12 April 2022 - Ordinary

Okay, good evening, everybody. I'd like to start by acknowledging the Darug and Darkinjung people as the traditional custodians of the land of the Hawkesbury, and pay respect to Elders past, present and emerging. And I'll hand over to the General Manager for the procedural items.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Members of the public attending this meeting this evening are advised that in the event of an emergency, you'll be asked to proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exit following the guidance of our warden. I'd also like to advise that in accordance with clause 5.33 of the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of the Council are recorded. In the terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable 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 on Council's record management system. For the benefit of those persons who will be addressing the Council tonight, it is expected that you'll 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 or attending the meeting this evening has a mobile phone, most of you probably do, that it either be turned off or turned to silent.

Thank you.

Sorry, don't need any apologies, they were all here. We've had one request from a member of the public to speak by audiovisual, which I've decided to allow unless anyone has any objections. Any declarations of interest? Councillor Djuric.

Yeah, I want to declare a pecuniary interest in item 72. I've made a special disclosure under clause 4.36 of the Code of Conduct. Councillor

Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Two declarations of interest, items 71 and item 78.

Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Items 77, 75, 72 and 71.

Okay. It's a lot to remember, so you may have to remind me as we get there, everyone. So I want to move the minutes from the previous meeting. Moved, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, seconded, Councillor Reardon. All in favour? Declare that carried. So we have two items subject to public address. First item is item 71.

So we've got a couple of declarations there to read onto the tape. Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. My declaration is significant non-pecuniary, with the potential property owners who are involved in community initiatives with me, especially tourism, and I'll be leaving the room. Thank you.

Councillor Djuric.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I declare a pecuniary interest in that I own land potentially affected by the proposal. The land affected is my principal place of residence, and I have made a special disclosure under clause 4.36 of the Code of Conduct.

Thank you. Okay. Our first speaker, or our only speaker, is Angela McGuire, who's speaking by audiovisual. Just wait till she's let in.

Hi, Angela. We're ready for you when you're ready.

Sorry, we're ready for you when you're ready to go, Angela.

Oh, I apologise for that. Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you to all councillors for the opportunity to speak to this matter. My name is Angela McGuire. I am the current chair of Harvest Trails and Markets, otherwise known as Hawkesbury Harvest to most people here, and we are very grateful to Council for giving us an opportunity to provide some input into this piece today. We'd like to acknowledge the overall importance of agri-tourism, both from our organisation and the support we have also received from Council, and how important it is to the region, both financially, ecologically, culturally, and all the things that we value. One of our major concerns, and one of the things that has been highlighted in our post-COVID environment, or COVID environment, was pick-your-own orchards, particularly in Bilpin, and the impact that that was having around certain areas.

And it's flushed out a few issues potentially around planning provisions or not. One of the challenges with what's been proposed here is that the matter of pick-your-own remains silent, and it's very hard to work out if these rules would apply to pick-your-own farms and how that would actually work. And one of the reasons that's of concern to us is that 30 people at a time, when the maximum can be 50, well even 50 in a pick-your-own environment isn't necessarily a lot. A lot of these are families coming in, you know, minibuses with five or six people. So if you think about that, that might be eight or ten cars, and then how we actually manage that on premise. Do we do booking systems? But particularly if certain enterprises have sufficient parking and sufficient space, we don't see why it shouldn't be more than that.

But if the state government's telling us 50, we'd like the 50, please. We'd also like to acknowledge that these are primarily production zones in the first instance, and the nature of production, or primary production, is changing. We're no longer mono-crop big orchards. We're diversifying activities, and what that does is that it retains farm activities. And these are changing in the way that consumers are changing, how they want to conduct tourism, how they want to get close to their food source, and particularly people in Sydney looking to get out of the city after lockdowns and to just get out into some fresh air. So to remain as well-managed land as possible, we need to have the flexibility of a diversity of small uses.

And if we become over-prescriptive, we do run the risk of locking out smaller producers because, in the first instance, they struggle to purchase land because of the expense, particularly here on peri-urban fringe of Sydney. But also, once there are imposts potentially around additional reports, acoustic or parking plans, these can also become very onerous and exclude people who we want to get involved in agriculture and think that's important.

The other thing that we are very keen for is for Council to work with us and also the State Government in looking at the infrastructure that means that tourists to the area in busy periods have appropriate and sufficient facilities so as not to impact adversely on existing residents and do it in a way that is sympathetic to the environment and to people's amenity. So in the same way that the State Government has invested a lot of money in the Blue Mountains and providing appropriate infrastructure there, one of the main goals of the tourism plans and the recovery for our economy at a State level is via agritourism and tourism close to the Sydney Basin. We would be looking to them to support things like toilets and car parks and those things that we can't take for granted or that need to happen so people aren't impacted in a way that is unfair.

But we are very pleased to be having this conversation about agritourism. It is a wonderful, wonderful asset of the Hawkesbury. We have so much to offer. It is a way of us being able to continue with open space, provide really interesting and high-value job opportunities for locals and for those who want to come into the area. So we feel it's critical that this is managed well, but we, understanding that the provisions here are a State Government down, we will be looking to reach out to State officials , and we'd also ask for you to reach out to your State counterparts to highlight some of the concerns and gaps that we feel we've identified here. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Are there any questions for Angela? Councillor Lyons-Buckett

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Angela, for that. I just, I'm just wondering what exactly were the changes that you were proposing? It was 50 people in the farm gate premises. Did you say something about the gross floor area as well there?

I had, and I didn't mention it at the time. And one of the issues that we felt came out of this piece here is how you actually , the definitional issues between what is primary purpose and what is ancillary. And as soon as you start to play around with those definitions, you know, is pick your own primary or is it ancillary? As far as floor area is concerned, a lot of the premises say they were to be converted from a packing shed or, you know, whatever to something that accepted tourists. So, for example, our shed here at Enniskillen Orchard is 200 metres square on the back of an envelope.

Sorry, thanks. Not used to being in real life. Was there also a change, did you say, to the number of people in the farm stay or not?

Well, I think the farm stay matter was actually the first time it's been put there. So that was two temporary properties or, you know,

Farm

Stay-type buildings and limited to certain sizes.

Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Any other questions? No. Thank you very much for that, Angela. Someone move something? Councillor Sheather. Yeah

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'd move the recommendation with a couple of changes, though. And those changes be for the farm gate premises, 200 square metres, and the maximum of 50 people, as per the

Attachment that we got. Is there a seconder for that? Seconded, Councillor Zamprogno. Further discussion? Yeah

Thanks, Mr Mayor. In relation to the farm stay, there's the 60 square metres is for a building, and there's an opportunity for mobile advancement in relation to, not dwellings, but accommodation for that. In relation to the farm gate premise, it's something that council's been promoting for a long time. And if there's a bus to go there, for instance, you've probably got at least 40 people seated in a bus, and it doesn't reflect the staff. It just says a maximum of 50 people. So it wouldn't be hard to get a number up to 50 people. I think 30 is a bit low. And in relation to the 150 square metres, as the lady indicated, I think that's a bit small. And a lot of buildings that may be revamped for that purpose would be up around the 200 square metres, some of them probably even bigger than that.

So for something that council's promoting, I think the changes in that to the farm gate would certainly support places like Bilpin, but we've got places like St Albans as well that we're trying to do exactly the same thing. And it allows other opportunities in other parts of our city to do the same thing. So I don't think— And I would hope if the business excels that, that they would look for an appropriate place to have such a business. But we're talking about Farm Gate and promoting those sorts of things within our city. Thank you. Councillor Wheeler.

Just a couple of questions to the staff, if I may, Mr Mayor. So we've got recommendations here of 60 square metres under Farm Stay for up to 10 people at a time. And then the gross floor area for a farm gate premise is 150 square metres and up to 30 people. So if we shift that 30 to 50, can I get some clarification through you, Mr Mayor, from Councillor Sheather if it's the Farm Stay or the Farm Gate that he wants increased to 200 square metres, which was what Ms McGuire was speaking to? Farm Gate, yep, good. And then I'm just wondering why then we've been given these lower requirements, and if there's any perceived problem between going to those higher limits.

Through that to Mr Kerns. Thank you, Mr Mayor. So in looking at the proposed agricultural and rural, we were given essentially parameters by the state government, you know, minimum and maximum criteria for numerical standards. And through our previous consultation with the community in particular our rural areas, and direct consultation with particular groups, it's highlighted, I guess, the need to manage additional uses within our rural areas. So we looked at it in the lens of, you know, yes, these rural areas are working production areas, but they're also areas that people are living in. So it's really about managing the impacts of additional uses. So the recommendations there were mindful of that in terms of a set of numbers that didn't overly cause issues in terms of ongoing noise, traffic and those types of issues that may become an issue for residents in those rural areas.

So can I ask a question that follows on from that then? So if we go to 200 square metres and 50 people,

Are the objectives laid out in 5.24.1 A through G sufficient to maintain those controls and mitigate those additional use impacts if we go to those higher numbers?

So obviously the objectives are relatively broad, and, yeah, so certainly in terms of the increased in size by 50 square metres, probably can still be addressed in terms of the objectives. Probably the one, the closer look is probably the number of people, yeah.

Thanks, because I'm happy with the numbers that are proposed if the parameters that we've got around assessing individual applications allow us to maintain those environmental and conflict of use controls, particularly for people who are living adjacent to these setups where that has not been an ongoing use. You know, I think if you move to something like Hillbilly Sliders, you know it's going to get busy on the weekend. You know, but where these sites have moved in and increased their activity, then I think we need to be able to still set reasonable limits. I think we also need to look at this. This is legislation for the entire state, and I think we need to be mindful of our proximity to Sydney and the fact that people will then use us as a day trip rather than a more , I guess, a more planned visit like you would do, say you went to the Hunter Valley.

And, you know, I can see how this legislation with lower numbers would work in a place like the Hunter, where you might come as a series of bus tours out of... Yes, someone like Peppers or one of those more organised tour groups where we've got people who lob up for the day, not necessarily

Planned.

And I think it would be a really bad look for the Hawkesbury to go, look, we've got 30 people in already; you'll just have to sort off for a couple of hours. You know, that's exactly the message that we don't want to be giving people. They haven't driven for a particularly long way, but there's a level of spontaneity that comes with our farm gate visiting that I think we have to be mindful of. And I think that's where these slightly greater numbers of people particularly allow for that. If we've still got reasonable constraints about environmental heritage and conflict of use constraints that can be used to control inappropriate expansion, then I think we're probably safe, is, I guess, my thinking on this.

Okay . Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm happy to support this. I take on board the number of concerns that were raised by the speaker, and I'm just wondering if we could just have some indication of how we would implement some more controls around the traffic. And other provision of amenities and so on. Is there a mechanism to do that and still maintain this definition as it's going through here?

Refer that to Mr. Cairns. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So that's obviously, you know, assessed on an individual DA by DA basis, so on the merits of each application, and obviously has to meet the various objectives of this clause and also the provisions. So the provisions sort of clearly indicate that, you know, the development will have basically avoid significant adverse impact and includes visual amenity, heritage, scenic, vegetation, water quality, traffic. So they're all things that have to be addressed through the development application process. There is the ability then, given this is an LEP clause, then to include in council's subsequent documents such as the development control plan, additional controls through the development control plan if council deemed appropriate.

Okay, that's great. Would that perhaps include then having some sort of way of looking at where we have an area that is engaging in agritourism, to then having a specific way of looking at how many other amenities and public amenities based on the visitation, so to speak, that we would start to implement? So, for example, we know at Bilpin when we had the influxes post-COVID that we had issues around public amenities and so on. So how will we be moving forward to look at it in that way, given they'll be day tripping mainly people? Refer

That to someone over here.

Thank you. Through you, Mr. Mayor. So there's a broader process around place planning. So we're aware there are a number of issues raised by the community that will influence council's approach to the place, which isn't just around development, but also around, you know, amenities that people want in the area. And we're aware of those issues and we'll be working with the community to identify them and understand how we could address them. And then there's just basic Building Code of Australia requirements that would need to be meeting as well, as well as any other legislation.

Thank you. I did have two questions around the actual wording of the provision as it's put. The first one was I couldn't really establish whether there was any actual requirement for a compatibility between what was being produced and what was being engaged with as the farm gate. So, for example, could you have a turf farm and you meet a requirement and yet you're selling candles or something? I mean, that would be weird, but, like, you know what I mean. So a compatibility of what's grown on the property, obviously if it's a vineyard and you're growing grapes, you're selling wine.

Does it have to be ancillary is the question

Yes, yeah It should be ancillary, but how is that established?

So my understanding is it generally is ancillary to what is being produced, but it is also around products being produced in the region. So essentially, you know, people producing, I'll pick one, honey, for instance, could potentially, you know, sell them in other, you know, farm sites.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Oh, good. Thank you. And the other question around that was this doesn't capture, I think as I mentioned in the briefing, it doesn't capture places like maybe a cider manufacturing — oh, not cider — outsider farm gate cellar doors because they may not be producing the apples on site. So do we have a way around that anomaly because — or we just leave them assuming that they have an existing right to have a cellar door in those particular zonings?

Mr. Kearns. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So for existing lawful uses, these provisions don't affect those uses. This clause is only applied to new development applications. And in terms of the cellar door premises without, I guess, having an orchard as part of the premises, then it comes to different parts of the LEP to look at that. It's not through this clause

Sorry , light. I'm happy to support this because I think that, I think this is an area that will grow. The challenge, of course, is with any growth of an industry like that is to avoid the adverse impacts that could come along on neighbouring farms and other activities and on the local amenity and the environment. I was concerned when I first read it that the definition in itself actually limited the amount of agritourism in this area because of its limitations. But there's been some increases in the size there.

I mean, I have my usual concerns around having a lot of people on a site and the issues about effluent, but I'm assuming there's enough controls that would be dealing with that . And also in managing the land use conflicts because this could essentially, it could change. As we know, a lot of these zonings will be on quite country roads, for example, and they may have a sudden influx of traffic that they've never had before. So I'm assuming everybody or the staff consider that these objectives are adequate to enable them to do an assessment that would minimise perhaps control numbers in an area where it's particularly vulnerable to that sort of imposition on neighbours. That is one of the criteria, so that's quite achievable, I'm assuming.

So the only other issue I had around it was what would there be in place to prevent somebody using their farm to put other dwellings on and not engaging in the farmgate premises, so to speak, like, or the farm stay. They could just technically do this and say that's what they're doing, and they could actually have people living in it all the time and so on. Is there any safeguard against that?

It's a compliance issue.

Thank you. That is a compliance issue, and it would be a matter of us responding in terms of a complaint if it was raised.

Thank you. I think that this is good. I think it's a great way forward for our area to protect some of our agricultural land that's very vulnerable. I do just wish to raise my concern around the number of individualised areas that the State Government is giving us to make decisions on with reasonably small amount of notice, and I think that that's not necessarily a good way to be doing planning. And particularly when something comes before us and it's a very pertinent area for us to be looking at, it would be nice if we sort of had a different system, but I know we don't control that. Thank you.

Okay. Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. This is a very welcome initiative, because the Sydney Food Futures project estimated in 2011 that fully 20% of Sydney's farming production, 20 % of Sydney's consumption of farm products, was conducted within the Sydney basin, and that that would fall to only 6% by 2031. So anything that we can do to preserve primary production agricultural land in the Sydney basin is very welcome. And I've seen this up close. I live next to a market garden that has recently sought to expand its ability to survive by opening a farm gate, opening a shopfront. They've even gone into delivery, home delivery, which I think is very keen of them. And I take my hat off to Jane and Louis that run the Oakville Harvest.

My question for staff is, I've read through the business paper here and I'm not still entirely sure. What change this represents. So, for example, those that are already conducting farm gates are doing so under some regime. Could you just recapitulate for us very briefly what this represents as a change? I'm just trying to see what problem this solves. Through that, Mr. Cairns, or Director.

Thank you. Essentially, it's—yes, there are farm gate activities being undertaken, but without any form of approval and therefore no consideration of a multitude of factors. Whereas through this process, being by covering under legislation, it means that when people wanting to apply to do this, there are a number of amenity issues that they would have to consider as part of, you know, any DA process. Okay,

Thank you. Yes, happy to support it. Councillor.

Thank you. Right of reply, Councillor Sheather. Yeah, thanks, Mr. Mayor

The concern that Councillor Mary Lyons-Buckett had about the accommodation perhaps being used for other purposes in relation to farm stays is 60 square metres. It's very small, and it's unlikely to be used for accommodation. In relation to the farm gate, it's a commercial business, and therefore we won't have that problem. But all the concerns that she raised, I hope happen. It means that it's very successful for a lot of people who have a go. And I think with these changes, and I might add, today I sat through a briefing with the planning panel. And the concerns that our councillors have, I think, are being well addressed by our staff and by the community who's volunteered their time to assess and discuss those matters. And something that the council's been trying to promote for years now is legit, and I think it'll be taken advantage of, and good

Luck to them. Thank you. Put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon. Councillor Richards was absent for the vote. Declare that carried. We'll move.

Move on to item 78. If someone wants to get Councillor Richards and Councillor Lyons-Buckett and tell us why she's got an interest in the alcohol free zones.

I can see everyone dying to know.

While we're waiting, can I just request that the speaker speak into the microphone, please. Sure. Yep

Sorry, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, yep.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll declare a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in item 78. I have a property bordering the identified area in Richmond, and the reason for no further action is that the decision to reimpose alcohol free zones on the border of a property location does not impact the activities of the property in question. Okay

Thank you. We have one speaker on this item, Mr Michael Edwards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, councillors and staff. I wish to speak on this item tonight that seeks to re-establish the alcohol free zones in various locations across the Hawkesbury. I specifically speak in support of the recommendation that the said zones be reinstated. I reside directly adjacent to an existing alcohol free zone in Pitt Town, which I can visibly understand has been established to provide some protection and safety to the residential areas immediately adjoining a licensed premises, and that's to provide some protection from the effects of intoxication and alcohol-induced antisocial behaviour. Unfortunately, because I live so close to this precinct, I've also observed numerous instances where the alcohol-free zone is blatantly disregarded, with some people who continually consume alcohol while loitering within the delineated area, and this has led to rowdy and disruptive behaviour, vandalism of vehicles and property, even assaults, myself included, all of which upsets the quite orderly amenity of the residential neighbourhood.

Alcohol-free zones are effective, but only when they are enforced. And the existing alcohol-free zones are typically delineated by signage, and while the signage acts as a visual cue, they still go ignored. In fact, the sign that directly sits out the front of my property is so indecipherable and is not conspicuously placed, one doesn't even know they're in an alcohol-free zone. Again, I do wish to support the Council recommendation to re-establish these alcohol-free zones. However, I ask Council to consider not just the staff recommendation, but also to look at investigating how these zones can be more effectively patrolled and enforced in order to achieve their intent. I understand that from reading the Council report, the responsibility to enforce lies with the New South Wales Police Force, and creating such a zone gives Council and Police certain powers to confiscate alcohol, as well as issue penalty infringement notices.

But this is dependent upon enforcement and patrolling and monitoring, and I'm advised from numerous discussions with Windsor Police that they do not have the resources to be policing alcohol-free zones. They're simply not interested unless there is an incident. And even then, their resources are so stretched that by the time they are able to attend a serious incident such as an assault, there is no leads or ability to investigate.

The majority of times that breaches occur are on Thursday and Friday evenings and on weekends, and these often occur outside of Council's ordinary business hours, whereby making possible enforcement by Council's own regulatory compliance officers both impractical and unreliable. And I'm also only too aware of the deficiency of resources in Council's own regulatory compliance team to serve the entire LGA. If the intention of alcohol free zones is to protect the safety and amenity of the community by reducing the effects of alcohol-induced and antisocial behaviour, then I look to Council to consider how the intent and objectives of these zones can be better achieved. And I appreciate it is a first level of defence, but from experience, they seem to go ignored and don't seem to achieve their intent from my own personal experience.

Thank you. Any questions for Mr Edwards? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Thanks, Mr Edwards. Would you— do you think it would be helpful if we included in this recommendation an improvement to our signage, so a renewal of that signage, just saying that the sign that's there, we would need to update the date on that sign, but if it's indecipherable, we clearly need a new sign by the sound of it. Would that help?

Yes,

It would.

Yes, it would, Councillor.

And recommendation two is to increase— sorry, exclude approved outdoor dining and/or footpath trading areas associated with appropriately licensed venues from the relevant alcohol free zones. Is that an issue in that precinct in Pitt Town? I think there's— people drink, people can sit out the front of the pub.

My understanding is that there's no current licence conditions that allow outdoor dining within Eldon Street specifically, which is where I reside. But there is an entry to the licence premises where patrons do enter and exit, and loiter. So it is an issue of spilling out, and that's a management issue for the licensee to consider particularly.

So if we were to, because this looks very much like a blanket recommendation to me, and I'm wondering then if that is a problem. I can see the appeal of it in areas with

More obvious outdoor dining and footpath trade, like Windsor, and areas of Windsor and Windsor Mall. But I wonder what the implications of that are in areas like Pitt Town, where the licensed premises is located so close to residential housing.

A specific answer.

Thank you.

But certainly signage would be a good start. The only thing that is decipherable is the date from and to, and you don't know what that correlates to. Sure.

Thanks.

Okay . Councillor Sheather.

Thanks for speaking. With any social behaviour, is that sort of after dark stuff you're talking about with the alcohol, or is it more other times of the day as well?

Thank you, Councillor. Yes, it's any time of day really when there are patrons having a few drinks, but it is generally after business hours when people knock off and go and have drinks, and it does become an issue in a very quiet residential neighbourhood after midnight.

After midnight.

We often will have groups of 20, 30 people congregating around till one, two in the morning. Right out the front of my property, drinking and yahooing, disturbing the amenity.

Okay. Any further questions? Thanks, Mr Edwards.

Thank you.

Councillor Richards.

May I just say something before debate begins? Based on a declaration I'm going to make in a further item about family members leasing or owning buildings in a zone, I'm just going to declare a less than significant non-pecuniary in this item for the same reason, family members owning or leasing buildings in the area, and stay in the room. Thanks, Mr Mayor.

Thank you.

Anybody? Oh, sorry.

I'll move the recommendation in the business paper.

Thank you. Seconded, Councillor Sheather. Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you. I support this, but I'll note in passing that the information that's been presented to us in the business paper doesn't indicate how long these alcohol-free zones have endured into the past, merely suggests dates relating to their renewal, and doesn't indicate whether they were instituted in any particular area then or now directly as the result of a request from residents or police because of previous antisocial behaviour. I tend to proceed from the point of, well, what problem does this solve? It's not as though I object to this, and I'm going to endorse its continuation, but I would have liked to have seen some advice from the local area command, for example, about previous antisocial behaviour that sought to be the justification for their establishment in the first place, and that information wasn't presented to us. I merely note it in passing. Thank you.

Thank you. Can I also just ask that we go and review that signage in all these alcohol-free zones? That's something we can take on board, general manager. Any further discussion? Councillor Sheather.

Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, I recall some of the areas that we did make alcohol free because of the issues, like Mr Edwards spoke of. One area that's not in here, for instance, is the netball courts up at South Windsor. There's a hotel just across the road, and the glass that's smashed across there every day is really, really bad. And I don't know how we deal with that. You know, do we talk to the police about speaking to the proprietors of premises that, and it's usually a premise that this is generated from, do we speak to the police when there's issues arise like Mr Edwards spoke of?

I'm not sure that that's a council role, really. It's a police matter. But if your feedback is given to us, we pass that on.

Yeah. Well, we put the signs up. We've got some responsibility, and if it's not our role to enforce it, then we should be speaking to whoever does enforce it, or take the signs down one or the other . Because it's really not good enough. I mean, when Mr Edwards talking about after midnight, a lot of our community is in bed by that time, and to have people carrying on in a public street is unacceptable.

Totally agree. I guess the point I'm making is I wouldn't want to encourage the public to complain, to direct that complaint to council. Yeah, no, I'm suggesting that.

But if we do our job, they won't complain. Yeah.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler.

A question first. I assume, and this follows on from Councillor Sheather's point, because there is a number of places, I think, in the LGA where people do gather to drink, and it often does descend into antisocial behaviour. And there's this really fine line. I think one of the lovely things that happened during COVID was that people began to picnic in a lot of our parks. And for many families, having a picnic involves, you know, having a glass of champagne or a beer or whatever, and I think that's fine. It's the late-night drinking and bad behaviour that ensues. So Wilberforce Park is a great example. We saw an increase in people having picnics in the park. It was really lovely to see while walking around because we were all stuck at home.

But there is still this gathering of, unfortunately, largely young people drinking in the park, and then they smash bottles, they carry on, there's complaints on Facebook. No one ever really seems to complain to the police. I don't know why. They just have a bit of a vent. But that is really antisocial. And then kids go there the next day, and there's glass all over the playground, over the barbecue equipment and that sort of stuff. I guess we're relying on the police to move people on under drunken disorderly legislation rather than our alcohol control laws. Is that the reason that we only keep these alcohol-free zones limited to these areas and we haven't got them in other areas? I think we used to.

I think Thompson Square used to have alcohol-free zone in it. Some of our parks have got them. Richmond Park's got it. Some of the other parks don't. I don't understand the reasoning behind some of this. Are we just relying on a different piece of legislation to govern those spaces so that we're not responsible for it? Is that the deal?

Thanks,

Mr Mayor. There's two different types of legislation regarding alcohol-free zones. The report is dealing with alcohol-free zones which apply to footpaths and roads, and under the Act, there's a requirement that Council has to have a resolution to classify those as alcohol-free zones. The other areas, such as parks and reserves, can be dealt with under another part of the Act, and that doesn't require a resolution of Council. That can be dealt with internally by Council, and that's the distinction between what we're dealing with here at the moment and parks and reserves. Okay,

So that does make a lot more sense, thank you. So further than the other thing that's in this report is excluding areas of — sorry, I haven't got my glasses on— where there's outdoor dining. And I think that's something that we've been really keen to put into Windsor Mall for a long time. I think we became aware of this when we started doing the town centre's work on Thompson Square, that we were giving away stuff for free that was valuable, and charging for things that would do what we wanted people to do more of, which was opening up those dining areas to increase occupation in those town centres. And obvious outdoor dining is one of those things that, you know, you see people doing it and it looks like it's fun, and more people want to come.

And so we were charging people for good things and giving away stuff that we, you know, things like parking, for example, we were giving away, and not paying— and giving a disincentive for the things that we really wanted to have. So I really think that this is opening up more outdoor dining in places like Windsor Mall, I think is a really good idea, if we can make sure that it doesn't turn into some sort of, you know, 2 a.m. yob fest, because that's the opposite of what we want. And so I think, you know, we need to have— I think Mr Edwards has highlighted this— a conversation with Windsor Police about how we police these zones so that people feel safe, because that's one of the things that we know from talking to the community repeatedly is that what they really want here is to feel safe.

And for those of us who've moved out to the Hawkesbury from other areas where we didn't feel safe, that remains really important to us. So the idea that you can walk unaccosted through Windsor Mall at midnight without, you know, stumbling, being set upon by someone who's quite drunk is really appealing, and we have to make sure that it stays that way. There's a difference between social dining and drinking and other drinking, and we need to make sure that we can do that whilst also maintaining — control over conflicts of use where we've got pubs that have evolved over 200 years when the culture was quite different in places like Pitt Town, those relics of our earlier setup. Thanks.

Thank you . Councillor Lyons-Buckett

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm happy to support this. I think it's good, but I take on board the issues that Mr Edwards raised, and I think perhaps that one area, I understand the police, of course, are the people who would be dealing with issues going on with drunken people in the street. As the objective of this is as an early intervention, perhaps it could at some point, I don't know, maybe it's part of one of our education programs within our areas that do that. And I note that in the public consultation there was no specific engagement around youth, and I think it's youth who may be the people drinking in the streets. Well, I suppose all ages do it, but if young people learn that that's not a respectful and a responsible place to be drinking, then that's probably an area that Council can contribute in through one of our various programs.

And I just wondered, is there still a liquor accord? Does that still exist?

Refer that to Mr

Misted. I have to take that on notice. I'm not aware of it.

Well, there used to be a meeting of all the licensed premises and the Mayor and everybody, and it was actually a really good avenue for when these sort of discussions came up that, yeah, it might reinvigorate. Thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Veigel. Just briefly, Mr Mayor, thank you. Yeah, look, I support the consultation with the police, so thank you, Councillor Wheeler and others who brought that up. What have we got? 2,752 square kilometres, and I think for the last time I asked patrol, they had two patrol cars doing all the way up to McDonald River, up to Bilpin and everywhere else. So, yeah, look, I think that's a good point to discuss with command, because it needs to be policed, and I wouldn't like to have our ordinance officers go around at 12 o'clock to do that. So that's a good point. So I thank you for raising that, Tara.

Thanks. The General Manager's just reminded me that I'll be attending with staff the community safety precinct meeting next week anyway, so this is another opportunity we can bring up this specific matter there . Okay. No further speakers, we'll put that motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Richards, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler and Councillor Zamprogno. Declare that carried.

Next we have items on block. Someone wants to move that. Moved, Councillor Reardon, seconded, Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

All those in favour? Declare that carried. Next move on.

On to item 71, we have declaration from Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll declare a pecuniary interest. We have property in those zonings which are subject to the reform. I'll leave. Thank you.

Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I will declare a significant non-pecuniary, family members own or lease buildings in the zones, and I'll be leaving the room

Thank you.

Somebody wish to move something?

Recommendation, Councillor Sheather, seconded Councillor Kotlash. There's no discussion. We'll put the motion. All those in favour? Councillor Conolly, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Wheeler, Councillors Improgno. Declare that carried, and we'll—

Next item is 73. So I wish to move something there.

Nobody called it up, but we have to make a planning decision, so we have to report the vote separately. So if somebody wanted to move the recommendation, we can go straight to a vote, but preferred.

73.

Moved, Councillor Kotlash. Seconded, Councillor Sheather. There's no discussion. We'll put that motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Richards, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Djuric , Councillor Zamprogno. Against? Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, and Councillor Dogramaci. Declare it carried.

Next item is item 74, draft Community Strategic Plan, Delivery Program, Operational Plan and Long Term Financial Plan. Councillor Veigel.

Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor. I'd like to put an amendment. I don't know whether— Motion. Sorry, motion, sorry. My apology.

Yep.

Would you like me to read all of that or just go straight to the point?

Do you want to tell us what's different? Sorry? Just tell us what's different to what's in the business paper.

Just to item 10, the exhibition of the plans outlined in part 1 include the rating structure proposal 2022-23 based on the residential rate category having two options for submission, 30% base rate plus the valorem of the rate applied to the land value, and 250% of the base rate plus the valorem applied to the land value, and the notional yield base at 0.8 rate peg at a 2.5. So when it comes back to Council, we can debate those points on submission.

Seconder for that?

Seconded, Councillor Reardon. Further

Discussion?

Well, I'll just make it briefly if I could before anybody else starts. I know previous councils have a great deal of debate within Council about the base rates and between 30% and 50%.

Based on that also, for the debate when it comes back into Council, we can make a firm decision on that and where it should be pegged. I don't think we should be frivolous. We need to look at the operational plan so it actually underpins what we need to do in Council and all our programs that Council is asking us to do so. It's a comprehensive report and I thank the staff for putting it together. A lot of reading behind it, so it makes it easier to get this one through when it comes back to Council and we get our public submissions in. That's what it's about, I think, you. Thanks.

Any further discussion? Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm a bit surprised that this is in this item in the first place, because changing the base rate does not change Council's income. And these documents are all about our income, what we receive, what we pay, whereas that is about who pays what, which is a different matter altogether. And therefore, I find it difficult to support this motion that Councillor Veigel has put up. And yes, maybe that issue needs to be discussed. Maybe, I know a number of councillors do want to discuss it. If so, then it should be brought up separately and discussed separately. And perhaps it could even be sent to a committee to invite members of the public. And I'm sure there'd be many members of the public who'd come along and talk about it, because it's quite a divisional issue out there in the Hawkesbury community.

So putting it here inside something else, it to me appears like we're slipping it through, and it's not getting the discussion it needs. And I understand that when it comes back, we could discuss it then, but why not just leave things as they are in this document? And whoever wants to could move this as a separate issue to be discussed here and with the community. So I can't support the motion as it stands, and I'll look to see if there are any other motions or amendments that might find their way forward.

Thanks, Deputy Mayor. I might just refer a question to CFO. My understanding is that it's a legal requirement that we exhibit the rating structure with the operational plan. Is that the case?

Yes. Thanks, Mr. Mayor.

And certainly, Deputy Mayor, what we've always done for the entire time that I've been on council is that the rating structure is set in the operational plan. And then if we want to change it, and a number of councils have indicated we think we should be looking at changing it, then I think it's the honest and upfront thing to do that we exhibit that change when we put this on exhibition rather than just slip it in separately. This is about being open and upfront about what our intentions are, and our intentions are—we want to look at the—well, my intention is I want to look at the rating structure and whether there's more support for a 50% base rate and whether that's fair. And I think that what this motion is trying to achieve is to put both on exhibition, to tell the community that this is a question that we're going to be answering, and invite feedback on that during the exhibition process rather than have some other process and just tell the community that we're leaving everything as it is.

Further discussion? Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. With respect, I have to disagree with the Deputy Mayor and concur with you, Mr. Mayor. The plans that we're placing on exhibition this evening are very clear about detailing not only our raft of expenditures, but a range of income-producing things. So all of our fees and charges, they're income. So rates are a form of income. And it's now April, and if this change is going to be brought in and made active July 1st, I think this is an entirely appropriate mechanism to be upfront with the community and to say there's a new chamber. It's already resolved in principle to change the base rate and to present the modelling that would affect rates through this. Through this instrument. So I don't see the distinction that the Deputy Mayor is making. Thank you. Okay .

Any further discussion? Councillor Wheeler?

Oh, I think that Councillor Lyons-Buckett was—

Sorry, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, I can't actually see your light where your microphone is, so maybe— yeah, just move it very slightly when you're not talking so I can see a pastural screen. The microphone does. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, just until you're ready to speak.

Who would like to speak, Councillor Wheeler or Councillor Lyons-Buckett? Yep. Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Now speak into the microphone.

Now I've lost my train of thought. I've just had a question first. If we're to put out, for example— so first of all, what would be the normal consultation protocol for a change of rating structure? Would it simply be just in this format, or would it have a specific separate consultation process?

Refer that to the Chief Financial Officer. Thanks

Mr Mayor. Generally the rating structure is part of the operational plan exhibition process, not a separate process. It's part of— Okay. And what

About the special variation to increase the amount asked? Does that have a consultation period protocol?

Yeah. So with the special variation, the advice that we received from the Office of Local Government is at this stage the best way to do is to exhibit both options, because we will not have an answer until later in June. So again, as part of this process, we'd like to exhibit the 0.8% and the 2.5%

Okay . So when that information is going out to the public, will it only be this level of detail, or would it have a lot more detail? So, for example, would it have the range of what that would be? Because obviously , you know, I hear from people in, you know, for example, Oakville who say they pay a lot more rates than what that says there. So would— I'm just mindful that people really need to get a proper indication, not just a generalised information. So people will try and apply their own value to it. Is that possible for them to do? I don't believe so, because of course all the properties are proportional. Or is there a formula they

Could do that? Thanks, Mr Mayor. So the minimum requirement for exhibition is what we're proposing here in terms of the rating structure. But Council can certainly determine to also include more explanatory information with what we exhibit.

So we

Can certainly do that.

Could we, I mean, it would be possible, I understand, if we know what the base rate is in dollar terms and we know what the ad valorem rate is, if people knew their land value, they could calculate their own an estimate of their own rates? Yep.

Yes. So in the tables that we've got here in the report, there is the rate in the dollar. So as the Mayor just explained, essentially to calculate your rates, you would add the base amount plus the rate in the dollar applied to the land value. So everyone can really calculate their own rates.

But I think, I do take your point. I think, I don't know we need to resolve it, but I think that's a good point, that we add more detail than that. We could include things like the range, the median, the average for the suburbs that we're reporting on. Yeah. Yeah. No

What did I say ?

Particularly the

Lower end properties,

Where an increase is going to be a significant amount for people. Particularly as we have the five percent increase in our domestic waste charge, and we're going to the 2.5 percent, and there's increases in Sullage and so on. What I would like to see is that people in somewhere, for example like Bowen Mountain, that they can actually see how much this means, how much this difference actually is to them. I think in fairness, that's what we have to do. I know we're constrained by time because we're a late council getting in, and we don't have the luxury of having several months to do, which I think Councillor Calvert raised would have been the ideal to look at this separately. But I think that this, if there's a resolution to do this, then I guess now we have to do it.

I think it's really unfortunate that none of this coincides with the new value general valuations coming out, because I think that is also going to impact, and then perhaps we've made decisions that that throws out quite a bit. So it's very less than ideal to have to be looking at, you know, changing structures when we've got so many uncertainties around it. I think my personal opinion would be to leave it and then look in the next year, because then we're going to have all this information. We know there's been significant changes to land valuation during COVID, and this could skew how, you know, things are set out. We also know people are battling, and so we really need to understand from our people whether it's a viable option to have lower value land having bigger increases.

And we need to see more information to actually be able to understand that. But if there's a tool where people can work out their rates. And I think if it's clear to people that on top of that they've got their sewer rate or their sullage rate, their domestic waste rate, because people essentially don't understand rates. And what worries me is somebody will put in their land value to this, and then that won't reflect what they're going to be charged when their rates notice comes, because that won't include the charges. It will only have their land rate on there. So we want people to see the whole picture, because this is going to be difficult for many families in the Hawkesbury, as we know, generally it's difficult times.

The council has many challenges because of the difficult financial times for the council as well. So I think the more clarity around it and the more honesty in enabling people to really see what's going on is the best that we should bring forward in the consultation period, even I don't know what that will actually involve, but I would hope that that is the bottom line, that people can really understand if they're going to be hit with a bigger impost or not, and that then a decision will be taken, you know, with regard to that. So just in line with that, I'm concerned that because of the very short time periods and only obviously one more meeting, when would this come back to the next meeting?

The June meeting would it

Be? Thanks, Mr. Mayor. So this will come back mid-June. Yes, see

We've then not got any other way to be able to make any other changes or to really look. So I know we have to do this. This to me is an issue that you don't, you know, go on about and make Facebook posts about and be all silly about and make memes about people, but this is something that we have to take responsibly. And I think that my call is to give as much information to give the fairest chance to our people to understand it. Thank you.

Thanks. I'll just refer the General Manager for comment on that.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Certainly. I think if the motion were to pass tonight that Council wanted to consult on both the 30% and the 50% base rate, I would envisage us simply providing some sort of a reasonably detailed attachment to the documents that go out on exhibition, providing that comparison, and then including those tables that are fairly detailed within the Council report, and then providing a simple online calculator tool that will at least allow a comparison on the rate structure. I'm not sure that we'll get a system up that's sophisticated enough to include the domestic waste charges and the [unclear] charges and the like, but certainly a rates comparison calculator is a fairly simple method that we can put out to exhibition.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. First, just a quick question. When do we need to apply for the 2.5? If we choose to apply for the 2.5% increase, do we need to decide that this evening in order to apply to the State Government? Yes.

So, which means I'm picking, I think, a bit of what's in the report. The issue that I have with this item relates to some of what the Deputy Mayor said. There is far too much here in this single item. I understand why it's come to us in this fashion. We had a delay in the election. We had a delay in coming to the chamber after the election, and we've got a really short term. And I understand that everybody is wanting to get four years' worth of promises into two and a half years of council. I get that. But this is far too much information to expect councillors to, A, discuss in this format with five minutes for five or six different separate issues, and far, far too much to give to the public and expect them to engage properly with the information that we're giving them.

I know that we normally consult on the rate structure, but we don't consult on a serious change to the rate structure like that with the cost of what you're going to pay if you don't bring your library book back because you've lost it under the lounge. There's far too much in here, and what you're actually relying on when you slip this 50% base rate change through is the quiet majority not being able to engage with this document, in part because there's simply too much in it for them to understand the implications for them. There's so much going on here. There's information here about our assets maintenance ratio and the fact that we have now fallen behind again. And I'd love to know what we're doing about increasing the resourcing so that we can get back to having our assets properly maintained.

We promised the community when we did the SRV that we would get to a reasonable asset maintenance ratio. And I know that we've had, you know, we've had a series of floods and major fire, and I know that that's impacted, and COVID as well. But that's sitting here, that's a major issue, and it's just dropped in here with all of this other stuff, with nothing to do to address it. Then we've got the rate peg, which at 0.8% is absolutely laughable. It was widely acknowledged at the late Local Government New South Wales special conference that local councils were doing the heavy lifting on COVID recovery and disaster recovery, and still we've been given this ridiculous 0.8% rate peg, way below inflation.

Our employment costs are in excess of that, and yet still our capacity to raise staff wages, to suck up some of that inflationary rise, is below inflation. We're effectively expecting our frontline staff, who worked tirelessly through COVID and natural disasters, to take a pay cut, and that should hit us really hard, that we are asking our workers to work on effectively less money. IPART's preferred model when it was released in 2021 was supposed to ensure that no council would be worse off, and clearly that's not the case. We're expecting inflation has sat between 3.8% and 3.5% since July 2021, so 2.5% is still significantly below that. That directly impacts on the local economy, local infrastructure and local services.

It reduces council's buying and employment capacity, and it reduces the people that we employ and contract, their buying and employment capacity as well. The 2.5% increase is required, and we have to show that the funding is critical to undertake planned work. I would imagine that that would be a great dereliction of history, frankly, given that that was what was promised to councils, and we were told that we would be able to maintain our function. And yet now what we've got is the state government and IPART forcing councillors to take a political hit so that they can make themselves feel better about this ridiculous increase. It's, frankly, it's cowardly and unreasonable of the state government, and it's incredibly unrealistic of IPART.

I'm really sad to see the loss to the Sister Cities program. For those who haven't engaged with that yet, it is a fabulous program, and what we are doing now is shutting out kids who wouldn't normally be able to afford to go. The kids who can afford to go will still go. The other kids won't. I'm concerned about the long-term financial plan and Council's capacity to maintain its financial stability. And the idea of the 50% base rate is effectively a reverse Robin Hood. Everyone below the median property value, including our lowest value properties in South Windsor, where many people have really scraped together to afford those properties, and they've got nowhere else to go if they can't afford to stay there because they're already at the bottom of the property market.

They pay more, and 6,700 properties above the median value pay less. That is not how a progressive tax system should work. Then you've got areas like Bowen Mountain with the additional burden of sullage and sewer costs, and you think you can slip this past them because they won't notice, or they just won't engage because it might be a hundred bucks. We've got the pensioner concession still remained unchanged at $250 a year, unchanged for decades now. We do have, however, information that will allow everybody to see how they're going to fare under this 30 to 50% base rate, and that's those maps that you provided us in the briefings, where if your property is going to go up, it's coloured red, and if you're going to get a big win on this nice 50% base rate, your property is coloured in green, and that will give a really clear indication to the ratepayers of this community that they are being screwed over in order to pay for people on high-value properties.

I cannot support that. It's appalling.

Thanks, Councillor Wheeler. I'll just address that briefly. First of all, to point out a couple of things. So our asset maintenance ratio is projected at 93.5%. Historically, much, it's been much lower than that. The other thing I think you've got to take in conjunction with that is also look at the infrastructure renewal ratio, because the two things work hand in hand. Our infrastructure renewal ratio is projected to be 136%, which means we're spending 136% of our depreciation expense on renewing our infrastructure. So yes, whilst we might not be spending 100% of the deterioration rate on asset maintenance, we're very much overspending on asset renewal, and the two things are obviously closely correlated.

In regards to the motion before us tonight, the motion before us tonight is to exhibit both options and to provide exactly the sort of information you're just talking about. We've heard from the general manager that there'll be a calculator provided that will enable people to see exactly what the impact will be on their own property. And I also think, just to point out, and I think we'll obviously have this debate if we do try, if anyone does intend to change the base rate to 50% when this comes back, but nobody's being screwed over, and certainly it won't be people in South Windsor paying for the people in those higher value suburbs. You can see we're talking about, even if we move to a 50% base rate, the average rate in Oakfield, so the median rate in Oakfield, would still be $3,077 compared to in Bowen Mountain, $1,126.

So it's not that Bowen Mountain will be paying for Oakfield; it'll be that there's some reduction in Oakfield for an insignificant increase in Bowen Mountain. And it will also mean, a 50% base rate would also mean that we won't have this huge fluctuation every time there's a big change in land value, because 50% will be fixed and 50% will be subject to that fluctuation, and it'll give people more certainty and stop this debate from happening every few years every time the land valuation changes. But I think we've first got to go out to the community and say this is what's being proposed, because this structure hasn't been proposed to the community before. This is actually the normal way we've proposed every single rating restructure we've had while I've been on council.

It's always just gone out through this process. There'll be a notice of motion, we've done modelling, come back and when we've done the budget, we've put a motion in there to change the rating structure. There's never been any other process while I've been on council, so nothing unusual is happening there. I think I'll just say before we wrap up the debate—I'll say to the speakers now—but I just did want to say that obviously the operational plan in particular has been heavily impacted by the flood. This Council's now had a bushfire and four floods in the space of two and a half years, and we have to acknowledge that we might not be getting all of the capital works program that we had hoped to have at this point.

It has obviously interrupted some business as usual, as we would expect it to, but there's still a lot of really exciting capital works planned for this coming year, and I'll be out there encouraging the community to engage in the process, to look at what's being planned, provide us feedback on the things that have changed from previously. And yeah, I think I'm excited for the year ahead. Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd just like to get some clarification. In point three of the recommendation in the business paper on page 45, it says the documents exhibited in accordance with Part 1 be reported back to Council post the public exhibition period to consider any public submissions received, and to consider the adoption of this document. Should that read these documents?

I think so. Yep.

Okay. And to make and fix rates and charges for the year ending 30th of June 2023. So we aren't doing that. We're not fixing those rates until— Until we adopt it. Until

We

Get that. So what we're basically saying is that we're not giving the community any indication of how we might go. We're going to put it up in the air, and then when we get the submissions back, so people might say, I like 30% or I like 50%.

Yeah, the motion before us is to give both options that are being considered, rather than make a decision tonight and ignore the submissions. Okay,

Thank you.

Councillor Sheather

Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor. I support the motion, but we're going to adopt the operational plan as well. And the — does anyone proof-read these? Yes. Well, they're doing a bad job . There's a few things. Something I'm very passionate about is the sports council, not a sports club. On page 20, on the last line, about staff's going to speak with the club. I don't know where they're going to go, but if that could be changed to association. This document's going out to the public for those who wish to read it. And there's a couple of other things. The area of our city, it's either one or the other, and it relates in a couple of places, different size, and the same with our roads.

So , just to clarify, if there's anything typographical that's not affecting the substance of the document, we can raise that with the staff after the meeting and it can be fixed before it goes on exhibition. Okay

All right, because there's a couple of others here. I'd like to discuss adopting this, just so if these changes can be made before it's made to the public. Okie doke. Thank you.

Mr Mayor, if I may, do we need to put a point in the resolution to actually get the documents to be properly edited?

I don't believe so, General Manager. I think that as long as the typographical— No,

It's true, Mr Mayor. It's fair to say after the comings and goings of the last six weeks, it's a bit of a miracle that you even got the documents. So we're acutely aware that there are some minor editing works that need to still happen on those documents. I'm certainly happy to take any feedback that you've got, and we'll tidy that up before they go out to exhibition.

Councillor Lyons Buckett. Your light's not on. I just saw you looking at me expectantly. Sorry

Just gazing into space. Two questions. The asset management plan doesn't normally go on exhibition. What is the reason for that? Like, it comes to Council. Is there a reason for that? Through you, Mr Mayor, it's not a requirement to exhibit the asset management plan or the workforce strategy when it comes to Council. Is there any reason why that could not go on exhibition?

No.

No. I mean, is that information that really the public should be seeing, or — Yes. I mean, there's no reason why they can't have it as part of the exhibition process. It's just not a requirement, and therefore we haven't,

You know, provided.

Sorry, Amanda. I would just hope that people were getting every document, that's all. And I know it comes to Council, so it's not confidential. So I'm just wondering if that could be part of the consultation, even though people may well be overwhelmed with how many documents there are. But that was the first question. And the second one was, Mr Mayor, could we please vote individually on these items? Could I move a motion for that, please?

Yep.

Thank you.

There's no objection, we'll just do that. Yep. Yep. Okay. Right of reply, Councillor Veigel? No . No, just thanks Council for the contribution in the debate. Thanks. All right. So this might take a while, but we'll go through this. Those in favour of point one, please raise your hand.

I just did it. Councillor Conolly, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Richards, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Cottlesh, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillors Abprognate. I'll declare that carried. Do we need to A1 and 2A? Yeah. So I don't know if we can do that. We can do 2A and then 2B, yeah. 2A. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Richards, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather,

Councillor Zemprogno.

Against? Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash. So I declare that carried on the casting vote of the Mayor.

Point 3. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Councillor Conolly, Councillor Reardon , Councillor Richards. Sorry? Yep. Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Mary Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zemprogno. Declare it carried. And point 4. All those in favour, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Richards, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Mary Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zemprogno. Declare it carried. Just because I'm reading as I go around, I don't know why I saw it, but yeah. Just to specify which Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Yeah

And 2B, just to be clear. All those in favour, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Richards, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert

Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zemprogno. Against? Councillor Dogramaci. Declare it carried. I think it's because you...

Okay, we move on. Next item is 75

Declare an interest, Mr Mayor.

Yep. Councillor Richards.

Thank you. I'm declaring a significant non-pecuniary interest. There may be potential conflict in my role as a candidate, and I will leave the room.

Okay. Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

I'll move the recommendation

Oh, wait and see. She doesn't know. It could have been anyone, Councillor Richards. All right. Seconder for that? Councillor Veigel. Discussion?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just really, I agree. I agree with the submission as it's been put forward, with the various questions around this blueprint, which has been a long time coming, as you would well know. And the rationale, of course, was for the stronger connections between the eight councils to deliver a regional economic framework through this blueprint, which essentially, in some ways, it does, but there's a lot of outstanding issues. So it's crucial that we have these answers to the questions that are asked in the submission. In particular, of course, how will the priorities be ranked and feed into the budget process? That's the really big question, and there is no detail around that.

How will this blueprint be implemented to do justice to the original agreement of collaboration, to see the fringe of the city come together in a connected space to benefit from the development around the new airport? And I think some of that has been lost over time. I think that there is interesting what references there are to the Hawkesbury in the blueprint, particularly around listing North Richmond as a principal employment precinct. I know that in our employment lands, North Richmond is a precinct, but I just was wondering, could staff tell us, is there something brewing that we don't know about in North Richmond, something of major advancement or something going on?

Not that I'm aware of,

No.

Okay. So with the various priorities, one of course, which is something very dear to me and for which I've been asking for a long time, and I would be very interested to hear how they were going to deliver, how they were going to prioritise this, is the development and finalisation of the regional land use planning framework for the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley, which in this document it says is imminent for completion. And I hope that that means that imminent means imminent in this case. The next interesting priority where we're mentioned is the delivery of a new Richmond Bridge as a key regional link connecting Hawkesbury with the Blue Mountains, which I thought was an unusual way to frame it, but I gather that that is because it's being done within the area where we're connected to the other councils.

So the work around resilience I think will be good if that amounts to a bigger push to get more resourcing for resilience building. And interestingly, it's good to see that the Richmond Bridge plans finalisation to deliver upgrades to the Richmond Bridge will be completed by 2022. The other thing was that the big gap for me when I looked at it was how to translate this list of things, which are all very valuable, how is that going to be translated? And I'm wondering if there is an accompanying financial strategy or some sort of budgetary document that goes with this, because many of these things that have come up in here were the original ideas brought forward right back in 2017, and not all of them have been delivered.

And of course, some of them have been delivered, but particularly those that are directly connected to the airport itself, I think that that's the problem we don't want to drop off the radar. And some of the listed on page 59, the key inner city transport infrastructure inputs, the Richmond line duplication. Well , I don't know. I think I was a baby when that first got put forward. So I'm thinking that's listed as the top option, and how are we getting that? This is what I'm not understanding from this. Even though, as a document and in what it's saying is fine, but I'm hoping that once our submission goes in that we'll actually get some answers. And I thank the staff for putting in the submission as staff, because, as they did, because it really identifies where the gaps are.

And if those gaps aren't filled, then the document will not be delivering what its intention was. Thank you.

Thank you. Any speakers against? No, speakers for? For. Deputy Mayor.

I'd like to speak in favour, if I could. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I think this is a good submission from our staff, but I must express a great deal of disappointment in what has not been delivered by the Western Parkland City Authority. They've been in existence for a good number of years, and I know the first signature that went on the agreement was from Councillor Lyons-Buckett when she was mayor, probably 2017, and she attended meetings for a couple of years, and I attended meetings for a couple of years, and I believe you are now attending meetings, and I don't see a lot getting achieved. There's a lot of goodwill, a lot of talking, and I do take on board that a number of our staff have made contacts with other councils, and that's good.

But I think that could have been done without this whole authority. It could have been done through existing networks and through, because a lot of the general managers already had meetings going ahead without this. And as the submission points out, there are more questions than answers. There's just so many questions. And of course, the biggest question is funding. Where's the money coming from? It's all right to say we need a new bridge and we need a new railway line, but it's implied that somehow councils are going to pay for this. Well, that's not going to happen. And unless the state and federal governments open up the checkbook and say, We're going to deliver this, and here's the money, and I'm hoping that maybe in this federal election campaign we might actually hear something like that happening.

But unless that happens, then this is all just a pretty little plan with lots of little pictures, and it's not going to happen. The only funding that has come is the original funding, which was the City Deals funding, which we've used to revitalise our main towns. And some people indicated at that time that it was merely a bribe to get us involved, and we'd be lucky to see any more funding. And people that said that, I think they've been shown to be correct. There's no money rolling in to make all these things happen. And when all the councils first met, they had one thing that they demanded, which was not negotiable, and that was for a north-south railway line between Hawkesbury and down to Campbelltown and beyond, maybe.

There's no discussion of that. There's no one coming forward from the governments even indicating that they're considering it. All we got out of it was a little spur line going from the airport to St Mary's, which means people out here in the Hawkesbury are still isolated from that airport. We can't just go to the airport when it's built. There's no connection. And this Parkland City that they're talking about, it's a north-south city, but all the connections, all the transport connections, are east-west. There's nothing going up connecting us. And there's no plans. I mean, it's mentioned in one of the points there. There's no serious plans about doing it. So. Mr Mayor, I think that this submission points out that Western Parkland City Authority has not delivered as yet.

Hopefully the checkbooks will open and hopefully things will happen. And as I said, all we've got now is a whole series of questions, and I hope we get some decent answers very soon. Otherwise, what's this all been about? It's just been a five or six year talk fest with some pretty documents, and I hope it doesn't end that way. I hope we actually get somewhere because there's a lot of goodwill. A lot of our staff have put a lot of time into this, and I would like to see some action if we could. So thank you to the staff for this submission.

Thank you. There's two speakers for. Anyone speaking against? Councillor Dogramaci, you want to speak against or? Yep. Yes,

Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr Mayor. As you know, last month I was attending fAUSA meeting and lots of talk, and I agree with Councillor Calvert. We were 27 people in that room, and almost half of them did not even know where Hawkesbury was and what was going to happen. They were talking about the employment they were going to generate. All good talk, like Councillor Calvert mentioned, all talk. They were talking, which I have mentioned this and discussed with the management last week, I think. For example, they were looking to employ 120 pilots that at the time they were short of. They were looking for thousands of people from security to cooks or whatever you name it. I met with a lady from England who was thinking of expanding some kind of TAFE type of campus university, which I have spoken with her of my ideas as well to contribute.

They were talking lots of good things, and I asked her if she knew if we had the area to do such things, which I mentioned, I think I have in the past discussed with the management, for argument's sake, that I met a gentleman who was intended to spend up to 40 million dollars to start some kind of a small city-like residential area to bus pilot security people, cooks or whatever you name it, bussing them on 24 hours a day.

Like Councillor Calvert mentioned that all talk, and I asked a couple of senior people from management how much money was going to be allocated, what kind of grants we were going to receive. I couldn't get any kind of positive answer, so I don't know, as a council level, what we could do. I'm new, so you tell me whatever the recommendations you have, I will put them directly on the next meeting. Thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I think for those of us who haven't sat through this whole Western City Parkland City Deal thing over the last five or six years, I think it's important to note that the authority is largely focused on integrating the airport development into Western Sydney, and that's what this blueprint is about. Whereas the city deal, I think it was a sweetener, frankly, and I think the city deal really was about... And this whole blueprint, to me, looks very much like providing the infrastructure that Western Sydney should have been given under a decent model, a decent fair distribution of funds model for the fastest growing area of Sydney and the most populous area of Sydney years ago.

And so effectively, this whole document, I think, is a bribe. It's a bribe with nothing, as the Deputy Mayor has pointed out. It's a bribe with very little to show for itself thus far. And I think that's actually where this document and our submission and what we do in the next six months is really important, because in less than 12 months now we have a state election. What we have from this document is a clear set of promises about what we should expect to see in Western Sydney and in our LGA in particular. And we need to start asking for it. We need to be on the front foot demanding that we be given these things, because this isn't a gift from the state government. This is public money. This is what we should be expecting if we're going to take this huge piece of infrastructure that will irrevocably change Western Sydney forever.

And I think, you know, I look at some of this document and I think it's a bit of a triumph of optimism, frankly. You know, I look at the bit about delivering a green city and, look, frankly, the horse has bolted. You've only got to drive down Richmond Road to see that. You know, the idea that we're maintaining green space, I mean, frankly, that's laughable. And heat resilience, I can't believe that that's sitting in this document after we've got that sea of green roofs and that whole airport precinct is going to be covered with the same. You know, and I refer people back to the WSROC urban heat submission where they talk about thermal comfort. None of those houses that are being delivered through all of that housing development that's flagged in this document as the development that will make this area thrive is— Provides any degree of thermal comfort unless you've got an air conditioner cranking for most of summer.

You know, if this is a major piece of planning for New South Wales, we are really falling down. And then there's the infrastructure gaps, which have been mentioned already. We've got, particularly public transport, we really need to start pushing for the wheel on the spokes. And that's the problem with public transport, particularly rail transport in New South Wales, is that we've got the hub in the centre of the city and we've got the spokes, but no one's ever joined those spokes together. And so for us to join those spokes, you have to go into Blacktown, and you might be able to get from—if you go all the way into Blacktown—you might be able to get back out again to Campbelltown two hours later if you make all the connecting trains.

Frankly, that's ludicrous, and what it does is leave our residents stuck on toll roads for hours at a stretch. That is no way to run and to plan for a state-of-the-art 21st century city. It's now time that we—there's been clear benefits, I think, to the staff with the information that's come out of this group, and I think that has been really beneficial. But what we need to start leveraging off now is the promises that are made in this document, because we need to see those come to fruition in order to improve the living standards of the people of Western Sydney. It's not enough to give us an airport that will make a few wealthy and everybody else miserable. We need to start demanding the real infrastructure that goes with that.

Thank you. Can't remember who moved that, sorry, but right of reply, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Yeah, I don't think anyone spoke against, though, but yeah.

No, not. Sorry? Yeah. Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you for that contribution. I think that's right. We need to see what answers come forward and how it can be propelled forward. And I think that what Councillor Dogramaci raised, perhaps in a briefing, we could cover a discussion about what we could ask in the meetings he's attending, which are actually around the actual airport precinct, what, you know, opportunities we can find out that may be there for us through that particular body. Thank you.

Thanks. Put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favourite, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Kalb, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno. Declare it carried. Somebody go and get...

Councillor Ritchie is from me, so she can declare an interest on the next item. Next item is item 77.

I'll move that, Mr Mayor.

Just got to wait for Councillor Ritchie, sorry.

Councillor Ritchie is wrapped to item 77, if you want to read your interest onto the table.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. My interest is, gosh, less than significant non-pecuniary. I live in North Richmond but have no pecuniary interest in the matter, so I'll be staying in the room. Thank you.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll move the recommendation in the business paper.

Seconded, Councillor Wheeler. Discussion?

Not a huge amount needed, I don't think, Mr Mayor, because we have had this issue. It's good to see that this has finally been, you know, finalised in terms of having the decisions made. It's been a long time coming, and it's something that's really going to enrich the community of North Richmond. And I like seeing, you know, about the engagement with various stakeholders and so on. And I think it will be a really good addition to that area, which of course we've been very lucky that there's quite a bit of land there at North Richmond so that this can actually occur on site, and it doesn't disrupt the various aspects of the operations that are already going on at the community centre and the associated other childcare and after-school care and so on. And I just wondered, and it could have been here and I didn't see it, but is there a time frame on the stage one and stage two works? So

That to Mr. Missett.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Maybe the manager of community planning and partnerships could answer that if she's available?

On Zoom, I believe.

No.

Do we have an answer, or should we take that on notice?

That's okay. It's not crucial. I just thought , for interest's sake, for telling the community.

Taken that on notice. Yep. Okay.

Thank you. That's all. Thank you,

Mr. Mayor. Councillor Reardon

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I was just hoping that we get the federal government's Building Better Regions Grant, because that will make it a purpose-built facility and it will be very functional. I know we've applied for that. Do we have an answer regarding that yet?

Mr. Missett? When do we expect an answer, do you know?

No, we haven't received an answer around that. I think it's expected around June. Thank you.

Councillor Veigel.

Yeah, thanks, Mr. Mayor. It's only about the budget, inflationary costs have put the building costs up. How are we fair on that

To

Get the delivery?

You can take that on notice too, if you like. It's okay.

The costs have been taken into account with those additional costs around the building work, so they are factored into it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay. No, Councillor Wheeler.

Just quickly, Mr. Mayor, just to, can we, if we... We've got flagged that additional work to North Richmond Community Centre, which is still contingent on additional funding . Do we have some sort of repository where we keep the wish list? And can we perhaps make that something that councillors can see? Could it sit in the hub so that we can keep these things front of mind? I think they come to council meetings when we're talking about a particular site, and then we get deluged with more information, and I always worry that they drop out of our consciousness and they fall off the list, so that when we do get windfall funding, and we're having a workshop on how to deal with some windfall funding shortly, that these things are front of mind because they've been clearly identified as problem areas that need more funding, so that they don't get sucked into that political cycle of promising something that's sexier at the time when this is still sitting there waiting for funding.

Yeah, maybe, can we take that notice as an agenda item for tomorrow night's workshop? Okay . No further discussion. I don't know who moved it, sorry. It

Was me, but

No need. Okay

Correct. Put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Councillor Conolly, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Richards, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Mary Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno. Declare it carried .

Yeah.

Item 79, questions on the response to questions.

Sorry, 79 is questions on questions. It's not. Decision, it's just an opportunity to ask questions. No. Move on.

I think before we go into confidential, if that's okay with everyone. Yes. I lost mine this morning.

Minutes of the Disaster and Emergency Management Committee. Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Could I move a motion, please, which I did send through to Charles, but I don't know if he received it there. Sorry.

It's

Sorry, sorry, Charles. I could just read out while that's being done. It's essentially recommendations one and two in the business paper, with a change to point three, where it says, Council endorse the committee recommendations in respect of item two, it's altered to read that Council establish the working group recommended by the Disaster and Management Committee to act as an advisory group for Council's grant-funded floodplain management projects, including the three flood studies that are mentioned there. And then the next point of number three, little ii, the composition of the working group to comprise— now I put three councillors, but I would think that's open to discussion or whatever— agency representatives and environmental groups as outlined in the New South Wales Floodplain Development Manual.

And then point little three, once established, the working group identify the advisory functions of the group and the best mechanisms for engaging members of the community in the process. And four, that the working group report to the next disaster and emergency management meeting for endorsement of proposed actions to enable the group to commence working. And then points four and five be the other two remaining points from the business paper, which are called two little two and little three in here.

I think that's, for clarity, that was, from my understanding, what the recommendation is anyway, but I'm happy if you want to make it more clear.

Well, no, it just says to accept the recommendation, but I'm just thinking we should tonight perhaps resolve to what the composition would be and to clarify how many councillors would be on it and maybe appoint those councillors so that it can get started. My concern being that if all we do is take the recommendation of the committee tonight, then we have to wait for another meeting to discuss it again. And I apologise, I hadn't realised Tracy wasn't here and I'd send it to Tracy.

Well, at least she's got it now. Is there a seconder for that, Councillor Wheeler? So I think if you're going to do that, I think that you're— we can do this as we go, but I think probably the motion has to name the councillors then, if that's the intention. Well, I

Would think if we resolve that, then we can ask which councillors, I guess. And I wasn't sure if three councillors was adequate or if more who was interested or—

To move this process along, does anyone mind if we just… Who is interested? I mean, I would be like to be on it. Three, four, five.

Well, there's five, so five councillors.

Anyone? We had five

Councillors.

It's a lot of councillors, but as long as no one's—

I don't think that matters.

Yeah. Okay. So can we just put those names in the motion to make this whole thing easier? Is that all right? Okay, sure.

Yep.

So it was Conolly, Sheather, Lyons-Buckett, Wheeler and Djuric.

Yep. Thank you, Mr Mayor, for that addition. Can I speak to it now, or do people want to see it first? I just did that to expedite the process a little bit, just so that we can get on top of it. We know from the Macdonald Valley people in particular that they really want their flood study actioned. And the point about the working group meeting first when the, you know, the listed agency representatives are asked to be a part of it, we could do that. And then within that committee, we could look at the best mechanisms for engaging community members. So if that were to be done on a locality-specific way, for example, for the Macdonald Valley people from the Macdonald Valley, and when we get to the overall flood review, which is our general floodplain risk management review being done, then we could perhaps have an expressions of interest.

And of course, groups such as the one that Councillor Sheather is on, that previously Maurice Smith attended to get all the perspectives around flooding, those particular groups could be included on specific parts. So the idea would be for the working group to meet and go through a couple of things, and in time to report back to the next disaster and emergency management meeting to get endorsement to go down that path.

Okay. Any other discussion? Councillor Wheeler

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I think this is a useful way forward. I think we need to be really mindful that the community reps on the committee need to provide a broad section of flood-affected communities within the LGA, and I think there's recommendations in there for people from Colo and the McDonald Valley in order to progress those flood studies. But I think there's also extra work that's— sorry, you've stolen, I think.

What about down there? There it

Is. Stop looking. There's reference in here to

The working group providing further information beyond just those flood studies, and I can't find the particular section now. So I think we need to be including people from affected communities, like affected parts of Windsor, for example, the Richmond lowlands, which flood quite frequently and severely, and areas that are regularly cut off. So we've got areas like Grono Point, Sackville, those, and Yarramundi that are frequently quite isolated. And I think we need to be checking, we need to have some means of bringing those community groups, or those communities, into our discussion so that it's not us thinking that we've got all the bases covered; we actually have got those bases covered.

Now, whether we seek out particular information from those communities in a consultation fashion, or we ask them if they want to be on the committee to give their views, then I think— I don't. I prefer them to be in the room rather than just, you know, ask for particular pieces of information, because I think being part of a discussion , you end up with far more information than you would if you had— it's that unknown unknowns thing. I think, you know, if you've got someone in a discussion, you're more likely to get useful information out than if you've just gone out and asked the questions that you think you know, you think you need the answer to. But , so I would like to see those community reps opened up for a broader purpose, but also for broader discussion.

The other question I've got is we haven't had come to Council attendance at the floodplain risk management conference, which we have traditionally attended. Councilors from the Floodplain Risk Management Committee have traditionally attended. It's an incredibly worthwhile conference, despite everybody, when you say that you come from the Hawkesbury Nepean, laughing because they just can't believe how bad it is. Although I think we'll at least be topped by Lismore this time. But that's on the 17th to the 20th of May. There's no opportunity, I don't think now, for that to come to Council before that conference for people to effectively plan. So could we have that discussion now, whether we send councillors to it and who wants to go?

Because it's a real opportunity that we're about to miss.

I, yeah, I'd be reluctant to do that without any notice at all. Yeah, I mean, we're not supposed to conduct business without notice, and that's not really directly related to this matter at all. I might just, if this discussion goes on, I might seek some really quick advice from the general manager. Could. Just in regards to—just to—were you finished speaking, sorry, because I—yeah. Councillor Lyons-Buckett, just in regards to— The motion. There's some concern around the timing of these meetings because we have asked for the next meeting of the Disaster and Emergency Management Committee quite soon. Just wanted to clarify, is the intention that a report comes to that meeting outlining what was resolved here and what the intended actions of that group are, or is the intention that this group has to meet before that meeting?

It was that we would meet before that and just give a general idea to enable us to start, so to speak. So perhaps I was envisaging something like a meeting that would say, of the working group to say whichever flood study is already current, which I think is the McDonald Valley one, that we would do that. It's mainly to get the endorsement from the Disaster Committee so that we then don't have to wait another whole cycle of another committee before we can start doing anything.

So just to get some clarity, I don't believe, I think if Council resolves now to set up that working group, we don't need an endorsement from the— Okay,

So we'll just go ahead. All right. No, well, it's— Yeah, it's just that we don't have— Okay. Well, that's fine. I'm fine with that. Yeah.

Okay. Okay . I just want to ask

A quick question, if I can, Mr Mayor. Are any staff going to the Floodplain Management Conference? Because if my memory serves me, it's usually quite— it's attended by staff as well as councillors. So if that's the case, we

Probably don't necessarily need a lot of councillors to go. Just staff attending. Yes,

We have a staff presenting at the conference.

Good. Good. Okay. And are we able to have a report back from that conference outlining — Yes

So we're still working on the presentation, but once we've got the presentation, we are going to send it through to councillors for their information.

All right. Any, Councillor Wheeler? Sorry, Mr Mayor, I know I've already spoken. I've just pulled up the registration information for that conference, and I, it is, it's great that the staff are going, but it's a really intense conference. It's, and it has usually three or four concurrent sessions, which is why we've traditionally sent more than one person, because you simply cannot cover all the information that's presented in that conference with one person going. It's impossible. There is, though, I note, we've missed the early registration. It's valuable because it does have councillors and staff, and the staff tend to go to the staff, you know, the quite technical presentations, where the councillors tend to go to the strategic discussion presentations, which is incredibly valuable to learn about things like, you know, how you deal with waste management post-flood.

We learned a lot from Lismore after their flood a few years ago, and from their presentations. They were very generous with the information that they gave out, and I think that focused the information that we were then able to, and some of the things that we did within the Flood Risk Management Committee as a result of attendance at those conferences. There is a virtual, an online attendance. It's never as good as being in the room and being able to chat to people properly.

Sorry, Councillor, not to interrupt, but because you've already spoken, I've got some key information here. Yes, I know. So the key information can we at

Least do an online attendance?

Sorry, I had some information to give you. The General Manager has informed me she's got the delegation to approve that as a training request, so anyone who wants to attend that, put it in as a training request and it will be considered. Yep. Yeah. It's very scary. Any further discussion? Not right of reply, Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you for people contributing to that and for the interest in being on the working group. I'm hopeful that perhaps the working group can even go out to some of these places and combine engaging with the community with actually looking at what's been going on out there and getting some firsthand experience as well. So thank you

Put the motion. All those in favour? Councillor Conolly, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Richards, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dramacci, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillors Improgno. Declare that carried.

Motion to go into confidential. Councillor. Before you do that,

Mr Mayor, could I ask your indulgence? Councillor Dogramaci wanted to put a question for the next meeting, and apparently missed his opportunity earlier to do that. Can he do that now

We don't do that verbally, but we can do that in writing, I believe, today, and that'll still appear in the next meeting

Do it in writing before the next meeting?

Yep. Seven days' notice before the next meeting, but we've got more than that, so that's fine. Yep . Put that motion . Carried to go into confidential. Yeah.

Okay, we're now live streaming in, Councillors. I'll just pass the General Manager to devise on the resolutions in closed session.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. In regards to item 80, in respect of the contract for the management and operation of the Oasis Aquatic and Fitness Centre, whilst in closed session the Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Kotlash, seconded by Councillor Calvert, that, point one, in accordance with the provisions of section 55(3)(1) of the Local Government Act, Council does not call for tenders for the management and operation of the Oasis Aquatic and Fitness Centre upon expiry of the extended contract term on the 30th of June 2022, on the basis of extenuating circumstances existing that would result in the standard tender process under the Local Government Act producing an unsatisfactory result.

Council has formed this opinion based upon the following reasons: A, Council considers it likely that there will be further COVID-19 related disruptions throughout the coming 24 months; B, such uncertainty would need to be factored into any contract and into the tenderer's lodged in respect of that contract, which would result in potential tenderers not submitting a tender due to that risk of uncertainty, or submitting tenders that sought to price in that risk into their tender in circumstances where that risk may not actually eventuate; C , the proposed extension addresses those matters by providing certainty as to the ongoing operation of the centre, as well as financial certainty concerning the cost and operation of the centre; D, extending the current contract allows Council to have certainty in respect of service rates until this difficult time passes and the industry has fully recovered, and ensure it obtains best value outcome in the circumstances, which would not otherwise be able to do if we were to go to tender now; E , Council can ensure it has this certainty through the YMCA New South Wales, given that the YMCA New South Wales has managed the Oasis Aquatic and Fitness Centre for a number of years, charging a reasonable service rate to Council, including during difficult circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic.

F. The extension is not for a lengthy period of time, which will allow sufficient time for the fitness and aquatic industry, as well as the Oasis Aquatic and Fitness Centre, to return to its levels of activity pre-COVID-19. G. Council anticipates that at the end of the proposed extension, Council will be in a position to undertake a full tender process in accordance with the Local Government Act, and there will be no preferential treatment granted to YMCA New South Wales when considering those tenders. Point 2. Council extend the current contract with YMCA New South Wales for the management and operation of the Oasis Aquatic and Fitness Centre for a further 12 months, commencing 1st of July 2022, with an option of an extension for a further 12 months at Council's discretion, as outlined in the report.

3 . The General Manager be given delegated authority to execute any documentation associated with the final agreement between Council and the YMCA New South Wales. And 4. Council authorise the affixing of the seal of Council to any documentation in regard to this matter, if necessary. Thank you.

In favour of the motion? Councillors Conolly, Calvert, Djuric, Dogramaci, Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Veigel, Reardon, Councillor Richards, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Wheeler and Councillor Zamprogno.