— Electoral benefit, I would suspect. I don't find that at all attractive. As for the first speaker to the motion, he was speaking in regard to

The proportionate services available. If the gentleman would like to cast his mind to thinking about those particular areas which interest him greatly, he will obviously perceive that there is not the intensity of development or population in a given area, as opposed to the town centres. I put it to everybody, each and every one of my fellow councillors, that the cost of provision of basic services such as roads and refuse removal are of a proportionately much greater impact on those individual properties and incur greater expense on the part of council to provide those services.

Mr Mayor, can I raise a point of order?

Yes, Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, I thought we were debating the amendment.

So I think Councillor Ross is speaking against the amendment because he doesn't wish to go to a briefing session because he thinks it should be opposed outright. Is that correct, Councillor Ross?

Very well put, sir. Thank you very much.

I understand your point, Councillor Rasmussen, but I think it is relevant to the amendment

Thank you. Look, I believe I've made sufficient..

Cogent remarks and comment here to seek a review by the mover of the amendment and its seconder to have that withdrawn and to simply oppose the total minute. Thank you.

Okay. Are there any further speakers on the amendment?

If not, I'll put the amendment, which is that we defer to a briefing session. I'll put that. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour is Councillor Reynolds and Councillor Rasmusson. All those against? Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ross, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Richards. Councillor Tree, we can't see you. Are you present?

I am here. I thought I had my camera on.

Did you vote for or against? I voted against. And against is Councillor Tree. So declare that lost. Was there any further discussion on the motion?

If not, we'll put the motion. All those in favour? In favour of the motion are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards. Against is Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ross, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Rasmusson, Councillor Garrow . Declare it lost.

At the beginning of the meeting.

At the beginning of the meeting, Councillors, sorry, I should have dealt with the minutes of previous meeting first. Does somebody want to move that, correct? I'll move that. Moved Deputy Mayor, seconded Councillor Rasmussen. All those in favour? Aye. Declared carried.

Next item is item 193, exhibition of the draft Voluntary Planning Agreement Policy post-exhibition report. Councillor Ross, you still got your hand up. Is that—did you want to move something?

I'll move, Mr Mayor.

All right. We'll go moved, Councillor Rasmussen, the recommendation. Seconded, Councillor Reynolds. Any discussion, Councillor Rasmussen?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yes, just briefly. I think the VPA now is in a very stable and usable form. The point about having a VPA, as is explained carefully in the briefing paper and the business paper, is that we need to be able to recover or to charge developers the fees that are necessary for a development to occur. It's either a fee or a work in kind. But either way, we need to have that sort of policy now on our books so that the staff can start to implement that policy, because there are quite a few areas where we are not able to do this. We don't have a contributions plan as such in those terms, and I would commend this VPA policy to fellow councillors. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Councillor Ross.

You're on mute, Councillor Ross, still. Sorry,

I wish to propose an amendment to the motion. Yep. I wish to propose that the— Document be referred to a briefing session to enable consideration of at least 14 points raised in the public consultation, which appear not to have been appropriately addressed by staff. Thank you.

Does anyone want to second that?

Councillor Wheelage, you seconding that, or did you want to speak on that? Okay, well, that would not have a seconder then, unfortunately. Did you want to speak on that, Councillor Ross?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yes.

My proposal is based on the fact that we have a very well considered and thoughtful response from the community in this matter, and I have viewed

14 items which I believe are demanding of attention by Council before this document is put in, set in stone, shall we say, in that sense. There are issues in relation to probity. There are also issues in relation to works in kind agreements , which is a separate document at the moment out on public exhibition. But this document contains clauses which directly reflect upon that WAKA policy, and there will be absolute confusion at some stage, particularly in line with Vineyard and so on. Councillor

Ross, sorry, Councillor, forgive the interruption. I hope you'd take it in good will. I just want to ask if you could be more specific in your address.

Yes, I can. Okay. I believe, shall I say, staff have failed to- Dutifully consider the public submission at 0.8, 0.9, 0.13, 0.15, 0.20, 0.21, which is nonsense, 0.22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29 and 30. Those points, I believe, demand further attention from staff. Now, in regard to the Wicker policy,

There are a couple of clauses which do intersect with that where it is talking about works. Now, they will definitely

Affect that area of Wicker and is going to cause, I believe, confusion in interpretation, both by staff and by possible developers, and I think need to be appropriately addressed. The most appropriate solution would be for those clauses to be removed and for Wicker to be incorporated with the VPA policy as a separate element of the policy in total, so that we've got a combined VPA and works in kind agreement, which is associated with a VPA, because a VPA also enables Wicker agreements to take place. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor Ross. Councillor Wihari.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'm speaking in support of the recommendation. I move the motion, sorry. I think this is clearly a long overdue policy for Council and something that we need to support and get into place. I think it's possible we could slate it for a review within 12 months to two years, depending on how it functions within the community, particularly with respect to the developments that are due. But we simply can't keep kicking this can down the road. I think the staff have dealt reasonably well with the— With the submission from the community, some of the items in the submission have been extremely helpful, and they are made by people who have experienced problems with the voluntary planning agreement in their area, and therefore do need to be treated with respect .

However , some of them are incorrect, particularly the early comments around—sorry , I'm just scrolling back through those—the early comments around VPAs not being a legal document. That's well answered by the staff. Really, there are three issues here, or with any VPA. It needs to be transparent. It needs to be timely, and the processes that are carried out under that VPA need to be carried out in good time, and they need to be of sufficient quality for residents to feel that they've got value for money, and also ratepayers to feel that they have been given a fair deal in this process. And I think this proposal does that. But they also need to be ironclad so that no one, including council, feels that they can manipulate their responsibilities, and that is where we've fallen foul of VPAs in the past, where members of the community have felt that they haven't been delivered what they were promised, or ratepayers already in the area have felt that they have carried a burden for increased development, and those who have profited from either the subdivision or the development haven't carried their share of the load.

They've profited and benefited at the expense of the community. But there's also been the Pitt Town example, where this community hasn't been well served by the planning agreement that was enacted there. These are the things that we need to prevent. We know we're up against it with Vineyard, with the timings that's set by the state government and not us. We know that we struggle when we get small VPAs from small-scale subdivision. This is a policy. It doesn't have to last forever. It doesn't have to be pulled apart, repeated. We can review this at any time that we feel that we need to. But what we need to do is get it in place so that it can become a legal document, it can be legally binding, and we can act on it, because that's what we don't have at the moment, and that is what's doing damage to both existing communities, new residents, and ratepayers.

And we need to move on.

Councilor Rasmussen. Yeah,

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, could I just ask a question, please? In fact, two I would ask, if I could. One relates to the VPA issue that Councillor Ross has raised, and could I please have someone explain whether there is confusion between the two documents, the VPA as we are currently debating , or the VPA one that's out on public exhibition? And secondly, Mr. Mayor, if I could, any of the submissions from the public, have any of those submission points, have they been ignored by staff or dismissed by staff? And if so, why so? Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

I'll refer that to the General Manager. Mr Mayor, I'm going to refer that to the Director and the Manager. They'll sort out between them which way they want to deal with those particular questions.

Okay, so I'll start with the first one, the second one first. In any exhibition of any document, when we receive, whether it's one submission or several hundred, Council staff, I mean, there's an obligation that Council staff consider all matters raised in a submission and then accordingly provide a response as to whether the matter is raised will be, you know, cause a change to the document that's been exhibited, or it's noted, or, you know, no further action is required. So in this respect, every comment that was raised in this submission, as you'll see in the report, was, you know, detailed individually, considered, and in some cases a response was made to the draft policy, and in other instances not many, we thought, okay, no, it's considered, however, a change to the document wasn't required.

So this is, you know, pretty much a process that is required by legislation that we consider submission, but also by practice as well. In regards to the two documents, obviously, you know, that would not be our intent to cause any confusion between the two. But if Councillor Ross is concerned that, you know, what we're raising in this document is causing a confusion between the works in kind agreement, then I'm happy to follow that up with individually and to clarify that before that report comes back to Council to be finalised.

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

I'm sorry. Thank you very much for that reply. I think that that really does cover, in the main, the issues and the matters raised by Councillor Ross. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Now, what did you ask? Do I want to speak to?

You've already spoken, haven't you?

Yeah, I have, Mr Mayor. Thank you. I mean, I'll speak again if you like, but— Well, you'll get

Right of reply, I think, because you moved it, didn't you? I think I will, yeah. I'll give you that chance instead. Any further speakers? Councillor Ross, your hand's up again. I

Have a question, Mr Mayor.

Sure.

Could you assist me please? Did I hear correctly from the director, who spoke just a few moments ago, that she

Was indicating that there could be changes made to this document?

I believe the indication was that there could be changes made to the works in kind agreement, but I'll refer that through the General Manager to the director.

What I said is if there's— if you feel that there's potential areas where the works in kind agreement policy needs clarification in relation to this policy, I will follow that up with you and make sure that that's addressed when we bring that report back to Council, the works in kind agreement policy that

Is . Thank you. Is there any other questions, Councillor Ross?

Yeah, no. I'd just like to point out that the purpose of the recommendation here is to adopt this policy. That was why I have indicated that I was unhappy. Okay.

Thank you. Right of reply, Councillor Rasmussen.

Mr Mayor, just briefly, the point about the VPA right now in front of us is that it's been through the very rigorous processes, both by the public and also by staff, and it has been around for a long time. And as Councillor Wheeler points out, we can't just keep kicking this thing down the road for ever more reviews. It has to be a policy. It can be reviewed. Most policies are reviewed within a particular time frame, and I'm sure this policy will be reviewed in a similar way. So the processes are robust. The processes are in place, and we need to adopt this policy so staff can start to implement that policy. It's in the interest of the community, the ratepayers, and everybody who buys into a new development anywhere in the Hawkesbury. And it is timely. Thank you, Councillors.

Thanks, Councillor Rasmussen. Put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour of the motion are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Richards, and Councillor Tree. Against is Councillor Ross. I declare it carried.

Next item is item 194, New South Wales Agricultural Land Use Planning Submission.

Move that way, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Rasmussen moves the recommendation. Thank you. Seconder? Councillor Reynolds. Any discussion, Councillor Rasmussen?

Yes, Mr Mayor, if I could, there's a few things I want to point out. First up, the first thing I would like to say, Mr Mayor, is that I really want to congratulate the staff who put this submission together on our behalf, because it does really succinctly, with great detail and, in my view, clarity, point out the fact that the Hawkesbury LGA is a significant agricultural producer and contributor to the state GDP and also the food production for a very large capital city like Sydney. It gives all the statistics and it gives all the numbers, and I really do appreciate the work that's gone in there. Secondly, I think we should also, I would like to anyway, congratulate the New South Wales Government for having appointed an agricultural commissioner, and he's obviously going about his job in a very strategic and focused fashion, and I do like the issues paper that has come out for us to comment on.

So having said that, Mr Mayor, I just want a bit of nitty-gritty detail, if I may, just to put clarity and also for completeness' sake, I think we could include if— If it's acceptable, we could include, you know, product or produce that comes out of the Hawkesbury agricultural sector, such as apples. You all remember Bilpin, I hope. Apples, stone fruit, berries, herbs, citrus, lucerne, mushrooms. Please, let's not forget mushrooms. That's a very large industry which uses a lot of produce, but also, of course, dairy. It's a declining part of the industry, but it is certainly still there. So having said that, Mr Mayor, we might, if we could add that. What I also would like to point out, or at least reflect on, is the fact that the scope of the issues paper takes water out of the submission or the debate, which I think is a real silly point , aspect, because, you know, agriculture relies, as we all know, we hope, on water, and particularly in our area, irrigated water from our rivers and our streams.

So to isolate that out of the whole issue, I think really defies a bit of common sense. Now, Mr Mayor, if I could just address the planning aspects of all this, and the three issues that have been clearly and succinctly dealt with by staff, and of course the main one, as we all know, is conflicts, agricultural conflicts. And I can regale you all, but I won't, with all the issues that I have dealt with over 25 years on the Hawkesbury about conflicts. And this council approving residential buildings a few or whatever the minimum distance from a boundary to a working farm that's been operating for 40, 50, 60 or longer years, and clearly that's going to produce conflict. The fact that you obviously can't contain You know, pollution, as we might call it, like light and noise.

Farmers do get up, you know, at three o'clock in the morning to get things organized. It's a bit hard to contain that to the boundary. And similarly with light, similarly with smell , it's not going to be stopped unless you put a massive structure all around it. You're not going to contain some of that. So those conflicts are constant. They have clearly, in my knowledge over the last 25 years, they have clearly dissuaded and made life very difficult for farmers, and particularly farmers' sons and daughters who might have liked to have gone on with the farm, but have been absolutely dissuaded or disillusioned by the fact that there are so many gotchas on all fronts, not just from the state planning, SEPPs or whatever constraints, but also from local people who move in recently or fairly recently, set up home and then complain that there's a smell, there's agriculture going on.

People are getting up at three o'clock in the morning. So, Mr. Mayor, I think what we would like, finally what I'd like to say, and I'm sorry I've gone on a bit there, but the point I would like to add is that we need to identify strategically important agricultural land. We talk about significant agricultural land, but we should be talking about strategically important land. And if we could get that concept across to the state, I would be very happy because that is clearly important. Strategic concept is really, really central to

Defence. Okay, Councillor Rasmussen, you went over time a while ago, but I thought you— I did, okay. Thank you, thank you. Thanks . Councillor Calvert.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I want to firstly thank the staff for this quality submission. But I do have a few concerns about the issues paper in general and where it's suggesting that we will be going to. Mostly the suggestions come from what is not said in the issues paper rather than what is said. And I think Councillor Rasmussen was going in that direction when he was talking about water has been left out of the equation. But also with conflict resolution, the issues paper mentions that that is something that needs to be addressed, but there is no indication at all about how the State Government might want to address that. We've put in a rather clear point of how we think it should be addressed.

But I don't know whether we go far enough in terms of giving the State Government a system of how the conflict may be dealt with. I have my concerns that in the past where conflict management is required, the State Government just brings in a bulldozer and stops people from talking. Now we've seen that with the Windsor Bridge, for example, when people wanted to express an opinion which was different to the Government's, well, mostly they were just not allowed to express their opinions. And I'm worried that this might be the same process, that if people start to complain about agriculture next door, then maybe they'll just be told they can no longer complain. And that is not actually brought up in the issues paper exactly what they mean, and I have concerns that we need to possibly state it very strongly that we believe that residents do have the right to complain and have their lifestyle protected, even though we still want agriculture to be supported in this area.

It is a fine balance and it needs to be treated in balance, and I don't think that this issues paper is going down a line of balance. I'm also concerned about mining. We passed that resolution a while ago saying that we don't approve of sand mining and gravel mining, yet reading this issues paper, reading between the lines, it appears that what the state government's going to do with this is come back to us and override that, and that our decision may not have any effect at all. I'm very concerned about that, and I would like us to follow this issues paper very carefully where it goes to and keep on top of it. So I want to ask if the staff can keep us informed of the next part of the process because I do have grave concerns about how this could be used negatively for this community.

Thanks, Councillor. Are we speaking in favour or against the motion?

I'm actually speaking in favour of the motion. I just have a few concerns.

Thank you. Councillor Reynolds.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'd like to ask some questions of staff and then perhaps move an amendment, if that's okay with you. Sure. Could I ask of staff if— The SREP 9 Extractive Industry Number 2 from 1995, does that still exist?

Refer that to the General Manager.

Refer that to the Manager Strategic Planning, Mr Mayor. Yes, that's still current.

Okay.

Does the, I think it's the State Environmental Planning Policy, in brackets Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries 2007, does that work in conjunction or does that sit on top of the SREP number 9? Or, sorry , just let me regather my thoughts. SREP number 9 specifically applies to the Richmond Lowlands to be preserved as a source of construction materials, in other words sand and gravel. Does SEPP Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries 2007 allow mining and extraction on agricultural lands other than the Richmond Lowlands? Refer

That to the Manager of Strategic Planning.

Sorry, yeah, the State Environmental Planning Policy Mining, Petroleum and Extractive Industries from 2007 does include a clause that essentially overrides any council's local planning provisions, so it essentially allows extractive industry on land on which development for the purposes of agriculture or industry may be carried out. Okay,

Thank you. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Could I move an amendment? Yeah. I'll send it through to staff earlier on. Basically, I'll read it out. I move that we add a second point to the recommendation, a point 4. There it is. I'll just let everyone read it for a bit.

I'll second it, Mr Mayor.

Seconded, Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Mr Mayor, what this does is basically reinforce Council's resolution from earlier this year that Councillor Calvert was speaking, made reference to, and it also reinforces the Council resolution from 2013. But it also adds in the SEPP from 2007. I think it's important that we continue to request that these prime agricultural lands that we have be protected from any potential, basically, destruction in the search for sand and gravel. It's known that the reserves in the Richmond Lowlands are literally worth billions of dollars as far as sand and gravel goes. But the industry is in search of alternatives and is coming up with various options to sand and gravel in the forms of finely crushed glass and polycarbonates and polymers.

So I think, I believe we really need to stand on this in this submission that we're making now, and again request that these lands be protected from extractive industries.

Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Reynolds. Could I ask a question, General Manager? When is this submission required? Do we have to adopt this tonight for it to be received in time?

I think we've received an extension for this already. I'll refer that to the Manager Strategic Planning.

Yes, so we've already received an extension for Council to consider this at tonight's meeting

I guess my second question then would be, I'll admit to not being very across the SREP 9 Extractive Industry Number 2, and I guess I feel like we're doing this a bit on the fly. So I wonder if we could have an explanation of exactly what the effect of this would be if we go ahead with the amendment.

I refer that to the Manager Strategic Planning, Mr Mayor.

So SREP 9 is actually a state legislation, so Council can't actually amend it by our own resolution. So it's obviously through representation to the state in terms of that . There are previous Council resolutions to this effect from 2013, and it was actually February 2019 was the date of the last resolution from Council was to actually call on the state government to remove those provisions from the Sydney Regional Environmental Planning Plan Number 9.

Okay, thank you.

Councillor Kotlash, did you wish to speak to the amendment?

I can't see you.

Yeah.

Yep, sorry

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I think if I'm going to speak to the amendment, it would be similar to what you've just said. I'm not really across that first— SREP

9, and it would be good to get a bit more information on that. I think, although generally at this stage it could probably go through and we can work. We need to submit this by a date, so I'm happy for that to go through. I was just commenting on the resolution before that was added, so I'll come back to that once we've dealt with the amendment, if you like.

Oh.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I am in favour of both the amendment and the motion, although I think perhaps the amendment would be clearer if it suggested that we, where it said we request, that we use our submission to request, we already have a resolution that came out of a previous notice of motion that I put up some time back asking for the state government to remove the Richmond lowlands from SREP 9. I think it might be, I think Councillor Reynolds perhaps is intending that we use the submission to ask for that, in which case there could be some changes to the words in point 4, or alternatively Councillor Rasmussen may like to suggest it as an inclusion to his original motion. I think there's some excellent points raised in this with regard to the retention of agricultural land, and I— And I think it's part of a change in thinking around agriculture and urban sprawl, because what we see here is the two of them going hand in hand.

They can't be separated out. And we've seen in Western Sydney for the last, I think for my whole lifetime really, you know, I grew up in Seven Hills in an area that was agricultural land in the '60s and then became housing development. And we've seen that push from that edge of Western Sydney out through Kellyville, right out now to the very edges of the Hawkesbury, and then it's jumped the river and spread into other spaces. What we've got now, I think, is a change in focus, that the impact of long commutes, increasing heat, the cost of infrastructure provision for suburbs in outlying areas, now 90 minutes away from the centre of Sydney, climate change limitations in our LGA by national parks, flood and fire-prone land have all led to a rethink by the state government and the Greater Sydney Commission.

And then in tandem with that, we've had this realisation that we are building houses on our very best agricultural land, and that can't continue. We grow a lot of food west of the Great Divide, but what we don't have there in most areas is fantastic soil and water, and that's what we still have in the Sydney Basin. And it's foolish to continue to divide it up so that people can spend the weekend grazing their ride-on lawnmower or endlessly covering it up with black roof space and driveways. So what I think we have from the state government and the Greater Sydney Commission is a really clear signal to landowners, residents and developers that urban sprawl is no longer the best option for growing Sydney, and that's good news for our many residents who believe that it's not a good option for the Hawkesbury either.

There's clear issues around viability of the loss of agricultural land, and I think this makes some good points around conflict of use. And hopefully what will happen here, and Councillor Rasmussen alluded to this, is that some of these changes and some of this change of thinking will make staying on agricultural land more viable. Because one of the things that we see is that the price pressures of the increase in the value of agricultural land pushes farmers off that land. And that's really bad news for a growing Sydney, who one day is going to wake up really hungry, and we're going to find that our best land is long gone. I think, in terms of the points raised by Councillor Calvert around conflict of use, I think he's correct in that we need to have, we probably need to have stronger guidance on processes.

It's extraordinarily difficult, and it's something that plagues us. It costs our residents in terms of quality of life, but it costs us an extraordinary amount in compliance as well. And one of the things I think we have to acknowledge is that some of this problem comes within industrialised agriculture or things that are permissible under industrialised agriculture. So battery hen farms , factory processing of foodstuffs, they're very hard to live next to. They are not the same as living next to a quiet family farm, and that's going to be an ongoing issue for us as agriculture becomes increasingly intense within the Sydney Basin. And I think we need to make that point very clearly to the state government that— Methods for dealing with that, that don't leave a significant impost either on anyone — farmers, residents who live nearby, but also councils in terms of compliance costs.

All of those things need to be addressed. Thanks.

Thanks, Councillor Wheeler. So we've had two speakers in favour of the amendment. Was anyone speaking against the amendment from that list of speakers?

Mr Mayor, can I just clarify something?

Yeah, okay, yep.

A question. I'm just wondering, is this an amendment or an addition to the motion? And does it mean by the wording there that it is included as an item in the submission we're asking for the Richmond lowlands to be removed, or is that a separate action?

So it is an amendment, and yes, my understanding is that that would be part of the submission. Okay,

Thank you. Was anyone speaking against

The amendment? Because we've got quite a few speakers, I'm just wondering if anyone

Yes, I'll speak against the amendment.

Councillor Ross.

Thank you very much. I speak against the amendment on the grounds that, in light of the speech given by Councillor Rasmussen, that we ought to consider the

Description of agricultural land as being a strategic asset of the state, and requiring action on behalf of the government to preserve that element . Also, because there is water here, which is not available on the western side of the mountain range, and is going to naturally force the production of fruit and vegetables to the eastern seaboard, as distinct as to what has happened in the last 30 or 40 years, in the longer run. Thank you.

Okay , sorry. Councillor Reynolds, you have got your hand up.

Sorry, you're on mute, Councillor Reynolds.

Sorry, I had screen upon screen upon screen.

Yes.

I was just wondering if it makes life easier if we could, if I could just add, which was my actual intention, to add the point four to the original submission, the original motion. I think

It might be simpler at this point, given we've already had speakers for and against the amendment, just to proceed as is. I think we're almost there on the amendment, and then if it's successful, it will be part of the motion, if that's okay. Councillor

Zemprogno, speaking

Against the amendment? No, no, I'm not speaking

Against the amendment. I just wanted to ask a question about the amendment. Yep, go ahead. Okay, so I'm hurriedly doing some research and note that the amendment is very similar to Councillor Wheeler's motion of February 2019 that had substantially the same effect and which I think attracted bipartisan support on that occasion. And it, in turn, is a reflection of a motion all the way back in August 2013 that was forwarded by Councillor Lee Williams and seconded by Councillor Rasmussen, and that said, again, almost exactly the same thing. So my observation, I hope— Is that what Councillor Reynolds is proposing here is substantially consonant to things that Council have resolved before, and my question for staff was whether I was correct in that assumption, because if it is consonant with what we ourselves have resolved in this term of Council, then I'm far more likely to support it.

I think it's exactly the same,

But

General Manager? I'll refer that to the Manager Strategic Planning, Mr Mayor.

Yeah, it's consistent with both the 2013 and the February 2019 resolutions of Council.

Thank you.

Councillor Kotlash, did you wish to speak on the amendment? No? All right. So if that's the case, we'll put the amendment. If I could just ask for the screen to be returned for that. Thank you. So all those in favour of the amendment, please raise your hand. In favour: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ross, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Tree. And against: Councillor Rasmussen and Councillor Calvert. Declare it carried. So the amendment now becomes the motion. Did you want right of reply, Councillor Rasmussen?

No, not necessary. Thank you.

Oh, yeah, sorry, no, that's sorry, Councillor Cotlash's right. Was there any more discussion on the motion? Yeah, Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you. Look, I just wanted to follow on from what Councillor Calvert and Councillor Wheeler were saying about the reducing of land use, reduction of land use conflict. And I was, I just actually want to ask a question. It says in the last page of our submission , and it says, the first paragraph on issue three, it is agreed that land use conflict involving farmers tends to relate to nuisance complaints made by neighbours in relation to normal or acceptable farming practices , and that improved community awareness and acceptable farming practices and alternative dispute resolutions, blah, blah, blah, may help to mitigate this. The tone of that is really not something that I think is appropriate for this type of submission.

I think we, I don't know where we got that from. I suppose that's a question. How do we figure out that most of those complaints were nuisance complaints by people that didn't , that weren't, you know, across normal or acceptable farming practices?

I refer that to the general manager. I refer that to the manager of strategic planning, Mr. Mayor.

A lot of our draft submission draws very heavily on the draft rural land strategy, and it's certainly a matter that conflict is certainly a matter that's raised in depth in terms of the draft rural land strategy. So that's essentially what it's drawing upon.

Do you, I guess the point I was making is the tone of this is,

You know, don't complain unless you have your facts straight. It just, I don't think we could, you know, we could do without that paragraph, I think. The rest of it's fine, and it's a really good submission, apart from that just hit me as being very inappropriate. But yes, that's, I probably, I'll support the recommendation. But I just wanted to just, you know, say I think we should have a bit more of an open mind.

Any further speakers on the motion? Councillor Reynolds, you've got your hand up still. Nope. Okay. So, did you want right of reply now, Councillor Rasmussen

Yeah, thank you, Mr Mayor. I just want to highlight, and I didn't get a chance really, but I thank Councillor Rice for picking up the strategic part of my tailing off speech. But look, it is something we need to get into the heads of our state government, that significant doesn't do it, strategically important will do it. Defence knows how this works strategically. Infrastructure knows how strategically important infrastructure, what that means and how to deal with it. It becomes the focus, and unless we do that in this area and for agricultural land, and if we keep calling it significant, the game will be lost as it has been in this council for the last 25 years. So I just want to finish on that, and finally, this council over the last 25 years that I've been on council has not been positive or encouraging of agriculture.

It has always been the, look, agriculture is dead in this area. You know, stop banging on about it, Councillor Rasmussen. You know, it's dead and gone, and we just should get on with residential development. So, Mr Mayor, I just want to say that, and I'm glad that maybe the corner on this important industry for us in the future has finally been turned. So thank you, Mr Mayor

Okay. I'll put the motion. All those in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. Favour is Councillor Conolly, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree. Against ? Councillor Ross. And Councillor Calvert absent for the vote. I

Think Councillor Calvert's having some internet problems.

Yeah, I think, so first of all, declare that carried.

I might actually suggest a five-minute adjournment because it didn't seem like Councillor Carver wished to exit the meeting, and we'll see if he can be provided with technical support to rejoin the meeting. So we might adjourn until 7:50 p.m.

We’re live again, live streaming again. So we’re reopening the meeting up to item 195. Somebody wish to move something on item 195?

Anybody? Moved. Councillor Garrow moved the recommendation. Seconded, Councillor Kotlash. Did anybody wish to speak on this item?

Nobody wishing to speak .

Councillor Ross. Very indirectly, the road opening proposed at this site on this development is totally out of order in terms of road safety, and I’m just wondering how on earth this ever got to this stage. Thank you.

Was that okay ? All right. Any other speakers?

Councillor Garrow, did you want right of reply?

Not necessary, thank you, Mayor.

Okay. Put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour of the motion, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards . Against? Councillor Ross. Councillor Calvert was absent for the vote. I declare it carried.

Item 196. Pecuniary interest returns. Somebody wish

To move something? I'll move the recommendation. Moved to Councillor Zamprogno, seconded Councillor Kotlash. Anybody wish to speak to Item 196? Councillor Wheeler. I assume you're

Speaking to

Correct the spelling

Of my name in the table. I can't say I've noticed. I'm sorry. Okay

Somebody else can speak to that.

But it is, unfortunately, one of those names.

Can I ask a question, if I may, Mr Mayor, regarding the provisions for hosting, in particular councillors' pecuniary interest returns online, and what the current requirements of the State Government are and how we meet those, please.

That's to the General Manager. I'll refer that to the Manager of Governance, Mr McElroy, Mr Mayor.

Through you, Mr Mayor, this is covered by the main legislation that applies in this area, which is the Government Information Public Access Act, and this information is included in the class of information that is open access, or what's otherwise referred to as mandatory release information. So there's a list in the legislation of open access information, and it includes the disclosure of interest returns made by councillors and designated persons pursuant to council's code of conduct. Now, to assist, well , to assist councils in applying the legislation, the Information and Privacy Commission, rather, issued a guideline in September of 2020, which is an information access guideline, which provides councils with assistance on how to meet the open access obligations.

And it talks about the sorts of things that need to be considered when determining whether or not to place the returns on the website, which is one of the requirements for open access information. So, in short, the legislation says that the open access information, and particularly in this case the returns, must be published for free on the website unless there is an overriding public interest consideration against disclosure. And so, council must, as it does with formal access applications under the legislation, apply the public interest test under the GIPA legislation in determining whether or not those returns should be published. So, although it's referred to as a mandatory release, it is subject to council applying the public interest test.

And so that guideline was issued in September of 2020. At this stage, council does not publish the returns on its website. There's a piece of work that's been going on for some time in relation to council making an assessment about the publication of the information in the returns on the website. The IPC guideline. Refers to the application of the public interest test and says that a council can give consideration to whether or not it's practicable to release the information, but not in full, for example by redacting certain personal information from the returns, which is generally regarded as things like personal residential addresses and signatures . And so the guideline provides some information about how councils can take those things into account, and council's in the process now of making that assessment.

Thank you for that. If I could just ask a follow-up question, if that's okay. When were those guidelines released?

I don't know the exact date in September, but it was in September 2019.

Right. So would there not be a requirement that we would either have published them or determined that it was not in the public interest to do so?

Well, the difficulty might be with the word requirement, because although these provisions are referred to as— this is mandatory release information or open access information, and the requirement is to publish it on the website along with a host of other information—these aren't enforceable provisions of the legislation in the sense that there are sanctions for non-compliance or offence provisions. So the IPC, the Information Privacy Commission, manages it by publishing material that is designed to assist government organisations, including councils, in complying. If the question is ought it have been done sooner, that is the assessment, then the answer to that question, I think, is yes. But as far as a legislative requirement, Council is entitled to apply the public interest test, and it's in the process of doing that. Thank you.

Councillor Wheeler, I'm not sure if you were finished or if I took over.

I would never be so presumptuous as to say that you'd taken over, Mr Mayor, but I hadn't finished. So I'm wondering then if we can add an additional point to this recommendation that Council receive a report and discuss the publication of the disclosures on Council's website. If that could be either added as an additional point to the recommendation if Councillor Zampronio is happy, or I'll put it forward as an amendment.

Councillor Zampronio? I'm entirely amenable. I'm a great advocate for open government and full disclosure. Yep

All right. So the motion is now, per the business paper, with an additional point that a report be brought back to Council regarding the assessment of the public interest test against publishing the disclosures on the website, or something slightly better worded than that.

Thanks, Mr Mayor, and thanks to Councillor Zamponio as well. I think the community's expectation has changed around access to this information, and I think it's important that we are seen as transparent and open with regard to this information. I agree that some information is probably best redacted, for example, councillors' personal or councillors' private home addresses. I know those of us who initially made our addresses public when we were first elected, many of us have withdrawn that information from Council's website because of people turning up, in my case, and haranguing my son about a decision that the person didn't believe I had made in their best interest. Signatures, I think, speaks for itself.

I think there's probably also some merit in removing the addresses of, for example, rental property owned by councillors, within reason. Tenants shouldn't feel that someone has their access to that level of information on a website either. But all of these things could be addressed in a report. I think there's also, COVID has changed people's expectations as well around their access to information. Gone are the days where you lob up in person anymore. There is now a much increased expectation that you will find information online and that you won't have to turn up in an office. There's probably cost savings here for Council as well in that once done, we won't need to allocate staff to this process any more than annually because people won't have to be supervised going through the disclosures register.

So I think there are long-term advantages to Council, both in terms of public perception, but also in terms of cost. I'm hoping that we can have a fairly speedy resolution to this, to point two of this item. Thanks.

Thanks, Councillor Wheeler. I'll speak in favour of this motion. I think I don't necessarily agree with redacting all of those details you suggested, but I understand the point of the motion is to bring a report so we can discuss that and work through it. And some of those things are quite complicated as to balance what's important to be disclosed and what's not. But thank you for bringing it to the attention of the chamber, and I'll support it. Was there any further speakers? Councillor Ross.

Thank you. Apart from being disappointed at the length of time which this has apparently been brewing, I'm a little bit concerned by point two of the, which appears on the screen at the moment. Would it not be appropriate, or is it not intended that this come to a councillor briefing in the initial stage, please? Question.

Who's the question to, Councillor Ross?

I would suggest the mover of the motion.

Councillor Zamprogno, do you think the wording suggests it's coming to a briefing session?

My reading of the wording that's before us is that we receive a report, whether that includes some item on a future briefing, it will be at the discretion of staff if they feel that that's the most appropriate way to bring it to us.

Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Could I therefore move an amendment to point 2, to prelude the introduction to Council that a preliminary report be tabled for consideration at a briefing session, please? Yeah

Councillor Zamprogno, would you have an issue with that being the motion?

I am having difficulty passing what Councillor Ross has just said. It says preliminary report to the report. I'm happy with the wording as it's before us now .

Okay. I think Councillor Ross was maybe a little wordy, but suggesting just that the report comes to a briefing before it comes to Council.

All right then. So I'd be amenable, with Councillor Wheeler's indulgence, to change it so that a report and briefing be provided to Council.. .

Yeah. Right. I'm second, happy with that. Yes, Councillor Kotlash. Okay.

So point 2 will be changed so that a report be provided to Council regarding the publication of the disclosure of pecuniary interests and other matters returns on Council website, and will be brought to a briefing session prior to Council's consideration.

Are there any further speakers?

No. We'll put the motion. I'll just wait for that to be taken down so I can see everybody at once. So I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour of the motion are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Ross, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Tree, and Councillor Richards. Against, no one. And Councillor Calvert was absent for the vote.

Next item is 197. We had a disclosure, but that was from Councillor Calvert, who's no longer in the meeting. So does anybody wish to move anything on item 197? Deputy Mayor, move the recommendation.

I'll move the recommendation. Seconder

Seconder,

Mr Mayor.

Yep, seconded Councillor Rasmussen. Did you wish to speak, Deputy Mayor?

Just briefly, thank you, Mr Mayor. I thank the staff for putting together all of this information and doing the comparisons with other councils, etc. It was when

Sorry, Deputy Mayor, I've just noticed Councillor Calvert has joined the meeting. Councillor Calvert, we're currently on item 197. I might just get you to read your interest.

You're on mute. I know you're having some difficulty.

Having lots of difficulty, thank you, Mr Mayor. And it may happen again. My interest in this matter is pecuniary and significant because I am a self-funded retiree.

Okay, so you'll be leaving the meeting. I feel quite nervous about that. We'll see if we see you again. We'll just wait for— If the meeting,

I hope I can come back

Yeah, just wait for Councillor Calvert to be out of the meeting. Yeah, okay. Sorry, Deputy Mayor, you can continue

Thank you. Yes, I was thanking the staff for preparing this, which emerged from a motion that Councillor Wheeler, I think, put up to investigate whether the rebate for pensioners could be extended to self-funded retirees, which of course we would all like to be giving as much help as possible to anybody who, you know, is struggling, and I think we do have the policies around that. It was good, though, to see the reasons given and the comparisons with the other councils. Of course, there are difficulties with eligibility criteria, and I think that the conclusion is really that we can't extend it in this sense. So I thank the staff for that, and I urge people to take whatever options there are, though, to gain assistance if they are suffering any hardship, etc.

Thank you. Councillor Ross?

No? Okay.

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, this is one of those difficulties, I think, where self-funded retirees get lumped into a large pool, where some can be incredibly well off, and some can be actually living on amounts lower than the pension because of their asset base, or simply because of circumstances. What we see here is genuine problems with the system that are outside Council's scope to moderate in any way. In particular, the $250 subsidy for pensioners, which is now decades old and woefully inadequate. And we have that big review of rates. We've had numerous motions to Local Government New South Wales, a constant push to the State Government to update that subsidy, and absolutely nothing has happened, which of course means then that there is less in that pool for Council to then be able to subsidise any other residents should they need it, which is really unfortunate.

What we see, I think, is that the State Government really needs to review its legislation around rate subsidies and empower councils to act so that we can use some other measure that may be a reasonable indicator of difficult financial circumstances, for example a healthcare card, which currently we can't use. So this, I think, points to the problems with the system, that we are powerless to fix, and I think for some of our residents that's a real shame. Okay

No further speakers. Deputy Manager, right of reply?

Not necessary, thank you, Mr Mayor.

Okay, so I'll put the motion. All those in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Ross, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheelock, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Stromprogno, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree. Against, nobody. Councillor Calvin was absent for the vote. Declare it carried. Move on to item 198, and we'll just see if we can let Councillor Calvin.

It appears that it's not our issue. It's Councillor Carver's internet. So he's able to join the meeting if he's able to, so on that basis we might proceed. So move on to item 198, Councillor Rasmussen.

Move that way, Mr Mayor, thank you.

Move the recommendation. Is there a seconder? Deputy Mayor. Did you wish to speak, Councillor Rasmussen?

Mr Mayor, I think we, well, we had a briefing on this matter, and I think the staff have done an excellent job in rounding out all the issues, what the gotchas are and so on. And at least to my satisfaction, we have it all explained, and I think what we need to do is get that submission to IPART so that the things that have been highlighted by Council staff are taken into account by IPART when they finally bring out their determinations, because there could well be an issue for us if they don't take cognisance of the issues raised by Council staff. So thank you very much to staff for doing, I think, a commendable job on this submission as well. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. Is there any further speakers?

No. We'll put the motion then. All those in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Ross, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Garrard, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards, and Councillor Carver was absent for the vote. Declared carried.

The vote, declared carried. Move on to item 199, which is the third party … Hawkesbury River County Council.

Councilor Zamprogno. Mr Mayor, I have some form of words that I've tendered earlier to Mr McElroy, and I'll put them up on the screen and then seek a seconder.

Just wait and see if those can be put on the screen.

Did you want to explain what that was while we were waiting, maybe?

Yes, I can.

Here we go.

So, this is the— now,

Sorry, Councilor Zamprogno, it's now on the screen, so I'll just seek a seconder at this point. And if you can use your blue hand or call out, because I can't see everyone.

I can see Councillor Kotlash has raised her hand.

Councillor Kotlash, seconding that.

Thank you.

Okay, sorry, you can proceed, Councilor

Zamprogno. I'll speak to that. So this is our review of the, effectively, the risk profile that Hawkesbury River County Council presents to Hawkesbury City Council, part of a series of reviews that we've engaged in. Councillor Kotlash and myself currently have the privilege of being our council's representatives to HRCC, and I have the pleasure of being the current chairman of the HRCC. And what I wanted to do was advance this form of words and explain why they are different from the recommendation in the business paper. You will observe, colleagues, that the recommendation in the business paper in point two suggests that the following recommendations contained in the report will be implemented.

However, it then goes on to suggest a series of activities that HRCC have to engage in, not Hawkesbury City Council. So it is a non sequitur for us to resolve that we should do certain things when they are not in our purview at all. The best we can do is to ask HRCC to engage in that process and then report back to us. So the wording that's before us now and on the screen seeks to do a number of things. Firstly, it corrects that error. Secondly, it picks up on the clearly stated desire, when we were discussing this at a briefing last week, that although it's very worthy, that we should be looking at the risk profile that HRCC— Presents to us reputational and so forth, but that equally the will of Councillors was to look at what you might call the value proposition, the bang for buck proposition, and that we seek some new affirmation that the relationship in toto is fulfilling our needs.

So what is being proposed here is a motion that notes the review, asks that HRCC engage with Council on the implementation and then reports to us formally about the implementation, about this report. I can tell you that in my role as Chairman that I've already distributed this report to members of the other councils, and I've commended this to them for the role it might have in helping them ask questions about the value and risk that HRCC has towards those member councils. It's going to be the subject of a fruitful discussion at our upcoming board meeting, and that the executive of HRCC has received this report very warmly and intends to work with us to implement those recommendations.

Point three seeks to articulate the things that we want to now look at that would help us affirm or refute the proposition that the relationship that we have with HRCC still confers value. And these questions relate to what it would cost our council to do what HRCC does on our behalf, and whether it is still true that the economies of scale or the special skill set or the resources that HRCC brings to bear on our behalf are effectively more efficacious or economical than what we could do ourselves in terms of doing the work on the ground, securing outside sources of grant funding, acting as a weed control. Authority, and so on. I am given to believe that, you know, HRCC does confer value to us, but it's entirely appropriate for us to ask this question from time to time.

HRCC's admin overheads run at approximately 12% of their overall budget, and the costs of paying the small stipend to the board members adds only another 3%. So their total admin overheads are only on the order of 15%, which would mean that 85% of the funds go towards on-the-ground activities. The amount that we pay annually for participation in HRCC, which is about $194,000, I think yields a good dividend for us, but I want some evidence to back that up. Hawkesbury River County Council is in an unusual position in the sense that it has effectively only four constituents. Our council has over 60,000 constituents, but they have four constituents, being the member councils. They are already party to a range of integrated planning and reporting frameworks.

They already have many other statutory obligations upon them for their financial accountability. They're currently undergoing an audit for their receipt of weed action program funding, and what we want to do is balance the available resources so that we can keep those admin overheads low and then maximise the on-the-ground activities. And I believe the recommendation that I've put before you will help us do that and commend it to you. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Calvert.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. It's great to be back, and I don't know how long it'll last this time, but... I would like to speak in support of this motion as well, perhaps for slightly different reasons to Councillor Sam Provino, but I've been searching for answers to the questions that are in point 3 there for over two years now, and that should have been, I would think, should have

Been. Okay.

We appear to have lost Councillor Calvert.

Councillors have a right to ask if we perform a certain task. Sorry, am I dropping out again?

Yeah, you were. It might even be worth, I mean, just a suggestion, but turning off your video while you're talking and just turning back on to vote might help the internet.

Okay, done.

I was saying that we have a right as a council, if we pay money to another body to perform a task, then we have a right to know how that money is.

Mr Mayor, I'm not getting any of that. Is anybody else

Yeah . Can everyone just, like, I'm not either, so I assume that's not my connection, it's your connection, it's every— it's Councillor Calvert's. Councillor Calvert, I'm not sure if you can hear us, but we're not getting that anymore.

So we might have to just move on, given we can only hear anything , to Councillor Rasmussen and hope that Councillor Calvert's able to rejoin and continue.

Thank you. Pardon me, thank you, Mr Mayor, for that. Mr Mayor, I've got a question that was prompted by Councillor St Brogno's contribution, and it relates to the amount of money that Hawkesbury City Council is contributing to the HRCC on an annual basis, and secondly, the amount of money that each of the HRCC board members receive on an annual basis, if you could please tell me those figures.

Yeah, I'll refer that to the General Manager. Mr Mayor, I refer that to the Manager Governance and Risk.

The council will contribute, Hawkesbury Council will contribute $194,604 to the Hawkesbury River County Council in 2021, or 2020-2021. The fees for this financial year for the Hawkesbury River County Council will be $6,060 for each council member, and an additional fee of $11,060 for the chairperson. Thanks, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. Councillor Rasmussen, did you wish to

Yeah, thank you. Yeah, I would like to, Mr Mayor, thank you. Thank you for that data set. That's good to know that. Mr Mayor, my question goes to the report itself, and some of you will know that the issue of doing an audit at HRCC came about from Council's internal audit committee, of which I'm a member, and it was raised in that committee that We clearly did not have a good handle on the risk that HRCC and two other organisations, community organisations that Council also contributes funds to. But we didn't, for HRCC in particular, we didn't have a good handle or any handle on the risk profile that HRCC provided or didn't provide to Council, and hence the commissioning of the in-consult audit report.

Now what the audit report came out and told us clearly was that the governance structure within HRCC was lacking in a number of regards, and it really referred to the risk analysis profile, the audit, and also there was one other item which talked about the improvement process within HRCC. Now I just find that a little bit, well let me say, disconcerting that HRCC didn't start up yesterday. In fact, it's been around for a very long time, and I would have thought that the audit would have found that, look, there are procedures, policies for these very, very key governance processes and policies that needed to be updated, and we recommend that, you know, HRCC board implement updates to their policies and so on.

But that wasn't the case. These particular items of

Governance within HRCC were simply not there, and I just found that quite amazing, really, given that it's been around for so long and given, particularly with the risk profile, given the fact that HRCC staff operate substantially large equipment, you know, the weed harvester, and they also spray for weeds and so on, which puts the staff at some risk of chemical exposure and so on, and SPPP, proper PPE is employed. Now, I'm sure that that probably is done, but there was certainly not a risk policy that articulated clearly what needed to be done. And I just found that quite, yeah , not what I would have expected over so many years. Now, in terms of council, what it obviously, and given the amount of money, $194, almost $195,000 annually, is council's or ratepayers' contribution to HRCC.

That's a significant amount of money, and I would have thought that there was a, without an audit plan, an audit program, an audit committee, that would constitute a significant risk to council and ratepayers, as well as the reputational risk that obviously, should anything go wrong with all that equipment and without a risk profile, that would simply not look good when, if there was a claim or an insurance claim needed to be raised by council to do with some mishap, unfortunate mishap within HRCC, that that would raise some issues with council's insurer. And as you would know, I'm on the board of Council's insurance company. So that really is quite a significant risk. Now, in addition to that, as Councillor St Brodrick has raised and Councillor Calvert has tried to raise, you know, value for money is obviously quite an important one as well, and hopefully that will now be addressed once we get this process underway.

But let me just finish up by saying, Mr Mayor, I just find it quite disappointing that over all these years, and we haven't seen the minutes from the HRCCI, that would be a useful element for information for us to gather some Some idea of the thinking of the board, and the thinking on these particular subjects, and how that has sort of slipped through the governance of the board over all these years. But I just would, yeah, I just find it quite astounding. But I'm glad it was raised in the audit committee. I'm glad we've gone through the process. I'm glad we now know, and we have a better view of the risk profile that HRCC currently represents to the ratepayers of the Hawkesbury area . Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. Just to clarify, are we speaking in favour or against the motion?

I'm speaking in favour of the motion. In favour of the motion. Thank you.

Sorry about that. That's okay. I wasn't 100% sure . We've had a couple of speakers in favour of the motion. Was anyone speaking against the motion?

I would wish to speak against it.

All right, Mike, Councillor Ross then.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Pardon me.

The single most relevant point here is that HRCC is an independent

Element under legislation within the Local Government Act to which Council is a party, but not the determinant, shall I say. It's most unfortunate that we have had to go through this process to ascertain what has been brought forward tonight.

I could not support this

Motion and the amendment from the point of view that it's not about value at this juncture. It's about the lack of transparency and the lack of governance that has apparently

Been present within that organisation, that statutory organisation, for an extended period of time. Now , I'm also led to believe that one of the government agencies who is a grantor or a provider of funds to enable this statutory body to carry out its works is also conducting some form of review of its understandings in regard to the operations of HRCC I'm appreciative of the fact that the Chairperson has circulated the in-consult report, this consultant's report, to other member councils, and I think that that was certainly a very appropriate step, for which I thank him. But I believe it is incumbent upon the representatives of the four councils who constitute the board to make the next move, and if That

Were the sense in which some motion was moved this evening, I would be much better able to support that because I believe we have an important, but at this juncture a minor role. It should be up to the board of HRCC to make any changes which it deems appropriate, and we consider appropriate in terms of transparency and availability of information, etc. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor Ross. I would just sort of repeat that just briefly and say that I think, yes, whilst HRCC is an independent entity to us, we are handing over ratepayers' money and we are the governance board of this organisation, and if there are issues that we are aware of, I think we have an obligation to take some action. And what this motion is suggesting is that we do two different things. One, we demand some answers from the Hawkesbury River County Council as to what they feel about each of the recommendations and how they're going to respond, and two, at the same time, also do some investigation into what other options we have and make sure that our ratepayers, we are doing the best thing by our ratepayers.

And those two processes will be independent of each other, but I think we've got an obligation to act given the information before us. So we've had two speakers in favour, one against. Was anyone else speaking against the motion?

I had a request to add something.

Okay. Yep. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I think it's important that point four of the recommendation is included in any motion about this, that the officers have put in, that Council consider meeting to discuss what we've learnt from the reviews to date and how they might be applied to future reviews. I think that can only be a beneficial exercise to carry out because we've been having these third party audit reviews, and I think it's really important.

Deputy Mayor, I'll just see if Councillor Zamprogno wants to include that or if we'll have an amendment. Councillor Zamprogno, are you inclined

To move? I had a discussion with Mr McElroy about this this afternoon, and I'm entirely okay with the re-inclusion of point four. The point that I made to Mr McElroy is that I don't know that it actually needs a formal point in a motion before the Council for Council staff to basically take on board that there are learnings. So if you want to— Pretty

Much a yes/no, so I'll take it as a yes. Councillor Kotlash, are you also happy with that as a seconder?

I'm not quite sure I understand. I would've thought it was a given if we're— and the amendment's just been taken off the screen , but I mean, I thought it would have been— Sorry

I am really looking for a yes or a no here because it's sort of not really in order. So we can either do it this way or we can have an amendment from the Deputy

Mayor. If I could just understand what the Deputy Mayor was saying.

So the point the Deputy Mayor is suggesting we include point four in the motion, which was that Council consider the meeting to discuss the learnings from the reviews to date and how they might apply to future reviews.

Does the Deputy Mayor, if I can ask through you, Mr Mayor— After we get the report that we've indicated in the amendment, like the report from point three. I think the point four—

Sorry, I think the point four is really about how we do future reviews about other third-party organisations as well. It's not necessarily directly related to this exact review, but more the process. But Deputy Mayor, I'll let you just go ahead and make the argument then. Mayor, I think

You're doing quite a good job of speaking on my behalf, because that is what I thought. I take it to mean more just an affirmation that we will continue to discuss what we're getting out of these reviews, because clearly I think this is an instance where the audit was always intended to be about risk management, and now it's morphed into wanting more about value for money sort of aspects, which is different, but that's fine. I've got no problem with that. But I think that we have to commit to discussing this and learning what we get out of these things to improve how we're doing this, because we want it to be a beneficial exercise going forward, that we can ensure that we're on top of all of these things.

So , Councillor Collash, I just need to know if we're happy to accept that in the motion, or if the Deputy Mayor is moving

Yes.

Yep. Okay. All right. So that is still the motion. Was there any further speakers? Sorry, I can't see.

Mr Mayor, I'd like to move an amendment that I hope will resolve some of this back and forth.

Okay.

It's with—I've sent it to Mr McElroy.

Do you want me to begin reading it out?

Sure.

So it's largely based around the original recommendation in the business paper. So point one, that the in-consult proprietary limited report of the third party review of Hawkesbury River County Council be received and noted. And then point two is where some of the changes, the initial changes lie, that Hawkesbury River County Council be requested to urgently implement the following recommendations contained in the in-consult proprietary limited report. And then the three suggestions: Hawkesbury River County Council should consider developing a risk management policy plan, which includes a structured approach to assessing risk and controls, and then ensure they are documented in a risk register.

B, HRCC should ensure that an audit risk and improvement committee is implemented prior to March 2021 and implement requirements in accordance with the new risk management and internal audit framework. C, Hawkesbury River County Council should consider seeking support from constituent councils to assist in addressing the above recommendations. Point three is new. HRCC provide to constituent councils its annual budget and quarterly reviews, as well as minutes of its meetings on a monthly basis. Point four, council requests from HRCC a report on how the remaining recommendations in the report will be implemented and the appropriate timeframes. Point five, council be provided with a report into the efficiency and value obtained from HRCC and alternative methods of weed management.

And point six, council to consider meeting to discuss the learnings from the reviews to date and how they might be applied to future reviews. It's an amalgamation— Second that, Mr Mayor. Second that, Mr Mayor.

Okay, so moved, Councillor Wheeler, seconded Councillor Rasmussen. It's an amalgamation of both motions

Mr Mayor, and I'm happy to add at point four, Councillor Zamprogno's additional points for detailing information for a report—sorry, point five, I'm sorry—detailing additional information for the report. So perhaps after weed management, a comma and including but not limited to, and Councillor Zamprogno's points. I couldn't cut and paste on the iPad, and nor could I type fast enough to get them in there. My hope is that this fulfils everyone's requirements. We're not demanding that Hawkesbury River County Council does anything, because that's quite difficult, as discussed. But we are asking them to urgently implement those recommendations based on the consult report that highlights those as being especially problematic.

Councillor Ross and Councillor Rasmusson have raised the lack of communication back to Council. I think point three, sending the annual budget and the quarterly reviews, if they were, for example, to be received and put in as our business paper, it would get around the issue that Hawkesbury River County Council have of not having sufficient IT capacity to post those on a website. We would be largely doing that by proxy. It should then improve transparency both for the constituent councils and also for residents and ratepayers, and also includes the later point from the deputy mayor about the meeting to discuss the learnings from the reviews. And point five fulfils, I hope, Councillors Amprongio's needs around a report into the efficacy and the value.

I haven't put a date on there, largely because I would like some advice from the staff about when it's plausible to return that review to us. I notice Councillor Amprongio had November 2020, and while I'm keen to get this information as quickly as possible within this term of Council, I'm not sure that a month is a plausible time frame for staff to get what is a fairly significant body of information back to us. I think we need to be cognisant that we pay a fair amount of money to the Hawkesbury River County Council, and we currently don't have a mechanism to determine how that money is being used. I don't know about other councillors' experience, but I receive numerous complaints. Perhaps it's because I'm the Greens councillor.

I receive a lot of complaints about weeds in the district. In fact, one local resident has asked the deputy mayor and I if council was considering making Lantana our new floral emblem, such is the Lantana display along Bells Line of Road. And we know that that's not—it's Bells Line of Road, it's an RMS road. We pay Hawkesbury River County Council to do weed management. Lantana really isn't even on the weed management list anymore, it's so prevalent. But these are all things that the community expects will be sorted out, and yet we really have no information that we can give them because we're just not in the loop anymore. And I think this is an attempt to get us back into the loop, but also to fulfil the real needs that we highlighted very early on when the audit committee asked and we endorsed as a council the risk report.

And that's what we have before us. We have a risk report. We need to respond to it. Value for money, weed management are both very, very important, and I don't want to detract from them, but we need to protect both ourselves and our ratepayers, and also ensure that Hawkesbury River County Council protects its staff and its members as well. Thanks.

Okay, Councillor Reynolds.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I would like to ask some questions of staff, if possible, before I decide whether I'm supporting the motion or not. Mr Mayor, I'm mindful that, you know, members of the community are watching this meeting, and many have no idea that Hawkesbury River County Council is a separate entity to Hawkesbury City Council. So just some basic information from staff. First one is, how long has Hawkesbury River County Council been in existence?

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

Mr Mayor, I can deal with those matters, Manager of Corporate Services and Governance. I can indicate that through you, the Hawkesbury River County Council has been in existence since the 24th of September 1948, when it came into existence by proclamation.

Since 1948 . Correct . Okay. The report in the business paper says Council introduced its risk register in 2010. Has any council before now

Requested an independent audit or a risk review of the County Council?

Mr Mayor, not that we're aware of. So

Since 1948, this is the first time this council has asked for an independent audit of HRCC. Okay. How many councils delegate to

The County Council? There are four: The Hills , Blacktown City Council, Hawkesbury City Council, and Penrith City Council.

And how many councillors sit on the HRCC board?

There are eight, two representatives from each of those constituent councils.

Okay. And we've just found out tonight, and I didn't know, that the councillors that sit on the HRCC board are remunerated in that they're paid to be on that committee. Is that right? On the board. Is that right? That's correct . How councilors sit on numerous committees, why are these councillors paid to be on this committee?

Through you, Mr Mayor, the County Council, as has been mentioned, is subject to largely the same statutory scheme that applies to all general purpose councils in New South Wales, and that includes being subject to the remuneration arrangements that apply to general purpose councils. So there are statutory fees that are payable, and those fees are set by the local government remuneration tribunal in its annual report, and they are set by reference to a range. And certainly as they apply to general purpose and county councils, there's a range of fees, a maximum and a minimum, that is set by the remuneration tribunal each year, and councils are then required under the Act to resolve the fees that will be payable to the representatives of those councils.

Okay. Has there been any previous council requests for copies of minutes and financial details from the Hawkesbury River County Council?

Mr Mayor, not that we're aware of.

Okay. And has this council, over time, made it a practice to receive reports from delegates to Hawkesbury River County Council, especially given that they're paid? Has that ever been a—

Stand-alone operation, that we would receive that?

Mr Mayor, not that we're aware of. To some extent it's difficult to comment on everything that may or may not have happened in the past, but, and there might be some aspects of those questions that might need to be taken on notice in terms of past practices, but as we sit here now, not that we're aware of.

Okay. Given that, you probably won't be able to answer this, and I appreciate it, but before this council and before this risk review, has this council ever questioned Hawkesbury River County Council's governance and finances before?

Mr Mayor, again, it's difficult to say specifically whether that's occurred and in what form. We're not aware of it being done in the same way that it's certainly being done now. So again, not aware of whether that's occurred.

Thank you. Thank you for your answers.

Okay. The Deputy Mayor on the amendment.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yes, I'll speak in favour of the amendment, and I would like to thank and congratulate Councillor Wheeler for putting that forward because it actually encapsulates everything that I think we've been bringing forward and puts it all in a very well-articulated form. So I totally support it. I did have a list I was going to raise before, but she's covered all of it. I think we need to be able to have the minutes and the addition of getting the information about the value for money, which is what I think Councillor Calvert was saying before he was cut off, that when we're paying money into organisations, we need to be able to see where that money is being spent. I think that's been a long time coming.

I think it's longer than two years, and I'm not sure if the representatives on that River County Council had identified it before, but at least it's come up now. So that's good. This looks like a motion and amendment that includes everything that we need to be considering, and thank you to Councillor Wheeler for including the point about us meeting to discuss the reviews, and I hope this gets supported. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor. Well, sorry, I've had two people speak in favour of the amendment. Was anyone speaking against the amendment?

Could I ask a question, Mr— oh, sorry.

Councillor Zamprogno, who's late on first, so if no one— Yeah.

Look, you could take this as speaking against the amendment, but I'm trying to assist both you, Mr Mayor, and Councillor Wheeler, and propose an amalgamation of the proposals that may be acceptable to Councillor Wheeler. May I proceed? Yep. All right then. So I'm doing a side-by-side comparison of Councillor Wheeler's amendment and the motion that I originally put forward. And I would concede that Councillor Wheeler's point 2 is superior to my point 2. Now, so that we're all following along, Councillor Wheeler's point 2 and my point 2 relates to what we're asking HRCC to do. My point 2 is fairly brief in the sense that it simply asks HRCC to come back to us with a formal response. Councillor Wheeler's point 2 lists three sub-points which have specific action items associated with them.

I would be happy to incorporate Councillor Wheeler's point 2 for my point 2, but equally I would say that my point 3, which is the list of things that we want to see in a report back to us about the value for money proposition, is superior to Councillor Wheeler's point 5, which only states that value for money proposition in a single sentence. The other points are more or less analogous to one another, and the only other thing that I'd be prepared to incorporate into my original motion to round that out is

Her point 3, which is a specific request to HRCC to have HRCC provide their annual budget and quarterly reviews and minutes on a monthly basis. And if Councillor Wheeler was happy with that, that to me I think would encompass everything that Councillor Wheeler was trying to do, but keeps those aspects of my motion which I thought were superior. Councillor Wheeler, are you amenable to that?

Councillor Wheeler, did you follow all that, and did you want to go down that road?

I did, Mr Mayor. I think it may be easier on the staff, and I've just been sent a message from Mr McElroy asking me to review a minute, which I can't do whilst looking at this screen because I'm on an iPad. It means I substantially drop out of Zoom. I can still hear it, but can't participate. I'm happy to include, as I said at the time that I moved the amendment, I'm happy to include the detail of Councillor Zamprogno's, I think it's point 3, into my point 5, which I think is probably easier than lifting bits in and out. But I'll just, if you could just bear with me for a moment while I jump across to my email and see what the staff have sent through.

Sure. I would also, I might just take a second to suggest that they are actually different, and if it was your intention to incorporate, talking to Councillors, probably your intention to incorporate parts of your motion into this, it might be simpler to vote for the amendment and then amend it again than to try and merge the two. Just while we're waiting, I think Councillor Wheeler wanted to speak again. One point I note that is quite different between the two, the motion and the amendment, is point 2(c ), which is that HRCC considers asking the constituent councils for support. My view would be that I wouldn't be inclined for Hawkesbury City Council to provide any more support for governance issues that have never been addressed before, until such time as we are satisfied that we are getting value for money and this is the direction we should be going in.

So I wouldn't be inclined to support a motion that had that point 2(c) in it. The rest of it I have no issue with, and I think, as Councillor Zamprogno said, they're quite similar, and if we could include the points from the original motion into point 5, that probably is most of the same otherwise. Then,

Then permit me to foreshadow that if the amendment fails, I will undertake to incorporate selected elements of Councillor Wheeler's amendment into an amended motion.

Yep. I don't know if you can foreshadow an amendment if you're the mover of the motion, but we'll deal with it if it happens.

Councillor Reynolds, you wish to speak?

No. Councillors have probably, you'd already spoken. Can everyone just remove their hand if they don't, if they no longer wish to speak? Councillor Rasp must, and you've spoken on the motion, so you're speaking on the amendment.

I've actually got a question, Mr Mayor, if that's okay.

Yep. I recall that hand. Thank you, Mr— yeah,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, could I just have some clarification about the— sorry , let me preface that by saying I understand from what the manager of corporate— sorry , risk— what do you call the— anyway,

What are you, support services. Thank you. Sorry about that.

It's the wrong title underneath his name as well.

Oh, is it? Oh my God. Okay, anyway, yeah, manager of corporate governance. That's the one. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Now, so having heard that the legislation basically gives, I think this is correct, the same roles and responsibilities and accountabilities and obligation as a council,

Does that mean that board members have exactly the same roles, responsibilities and obligations? To ensure that proper governance procedures, policies and so on are in place, would that be part of the role? It certainly is for us. And I'm just wondering if I could just be informed as to whether or not that also flows through to board members of the HRCC.

Sorry, refer that to the general manager. I

Refer that through to the manager of corporate services and governance, Mr Mayor. There you go. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

As far as I'm aware, those are those provisions that do apply to councils generally in relation to governance and the role of council laws also apply in relation to representatives on the boards of county councils.

Okay, Mr Mayor. Thank you for that.

Mr Mayor, just one follow-up question, if I could.

Sure. Do

We know whether board members of HRCC are aware of those roles, duties, responsibilities and obligations?

I don't think that's a question, Councillor Rasmussen. I'll take that as rhetorical. Yep . Okay , thank you. Councillor Ross, you wish to speak on the amendment? A

Question, if I may, Mr Mayor, of the governance manager.

Yep.

It is this.

Am I correct to believe that Hawkesbury City Council, as one of the four councils, is statutorily involved in this matter and can't take its cricket bat and money home and say, ‘Foul’?

So your question is, can we leave the relationship… Yeah, I'll refer that to General Manager.

I'll refer that to the Manager of Corporate Services and Governance, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. It is something that's dealt with briefly in the consult review report, and the best way is just to refer to what is said on page six of the report, which is this. Council is obligated to participate as a member of HRCC under the Local Government Act 1993. Council could make a proposal to the Minister to dissolve HRCC or amend the constitution of the County Council under section 383 of the Act, in which case Council would become the local control authority. The effect of that is that then the Council would be required to perform the functions which are currently delegated to the County Council by the constituent councils. Yeah

Councillor Wheeler, did you wish to speak again on the amendment? Just

I just wanted to alert councillors to point five, which now has additional detail, which is effectively a précis of Councillors and prono's similar point. I would also be willing, if Councillor Rasmussen, as the seconder, is willing, to remove point 2C if that met with broad agreement.

Thank you. So, Councillor Rasmussen, sorry, first, was that— Yeah, happy to do that, Mr Mayor. Thank you. Just a question, Councillor Wheeler. Point five includes, I think, now only one of the additional points from Councillors and prono's motion. Is that intentional?

No, I'm happy to include them all. The issue that I had with Councillors and prono's point was the timeline, not the level of detail in the point. And I would like some feedback from the staff about the feasibility of that proposed timeline, which I think was November 2020. I think probably February would be more likely, but I would be interested to hear from the staff.

So, General Manager, the question is, is it possible for a report to come to the meeting the 24th of November?

Mr Mayor, I'll answer it in this way. It's certainly possible for a report to come on the 24th of November. Whether it's the complete report, I couldn't advise that. But I can certainly—we can certainly

Support that date in the recommendation, and by the end of the week we'll circulate a memo to councillors outlining how much of that information we think we can put in that report by the 24th of November.

Thank you. I can assist you there, Mr Mayor. With what? With your indulgence. So, in discussion with the General Manager of HRCC, from whom some of the crucial information would be sourced, he indicated to me this afternoon that they can come up with something quick and dirty by the deadline that I've proposed, but that a more thorough job would be February of next year. So that concurs with Councillor Wheeler's instinct.

Yeah, I think that the date was actually on point three, though, Councillor Rasmussen, not the information from HRCC, but the information from our staff. Can I ask—so, Councillor Wheeler, you've still got your hand up. Did you wish to continue? Oh

Well, I just want to get, if I can get the amendment

Altered

So that we're all looking, we're all talking about the same thing.

Yes. So, just for clarity, point five should be replaced by point three of the original motion, essentially.

Point five— The amendment? No, I'd like point five to read as it does, to council be provided with a report into the efficacy and value obtained from HRCC and alternative methods of weed management, including but not limited to, and then Councillor Zampron's points from whichever point it was—now I've lost track, I'm sorry, Mr Mayor.

The original motion, point three A to D, I believe. Thank you

Thank you. I can't see. And then perhaps a timeline of February 2021. I appreciate Councillor Zampron's comments about what HRCC is capable of providing for us, but I'm not sure that quick and dirty is what we're actually after if we're going to make a decision. So I think we're probably better to wait until we have a better guide to how we should proceed.

Okay.

This matter is— sorry, sorry, sorry, Councillor Zamprogno, you had to wait. This matter is now dragging on, and a lot of councillors have spoken more than once. So if everyone can just, just a reminder, please take your hand down if you're not waiting to speak anymore . And if you are waiting to speak and have already spoken, I'm probably not inclined to allow it. So, Councillor Garry.

Through you, Mr Mayor, possibly to the Manager of Corporate Governance. I just wanted some clarification. Earlier on, he mentioned the remuneration amounts for the members of this board as being $6,060 per board member, and then an additional $11,000 annually for the chair. Can I get some clarification? Does that mean the chair gets paid $11,000 plus the $6,060, so $17,000 approximately in something or other?

Fast maths, Councillor Garry. I'll refer that to

The

Manager of

Corporate Governance. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yes, that is an additional fee for the chair. Thank you. Okay , so

The chair is being paid over $17,000 approximately for this position.

Correct.

Thank you.

Councillor Kotlash, speaking on the amendment.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm not happy with point two because I think we had this discussion before, and I'm sorry to labour this. It just seems like a very long-winded item to be discussing. I'm not sure why we picked out these particular items, these particular recommendations in point two. And I think that Councillor Zamprogno's amendment was better because I think the point too was, if I recall, that we give the HRCC the opportunity to respond to all of the recommendations. I find it a bit problematic that we've picked out two .

And, you know, I think that that's—I don't particularly have enough information, even in my position, to be able to say that they're the two most important things. So I think that's a risk doing it that way. So I don't support point two in its form at the moment. I think it definitely needs to not have the point 2C. I think that, again , I think, as you said, Mayor, that I don't think

Just to clarify, that's been removed already.

Oh, not on my screen it hadn't.

I know, we're catching up. Yeah.

Okay. Keep up.

Yeah, no, it still is. It's

Still there, but

Shouldn't be. Okay. Yeah

So would Councillor Wheeler be prepared to just have the same point two as before, which is we consider all of the recommendations? I don't want to single them out. I think that's dangerous.

Yeah, look, I'll ask Councillor Wheeler. We probably can't go back and forth forever. We might have to move an amendment and move another one if we're not happy. Councillor Wheeler?

No, these are clearly outlined in the report on HRCC as being of medium to high importance, and I think that's why they're singled out. They're not picked at a whim. They're there because they're considered to provide a risk to council that needs to be addressed.

Thank you. Okay. On that basis, there's no further speakers for the amendment, so we'll put the amendment, which is, I think, correct as it just was on the screen. Is anyone not sure what the amendment was, just for clarity? We're all good? I

Am not clear on that at all.

Okay, it was correct just on the screen, so if we can have it just put back on the screen just for a moment, just so we can all know what we're voting on without any suggestion it's not correct.

Catch that? No

So we might just give 30 seconds for that to be read, and then we'll take it off so we can vote.

Okay, we'll take that as read and have it pulled down if that's okay. All right. So we'll put the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment, please raise your hand. In favour of the amendment are Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno, which is one , two, three, four, five, six. Against the amendment, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Ross, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Richards , Councillor Tree. Is Councillor Cabot in the meeting?

No. Okay, then the amendment becomes the— Councillor Cabot is absent for the vote, and the amendment becomes the motion. Do we need to discuss the motion, or can we move to a vote? Yep. Okay, no one's hands up, so we'll move to a vote. All those in favour of the motion. Right of reply,

Mr.

Oh, sure, sorry. Yeah, right of reply, Councillor—

That was just to say, just to explain that my change in view is that the tortured process of incorporating those elements of the original motion have won me over, so I'm now happy to support that. Thank you.

Thank you. So put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Garry, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zepprogno, Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree. Councillor Cabot was absent for the vote. Declare it carried. And we move on to item 200.

Excuse me, you didn't ask who voted against the motion.

Oh, sorry. It's a good point. Against? Councillor Ross.

Item 200, which is the Environmental Sustainability Advisory Committee meeting minutes. Anyone like to move that, move the recommendation? Councillor Wheeler seconded, Councillor Rasmussen. Councillor Kotlash, got your hand up. Oh, sorry.

Councillor Wheeler, do you want to speak?

Oh, just briefly , sorry, I'm getting a whole lot of feedback. Is someone not on mute?

I'm not getting any feedback. Okay, good. It just seems to be.

I'm getting the same feedback here as well.

I'm getting it too. It seems to have stopped at my end.

Should I continue? Okay, I just want to go through a few of the things that came out of that committee meeting. One of the major discussions was the draft Cumberland Plain Conservation Plan, which we've dealt with in the previous council meeting. The other item of interest was around electric vehicle charging and a bit of a discussion about electric vehicles altogether. So there's a clear indication from the committee that council should be looking at transitioning to zero emissions faster. And given that transport makes up such a large part of emissions in the Hawkesbury, that is considered to be an area of low-hanging fruit that we should be tackling. So there was a push for council to consider an electric vehicle charger, and you can see here to be considered as part of the town centre's revitalisation or the liveability project, so that we consider putting a car charger as a bit of a drawcard into the town centre as part of our plans for revitalisation or the master planning process.

There was quite a lot of support for fleet transition as well, Council performing a role as a community leader and advocate by showing the example on shifting to electric vehicles. There was also a lot of support for the Council staff and their negotiations for the power purchase agreement, which have significantly cut Council's electricity emissions because we're now running almost on, I think we're up to 90% renewable power. And committee members were really pleased to see that. They urged Council to advertise that more widely as a real win because it's been a real win for Council. We've drastically cut our electricity emissions, but we've also saved ratepayers a significant amount of money and will continue to do so over the longer term.

And there was feeling that we aren't selling this success as well as we possibly should be. There was, though, general thoughts that it's time for us to move to the next phase, that transport is the next place for us to move to. There are continuing concerns on the committee about worsening urban heat due to development and climate change, two issues that clearly affect Councils and our ratepayers. And so people are very keen for us to continue to act to deal with worsening urban heat, which I think the items that we've taken on in the livability project will address to some degree in our town centres, but that's something that we need to consider more broadly as a Council. It continues to be an interesting committee with a great range of knowledge, and it's very keen to share that with Council.

So I'm pleased to see that we've got another 12 months with those people involved. Thanks.

Deputy Mayor, also speaking in favour?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Definitely speaking in favour, and very, very happily speaking in favour, I have to say, because as you would all know, I am a very strong advocate of the electric vehicle sector and of having electric vehicle chargers in this area. We really are at a deficit to not have any public electric vehicle charging stations in this area. It's a deterrent for people who drive electric vehicles to come and visit an area. I know that whenever I go anywhere, I check what's available, and there really, I would say, not any other local government areas without any electric vehicle infrastructure in a public sense. Sometimes it's within a town centre, but I'm very pleased to see that and to hear what Councillor Wheeler has just said about the importance of transitioning to looking at reduction of emissions in the transport sector, which is, of course, one of our biggest areas of emissions.

It is also an area that requires people to take some more responsibility themselves than perhaps solar and renewables take. And on that note, it was wonderful news to see today that South Australia was being powered by 100% renewables. So that was an amazing thing to see a whole state powered in that way. There was just one other thing I wanted to raise, either refer it to the Sustainability Committee or ask of staff if it's likely to be included in the zero emission strategy. And that was about the transition to electric vehicle equipment in our outdoor staff using electric blowers and mowers and trimmers and things that they use. All of those are available in electric versions, which are, of course, lower emissions but also generally lighter and more cost effective.

So if I could just have an opinion on whether that is included in the strategy, if any— Anyone could recall that. I don't recall seeing it. Otherwise, I'll ask how best I can have that included.

Is that, just to clarify, Councillor Lyons, Deputy Mayor, is that something that the committee has discussed?

No, but I was going to refer it back to the committee if it's not in the strategy, that's all

Yep, okay. I refer that to the General Manager. Mr Mayor, I refer that to the Manager, Strategic Planning. So

In terms of our net zero emissions strategy, so that's still in draft form, and that's a matter that we'll be looking to brief councillors on fairly shortly as we're close to the finalisation of that draft, and it's certainly something that can be considered as part of that. So

Just a follow-up question to that would be— sorry, that's right, Deputy Mayor. Just a follow-up question I had on that would be, will that draft strategy be referred to the committee before its board briefing session?

So, we have to look at, in terms of timing of the next Environment Committee, and this is, I guess, a matter that we have talked about in terms of our review of committees, and there's the potential for combined meetings of both the Environment Committee and the Waste Committee to discuss a number of matters, and the net zero strategy is one of those matters that would have benefit from input from both committees. So, look at having a combined meeting of that in close parallel with the briefing of councillors. Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you, Mr Kearns. I think in that case, if that's coming up shortly, I'll just refer it into that and not through the Sustainability Committee. Thank you.

Okay, no further speakers. Right of reply, Councillor Wheeler, not necessary. We'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour is Councillor Conolly, Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Garry, Councillor Richards, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Tree. Against ? I didn't think so. Councillor Calvert is absent for the vote. Declare carried, and move.

And move on to item 201.

Moved, Councillor Lyons-Buckett moving the recommendation. Happy to

Second.

Seconded, Councillor Zamprogno. Councillor Wheeler, you've got your hand up first. I'm not sure if that's because you didn't take it down.

Sorry, Mr Mayor, that's a legacy, but I will speak. Might as well take it. No, you're up first. Okay. Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Mr Mayor. And I'd just like to draw a couple of things to councillors' attention from the recent Flood Advisory Committee meeting, particularly drawing attention to parts of the recommendation 95, in particular point 4, which relates to an issue considered extremely important by the committee and one that has been asked over and over within the committee, and we've sent letters, etc. And that is the need to address the deficiency in the utility network, which increases our flood vulnerability, namely power. And the recommendation, the committee moved that we ask that the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor, to go to the next meeting with the local member to discuss this.

I did raise this with Ms Preston when she was at our briefing session, but it's something that we would actually like to take further. And I would ask that, even though we've had a change of Mayor, that you would be open to having that. I wouldn't crash your whole meeting, I just want to discuss that thing, but if that could possibly be arranged. With regard, there's another couple of things on there. Of course, we've seen the forecast coming for the summer is for very intense and heavy rainfall, and I think that that draws us to thinking perhaps we're more vulnerable to flood than fire this coming summer. We never know though, I suppose. But the consequences of power outages, and this is with regard to the power crossing the river at North Richmond to the other side of the river, we know what detrimental consequences we could have if that power is cut.

So the meeting with the local member is to request her to advocate on our behalf to have that brought to the attention of the people, the powers that be, really. There's also issues with water, sewerage and and communications, which aren't all our concern, but which are things that the committee seeks to have some surety about, that we can, you know, take this further so we know what's going on. Inevitably, I think we're going to have to move towards having some sort of battery storage on that side of the river to ensure our power supply during times of natural disaster. There's other recommendations from the committee that the draft flood policy will be considered as part of the post-exhibition consideration.

So what the committee brought up, we'll bring that in when the draft flood policy comes back to Council. We'll include what the committee raised then. We spoke about the Hawkesbury Nepean Emergency Sub Plan, which is an SES sub plan. It's a plan that sits under the State Emergency Plan, and they have committed to update that plan now whenever there's something new that happens, rather than just waiting for a five-year review, which is really, really important because there's so much happening in the space of flooding and flood planning that it's really important that they bring that up. The committee members raised a couple of points regarding the river height gauge in South Creek because we believe that's a really important place now to have a river height gauge, and the need for the access to the river height information from Yarramundi, which is either not being fed into the system or is broken somehow.

But people become to rely on that sort of information, and we need to have access to it. So I think that's really about it. Just bearing in mind that today is International Day of Risk Awareness and Disaster Reduction, and the theme for this year is to reduce damage to critical infrastructure and disruption of basic services. So I think it's very timely that we've brought this to the table, that we get a motion to engage with the State Government to secure our critical infrastructure and to lower our vulnerability as much as possible in terms of flooding. So I just wanted people to know that their decisions that have come forward from this committee that Council would be endorsing. Thank you.

Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Generally in favour of this. In relation to point four that Councillor Lyons-Buckett was just referring to, I recall that the Infrastructure Committee had a go at this, and we received a very informative report from a knowledgeable person who articulated exactly what river heights for flooding various services were decommissioned, and I found it very enlightening. Now, I've gone on to our Councillor hub to look for that presentation, or at least the business paper for that meeting of the Infrastructure Committee, and cannot find it. And I'd like to pass some feedback back to Council staff that there's a section on the hub for committees that has nothing in it in relation to the Infrastructure Committee, and that's a shame because this is precisely the information that we're seeking to advance to the state member.

Although I appreciate the Deputy Mayor's willingness to go and apprise the state member of the importance of these issues, I think what really is needed is somebody with subject expertise, such as the person that was invited to address the Infrastructure Committee. And if yourself, Mr Mayor, or the Deputy Mayor go, all you can do is describe in generalities what the problems are, whereas the state member, I think, would appreciate more detailed information about the specific action items and infrastructure upgrades that would be needed to further flood-proof the west of the river in a time of flood. So I suppose my encouragement is that instead of simply dispatching yourself or the Deputy Mayor to this meeting, is that we get somebody who knows what they're talking about, and much more will be gained from that.

Thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. The Deputy Mayor is correct. This has been an ongoing concern raised by the Floodplain Committee, and what we've seen, I think, with the summer that we've just had is that this isn't just an issue around flooding; it's an issue around fire as well. We did raise it as a council with the resilience commissioner, Shane Fitzsimmons, when he came out to meet with us over earlier this year as well. The fact that we can't guarantee NBN, so consequently phone, power, water and sewer to residents living west of the river really needs to be a matter of the very highest priority for all three levels of government. And so I don't think that a lack of subject expertise is necessarily a problem when the Mayor and Deputy Mayor go to speak with the local member.

The problem is action. Council shouldn't be the people who determine exactly how this should be fixed. What we need from the local member is to go into bat for us getting these matters fixed. And similarly, we have to have the same conversation with the federal member who deals with issues around NBN. And I know that she has been out and about trying to fix some of the NBN issues in various areas. But what we see is a community on the edges of the largest town in the country, in a particularly wealthy country, that seems to be able to find money for lots of things, that can't guarantee the most basic of services when a crisis hits. That's no longer good enough when we know that those crises are coming thick and fast now.

The Deputy Mayor and I went up to Bilpin on the weekend and spoke with BRAG, the Bills Line of Road Action Group, and one of their chief concerns is is paraphone and the loss up at Bilpin at the hall and the fire shed, where people go to access a safe place or to receive communication during times of a fire emergency. We know that this is a problem. We have known this is a problem for our whole term of council, and we finally got an admission, I think, very early in the life of the Floodplain Management Committee that we would not have electricity west of the river when the river hits a certain height. It's great to acknowledge that so that people can start preparing, and I would contend that not enough people know that, nor are they well enough prepared.

And we saw that in the fresh that we got early this year that people were simply not prepared to shelter in place. It's not enough to know and not act, and it really does behove all three levels of government to make this a matter of urgent priority. We can't continue to talk about this.

Thank you. So we've had three speakers in favour of the motion. Is anyone speaking against the motion? A few hands up. Are we all speaking in favour? Do we still want to speak in favour if we're all speaking in favour? I'm not going to deny anyone, but just wanted the point. Okay, Councillor Reynolds?

Yeah, thanks, Mr. Mayor. I'd just like to add to the words from the Deputy Mayor, the Chair of the Floodplain Committee, in that the overland flow, a lot of people are concerned about the overland flow from the development around South Creek. You know, we've had massive development at Marsden Park. Further upstream at St Mary's and, of course, developments such as Allara and, you know, there's going to be development over on the Angus land, along to Richmond Meatworks. The nearest gauge we have, and the residents have, to the height of South Creek is located at the Great Western Highway. All this development is downstream, and we have a lot of people that will be impacted from, you know, the increased flow into South Creek.

And so we've asked for a gauge to be placed on Richmond Road, Blacktown Road. Staff have been in contact with Blacktown Council and, I believe, the Bureau of Meteorology to get a gauge installed, and I think that's critical that that is carried out. And just to

Clarify Councillor Zamprogno's words about the Infrastructure Committee and Services West of the River, the person who addressed the Infrastructure Committee was from, I think, Endeavour Energy. She was an engineer, and she knew at what height we would lose electricity. So I'm sure that the Director of Infrastructure would have that information, and I agree with Councillor Zamprogno, that information should be on the hub so that we all have ready access to it. Thank you.

Councillor Rasmussen, you also want to speak in favour?

Yes, I do. Just to add a comment, Mr Mayor, and it relates to something that Councillor Zamprogno said. I think he understates... The skill and the knowledge that Deputy Mayor has in this field, she goes to many, many of the floodplain risk management conferences. She keeps herself informed. She runs that committee like clockwork. And also the presentation that the Endeavour Electrical Engineer gave the Infrastructure Committee could easily be made available, easily readable, reasonably understandable, and certainly understood by someone like the Deputy Mayor and yourself. So I think we should just, yeah

The skill and the knowledge, but they could also give a broader perspective on all that technical detail as well for the Hawkesbury LGA. Thanks, Mr Mayor. Thanks, Councillor

Rasmussen. Someone like me could understand it, the Deputy Mayor should have no problem. Exactly. Yeah. The only comment I wanted to make was on this was that I have no problem with the recommendation, and I don't want this to be a criticism of a committee that is largely volunteers, but, you know, it does make me question when reading the minutes, when the issue comes up of utilities across the river and that being an issue, that there's not actually any advice provided to Council, which is obviously the key role of an advisory committee. We suggest that we should have a meeting with the state member. It would be good if the committee actually provided Council with some advice and guidance on what potential solutions might be, and so on.

It might be more useful, given that it's an advisory committee. Potentially that's not the problem of the committee, but it's a problem of Council not having communicated its expectations of these advisory committees. But, yeah, no, happy to support the recommendation. Did you want right of reply, Deputy Mayor

Yes . Oh, that's a bit of something funny going on. There is, I would just like to address what you just said. Of course, that's quite a reasonable request to ask that. The main thing was really to draw Ms Preston's attention to the fact that we have not been getting responses when we've been asking about it. First of all, I'd be happy to take any experts or any expert reports, but I don't necessarily think that, I don't necessarily think that we do have the solution because we don't have the funds to implement a solution. So what it really is, is about getting a dialogue. That's a meaningful dialogue about what we're actually going to do. And even though this is, there are community people on this, there are people like Peter Chinquay, who's in charge of the SES and the Office of Environment and Heritage and people like that, and they all agree, we all agree this is a problem.

And we've been asking about it for a long time. And I've also heard Endeavour Energy speak about it when I was on the Infrastructure Committee, and that's great to have that information. But we need to engage more at a state level to see what the plans, I guess, are overall for any filling of the gaps in our infrastructure network. And a representative from Robyn Preston's office does come to our council committee, so he or sometimes it's Virginia, whoever comes, is aware that it's an issue that we discuss. And I think we could accumulate the information required. I think the main thing is that we could provide Robyn with the various forms of correspondence that have been given before, when we've sent letters and so on, and the minutes from the meetings to show what the issues that have been raised.

And they haven't only been raised by community members, they've been raised by agencies as well. So I think, and I've also raised it in other capacities in other areas. So I think the ultimate thing is that this is all about Securing the safety of our people in the event of a disaster. So hopefully we can progress it forward either way. And I'm happy to find some other information to follow that up if that satisfies you more, Mr Mayor, to take with us if that's problematic for you. But I can find more information and whatever.

That's right of reply, so I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. The motion is Councillor Conolly, Councillor Ross, Councillor Asmus, and Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Gary, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Richards, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Tree , and Councillor Calvert was absent for the vote. Declare it carried.

202. Notice of Motion 1, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Do we have a seconder?

Move

That, Mr Mayor.

Second that, Mr Mayor

Seconded, Councillor Rasmussen. You wanted to speak, Deputy Mayor? Yes,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yes, I've brought this calling on a report. It's to do with the increased numbers of people visiting, as well as local residents, using our reserves, open spaces and swimming holes, probably more due to COVID than previously. And the impacts of having these larger crowds here are becoming quite evident. So I've had representations from people about overflowing bins, blocked toilets. These are in public spaces, not just individuals. Dangerous parking, traffic congestion, particularly around Yarramundi Reserve, unsafe conditions for people. So this motion is seeking to be provided with the information from the staff of the costs connected with allocating some more resources, particularly on weekends and public holidays, to alleviate the detrimental impacts on safety and our environment.

Now, obviously the staff have the capacity to investigate whether there's a real need for this, which is why it calls for a report. So they can look at the numbers and the locations. They'll be able to assess if it's an ongoing issue or if it's an intermittent issue. Without doubt, COVID's contributed to more visitation, so we have to adjust to that in the way to keep these people safe. We don't know if the levels of visitation will remain once the borders are opened again, people might go elsewhere. But at the moment, we do have some real issues, particularly in Colo Reserve, Bilpin Park, Governor Phillip with overflowing bins, just many places around. So some of the deficits need to be addressed for a more ongoing basis.

So separately, really, we need to look at some long-term fixes for some of these various reserves and public places for the long term. So as Councillor Wheeler said in the last… Last item, she and I went up and had discussions with the Bilpin Residents Action Group last Saturday, and we spoke to them about their needs in the area up there. And one of their major needs is public toilets. The situation has become very dire and could be a public health hazard because they are finding people using their yards and finding toilet paper and wet wipes from nappies and things in their actual yards and in the schoolyard last week because of that. Now they've got money allocated to build a toilet block, I think it was allocated four years ago, and I'm wondering if it could be included in this report that they investigate perhaps the provision of some porta-loos in the park to stop, you know, people using people's yard for that purpose.

They have also suggested that they might want composting toilets up there, which would alleviate the need to have additional water tanks and so on in their park, which would be needed for a flushing toilet. And they've got some issues around asbestos dumped in the area of Bilpin Hall and rubbish that was exposed when the— When the fires burnt through and that uncovered quite a bit of rubbish. But as a community group, they're working with Council to have these things addressed. So I was just raising those while I was speaking about it. The overflowing bins can become a real health hazard, and also they generate a problem, whereas when people see overflowing bins, they literally just throw things.

So we end up with these very untidy areas, and we need to ensure that we have rubbish under control so that we don't get a health hazard. The Yarramundi Reserve, I don't know what to do about that. It's incredibly popular. People take horses there to ride on their horses through the water. They park all along Springwood Road, and then I've been told by a local there, and Councillor Rasmussen can probably confirm more of what goes on there, but I've been told that people wander around not really realising that Springwood Road is a major road going through there. So they wander from one side over near the river over to the reserve with their paddle boards or their whatever. And Springwood Road is actually quite a dangerous and busy road.

So if we could look at maybe some management around that, it might need more signage or whatever. Popular swimming holes such as Macquarie Beach, definitely down where there's a rope swinging over the Colo River, we have issues around people parking all along the road down there and creating a dangerous situation. So fortunately for us, the police have been running a water safety campaign, which is really good, and hopefully that's being effective in some river safety around that area. But I just brought this forward because of the number of people who've raised issues and also things I've seen myself, and we can't solve all those problems. But the point is, we know we've got more people. We want people to be safe.

We want people to come and visit, and we want to keep our— Our environment clean and clear, and to manage the best we can. So this motion is calling for a report to say how much it would cost to divert some more resources on weekends to assist with more frequent rubbish collection or with a little bit extra parking control, not to go around booking people, but to, well, I don't know how you do it. But I think that we have to be able to do better because we want people to return here too. We don't want people to have a bad experience and think the place is dirty and uncared for. And so putting some resources into controls like this, I think would be very advantageous. Thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'm speaking in support of the motion. What I think the Deputy Mayor is outlining here is that the game for us has changed. We're no longer a place that no one has discovered. We've had a couple of tourism programs, but we've also had COVID and a real push for people in Sydney to get out, to get out wherever they can, really, because they've been cooped up, but to get out somewhere that's really close. And that's us. We have the great advantage of being right on the edge of Sydney, of having some really picturesque spaces that people love to come to, and we now risk being a bit of a victim of our success. Speaking to residents up at Wilpin on Saturday was actually sickening.

To find that people have people defecating in their front yards or in the schoolyard is, it's gobsmacking, frankly. I'm not quite sure how you justify that behaviour to yourself when you've gone for a nice weekend, but it was reported to us by more than one person. This is not an isolated incident. So we clearly have a problem with toilets, but I think we also have a problem with signage, and that's something that we urgently need to rectify, and something that I think is within Council's capacity to rectify, given the capacity of our print shop. So it doesn't have to be bigger than Ben-Hur, but it does need to be some standard signs that direct people to where facilities are, and perhaps some distances where people know that if they hang on for another 10 minutes, they can use a facility wherever it is, rather than descending into some fairly feral behaviour.

I think we're going to have to consider some additional funding for this. I think—I don't know that we can meet all of it out of the operational plan, but I think if we've got some clear guidelines for what we want to achieve, we can look at using some grant funding, or at least applying for some grant funding to start providing this, because I don't think with COVID restrictions this is going to change. The secret is out. People are coming here. They like coming here. Many of our businesses enjoy the increased tourism that they're getting. I think we've got lots of local people rediscovering the place where they live as well, where they might normally have gone somewhere else, and we need to get on the front foot with that.

And that's something that this notice of motion, I think, seeks to do. It's also not our big parks. It's our smaller parks like Wilberforce Park, which has now become a really popular venue for birthday parties and things because it's outside, and so more people can gather in that space. And so I've already had to ask our staff to do more regular rubbish pickups there and to come through and clean up because people don't clean up after themselves, and that's another signage issue, I think, is that we need to have some signs up telling people that they need to either take their rubbish with them or, at the very least, put their stuff in the bin. It's not enough to leave all your balloons and party poppers and soft drink cans and stuff all over the barbecue area that you've just enjoyed.

And it shouldn't be for Council to have to clean up after people, but we definitely need to allocate more resources to bin emptying and cleaning those facilities because they're not up to speed at the moment.

Thank you. So I've had two speakers for the motion. Was there anyone against the motion?

If there's no one against the motion, do we want to continue debating? If we all agree, Councillor Garrow, you're next.

I just wanted to quickly add, and just supporting what the Deputy Mayor and Councillor Wheeler have said, and just add on to that the cleaning of the barbecues and the cleaning of the beach at Windsor Beach. After the long weekend, there was a push bike stuck on the beach for three days after the long weekend before somebody cleaned it up, after multiple phone calls. We need some basic things on the ground. We had some marketing campaigns run, but there was nothing on the ground ready for all the tourists to arrive, and we want these tourists to keep coming back, and they're not going to come back if what they're coming to is filthy, dirty. And from what I have seen over the last long weekend, it hasn't been a pleasant experience for those coming on the Sunday and the Monday with the rubbish that was left behind by the visitors on the Saturday.

So I think this is a really important notice of motion, and I will be supporting it.

Yeah, just to clarify, I think we need to be clear. It definitely would have been a pleasant experience, but there were some rubbish issues as well. But for our tourists, we wouldn't want to say that this council, that we don't think they're going to have a pleasant experience when they come back. So I think we all agree. Councillor Rasmussen, did you want to keep debating as well?

I don't want to debate. I just want to make a comment and support what Councillor, the Deputy Mayor has just highlighted, and I'm particularly talking about Yarramundi Reserves, both the north part of the reserve, which accesses the beautiful Grose River, but also the southern part of the reserve, which accesses the Nepean River, which is now down to a trickle. But the point I wish to make is that on the weekend, this particular weekend just passed, there were cars overflowing out of the two car parks. They were up to my gate. On both sides. In fact, they're up to the Trees Adventure gate on the western side of the road, of Springwood Road. And people were crossing, like Councillor Wheeler said, people were crossing from the south part of the reserve to the north part of the reserve across Springwood Road.

So I think it's getting almost to the point where we need some sort of pedestrian crossing or sign saying Beware of pedestrians there, otherwise we will see some problems. And it's good to see that Hawkesbury is an attractive place for visitors, whether it's local or wherever they come from, and people obviously try to get out and about and do stuff. And it's good that they're coming to the Hawkesbury. But I think we need to be aware of what's going on there. The bins are an issue, a bit of an issue there when you get such large numbers of people. But I'm sure we can cope with that as long as we respond to it in a proper way. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, so everybody agree? But do you want right of reply, Deputy Mayor?

No, just to say thank you for those contributions from the other councillors. Thank you

Thank you. Okay, we'll put the motion then. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour of the motion are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Richards, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Tree. Councillor Calvert was absent for the vote. Declared carried.

Motion to go into confidential. Moved Deputy Mayor, seconded Councillor Zamprogno. Anyone wish to speak against? No. Put the motion. All those in favour, say aye. Aye. Carried. We'll move into confidential. We'll just wait until we're told we are in confidential.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. In regard to item 203, if I could just get Councillor Richards—Councillor Reynolds to outline his disclosure, please.

Yes, it was a pecuniary interest in that my wife works in the business.

Thanks . Whilst in closed session, the Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Wheeler, seconded by Councillor Lyons-Buckett, that Council adopt the motion as outlined in the confidential notice of motion report regarding the possible acquisition of property.

Sorry , Director of Support Services, I don't believe that's what Council resolved.

That was the motion that went to Council, and I'm about to indicate who voted that way. It was lost. Is that— Yes

And I was going to outline that. Oh, sorry, I thought you just said on that the Council resolved and then you read it out. Sorry. Council didn't resolve anything. Yep. Just be patient, Mr Mayor. Sorry,

I was just concerned

That

Was— Voting in favour of the motion were Councillors Ross, Rasmussen, Garrow, Wheeler and Lyons-Buckett. Voting against the motion were Councillors Kotlash, Zamprogno, Conolly, Tree, Richards. Absent were Councillors Reynolds and Calvert. The motion was lost on the casting vote of the Mayor.

In regard to item 204, whilst in closed session, the Council resolved— sorry, before I do that, there was two disclosures of interest, so if I could have Councillor Lyons-Buckett and Councillor Richards outline their disclosures, please.

Thank you, Mr Misso. I have a less than significant non-pecuniary interest by nature of a relative of my husband submitting an expression of interest for the reference group. The reason for no further action is that it is a reference group not making any decisions, and therefore the interest is considered less than significant. Thank you.

Thank you. I declare a significant non-pecuniary interest, and I have a family member and friends who are applicants and believe that it is a significant non-pecuniary interest, and in that case, left the room, or the meeting, the virtual room.

Lost in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Wheeler , seconded by Councillor Lyons-Buckett, that one, Council appoint the following to the Hawkesbury Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan Review Reference Group: Nathan Croft, Orion Consulting; Andrew Edwards, McKinlay Morgan and Associates; Barbara Tarnawski, BT Architects; Malcolm Grech, Trevett Property ; Greg Hall, Urban City Consulting; Michael Edwards, Edwards Heritage Consultants; Carmen Osborne, Allam Homes; Graham Edds, Graham Edds and Associates; Trent McCullough, Urban Greenfield Consultants; Aaron Lloyd, McDonald Jones Homes; Matthew Bennett, BCM Property Group; Patrick Hurley, PGH Environmental Planning.

Two, Hawkesbury Local Environmental Plan Development Control Plan Review Reference Group begin work immediately and Council engage in a targeted approach to fill positions in the following areas: A , design; B, landscape architecture; C, environmental planning; D, architecture. Voting in favour of the resolution were Councillors Ross, Rasmussen, Garrow, Reynolds, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Kotlash, Zamprogno, Conolly and Tree. Not present were Councillors Richards and Calvert. Yes, Mr Mayor

I believe that concludes our meeting at 11:08 p.m. Thank you everyone for coming.