24 November 2020 - Ordinary

Welcome everybody to tonight's ordinary meeting. I'd like to start by acknowledging the Dharug and Darkinjung people as the traditional custodians of the land of Hawkesbury, and pay respect to all Elders past, present and emerging, and I acknowledge all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of the country.

Members attending the meeting are advised that in the event of an emergency, you will be asked to proceed to the ordinary minutes of the nearest exit following the guidance of our warden. We'd also like to advise that in accordance with clause 5.1.8 of the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings will be council audio 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. The recordings are stored in council's records management system. For the benefit of those persons who will be addressing the council tonight, it is expected you will refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person, present or not at this meeting. This request relates to both your address to council and any answers given in response to questions from councillors. Finally, it is also requested that any person participating in the meeting as a mobile phone, that they either turn it off or turn it to silent.

Thank you. First, do we have any apologies?

I just might run through, because it's a bit hard to see here. So in the chamber we have Councillor Zane Prodnor, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards and myself. On Zoom I can see Councillor Gary, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Kottlash, Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Tree and the Deputy Mayor, so that's everyone. Any declarations of interest?

No. So, councillors, the first item of business tonight is an address from our auditor in relation to item...

No. So, Councillors, the first item of business tonight is an address from our auditor in relation to item 234.

Is that by Zoom? Yep. Okay.

So, do we need to let him in, or? Yep.

Oh, and Ms. [unclear] wanted to say something to start

The item. Remember having a presentation from [unclear] from the Office, and the auditors that [unclear]

Thank you. Thanks for joining us, Mr. Long and Mr. Winter.

Over to you. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you for the opportunity to present to Council on our 2020 audit of the financial statements. I might just share my screen because we've put together a bit of a presentation for tonight, so just bear with me. Can we all see the presentation?

Yep. Okay. Thank you. Excellent.

Thank you. Thank you very much. So through you, Chair, we'd like to start off by thanking Council management for their professionalism and cooperation in achieving a clean audit opinion, as well as a timely audit result for 2020. I'd like to start off by capping 2020 as a very, very big and challenging year for the state of New South Wales, and one which allowed us an opportunity to introspect and innovate. And also to reflect, as traditional working practices and traditions were uprooted and changes were forced upon us by the COVID-19 pandemic, our office has continued to push through on its local government mandate and to provide sector-wide insights not previously provided. So in March 2020, we tabled the Financial Local Government Report to Parliament, which is our third report to Parliament, and these generated a sector-wide insight around financial reporting, financial performance and sustainability, governance and internal controls, information technology, and asset management.

And it is a very, very useful report for councils to sort of self-reflect and benchmark itself on, and it is definitely a good read. And we expect to table the volume to summarise the 2020 audits to Parliament in March 2021 next year.

We

Also released three performance audits focusing on efficiency, effectiveness and economy. And in these performance audits, essentially a sample of councils are assessed, and sector-wide themes and opportunities for improvements are generated. And these are sort of a very good set of reports for council to self-assess themselves on. I can say Hawkesbury City Council was not one of the councils that were sampled, but it is definitely a good read for all councils. And the ones in 2020 focused on governance and internal controls over local infrastructure contributions, credit card management, as well as regional... Town water infrastructure.

Going forward, we've released an annual work program, which is also available on our website. This annual program will focus on key and topical themes, including business continuity and disaster recovery planning, council annual charges, as well as the coordination of agencies in precinct planning, and these are looking to be tabled in 2021. We've also planned some post-2021 audits around cyber security, as IT and data security becomes increasingly important in the current environment, city deals, road asset management, as well as development assessment processes in local councils. And that's just a taste of some of the key themes coming forward. I'll pass on to James Winter just to talk on the actual report on the conduct of the audit. So over to you, James.

Thank you, Kenneth, and thank you. Mayor and Council, I think it's the opportunity to present tonight. As Kenneth said, again, we acknowledge the support and assistance provided by Council in this year's audit process. As Kenneth has provided in his report on the conduct of the audit, we're pleased to say that we're issuing a clean audit opinion in the current year, that the audit office have done that. And that's a result of the audit process we've been through in the current year. As Kenneth described, it was a pretty demanding year from an accountant's perspective, dealing with new accounting standards, always have to do with valuation changes and issues , and obviously the impact of COVID and natural disasters at the commencement of the year.

And so these were the focus areas in the current year. And having worked through those with management and with Council, Council completed their financial statements that we could complete our audit upon. As again, as Kenneth has referred to in terms of the report on the conduct of the audit, and has also been presented in the financial statements of Council, what is a good, I guess, understanding of the financial statements and the financial position of Council is the key ratios. And overall, whilst there has been some changes in the financial performance and the position of Council, as there will be on a year-to-year basis due to things like fluctuations in grants, overall Council has continued to meet its ratios regarding cash flows, regarding performance.

It's

Unrestricted cash ratios, its own source revenue ratios, again operating performance, as I mentioned, debt servicing cover ratios. And the only benchmark that I guess it didn't achieve in the current year, consistent with the last year, is just the rates and annual charges outstanding. And as reported in Council's accounts, there is some reference to that percentage of outstanding rates. So it's not significantly different from the prior year. It's up at about 10% on the prior year. Council's referred to obviously the impact of COVID and on the collection of rates in that current year. I guess that's a matter that Council will continue to monitor in terms of receivables as a percentage of outstanding charges.

And so again, that hadn't changed. So that benchmark wasn't met, but in all other benchmarks, Council met those benchmarks. So from our perspective, again, that's a reflection on the performance of Council. And as I said, that benchmark was the only one that didn't achieve, and a quite consistent percentage on Council. So overall, the financial performance and position of Council was not significantly different. It was obviously this year, as I said, some changes around the financial performance due to the changes in grants and some expenditure changes and rates. But overall, not significant. I think what is reflected in those accounts is the cash flow, the positive cash flow, and then essentially the investment of cash flow into infrastructure assets of Council, which is reflected in the accounts.

The only other major change in this year was, of course, revaluations. And Council does revalue on a regular basis. It does each year in terms of its own internal assessments and gets external assessments done on a periodic basis. So that was undertaken in the current year, and Council went through that process and had revaluations applied, which have been reflected in the accounts. So overall, again, as I've described the position there, and as Ken has reported, but also in the accounts of Council, there are not significant changes in those ratios, and they've met all the ratios except for the, as I said, the ratio around the collection of outstanding charges. So again, thank you for Management for the support provided through the audit process, and I'm happy to hand back to you, Ken.

Through you, Mayor, just wanted to add that in terms of the outstanding charges ratio, Council is not unique in this factor. A number of councils across the state have actually experienced an increase in outstanding rates and charges due to the COVID environment, and we see that consistently across our clients as well. But again, I guess that brings us to the end of our presentation and happy to take questions on the audit process and the financial audit for 2020.

Thank you. Thanks very much for that presentation. Councillors, are there any questions?

Councillor Rasmussen, you have a question? Yes,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you very much for that presentation. It's always enjoyable to hear that this council, year after year after year after year, comes up smelling roses and so on. So that's good. Thank you very much for doing that for us. But of course, it reflects the hard work of the people behind the scenes and the general manager, who's with his team put in a lot of hard work to get to where we are today. I just have one , actually two questions. The questions relate to your statement about a clean audit report. Now, that's probably a bit of audit speak. Can you define what clean means? Is that an unusual term to be applied to councils or us, or is that a very special category versus those who get an unclean report?

So through you, Mayor, I'll take that question. A clean audit report means an unmodified audit opinion. It means that the financial statements are presented on a true and fair basis and comply materially with the Australian accounting standards. And throughout audit process, we have not identified any material misstatements in those that may change, I guess, the decision makers who rely on these financial statements. And across the board, I guess, in terms of whether it's—I can say the majority of local councils do get a clean unmodified audit report. There are a few that haven't, and they are expressed, I guess, in the local government report to Parliament that was tabled in March 2020.

Okay, well that's great. Thank you for that. Do

You also have another question, Councillor?

I do. I wouldn't mind following up, Mr Mayor. I think I highlighted or foreshadowed a couple of questions, so if I could have that now, that would be good. So could I just ask you this: did you identify any financial mismanagement whilst you were going through our books with our staff? Because there's been some chatter about some financial mismanagement or not transparency in reporting. Could you talk to those points? Did you notice anything like that?

I'd probably defer to you, James, for the details.

Sure. As we report through to your committee, we will issue a final management letter to Council, but in terms of the matters which we raised carrying forward from last year and this year, there were no significant matters to raise. And in respect of those, I guess that direct question, there's no matters of which I'm aware which could be described as something of that nature.

Okay, that's great. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. Are there any further questions?

Doesn't appear to be, so thanks very much, Mr Long and Mr Winter. Appreciate your time. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. That concludes the presentation. There are no further public speakers on this item. Does anybody wish to move anything?

The recommendation is on page 58, that we note the completion of the report. Thank you, the audit office. Moved, Councillor Zamprogno, seconded, Councillor Calvert. Any further discussion?

Mr Mayor, could I just ask a question, please? Yes, Councillor. Thank you. Mr Mayor, do we know the total cost of the auditing process that occurred this year?

I'll defer that to Mrs Galea.

Mr Mayor, I do not have the cost. Mr Mayor, I can't ,

Sorry, I can't hear

The answer to the question is that we don't have those costs to hand, and that question would have to be taken on notice. Oh

Okay. All right, thank you.

Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Councillors , no doubt you're well aware of the material I've latterly sent today. I'm unable to support the approval of these accounts. Because I believe they do not reflect a true and fair view of the financial status of this Council, and I just wish to make it clear to the community that I am not able to support the accounts on this occasion. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. I might speak to this matter, and I'd actually said some words through that I wanted Council to consider, and I might ask Councillors if he was happy, once he's seen them, to include these in the motion. It has been brought to my attention by Councillor Ross, it was brought to my attention in the correspondence that many Councillors have seen , that the Pitt Town Section 94 Reserve was depleted faster than anticipated back in 2014-15 due to the acquisition of some land. I probably shouldn't say too much more in open session, but Councillors would be aware that acquisition of some land that was completed at a cost higher than anticipated in the original plan. And as Councillors would be aware, Council had resolved at that time that we weren't going to penalise that reserve and that we would enter into a repayment schedule to top that reserve back up.

I think it is more transparent and gives greater certainty to the community of Pitt Town if we go ahead and permanently commit those funds to that reserve in this current financial year. It's not directly related to this item, but it goes to some of the concerns that have been raised. I think it would give the people of Pitt Town certainty that Council is committed to carrying out the plan to the extent that we're able to in regards to that funding. Essentially what I'm asking for here is that staff prepare a report to outline the options in regards of how we can restrict those funds in the current year so that they are restricted and part of the reserve. That report would come back, if Council resolves this way, early next year to be considered.

And I think that would be a good, I think that provides some transparency in the community around that transaction. And it also shows the people at Pitt Town that we're committed to doing those works, and potentially enables some of those works to happen sooner, given that the reserve will have a higher balance.

Excuse me, Mr Mayor, I'm having great difficulty hearing. I am too

Mr Mayor. Sorry.

Yeah, that's not coming through very well to me either. In fact, I couldn't understand it.

Councillor Zamprogno , do you want to make sure your microphone's turned on and ..

My mic is on, although it's ... I do apologise

Is that audio better, councillors, on Zoom?

No, it sounds like he's down a big tube. It was louder,

But it wasn't better

If I speak up, councillors, does that assist you? I'm speaking more loudly.

There's some sort of, something like something else is on near you or something.

I'm happy to second

Okay.

So I'm just conscious of the fact that if the audio is not coming through, we're potentially not really having an open meeting, which is a problem. And I doubt

Whether the public could hear at all, Mr Mayor. Yeah,

That's my concern. So unfortunately, councillors, I might propose we adjourn for five minutes and just see if we can address the issue, because I don't want a problem from this.

I think we've fixed those audio issues, hopefully. So prior to adjourning, the motion which will shortly appear on the screen was agreed to by Councillors Zamprogno and Councillor Calvert.

Is there any further discussion?

Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll just check the online people can hear this. Yep. Proceed? Okay. I wanted to just put a couple of questions on the table and maybe ask the Acting General Manager if he has any indication of when the report is coming back that I've been asking for for months under the former General Manager with those financial questions.

I refer that to the Acting General Manager.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. You're referring to a resolution of Council from May regarding some information. We're currently collating that information. I should be in a position in the next couple of days to be able to advise Councillors when we'll be able to present that information.

Thank you very much. I'll just state here then that I would be more comfortable. I'm not comfortable tonight voting on this until I have that further information, which is why I basically sent that to try to find out that information . I just wanted to put on the record, though, that I wholeheartedly support the Mayor in his decision at point three. I support the motion tonight until I have that further information, but I also wanted to caution on the record, and I don't know whether this is something like can give as a question on notice or whether it's something we can discuss in a briefing, maybe even some clarification when that report comes back that the Acting General Manager just discussed. But on page 27 of Attachment.

Attachment one to this item.

It mentions how the number of full-time equivalent employees at the year end, it was 299 and it increased to 325. So, with all the concerns that I have about expenditure, that rise of 22 employees greatly concerns me, and I completely appreciate that you might want to take that on notice, but I'd like to know if there's some justification that that can be put in the report. I'm seeking, or even brought to a briefing, as to why we had such an increase in full-time equivalent employees.

Just to clarify, I think the increase is from 279 to 299 for 2019-2020, so it's 20 rather than 22. Sorry, sorry. The point remains, yes.

The point remains, exactly, sorry. I'm not looking at 321 there for a second. 299. The increase of 20 employees. So the wages there concern me, and I'd like to know what titles or roles those employees had and why there was a need to have that increase in employees. How do you want to deal with that? Is that something that can come back with notice at our next…?

I'll refer that to the acting general manager. I believe that would be addressed in this report to item 93. Acting general manager.

Thanks, Ms. Mayor. That's correct. We'll address those questions you brought up in the report that comes back to the council. Wonderful.

Thank you very much.

Thanks, Councillor Richard. Councillor Ross, you've still got your hand up. Did you wish to speak at

This point? Yes, I did, Mr. Mayor, if you don't mind. Yep . I wish to speak against the

New motion , if you like, the amended motion.

There's only one motion.

It has been amended, as I understand, Councillor. Thank you. You can speak against the motion, yes. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Look, I applaud your recognition this evening in the way you have on behalf of the residents of Pitt Town who have long suffered, as all of us councillors appreciate, in regard to the infrastructure they were being promised not having been delivered. Fine, I quite agree with that, and thank you for taking the action you have. I do, however, remain of the view that the underlying matters which I have raised have not been adequately or fully addressed and are not being done so in the resolution herewith. And I must still maintain my stance of not being able to support these accounts, even in the case of this modified motion. Thank you, sir.

Thanks, Councillor Ross. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Could we include in that motion, could the report coming back for regarding the Pitt Town money include the history of what happened there? Because I think it's important the public understand just how that came about, what actually happened and how we came to pay, you know, a very significant amount more for some land than what was originally thought would be the case, and as well as that, to actually include whether we've succeeded in any grant funding for works in Pitt Town, because I understand there were several grants applied for for work in Fernadell Park and for roads. I think the grant applications amounted to around 1.5 million dollars. So I'd be interested to know if any of those were successful or if they've been determined yet, if that could also be included. Thank you.

Thanks, Deputy Mayor. I think that's useful. I did speak to Mr Organ today, who indicated that there'd also be a report on the current status of the works in Pitt Town and what's to come. But yeah, I think those items could be included in that report. Although we just want to make sure it is still a public report. There's nothing in there in confidence, but I think we can, without going into that level of detail, still include the history. Is that correct, Mr Clare?

Thank you, Mayor. In terms of my recollection, the board at the time, when the first happened, was in confidentiality because there were local people on legal advice and abound, so we would have to have a look to see what information can be publicly disclosed.

Thank you. Are there any further speakers? Being

No further speakers, I'll put the motion. If all those in favour— actually, I'll just wait for the screen, the words to come off the screen so I can see everybody. Oh, sorry, right over Black, Councillor.

No,

Sorry. So I put the motion. All those in favour—

Mr Mayor, I've got my hand up. Oh

Sorry, Councillor Wheeler, I did call out. Is there any further discussion?

And I did have my hand up then.

When we get some feedback on Pitt Town, could we also have included in that document what happened to the developer contributions to the state government and the works that were supposed to be affected through that developer contribution as well? That's now a matter of public record. I think that the state government entered into a deed with the developer that cut $10 million from the contributions for works at Pitt Town, and that includes a lot of the works that the Pitt Town Progress Association still believe to be outstanding. I think that information really needs to be brought back so that we can unpick what's council's responsibility, what's the developer's responsibility, and what's the state government's responsibility, because this is very murky, and the community needs some answers, but they also need some transparency around this issue.

Thanks, Councillor. Is there any further discussion? And if I don't see a hand, just call out. Sorry, Councillor, I didn't see a hand before. There not being any, Councillor Zamprogno, did you want right of reply?

No

I put the motion. All those in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Rast, Musson, Councillor Tree. Against ? Councillor Ross, Councillor Richards. Declare it carried.

Carried.

So, Councillors, we have two other items subject to public address, item 2.30 and 2.33. So, first item of business, next item of business, therefore, is item 2.30, and our first speaker is Michael Waugh.

Sorry, Councillors, while we're waiting for that, I've just realised that we did not, I did not consider the minutes in the previous meeting. Can someone like to move the minutes?

Moved .

Councillor Rasmussen. Seconded, Councillor Calvert. All in favour?

Aye.

Against ? Declare

Them carried.

Thank you. I don't think there was also a recognition of the Indigenous nation as well. No

I did do that, Councillor Ross. Thank you. So, moving on to item 2.30, our first speaker is Mr Michael Waugh.

Thanks , Councillors. Thanks, Mayor. Councillors , the NRDCWA is opposed to the staff recommendation as it stands. We believe there is a way forward. Council can approve the planning proposal tonight, but the operational date of the planning proposal is to be the same date of opening for traffic on the proposed Grose River bridge or the third crossing of the Hawkesbury River, whichever comes first. That is fair to the applicant and the community. At page 23 under the heading of Hawkesbury Traffic Study is very clear at page 24 there is no crossing of the pristine, environmentally friendly wild Grose River. It is, however, a prospective date for the crossing at 2027. So councillors, why not an operational date for the actioning of the planning proposal?

Council makes the decision, as required by the end of the year, so that gets a tick. As I just said, that's fair to the applicant and fair to the community. Why does the NRDCAA say that's fair? The Grose River crossing has had plenty of promises since around eight to 10 years ago, when the Redbank developer stood in a council meeting and roared with all the passion he could muster, We will build the bridge. They didn't. I think that our current mayor, Councillor Conolly, asked a question of the developer at the approval session of the council meeting, Could you build the bridge? Yes, the developer representative said. What about at 600 lots? I think the then Councillor Conolly said. Sure, said the developer.

Still.

Mr— Mr White, sorry, I'm not sure if you can hear us, but we seem to have lost your internet connection.

No

Bridge

I can see. At a

Moment,

We get a connection.

Mr White, maybe if you turn your video off, it sometimes helps the connection with the audio.

What do you want me to do?

If you try turning your video off, sometimes that will help the connection, and we might be able to hear you because your audio is breaking up a bit.

Essentially, he just left the meeting.

He's gone altogether now.

Well, we didn't mean for you to do that. Oh, there he is.

He's back ,

He's back. No, for a moment. I'm

Very fleeting

Oh, there he is.

Mr. — you're on mute now. Still on, still on, yeah

Okay,

Mr. —, you can go ahead if you can

Hear. Did you hear when I said about— did you pick up when I talked about your comments, Councillor Conolly? I

Think we're about halfway through.

You just started.

We want to hear those again, Mr. —, please.

Okay. I think that our current Mayor, Councillor Conolly, asked the question of the developer at the approval session of a council meeting, Could you build the bridge quicker? Yes, said the developer's representative. What about our 600 lots? I think that then Councillor Conolly said, Yes, said the developer, or words to that effect. Still no bridge. We had the ICAC affected former Mayor Mr Bassett writing a very long letter in the Gazette, where the bridge, and he inferred, in my words, a crossing through the Billabong Reserve. No bridge eventuated. We still do not have a crossing. The NRDCAA believes not one councillor here tonight knows if or when the crossing will receive the green light.

History tells us we should learn from our mistakes. Let's not make the same assumptions the Liberal councillors made those many years ago that the bridge will be built. Councillor Conolly and Tree were two of those councillors. Do they accept that the history of the crossing on reflection is a poor look for those who supported what we call, I hope the bridge will be built option. The business paper at page 24 says , and I'm not going to give you the whole quote, says to . . include the new bridge. Of course, there is no new bridge. The traffic study turns assumptions into fact. Towards the bottom of page 24, again to test the traffic modelling, there is assumption the Grose River Bridge is operational.

As far as I know, and please, councillors, correct me if I'm wrong.

Despite the efforts of the highly respected departed GM, Peter Conroy .

Building crossing.

Hi Mr Want

We've lost your audio again.

We'll just give it a minute, Councillors, there's still some of this. Just give him a moment to see if it reconnects before we move on.

Got to do something about that internet connection up there in them there hills.

It is a disadvantage of the Zoom meetings, but we do have to do it in the current climate.

Okay, councillors, Mr Want, can you hear us at all?

Yep. You can ? I can hear you. Okay ,

We can hear you now. Sorry, you cut out a while ago.

Okay. I don't know whether I ... You were just saying that it

Was ... Sorry, go on.

Well, did I get to where having a crossing will built is not...

The paragraph up. As far as I know, and please, Councillors correct

Me

If I'm wrong, there is no application lodged with the approving authority for the bridge.

Sorry,

Can't hear this. This is very

I can't hear anything. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Want. Happy to take questions if you can hear us.

Yes. However, when I spoke at the February meeting, Mr . Mayor, I was misrepresented by Councillor Richards. There an email to our President Beatrice

Beatrice... ... Feel free to send me the email about that, Mr. Want. However, that's not going to be discussed at this point, what happened in the meeting in February, and you're free to do that. Were there any questions, Mr. Want?

Councillor. .. Yes, I will take questions.

Sorry? Councillor Rasmussen. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for that, Mr. Want. Thank you for that presentation, and obviously struggling with that internet connection, it makes it a bit difficult. Mr. Want, I've got a question for you regarding your organisation's policy regarding rezonings west of the river. Could you just remind me what that policy is again, please?

Yes, Councillor Rasmussen.

Mr

Unfortunately, yeah, unfortunately the audio is not going to work. I think we have to move on. Thank you. Thank you for your time, Mr. Wendt. So that was the final speaker on the item. Anyone wish to move anything?

Recommendation moved by Councillor Zemprogno.

Seconder ?

Oh, Councillor Kotlash, sorry. Thank you. Anybody wish to speak? Councillor Zemprogno? No. Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wish to move an amendment to the motion. Okay. Thank you.

What's your amendment?

That this matter be deferred to the next meeting of Council due to incorrect documentation being advised to us councillors this evening prior to this meeting. Thank you. Do we have a seconder?

I think we've failed for a seconder, Councillor Ross. Any discussion on the motion?

There being no discussion, I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour of the motion are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zemprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Tree. Against? Councillor Ross, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Rasmussen. Declare it carried on the casting vote of the Mayor.

Next item, public...

Next item, sort of public address is item 233, review of council committees. And our first public speaker is Mr

Michael Edwards. We're ready when you are, Mr Edwards . Thank you,

Mr Mayor, Councillors. I wish to speak in relation to this item as a member of the Hawkesbury Heritage Advisory Committee, and I'm in support of the recommendation that's before you tonight, particularly with respect of the Heritage Advisory Committee. In my capacity as a heritage advisor to numerous other councils across metropolitan Sydney, as well as regional New South Wales, I have experience with a wide number of different heritage advisory committees. And I think it's important, by way of feedback to this council, that the Hawkesbury Heritage Advisory Committee is by far the most productive, most efficient, and most hardworking committee that I have ever experienced as a heritage advisor.

Hawkesbury's Heritage Advisory Committee is comprised of a number of well-respected and leading industry experts in the fields of history, architecture and heritage practice, many of whom have unparalleled extensive experience and local knowledge, which makes this committee of enormous value to council for its knowledge base alone. It's been said of each Heritage Advisory Committee that it delivers this council with thousands of dollars of expert advice, all given ex gratia. And of the diverse backgrounds, interests and areas of expertise and knowledge, members of the Heritage Advisory Committee share one thing in common, and that is that we all recognise the richness of the Hawkesbury's heritage and believe that it is a key element that really does anchor our sense of place and our identity and the culture of our community.

And it's a key element to making for a vibrant future for our local and broader community. Councillors, the history and heritage of this area really is synonymous with the Hawkesbury. In fact, Council's own heritage adviser wrote of the Hawkesbury in 1982, and I'll read this to you: Unlike other early townships such as Liverpool and Parramatta, located closer to Sydney, Windsor Richmond remained essentially rural and was largely untouched by the building boom of the late 19th century. No other place in the Sydney region has a similar range of buildings dating from before 1850, and this alone makes the architecture of the Hawkesbury Valley and, in particular, Windsor , Richmond, Pitt Town , located within a few kilometres of each other, of enormous archival significance.

History and heritage is really ingrained in our streets, in our towns, in our landscapes, and it is hugely important to the broader community. In fact, community consultation conducted by Council to inform its recent Community Strategic Plan, which this Council endorsed, found that the recognition and promotion of our region's heritage was the number two issue. By the community, coming in after maintaining the rural identity. So it's quite clear that heritage and history is really important to the community, and it's no wonder then that the recognition, protection and promotion of our region's heritage should take a front row seat in the very vision statement for that community strategic plan.

Council, your Heritage Advisory Committee is considered an extremely efficient and well-working committee, which has provided Council with countless hours and countless dollars worth of expert advice and local knowledge, of which much of that local knowledge and expertise cannot be matched even by some of the leading heritage professionals. This committee has aided Council in achieving and facilitating an enormous array of initiatives and projects over the years that have promoted our region's rich history, from the endorsement of heritage grants and delivery of funding to property owners, to undertaking extensive legwork to the current heritage study, providing technical advice on the conservation of Council's heritage assets, development and promotional material for Council's website, even input into various strategic plans and Council policies.

The results, in fact, of the recent Council survey, as part of its review of these committees, speaks to this and is a demonstration of the efficiency, the enthusiasm, the dedication and the commitment of the various Heritage Advisory Committee members. I note that the staff report before you makes a series of recommendations regarding Council's advisory committees, one of which is to continue the Heritage Advisory Committee with no changes made to its composition, function or focus. And I wish to express my support for that recommendation and strongly encourage Council endorses the same. The hugely successful Heritage Advisory Committee should continue in its function with its standalone focus on heritage.

Given the high priority that the community has placed on heritage and history, and there's much to do for heritage moving forward, and your Heritage Advisory Committee stand ready to continue supporting Council in ensuring that this Council really is at the forefront of heritage management in New South Wales.

Thanks, Mr Edwards. Are you happy to take questions if there are any? I am. Okay. Councillor Ross, question? No. Councillor Wheeler?

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Two questions, if I may. Mr Edwards, thank you for coming to speak, and thank you for your contribution to the Heritage Advisory Committee over the last nearly four years. What would you think about the merger of the Heritage Advisory Committee with another committee like waste or environmental sustainability? Would that be workable?

I think it's quite clear, Councillor, that heritage is a standalone issue. There is much to do on that topic alone, and merging it with another discipline or multiple disciplines would water down that focus and would potentially cloud the ability to deliver and assist Council on good heritage outcomes. There's a lot of competing demands for environmental issues such as flooding and bushfire, and these alone are issues that demand a lot of expertise and a lot of time and specific focus. And I think heritage needs to be a standalone issue that demands its own committee so that it can continue to deliver Council with the highest standard and high calibre of advice that has already been provided over the last many years

Thank you. And how would you feel about, given that you give your expertise freely to the Heritage Advisory Committee currently, how would you feel about attending if you were allowed to address councillors on that committee but not vote or put up recommendations?

I think it would, it would again water down the technical expertise and advice of those professionals that sit on that committee. There's, there's a lot of expertise that is offered, and if the committee weren't able to vote and put recommendations up, and we recognise that we're not an authority, we are simply an advisory body that provides advice to this council. But I feel that if we were not given the ability to have a collective position on things, then it would make decision-making difficult. It would make for recommendations of the advisory committee to be watered down and potentially not go anywhere.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen. Do you have a question?

Yes, it is. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Edwards, I want to thank you for that presentation because it makes so much sense, and I fully endorse, you know, the detail of your address and the insightfulness that you brought to this council meeting, and I do appreciate that, and also the work that you do on behalf of council as a volunteer on the committee. Now, if we were to amalgamate this committee into three other very active committees, there likely would be a membership of, say, 20 or 30 members on this committee to give an equal voice or a voice to all the various issues of those three committees. How would you like to be part of a 25 or 20 or 30 member committee which has to address three other big issues in the Hawkesbury?

Thank you, Councillor, firstly for your kind words and compliment. In answer to your question, I think, again, it would be very difficult to allow for any meaningful discussion to take place. There would be a lot of competing interest and a lot of competing time, and, well, there would be a lot of competition for time and airplay in those meetings, unless you're proposing that those meetings run for hours and potentially well into the night. The committee members are volunteers; they give freely of their time, and I think it would be an unfair burden to expect committee members to attend an amalgamated committee that doesn't allow for very intimate discussion and very detailed discussion on some very significant issues.

And I think it would—there'd be a lot lost in translation. There would be a lot of conflicting discussions taking place, and there would be a lot of competition for time. And I don't believe the council would get much value for its time and resources and value for money, essentially, because not much would get discussed.

Yeah, I agree with you. Thank you very much for that. I appreciate it.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Reynolds, you had a question? Yes,

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thanks very much for that address, Mr Edwards. You mentioned during your address that the Heritage Advisory Committee has on it, you know, people with various professions. I've just made a note here: there's a scientist, three historians, and three specialist heritage advisers and architects. Given that the Heritage Advisory Committee meetings can often go to three hours, What sort of dollar value is, in just a rough figure, what sort of dollar value do you think the community is receiving in terms of the time that these six or seven specialists are giving while they're on the committee for those three hours each meeting?

Yeah, sure. Well, Councillor, I think if you consider the amount of time that I spend in reviewing the business papers before the committee meeting, so that's the three, two to three hours that we actually are face-to-face for the meetings, I would say if I was charging my hourly rate and multiply that by the other professionals on that committee, I think Council would be getting at least eight to ten thousand dollars worth of free advice and service each time that committee meets. And that is also necessary to consider that there's a lot of work that goes on by that committee alone behind the scenes, with research and advice and emails and phone conversations, that Council is getting extensive free advice from a number of leading experts.

Okay , thank you very

Much. Pleasure. Thank you. Are there any further questions, Mr. Edwards?

Councillor Wheeler.

Sorry, Mr. Mayor, that's a legacy hand. Okay

Thanks very much, Mr. Edwards. Mr. Edwards was the final speaker. Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. Ah, yes, Councillor Ross.

I did have my hand raised. Oh

Sorry, I thought I'd asked you at the start and you said no.

That is correct, but after hearing some of the contributions, I thought... Thank you. Yep. Good evening, Mr. Edwards. Thank you very much for your...

Very

Professional address, and I , like some of my fellow councillors, are in agreement with yourself. It just also , I think, warrants inquiring of you that if councillors are of a mind to maintain the committee with its present status, are there any things that either this council or staff could assist the committee in that would facilitate the work that is being , in your remit, sir?

Oh, where to start

Not too much money, thank you.

No, I think the committee is extremely well running. It is very efficient in the way that it operates, and we certainly appreciate the time and the resources that council does already give to that committee through staff time. And I think I can't really identify anything that we would benefit from council assisting the committee directly with. Does that answer your question?

Thank you very much. I just thought I'd inquire of you, and possibly to

My advantage, but thank you, and thanks for your contribution this evening. Thank you, Councillor. Thanks, Mr Edwards. Councillor Carbet

Mr Mayor, I cannot hear Councillor Calvert.

Nor

Can I. Thank you. Councillor Calvert will make his way to the lectern to speak on the matter.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Can I be heard now?

Yep, that's better. Yep, that's better

Great. I'd like to move a motion on this matter. I sent it out to Councillors earlier today, and the Secretary has a copy, but I would like to make one change to what was sent out, and hopefully that'll go up on the screen. And the change is , table on point 3 should have a fourth committee, which I'm calling the Emergency Management Committee. And point 5 starts with a sentence which says, requires that at least one council briefing session every three months be devoted to emergency management matters, and after that it should say, and that this briefing session will constitute the council's Emergency Management Committee. So I'd like to move that, Mr Mayor.

Seconder for that? Sorry, I can't see the screen, so.. . No, no, that's okay. Councillor Kotlash, seconding that. You wish to speak to it further?

I do, thank you, Mr Mayor. Look, I've been talking quite a few years now about our committee system, and I believe our committee system is grinding to a halt. It's not functioning. It's not performing the way it should. Our committees are supposed to be designed to give us advice and information, and I'm finding that the amount of advice and information coming from committees is dwindling year after year. We're not getting the advice, and we're not getting recommendations from the bulk of the committees. Because of that, I called for a review a number of years ago, and what I found back then was that there tends to be an emphasis on the meetings themselves. So that the meetings have become the end outcome.

People come along, experts come along to committees, they talk to the committee, the committee absorbs the information, and everyone has a nice time, but the information does not necessarily go any further than that. Councillors don't get that information. What we have is a few committees where a few councillors are very highly skilled in certain things, very highly informed, but the bulk of the councillors who are in those committees don't get that information. What I'm hoping to achieve by changing this system is to make sure that all councillors have access to all information. The current system of committees are not open to the public. If you wanted to see what a certain committee was doing, you can't just walk in and listen, and you can't just walk in and contribute.

I want to change that as well with the motion I put up opens all committees to the public and actually invites the public to participate. Our current committee system is not related to the community strategic plan, and the community strategic plan is the way that this council gets evaluated, especially by the state government. So how can we have a whole range of committees that do not also fit in with the community strategic plan? That is a basic fault in the committee system which needs to be addressed, and I hope what I put up here tonight actually tries to do that. Now, one change was implemented about a year or two ago, and that was in the minutes there is any direct action for council is listed there, and that was a great change.

And I'm thinking if that change is so effective, just imagine how effective it would be if all the information in the committees were available to all the councillors. As you know, in 2019 I instigated a review of the committees, and it was an extensive review that involved talking to a lot of people, a lot of people in all the committees, a lot of other people, council staff, councillors, and the recommendation in the business paper tonight is what the final result was. And if you look at my motion, I'm putting up, it is not greatly removed from that recommendation. It does build on the data that came through that process. So I've not just picked this out of the air and said let's do this.

It is based on data, it is based on research, and it's related to the Community Strategic Plan. This structure will provide information and advice to Council, and it will allow us as a Council to set the agenda and the direction for the committees. And also if you look closely at the motion, the last point of the motion allows all committees to set up working groups. These working groups would be able to continue the functions of the existing committees. They would just report back to the committee, and those working groups can contain all the current members of committees and experts. So we're not locking anyone out. We're putting more people in. We're opening to the public. We get better advice, and I believe if we go with this closer community and the Council will be better off.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Calvert. Councillor Zamprogno. Be

Through the next. Yep.

Mr Mayor, I'd like to move, but I'd like to speak to the motion then. Yeah, if you

Can move to lectern

Please. Here we go

Trusting that everybody can hear me. Feel free to change the… afternoon.

I'm speaking generally in favour of Councillor Calvert's motion. I feel that it is superior to the recommendation that appears in the business paper on amendments point Y, but I will foreshadow an amendment. The motion that Councillor Calvert is proposing proposes to group the committees in much the same way that we see in the business paper, and takes on board all of the feedback that Council has carefully gathered since August 2019 on this subject. I like the fact that Councillor Calvert's motion promotes emergency management to be a concern of the entire chamber and offers us the opportunity to meld not only the existential concerns of flooding but of fire and then brings them to the attention of the entire chamber.

There are many times that I've been in committee meetings where I've left thinking, I really want everybody to hear this. It's too important to be siloed into a committee that only has a council representation or three councillors. I like the fact that it goes further than the recommendation in that it suggests that meetings should be public, that they should have predictable meeting times, that they should have pre-published agendas, and that they are open to public address. The recommendation does not go that far. I like the fact that Councillor Calvert's motion mentions the subject of tourism and the fate of the tourism committee. The recommendation of the business paper makes no mention of tourism.

I like the fact that it links the activities of the committees that are germane to decisions that we take here in this chamber, and I hear Councillor Calvert's concern that often the activity of council committees can be a little discursive or removed from what we need in this chamber to make good decisions. So generally, I commend Councillor Calvert's motion and I support it with one crucial exception,

And

That leads me to my proposed amendment. I'd like to thank Michael Edwards for his contribution, and he said it very well. Just like I respect the contribution of people like Graeme Eds, Michelle Nichols, and Jan Barkley-Jack, and the late Professor Anne Jackett as members of our Heritage Committee, and I think, and Mr Edwards would appear to agree with it, represents a very unique and special, world-class pool of knowledge that we draw on at no cost, and we would be exceptionally foolish to disburse that or to dishonour that contribution that's made to council, especially when our resources on staff to deal with heritage issues fall short. We do not have a full-time heritage consultant working for council. We have somebody that comes in a couple of days a month and whose time tends to be occupied by DA matters.

So, Councillor, just ask you to just detail what your amendment is before you speak to it, if you could. Do you want to just detail exactly what your amendment is and get a seconder before you speak to it? All

Right then. So, I was until this moment speaking to the motion. Now, I've given Mr McElroy a copy of the proposed amendment, and the amendment, if you want the clearest way of understanding that, is a totality of Councillor Calvert's motion with the exception of the Heritage Committee. It carves out the Heritage Committee and permits it to stand. alone in the fashion that it is being constituted for this time. Now, can that go up on the screen?

So I've seen a seconder, and then I'll speak to my amendment.

Yes. So wait till it comes up on the screen, and then there's

Already some hands up to speak. So I need you to, if anyone wants to second that, I need you to indicate that. I'll just

Conclude this portion by remarks by saying to my colleagues that for us to fail to get a seconder for my amendment means that Council of Calvert's motion will pass and the Heritage Committee will be dissolved. I'm seeking a seconder.

Is there a seconder for that? No, fails for a seconder, Councillor.

Then my further remarks are irrelevant. I'm very disappointed that the other councillors care so little for heritage that they could not see their way clear to submit an amendment to preserve the existence of the Heritage Committee. That's extremely disappointing.

Thank you. Councillor Ross. No

No requirement to speak. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'd like to move an amendment. Yep. Given that the information that we've received— Do you have a

Point of order, Deputy Mayor? No , no, sorry. Go ahead, Councillor Wheeler.

Given that— so I'll move to defer this matter for further consideration at a council briefing, given that the— That the motion from Councillor Calvert didn't appear until five o'clock and represents a dramatic departure from the information presented to us at previous briefings.

Councillor Rasmussen, are you seconding that?

Yes, I am, Mr Mayor. Thank you.

The amendment from Councillor Lidia is that we defer this for discussion at a council briefing session, seconded by Councillor Rasmussen. So go ahead, Councillor

So this is a significant departure from what we've discussed amongst ourselves and also with members of Council's committees. We haven't had time to properly assess this, or to discuss the ramifications, or even how this will work around Council's meeting structure, around the staffing of these committees or getting this information out, or how we will function with the advice and information that comes back from these committees and how it's then reported and dealt with by Council. This really does feel like decision-making on the fly, and I urge my fellow councillors to support a deferral so that we can work out just how this might work, but also the groupings of these committees, some of which really don't make sense.

Heritage and waste. Since when was heritage related to waste? Who in their right mind wants to couple waste and tourism? That'd be a fun bus trip, wouldn't it? This doesn't make sense. If we're going to do this, we need to do it properly. We've been chewing on this for a couple of years, and this is the first time that we've seen that these committees will happen on a Tuesday with five councillors and the community shut out, or reduced to addressing a voting block of five councillors. This is— This is a bridge too far. I appreciate the idea of having an emergency management committee. I appreciate that we probably need to talk further about innovation and partnerships, but this currently, this doesn't have—this needs more work if we're going to go anywhere with it.

I am appalled , frankly, by the inclusion of heritage with two other committees, as we haven't discussed that at all. It wasn't the recommendation of the review, nor was including enhancing the arts with disability access. When did we discuss that as an idea? And where, pray tell, in this motion is the reconciliation action plan working group? Have we given up on that?

Just to clarify as a point of procedure, Councillor, neither the motion proposed doesn't propose any changes to the Reconciliation Action Plan working group by the motion.

No, it doesn't even mention it, Mr Mayor. The motion in the business paper does. It says that it should be left as it is, but this motion—

Councillor, I wasn't entering into debate with you, Councillor. I was clarifying so that everyone knows what we're voting on. The motion before us does not deal with that because there is no change proposed to the Reconciliation Action Plan working group by the motion. So this motion has no impact on that group that you've mentioned. Just for clarity so that everybody is aware of what we're voting on. Councillor Richards, your item. Councillor Richards, did you want to speak to the amendment?

I want to speak to

Okay, we'll just stick with the amendment for the moment.

Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll speak in support of the amendment, and on a similar basis to what Councillor Wheeler has put forward. I think there's a lot of words in this motion, but not really any detail. And I think that we really do have to do it properly. I'm not opposed to having changes or to getting the best committee system possible , but I definitely don't think that this is it. And I think we can't just say we'll have an emergency management committee without saying what it's for. Is it a disaster risk management committee? Is it a statutory committee, which emergency management committees generally are? I would think a disaster risk management advisory committee would be good.

I think that all councillors currently can attend all committee meetings. I've attended a number of committees that I'm not on to see what they're speaking about, and for my first years in council, when we were eliminated from—some of us were eliminated from participating in any committees—I still attended the committees that I wished to attend as an observer, not as a participant. I also think that I had a look at some of the committees that other councils have today, and there's some quite innovative and good committees. So I think that this is heading in the right track to actually improve our committee system. But if we're not going with the conclusions of what— The consultation came up with, then we should perhaps go back to the drawing board and start again.

And then we can do it, and we can maybe have better than what's there before us because I don't think that properly captures what changes we should be making if we're changing it at all. People didn't necessarily want to change the times. I think restricting committees to Tuesdays is extremely limiting. It's actually eliminating some people. I think that committee timings should be more open to being flexible for the participants on the committee. I don't think they should be set in stone by people when this is going to essentially come in mainly for a new council because the new council will come in next September, and by that time, they can probably then be setting their times for meetings and committee meetings, etc.

This hasn't been brought up before, despite we've had lots of meetings and briefings about it. And I think that to just be sent it when clearly some councillors had caucused about it previously, to just be told about it on the night, I think this is very poor decision making to be actually passing a resolution to write to committee members dissolving the committees and thanking them for being on it before we've even really know any detail about where moving forward with. I think that also we're lucky we've got a bonus year on council, so I think that it's good that we're looking to improve systems, to leave options for the new council to undertake when they come in. And I think that this is a good direction to be heading in.

I just don't think it's ready to be resolved as being the system that we implement. I think it needs a lot, lot more work , and I think that we should really We should really get back to the briefing. If we're not going to go with the recommendations that have come out of the consultation, then we probably need further consultation and further work around what we want to put in place or what we want to leave as an option for a new council to go with. And I think that I haven't had a lot of time to consider what was sent because of its lateness, but I just consider that it's poor governance to take major decisions with no consultation of all the councillors, all 12 councillors, and to have had no consultation or notification to the public that the committee system would be essentially changing.

I just think that's a very lax way to be addressing this system, even though I am committed to changes and I'm happy to work more to implement changes to the committee system.

Thanks, Deputy Mayor. I might just make a couple of comments to clarify a couple of things there. So this item was in the business paper, and the recommendation in the business paper does suggest quite significant change. So it's not quite true to say that members of the public weren't informed that council would be considering changes to the committee structure. It's also, I disagree also with the concept that we need to work everything out before the council meeting rather than discuss and debate here in public. To say that councillors are being excluded, well, this is the place to be included. This is where decisions should be made openly and in public. So it's not a case of we should all run around talking to each other before the meeting to make sure we're all on board.

Quite a misrepresentation, Mr Mayor.

Sure. It's certainly not a case of saying we need to have everyone included in discussions prior to a council meeting. I think that's a very dangerous thing to be saying in public. You know , to speak on the amendment before us, this has been going since early 2019, to my recollection. We've had a number of briefing sessions. The last briefing session we tried to have, councillors, or at least one councillor, ended up storming out in the middle of it, refusing to listen to anybody else's ideas. So I don't know that going back to another briefing session is the answer here. You know, this is before us. We've had a lot of time to consider it. It's gone through quite a process. Councillor Carvets put up an idea for consideration. I don't support deferring the decision further to more briefing sessions and more process. I think we should go ahead and debate this substantive matter tonight.

Councillor Rasmussen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, I cannot see how Councillor Calvert's motion could be in any way considered to be community inclusive at all. It's very council-centric, and in his preface or backgrounding to this motion, he made that point very clear. And it is as if our volunteers and our committee members from the community are somehow or another to be directed and told how, within the framework within which they need to operate their professional skills and expertise. Sorry ,

Councillor Rasmussen, sorry. Certainly not trying to stop you from making that point. I think you should make it when we're debating the motion. I want to be particularly clear on what we're talking about now is the amendment to defer, only because I don't want to have this whole discussion again when we debate the motion if the amendment was to fail. So I think we need to keep our discussion strictly to the matter before us, which is whether or not to amend the motion to go to a briefing.

Yeah, I'm in favour of going to the briefing, obviously for those reasons. So I'll circle back to the, to more precisely focus on the amendment. Mr Mayor, the amendment would give us an opportunity to point out the flaws in Councillor Calvert's motion, and the fact that it does not incorporate or focus on the community cooperation with Council. At point, there's some points within Councillor Calvert's motion where he talks about the committee would comprise five councillors. That's it, would comprise five councillors to be appointed by Council. Well, we don't know the committee members. He doesn't make that point. Maybe, maybe he thinks that that's a given, but at least he should be saying it.

But Mr Mayor, I don't want to belabour the point. If you're annoyed by it, I will direct back to the amendment. The amendment, if we get a chance to go to briefing, will give us an opportunity to show just how poorly constructed this motion is, and we can therefore air our concerns about this sort of approach to Council's committee and involving community, highly professional community members who give lots of time, as we heard earlier from the heritage advisor , Mr Edwards, that he gives a lot of his professional time for free. And so let's have a debate and a briefing and a debate so we can figure out . We haven't should be going with this, and I agree with the Deputy Mayor that change is good, renewal is good, but this is not renewal.

This is going back to, I don't know where, somewhere, maybe the 1800s or something. Anyway, thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thanks, Councillor. Deputy Mayor, you wanted to speak again to point out a misrepresentation.

Thank you. Just a point of representation from you, Mr Mayor. I did not say that we should all decide before the meeting what's happening. What I said was that some councillors had clearly discussed it before the meeting, and we only saw it just before the meeting. So I'm referring to what another councillor might call the dominant caucus had already discussed this prior to tonight, and I think that in fairness, we should all have equal time if it's a major change. I don't think we should decide on it before we come, and I think debate is very good. But to know that other councillors were caucusing about it, and then to expect us to support something without being able to properly absorb what exactly is going on, I think that you've misrepresented me in suggesting that I think things should be decided before meetings.

Thanks, Deputy Mayor. Councillor Ross.

Thank you very much, Mr Mayor. Look, I applaud your desire to make this area show signs of progression and development, and likewise our former Mayor the same. I sent him an email in response to his late email today saying just that. Now , I'm fully in support of the deferral to a briefing session. Fully in support of that, because for one reason, talking about the waste committee, if ever there is an area that is just as vexed , if you like, and important, almost, but not quite as important as resilience or emergency matters, is the matter of waste. It's a huge discussion point in the universe, let alone Australia or New South Wales. There is an enormous amount of change in the offing, whether we wish it or not.

We also have got a waste disposal site on the driftway, which has a limited life. There are huge policy decisions to be made, both by government and councils, and possibly West Rock and whatever, in regard to the future of handling and treatment of waste. And we're still going to have to be present at the driftway site, even if we shut the tip tomorrow. We're going to have methane exuding from that place for at least 20 years. So we're going to have to decide how we're going to treat that. And there are huge policy ramifications just in that subject alone. And then we go to the wastewater situation. Well— Mr Mayor, are we

Dealing with the amendment or are we dealing with the motion? Order, Waste Committee.

Councillor Rasmussen, if you want to move a point of order, you have the right to do that. You don't have a right to sort of butt in with commentary.

All right, let me make a move a point of order.

Yep, go ahead. What's your point

Of order? Thank you, Mr Mayor. My point of order is that, as you pointed out to me before, we are discussing the amendment to the motion. We're not discussing the motion. We're certainly not discussing the Waste Committee or any other committee, as you rightly pointed out. And I, as you know, addressed my remarks to the amendment.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen. Because you ignored me, I was going to be a bit lax with Councillor Ross, but Councillor Ross, you've ignored that directive for a little while, so can you now get back to the amendment, please?

Thank you. I'm most apologetic, Mr Mayor, and fellow councillors, for taking up your time. I support the

Movement of this matter to a briefing session, in part also because a particular submission that was made in regard to the Waste Committee has only just surfaced after having been apparently lost within the council record system and not being reported as being a contribution in that regard. However, a briefing session, bravo, and let us get on and make some changes, but make them in full knowledge and understanding of where we're all at in a harmonious spirit, please.

Thanks, Councillor Ross.

Councillor Reynolds.

Yes, thanks, Mr Mayor. Speak in support of the amendment to defer. There is some merit in Councillor Calvert's proposal, but there is too much to absorb in the hour that we've been given. And I think it's quite ridiculous for you to say that we can properly consider this matter in the one hour that we've been allocated. If we defer and it comes back to Council, then it will still be made in public, but it must be the right decision. It can't be a decision made on the run

Because, as others have said, others have said that other people have caucused, they've decided this is the best, and we're being presented with a fait accompli. You know, to get the best people in these committees and the community experts, we need to be flexible. This proposal is not at all flexible, and I think it would be a great disservice to this Council, let alone the community, if this was to go through as is. And I think we need to take the good points out of it. You know, this brings it down to three super committees when the recommendation was seven committees, so it's not similar to the proposal from staff. And so that's not to say that this won't work. I think it just needs to be studied, absorbed, refined, and so we can do it the right way. And so, yes, let's defer. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor Reynolds. Any further speakers on the amendment? Councillor Zamprogno.

Speaking specifically to the amendment,

Councillor Calvert's motion is called clearly superior, in my opinion. It is the way that we are going. That's the way that I have clearly indicated my support, and that support is unlikely to change. However , I made it clear to my colleagues and the boarding that my red line was the protection of the heritage. On that basis, if the only option that's open to me is to accept a deferral, I will support deferral.

Any further speakers on the amendment?

There being no further speakers, I'll put the amendment. I'll just wait for you to take that off the screen, please.

Those in favour of the amendment, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Ross, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Zamprogno. Against, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Tree, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Richards, Councillor Calvert. Declare the amendment carried.

So the amendment is now the motion. Is there any further discussion on the motion?

Councillor Ross, was that? No.

Okay, being no further speakers, Councillor Calvert, do you want to reply?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I suppose one could consider that I would be disappointed, but I'm not surprised at the response that we've received from other councillors. I know that change can be daunting, but I think change needs to be embraced and embraced, not endless. This whole matter of the change to committees has gone on for too long years now. I believe what I've put up is quite workable. It's quite easy to understand. It continues to involve the public and actually increases the amount of public involvement in the process. It's obvious from what some councillors said that they don't actually understand the role of the committee system. The committees are there to provide council with information and advice that we require.

They are not there to have a little chat every now and again and keep their information to themselves, which is what tends to happen with many committees at the moment. By putting the committees together, and someone said I had three super committees, but if you look, I actually put four up, four committees. But having the committees combined together, that removes our current situation of having silos and isolation where one committee doesn't know what another committee is doing. I know in several cases when I've been on a committee and we wanted to discuss something, we said, well, we can't discuss that because we need to know what Committee X is doing about this and what Committee Y is doing about it, and the whole thing, we couldn't make any decisions and we couldn't give any advice because other committees are doing parts of the same thing.

My proposal is to stop that and allow us all to work together, meld the community together, and make the system work better. What I put up is not significantly different to the recommendation, and I suspect that many councillors would have been very willing to vote on the recommendation as it was put forward. Yet somehow, when you change a few words and a few bits and pieces, suddenly they scream that they won't have it at all because they're not ready to make a decision. I even heard one councillor say they're committed to change. What if you're committed to change? Here is your chance to show that, and it hasn't been shown. What has been shown is many councillors on this council are very conservative, ultra conservative, and the agenda resists change at all costs.

So hopefully when we move to a briefing session, it will be much more peaceful and able to be able to talk about it this time, whereas last time, as was suggested, at least one councillor walked out because they weren't getting what they wanted. So hopefully this briefing session will work, and hopefully I can bring this back, and when we all understand how it works, then maybe I'll get the support. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor Calvert. Put the motion. All those in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. Favourable councillors: Councillor Proctor, Councillor Ross, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Rasmussen. Against: Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Tree. Declare it carried.

Next item is the Mayoral Minute, which relates to the recruitment process for the position of General Manager. Fairly standard process as per the guidelines that are issued. So I'll move the minute. Is there any discussion?

Councillor Rasmussen. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd like to move an amendment, please.

Okay.

What's your amendment, Councillor Rasmussen?

Okay, the amendment would run along these lines. It would be exactly as in Council's business paper, but with replacing Councillor Calvert with Councillor Ross as one of the members on the selection panel.

Okay, do you have a seconder? Seconded, Councillor Wheeler. Any discussion on that, Councillor Rasmussen?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yeah, look, I think it warrants some discussion. With Councillor Calvert has been on this process a number of times now, and the most recent one hasn't led to a good outcome, as we have witnessed in the last few days. So I would suggest that Councillor Ross, who's got very strong opinions about the previous General Manager and other Council staff, perhaps he should be part of the selection committee, because he's clearly got clear views on what Council staff should do and how they should perform, and so on. So I think he might be a breath of fresh air on that committee too. To correct and make sure we end up with a new general manager that we can all support. Thank you,

Mr Mayor. Mike, before we go any further with the amendment, I might just ask Councillor Ross if he would be willing to serve in that capacity if Council pass the amendment.

Councillor Ross? Mr Mayor and fellow councillors, I was not aware that this was in the offing. I would, of course, accept such a nomination, and I would just remind the councillor who made the suggestion that whatever comes from the selection panel will be a collegiate decision of that panel and not just solely of an individual. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor Ross. Any other discussion on the amendment?

Deputy Mayor? Thank you, Mr Mayor. I actually would like to foreshadow an amendment if this amendment fails.

Okay.

Any further speaks on this amendment at all? If you could please remember to take your hands down when you finish talking, if that's okay.

Apologies. Mr Mayor, I had a question, if I may.

Yes, Councillor Ross.

In reading the business paper, I came to something of a conclusion that there were almost two groups involved in the selection. There seemed to be some indication that apart from the four people in the selection panel, there was another group of councillors to be doing something in this regard as well. Would you be good enough to clarify that for a poor aged person with failing eyesight, please?

I'm not really sure exactly what your question is. The motion before us stipulates that we'd form a selection panel, and the selection panel, along with the mayor, would carry out the tasks listed in the motion and go ahead and carry out the aquotation process and be reported back to council before the next steps are taken.

If I could assist, I think I know what Councillor Ross is referring to. There's an extra bit that says appoint two more councillors, as well as the selection panel, which I gather is an error. It's in the report, but not in the recommendation.

Yes

I can see that on page 13. Yeah, that is a misprint. It's an unnecessary line. If the motion had gone up without names in it, that would have been required. However, the motion that we would be voting on is just those points one through four and

Nothing else, Councillor Ross

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you. In regards to the amendment , I'd speak against it, although I'm happy if Councillor thinks Councillor Ross would be good in that position. The reason I nominated in my minute Councillor Calvert is because he's, other than, he is the most experienced councillor on council, having served .. . for many years and have been being a past mayor and deputy mayor, and also having been part of the process before. For the sake of experience, it would be good to include him, which is the reason that that was included in my minute. There being no further speakers on the amendment,

We'll put the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Against? Councillor Conolly , Councillor Calvert , Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Kotlash. Councillor Ross, I didn't record your vote.

You're muted, sorry, Councillor Ross

I felt it would be unethical to vote on that matter.

Okay, so we'll record that as an abstention. So against

Yes, please.

Yep, and declare the amendment lost. Deputy Mayor, you wanted to move another amendment

Mr Mayor, I still have a number of questions around the process of this incident, I guess you could say. So I'm not sure if I should move a procedural motion to maybe dissolve into committee of the whole or into confidential to discuss some questions that would be part of my amendment.

I think you need to give the public a reason as to why it would have to be considered in confidential without saying anything confidential. So you'd have to move a motion that we go into confidential and you'd have to tell us why.

Well, I would do that only because of the caution around it. So it's in the efforts to gain some transparency around this incident, I have further questions that I would wish to be answered, which have not been answered. And I'm happy to say them now and put it as an amendment in public, but I'm giving the opportunity to people to decide whether they feel it should go into confidential or be heard in public. Might just take some advice from the

Acting General Manager, Deputy Mayor. Thanks, Mr Mayor

Council can resolved to go into confidential. There were legislative reasons why, and if Council voted that way, then it would go into confidential session and discuss the matter they wanted to discuss.

So, Deputy Mayor, would I be— I'm assuming that you want to move into confidential to discuss a confidential staff matter?

Yes. Well, I'm happy to discuss it openly, but I think that I don't want to bring a problematic situation forward. I think erring on the side of caution, and then perhaps within confidential we could make a decision on how much of the content of that could then be public, in which case the public would know what the discussion was about.

And to clarify, are you talking about a confidential session or full confidential, meaning the council is present?

I would rather we dissolve into committee of the whole and go into confidential to discuss it.

Okay, so you're moving that way. Do I have a seconder? Councillor Wheeler. So, do you need to say any more other than that the procedural motion, Deputy Mayor?

Well, I think my procedural motion is proceeding to be able to go any further. Yep

Okay, put the motion. All those in favour?

In favour: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Tree. Against? Councillor Rogino, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards, Councillor Kotlash declare it carried. Councillor Ross declare it carried. So we'll move in, dissolving to committee of the whole and going to confidential.

Thank you.

Okay, now back in open session.

Acting General Manager. Thanks , Mr Mayor. In regard to item 229 , Council, whilst in closed session, resolved on the motion of Councillor Conolly that, sorry, that Council: one, establish a selection panel to carry out the task of the recruitment of the General Manager of Council, with the selection panel having the following members: A, the Mayor, Councillor Patrick Conolly; B, the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Mary Lyons-Buckett; C, Councillor Barry Calvert; D, one independent recruitment consultant. Two, delegate to the Mayor, Councillor Patrick Conolly, the task of ensuring that: A, the selection panel is established; B, the General Manager position description is current and evaluated in terms of the salary to reflect the responsibilities of the position; C, the proposed salary range reflects the responsibilities and duties of the position; D, the position is advertised according to the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993; E, information packages are prepared; F, applicants selected for interview are notified.

Three, seek quotations from three recruitment agencies to: A, engage a suitably qualified person independent of Council to be a member of the selection panel; B, assist the Mayor, Councillor Patrick Conolly, in the facilitation of the recruitment of the General Manager as outlined in the Mayoral Minute. Four, the quotation process for the engagement of a recruitment agency be reported back to Council for a decision on the appointment of an agency. Five , following the departure of the General Manager, Councillors be provided with legal advice regarding the disclosure of termination payments for General Managers in public reports. Voting in favour of the resolution were Councillors Ross, Rasmussen, Garrow, Reynolds, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Kotlash, Calvert, Zamprogno, Tree, Richards and Conolly.

Thank you, Mayor.

Item 235, the September 2020 quarterly review. Somebody wish to move anything there?

Oh, sorry, I skipped 232. Ordinary council meetings.

Sorry, councillors. Item 232, does anybody wish to move anything?

Councillor Wheeler.

I'll move option one from the business paper, Mr Mayor.

Is there a seconder? Councillor Richards. Do you wish to speak to that, Councillor Wheeler?

Yes, sorry, Mr Mayor. A minor amendment. Hopefully Councillor Richards is amenable. So option one, which is the current flow of council meetings, the second and fifth Tuesday, but with a Zoom option included for councillors who require it due to health, travel, carer access or other needs or responsibilities.

Councillor Richards, you fine with that? Essentially that we continue to have Zoom as an option for the rest of next year. Yep. Councillor Wheeler, can I ask a question? I also was inclined to suggest that we should have a January meeting. I don't think our first meeting on 9 February is necessarily the best look. So I was going to suggest we do a meeting on the 25 January, and that's option one, but with the 25 January meeting in the schedule.

I agree with that. I think we saw last year that we had a real backlog of work at the beginning of February. I mean, hopefully we won't have two natural disasters within the space of a month, but we really did struggle to get ourselves sorted at the beginning, and part of that was because we simply didn't meet. We met early in December, and then we didn't meet until February, so yeah, I think that would be a really good way forward. I realise the Zoom options are cumbersome, particularly for the staff, and we do have some audio issues, but I think what we've seen with Zoom is that it opens us up, hopefully, to a broader representation on council. And I think some other councils have adopted it.

I think it's in the west, but I'm not 100% sure, as an ongoing thing for council in the hope that it will allow parents with caring responsibilities, for example, in an LGA as widespread as us. I think it would be terrific if we were to get a councillor from St Albans, for example, and they didn't have to spend two hours driving home at the end of a council meeting. Similarly for Bilpin, that's another hour and a half for people after a council meeting. The fact that it also allows people to attend a council meeting, we've seen the St Albans residents all sit in the chamber until after 11 o'clock and then have the lights go out due to a storm and them all have to go home and come back in again.

I know the internet is fairly ordinary, but if we can keep a Zoom meeting, hopefully next year we will be able to have people both attend the chamber and be on Zoom. But I think the option one also is the greatest number of council meetings. It's what the community is used to with the second and fifth Tuesday. I think it's— I think it's the most responsible way forward for us at this point. Any

Further speakers?

No. Right of reply? Councillor, no one else spoke. Put the motion. All those in favour? So the motion is for clarity that we proceed with option one of the business paper. So meetings on the second Tuesday of every month and the last Tuesday of every month, except January and December, and a total of 22 meetings, including during school holidays, with the addition of a meeting on 25 January, and with Zoom to be an option for all councils to require it.

All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards, Councillor Ross, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Potlatch, Councillor Tree. Against? No one. Declare it carried.

Item 235 now, for review. Anybody wish to move? Councillor Wheeler, you used to—hand up or you put it up again?

Sorry, Councillor Wheeler. Good , hand up.

Sorry, no, that, um, I don't. Sorry.

Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just wish to inquire, through you, sir, of the staff in regard to movements in reserves

Is that appropriate here, or is it better discussed in the investments report ?

Yep. I think it's probably more appropriate in the investments report, is it? Okay.

Thank you.

Somebody want to move the recommendation or anything else?

We really need to do something, Council, with this, whether got to amend the budget or not.

Is it the quarterly review?

Yes.

Yeah, I'll move it.

Moved, Councillor— the Deputy Mayor. Seconder? Seconded, Councillor Zamprogno. Any speakers?

No. All right, put that to a vote. Put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Garrow. Against? Councillor Richards, Councillor Ross, Councillor Tree. Councillor Calvert was absent for the vote, so carried.

So the next item is 236. Councillor Ross, you had a question.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

I would like to inquire of the appropriate officer. Council reported cash and reserves at the end of June of 63.5 million. At the end of October, they are reported as 57.85 million, which is a very considerable decline.

And I'm wondering if we could be provided, because I haven't been able to see anything in the reporting, as to the factors and items which are resulting in such a decline.

Point of order, Mr Mayor.

Yes, Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Mr Mayor, I think we need to have a motion on the floor for Councillor Ross to be asking for the provision of that information.

Okay, we generally allow questions prior to someone deciding what they were going to move for, but it's probably technically true. Somebody want to move a motion? Councillor Wheeler, you've got your hand up? No.

Somebody like— so the recommendation is that we receive and note. Are we comfortable to move that?

No.

I'll move it. Moved

Deputy Mayor?

Yes.

Seconded, Councillor Kotlash. Okay, Councillor Ross, so you continue with your question.

Yes. What is concerning me is that there's been a movement of, at the balance date in June, 63.5 million in reserves. They've now dropped to 57.85 million, which is something in excess of 5.6 million.

Pardon me. And most of that extraordinary decline has occurred in the months of July and August, and I'm just wondering to what this can be attributed, please. I’ll refer that to

The General Manager

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'll have to take the specifics of that question on notice because I don't have that detail here at the moment. But what I could generally say is that the reserve balances — or sorry, the investment balance, if you like, for each month does fluctuate based on the income that comes into the council and also the expenditure that goes out of council. So quite often, where we have rate payments due, for example, in a particular month, then you'll find that the monthly investments will be inflated because of that. And where we have large expenses that might have to go out on a certain contracts in a certain month, then the investment fund will go down based on that. So I would have to take Councilor Ross's specific question on notice and come back to him.

But generally that's how it works. It's basically on the amount of income that we get in that month and the expenses that we have going out that month.

Thank you. Any further discussion or questions, Councillor Ross?

No, it's just that I'm rather perturbed that we've got such a big movement, particularly in the month of July. Which I understand , although this is my first time on Council, that this is rather a remarkable change in the financial status of Council, and I'm rather surprised that we — I mean, we were advised, as I understood it, of a 1.9 million decrease in ratepayer receipts, which is gradually being addressed in the affliction of time. But to have these additional funds being disbursed in that fashion, I would have thought would have been a great concern to staff, as we were told in the investment report that they are watching this with an eagle eye. I do not understand.

Okay, Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. So we've — I think when we had the investment adviser come and speak to us, one of his concerns was that because Council had such a conservative investment policy, our returns were basically below inflation, and I assume now that those returns are even lower due to the very low interest rates following the Reserve Bank's decision, that that will continue to impact on councils — on this Council. And I'm not proposing that we race out and do, you know, have a more radical investment— policy

But I think we probably need to be aware that with the current cash rate, we are going to go backwards in the current environment. Is that correct?

I think that's correct, but I'll refer that to the acting general manager.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Yes, the rates have been on hold or been lowered over the last 12 months, and the expectation is that that will continue, certainly not to increase based on the advice from the investment advisor. He's indicated to us that what we need to do is start looking at some investments outside of the major four banks, which we've started to do within the limits outlined in the policy, and also to possibly look at some longer-term investments based on the fact that there is no expectation that interest rates are going to go up anytime soon. So just recently, we have done a number of investments through those second-tier organisations, like the Bank of Queensland, for example, and we also have recently carried out some investments for longer terms around the two- to three-year mark based on his advice.

Thank you. Any further discussion, Councillor?

Yeah. Any other speakers , anyone else wanting to speak? Mr. Mayor, could I ask a second question, please? Yep. Thank you very much. I would further point out that the restricted reserves in terms of domestic waste and stormwater and sewerage, sorry... At June 30, total 8.539 million.

They appear

Looking at the document on page 78 in the current report, to have declined to 4.684 million. Is that a true reading of the documents? And if so, would we please be advised as to why that dramatic movement in those areas has also occurred? Thank you.

Refer that to the acting general manager. Yes

Mr Mayor. Again, I will take that on notice and get the specific fact to Council lost, but I would suggest that they would be payments based on our contracts that were probably due around that time, that I will get the specific fact and I'll get the detail.

Thank you. Excuse me, Mr Mayor, could not the acting general manager provide the information for Council in total, please? Not sure I

Understand the question. Sorry.

It's a question I've posed in a public meeting. Yep. I would anticipate that the response would be likewise available to the public, please .

I think you've got two options to achieve that. One is to move an amendment asking for a report back to Council. The other is to put the question in writing on notice, and either of those ways will have to answer, report it back to the business paper. I don't think we can just state that and hope it happens. So I think you'd have to, I would suggest that gets submitted as a question in writing so that the answer can appear in the business paper.

So that even though the question is posed on an item on the business paper, the answer will come back and not be advice to the rest of the community.

Well, I'm just talking about the code of meeting practice, Councillor Ross, which is the two ways it's going to come back to the community, is if you decide you're not satisfied with this and call for a report, and it will be reported back on the business paper. Or you could put the question in writing so it's reported, the answer is reported as an answer to a question on notice in writing in the business paper. There's no method for councillors to just ask questions verbally on an item and have a report generated without the support of the rest of the chamber.

But I'm entitled to ask a question on the night an item is raised as business on the night

And you're suggesting that that answer is provided to the

Asker of the question, if you like, and not to the public. I just find that—

Well, can I just clarify that I understand what you're asking? How would you envisage that this answer would be reported publicly?

That is a good point. I'm not clear, but—

Because I'm just trying to give you the two mechanisms available to you, which is to call for a report or put a question in writing. Other than that, I can't see any other method of you getting a public answer.

Okay, well I'll put those as, if you like, questions in writing, effectively based on the business paper this evening.

Thank you. Any further speakers? If not, I'd right of reply. Who moves that?

Not necessary.

Thank you, Devere. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Cottlash, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrett, Councillor Tree. Against? Councillor Ross. Declare it carried.

Item is item 240. There's a motion.

Move that, Mr Mayor.

Seconder? Seconded, Councillor Rasmussen. Discussion

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I think the headline of this motion is perhaps a bit misrepresentative of what the intention of it is. It's not really anything to do with construction, but it's really just to take a move and to start a dialogue about the impact of activities in neighbouring local government areas and the impacts on our infrastructure and so on, and just the protocols and so on around that. Now, I've brought this forward because some people in the Morelia and Oakville areas have brought to my attention the condition of their local roads when there's a lot of heavy vehicle use from construction out in the Maroota area and in the Boundary Road area. Now, I don't know the ins and outs, which is why I brought this as a notice of motion about what occurs with the infrastructure contributions taken for the other council, or it could even be state.

I don't know how the Boundary Road precinct works, but there's a definite impact on a shared road with the hills, which is Boundary Road. And there's also some other instances, I guess not so much, but in the Driftway it could also occur, and also where we border with Blacktown and we have other activities in other areas impacting. Now, I know, of course, our citizens also go through other areas and so on. I'm not suggesting we're somehow special, but I'm just—there's a misunderstanding within the community about how... You know, how to make a complaint. Another one is that also brought it forward was the issues with traffic in the Wisemans Ferry area, where there's three council areas looking after it.

Who's responsible for what? I'm just seeking some clarity around it and just wondering if we can have some sort of dialogue with these other councils, or there could be something in place for all I know, just to really clarify how to make sure that we get enough input into fixing up our infrastructure if it's impacted by other people. Is there any system for doing that? Who do people complain to about something? Do they complain to us or to the Hills or to both? I'm just after some answers along those lines.

Thanks. I had a question. I think point one is quite clear. Point two, we've just got their detail of the procedure. Are we calling for a report, or

It would be calling for a report. I did get it in quickly because of the deadline for it, and I just quickly whipped it off. But yes, it is calling for a report. I don't assume anyone could answer it immediately, and I don't want to generate a lot of work. I just want—

Yeah. So you'd be comfortable with calling for a report too in front of— Yeah. Yeah, sure. Yeah. I'm quite supportive of that. We've had a lot of questions, and I think it would be useful for people to understand a bit more about how that works, and to have formally said something about the fact that one entry discussion for the Hills won't hurt. I'm sure those discussions happen at some level.

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Mr Mayor. I agree with the Deputy Mayor, and I'm glad that she's expanded this notice of motion so that it's bigger than Boundary Road. Boundary Road is the current problem spot because of all the development happening on the other side, and because of all the issues around that development and people feeling like they've been shut out of the development process on our side of the LGA, and the confusion around the state government rollout and funding and everything. I mean, that space is a mess. But I think that's just that example. We do need to have a better understanding of how this rolls out with neighbouring councils. I think we're about to see a similar problem at Wiseman's Ferry.

I went along to the River Users meeting a couple of weeks ago on your behalf, and much of the discussion there was about the new boat ramp and facilities at Wiseman's Ferry, which is another matter that we need to seek some more information about, and I'll do that formally. So what we're about to see is a whole lot more traffic pouring into that space to use those facilities, and river users here are really quite pleased because they're hoping it will take some of the pressure off Governor Phillip Park. But I think we're going to see similar issues around Wiseman's and the bit of Wiseman's that's ours, and the border with Hornsby and Hills. That's a really difficult issue because we border with three other councils there, and I think we're going to get into this same muddle over there.

So I think we do need to understand how this works, but residents and ratepayers also need to understand how it works and how we can fix the problems that inevitably arise. This isn't going to go away, and I think the Oakville problem is probably going to expand before it gets any better.

Councillor Wheeler. No

Further speakers. Do you want right of reply, Deputy Mayor?

No, I don't need right of reply, but I am happy to speak to staff in more detail. I don't need to articulate it as well. If they want more information about what I'm, I'm happy to send that in or to speak to someone. Thanks.

All right, we'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards, Councillor Ross, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor McCotlash, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garry, Councillor Tree. Declare it carried.

Councillors,

We do actually

We do actually have one more confidential item that we need to do. So someone will have to move that we move back into confidential again. Councillor was in primary, seconded Councillor Garrow. All those in favour? Against? Carried.

In regard to item 2.4.1, whilst in closed session Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Lyons-Buckett, seconded by Councillor Zamprogno, that:

1. Council enter into a lease with Ngov Kong Family Pty Ltd for the property known as Shop 4, Wilberforce Shopping Centre as outlined in the report. 2. In conjunction with part 1 above, Council agree to surrender the current lease with Vannarith Chea and Sayoen Khun for the property known as Shop 4, Wilberforce Shopping Centre as outlined in the report. 3. Authority be given for the lease and any other relevant documentation in association with this matter to be executed on behalf of Council. 4. Details of Council's resolution be conveyed to the current and proposed lessees, together with the advice that Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of its resolution until such time as appropriate legal documentation to such resolution in effect has been agreed to and executed by all parties.

Voting in favour of the resolution were Councillors Ross, Rasmussen, Garrow, Reynolds, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Kotlash, Calvert, Zamprogno, True, Richards, Conolly. Thank you. That concludes our items of business, so I declare the meeting closed at 9.57 .