31 August 2021 - Ordinary

Okay, welcome everybody. I'd like to start by acknowledging the Darug and Darkinjung people as traditional custodians of the land of the Hawkesbury, and pay respect to all Aboriginal elders past, present and emerging, and hand over to the General Manager for the procedural matters.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd also like to advise that in accordance with clause 5.18 of the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of the Council are recorded. In the terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this means both the recording of personal information provided at the time of meeting. The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting of Council meetings. The provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary. If any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting. The recordings may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations, and the recordings are stored on Council's record management system.

For the benefit of any persons who will be addressing the Council tonight, it is expected that you will refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at this meeting. This request relates to both your address to Council and in any answers given to response to questions from Council.

Thank you. Thank you. We don't have any public speakers, so first item, confirmation of minutes. We've got two sets of minutes. The first from the 10th of August. If somebody wants to move them. Moved, Councillor Zamprogno, seconded Councillor Rasmussen. All those in favour? Declare that carried. And another set of minutes from the 24th of August. Moved, Councillor Rasmussen, seconded Deputy Mayor. All those in favour? Declare it carried.

Is item 16— sorry, we'll do the items on block, one item on block, item 166. Somebody moved, Deputy Mayor, seconded Councillor Calvert. All those in favour? Carried.

So our first item then is item 164, the appointment of committees, delegates and representatives.

Somebody want to move something?

Councillor Calvert

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd just like to move the recommendation that's in the business paper.

Seconder for that, Councillor Wheeler. Any discussion?

Councillor Calvert.

Oh look, we only have three months to go before the next election, and for most of those committees that are listed there, it's probably only going to mean one more meeting. So I think it'd be a bit ridiculous to make any changes at this late stage. Leave that to the new Council in the end of the year or early next year. So I can't see any reason not to just move the recommendation. Okay.

I've just realised I haven't asked for apologies or declarations of interest. I'll do that after this item. Any further discussion? No. Put the motion then. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Richards, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Tree, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Reynolds. Against ? Deputy Mayor, were you in favour? Yes, in favour, Deputy Mayor. Declare it carried.

Declarations of interests. Any apologies tonight? I think we've got everybody , except maybe Councillor Ross. Okay

So I want to move Councillor Ross's apology. Moved, Councillor Zamprogno, seconded Councillor Kotlash. All those in favour ? Carried.

Next item is item 165, the investment report.

Anybody wish to move anything there?

Moved, Councillor Wheeler, the recommendation. Seconded, Deputy Mayor? Yep. Any discussion? Councillor Wheeler.

Just a couple of questions, if I may, Mr Mayor. I'm just, it appears that

There's been, we had a lengthy briefing prior to changing our investment or making some changes to our investment policy, but I think that was prior to COVID. And it appears, and I think we were all concerned at the time that our investments weren't necessarily keeping pace with inflation. We've now got some recommendations here in this investment report about ensuring that we limit our exposure for any new purchases. I guess I'm curious with something that doesn't appear in this investment report. So this is all our monetary investments. And I'm happy for this question to be taken on notice. Council has a property portfolio as well. Would any of those properties be considered investment properties , or are they all properties that Council retains for either because we've, I guess, you know— Buildings like the old library within the council precinct, is that considered an investment property?

Do we keep it simply because we've got it and it's convenient? If I could get some follow-up information on the other parts of council's investment portfolio, that would be helpful. Thanks. Just

Refer that to Director Support Services.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Yes, so council does have a fairly extensive property portfolio of investment properties, both in commercial and residential. So this report doesn't cover off on those returns. This is only in regard to the investment of council funding.

Thank you . Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Likewise, I had just a couple of questions around this, and I know we did have the briefing, but it does seem like a long time ago. And I was just interested when I read through a couple of things, and I had a couple of questions because the public might also not have such a deep understanding of the issues around the investment strategy. But I just had a question about the TCorp Long Term Growth Fund, which seems very high risk, and I did read about it, and I saw that it had a return of the CPI plus 3.5%, which is quite good, of course, in this economy, but it's also considered very high risk. So I'm just wondering, given we're doing that incremental investing a million over time, up to 10 million, I think it was, how high risk is it?

And had we considered the medium, which was lower risk because of the length of time that we have to take for the long risk? I just wondered if someone could sort of put my mind at rest about the level of risk in going long term at that sort of investment fund.

I refer that to the Chief Financial Officer.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. So the long-term growth fund, we're looking at investing incrementally in that based on discussions we've had with the investment advisor. This type of investment, it's a bit different than term deposit in that you do have to look at it long term. It will go up and down over the long term. However, on average, it will always, like the trend has shown that it will give you a higher return. So the advisor is quite comfortable recommending us to undertake this investment. It's still, as long as we do not pull out the investment when it's a negative return, then we're not going to lose capital. So that's the main thing that we're comfortable, we've got enough cash that we're not going to need to call out the investment when it's not at its right return. So

We are quite comfortable

The advisor is quite comfortable. So we recommend that we proceed. Thank you.

Thank you. That was my concern, was in such an unstable sort of market that we could have to pull it out, and it's in there for quite a long amount of time, and it is quite a significant amount of money. So thank you. I think that was the only question that I had around that. But yes, thank you.

Councillor Zamprogno. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Look, I concur with my colleagues about the paltry rate of interest that we get and how that rarely even matches the CPI or the inflation rate. But I'm just questioning one of the figures that's given to us in table eight, portfolio return. It would appear that most of our investments are in vehicles that yield anywhere between 1.3% and down to as much as one third of 1%, and yet the weighted average return is on the order of 0.045%, which is an order of magnitude lower . Could I ask staff to pass that for me, please

Through that to the Chief Financial Officer.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd probably take that one on notice so that I can send out a detailed explanation. That return is calculated by our investment advisor, and it's recommended to be calculated a certain way to then be able to compare with the benchmark. So if I may take it on notice and send out some details. Fine,

Thank you. Thank you. Any further discussion, Councillor Wheeler

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Just one of the other things that I want to note that's in the report is that the investments that we've put into environmental, social and governance investments, which is part of our revised investment policy, do seem to have some of the higher rates of return, which was certainly what was predicted to us from the investment advisor. So it's nice to see that that is actually working to Council's advantage. That's probably all I've got at the moment. I'm really interested to see what the rest of our investment portfolio looks like as things are rapidly changing with finance, both nationally and globally. Thanks.

Thank you . Being no further discussion, we'll put the matter. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour? Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Richards, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Tree, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen. Declare it carried.

Next item is item 167, the Innovation and Partnership Committee minutes. Somebody want to move something there? Moved, Councillor Richards, seconded, Councillor Kotlash. Any discussion?

If not, we'll put the motion. All those in favour? Deputy Mayor.

Sorry, I was trying to find my notes in this big book.

I just had a question around the sequence of this committee minutes about —I thought there was another meeting of this committee just recently, and yet we're resolving to have that meeting tonight, but that meeting's already been on. I was just a little bit confused about how we're resolving tonight to hold another meeting in August, but that's already been on and to do submissions. I thought this was—the aim of the committee was that things came through Council, not just get decided by the committee, and that seems to be what this is. But I've got no problem with what you're doing, but I just think that's around the wrong way. But I guess having two committee meetings close together would be a rarity.

That certainly isn't the case normally. So I haven't got an issue. I'm just questioning the sequence. But with regard to this issue around the telecommunications, I do have a question, and what it is is that the original motion that I brought forward about having a meeting around this was actually around the backup generator for the Telstra Tower, so that when communications go down, the tower has electricity supply. Now it seems to have morphed into a much different thing, which is all about actually trying to solve a federal issue through a committee, and I think that's rather unusual. But what I would like is if I could ask if the committee could give an update on what the status is of the original motion, which was around the, you know, has it progressed?

Have Bilpin got their backup generator for their Telstra Tower, and has any further information been done around that, or has it gone off on another path ? That's all. I just don't want the original thing that we had resolved to support our community to get a backup system to be lost as it's gone down the track, because that was nearly a year ago, I think. So coming into the fire season, we know that the remote areas really rely on the telecommunications being available for their survival, and something such as having a backup generator on their tower is a really, really fundamental thing. I know we don't do it, but I was imagining, and I thought the intent was that we would be advocating for that so that we could be assisting that community to further their safety through gaining that as a community strengthening of their safety.

So if that could be updated through the committee, I don't know if that was looked at at the second meeting, but that was the original intent. And whereas additional work's being done, I would hope that those sort of things would also be being looked at. Thank you.

Thanks. So, a couple of questions there. One was around the sequence. I actually had the same sort of comment here. Looking at the committee constitutions, there's no requirement for the council to endorse that the committee can have another meeting, so I'm not sure why that's really been brought forward for council's endorsement. But it does look a bit odd that the recommendation is for council to endorse that the committee have another meeting when, one, the meeting's already happened, and two, the committee doesn't need council's endorsement to do that. We have had another meeting since then, the committee. We had 74 submissions from the community to that meeting, so I was very pleased to see the huge engagement compared to the old committee structure.

We might have had six or seven people involved. In regards to the original motion, the original motion wasn't actually about Bilpin. The original motion was that the council asked the committee to look into telecommunications in the Hawkesbury. The committee then decided that, based on the discussions at that meeting, the first hearing at the committee should be in regards to Bilpin, and we decided to invite — that we recommended to council that that meeting take place, that Telstra be invited, as well as another of our stakeholders. We then engaged with Telstra and got a letter back from the CEO saying they weren't interested in the meeting at Bilpin and that they'd considered the matter considered and finalised.

So on that basis, we didn't have another meeting at Bilpin. It's certainly something I've discussed with Susan Templeman and as of yet is unresolved. Telstra's not come to the party on that. There is no backup generator. Telstra consider what they've done there, the infrastructure to be sufficient. And, yeah, and we'll continue to advocate, but there's not really anything more direct than that we can do. Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Sorry, just a quick follow-up. I think I might raise it in the Disaster and Emergency Management because I think there should be some access to funding around these sort of things, and it might be better in that particular committee.

Councillor Zamprogno. Thank you, Mr Mayor. In our Innovation and Partnerships Committee meeting recently, a thing was raised which I've since been able to do some research on, and I had a question for staff. There was mention of what's called the Perry Urban Mobile Program, and there was an announcement back in May by the Federal Infrastructure Minister of a $16.4 million fund. And it would appear that we are the kind of community that would have been eligible. Now, the public submission period for the PUMP program ended only a few days ago. I just wanted to ask staff whether we were aware of that and whether we had made a submission. Since we are now carrying the torch for our community to try and put our best foot forward, did we make a submission? Were we aware of any eligibility? Criteria that we could have come under for this scheme?

I refer that to Director of Infrastructure Services, I think. Through you, Mr Mayor,

I'm not sure the nature of that program. What I can say is that we've been in discussions with Telstra in terms of the Black Summer Fire funding , particularly for the backup generator issue for Bilpin, and we've made it clear to them that under that program , and they've indicated they would be eligible for various elements of that grant, and we've made it clear that that would be our priority for that area. So the deadline for that grant program has been extended now into October, I think, and we'll continue to follow up with Telstra so they can give that technical backup to what is essentially their asset that they would need to upgrade. I'd have to remember to submit that I'm aware on the program that you've talked about, though. We'll take that one on notice.

I'm happy for it to be taken on notice, but I think the implication in the correspondence from the federal member was that this was a separate scheme and stood apart from any mobile blackspot or fire recovery type funding, and I thought it was something that was worth pursuing and leave that for staff to do so. Thank you.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks. I want to comment on the survey that was run and reported back to the Innovation and Partnerships meeting. Can I say again, and I've raised this repeatedly over the five years of this term, please don't use percentages when you have less than 100 people. They're not valid, and they inflate the results and put across the idea that the results are more powerful than they initially are. If you've got seven people, you've got seven people. You don't have 15.5%. You don't have 0.79 of a person. You have seven people. Just present it as seven people, seven out of 40 or 39 or whatever you've got. That's fine. It's statistically valid. Upping it by slightly more than doubling the numbers isn't good statistics.

I'm also a little bit concerned about question eight, which I think is a really interesting question around the age range of people that live in a household, because I think that's a really useful statistic that speaks to people's internet use or telephone use. This question doesn't seem to allow for multiple responses, and that's clear in the responses that we've had, where people have said, you know, I've also got an 80-year-old living in the house. So currently, the responses to that question aren't valid. So if we're going to report these results back to anyone else, question eight currently isn't statistically sound. I think questions nine and 10 are some of the most interesting data in this survey, particularly around safety and the safety of sick and elderly and young kids.

And that, particularly with COVID, when people are unable to go and visit family members or need to get in touch with people to reassure them that people are okay when you can't travel out of your LGA to see them. This is the information that we really urgently need to be conveying to both Telstra and the federal government, that this is the help that people really need, and this is what people depend on for their mobile and internet availability.

We could have solicited all these responses under the old committee structure. You didn't have 74 people at a meeting; you had responses to a survey. Any of the previous committees could have run this survey. This came up at the same time as the new committee structure did, and that's why this survey has been done. But this is not a triumph of the committee structure. This is just council doing its job and soliciting information. And I also— Just

A point of clarification, are you talking about the survey that was run by the Windsor Downs Community Association?

Well, I'm talking about the survey that's presented in here, and then there's the additional information that was received to that meeting. And so you didn't have 74 people responding to—you didn't have 74 people at a meeting. You had 74 responses to a request for information. You could have done that under the old committee structure.

Sorry, I was just asking about the comments about the survey, because I'm not sure what survey you're referring to.

Sorry, I probably am. And so therefore, if we're going to report that information, we need to be clear as to the validity of that data.

That's just a clarity. That's just a copy of the submission. That's a copy of one submission. Yeah,

Fair enough.

So, but I do want to just on record say that it has not been the experience of Heritage Advisory Committee that that committee has been able to proceed with its work without that coming back to council for that committee to proceed. So if we're now moving into a system where the committee doesn't need to go back to council in order to continue its work, then I think that will become as a great relief to the Heritage Advisory Committee, who have lost nine months momentum with the work that they were carrying out by having to report back to council both when the committee structure was rearranged and subsequently. So if we can just carry on regardless, I think that will be a great relief to us because we've still got a lot left to do. Thank you.

Thanks. Just to clarify that point, I guess what I was saying earlier was that the committee constitutions allow the committees to call another meeting of the committee. They don't require Council to call another meeting if there's business that's flowing on. And it's implicit in the committee constitution that we are supposed to be calling for submissions. So the way the idea that Council would need to endorse any committee, including the Heritage Committee, if the Heritage Committee has a motion that's just to have another meeting and call for submissions, I don't believe that does need to come to Council, but happy for that to be potentially taken on notice and clarified. That, yeah, my understanding was always that the committees didn't need Council to call the meetings or to call for submissions because they're required to call for submissions.

In regards to the survey and that presentation, yes, those comments can all be passed on to the Windsor Downs Homeowners Association, but I think they probably put it in good faith and they're just doing their best group of volunteers. And that would have been counted as one submission. So we're not counting every survey response as a submission, but it's just one submission from the Windsor Downs Homeowners Association. There was also 73 other submissions, some from groups, some from individuals, and the way that worked is they were able to either put that in email, online, and then everyone who, or come to the meeting, and everyone who put one in advance of the meeting then gets an invitation to the meeting as well so they can present in person or just watch our consideration of that.

Any further discussion?

If not, we'll go right of reply, Councillor Richards. No. Put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour: Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Richards, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Tree, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen. Declared carried.

Next item is 168.

Anybody want to move anything for 168?

Move the recommendation, Councillor Zamprogno. Seconded .

Councillor Tree. Any discussion? Mr Mayor. Councillor Ross.

Sorry, you're on mute, Councillor Ross.

Pardon me, Mr Mayor. I would like to raise the matter of the Windsor Downs Public School,

Firstly with some questions.

Does the proposed work here

And the cost of that work, which is stated as $125,000,

If these minutes are approved, does this a de facto approval by Council of the expenditure of these funds at some time in the future, please?

I refer that to Director Infrastructure Services. You're talking about Windsor Park Public School? That is

Correct

Yes.

So the Traffic Committee simply approves the design. Council would be the approving authority to accept the grant, amend its budget and program to do that. So we would normally bring those things back then, the funding, if the grant's made available, to Council via the quarterly review, where those come in during the year.

I might just, sorry, just before, I might just take a moment. Probably should declare a less than significant non-pecuniary interest, given that I live on Corpus Crescent. Just didn't pick that up earlier, but I'll declare that and I'll put a form in. Sorry, go ahead, Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd like to further inquire as to the

Split up of the cost of the traffic island in Corpus, the refuge, and separately the proposed fencing to be erected in Rifle Range, please.

I'd probably refer that to the manager design, who's here with us tonight, or failing that, we might need to take that one on notice in terms of the actual costs split up.

Chris? Yes, thank you. Yes, we probably have to come back to you on that split with the cost because there's the island, there's signage adjustments and the fencing as well. So we could take that on notice and provide that proportion.

Thank you.

I would also like some comment on the pedestrian refuge in Corpus Crescent in terms of its placement. Now, its

Extension to the level of the presumably the kerb line of Rifle Range Road,

I can see will reduce the possibility of U-turns being done at that intersection mouth , which is a safety measure I acknowledge. But I also am concerned that the ability of buses to turn... From Corpus Crescent into Rifle Range Road, when travelling back towards Bede Polding High School, will be impeded by this structure at that point. And I am wondering whether it would not be more advisable to take the refuge somewhat further back into Porpus to allow some greater convenience and accessibility for our public transport operators, please.

That's the director. Sorry, to the manager. That's the manager, okay, sorry.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. So there's probably two things there. With the positioning of the refuge, it's to do with the pedestrian desire lines, where we are getting the students to cross close to that intersection and providing that protection with the staged crossing. And secondly, which is in the minutes, there are turning paths which have been looked at for the buses. And when we do the final survey design, we will also be consulting with the bus operators. So at this stage, with the concept designs, the buses can turn adequately and safely.

Could I inquire further, please? Was the bus company operator who I understand are participants in the committee attended at the meeting at which this matter was discussed, please?

Yes, that is correct. Busways representative was attending the meeting.

Thank you. That's the conclusion of my questions. Mr Mayor, with your indulgence, I'd like to make a representation in this regard. I believe the report is not appropriate .

The expenditure of $125,000 projected at this area in this location is wildly excessive, in my humble opinion. If Council has some memory, during this term of Council, there was a pedestrian crossing approved outside Bead Polding High School , very proximate to Sirius Mouth intersection. I felt and still feel that that was inappropriate because of the movement of personnel. There was no fencing or pedestrian corralling , shall we say, employed on that occasion.

And I fail to see that how $125,000 at probably the smallest of the public schools in our build-up areas is anything but a very poor outcome

As far as the ratepayers are concerned. Firstly , I believe it is incumbent upon the school to conduct their education of these young folk. Secondly, I understand that Council has received funds on an ongoing basis from RMS, Transport for New South Wales, to enable... Personnel to go out and make or give training in a fashion to skilled students, presumably on site and as part of the skill program. And I don't see that we're getting any benefit or improvement in the habits of these young people, apparently. Now, if Council wishes to spend this sort of money on this sort of a project with fencing and so on, I would suggest that they have overlooked both Bead Polding and Chisholm Primary School, who both have, I would suggest, larger populations when education returns to being in person than does Windsor Downs.

I support the island in Porpoise, but I do not support the proposal of fencing because it is not consistent with what the Council has done in other locations immediately proximate. It also could be more beneficially accomplished, possibly, by the exploration of firstly some form of low shrubbery grown along the footpath between the school and the mouth of Porpoise, or slightly closer to Bead Polding.

And it's an unwarranted waste of funds. I can think of two schools. Apart from the two I've mentioned, both in Francis Street in Richmond, who have similar pedestrian vagaries, and who would be completely justified in seeking similar expenditure. All of those four skill bodies could do that, but it's wanton disregard of the scarcity of funds. And furthermore, I do not concede that a one-day survey on Monday the 7th of June is representative of pedestrian activity in both performance and the level thereof over any period of, except on that particular event. It's a remarkably small sample that's been taken, and if a better system could be devised, and I would suggest that possibly in situ cameras placed on telegraph poles or something over a period of a week or a fortnight would give you a far better indication as to what the actual habits and vagaries of the pedestrians are.

And I would also suggest that the council's safety officer or risk officer might be involved in, or the RMS person that we have handing out this training, be informed of what the outcomes are, as should the school be, to try and better educate these people. I can't support this report, I'm afraid, sir. Thank you.

Thank you. Can I just ask a question to Director of Infrastructure Services regarding this item? Are we.. . Are we designing the optimum solution in response to an issue being raised, and these works to be prioritised later against all other competing priorities? Or is this report sort of on the way to prioritising these works as the next works of these sort that we do?

So, I can probably answer that. So, as indicated in the report, there was an incident where a child was struck there from the school. The school basically sought to have a pedestrian crossing implemented, which is not an unusual circumstance when an incident does occur for these things, for pressure and requests for pedestrian crossings. Part of our response is to go and investigate whether that would be an appropriate response given those circumstances. In this case here, we've done the analysis, looked at what could be done to improve that situation. At this stage, there is no funding available, as I said in my earlier response. This is a matter that the Traffic Committee has just looked at what is the solution.

In terms of then the ranking against any other road safety project, normally Council would be applying for funding through the various black spot or school safety programs, and based on the warrants and needs and any accident history at those locations, that's then prioritised by essentially Transport for New South Wales to provide the funding for those. What we did indicate in the report, that Council might, in the absence of that funding, consider it in a future program of its own as well. But at this stage, we would be making submissions, and that would be ranked against any of the other sites that we frequently go up to the Local Traffic Committee identifying works at schools, and that ranking is then essentially done through grant programs from Transport for New South Wales.

Typically they will fund— In some cases, the design work in advance, so that we do have reliable and accurate costs to be able to put into those grant programs.

Thank you

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Mr Mayor. I just wanted to respond to some of Councillor Ross's comments. This is a public school. The infrastructure provision at and around a public school is a matter for public provision. If Councillor Ross has concerns about schools that are run by the Catholic Archdiocese, then perhaps he needs to approach the Archdiocese and ask them to contact Council and Council's Traffic Committee to look at those spots as well. We can't put shrubbery near corners. It interferes with drivers' visibility. This is a particular case in Bligh Park. We know that Bligh Park has a very young population with a high degree of active transport. It's one of our, as one of our newer towns , it has quite a high proportion of young families, a lot of whom are out and about, particularly at the moment with young children.

I don't think that an additional pedestrian crossing on a road that's both as wide and as curved as Porpoise Crescent is really too much to ask of Council. This is a safety issue, both inside and outside school hours. Anyone who's frequented the Bligh Park community page will know that there are numerous complaints about people travelling too quickly along the roads there, most of them are 50 kilometre zones that aren't necessarily obeyed by drivers. And people are genuinely concerned for the safety of residents and particularly young children.

We know that things like pedestrian crossings function as signals to drivers to slow them down. It's the same as planting trees along the side of the road; it signals to drivers that people walk in these spaces, and it causes people to slow their speed. I note that the recommendation calls for the education of kids by the school, and that this really only calls for inclusion in further works if funding from Transport New South Wales isn't available. This Council has repeatedly resolved to make lists of shovel-ready projects should funding become available. This is one of those projects. It's been costed, designed, and frankly, if the funding fell into our lap, it would be ready to go. This is exactly what we should be doing across the LGA.

It can then be prioritised against other projects if we're approached by other schools. But this is a school with a higher than average population of special needs children. It's one of the things that Windsor Park does well, and if so, they may need additional infrastructure around them to keep those kids safe. I don't think that there's a problem with Council either asking Transport for New South Wales to provide the funding to do that, or putting it on a list of priority projects for us to do it ourselves.

Thanks, Councillor Wheeler. Any further discussion? If not, we'll put the motion. I don't recall who moved it, sorry. Anyone want to write a reply? No. All right, we'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Lanes Buckett, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Tree. Against. Councillor Ross, declare it carried.

Next item is responses to Council's questions. Taken on notice. Any questions on those questions, Deputy Mayor?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Not a question, just a thank you to the Director of Planning for clarifying that inaccurate statement that was made at the meeting last week. I think it's really important that the community know the truth when somebody makes a claim that Council did something which it did not. I think it's very good that that's there in writing to show what those delays arose from. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further questions on questions? If not, that's our—

If not, that's our final item for discussion. So thank you, everybody. We'll declare the meeting closed at 7:13 p.m. Thanks.