10 May 2022 - Ordinary

Good evening, everybody, and welcome to tonight's meeting. I'd like to start by acknowledging the Dharug and Darkinjung people as the traditional custodians of the Hawkesbury, and pay respect to Aboriginal elders past, present and emerging. And I'll hand over to the General Manager.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Members of the public attending tonight's meeting are advised that in the event of an emergency, you'll be advised to proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exit following the guidance of our warden. I would 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 means the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting of Council meetings. The provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary.

If any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting. The recordings may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations. The recordings are stored on Council's record management system. For the benefit of those persons who will be addressing the Council tonight, it is expected that you will refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at this meeting. This request relates to both your address to Council and to any answers given in response to questions from councillors. Finally, it is requested that if any person participating in or attending the meeting has a mobile phone, that they either turn it off or turn it to silent, please.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. I don't think we have any apologies, but we do have a written request from Councillors Zamprogno to attend tonight's meeting by audiovisual link. Councillors Zamprogno has also indicated he may be delayed in joining the meeting, but I'll propose that we deal with his request now. Does someone want to move that Councillor Zamprogno be permitted to attend the meeting by audiovisual?

I'll move that.

Moved Councillor Lyons-Buckett , seconded Councillor Reardon. All those in favour? Against? Declare that carried.

So when you join, you'll be let in. Are there any declarations of interest?

Yes, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Richards.

Item number 83, please.

Thank you.

No other declarations. Someone to move the minutes from the previous meeting Moved, Councillor Veigel, seconded Councillor Reardon. All those in favour? Against? Declare that carried.

There are three items subject to public address this evening. The first item is item 86, and we have one public speaker, Mr. William Sneddon.

Mr. Mayor, Councillors, thanks for the opportunity to speak on this. I'm very disturbed to see in the quarterly budget mentions of regarding sewage. I was not aware that there was a policy of, after three years of not needing to spend out of the reserve, that there would be a dividend, in this case we're showing here absent now of not being paid $218,000. Quite frankly, I'm shocked by this. I understood that the sewage fund was to be completely ring-fenced to allow for residencies and other things. It's effectively self-insuring. We are one of the few councils left running our own sewage works, going back to initially the Depression make-work scheme from Windsor. So we're in an unusual position.

I also know from young engineers that they love working on sewage. It ticks all of the boxes about doing good public good, etcetera, and public health. I'm really concerned to see that we are talking about pulling money on a general basis out of the sewage reserve if we're not spending it in good times. Quite frankly, that money, any interest we accrue on holdings should be staying in there if we get interest on it. It's also the self-insurance that we have is rising. Also, it's helping to offset the inflation so that the money that we have is keeping up pretty much with what's in the budget, etcetera. With climate change, we are starting to get in some really interesting areas with our sewage works.

We have some very old works. Engineers are well aware that pipes in the ground are subject to movement of the ground. We've had some extremely wet periods in the last couple of years. We've had a washaway at Rickaby's Creek that's cost us a lot of money out of that reserve. We've also now, as a notice of motion, Councillor Dogramaci has moved regarding the failure of the rising main underneath South Creek. So fortunately, we have those reserves there. My understanding is that they're put there for a darn good reason, and we're going to be spending a big slab of that money that we have put away. Just the amount of money that I'm seeing for trucking of sewage because of the failed rising main, we are talking about, what, two and a half, three percent of our budget that we would have to have pulled out, rather than having the hollow log that's left there.

As far as I'm concerned, those budgets should be sacrosanct. They should not be touched, and money pulled out of general revenue. I get really annoyed with the state government of wanting to treat Sydney Water as a trading enterprise and produce an annual dividend, similarly with electricity assets, similar was being done. I also get really annoyed with the federal government that pulls 44 cents out of each litre of petrol and doesn't put it all into road funding, alternative energy and other things, as they've always said that they were going to be doing. So I consider that that's very short-sighted. There are a couple of other comments in the budget. For example, you'll be down on building income regarding you can't do proper compliance testing for septics because you can't accept inspect sodden ground to determine that a septic system is, the absorption trench is working correctly.

So there's a bunch of things in here, but I'm concerned about that. The other thing that I'm concerned about, there's also hints in here. About possibly not putting enough money away for the long term looking after of our tip that's going to be closing in about three years' time. I've been on the Waste Advisory Management Committee on and off for nearly 15 years. I know what's going on down there. It's also our major carbon dioxide sink to the atmosphere, and we really need to be looking after money there. With climate change and other things coming down the track, we have some fairly old infrastructure. We are going to need some money put away, and I would rather see it coming out of reserves that we've carefully put away rather than having to suddenly be finding holes in the budget that we can make in order to look at some of those exigencies that we don't know what's coming down the line.

There's an old saying about Murphy's Law: if it can happen, it will. And when he taps you on the shoulder and says, Cop this, sport, you didn't see this coming, you really don't want to be the one that's forking out the money. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Sen related to the item before us? No. Thank you for that. Someone to move? Anything? Recommendation, Councillor Sheather Seconded Councillor Reardon. Any discussion, councillors? Councillor Sheather.

Yeah, could we have the staff just to explain briefly about the money and why it come out of a reserve? In terms of the dividend

Payment, the policy of paying dividends ?

Through you, Mr. Mayor. So the dividend is in line with legislation. There's strict guidelines regarding when the dividend can be taken, and it occurs after three years of operating surplus. As a result of rising main C, that operating surplus would no longer occur, which is why we're no longer going to be paying the dividend. In relation to long-term planning, we try and consider a lot of contingencies, and we look at a 10-year reserve balance and try and smooth out fluctuations where we can.

Thank you. Any further discussion? No. Put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Richards, Councillor Virgill, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dr Marchi, Councillor Jurek, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler.

Mr Mayor, can you check?

Sorry?

Yeah, I've told you that I think before. Just call out if I miss you, sorry. Declare that carried.

Next item subject to public address is Notice of Motion 2, and we have one public speaker, Mr. Bilson.

Thank you again. The failure of the main and possibly the pipe across South Creek is just indicative of what I've just been speaking to about having that money effectively self-insured for when unexpected, very large sums of money need to be spent. As a food technologist, I've done product development, I've run factories. I know what goes in the front end, both liquid and solid, but as a food technologist, I also have to have in mind what comes out at the other end, and that's in the nature of sewage. Sewage has a whole lot of things attached to it legally, simply because it's so important in public health, as does water supply. So we run our own sewage scheme for the Windsor area and some of the associated areas. We didn't get to do the Three Towns sewage because Sydney Water took that over and simply said that that wasn't in our area. Sorry

Mr. ... I just ask, just Director, if you can speak to whether or not you think we should be adopting this recommendation before us.

Look, I'm agreeing generally with the Notice of Motion. We've had a major fail there, so this is in the nature of what I was speaking to with the reserve. I don't know what it's been. Certainly, I know our engineering staff are capable of getting on top of it. I'll be fascinated to see what the result is and why the fail. But I'm concerned about that. But again, as I've indicated in the earlier comment that I've made, we have a whole lot of things that are going to be thrown at us with climate change, with more severe weather patterns, and we've had three floods in less than two years, and again, that stresses our infrastructure. So whether it's sewage or other things with bushfires, we have a whole lot of things coming down the line, and we really need to be careful about what we're doing.

We are not living in normal times, the way I see it. I have science training, and I'm really concerned about what's going on and the legacy we're leaving. I've spent a whole lot of money to be largely carbon- Carbon neutral to help my grandchildren have a better world. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any questions, Mr. Stedden, about the motion? No? Thank you. Councillor Dogramaci, want to move the motion?

This

Is your Notice of Motion 2 about the failure of the sewer rising main C.

Sorry, the Notice of Motion 2, failure of the sewer rising main C. You want to move that. Is there a seconder for that?

Yes, Mr

Mayor. Seconded Councillor Reardon. Discussion

Thank you very

Much. Basically,

What I want to know is that why that system has failed. And my understanding is that it was, as a matter of fact, put there many, many years ago. And with what kind of warranty did we get, and whether the company that initially installed the system is still in business or not. What do we do? I'm not satisfied with the answer that I received from management. It just bureaucratic reply or some kind of an explanation. Now , what kind of maintenance did we get prior to that failure? I understand that we also have some 27 or 30 pumps, and so far this problem is costing us close to $7 million. Last week's Zoom meeting, a word was mentioned about cast iron, and I inquired about that one. I personally feel that the company, the engineering company doing this work, is taking us for granted.

And so far the money that we have spent, close to four million dollars, I want to know who can spend this much money, taxpayers' money, ratepayers' money, every single one of people in this room, our money. How could they irresponsibly, you know, go and without checking, that's my opinion, what actually have happened? I don't know what kind of engineers we have downstairs . I don't know what kind of qualifications they do have. Those pipes are not 50 meters or 100 meters underground. When something goes wrong, you don't immediately attribute to a pump. There are hundreds of pump manufacturers. Again, something was mentioned like supply chain. That's rubbish. I don't believe in. Nobody can say that those pumps are not in supply or where we could get it or where the engineering company can get it.

That's all rubbish. I don't believe in that. Again, I go back to the word mentioned cast iron. I don't know how many people in the engineering department, infrastructure management, know what is cast iron, how it could be repaired. I don't believe in that. I don't believe a word when note was replied not by management. Range of companies have been utilised, and we were told that we got 30 percent discount. Does that mean that, you know, they were overcharging us 30 percent prior all this thing happened? It's like major stores, Myer or David Jones, whatever you name it, they'll tell you they give you 60 percent discount. It's all lie. It's already been bumped up, and then they bring the price down.

At 12 minutes past five, I went there again. There were two trucks, each with 40,000 litres, pumping 40,000 litres, and I want to know how many trips each one of those tankers, you know, carry the raw sewage to the treatment plant. Who gives them a ticket? Who counts how many trips, you know, per tankers, you know, have actually took the sewage from there and to the treatment plant? I want all these answers, not because I want to satisfy myself, but I want to make sure that the ratepayers will get something in writing. Who caused all this engineering problems? Who was behind it? Like I said, the original company, the company that—what kind of warranty they gave us, 10, 15, 20 years? Cast iron suddenly doesn't break.

As you may, or some of you may know, cast iron is a very, very special piece of metal. It expands, it contracts, it takes lots of heat, and it is very heavy, many times heavier than steel or stainless steel. There has to be something, and I propose that, you know, we start some kind of a committee or workshop or something, and I will be more than happy to spare my time. I will go there, and I personally would like to meet the engineering company engineers to see if they could give me the bulldust. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there any further discussion? Councillor Sheather.

Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor. With the notice of motion, is there anything that the councillors asked that wasn't addressed in our briefing,

Or could not be addressed in our briefing?

I'm not sure. I don't know. I would just remind all councillors, for the sake of this debate, the briefing we had was confidential because there's some elements of commercial-in-confidence. I guess none of that is on the public record at this time. From my perspective, probably those questions were answered in the briefing, in the most part, but it's up to Council, I guess. I'm not sure who to refer that question to. Yeah.

Sorry , just— Sorry. With the questions the councillor just asked, is there any of those that are pertinent or hadn't been addressed, or the staff felt they hadn't been addressed adequately at that briefing? I refer that to Mr

Barton. Sorry, I didn't quite follow Councillor Sheather. Could you repeat that?

Was there anything that the councillors asked in relation to the briefing that has since come to light, or wasn't presented to us at that briefing?

The only thing that's come to light is that we've experienced some delays with the encountering acid sulfate soils, which have resulted in some delay to the project. Not entirely sure yet—this was only in the last day or so—what the consequence of that delay is. But I think, for the most part, the details that we provided in the briefing respond to these elements.

Just

Your microphone again, Councillor Sheather .

Right. Yeah, the concern that I have is time. Time is money, and I've spoken to the staff about it, and I understand the councillor's frustration. But that's what the briefings are about, and it gives us the opportunity to ask those questions, because some of it is in confidence and because there's tenders and things involved, it isn't public knowledge. So, and that gives us the opportunity, I guess, to ask those questions, to be satisfied.

Is there some time that can be given to the councillor to answer some of these questions that would be confidential that he's requesting?

Through you, Mr Mayor, of course happy to answer the questions to councillors directly and have a conversation. Thank you.

Further discussion? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'm willing to support this notice of motion. I guess there's a way of clearing the air around this matter, which genuinely appears at this stage to simply be a bit of a misadventure with the sewer pipe. It's certainly a very expensive misadventure , but— Stuff breaks. This is what happens. We had a discussion earlier this year, I think, or late last year, about the difficulties for this council in maintaining these sewer systems and how, as an organisation, it really is a very big impost both on our workforce and on our ratepayers to provide what is, for most metropolitan LGAs, a service provided by a state authority. And I think it's when we see huge costs like this for repair that it becomes apparent that small regional councils like ours, on the edge of metropolitan Sydney, with services that are increasingly having to take a greater and greater impact both from increased residential development and the increased runoff from that residential development, and also from climate change, as Mr Snedden has pointed out, we see how impossible that becomes for organisations like ours.

So we've had this massive impact on our roads, on our residents, on our economy, and now we've had this on top of it. I think if this notice of motion is able to at least articulate council's actions around this incident, then that may be helpful for members of the public to understand that we have done our level best, that this was unavoidable, if that is the finding. But I think it also adds to our case that this service is a lot for us to manage, and I think that's a case that we then need to be taking quite strongly to the state government, that we need some relief from this, and certainly our ratepayers need some relief from this. This could have been a very nasty pollution incident. The fact that it happened just before a major flood, I think, made it even worse.

And then there's been all the— There's been all the disruption of the additional trucks. I've had numerous phone calls from people asking me why there's trucks going down the back of the hospital. I've had people tell me that the trucks have kept them awake at night in the hospital. When I was in the hospital, I had nursing staff asking me what on earth all those trucks were doing, what were we dumping, what were we sucking out, what was going on. So I think the public needs to know. But what I also think we need to do is mitigate for future events. So I'm hoping that we have assessed the condition of similar mains in that space, and I wonder then if there's any evidence of similar corrosion from them.

And I'd like that as a question on notice, if possible. I'm not necessarily asking anyone to go and fossick around, but if we have that, I think that would be useful information for us to know. Can I take that

As a question on notice?

Yes, please. I think too this notice of motion also highlights the fine line between the information required for us to carry out our strategic and fiduciary responsibilities and the line between the operational management of issues of the staff. And I know that that's something that is quite difficult to get your head around as a new councillor and even often as an experienced councillor. So I think this is worth our support as part of an information gathering and a public-facing information study. It's possible that some of the information will come back as confidential, and I think that's probably reasonable as well. Thanks.

Thank you. Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I was going to raise things in a similar vein to what Councillor Wheeler has raised. And again, I'm happy to support this, but when I first saw it, I thought it was more something you would submit as— Excuse me, sorry. As questions rather than a notice of motion. However, given that it's going into a report format, perhaps we could take that opportunity to include—not necessary to put in the motion—but to include a bit of preliminary around the issue that Mr. Snedden raised around the sewer fund. Perhaps we could just have an explanation around a bit of that, because it does seem to be something that's raised a lot of questions within the community. And as Councillor Wheeler said, it's, you know, is our infrastructure ailing to the point that we should be checking to try and mitigate against further incidences like this?

So I think that we do want the accountability about—we want accountability about everything—but around expenditure on these sort of things. I think if people understand how we collect the money for the sewer and then how we utilise that money would be a good opportunity to include this in this particular report

Thank you. Any further discussion? Did you want right of reply, Councillor Dogramaci?

Well, like I said, I demand to have some kind of an answer to every single one of the questions that I have raised. And here, in the last two years, or at least, you know, when this problem has started, again it says the cause of the failure has not yet been determined. I mean, that's a joke. I mean, how long do we have to wait and how long do we have to pump and make those companies rich? Now we're talking about four million dollars in here of every single individual's rate payers' money. On top of it, we are going to pay, what, three million dollars, four million dollars to the engineering companies? So, I think that something has to be done. Someone, you know, has to come clean. Who authorised, you know, all these details?

How did we end up with that TAC or TCA? I can't remember the name of the company, the engineering companies. I demand that, you know, I'll talk to their chief engineers, the maintenance people. I would like to go there and I would like to see personally. I'm not going to do that for myself, but I'm going to do it for every single one of the individuals in this room and for the ratepayers' sake. I would like to propose that this council allow me to have a meeting with the engineering company. Sorry, Councillor Dogramaci, that's beyond the scope of the motion in

Front of us, so just get you to— we're about to vote on the motion in front of us if you have

Anything else to respond to All right. Well , like I said, you know, I'm ignorant in this kind of matter, so accept my apology. All right

Thank you. All right, put the motion. All those in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. Favour: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Richards, Councillor Vargo, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lanesbury, Councillor Wheeler. Against: Councillor Sheather, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert. Declare it carried. Councillor Zamprogno was absent for the vote.

Next item with subject public address is the rescission motion. We have one speaker, Mr Michael Want.

Thank you . Thanks, Mr Mayor and councillors. This rescission motion tonight comes as a huge surprise to me. At the February 22 meeting, Councillor Calvert, Kotlash and Sheather did vote against the notice of motion. I don't recall why. So I'm not guessing, I and the residents and ratepayers would like to hear tonight the councillors' reasoning for opposing it in the first instance, along with the backflip now by Councillor Conolly and Mayor of Hawkesbury City Council, who is now also sponsoring the rescission motion. Will the other conservative councillors fall in line with the four councillors who want to prevent the benchmarks of February resolved being published? Councillors, what is wrong with transparency and accountability?

The Local Government Act at 232, the role of a councillor includes, and I quote at A, to be an active and contributing member of the governing body, end of quote.

That would involve attending council meetings, briefings and workshops to ensure you are active, informed and contribute. This is one of the items, this is one of the benchmarks reflected in councillors' embargoed resolve in the February minute. At 232B, and I quote, to make considered and well-informed decisions as a member of the governing body, end of quote. The benchmark to make considered and well-informed decisions is contained in the February minute as well, which some councillors want to rescind. Why, councillors? Why do you want to rescind this? Surely, goodness, you owe it to the residents and ratepayers to explain yourselves. In my view, if councillors don't explain themselves, then it could be gross dereliction of their responsibilities to the residents and ratepayers.

It may indicate they hold the residents and ratepayers in contempt, or as not entitled to an explanation. How do the residents and ratepayers know councillors are well informed to represent their collective interests? Councillors should meet with the public or liaise with the public so they're well informed. At 232, again, at 2, a councillor is accountable to the local community for the performance of council. I would have thought one way of doing that is to support the February minute, and that means voting against the rescission motion tonight.

If you're not prepared to vote against the rescission motion, it signals to the community that the four councillors and others who backflip on their previous decision don't want to be accountable or transparent to the residents and ratepayers. Clause 232, again, of the Local Government Act at D says, and I quote, to represent the collective interests of residents and ratepayers and local communities, end of quote.

All councillors would be conflicted voting on this rescission motion, as I see it. Therefore, if councillors are still inclined to bury the accountability and transparency, before you do that, put the resolve and the rescission motion out for public comment for a minimum days that is required, so the residents and ratepayers can have their two bob's worth if it pleases. Thank you.

Thanks, Mr. Want. Happy to take questions? Yes. Any questions for Mr. Want? Councillor Sheather.

Yeah, thanks, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Want, we've known one another for quite a while, and I voted against that. Yes. Is there something you'd like to say to me, either here or because I go to contact later, that I haven't fulfilled my duties as a councillor?

No, I've already said it in the resolution. I think for transparency's sake, and so that councillors are clearly representing the interest of the residents and community, that resolution should stay. It's not—it's something you're required to do, and what's wrong with having it on the books to make sure you do that? I'll address that later. Yep, thank you.

Okay. Thanks, Mr. Want. Thank you. Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Move the motion?

Yes.

Seconder for that? Councillor Deputy Mayor? Yep. Go ahead.

Thank you. Obviously I'm still worried about this resolution. As I see it as being politically motivated, it's unable to deliver the meaningful information to the community, and most importantly, it's divisive. So this sort of divisiveness, I think, is the main problem with this resolution. I have said previously that there's campaigning, and there's gratuitous self-promotion at the expense of others, and I'm worried that this sort of distorted information might lead to the latter, and I want nothing to do with it. To get our staff to gather such information is not appropriate. It is clearly political. And our staff should only be working on things for the public good.

First up, attendance is not a good measure of responsive, thoughtful, fair, accountable and effective representation. A councillor can turn up for everything, listen to everybody and do absolutely nothing. The cost of conferences, professional development and information technology is not a good measure of this either. So why gather this information? So what? So it can be distorted at election time? To me, this is false accountability. I have absolutely no problem with being accountable to the community. But I think it is very poor form when measures that don't really measure what's purported to are put out like they are valuable. I'll go back to one of my favourite quotes: Measure what is important.

Don't make something important because you can measure it. That is a really powerful thing to keep in your mind for all sorts of things. But in this case, it's really on the money. Because we can measure some things, don't make them good measures. And it's got really nothing to do with accountability and transparency. If people want to, when they're going out campaigning, if they want people to know that they went to 100% of everything, well, good luck to them. That's great. But we members of this council have all sorts of pressures in our lives. We've got all sorts of things to do. We might not get a perfect report card. So what does that mean? Not a lot, really. It doesn't. You could, you can be a really good representative of your community if you sat on the phone and talked to people on the phone all day.

Nobody knows you're doing that. We're not going to measure that, I don't think. You know, I think we have to get really, I think we have to put a halt to this notion that some of these measures are going to allow people to feel like we're doing the right thing by them.

I suppose, you know,

I think we, well, how about we worry less about measuring this sort of stuff, and we get on to collectively work together to improve the Hawkesbury for our community. How about that? Thank you.

Thank you. Further discussion? Councillor Sheather.

Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor. Councillor Kotlash spoke very well, I think, and it's my feelings. This is not a resolution we spoke about amongst ourselves or anything. It came up to Council and we voted on it. And the two councillors to my right had the same view as I had. And I don't care whether it's motivated by politics or whatever. As a matter of fact, the councillor who moved that's not here tonight. So does that mean that he's not important? He's on the screen up there, and I suspect that he's just as involved as any of us sitting around this table. And it is not fair for people to assess that he's not sitting in that seat over there, that he's not doing his job. And there's an easy way to fix a councillor who doesn't do their job.

Don't vote for him next time. That'll fix that problem. And for the ones who do get out and about and do their job, the community certainly knows that. And if there was an issue with councillors, I'm sure the lady sitting on your left would do something to rectify that problem. And she would have the support of the councillors around this room. Because we're here to do a job and , irrespective of people's personal positions , whatever they may be, I don't know there's one of them that isn't here to make the community a better place than when they came here. And so, as Mr. Wand indicated, that as far as accountability goes, there's certain procedures that we have to follow, legislation, and I'm sure within the code of conduct that we've adopted, it goes further than what's required by the Local Government Act because we try to do the right thing.

And if there's issues that the community feels that we should deal with differently to what we do, then they should speak out about it. But to suggest, like workshops or conferences and stuff like that, we've got to give reports if we go to those and come back. All those sorts of things, it's accountable, it's in the minutes, it's presented to council as public knowledge. But to suggest that a councillor is not there for a particular reason, they could be in hospital, goddamn, we've had a pandemic for two years. Does that mean to say that while they're in hospital—and we had a councillor recently that just spoke that she was in hospital —and I know that she was making phone calls out of her bed when she should have been laying back taking it easy.

So that's the dedication that councillors have got around this room, and so I will be supporting the rescission motion, as I did not support the motion when it came up before us a couple of weeks back. Thank you.

Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you for the grace extended to me to appear via Zoom tonight. Look, I, of course, feel acutely disappointed because I advanced this in February, and one, a majority among my colleagues, including you, Mr Mayor, who thought that this was a good idea. Now, I accept that there were dissenting opinions, and I can only repeat what I said at the time. This is not advanced as a perfect measure of council due diligence, but it is a measure, and it's certainly a significant one turning up, and it's one that I think that the community have a clear expectation, a very clear expectation, that we offered to them as a pledge of our good faith that we're doing our job. Now, I know that there are many other things that councillors do.

I concede Councillor Kotlash's point. But the thing is, in February, we decided that it was reasonable to collate a lot of information that was already in the public domain, but which was not put together in a way in the annual report or prior to an election that would be a summary form. And I think that people that want to know would appreciate having that information retabulated in precisely that way. I refute Councillor Kotlash's assertion that this is overtly political. Councillor, the process that we engage in is politics. We sought election. We won it. We sit in the chamber. We are accountable to one another and to the broader community. And I think that the sense of umbrage that's taken that councillors would be held to account in this way does not travel well in the broader community.

Mr Mayor, I'm listening very carefully, and all I'm hearing so far are the arguments that were advanced in February, both for and against. So in my mind, Mr Mayor, I have not yet heard anything that would change your mind or cause you to become a signatory to this rescission motion. But I'm continuing to listen. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further speakers?

Councillor Dogramaci. Yes, thank you, Mr Mayor. I think we should all be starting to attend primary school and give us a pen and paper, say A, B, C, and start. Don't we have anything more important than collecting all these

Points that, you know, next, you know, there will be some kind of a Bundy card, what time we entered in here? I mean, our job is not— this is our second meeting, and we never had less than ten people in here. Like Councillor Sheather mentioned, if we are not doing, or if any one of us is not doing the job or the duty that, you know, we were bestowed by the ratepayers, let them not to elect us. I think, you know, this is all too much. Who came in and how many committees, you know, we went in, or discussions, I personally didn't attend to a single workshop or any one of those meetings. Personally, I don't feel that, you know, I will learn anything. So what does that mean? I think personally, correct me, any one of the councillors correct me, I have seen 29 ratepayers at their places from all the way from Kurrajong to near the border of Singleton.

Does that mean that I'm not doing my job as a councillor? So, I think I will—I'll definitely be supporting Councillor Kotlash's motion. Thank you. Thank you.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I won't be supporting the rescission motion. I'm actually a bit perplexed why anyone's got an issue with it, because it's just merely one tool that we use. Like Councillor Dogramaci in his last notice of motion was calling on accountability from the staff and saying, you know, you have got to give us this information. We're paid by the public purse, and I expect most people in here will support having an increase in that allowance in a further motion tonight , where meeting less, we're engaging less, we're not out in the community as individuals, we are, but as a council we're not. And this is one tool in giving this information to the public. It's not what people would rely on to judge councillors on entirely.

It's simply a thing to say who's been to conferences. The reports don't come to council, despite having asked that, Councillor Sheather, they don't come to council. We are doing less in terms of many of the aspects of council. We don't have DA powers anymore. We've got a lot less things. So for the people voting , and this isn't about the election, although it's been made about elections for some reason. It was actually about just an ongoing tally of who engages and so on. This information is gathered anyway. This was about reporting it publicly , and it shouldn't be divisive. It's been divisive by having accusations made that it's a political stunt. But I think when Councillor Zambrano brought this motion, it was something he had raised over time.

And it ties in with the many calls we've heard from many councillors in here, calling on accountability, calling on accountability around finances, calling on accountability around many other aspects of what councillors' roles are. And I think that it's important that we're shown to take our role respectfully and to deliver, as other councils do, information around attendance and so on. It's being phobic about election time is ridiculous when we've just had an election. We've got a number of years, and if you're a good representative, then the community knows that out there because you've engaged with them in many ways. So this is merely a tool to say, you know, this is how the council's running, this is how it's going.

If you have pressures around why you can't, obviously why you can't attend something, obviously people know that things happen in life. You know, we all have to miss things occasionally. I don't think anybody, and I haven't seen anybody use it as a tool, as a weapon to say, I went to more of this than you did, or something like that. I don't think that's the intent. I just think that having turned it into something to be about council campaigns and elections is not the purpose of how it was put forward. It was put forward so that we have some record of various things around attendance, and that is simply a means of accountability and transparency. And that is our role, as Mr. Wont pointed out when he spoke.

It is our role as local councillors to do that. There's calls, for example, on the federal government to have integrity commissions, to have accountability, and it should be occurring at all levels of government. We are here for the people, and the people should be able to see what we attend and when we do it. And I'm quite concerned that anyone would think that there's a reason you would not want that public.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I won't be supporting the rescission motion. I'm a bit surprised to hear that this is bad, that the motion itself is bad because it's political. This is politics. Ten of us belong to political parties. Ten members of this council belong to political parties. This is politics. Look around you. Nine of us ran on a party platform. To be surprised by the politics involved, really, what have you been doing? I don't understand which bit of this accountability is objectionable. It's largely aggregating data that council already collects in a place where the general public can find it easily if they choose to. And at the end of the day, that really is what it comes down to. Should the general public choose to work out who turns up and who doesn't?

And let's face it, we have had instances where we have had councillors with very poor attendance records, the minimum attendance required not to have to show cause why they should remain on council. The public has a right to know that. They pay us to turn up, and part of that role is to come and sit in this chamber, or if required to be on Zoom if necessary, and make decisions for the future of this community. The fact that I can't understand why you would object to that information being presented in a short form that the community can see. What is it that you don't like? Is it having to turn up? Is it having to say how much the council has to pay you for petrol and things? I don't get the problem.

Some of these things are likely to backfire. Some of these things are likely to have to be explained. I remember a post when Councillor Lyons-Buckett and I were at a conference where people decided to criticise us for going to a conference, a key part of our job and an ability to maintain our role as strategic planners. But that's what happens. And we were able to answer those questions as to why we went and why it was a necessary requirement. That's the sort of transparency that we should be aiming for. The information technology expenses is likely to bite those of us who took the purchase option rather than just taking the grab bag of council stuff. The costs are largely the same, but they look different in that we were given a payout rather than a box of goodies of the equivalent value.

So none of this is cut and dried, and I think anybody who thinks that they're going to run out to the community and go, 'Look at me, I've got a perfect attendance record, therefore I'm a good councillor,' people can see through that. We all know the kids who always turned up at school and still weren't the sharpest tool in the shed. I mean, it's not a measure of goodness necessarily, but it is a measure of accountability. And in that regard, I think this motion was worthy of support at the time and is worthy of remaining. I'm concerned that when we do things like this, motivated by I don't know what, a concern that someone will use it against us, or that it's not the perfect measure, that we make knee-jerk responses, that then the public find really abhorrent.

And I think that's also really concerning. Attendance isn't a great measure of effective representation, but it is a measure of whether we turn up and whether we are willing to do our jobs in the chamber when we're required, and that's effectively what this does. This is standard across many, many councils in Australia. Victorian councils do this largely as a matter of course. Many other councils do this right down to telephone expenses every single month on the councillor's page. I don't find any of that onerous. This is public money. We expect our employees to account for their time and expenses. I don't understand why we would not expect it of ourselves.

Thanks, Councillor. Is there any further discussion?

Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Quite an interesting discussion going on about this matter, and I have not changed my position from last time. When I go out and talk to the community, I find that what most of the community tell me is they would like to see the 12 councillors here working as a team, working together and delivering for the residents. They tell me they're sick of squabbling between councillors and sick of the bickering that goes on. What they want is some results from council. Working as a team. And I can't see that this introducing this method will lead to any team, it'll lead to division. It doesn't bring us together, it deliberately pits us against each other. Because you've got to ask, what is the ultimate aim of this policy?

Obviously, the ultimate aim is it's designed to embarrass certain councillors. It's not really about accountability. Deputy Mayor's got the call, please, Councillor Miller and Lyons-Buckett. Thank you, Mr Mayor. It's not about accountability. It's about providing another tool, as some councillors said, that can be actually used against other councillors. And as has already been pointed out, councillors have different backgrounds . Some work, some don't. The backgrounds are very different. And so a number that measures that somebody went to three conferences when someone else went to six conferences is absolutely meaningless. It doesn't mean anything. And all it can be done with that figure is that the person who went to the six conferences can say, I'm better than you because I went to six and you only went to three.

That's what it leads to. It provides people with a weapon they can use against other councillors. I'm very keen to avoid giving people that weapon. Now, when we do go to conferences, this is the other point that seems to be ignored. When a councillor attends a conference, they represent all of us. They don't go there representing themselves, and they don't go there for their own benefit. They go there to represent all of us. So if two or three of our councillors go to a conference, they're there on our behalf, and they come back and report to us. The fact that the other councillors couldn't get there for one reason or another, or we didn't have the funds to get them there, doesn't mean that the ones who went are necessarily any better than the ones who couldn't get there.

And— That to me is a very important point that is being missed in this tool, is the reasons why people are doing things, not whether they're there, whether they attend, but why they are there and what they achieve. What it also indicates is that it assumes at the moment we are not accountable. We need this new tool to make us accountable. But we are accountable already. I mean, Councillor Wira has pointed out that we knew that certain councillors in the past didn't attend many meetings. We all knew that. We didn't need this special tool to put a number up and so we can hit people over the head with it and say, you only went to two meetings instead of ten. We know, the public knows who is performing and who isn't performing.

And when I go out, as I said to the community, community tells me what their perception is, and I don't think they need this tool either. It's not something that makes us accountable. One of the councillors also said that we should be looking at saving money, and when we discuss our fees later, we should be saying that we are not accepting a fee increase, yet on the other hand they're very keen to bring this in, which is going to cost staff time and staff money to produce something which I don't see as a tool. I see it as a weapon. And I think that having this school children's report card is not necessary. It's been shown it's not necessary. It's going to waste council resources and it's going to lead to further division, and that's why I'm voting with the motion.

Thank you. Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I wasn't sure if I was going to enter into this debate tonight because I know my words will be used as a weapon in the coming days. So I paid consideration to that and I thought, you know what, I think something needs to be said. When we are talking about, and it has been mentioned tonight, of data like this being used as a weapon, so are our words when we are speaking in this chamber. And some of the words that have already been used tonight, I think do deserve some little, some credence, some emphasis to be put on those words. Something the Deputy Mayor just said was quite interesting. The public knows who is and who isn't performing. And that doesn't come from a set of data that's gathered and written once in a yearly report.

That comes from a Councillor who turns up when it floods, from a Councillor who turns up when our community is on fire, from a Councillor who doesn't get any sleep because they've been at recovery centres, from a Councillor who's making sure that when government doesn't deliver, whether it's local, state or federal, they're finding ways to solve problems in the community outside of the government's sphere. What this data doesn't also show is how many Councillors have been found guilty of codes of conduct. And I know during the last Councillor term, Councillors were found guilty of codes of conduct in the most awful circumstances, and that was never reported to the community. What it doesn't show is findings of misconduct.

You can come to a meeting and engage in misconduct, be found guilty of misconduct and still have a perfect attendance record. That is not a reflection of the contribution that you have made as a Councillor. Some of the other remarks said tonight, We are doing less. Well, are we? Well, speak for yourself, because there are so many Councillors in this room who are not doing less. There are Councillors in this room who are so committed to their role, who want to participate in this community and help other people, that every night they are at public meetings, that every night they're on Zoom meetings, that every day they're going out to CWA meetings and Rotary events. When doing all of these things that, quite frankly, are outside the realm of what this data is expecting to show in these annual reports.

There is more to being a councillor than this set of metrics in front of us, and I was someone who voted for this at the start, but I've also been someone who has had this already used as a weapon. Not this specific data, but attendance. And I can tell you now, when that Facebook post went up that I was late to a flood briefing, you can go and ask Hawkesbury Helping Hands because I was dripping in water as I was unpacking pallets of food to help feed our community in a flood. What was interesting is that then the person who made those attacks then didn't turn up to those very same briefings, but that wasn't reported across social media because that wasn't the gotcha moment. So I'll be supporting this rescission motion tonight for those reasons.

There is much more to being a councillor than what is written on this page in front of us, and you are right, when it comes to election time, when it comes to casting your vote, the people in the Hawkesbury knows who shows up. Thank you.

Mr Mayor. Councillor Richards. Yes, Councillor.

Point of misrepresentation. What

Is it?

It's regarding what Councillor Richards just said. I didn't say that we're doing less. I said we're meeting less and that we have less powers. I didn't reference any specific councillor. No, but I could take an inference. It's

Like you inferred who was going to vote on something later coming up in the meeting, please.

Thank you. Okay.

I wanted to discuss this too. Obviously, as Councillor Zamprogno pointed out, I originally was supportive of this motion and now put my name to the rescission motion. A lot of what I was going to say has really been said by the Deputy Mayor, in that— This , what I've already seen in the very short time since this motion has been passed, is that the intention behind it is not at all to bring the Council together. Before this motion was put up, I can tell you, not one, not one single person in the community in the nine and a half years I've been on Council has ever raised with me that the biggest problem they have, or raised at all that it's a problem they have with Council, that they don't know who's attended what meetings.

The biggest complaint I get is my DA is too slow. My road has a pothole. We're not getting anywhere on this issue. That's what people are talking about. They're not coming to me and saying, I can't see, Patrick, whether or not Les attended that briefing last week, and I need to know. No one's ever raised that with me before this came up. It is not a concern in the community. What the Deputy Mayor said, quite rightly, is that what is a concern in the community is that there is a perception in the community that we can't work together for the benefit of the Hawkesbury people, which is what we were elected to do. That's the perception in the community. And I was also going to reference the incident that Councillor Richards mentioned, where during a flood, you know, during the flood we had in March, there's not, you know, lots of councillors worked really hard in the community.

Everyone was out doing things, lots of councillors were out on the ground doing things. I don't think anyone, in my opinion, anyone worked harder out on the ground than Councillor Richards. That's my honest opinion, my honest assessment of the situation in terms of councillors. Councillor Richards, I know from all the phone calls I was getting, was out there coordinating food drop-offs, running things around, you know, trying to find ways for people to get to different places they needed to with the SES, you know, working really, really hard. And yet Councillor Zamprogno went out there and put it on social media that Councillor Richards didn't attend a briefing.

Quite a misrepresentation, Mr Mayor.

Just for clarification, you're not allowed to interrupt with a point of misrepresentation. A point of misrepresentation is a reason why you might request another turn of speaking. It's not a point of order.

I foreshadow that then.

Thank you. Not necessary, and you can put your light on after you finish speaking. Councillors then Progno went out and put on a social media post that some Councillors didn't attend the briefing. That then got picked up by local media, and the story became, Council's not working together. One Councillor pointing out the rest, some Councillors aren't turning up. And instead of talking about the fact that we were having a briefing during a crisis to make sure that the crucial information got disseminated within our community and that Councillors knew what Council's response was, instead of that being the message, the message became two messages: one, some Councillors aren't showing up, and the second message, the Councillors are fighting again between each other.

I cannot see how this information could possibly lead to Council working better together as a team. I don't think it's going to. I think that there's an intention that it's going to be weaponised. Last month, or it might have been the month before, no, I think it was last month, I missed the first briefing I've ever missed while I've been the Mayor. My son was in hospital for a few days. It was quite a scary time. Of course I was there for my family. I didn't really think about it, but in the back of my mind, I had to think, is someone going to put on Facebook that I missed that briefing? And I shouldn't have to worry about that. We should be working as a collective. We should be having each other's backs and making sure that when someone can't step up, someone else steps up more.

That's how it should be. It shouldn't be that we're there to point out who was late, who didn't get there, and what different people have done. And I think that's clearly how this data is going to be used, and that's why I put my name to the rescission motion. Councillors then Progno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. And I'm not sticking another bite at Cherry. I'm just seeking to address the specific point of misrepresentation. And it's easy to prove, because every social media post that I've made— So what is the

Point of misrepresentation, please, Councillor Zamprogno?

You contended that I named councillors for the purpose of embarrassing them for their non-attendance, and that is not the case. Apologise, Councillor Zamprogno. I never mentioned

Councillor Richards. It was quite clear, and it became quite clear quite quickly, that it was Councillor Richards that was being referred to. But I apologise if you didn't name the councillor. I'll take that comment. I'm not responsible for other— Thank you. Councillor Zamprogno , thank you. Right of reply, Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Look, I really don't think it's that necessary, but I'd just like to say that a few points I'd like to clear up. I don't think that the staff should collate useless information under the guise that it's going to reflect our accountability. I think that's been pointed out by a few of us in this room.

Councillor Wheeler was saying that she was shocked that I didn't realise that this was a political— this was, you know, everything we do is political. And I suppose I agree with that. Everything we do is political. But I'm really surprised that some in this room think that our staff should be working on things that are for a political purpose. That's just not— that's, if you want accountability, I'm sure the community don't want our staff to gather useless information. For political purposes, that's pretty cut and dry in my opinion .

Look, I'd just really like to throw in, I can't see how collecting information on how much our information technology costs will help anybody. This time of Council, I didn't put my hand up for a laptop because I have a very good one at home, and I think I've saved the ratepayers, I don't know how much is a laptop, a few thousand dollars. Well, great. But the person that didn't have a good laptop and they needed one got provided with one. So what's that information going to—I mean, this is just ridiculous. We should really just stop. We should just stop this kind of obsession with, you know, data being okay to collect because it's going to tell, you know, somebody something that's useless. I mean, we have to really start to work on, as the Mayor has said, we have to start working on all of the things that we need to improve in the Hawkesbury.

We've got to do it together and cooperate with each other. So let's just put this one to bed and get on with our work. And I'm sure the community really wants us to do that. Thank you.

Thank you. Put the motion. All those in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. Mayor, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Richards, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Carbone, Councillor Dogramaci. Against? Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno. Declare it carried.

That was our last item subject to public address. So we'll go to item 82. Oh, sorry, items on block. It was just whispered really loudly to me. Moved items on block, Councillor Kotlash, seconded Deputy Mayor. All those in favour? Declare it carried.

Item 82.

Anybody wish to move anything there?

Councillor Sheather. Yeah, I move the recommendation, Mr Mayor. Recommendation, seconded Councillor Wheeler.

Any further discussion? Just briefly

Mr Mayor, it's something that I'm certainly interested in. I can't make it. We've got two council meetings, something we just discussed at the very time that conference is on. So, and that's the main reason I won't be going. Well, one's a meeting and one's a briefing. But I believe we've got a staff member that is going; it hasn't been reported. Can that be addressed in one of our briefings? As in a report back from the conference, do you mean? Well, I'd like to know exactly what our staff's representing the council and what's being said.

Through the Chair, Councillors, we'd be happy to bring along that staff member to a briefing and for her to brief the councillors on the subject matter at hand. Yep

Just on that, Mr Mayor, if we've got staff that are going to conferences at any time, can we brief in advance of that just to be aware of exactly what is happening? Some of the conferences, as this one, we've just been through a couple of bad floods and we've got someone to your right there that's got a major problem with it. And I think it's really important that we've got someone going, and hopefully that I had to view some of the— I've spoken with staff, if it's feasible, to view some of that happening.

I think there's times when that might not be appropriate, but if the general manager could just note that whenever it relates to council duties, we might be informed. Yep. Thank you. Councillor Kotlash

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just following on from Councillor Sheather's comments about bringing it to a briefing, would it be appropriate to bring it to the Disaster and Emergency Committee , a report such as that, so that we can—my thinking is that it would be able to be reported to the community that have come along to that committee because they're interested and they're provided with that, as long as there's not anything in it that's confidential, which I probably doubt.

I refer that to the General Manager.

Through you, Mr Mayor, I think the challenge we've got in relation to this particular conference is that its dates actually collide with when we had the next Disaster and Emergency Management Committee scheduled. So, on its own, reporting the content of a submission prepared at a conference isn't necessarily something that would warrant a committee coming together to do. I'm certainly happy for the staff member to brief councillors. What I wouldn't like to do is to bring the committee together for the sole purpose of reading the content of a conference. I understand. Fair enough

Thank you.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I believe the staff member is doing a presentation, which is likely to be recorded, I would think, as they all are at those conferences that people could watch. Mr Mayor, I'd be keen to attend the virtual— Conference , the conference virtually. I think it's incredibly important that we have a councillor representation at this conference, and I actually thought we'd decided on this at another meeting, that we were going to just have it organised out of our professional development allocation or something. So I'd be happy to do that. I think that it's of enormous benefit that we understand the lessons that are being compiled around the country, particularly from northern New South Wales and from southeastern Queensland, that we can learn from how they've dealt with various aspects around flooding.

And I think it's a really beneficial conference in terms of the hearing from the staff that go. I think if we have a councillor that goes, I think that we can report back anyway, as we do, and of the reports I've submitted, perhaps we could present those to the committees. That's what we used to do previously, and I think that that would be good to really hear, because there's bound to be a lot of very, very current information at this conference that we need to be learning about.

Thank you. No further discussion. Councillor Sheather. Yeah

Mr. Mayor, when I said a briefing, it was information that I was referring to, not going to a great deal of written documentation, just to let us know. I expect most of it's going to be on planning. I don't know that a lot of it will be in relation to what Councillor Lyons Buckett just spoke of, but it is important, as she said, and I'm glad that she is going to sit on and watch it. We will hear comments from her in that regard, and there is opportunity, as she indicated, that we might get a disc or something that we can actually look at the presentation at a later date. Thank you.

Put the motion then. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favourable: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Richards, Councillor Vargo, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno. Against? Councillor Dogramaci. Declare it carried.

Item 83, Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr— sorry, Councillor Richards. Mr Mayor, should we confirm that I am attending virtually?

Yeah.

As part— yeah

It says as considered by the General Manager.

Well, I thought we had to, but it's not a

Motion, that's all. Yeah. Okay. So yep, you're going virtually, Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I have a significant non-pecuniary interest due to the federal election. I'll be leaving the room. Thank you.

Okay. Somebody wish to move anything for item 83? Recommendation, Councillor Sheather. Seconder for that? Seconded, Councillor Veigel.

Discussion?

Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor. Opportunities like this don't come very often, and it's , I just hope that it's as good as it looks. And the opportunity to, I guess, catch up on things that we're a fair way behind. This is terrific. The comment I made about sport, that when we discuss these things, and there's quite a few things that relate to our reserves, and specifically the playing fields and the like, but there's very little in it that promotes sport. So my discussion about sport will be in another place another time. But the things that are proposed to enhance those grounds for the community generally is something that it would—well, Council's never been able to provide that sort of facilities, and it's a fabulous opportunity, and I thank the staff for the work they're putting into it, and hope they work really hard to achieve the outcome that we would hope.

Just on that, Councillor, just want to confirm the motion. There was the memorandum to Council this afternoon, which included a further point recommended. Were you intending to move that in addition to the recommendation? That's the

$445,000 that was the—

Well, the suggested motion is that following more detailed project costing, should Council's allocation of $22.57 million not be exhausted, delegation be granted to the general manager, should additional project or stages thereof be required, projects shall be from the ten nominated to be otherwise submitted as part of the computer. Yes

That was the late

Item

That was sent to us this afternoon.

I'm fine with that. Further discussion?

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I think some of these projects are really pleasing to see in a funding cycle where it looks like we might actually get some money as a result of a lot of hard work, because these things are enormously time consuming to put the level of detail towards the funding bodies. And I think it's one of the places that smaller councils like us are often squeezed, in that freeing up staff to ask for the money in order for us to get a share of the pie is often really difficult when you're already down to the bare bones of the staff to begin with. And I think that's where much larger councils are in a much better position to attract this funding and that they can just leave staff doing this stuff all the time.

I spent years living on grant funding. I know how much of the year it sucks just trying to keep things running if you're living on grants. What I think is also good from this is that we've now got these projects ready for funding applications, and I think we need to be trotting them out. Whatever's not successful this time, we need to have our hand out for the next round from somewhere else. And I think if we've been able to use this project to get those to a more shovel-ready position, then I think we're in a much better spot. I've raised before the idea of keeping these shovel-ready projects somewhere so that we can keep an eye out, councilors are often told, about funding from our various different sources.

If we had a reference point where we could look and say, Yep, that would suit that. How can we facilitate this happening? I think that would be helpful. It's another way of putting us to work while we're wandering about chatting to people. I think it's always handy, too, to have a number of things ready pre-election, and there is a state election next year. So let's not be backward in coming forward, despite being a very safe state seat. I think a couple of the projects here I want to flag. Two , because they're really positive: the Corradong-Kermon Cycleway, long awaited, a real boon for active transport, but also I think possibly for people who work close to home and are now looking to getting themselves to work without using a vehicle, and that cycleway, I think, would lend itself well, particularly for kids going to school.

I think it's long been a black spot where parents have made decisions about driving their kids to school when they would just let them ride a bike. The accessible crossing at South Windsor, I think, is another thing that needs to jump up all the lists. We need to be asking for that funding from wherever possible. It's a relatively small project, but it would make a very big difference to people's lives where they're involved. I'm really unhappy, however, to see the synthetic field at Hobartville. I can see the need for a tartan track for sprinting and middle-distance events, but I find the idea of a synthetic playing field really problematic. And I think there's enough information now from the fields that have gone in over the last decade to show that we are really courting problems if we go down this path.

Synthetic fields are currently under review by the New South Wales Chief Scientist at the behest of the previous New South Wales Planning Minister, and a report, I think, is due this year. The initial report from August 2021 made lots of comments about problems: unusable in areas subject to flooding and overland flow — that's Hobartville — concerns with microplastics and rubber crumb, especially near waterways. The rubber crumb is ingested by players; we're talking about crushed car tyres here being swallowed by children playing on these fields. I don't think this is a game we want to play. There's real problems with increased heat on the surface. I note Gardner Park, where they have one of these surfaces, hotly contested, 88 degrees measured by Professor Fouch from the University of Western Sydney, 88 degrees on the surface during a 28-degree day.

Twenty-eight degree day is a cool day in summer for us. Increased heat in the areas surrounding the site, but particularly concerning for children. It contributes to the urban heat island effect. There's an increased fire risk, a very short life cycle of about eight years, and then it goes to landfill, lost playing hours in hot weather. It's bad for wildlife, may not actually improve capacity and reduce the capacity of informal and passive recreational users, extensive maintenance costs, and they require extensive community consultation, which we've not done. They also should be a part of a strategic planning approach to open space and recreation, including a needs analysis, and we haven't done this either.

This is completely ad hoc, and we need to be better at this. There needs to be — and this is a recommendation of the initial report from the Chief Scientist — there needs to be rigorous economic, social and environmental analysis. Here's a grant. That's exactly out of the report, and that's exactly what we've done. There's an EPA study into turf best practice, and I think we would be better to get across this, given that we come from the land of turf anyway. But what this does flag is our need for strategic planning and community consultation around our playing fields, and I think, frankly, that would be a better use of our money. Thanks. Councillor Wheeler?

Lyons Buckett, sorry.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think this is really good. I mean, having the opportunity to make these investments for the future generations are really positive, and I think that the criteria, the way they were structured, was very beneficial in helping us to have various projects to fit into those particular criteria. I also would promote, in with this additional motion that's come forward, that the possibility of having some more funds. I would promote projects 11 and 12 on one of the lists. I probably—they might be called something else elsewhere—which are both active transport, or safety and active transport. The carriage on to Kermon Cycleway would, for a cost of under a million dollars, it would have such a massive benefit to the community up there.

It would decrease congestion, particularly of the people who have to be driven to school because it's simply not safe to get there walking or by cycleway. It would increase the independence of the increasing number of people that live along those stretches who are now on mobility scooters. It would mean they could get to the shops. It's a really, really valuable project for a reasonably low amount of money, and unfortunately it was discontinued a number of years ago, otherwise it would be finished by now. The other one is the accessible crossing points at Macquarie Street, South Windsor, which is also very valuable. I agree with how the three major projects under the local government allocation have been spread fairly across the area.

I think that's really good to see that each area, it's not dominated in one particular area, but there'd be something for each side of the river, and then the wayfinding signage, which is more general. I hope that we— Get a lot of these in the... I hope we get all of them. But as Councillor Wheeler said, it's really good to have these ready and costed or estimated, and to have them even out there as ideas that the community can let us know any changes around that or what sort of things they think we should be doing further down the track. And we can work towards some of them because some of them could be staged, of course, and we do have some allocated funding in our budget for some of them.

But I think I would love to have the 30 million to do the Richmond Swimming Centre. Hopefully, one day, I don't know, miracles may happen, and something will allow us to actually upgrade that swimming centre for that cost. But in terms of any additional money, I definitely think that putting it towards our safety or active transport, these two projects there for around the million-dollar mark, which may well be achievable with any savings we can get. Thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Veigel. Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor. Just to the point of Tamplin Field and the synthetic field, when you pitched this to government, are we wedded to a synthetic field? That's more of a question to the council officers. Or can that change to get best practice that goes to turf? Refer that to... I mean, things do move around, don't they, with technology and whatever. If there's an issue that plans out, we've got a problem with the synthetic field, question mark, as Councillor Wheeler has raised. Can we still get funding if we change the field composition from synthetic to natural or whatever?

Through you, Mr Mayor, the important thing to preserve would be the outcomes and achievements of the project, or what it's trying to achieve. If we can achieve the same thing by other means, then I would... Has it a guess that it shouldn't impact, but I'm not certain.

That's okay. Well, a recommendation from me would be if synthetics an issue and it's proving to be, then we'd look at another alternative. But the importance of that, to get that done, I agree with. And just one other issue too , if I may. I know there's an extra $400,000 that have come around based on passive versus active. There's a real need for lighting for sporting grounds in the Hawkesbury. You get into the winter months and there's simply not enough fields for lighting for training for kids' sport. This comes about for the 10 years that I was on the sports council, and they're fighting for space and time, and it's basically really wearing out the fields. Now we've gone with a program with portable lights.

It's just not good enough. There are a number of fields that we can introduce fixed lighting in certain areas. So I'm not saying where you can put the money. You can maybe split this to trenches up into certain areas where it comes to a more important area. So that's my point on that. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Thanks.

No further discussion. Right of reply, Councillor Sheather.

Mr. Mayor

Oh, sorry Councillor Zamprogno.

Sorry, I know it's hard ear to notice me, but that's okay. Look, I concur with my colleagues. This is a very welcome project , a very welcome initiative. My issue is this: those items that are under .1 are the ones that we're almost definitely going to be able to spend that money, and those that are in part two enter into a competitive process and they're in the probable maybe category. What we're doing in .3, however, is that we're effectively just leaving that to the discretion of the general manager. And considering that we had A workshop, and we put sticky notes on all of our various preferred options. I'm uncomfortable about the idea of just leaving a fourth project up to that discretion.

We don't trust our general manager, but I mean, everybody's come now to this meeting to kind of list their pet projects, and I want very much to represent the people in my neck of the woods and to make mention of the pressing need to complete the master plan for Colby Park. And my case for Colby Park is that we've recently completed a very detailed master plan, so there isn't much work that's required to advance that for funding. The master planning is largely done. What we did, of course, is that we left that community down by saying, Well, look, here's a handsome solution which we cannot fund, and I would like to see Colby Park advanced into the upper category. So should we take a vote on the particular projects that we might authorise the general manager to move into that upper category, rather than just leaving it as a lucky dip?

I hear the other councillors when they talk about the Corrugong to Kermann cycleway. I rather agree. I think it would be an excellent idea. How about the Corrugong to Kermann cycleway and McQuade Park, and then vote on it so that the general manager has the benefit of our guidance?

I would be happy to move that as an amendment. Thanks, Councillor [unclear]. I think, yeah, we've got a motion before us that deals with it in a particular way, so you'd need to move an amendment if you wanted that dealt with in that. All right then. Well

That being the case, I'd like to propose an amendment, and it could be a variation on point three, that the two projects that the general manager should prefer or focus upon are the Corrugong to Kermann cycleway and the Colby Park upgrade.

Is there a seconder for that?

No, that fails for a seconder. Thanks, Councillor [unclear]. I was going to just to say on that point that I think the reason we're moving that it was recommended to us to put that additional... Additional measure in the motion tonight is because we are in a very fluid environment in terms of grant funding. We have lots and we have 12 projects here. None of them are new. Most of them have been submitted for other grants that can come back any time between now and when we need to submit this list. So we don't know how much additional money there might be to exhaust that allocation, and therefore it's not possible for Council to decide tonight what should be funded. It would really depend on how much grant funding becomes available.

A key date for that might be the 21st of May, as both federal candidates have committed money to various items on this list, and therefore it would be a reasonable expectation that some of them therefore are going to be funded that way. But without knowing who might win, we don't know which ones yet to take out if that is in fact required. So I think we need to leave it up to the delegation of the general manager. We've had a briefing of councillors where we've had the opportunity to put our thoughts forward. If time allows, I assume the general manager will consult with Council before moving ahead with any of these, unless it needs to be a really last-minute decision. So I think I'm quite comfortable with the delegation.

Any further discussion? Councillor Sheather, right of reply. Yeah

Thanks, Mr Mayor. First, I take Councillor Wheels' comments and thank her for those comments in relation to the synthetic grounds. I had a discussion recently with the general manager, and the last line was about synthetic or turf replacement for multi-use grounds because there are issues. In saying that, there is a big demand from the sporting population who uses synthetic grounds, especially over the last few months because they can't get on any turf anywhere. It's a major problem. But, Councillor Wheeler, why the Council hasn't been dealing with those, the Sports Council certainly has over the last three or four years, and the comments you made are right and are being addressed , and that information is nearly being finalised now through the Sports Council and the forward committee.

And the comments that Councillor Veigel made, who is also a life member of the Sports Council. With the three proposed here, Woodbury Reserve, Glossodia haven't got much out there, and Fernadell, or Pitt Town, has got less. For us to, and I take on board Councillor Zamprogno's point, Colbee Park. I'm a patron of Colbee Park, one of the sports there. I do have passion for there. It's something that I don't promote in relation to how we assess these things, because the process and what the staff done with these covers a variety of areas across our city, and I think is very fair. The concern that I had, and I mentioned earlier, that the reserves like Woodbury and Colbee and the like, when you look at the detail of them, about the only thing that happens in relation to sport, which I'm passionate about, as you're aware, is a car park.

We're not extending grounds, we're not putting lights up, as Councillor Veigel indicated, we're not irrigating property. There's a million things, and if we want to direct to the general manager, I could spend an hour here offering some direction in how we might do that, and that's not quite fair. The general manager, along with her staff, I believe have got a finger on the pulse and offer us advice, and I think in the main we should consider that advice. So taking on board the comments of the councillors and those issues, as I indicate, are being addressed, and— Mr Mayor, I'd just commend the recommendations as it is. Thank you.

Put the motion. All those in favour? Sorry, Councillor Dogramaci, we've had a right of reply, so we've got to move ahead. In favour, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Vargo, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Cottlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler. Against? Councillor Djuric, Councillor Dogramaci.

Oh, sorry, I didn't read your name out. Councillor Zamprogno, are you in favour or against? In favour. Councillor Zamprogno in favour. Councillor Richards absent for the vote. Declare it carried.

So moved, Councillor Richards.

Sorry, Councillor Dogramaci, if you did want to speak, you need

To— Yes, sorry,

Yeah. A couple of things that I might mention.

Sorry, sorry, sorry. You need to put your light on before I call for a vote or reply, because once we've moved on, we can't have further discussion on that. So you'll have to wait. So I'm too late. Yes. Yep . When I say any further discussion, if no one puts their hand up at that point, we move on. Can I make an exception? I'm new. We've already voted. Yeah we've already voted, Councillor Dogramaci. All right. You've got questions after; you can discuss them. Yeah. Next item is item 84.

Recommendation, Councillor Sheather. Second, Deputy Mayor. Any discussion? Councillor Sheather. Yeah

Thanks, Mr Mayor. It's good to see the report that's come here. What's not good is the middle column and the costs involved in all the rectification of those predominantly road damage. It's going to be a major job to get on top of. Most of the cause from—well, all the cause from the damage is water, and over the years we've allowed our table drains to fill, and our roads now are drains. The water runs down the road, and consequently the pavements... Failing everywhere, and trying to get on top of it. You patch the road; if you don't fix the drain, the hole's back there the next day. And I can understand why we have one of our officers with very short hair. He's probably been pulling it out for the last couple of years.

So, it's all the issues in here are extremely important to everybody. But what I'd like to do is make comment about our community, that very few people have reacted in a manner of, well, I suppose it's been frustration, but certainly not anger, which has been a little bit surprising, because some of the damage that's been done to our roads is severe. And it's been some weeks, going on to months, where we haven't been able to get to some of them. And even during all that process, the phone calls that I've got, and I expect most of the councillors are the same, the question is, Are we on the list, or is it going to happen? Not, you know, I'm going to rip your head off. So, you know, that doesn't very often happen when you've got this sort of—when you look at the money that's going to be spent, it's a lot of money.

But I think the community appreciate they'd like it done quicker. Who wouldn't? But I think they appreciate what's happening. Thank you.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett .

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I think the communities—I'll support the recommendation. Communities will be very pleased to see these projects getting underway and to see this update at this level. They are frustrated. Some are angry, they're frustrated, but there is also an understanding that this is a mammoth task to get through. I think I particularly feel the frustration from the people that have had the multiple events. We've still got people out in our outer areas who are on their third or fourth, some even fifth natural disaster that has impacted on their accessibility and their ability to get to their workplaces and to socialise and so on. And we understand that frustration, so it's really important that we're moving on.

I just had a question, Mr Mayor, that maybe can be confirmed around this issue, and that is around the building into these costings, particularly with the money that we can get from the disaster recovery funding arrangements around the capacity for betterment of these roads. Has that been built in, that when these roads, it's not merely a replacement like for like. I know places like Greens Road have to have a whole new scenario because of the level of damage, but the general reconstruction, is that going to make these roads more resilient and in better shape for the next event? Refer

That to Director Infrastructure Services.

Thank you through you, Mr Mayor. Generally, where betterment is no greater expense than the restoration, the like-for-like replacement. It's not an issue. The issue arises, and look, there's support certainly from the state government. It's more about how we work through the process to include betterment. There's certainly an appetite to incorporate betterment, and through our partners in transport, they're indicating that that appetite is there. It's more the process that we have to work through. There's always a balancing act between restoring the assets and taking time to investigate and do designs and so forth to achieve a better outcome. And my staff are Hopefully the community agree to some extent, achieving that balance where we can get in and do temporary work, such as with Benson's Lane and Pitt Town Bottoms Road, to buy us the time to do that work that's required.

Thank you. That was where I was heading in terms of, I think that people accept either a quick fix, which is a temporary maybe replacement, but if they have to wait, I think the expectation is that they will get a better and more resilient asset in the long run. And hopefully that's what—I wasn't sure about the government, but thank you for explaining that. The costs of the emergency and reconstruction works, it's quite staggering. I mean, it's almost a hundred—the essential public asset reconstruction works is almost a hundred million dollars over two years from extreme weather events. That is a massive amount of money, even though, of course, we can be claiming it back from the government.

It's a massive amount of money for the government and, quite frankly, it's going to be unsustainable unless we are building back much more resilient assets in the meantime. So that's why I focus upon that. But we know that the climate change predictions were that these exact scenarios would occur, that we would have heavy rain inundation that was going to destroy assets like this. And that's why it's so important that we try and take as much action around fixing them, because these heavy inundations will occur again. And, of course, we could never have known that in amongst natural disasters there'd be something like COVID that, of course, would delay the entire process and impact on staff and impact on the capacity to recover from one flood before we had another flood.

But the economic impacts of inaction on climate change are now becoming very, very evident, particularly around this sort of issue. So not just the direct impacts, but the impacts on productivity and the capacity to work in certain climates. The fact that we've got these unusual weather patterns, and that these are things that we really have to take seriously when we're working forward to strengthen the community-owned assets in this area, so that into the future we're not hit with these massive amounts of money, which we all know that governments just can't simply keep on handing out money. At some point there's got to be an acceptance that putting some more money into making things stronger, or to relocating assets if they're going to just simply be washed away or destroyed again, that we have to take those hard decisions.

And I think as a council, we really have to be looking at that for the long-term sustainability of being able to maintain assets. Otherwise it's just not going to happen. Thanks.

Sorry, Mr. Mayor, can I interrupt? I'm just going to leave the room based on where some debate's going with Commonwealth funding, and I'll declare another interest in another form, Charles. Thank you.

Okay. For two speakers in favour of the motion. Anyone speaking against? No. Definitely not.

I don't want to speak against, no, but I wanted to add a point if I could. Point of discussion, that is, that I, like Councillor Lyons-Buckett, I'm really pleased to see this, and it's great, but it seems like the emphasis that we get from the state and federal government is all about replacement rather than betterment. I think the idea of betterment is something that some of us have been pushing recently, and now the state and federal government are starting to look at it, whereas I went to a meeting at Bilpin last weekend. Which was about recovery from the bushfires, of course, and they've come up with a number of things, including putting in more underground water tanks in the area. Now it's three years since the bushfires, and now we're looking at Betterment, whereas I would have thought Betterment should have been built in to the original recovery process.

While the bridge is washed away or the road is washed away, then our staff should be able to say at that point, yes, we can replace it, but a better idea would be to do this, this and that. And I know our director is now doing that, but I don't think we were ever encouraged to do that. I think it was on us to put that forward. And what I'd like for us to do is to send a message back to the state and Commonwealth governments that yes, we appreciate the funding, but in future we'd like you to consider asking us for Betterment ideas, encouraging us to give Betterment ideas right at the beginning rather than waiting three years, in this case, to have it addressed. And I don't know whether that needs to go into the recommendation.

Probably not. I'm just suggesting maybe our staff can take that forward as they report back to the state and bodies. But I just noticed that it really was important to the people of Bilpin last weekend that people are now starting to listen to some of the solutions that they want to put forward.

Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just wanted to ask a question of our director of infrastructure in two parts, and that is to say this list of flood recovery projects is very welcome. Thank you for collating that information. I'm also interested in... The costs associated with the deferral of other works, of course, we've just hit our capacity constraints. We can't find contractors, raw materials are becoming more expensive, and so forth. I just wanted the director to just speak to this unspoken part of a hidden cost to Council. There are projects that have been deferred as a result of both the weather events and our capacity constraints. One example I would bring to mind is the sealing of Old Stock Route and Brennan's Dam Road, which was supposed to be acquitted at Christmas.

And it's a good example because that work is now going to be more complicated because the flood scoured away all the gravel on both sides, and it's probably going to cost more than it did before. So these are also flood-related costs because we had the work on our books, we were about to commence, then the flood made it all the harder, and the fact that we're getting to it later means that raw materials and contractor costs are going to be higher. So is this a significant issue, and could the director speak to that briefly?

Through you, Mr Mayor. The nature of the DRFA, the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements, are that any assets that are damaged by the event are funded, in essence. What we have to demonstrate is the condition that they were in prior to. So in the case of Old Stock Route Road, for example, we've got pretty good evidence that it was in a particular condition; it didn't have a seal. So the damage suffered to the works that were in progress, the costs to repair that damage can be claimed, and then we'd revert back to the funding allocation that the project was originally being delivered under. So I'm not concerned about that. The delay in costs, we've taken steps, and the state has come to the table to agree to funding additional resources that we can put on for staffing to take pressure off our normal business-as-usual capital delivery.

So I'm not all that concerned there. The delay costs, however, are a concern, particularly with the compounding impacts of COVID and supply chain issues. And that is anywhere in the order of—it's difficult to say project to project—can be anywhere up to 10 to 15 percent increase in costs. The other element is the availability of material. So it's almost impossible, for example, to get a reinforced concrete pipe over 600 millimetre diameter in the state at the moment. Well,

Thank you for that. Well, my second question is therefore just feedback in the sense that we go out to the community, we talk about our capital works program, people get a certain expectation that those works will be done within the originally scheduled timeframe, then they're deferred for various reasons, and we're left a little in the dark about the way in which they've been deferred and where they've fallen to in the revised schedule. So all I can say is that we would appreciate a similar summary of those deferred or delayed other works that might not be flood related but are delayed for various reasons in a future briefing. Thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Firstly, I'm hoping that the mover of the motion will allow the addition of another point, which I've sent through to the staff, and it's to forward this report to the state member, Robyn Preston, and ask for her help in seeking a response from Transport for New South Wales. Because I note at the end of this report that we have contacted Transport for New South Wales asking for them to forward fund the estimated costs of these works, about $2.4 million, and no answer thus far has been the stern reply. So I'm hoping that we can add that and formally ask for some assistance.

Just getting some advice on whether there's been some updates since this report was tendered.

What's the result of that conversation, General Manager? Through you

Mr Mayor, I was just discussing with the Director Infrastructure Services. That request for Transport has been with them in the order of 10 weeks , less than that, so I wouldn't consider that to be at this point in time, given the complexity and the number of other matters that they're dealing with, to be so unreasonable as to be holding us up. Noting that the Office of Local Government has forward funded several million dollars that has given us a cash injection if we need it.

Okay, Councillor Wheeler.

Fair enough then. Perhaps we might keep that up our sleeve in case we don't get any response. I think it's useful for councils to be on the record. This was something that was discussed at the Local Government New South Wales conference. As we watched this, the first of this year's floods starting, and just shortly before Councillor Lyons-Buckett and I ran from the room and leapt onto the train in the hope of making it back across the river in time, that councils really are struggling to both fund and project manage these recovery works, and that was bad enough with last year's event, but it's much, much worse with a larger and more prolonged event that we had this year. And of course, some of the sites have become more damaged, and many more sites have been damaged.

I think regarding Betterment, I think we have to acknowledge that there is a lot of anger in the community, particularly in places like Greens Road and Cornwallis. Those people are very angry. Many of them are controlling it very well. But I think we need to acknowledge that that anger exists. Some of it's at council, and I think that council, as the climate destabilises, and that's what we're seeing, organisations like councils will increasingly be the brunt of that anger. For people who don't understand what we've done to the planet, there's a feeling of powerlessness now that we are going to have to learn to live with. And when people are angry, they want to find someone to blame. I'm not saying that we are blameless.

I'm not saying that we are to blame. But it's a natural human response to try and find someone who should have enacted a solution. We have to become able to deal with that anger. We also have to become able to deal with grief. And I think that's the other thing that we're really hearing. For those councillors who went to the climate forum last Monday evening, there were some really harrowing stories of people who have now chosen never to go back and live in the places where they have made their homes for decades. We heard from a young man who really doesn't know where his family are going to live anymore. There's a feeling of hopelessness and grief and pain that exists in our community as we face what is now ahead of us.

And we need to acknowledge that. We also need to make sure that our staff are able to deal with that, and that they are both, when dealing with people who are expressing these concerns, but also that the staff are supported when they come away from that and don't feel that they've become the community whipping post and that they don't want to come to work because it's just so horrible. Part of this, I think, getting this right is communication and consultation, and they really, I think, are key. What we're seeing in a couple of places is community organisations coming, or community organisations forming, to enable better communication between council and the community and to improve consultation.

That's now, it's been very successful in both Bilpin and St Albans and is now starting to happen in Colo. I am concerned for those, for isolated and disadvantaged communities, pockets of the community in areas like South Windsor, Grose Point, parts of Ebenezer, and some of those other low-lying suburbs where we don't have these established groups, either because they're quite small or because the communities aren't functioning in that same way, or there isn't the skill set there to put those together. And they're communities that we're really going to have to keep an eye on as we go forward. I think Betterment has a part in the mental recovery as much as the physical recovery for communities, and that's something that we shouldn't lose sight of as well.

And temporary solutions, I think, have a key role to play as well. How we manage forward funding for those temporary solutions, I think, is something that we need to have more discussions about. I hope we're documenting our learnings from this , the learnings not just about the physical things to do but the bigger picture around community consultation, communication, betterment, resilience, all of those things, so that we don't have to do this again.

The Deputy Mayor's point about betterment may, I think— be a useful motion to take to Local Government New South Wales. That might be something we can look at when we prepare the motions for that conference. Thanks.

Councillor Dogramaci. Thank you, Mr Mayor. When I see, yeah, well, I have a little problem. I don't know whether I should be writing a formal letter to the council and then wait for a reply, yeah. But while we all are in here,

I don't know, you tell me, you advise me whether it falls into the pecuniary interest section or whatever. As you may know, that I've got a little, very, very tiny business which I've been operating for 44 years. And downstairs, when I have a look at it, the tenders that have been awarded to companies, almost all of them have been my customers. So what do I do? Do I leave the room every time, you know, one of these companies have been awarded with some kind of jobs, or what do I do? When I go and see them, I mean some of them, like 20, 30, 40 years. If a vegetable farmer in Glossodia, for argument's sake, wants to put a DA to remove something, do I tell him not to deal with me, deal with council directly, as I have been advised before? What do I do ?

Yeah, thanks, Councillor Dogramaci. It's not for me to advise you on those matters. What I would suggest to you, the advice I would give you, is to ask for a meeting with the General Manager or Mr McElroy to go through your potential conflict of interest and help you understand when you have a conflict of interest in a matter. But that's ultimately, it's a self-assessment system, so nobody can tell you if you do or don't have a conflict of interest.

I know, I mean, there are very, very little few that, you know, I don't know and don't do business. So what do I do? Just refrain from doing business with them, or— Look, yeah,

I can't give you advice on that because that's up to you for self-assessment, and you need to probably run that by the staff. The only observation I would make is that this item before us doesn't deal with any contracts, and very few of these tenders are actually awarded by council. But that's really something you need to take advice on and make your own decision on.

I'll contact general managers then. Okay, thanks

Being no further discussion, right of reply, Councillor Sheather?

Yeah

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Those of us that might be a bit older in this room remember this climate change stuff and what we haven't done over many years, taking on board Councillor Calvert's comments about resilience and what we should do. From the fifties to the mid-eighties, this weather was every other day. This today is not unusual. It's some distance apart, but it's certainly not unusual. And the washout at Coalmollis—you know why the pipes are there? Because we had this sort of weather in that time, and there was failings with the flood mitigation system, and that's why they were put there at that time. So there's nothing new about this. But where we create problems, like with the roads we've got in that today, is that we've got a maintenance program and a works program and all that sort of stuff, and because it doesn't rain in six weeks, you can tar dust pretty well and it'll stay there.

They'd put a bit of water with it and see what happens. And that's what's happened. We've been slack. We haven't graded the roads. We haven't maintained the roads properly. And now we've got a bit of wet weather. They're falling apart. And who's to blame? Predominantly we are. It's sitting around this table. There's a budget comes up, and we've got to direct money on how we're going to spend it. Well, when you leave stuff out, as Councillor Calvert's indicated, and do it on the cheap, you pay for it in the long run. And we're going to do that a lot. So, and, yeah,

I guess that, like, we just need to be mindful of that. We've got professional people that's going to give us advice in relation to how we deal with these matters, and it's going to cost. But if we don't do it, it'll dry out again one day, and probably a council down the track will probably do the same as what the council have done in the last 20 or 30 years, and then there'll be a price to pay. But we just need to be mindful that you can call it climate change, call it what you want, but when you look at the weather patterns on this country over the last 200 years, we get substantial dry and wet periods. And as I said, the period that we're going through now, the two biggest floods we've had in the Hawkesbury, '61 and '64.

In '75, it went across Windsor Bridge three times. You know, so, and then for 30 years we had nothing, a couple of showers, that's about it. So, when times are different, we look at— Things in a different light. But we need to be mindful that our professional people that are paid to advise us and do these jobs give us that advice, so the job can be done, that it'll be done effectively for a reasonable time. So, but in saying that, with the report that's here, and taken on board, Councillor Wheeler's, I think this information, if our local member hasn't got it, should get it anyway. I'm sure that she'd be extremely interested in exactly where some of the funding she's fighting for, exactly how it's being spent.

And I would hope that the discussions that you have with her from time to time might reflect just that.

Thank you. Put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Mayor, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Vargo, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dokramaci, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lains Bucker, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Richards, was absent for the vote. Declare it carried.

I might just suggest, given we've been going for a couple of hours and we've still got quite a bit to go, that we might have a 10-minute adjournment at this point. We'll reconvene in 10 minutes.

Everyone, just to reiterate for the live stream, we've had a motion to move to reorder the business, and before going back to the regular order, we're going to go to notice of motion one, and then to notice of motion three, and then back to the regular order in the business paper. Someone wants to move that. Moved Councillor Feigl, seconded Councillor Wheeler. All those in favour, declare that carried.

So we'll go ahead with notice of motion one regarding Cornwallis Road drainage pipes. To move that, Councillor Dogramaci. We just need a seconder for that. Seconded, Councillor Reardon. So go ahead, Councillor Dogramaci.

That's 93, isn't it, Mr Mayor? Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. Thanks again. The question again, or questions are again as I put it down, and if I kindly make sure that everybody will understand that I'm not satisfied with the answers from the management why there has been a delay

And the full cost of the 23, I think 23 pipes ordered by someone from the engineering department, apparently they were wrong in diameters. The full cost of it, and where are they? Are they still there where we put it? Who's benefiting from renting the area? Are we paying any money to the landowner who allowed those pipes to be left at his or her property? Now what are we going to do? Have we ordered the correct size of the pipes? Why all these delays while people are suffering? I understand that to fill, you know, that hole, which I went there on more than one occasion, it's huge, and I understand that filling material has to be carted from outside Hawkesbury, while we have the river that, you know, we could dredge X amount of soil, and there are so many companies, again, that, you know, I know in my line of business, they have huge amount of filling materials that they are taking as far as to Lithgow.

That they told me that, you know, they would come and they would dump it there, all certified, of course, at no charge. What's happening with our infrastructure management? Again, like I said, who is responsible for the delay? I was told that no name could be mentioned about the mistakes or the wrong side, wrong diameter, the wrong diameter the pipes were ordered. When are they going to finish the complete project? Again, I don't accept in here that saying that, you know, design problems, restoration, the drain, and this and that. And how much money have we paid to consultants? How much money have we paid to surveyors? And where this money is coming from, whether it's a grant or it's council's money.

At the end of the day, it's taxpayers' money, and we are paying part of it, I guess. Now, I also want to receive, if possible, the name of the company, the engineer or engineers who are dealing directly with those people. Again, if possible, I would like to somehow be appointed, if possible, to go and to deal with these company, whether they are interstate or in our area. I don't care whether it's Newcastle or wherever you name it. I don't want to send from council for my work, for my traveling expenses, if they are the other side of New South Wales. But something has to be done.

Two present councillors and Two directors with a staff member, about five years ago, were in the Moralia Community Centre where Peter Conroy was there. Again, there was some kind of a waste over a million dollars. I don't need to mention the names, but like I said, two present councillors were there. And one of them, as a matter of fact, you know, told me to shut up. I didn't, and I asked Peter Conroy the same question I'm asking to our management: had it been your own company, what would you do with that person who is costing this council millions of dollars? And Peter Conroy, to his credit, he said, I would sack them. And I said, Why don't you sack, you know, the person who cost the council, you know, so much money?

He said, We cannot. Maybe, Madam Manager , you know, could advise on that whether we are restricted or we have some kind of law or whatever that we cannot sack these people who are wasting our money or who are ordering wrong diametered pipes . Who is dealing with that one? And when are we going to finish this project? How much is that going to cost? How much is going to cost to farmers? How much is going to cost ratepayers?

There are lots of things there. I don't know whether, you know, I'm allowed to talk again. I don't know the procedures, but for the time being, I think that's it. Okay. Thank you.

Sorry, Mr. Mayor, I'm going to leave again. We're talking about DRFA funding, so I'll need to leave.

I think, Councillor Dogramachi, for bringing the motion forward. I think it's good to have an opportunity to discuss this matter because it's obviously a very significant matter to a portion of our community. I don't necessarily think that—well, I don't think that further reports is what we need right now. We had the first meeting of our Cornwallis Strain Restoration Advisory Committee yesterday, which comprises of myself and four community representatives. And that group comes together to be guided through the process and make recommendations back to Council on how that repair process, both the temporary and the permanent repair process, should take place. Yesterday we received a presentation from Public Works Advisory.

So Public Works Advisory is a New South Wales state government agency, and they are the consultants we have engaged to complete the project, or to advise on the project in the first instance. They have advised, they have come up with the temporary options. Council has been advised. Council has selected its preferred temporary option, and we've run that through the Cornwallis Strain Restoration Advisory Committee. On Friday, we will have a public meeting with the entire community to go through that option, what it looks like, how it will work, what work is required to make it happen, the timelines around all that work, where we are now, the costs associated. We're not at a point where we've selected a company to go and do that work, so we couldn't name a company at this point.

Public Works Advisory is the consultant, is currently doing all the design, and then it will go to tender or through some sort of procurement process, depending on what we can do, what is the fastest and most appropriate way. In terms of your line of questioning around who's responsible for the delay, I think it comes back to our role as councillors. We are a governance board, essentially. We're not, you know, we only employ one person. We employ the general manager. To us, the general manager is the person we hold accountable for the performance of the council. We don't, you know, it's not right for us to demand any particular action without knowing the circumstances. It's also the fact that even if somebody had been sacked, the general manager would not be in a position to come and advise the council here that this person was sacked on this day for this reason.

It's just not legally possible. So I understand the frustration around some of these things, but we've got to understand our role as a council is at the higher governance level, not at the management level, and we're here to be the representatives of ratepayers to ensure the executive are acting in our interest. We're not here to manage the council on behalf of the ratepayers. Councillor— sorry, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I suppose this is sort of a point of order. The notice of motion asked us whether we want a report to be provided. That is the question: do we want a report? All the other information that Councillor Dogramaci gave us may be very interesting and may have some good background, but I don't think he's addressed that question. I think you have addressed the question, and I believe you said you don't think a report is necessary at this stage, if I've heard you correctly. And based on what you've said about the things that are underway now and the committee and what have you, I tend to agree that we don't need another report on this issue because it's all going to come out through the processes that have already been put in place.

So that's not to say that I don't think this is important. I do think it's important. But we're going to find out anyway. So I'm going to vote that we don't have a report. And by doing that, once again, I'm not saying this is not important. I'm just saying we don't need the report. So thank you.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you for that update around the issue that you've just given us. Again, when I looked at this, I thought it was more something that would be submitted into questions with notice that then could have addressed each of these issues with an answer that would have come tonight instead of seeking a report. The note by management has answered some things, such as about the land being leased. Obviously that would mean that the people it was being leased off were paid some money, and a number of other issues. And I'd just like to echo your explanation around the distinct line that exists between venturing into operational matters when we are in fact a representative body who, as you say, only employ the general manager.

And we also should take care with what's said publicly. I think that it's good, though, to get the full picture around this. This has been a stressful situation for the people in that area, and of course they have questions, and they've raised questions, and that is being acted upon. And we do always call for accountability, or some of us always call for accountability, and that's what we should be getting in this case. There's nothing wrong with asking for an explanation around how things are paid for and so on. But I think that had this been submitted as questions on notice, we could have had that set out as answers to those questions tonight. Councillor Dogramaci raised a lot of other questions that aren't in fact in here, so I don't know how they would be captured into a report if they're not included in the motion.

So I agree with you. I don't think we need a report at this moment because I think these questions are either answered here or they're going... Going to be coming as an answer from the working group or the committee group going forward. Thank you. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'm also speaking against the motion. This would have been better served as a question on notice. I think this is far more specific than the notice of motion to item 094, which was about a broader management of one of our assets, than this. This is quite specific and feels a bit to me like a witch hunt, and I don't think that that's helpful at this point, particularly given all the things that the Infrastructure Services Department is juggling as a result of these events . This is still a live issue, and I think it's worth noting that. We've got a community meeting on Friday to discuss this further. I certainly think councillors need to be kept updated, but I don't think that we need to go down the path of this notice of motion.

I think it does highlight, however, that, and I think probably COVID is in large part to blame, I don't feel like the new councillors coming into this council have had the same level of training that we received back in 2016, and perhaps we need to have a bit of a look at whether we've actually managed to cover that ground so that we don't keep having these oversteps , I suppose, and the concern between what is our remit and what is operational questioning. And I think maybe we need to have that made more clear to us so that we... So that we are better able to meet our roles and responsibilities under the Act.

Thank you.

Councillor Sheather.

Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor. The biggest issue here is a thing called time. Too much of it. The farmers that are predominantly affected down there, most of them have got their own businesses. They get up in the morning, decide to do something, and by afternoon it's done. And the frustration with Council, that the process that we've gone through, and I don't fully understand either, is time. And that's what's frustrating. How we overcome those issues, I don't know, but that's the problem. There's a process to go through, and it's prolonged, it's procrastinated, and they don't understand that. And like I said, I don't fully understand either.

But we need to follow that process to whatever degree, and I'm sure if there was a way, considering the comments that I've heard from our staff, to fast forward that in any way, that we would do it. So I'm guessing there, just as frustrated as everybody else, and they're on the end of the pointed stick, I guess. I'm really glad to hear what's happened in the last few weeks in relation to your position in the committee. I think that's a great start. I think understanding is a part of the problem, and through that communication, that understanding will be better. In relation to our councillor's motion, I don't know how we discuss all the things that we need to discuss, and there's frustration.

And I too suffer from exactly the same frustration. And it's pretty hard to sometimes, you know, wonder what to do about it and the like. But we've got a councillor here that's passionate about something, and perhaps we need to offer more time or energy to resolve some of those issues, because it's not going to go away. So I don't support the motion, but I would ask the staff to support where they can. The intent is good. Maybe the direction is not quite that good. So in not supporting the motion, Mr Mayor, I support the understanding and principle of where he's coming from.

Right of reply, Councillor Dogramaci.

Did you want a right of reply?

Well, same thing again. I mean, you have to be a farmer. You have to be a primary producer to understand the frustration. They cannot drive. They cannot make use of their lands, and it's the delay, just delay. I don't know. It's all bureaucratic delays, you know, from one section to the other one. In English language, we have common sense, we have logic. I don't know why it is not applying in here. I don't know whether the management or we have the power to say, push all these things aside and let's get these contractors to do something if we need to. I mean, we love to form committees, we love to form workshops or whatever it is. Just get these things, get these contractors all together, sit down with them.

How soon can you complete this project? How much is that going to cost? If we don't have the money, allocated money from grants or, well, grants I guess, because this council loves flood, because every time we have a flood, we get X amount of money from the government. Well, State ... so , and we have our ever-so-smiling MP , Robyn Preston, didn't even bother, you know, to come in here to see that, you know, what she could do or what she has done with us, besides smiling and being available, you know, at every opportunity for photo sessions. So, in all honesty, I feel that the meetings, the consultants, the engineers, they are letting our farmers down. But of course, you know better. Every single one of you know more than I do.

I don't know how these things... And one thing that, you know, in my early days, one of the councillors, as a matter of fact, Councillor Bucket told me, Eddie, she said, you used to run your company,

But doing council business is different. You have so many levels that you have to do this and that or whatever. I simply don't understand. If it was me, I would just borrow the money from bank, pay the interest for six months, eight months or whatever it is, two, three, four, five percent, and then just pay the contractors, you know, get this thing, you know, done. And then when we receive the grant at the completion of the project, I pay it back. At least, you know, give some kind of sense of respect to these people. They've been crying. They've been bleeding. But I don't know. On my own, I guess I cannot do anything . So,

I don't know. I'm lost for words. Thank you.

Thank you. Put the motion. All those in favor, please raise your hand. Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Zamprogno. Against? Councillor Conolly, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler. Councillor Richards was absent for the vote. Declare it lost.

So we can grab Councillor Richards. Had a request, Councillors, that on notice of motion 3, Windsor Mall, we have a speaker that wasn't on our list. Sorry, I don't— your surname, Grant. But I'm proposing that if there's no objections that we let Grant speak.

Garish. Sorry, Grant. Could not remember that.

You may think I'm naive, but I've been doing some research for some very major cities. Every council I've met, especially lately, has been to me impressive. Does that make me naive? I don't know. I will say this: I want to start with congratulations. The council did something very recently in the mall, and the—

Sorry, Mr. Garish. Councillor Richards, did you want to declare an interest? I need you to read it on the tape, Councillor. I need you to read your interest out.

Significant and pecuniary due to federal election, I'll be leaving the room. Thank you. Sorry.

Thank you, Patrick. All right. And this is to start with congratulations. The several shop owners, more than several, have been watching with eagle eyes at some work the council did in the mall, which they were very impressed with. And this dealt with the mall surface itself, which relates directly to Eddie's motion. In a previous council, they said to me, You're in the protection racket or the beauty racket, and I say that's the compliment. Whenever you hear my voice, it's about that. It's going to be about beauty. Some of you are old enough to know it is not trendy anymore to use the word beauty. In the gigantic plans about the mall, I challenge you to find the word beauty. We get that. It's not trendy.

Connectivity, da da da, but beauty, no. I say put it back. When I finish speaking and you go down the ramp there, as I was privileged to cross the path of Mayor Patrick, you should be able to look across and see something splendid. You should be able to sense I am in the third oldest settlement in the continent. This isn't Pendle Hill or Penrith or Padstow. I'd like to suggest that you feel passionate about putting beauty into this place. Now, specifically, the very fine work, which is as good as the work of Sydney or Melbourne, on a YouTube was done by a councillor here. That's the 12 minute and 6 second YouTube about the mall, yes? Darren put it also on his website, and if he isn't the most astute businessman with a better knowledge of what attracts people here, if he isn't the champion, I put it to you he's in the semifinals.

And I know Patrick has a fine rapport with him, but we're addressing very particularly an image I'm going to show up right now. I believe the council has devalued, and in many cases has forgotten, and perhaps didn't even know, your predecessor council's work, which is outstanding. Anyone can have a reduced version of this if they want. It's in the locked file. What is it? This is the superb original concept, so well adhered to, of the mall, done contemporary with the rocks. Someone says it's only half a century, da da da da da. Do you think people go to the rocks 2.9 million a year and go, Oh, this—I'm not impressed with this because it isn't quite 200 years. It's the historic character, and I suggest to you that every element, not just the mall itself, the surface, every rubbish bin, every bike rack, the bus shelters that are proposed, every single one should have the litmus test: is this Australian best practice for historic character, yes or no?

And if you think I'm being, you know, blasé about this, I have a checklist. There's not time for that now, but we move along, and anyone wants to know these superb sentences of craftsmanship, why things were placed, why the sandstone is placed, why the gas lamps are placed, then we move to this: who has an extraordinary sandstone heritage? Windsor surpasses almost every place. The idea of ripping up that sandstone and putting it somewhere else undecided is like asking a five-year-old kid, You move those Christmas decorations and make sure you don't drop any. It doesn't happen that way. That stuff will be smashed. How about this? The brick heritage. We have a brick heritage which is the finest in the country, the finest.

150,000 bricks from the Church of St Matthew's, as you probably know, were taken and erected not in some backyard, but on the oldest extant Georgian square in this continent. The brick heritage is remarkable. Sarah wouldn't hear this, but in Windsor Street they are going to put— A beautiful brick replacement pathway, because the real brick is cheap. If they can do that in Windsor Street, how can the brick here not be treasured and valued? I'll end with this. There are some proposals to dig up brick on one side of the street, even though the plans say let's have connectivity from the station. Two hundred and forty trains a day. What a resource. How can we not want to maximize that? Meanwhile, the north side where these buildings are—this is done by Wendy Sledge, the former mayor's husband, who is an artist—these buildings, that has bitumen.

Let me tell you, I've never seen that in North America, and when people come they go, What in the world is bitumen doing on a footpath? So what's the idea of digging up good brick and not instead saying the priority must be get rid of that bitumen as a basic fact. So we'll end with this. The time—this is the last 30 seconds if I can, Patrick—what was that project? It was to dig, was to repair them all. Now watch this. There's pictures of this. The time that it took, and you can go there and see it, four places as big as a table with white around them,

50 minutes. 50 minutes. So the question we put to you, given that the budget, which is two years old last Sunday, says that it's 10 million, six and four respectively north and south mall, to rip up the brick and torture those businesses, which is just what it's going to do, how can we not have the alternative which we asked for? Where's the nine million or the ten or the seven, as Nathan put in his YouTube, and why can we not have an estimate to repair it? That's what I put to you. Why not? Thank you. Thank you.

Is there any questions, Councillor Duke?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Grant. I appreciate that. Can you tell us why we have sandstone placed in the mall? Do you know that?

Well, the most beautiful thing is these wonderful, wonderful words quickly here.

Your predecessors. Does this sound good or does this sound like—it doesn't matter. It's not my idea. This is your predecessor's idea, done at the same time as the rocks, with the same standard, and the sentence is solely this one, Patrick, and thank you. And that is, sandstone will be utilised, and it will be to delineate specifically seating areas from thoroughfares. So there's that group of eight or six on one side, one of the malls, and six on the other, specifically for that reason. Final sentence: to reflect what? The old colonial character. That's your predecessor using the same standard that the rocks did. Why in the world, and what's the justification, and where's the historical basis to say, let's rip that up?

Thank you. Any further questions? Councillor Sheather? Yes

Mr Mayor . Thanks, Grant. Very passionate, and it's appreciated. What other areas would be similar in pavement to what you're talking about

A quick answer. Thanks to the guidance of the premier historical architectural firm in the country, 21 awards, no time to list them now, Greenway four awards, McRae five. Do those names ring a bell? They said, why don't you go look to some other places that have the same brick. The same brick pictures. Where are they? Are they in Padstow? Are they in Rooty Hill? No offense . No. Those pictures will be revealed in a few days because the public should know that. Here's the end of the sentence. The heritage expert said, Do you think that the people that want to dig up the mall, and obviously some people are, as Darren says, hell-bent on digging up the mall, 170 businesses at least will be tormented by that, and then if the rest of the plan shows, another 60 would be tormented by that.

You tell me you have the choice. Okay, so the end of this is, why don't you go and see those places in the city that are the most prestigious places in Sydney? I'll just give you one hint. In the background in the pictures which we'll make public, is it going to be a reject shop, or is it going to be something that might be the place where another group meets to decide the laws of this state, which was a no-expense-spared project of the state to make Macquarie Street using classical brick, which is the colonial metaphor, the brick that will last hundreds of years. Take a guess where that place is. And there are more, to answer your question and end it, there are more places, two or three others, beautiful A4 images we have of splendid buildings.

I guess we can do one more. One, as we end, does anyone recall a building that has a white roof and it has a bunch of arches like this? So we come back to why are some people hell-bent on the idea of ripping this stuff up when there are alternatives. Now, the last sentence is, how long did it take the council to do that brilliant work that I said repairing it? 55 minutes.

No disruption. No business affected. No closures. Thank you. I hope you love this when you go out today and you say, We're in the most, the third oldest settlement in the country. Isn't this incredible? I think this place is gorgeous. I believe when people leave those 240 trains, if we do it right, their neck will hurt because there's so much beautiful restored stuff to see. Thank you.

I have a question. Sorry, one more question. Thank you, Grant. Do you happen to know where the sandstone, or the remnants of the sandstone that was removed when the concrete bridge was built in Thompson Square, do you happen to know where that sandstone is? Has that been part of your discussions of the reuse of that or anything?

Quick answer. Quick answer, I'm not sure of that. Someone else may be able to do that. But imagine this eight and six respectively areas which your predecessor so cleverly placed, and they say that'll go somewhere. Where better place than where it is?

Thank you. Refer that question to the Director Infrastructure Services. Do we know the answer to that?

Through you, Mr Mayor, I believe some of it is at the Wilberforce Depot, and there may be some at the old East Kurrajong Depot as well. Thank you.

So notice of motion, Councillor Dogramaci. Is there a seconder for that?

I would like to add a couple of things, if I'm allowed. Now, I'm a salesman, so— I just

Need you to go straight ahead and tell me what you want to add, and then I've got to see if there's a seconder.

Well, what I would like to say is that before we start, I don't know who's going to make a decision. I have four photos in here which I was allowed by the general manager— Sorry,

Councillor Dogramaci, I might be confused. Were you just wanting to move the motion, the business paper, or a different motion?

Well, all I'm trying to say is that before we start gripping them to repair, you know, this sort of thing that, you know, I have distributed

Okay. So I just need a seconder for the motion before we can have discussion. Okay. Is there a seconder for the motion?

Councillor Reardon. Okay. Go ahead, sorry, Councillor. Okay.

Now, I don't know who's going to make the decision or made the decision— town planning or infrastructure or whatever it is. Like I said, I'm a salesman, so I have to give examples through my experience in that industry.

Ripping, you know, those tiles and replacing them with cobbled stone, just because, you know, some people, you know, love to see that. I don't know how many of you in this room have travelled as extensively as I have. How many of you know what happens in Notre Dame in Paris? How many of you have been in Carnaby Street in London? How many of you have been in Croatia? How many of you have been in the Middle East, especially in Turkey, visited those areas? In London, for example, they get about 42 million tourists. How many of you have actually been in there to see how they attract people? Or in Paris? Or in Turkey, 24 million people. What we have in here, I have printed, you know, these photos.

You will see the number one photo is a disaster, you know, these filthy garbage bins, never been cleaned. It's all around, you know. Some of them have got, you know, three legs. The second photo, look at these tiles. Some of them could be repaired instead of just ripping them, or you can, we've got the technology with a pressure washer and we could clean them. Another photo is number three in here. A section of this table is missing. God knows, you know, for how long. They were quick enough, you know, to put this, you know, band in here to warn people.

And this is very interesting. And the last one, just behind the seat, have a look at this pot. It's cracked. And now we are forgetting all this, and now we are going direct to removing all those tiles. I don't know how many thousand, ten, twelve thousand of them, and replacing them with cobblestone because somebody in the council or some of our directors would love to see that. One of the easiest things in the world is spending OPM, spending other people's money. I'm not going to allow, if I can, whatever I could do, I will do it. Leave that place on its own. We've got hanging baskets, all plastic, the ones that, you know, we see in Asian stores or whatever it is. Like I said, go to Carnaby Street, see how they look at it.

Go to central London, see how they water them, how they put pansies or, you know, other flowers. It's beautiful. Go and have a look in front of the pubs in Paris, in London, wherever you name it, in the United States. Now, what I am trying to say is that instead of, you know, doing that, just clean those lamps, put them again back on, give, you know, some kind of background. We've got, you know, all those sandstones. Put some kind of, which I am all for it, some kind of placards or whatever, instead of, you know, just pushing a button and talking to different languages. Now we went two , three, five steps ahead in Europe when you pass in front of Mona Lisa, for argument's sake, in Paris. It will start talking in several languages instead of just taking your photo or QR code or whatever it is.

What I'm trying to say is, Mr. or Madam, whoever has this idea of removing the tiles, when you are missing a shoelace, you don't throw the shoe away. You buy a new shoelace. If a button is missing from your blouse, you don't throw the blouse. You sew it. If your tire has a puncture, you don't throw that one and buy a new one. You repair it. While we have, you know, 10, 15 million, I don't know how much money we have, we should probably today, which I agreed with one of the councillors, put some kind of a distinctive lights. People are coming to Sydney for that vivid lights, you know, from all over the state. We could do that sort of things. As it was mentioned, if we start ripping those tiles, then what's going to happen to those shops?

They are already struggling. They are already bleeding, a couple of them. Just go there and have a look at the mess, you know, the bird droppings, the filthy smelling of just near a couple of the houses that I went. Put some kind of a distinctive writing saying that, you know, this sandstone has been quarried from such and such area. It has been placed in here. This house has been used for this and for that purpose. Attract people. Make them, you know, to come and to stay there. After all, that's tourism. Of course, it's another forum, if I mention that, about the parking. What if we get, you know, two, three, four, five coachload of tourists? Where are they going to park? How are we going to move them?

Some of them will be elderly with a walking stick all the way, you know, from near that park. So basically, I will do whatever I can to object. Thanks

Councillor.

Thank you.

Mr Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm happy to support Councillor Dogramaci's notice of motion as a starting point, and I'm hopeful that he's willing to work with us to transform this notice of motion into something that's actually going to get us where we need to go. Broadly, I support the sentiments that he's expressed in his stream of consciousness fashion, in the same way that I'd like to recognise Grant Gerish as a very frequent correspondent and who, in his own extremely passionate and idiosyncratic way, has slowly won me over to what I now believe are some significant shortcomings in the way that we're planning for this town centre renewal. And many of my colleagues here, I think, know instinctively what it is that I'm talking about.

I recognise Councillor Jurek, who moved a notice of motion at a recent meeting, and Councillor Sheva, who has discussed this with me on several occasions, and of course Councillor Wheeler, who was intimately involved in the committee that was beginning that process of drawing together what our thinking ought to be. And what has been drawn to my attention is the fact that the plan as it currently stands is okay. And in such a historic precinct, what Grant has convinced me of is that what we owe to the community is to get from okay to fantastic. And the kinds of design elements that currently stand in the plan that was presented to us recently have some things that deserve a second look. And Councillor Dogramaci's notice of motion really asks some questions that could be dispensed with in an email, answers to specific questions, whereas what I would love, and with Councillor Dogramaci's cooperation, I hope, is to transform this notice of motion to ask for a workshop and ideally a walk-through.

It would be fairly easy for us, in the time that we would take for a face-to-face briefing in the council chambers, to just step outside. With some knowledgeable people and wander between the council chambers and Thompson Square, pointing out the various locations that those design elements would come to the fore, and to add our own commentary. I think the community's expectation is that we councillors are going to be more engaged than we have been in the intimate details of the design process, not because we're all town planning experts, but because what we've been presented with doesn't get us to fantastic. There are design elements that have us replacing traditional heritage-style elements with things that are a bit more bland.

They're certainly modern. I've described them unkindly as Westfield-style street furniture. Whereas what we should be doing is using the best fabrics of stone and wrought iron, and to look at other ideas that Darren Peed, who I also want to recognise as being very knowledgeable and very passionate in this space, has drawn to my attention from heritage precincts around the world that represent true best practice, where you embed bronze medallions in the pavement to create a heritage trail, to provide linkages between Windsor Station and Thompson Square, where you look at the possibility of extending those heritage-style gas-style lamps, not necessarily powered by gas, but certainly in a similar style, down the rest of George Street, again to extend those potentials for linkages and to really get this moving.

And of course, the one thing that people have majored on is the fact that if we're spending such a huge proportion of the available budget on digging up paving that doesn't need to be completely replaced wholesale, but could do with some judicious repair work, and therefore unlock significant sums of money that could be redeployed to some of these other design elements. Now Ms Perin was happy to confirm for us that where Windsor is up to in the town centre renewal process is that it's kind of on pause. They're looking for some additional heritage tick on the plan, so there is time. And I wouldn't be as supportive of this if it resulted in an untimely delay. But it would look as though there is a window for us to use an existing delay to have another look at this and to keep faith with the broader community and to go on that walk with the people who have been charged to draw up the very final version of this, and people like Grant and Darren and others, and to get us to where we really need to be.

Because I think that the ideas that have been put to me and which I drew attention to recently in a video that some of you may have seen are good, and I'm hopeful that Councillor Dramati would accept an amendment that basically has us asking for a workshop and a walk. Thank you.

Immediately.

Okay, so the motion then becomes that we have a workshop to discuss, I'm imagining, the Windsor Mall revitalisation. Who is the seconder? Was Councillor Reardon. Are you happy with that change? I might just, before we move on, just give the Director City Planning a chance to address that assertion there is time, based on advice I was given today.

Okay, so through you, Mr Mayor, in short, we have to expend all of the deliverability money by June 2023. In terms of South Windsor and Richmond, we have got to the point now where we're pretty much engaged in a contractor, so those works will start in coming weeks. So that's a portion of money that will be expended and accounted for. In terms of Windsor, there are some— We have been dealing with detailed design, so following council's most recent resolution around Rotunda and Mysteria, we've gone back and requested the designers to incorporate that into the detailed design. A critical step that we have to do for Windsor that wasn't necessary for the other two town centres is actually getting sign-off and approval by New South Wales Heritage Office.

Before we can do that, there is some additional work that we need to do around undertaking some Aboriginal impact assessment, and we're getting some quotes now for that work because up until this point we've only been notified that we have to do that. Stepping it through a construction piece of work like this, once we've got heritage sign-off, we then have about three months for the tender process, seeking tender responses, evaluation, appointing a contractor. And in terms of the actual construction, we're anticipating it could take about eight months, again weather permitting. If we get lots of rain, then, you know, things can blow out. So my concern around, and I'm not disputing, you know, the desire for councillors to have a workshop or a walkabout, that can happen.

My concern is if that then eventuates into significant changes to the design that we're up to now, we're at risk of basically not meeting our, you know, timelines to expend this money. So it would be at that point if we were to do the walkaround and the result was you wanted significant changes, my recommendation is we don't do any work in the mall, we leave it completely north and south altogether, and we put that money into other projects where basically the design could be relatively quick and maybe not even Windsor at all. Now, I can tell you, though, from the discussions, because I've got staff walking and talking to the businesses, who you're not necessarily hearing from, who are very excited about this project.

They want the work to happen. They've been waiting for this. They've been engaged. We continue to engage with them, and they're quite concerned around any further delays. So that's the word, that's the information we're getting from the businesses that we're speaking to. So that is my word of caution: any delays, significant change to design, you have two options. We don't do any work in Windsor, or we, you know, and risk the money being lost, or we move the money elsewhere.

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Mr Mayor. I think that's really sobering.

Sorry, can I just say on that note, we'd have to get approval from the funding body to be able to make that change, any change, at which point they might then say, just give us the money back. We'll give it to somebody else who can use it.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. And that's really sobering, I think, from the Director of Infrastructure, and people need to bear this in mind. I can't support this notice of motion. I can't support this notice of motion if it means that you think you can keep changing this project. We have had this discussion already as a council in this chamber, where the Director of Infrastructure and I made it very clear that we can't keep fiddling with this project. You've missed the boat. We did this last term. We have to move on. You're desperately trying to save— Pavers from 1985. Two years ago, you were all happy for the state government to comprehensively destroy paving and bricks from 1810 . Where were you? Nowhere to be seen.

Laughing at the community, pointing the finger, giving the bird in some instances. I'm just gobsmacked by what has now become a game to some people. Leadership here is taking the community with us on this project. We are committed to this project. We have done extensive consultation with businesses. Staff have walked and spoken to every business in that mall. Not a couple of businesses, every single business. These businesses are banking on us fixing this space. It's a trip hazard. Yes, it is dirty. No, we haven't maintained it well. No, we haven't fixed these things. In part because we had to find $3.7 million to match the state and federal government's funding offer. That was part of the plan, and we took that money from the clean-up money that we— from the remediation money that we had for tarting up the mall in 2017.

We had to repurpose it into this grant. That's why there's things that are broken. Is it good enough? No, but they were the constraints that we had.

When we did project work in 1985, when we did heritage project work— People were still really keen on the idea of faux heritage. There's a lot of that in the mall, and the gas lamps are part of that. They're not some miraculous gas thing from the Victorian era. They were made in the 1980s. They're faux heritage. The reason that the new plan doesn't have a lot of that stuff in it is because the borough charter makes the document that determines how we deal with heritage now makes it very clear that we're not supposed to have fake stuff in heritage precincts, because it stops people appreciating the real thing. And so that's why some of it does look a bit plain, because the real heritage is fantastic, and it should be offset by what we put in there, not detracted from with things that aren't real that confuse people.

No one is going to Macquarie Street to look at the paving. No one. No one is going to come to Windsor Mall to look at 1980s pavers. They'll come to look at Lower House. They'll come to look at the old post office, and that's where we should be focusing our attention.

We need to be really careful that we don't spread misinformation about this project. And the video that was referred to does contain misinformation. It behoves us, when we speak to the community about this stuff, to get it right. These are not the— If ever there was a project where we needed to work together as a council to take the community with us, it's this one, because this is pivotal. This has dramatically increased business confidence in the mall precinct, and it has benefits for beyond the mall. We have functional, thriving businesses in the mall now, and we have a distinct lack of connectivity with the rest of Windsor down to the station. This money for paving is not just for Windsor Mall.

It's for the entire shopping precinct in Windsor, all the way down to the station. We have to move on from this. This is becoming— it's tying the staff up and stopping us moving on. We have enough constraints from the heritage office to deal with. Windsor has already fallen behind the others . Eight months is nothing to do a work of this scale. There's no way we're going to do this in eight months. If anybody thinks that—if we get this done in eight months, it will be a world record as the only construction project that has ever gone to time. Really, we need to stop fiddling and get on with it.

Thanks, Councillor Wheeler. I might just agree with you kind of, in that I think that we are at the point now where decisions have been made, and if we're going to do something, we need to press ahead with the plan we've got. I think it can't go unsaid that I think there needs to be significant learnings from this process. We were given $18 million or $15 million four years ago now, and we find ourselves in a situation where key parts of the business community, and in fact this council and the last council, feeling that they didn't have a proper say in the process, that we're now faced with a situation where we have to go with what we've got because we don't have time to do anything different.

And that, to me, is not ideal. Clearly it's not acceptable, but it is the situation we're in. So I think we need to face the fact that that's where we are right now, and the options before us are to press ahead with the plan, which might not be perfect, but is much better than what we have. But also, we need to take some learnings from that and look at what went wrong with the consultation, that we get to this point and clearly there's so many people not on board. And it's always a risk that if you leave out the key decision makers, that you might not get your way at the end of it. And I think that's what potentially has happened here to some degree, in that these plans have not come to the elected body at the appropriate point in the process, but rather always at the end of the process.

But all that being said, I'm very optimistic for the final outcome. The plans do look very good. It's a huge improvement, and as Councillor Wheeler said, there's certainly a lot of excitement from business owners that I speak to about what the future looks like there. So I think the responsible thing for us now is to press ahead with the plans we have and continue on to make sure this project gets delivered. Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Councillor Wheeler has covered a lot of the issues that I was going to raise, so thanks for saving us all time. When I read this, I thought that new paving would be a wonderful solution to a lot of the problems Windsor Mall has. If we have this money, we can put the, I guess, the bones

Of the mall and the other parts of the precinct together in such a way that we don't spend so much money on maintenance. It says in the first paragraph of the note from management is that the pavers in the mall are increasingly requiring maintenance, and that's a really, that's a bad place to be. And I think that when you think about the trip hazards and the accidents waiting to happen,

Notwithstanding people getting injured, but, you know, the ramifications that we might be up for even more money than this. So I think $10 million is not such a bad investment. The thing I wanted to say, though, is are we able to stage the paving in such a way that it's not going to be such an impost on the businesses?

And

I guess that, I mean, it's, I don't know whether that's already been included, but if it's not, I'd really like the staff to address that, whether we could do that so that it isn't really that disruptive. Thanks.

Thank you through you, Mr Mayor. Yes, at the end of the day, with any of these kinds of works, you would be negotiating with the businesses, and the work would be staged. We wouldn't be doing the whole of George Street in one go, but it would be staged definitely, and there would be discussions with the business about how access and shops would be mitigated and noise and all those kinds of things would be managed. Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm just going to address the actual motion that's before us here.

Point one.

The motion is now that Council hold a workshop.

Oh, is that all it is now? Okay. All right. Okay, well, I'll speak against the motion. I think we've had several workshops and briefings around this in the past. I mean, I also understand that people have concerns. I also understand with projects, not everyone likes the outcome. We know that. And of course, we did have a committee, a working group, which involved stakeholders who worked very hard on this, and that was disbanded, which was unfortunate because that would have been very handy in probably dealing with some of these issues that have come up. I think that you're right, Mr Mayor, in saying we need to be responsible. Of course, we've learned things. We weren't— this was the first money since I was on Council that was given to us like that, and we had to learn how to, you know, get around it and get this plan into place.

And there has been a lot of consultation. What I hear is the real urgency around connectivity in Windsor. It's not all about the mall. The people who have the businesses down the other end of town are very much wanting to be a part of what's happening, and all the focus, in their perception, is on the mall. So it's really important that we join everybody. So the focus needs to be about building a strong centre for everybody, not just for some people. I understand people have sentimental attachments to things. Any time there's any discussion around the mall, whether to open it in the past, whether to not open it, it always brings forward a lot of emotions around people who want to, you know, have the outcome that they wish for.

So in terms of what's happened in Windsor, we've had a significant hit to the authenticity of the history and heritage of Windsor. We have a massive concrete structure there in Thompson Square, which has already taken away from that authenticity of that area as, you know, the oldest Georgian town square. And so what we have to take out of that is that we need to, as Councillor Wheeler said, focus on those assets like Loader House and the beautiful buildings and how we can fix those up and how we can have people enjoy coming out to see what history is left there, what heritage is left there, and to enjoy the feeling. It's about the feeling we can generate in the town. If we're cooling the town with the trees, if we're making things, as Grant spoke about, if we get some beauty in there, the beauty isn't from the pavers, which, by the way— do not cost $10 million, as point three says.

I'll get back to this though, sorry, because I don't think really anyone's addressed the— oh, hang on, it's not the motion. Sorry. Sorry, now I'm all confused. But anyway, it has been answered. Those questions in there have been answered. So I think we need to move forward. We know that we need to preserve the character of Windsor. The, you know, there's some things, we spoke about the rotunda and so on. It's good that we retain the things that are important. But we do have to move forward as well. And as it's been pointed out very clearly, we have to spend the money before it gets taken away, I guess. And the improvements will be real and the connectivity will be beneficial. And that's what we, as responsible elected members, need to see our township come together and move forward.

Thank you. Councillor Djuric.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I've been involved in this project since before I was elected, and I'm quite passionate about it. I wasn't even in the state when this was brought up. I had to learn what the Livability Project was. I had an ill family member, so I was taken out of the state for a while. But I'm very passionate about it. And I don't think these people that were spoken to in community consultation, I don't think they've walked the township. We weren't always called Windsor. We were called, I believe, the township of Green Hills. And Macquarie came here and he followed the design of Windsor along the lines of the township of Green Hills. And I think we've got an amazing gem that we haven't quite fully embraced.

So I've been passionate about this from the start. We've got those lights, the faux lights, if you will, and I don't wish this is an attack on the comments before, but I want to say that we do have some privately owned original lamps from the 1800s, and these things are the spit and image. You could not tell the difference, and I think they are important to us and our history. And I have been, once again, passionately on this from the beginning, but I'm terribly concerned about losing the funding, and I don't want to push past that so that we don't get a revitalisation of the mall. Thank you.

Thanks. Councillor Sheather.

Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor. The reason we have council elections is because some of the community might want to change within council.

I never discussed this with anybody before I got elected, maybe with you or Councillor Richards, in relation to South Windsor, for instance, and we had it come before us, and we smartened the place up and took nine car parking spaces. If business need anything in this place, it's car parking spaces. But I remember when I was on council before, Mr Eds addressed council, and he said, You are the custodians of our city, and he was talking about heritage. And I understand it's pretty hard to get something as old as Windsor because there's not much around.

But As we detract, and it's just not the bridge that Councillor Bucker was talking about. When I was on council, we built that glass house we call a museum in the Curtly G. Thompson Square. Of all places in our city, we go and do that. So Kidden I wasn't cheesed off about that time.

But there's some things, like a bridge or an airport or a railway, that the community need, and that happens. But the mall's our responsibility. It's not the state or anybody else; it's ours. And the people that I've spoken to must be indifferent to the staff. Nobody , not one, has started off by saying, This is a good project. They're all started off being frustrated with one part or another. And in relation to the pavers, I don't care what pavers are put down the track, in the sense that they won't need maintenance. There is nothing you put down there, even concrete, that won't need maintenance down the track. So don't think that, you know, spending whatever we're going to spend on putting pavers down is going to fix the problem of trips and stuff like that.

I walked up the mall last Friday evening, and it's a disgrace. To us, it's a disgrace. It hasn't been cleaned since God was a boy. The trees have been let go for years and years and years, to the stage where they're the main problem now, and we all agreed on that a couple of weeks back. And there are trees that can be replaced. And in relation to the comments about we do nothing or spend the money, from where I sit, I prefer the do nothing business. And so it's, and I don't say that lightly

The mall needs cleaning up, absolutely. But it hasn't been cleaned. And anyone that walks up there says, Well, you've got to do something with it. Well, try a brush and a broom. We've got a responsibility. We put a street sweeper around our streets to clean it up, and that's just McDonald's in the gutter. The mall is the place in Windsor where people go, and it's the worst looking place in our city. And these photos that were taken by our councillor, a simple thing like a garden pot. This didn't happen in two days. It didn't happen in two weeks. It did not happen in two months. That's how long since we've done anything about things as simple as that. And to have a bench and put a red tape through it indicating there's a plank missing, they must be, the workers must leave our playing fields because that's what's happening there, and go straight to the mall and put it on the mall.

It would take 15 minutes to take two bolts out and put a timber in. That's all. It would take as long to put that tape on there as what it would to fix it. And so we get a grant and we're going to spend it. And Mr Mayor, I — I don't know that all councils—well, I don't know. I haven't spoken to a lot of councillors about this. But that motion that's up there, I want you to support it because I want you to walk me through what's been proposed and convince me that I'm wrong. And if that doesn't happen, I can assure you that my view is not going to change.

Thanks, Councillor Sheather. I would just make one comment on that in terms of—and go to the Deputy Mayor—just to respond to the comments about cleaning of the mall, and not here to defend the condition the mall as being perfect, but those trees make a really big mess really quickly, but really quickly, Councillor Sheather, and I'll give you the example. Last Sunday, there was a Darren Peat actually called out for council to clean the mall in advance of Mother's Day because it was such a mess. That morning, we came through, we cleaned it. It was perfect. And he put photos up on Facebook and said, Thanks, Hawkesbury City Council for getting here so quickly. Later that day, trashed. Next day, you wouldn't have known we'd been there for weeks.

And so it's not the case that we're not doing it. It's the case that this project, which is removing those trees, is required to fix that issue. But I just wanted to clarify that point so we're not putting out there that the staff aren't doing that. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just a question about the footpaths. Some of the footpaths I'm thinking about, outside Macquarie Arms and further down this end, have a steep slope on them, and the people who have access or mobility problems have suggested we need to flatten those. Are we going to flatten them, and if so, is there going to be a cost? Where the footpath meets the building, and are there heritage issues to do that? Will it be a simple matter, or is that going to be expensive , and have we built that in?

Sorry, I refer that to the Director City Planning.

Okay, so the issue we have there is we've got heritage urban guttering, which we will be looking to retain. And because of that, and we have, you know, we have had to look at this project through a disability access lens. But in terms of being able to flatten footpath to address that, we can't because we actually need to maintain the heritage kerb and guttering. So there will still be a, you know, slight issue there, but it's the nature of what we're dealing with in terms of this centre.

If I could just clarify, the footpath tend to slope upwards from the gutter to the building. You wouldn't have to change the gutter; it's the other side where the buildings are that it needs to come down.

Yeah, so then it would be looking at those buildings where they may have steps up into them, and then how that work would have to be, you know, how the access to all of those buildings would have to be looked at. So we're not necessarily looking at changing the slope, are we? No.

That's going to sort of happen as we do it. Is that the idea? So

At this point in time, the current slope isn't necessarily going to be able to be addressed.

Okay.

Sorry to speak again, but just to explain myself, I'm inclined, on the basis of what Councillor Sheather has just said , to support the motion, noting that it doesn't stop any process we're currently doing, noting that it's not actually asking that anything has to be changed. We're still proceeding with the work. We're still proceeding with the heritage approval that we're waiting on. We can have a— I would probably change workshop to briefing, although it's probably semantics. I think it's quite a reasonable request, having considered it through that lens, that new councillors do have the option of having a briefing to be run through the project. And I'd probably reverse the way that Councillor Sheath has said it, and that that's his chance to, if he's not happy, to sell it to the rest of us as to why we would do something so dramatic as stop.

But I will make that clear, I am going to support this motion on that basis, that that seems quite a reasonable request, but it's not an indication that I think we should stop the project or change anything.

Any further discussion? I think everyone's spoken, so we'll go right of reply. Councillor Dogramaci. Just a quick— Oh, sorry, can I just— sorry, I'll just go to Councillor Wheeler, because I'll probably change things a bit there.

Mr Mayor, I wonder if you would consider clarifying that in the motion then that's there, that just says, can we have that workshop changed to briefing, and add a clause that the project continues with its current processes.

Yeah, I don't know. I think that it's not necessary, but I understand what you're saying. So, Councillor Dogramaci, first of all, would you be happy if the motion was changed to read that council hold a briefing to discuss the Windsor Mall revitalisation project? Two— sorry, that council hold a workshop as soon as possible to discuss the Windsor Mall revitalisation project. Two, that council note that work will continue based on current plans. Yeah, that's it. Yeah. Are you happy with that, or we can have an amendment? We'll leave it as it is. Okay. Would you like to move that amendment, Councillor Wheeler?

Yeah, I'll move that as amendment. Yeah.

A seconder for that? Councillor Feigl.

Hoping there's not too much more discussion on the amendment, but everyone's free to. Councillor Dogramaci

Just something quick. Again, do please accept my apologies for not knowing how these things are running. Now, there is a word in English language, again, art of negotiation. If we don't use this grant, it will be either— no, it won't. Why don't we talk to our, like I said, ever so smiling Liberal member to pull some strings, go in there, especially now the election is coming, so everybody is after some kind of advertising or whatever you name it, so they could give us another year or so, or whatever. Let's try that.

Thank you. I might just point out, Councillor Dogramaci, I'm fairly sure it's not the way it's intended, but that might be considered offensive to continue to refer to her as ‘ever so smiling’ and so on. It might not be what we want to say. That's my

Opinion. Every time I see her— No,

No, I'm not intending it to be offensive, but I'm just worried that that might be construed that way. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, I think we need to be really clear about— I think we need to give the staff really clear direction about where we intend this project to go. I think it's reasonable for— I think it's fine and good for everyone on Council to understand what we're doing here and for us to be better informed about what we're about to see happen in these three major town centres. This has been— there's been an enormous amount of work go into this. We have to be really clear. We can't just hand this money back. We've already spent a significant slab in the design process. That will have to come out of Council's budget if we give this $18 million back. There won't be any money to fix up the mall.

If you think that you can hand this money back to the state and federal government and have the 3.75 million to fiddle with the mall, you're very sadly mistaken. That money's been spent. We have to move forward with this. By all means, have your say, get well acquainted with what's going on, but we just can't stop picking at this. We are now at the stage where we are letting the perfect get in the way of the good, and we're going to be left with nothing but a bill if we don't move this along. And that will be really, really sad. If we're at the point where we're going, well, we'll just leave the mall as it is because it's too hard, then that is a really bad outcome for one of our major tourist centres in the LGA.

Thank you. Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you. I'm speaking against this amendment. I can't really see the point in doing this if we've decided that it's quite risky that we will forfeit this money. As Councillor Wheeler just said, we've spent a lot of it. What is the point in having a briefing? What will be the outcome? If it's just to get newer councillors up to speed, I would have thought that that's kind of their responsibility. There's lots and lots of plans we have in council, and we can't really have a briefing because somebody doesn't understand that. And I understand what it's like to be a new councillor. It's very scary, and you have to read an awful lot. But I can't see the point in this. I don't think this is a wise use of staff resources.

I think we have to keep going with the plans that we have. I know it's not perfect, and I agree with Councillor Wheeler on this. It's not perfect, and I disagree with a lot of the stuff in it. But I think the consensus is that it's going to move us forward. It's going to help our businesses. We've had what I consider to be quite good community consultation. I think we have a lot of the community coming along with us. I can't see how this is good governance. I think this is a step backwards, and I can't support it.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I feel a bit like Councillor Kotlash. I don't see a huge amount of point of it apart from for the benefit of new councillors. But I actually think the more beneficial thing in that sense would be to actually do the walk-through and the whole way from the station up and have a look at what's going to happen. I think that would give a much better interpretation of it. And I think that then people might understand that the whole overall idea of the connectivity around it would fall into place, maybe more than a briefing. So my issue is just having a briefing around it. I mean, it's written. We've got lots of documents written about it. If people haven't understood those by reading them, then perhaps the visualisation of imagining what would be in place, and that would only require one staff member, because we could all walk in a single file or double or hold hands or whatever, like an excursion, and we could go along and we could have somebody point out, This is what this will do.

This is what that will do. I think that's a benefit. I don't think having another briefing would be a benefit. But I certainly agree with point two, that the work continue, because we don't want to lose the good work that has already been done. And of course, we all acknowledge that we're never going to have a plan where all of us are going to agree on every aspect. It just doesn't happen.

Thank you. I might, I mean— If everyone agrees, I think briefing could mean any of those things, and we let the format be decided when we look at availability. Yeah. Yeah . Councillor Vigel

Sorry, I thought I was cancelling when that light went off. That's okay. Look, I'm okay with that motion, provided we've got a drop-dead date. I don't want the process to stop either. Continue what you're doing and target what you need to do. No problem with the briefing, but it can't linger on. If you can get it done very quickly, I mean very quickly, and put a drop-dead date on it, then I'm for it. Okay . So, if you wouldn't mind, if you can get a date on that, it would be better. If you commit to it, then those who want the briefing have got to commit to that date or by that date.

I'm up to council.

I'd be reluctant to put that kind of pressure on staff right now to pick a date, but we understand it needs to be as soon as possible. Yeah. Okay. Yeah

Councillor Djuric. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just wanted to ask, the finalised plan, as far as I'm concerned, was changed about five weeks ago, and it was submitted to the public five weeks ago. It's the first time I've seen that plan, never seen that plan before.

How has everyone across it? Where the hell have I been? Like, how does everyone know what this thing is that's only come out a few weeks ago? I mean, I've been busy helping people with floods and helping clean up, and I've been flat out. And I think there is—just I'll pass that question on with a follow-up question.

I think there is a final, final, final plan to come, is that correct?

Yes. So, yeah, we're actually amending the plans again based on the most recent council resolution about the rotunda and Mysteria. And the intent would be, because at the end of the day we need to finalise the plans and then, you know, take them through the assessment process, particularly with New South Wales Department of Heritage office. But, you know, essentially the designs have changed from a master plan, and as we've gone through detailed design, it's been refined. And each time we have provided updates to the community, placed things on our website, and then at key points provided information to, you know, councillors and other people. But at the end of the day, we are still refining that plan now because, you know, we've had to include certain or retain certain artefacts that weren't going to be retained, and then we would be giving that information to councillors.

And in terms of the briefing, we'd have the opportunity to precisely that show, you know. What is happening with the, you know, seeding and the trees and the, you know, pavers, etc.?

Okay, councillors, I think —I was just going to say, I think we've probably all exhausted ourselves agreeing that we have a way forward, I think, from the discussions. So I'd like to suggest if we can move on, if everyone's okay with that, we'll put the amendment. Those in favour of the amendment, please raise your hand. Favour are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillors Zempagno. Against: Councillor Sheather, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric. Were you for the—

Okay, sorry. Yep. Declare that carried. Councillor Richards absent for the vote. So that now becomes the motion. I'm going to suggest we have no discussion and move with the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillors Zempagno. Councillor Richards was absent for the vote. Declare that carried—oh, Councillor Kotlash against. Sorry, declare that carried.

We now move to item 85. Just wait for Councillor Richards to return.

Okay, someone want to move something on item 85?

Move the recommendation, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Second.

Councillor Kotlash.

Any discussion? Yes,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just had a question around the time frame. I think I did ask this in the briefing, but I just wanted to clarify it. There's sort of a mix in here of long-term management suggestions and some more specific facilities that we're going to come up with, like the toilet facilities. But can you please just clarify, with respect to the works that will have to happen to the bridge, what's the time frame again with that? And the toilets after the bridge or before the bridge? Director?

Through you, Mr Mayor, the bridge, so the contract has been awarded and the contractor is doing all their preparatory work. They are experiencing some delays with the procurement of precast concrete panels, again supply chain issues. We've got a revised completion date of— Tentatively around January, though that is dependent on when we can, or when the contractor can achieve supply of those precast units. Given the location, the contractor in all likelihood, although we don't know this, it's a pretty reasonable assumption, are going to require the area that we are proposing to site the toilet for their compounds and stockpile sites, site huts, etc. And so it would not be possible to commence any works on any toilet, permanent toilet facility until the project has been completed, or until at least it's at the point of we once again retain control of whatever area it is that they end up using as a stockpile site.

When it comes to construction for the toilet facility, we can certainly use that time to do the investigations, designs, look at the options, and any approvals that are necessary to get it ready such that when we once again have control over that site, we can pretty quickly get on with construction if that's the way that we end up going.

So in the interim, the portaloo will be returned shortly, and they'll be there for the construction people and for the public. Is that correct?

Through you, Mr Mayor, we need to make a decision on whether we return the portaloo. Certainly with the state of the roads up there, I wouldn't be encouraging anyone to day trip up there. And once it reverts to a construction site, there won't be access to the river for a period of time. Okay,

Thank you. That's good for that clarification. Just the other question was, when will we revisit the longer-term management decisions around whether we'll continue with staff or whether we'll try and find a local solution? Would that be around the same time so that that would go into place once the bridge has finished?

Through you, Mr Mayor, the decision on that. So longer-term management of the reserve,

Previously the community wanted us to maintain a closure of the reserve whilst the bridge was down to limit traffic on that road. If it's reasonable to assume that that wish is continuing through the construction period of time and until the bridge has been reinstated, whether we can, or whether it is worthwhile implementing a long-term management solution for the last month or two of summer, I suppose will have to be determined at that time. We've certainly got time, though, to look at and test the market for whether there's any appetite and whether there are any suitable contractors locally that can undertake the work, and that will be a large part of informing us on the longer-term management. It simply is there the availability of people willing to do this work up there?

So essentially the dialogue will occur over time so that we can put a solution in. Thank you for that, and thank you for this report. I think we know the community out there has had many major issues and interruptions and so on, but one of the major issues has been that lack of a permanent amenities block on the reserve site. And this, of course, is different to the issues around the roads and other issues that the Upper Colo residents have. So I think last November we put in the motion with a temporary solution, and of course this is a permanent solution to that. So it's really good to see that the reserve will be better facilitated through this action. I know we're going to have to, or somebody is going to have to, I expect you, do some investigations around what type of system would be the most appropriate for that location.

And we know that there's an ever-evolving new number of forms of toilets, amenities, composting styles, and whatever would be suitable for a flood-prone area, I guess, would be the best thing to have there. Oh, that was my other question. Oh, it's for the 2023-24 fees. I just wondered, because most of the people paying those fees probably aren't local people, how do we have some form of getting feedback of whether that's a reasonable fee increase in any way, or do we just do it?

Through that to the director. I don't, I'd have to take on notice what details we've kept from previous bookings. It may be possible that we've got some records there that we could go out to people who have used the reserve in the past to do some sensitivity analysis. Failing that, we'd probably look at similar reserves, both in proximity to Sydney, but also what is offered in those reserves, to try and bring some comparison to achieve parity with those and try and do a sensitivity analysis via those means if the former isn't possible.

Thank you. I think, as everyone is saying, suggested is more than reasonable, particularly .

Thank you, Tracey. You know, it's a beautiful pristine area, and that's really quite—what's proposed at $45 a family is quite a cheap cost for such an experience. So I'm happy to move this and to look forward to the further ongoing discussions about how to improve the reserve beyond what's proposed here. Thank you.

Thanks. It should be noted that I know from personal experience that a lot of the national parks, especially around Sydney right now, they have lottery systems. Yeah. You just cannot get in. So the demand is there. I don't think the price elasticity

Is going to be an

Issue. Yeah. Councillor Wheeler. Thanks

Mr Mayor. I was actually going to refer to the fees in national parks. I think if we're in line with them, I think that's entirely reasonable. And in fact, many people become members of National Parks and Wildlife Association in order to get those spots and those fees. It's really hot property in Sydney, and some of them are— Nothing, nowhere near as good, you know, to get. We have the last pristine river system in the Sydney Basin to be able to camp beside it and swim in it is a rare privilege.

What I think has been particularly good about this is that we are now really starting to get a dialogue going with the people of Upper Colo about the facilities that they want in the space where they live, and so that we can get the balance right between them living there and enjoying and caring for that environment and people coming and enjoying it themselves. I think it became quite apparent during COVID that people were desperate to get out into the natural environment, particularly people who don't have the luxury of larger backyards like we often do here. I think we probably undervalue our own resources. I think we're a bit spoiled. We have some spectacularly beautiful places. What COVID did teach us, though, is that sometimes the grubby people who are using our facilities are not tourists.

They are, in fact, us on day trips. So there still needs to be an education component, and I know that that's going to come to Council as well in the Environment Committee minutes. But we really do need to keep up with making sure people understand that this is a pristine environment and they need to take their garbage home with them. But the toilets hopefully have made a difference, and I hope that we are getting that feedback from the community that what we're doing there is improving things, because otherwise we're wasting our time, frankly. You know, if we're paying to put porta-loos in, and I'm not a fan of the humble porta-loo by any means, but it is better than people using the river.

I'm glad to see that we are still looking at a local caretaker. When Councillor Lyons-Buckett and I, along with some of council staff, attended a meeting a couple of weeks ago at Upper Colo, people were really keen to use local contractors and local labour where possible in maintaining various things and in reacting to disasters. And I think that's an important part of their community resilience, but also an important part of their recovery in that they feel that they have some control over their space. I would like us to talk to the locals about what they envisage for car parking on that site and how that will work. They're the ones who have to navigate past those people who just pull off and meander about the place, and some days it's really difficult just to get home because people have speared off and parked all over the side of the road.

And that's what we need to cut down on and look if it means some signage saying, Don't park here, in spots where we thought that it would be bleedingly obvious not to park there, then we might just have to do that. I really want us to pursue the idea of composting toilets because I'm a very big nerd. I found a systematic review of composting toilets in floodplain areas in the 10-minute break that we had. It's not particularly conclusive because more research is required, which is the conclusion of all good systematic reviews. But I think there are certainly some other options, and maybe we end up with some sort of sealed unit that's removable, like a Rota-Loo, where you've basically got wedges of the pie that you take off.

We may have to end up with something like that in order to maintain the environment up there. But I think we definitely are moving in the right direction, and I hope the community is pleased with that as well.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Anyone wants to speak against? No. We'll put the motion then. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Richards, Councillor Vargoul, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, Councillor [unclear], Councillor Wheeler, Councillors [unclear]. Carried. We move.

On to 88 .

Move the recommendation. Councillor Lyons-Buckett, seconded by Councillor Sheather. Discussion?

Yes, just a few points I wanted to raise, a couple of questions probably, really. In one of the attachments, and I don't have them in my set of papers here, but on a resolution from the 28th of September in, I was going to say 1921, 2021, there was a report called the Impact Assessment of Infrastructure Flood Mitigation Options Final Report to be requested from Water New South Wales. It says that this was completed. So does that mean it's been requested or that it's been received? Oh, thank you, Charles.

That's a question for staff. I'm just wondering if anyone knows.

I'm anticipating that the request has been submitted, but I'm— Okay, so

Not the report received, unfortunately. And also a request for the timeframes of the regional land use study and the cumulative overland study also says that that item is complete, but we've not received a timeframe on when we'll receive those. So that's an ongoing one, I guess. The next one was the 26th of February from 2019, the resolution around the third party reviews. I'm just wondering two questions from that: if there's a timeframe for the Sports Council review. And if the minutes for the third parties are still being loaded onto the hub. Credit

To Mr. Mister. Sorry.

Thank you through you, Mr. Mayor. In relation to the review of the Sports Council, it's difficult to put a definite time frame on the completion of that, but it's close to commencing the real work in respect of that. There's been some background work that's been done over a little while, actually, in relation to things like gathering documents that the consultants are going to need to properly do that review. And we've had some initial meetings with the consultant about that, just in terms of clarifying the scope and also making sure that we have secured funding in relation to that review, which needed to be done before we could commence it. So those things are now in place. So that work will be being undertaken in earnest, I expect, in the coming months, over the next one to two months, I suspect.

In relation to minutes of the Sports Council and them being loaded onto the hub, I might need to take that on notice in terms of when the most recent minutes were placed on the hub. We did indicate that we would be continuing to load those documents, but I'd need to have a look to see when the last set were put there and whether or not that needs updating.

Sorry.

Sorry. We had, on the 9th of April in 2019, we had a resolution around paramedic numbers in the area and concerns raised by people working in that sector, and that was referred to the Disaster and Emergency Management Committee. And I've not ever seen it come up again. I think it's—I'm just drawing attention to it because I think it's a really important matter that fits in with while we're sort of reviewing. In the absence of any hub west of the river with an ambulance during those emergencies, I think also looking at that particular resolution would be a good referral to the Disaster and Management Committee. Well, it's been referred to there, but we haven't revisited it. The next one was May 2018, the transfer of land at Bilpin Oval Reserve.

Is this still not complete? And I was wondering, I mean, this has gone on for a long, long time. I'm wondering how that will impact on, because I know there's works to be done at Bilpin Oval. So will that impact on any works being done up there?

Refer that to the Director of Infrastructure Services. I'd have to take that one on notice, Councillor

Thank you. Yeah, sorry, it is a longstanding issue, but I just know I've seen that there's been various proposals for works to be done on the oval, and if we don't technically yet control it, I'm just wondering how that works out. And just the last but not least comment is that there was one, I think it was September of '21, around outstanding conference reports. I'd just like to report that I believe that other councillors, but I know I certainly did, submit all my conference reports. They were all submitted by the 25th of October 2021. Thank you. Thanks

So that question about paramedic numbers, that was taken on notice, is that correct? Yep.

Any further discussion? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'm just wondering, firstly, if it's possible to make the font larger for old people, because I am really struggling with my glasses on . Yeah. And is it possible to have a separate section of the hub where we dump these, so that if you are of a mind to follow a resolution through a few different reports , you don't have to hunt back to the relevant council meeting in the relevant council term in that year and find them. So really, I would love something that linked and I could just search for the resolution and follow it through its various iterations, but that's too much work for a small organisation. But if you could at least, if you could just stick them all in the same folder, then we could be responsible for our own resolution hunting. Thanks.

Thank you. Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just in order to try and be helpful, I thought the motion about paramedics went to the Infrastructure Committee.

It did, and when that was shut down, then it went to the Disaster and Emergency.

But I think it actually went to the committee and was addressed by New South Wales Ambulance, who told us that they didn't think they needed another base on the other side of the river. Councillor Zamprogno was a member of that committee. He may recall differently, but I think that's what happened to that one. But it must have been assumed that it wasn't addressed and then passed on to the— Disaster and emergency. Maybe I've got it wrong, but maybe staff could check there as well.

Yeah, we've taken on notice. I think that potentially there is an error in that. Everything that was referred from the old committees to the new committees was dealt with on the business paper of the very first meeting of the new committee, so I don't know that anything got lost in that sense. I think potentially there's some sort of oversight there in the reporting. There's no further discussion. We'll go put the motion. All those in favour? Councillor Conolly, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Richards, Councillor Virgile, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Djuric , Councillor Lyons-Buckett, against ? Councillor Wheeler, against? Councillor Zamprogno, I didn't see. Councillor, either?

In favour.

In favour. Okay, declared carried.

Next item, therefore, is 89.

I'll move the motion.

Move the recommendation.

Recommendation in the business paper, Mr Mayor.

Seconded for that. Seconded, Councillor Deputy Mayor. Discussion?

Councillor Kotlash.

I'll keep this brief because I know it's late. Since this recommendation was based on the local government remuneration tribunal, I feel that it's appropriate that 2% increase in our fees is appropriate. I think that's probably, well, it's not quite catching up with inflation, but I think it's warranted. When I considered this, it's a tricky thing to think

About fees that you're personally receiving. So when I was considering this item, I thought to myself, how would I treat us as collective? And I guess I had the notion that all of you, if you were my staff, I'd gladly approve a 2% increase. So that's kind of the way that I think about this. I think we shouldn't devalue the work we do. And I think that, I know some people use this sort of thing as sort of, I guess, tokenism, that they won't accept this sort of increase. But I think I would gladly give my staff this increase, and I think maybe if you look at it that way, and maybe if the community looks at it that way, there won't be that tokenistic... I won't say what I was going to say. That tokenistic attitude that sometimes happens after these sorts of increases. I'll leave it at that. Thanks.

Any further discussion? Councillor Feigel. Yeah

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'm against the motion,

And I'll keep this brief as much as possible. If we're only allowed a 0.8% increase on the rates, and we're allowed a special one-off of whatever that 2.5 for this while we're doing the operational budget, and we know we're looking for every dollar on the operational budget because we've been briefed on that as well,

I'd like to put this on a moratorium for 12 months and discuss it in the next operational plan when it next comes up. I didn't come here to represent the community to be paid for it. I would have been quite happy to be here, you know, just volunteering my services. But I respect that there's a fee paid and a stipend paid for the councillors, and I respect what they do, and I've seen what everybody has done. But in lieu of what we've gone through in the last, I suppose, two to three years with floods and hardship within the area, and inflation and what we need to get done, I'm not going to support the increase.

And I'll just leave it there. Thanks.

Further discussion? Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd like to move an amendment to keep the status quo, please, which I think, based on the report and staff can confirm, is councillors at 24,320 and the mayor at 60. O80, is that correct as per page 61?

Just get some advice on that to make sure we're looking at the correct number. Okay

Where that is, sorry.

It's in the table on page 61.

I think that's actually your reading last year's increase, which we also didn't take. Oh, which we also didn't take. So we've got to go back a year before that. So we're back a year before that. So

It's 24,810 and six— No no, no

That's gone up. No,

No, that's not correct.

So I don't think the current fee is in that table because we're working off several years ago. Well

The current fee remains the same, whatever that is, if it's not in

This report. There's no increase last year. There was. Yeah, no, no.

Mr Mayor, I think if I'm reading page 59 correctly, the annual fee for 2021 be set at 24,320, and then the mayor's fee is at 0.2, and then in 2021 we resolved that it remain at the same fee as 2020-21

So that is correct. So that bit at the bottom of page 59 is our current, or the status quo.

So it is the 24,320 and the 60,080. So I'd like to move an amendment that we retain our current levels as those amounts, please, Mr Mayor.

Seconder for that? Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Thanks

I'll just speak briefly to that. I do agree, in a sense, with Councillor Kotlash in that regard, but I do think what Councillor Veigel has said is also vitally important. We have cost of living pressures everywhere on our community at the moment. We debate amongst ourselves whether we can afford to do roads and— And do the basics that we need to do as per our operational plans. We have so many wants and needs that we want to get done in this community. I think it's also relevant, though, to put this into context. And if you do look at page 61, even if we had resolved the increase , which I'm proposing not to, the total fees payable there is $366,000. Now, that's all 12 of us, including the mayor and the deputy mayors' increase in fees.

That really only equates to one person's salary in the private sector. So I think it's important to put into context that the community understands we all aren't here taking home a huge wage. We're not even here taking home something that pays the most basic of bills. We're here because we care about the community. So I'd like to put that amendment forward, and I'd like to say and put on the record how disappointed I am in a couple of councillors here tonight who used social media today with their magical crystal ball that they seem to have to predict what councillors would do, and I find that shameful. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll be guided by council on this, and I don't have a strong view either way. I guess I would caution, though, however, against continually making a PR stance of not putting the fees up, because whilst most of us, and maybe potentially on this council all of us, are in a position where that's not disadvantaging us, that we have other forms of income, we're able to, you know, be independent in that way, it is prohibitive in that it means that you need to be at a certain level of your life in terms of financial stability to be able to come and do a job where everyone votes every year that you shouldn't get a pay rise and you continually go backwards. You know, if inflation for the last 12 months running at 5% and we haven't taken a pay rise since the year before, we're effectively saying we should be paid about 8, 9% less in real terms than we were when we signed up.

Like I said, I'm happy to go and be guided by the majority of council on this. It's not something I think we need to make an issue of. But I guess I'm almost putting in a pitch for next year when we consider this to try and be a little bit more.. . Open to what we're doing, open to looking at this strategically and properly rather than being worried about the PR backlash if you take a pay rise. And it is a little bit, it is a little bit, I don't know what the word is, but it's the way the system's set up that requires us to determine what we need to be paid when, in fact, there is a tribunal that could just decide it for us. The tribunal set us a range instead and then makes us put our hands up and say what we want to be paid, which is unlike most jobs in the real world.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett, did you have your light on again

Oh, I did have. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ideally, of course, councillors would be paid a much better fee if they were expected to be working full time and to doing that. And, I mean, I do point out, though, that this council has always taken—well, we got a couple of years ago, we were changed in classification, so that upped the fees significantly. But there is a range, and this council does always take the maximum fee that's payable. So I can't even understand really why there's such a discrepancy based on—I think the work of a councillor is the same whether you're out in a rural area or whether you're in the middle of a city. I don't know why, you know, one mayor gets $226,000 and if you're out, you know, somewhere else you get $27,000 just because you're out there in the countryside, you know.

So I think it's a very inadequate system overall. But I do agree that, and we've done this a number of times in 2017, 2018, and then again, whichever it was last year, when we're imposing increases on the community, not to take an increase ourselves. I think it may be seen as tokenistic. It could be tokenistic, but, you know, it's a good thing that we, you know, try and save as much money as possible. And I think we should put our efforts into lobbying for the , I think the superannuation issue motion passed on block, but I think that was a long time coming. And at the recent conferences, they have—it's been raised around what councillors should be paid. You know, in other states, like in Brisbane, of course, councillors are paid similar to an MP.

And when you talk about it being prohibitive, obviously a lot of people have to have a financial security to be able to put the time into it. But the overall system really needs reforming, as do lots of areas in local government. So I think that we should put our efforts into lobbying further to get a better system so that more people can actually afford to be representatives. Councillor

Dogramaci.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm against a cent increase in our fees. We are not employed by the council. It's an honorary job. I think, you know, we should not be paid a single cent. If that happens, you know, I wonder how many of us, you know, would be coming in here and representing the ratepayers. And it's no good to compare us to another council, whether it's Brisbane or Perth or whatever it is. They are different. We are different. They have different populations and we have different. I mean, if we are going to compare this council, then let's go a couple of steps further. Let's see how much in the United States or in the United Kingdom are receiving, many times more. In a place where I studied, they have over 200 councils at the time, and they are making, some of them, you know, are making with the committee members or whatever, they are making more than their MPs that representing, you know, those areas.

So while we are going through, you know, all this hard time, 2% increase, how much is that going to add to our pockets? Like I said, okay, times are tough, farmers are doing tough, small business people are suffering. So I think it's the way that I look at it. I mean, I'm not wealthy, like many, if not the most. I am paying my mortgage as well, but it doesn't matter whether 2% or not. And the other thing that, you know, I need to mention, okay, councillors or mayor or deputy mayor will be getting extra money. What about the staff downstairs? How much are they going to get? I don't know whether it's related or not. I think they deserve more, more money than excluding directors, of course. Staff downstairs, I think, you know, they need to get at least 3, 4, 5%, and I don't know who decides at what percent we are going to get as an extra in city.

They have no idea. Some of them may not even know where Hawkesbury is or never been in this place. So I think 2% is not going to make anyone rich. And I agree with Councillor Veigel that I'm not for it. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor Sheather.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I was impressed a few minutes ago. No councillor knew what they were getting paid. That's how important it is. And, but in saying that, I'm going to support the motion. I wasn't going to, but we don't know the situation of councillors around the table financially and the like, and there'll be someone that'll take our place down the track that may not be in a position financially and find it difficult. There is a big workload. Well, perhaps not the workload. I still work, and the hours that I miss because I'm doing council stuff is a lot. So if you've got people that are in a position where they can't do that, then we're restricting people, even though in this report I don't agree with the comment that if you pay more you get better results.

I don't agree with that at all. The community will choose who they want to represent them, and if it happens to be someone that's a bit light on the pocket, then they might have difficulty. So I think we've got an obligation to look where we're going down the track, that someone might be in that position. But like I said, I was impressed that councillor knew what they were getting. That's how important it was. And , yeah, so I take on board

The fees are set by a tribunal. It hasn't been increased for a couple of years, and the comments that were made by Councillor Veigel and Councillor Sarah is, you know, they're legit, and people, if they want to make a point over it, they will. But, you know, I think that we've got an obligation to address this in a professional manner, and I think we should. Thank you. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, I think this is probably the most rational discussion we've had around councillor fees for a while, and I think that's useful. And I think it's already been stated that there's a real conflict for us here. This is about the only job where you get to set your own fee, knowing that it actually is a crap fee to begin with. You know, let's face it, none of us are in this for the money. The problem, I think, comes with what we all know, and the mayor has mentioned this. By having such a low fee, and look, a grand isn't going to make any difference. If we bump our pay up by 2% now, it's going to make very little difference to any of us. We'll lose a third of it in tax as a minimum.

Yeah, we'll lose the majority of it. If you're working in another job, you'll lose more than 30% in tax. So it's a bit of a moot point. But the real problem is with the wage paid to councillors across the board, in that it means that only the people who can afford, who have some other means of keeping them, whether that's a better paid spouse or you're retired and you're living off your superannuation or you've got rich parents or, you know, or whatever it is, get to sit around this table, and that doesn't equate to good democracy, and that's a real problem, I think. Instead of quibbling over whether we pay ourselves an extra ten cents a week, what we need to be focusing on is pushing the Office of Local Government and the state government to remunerate councillors properly.

Not because it will make any difference to us, because most of us will be long gone by the time they finally put their hand in their purse, but because it will make a difference to the people who come after us. And hopefully that will mean that young people, more women, more people with young children can— yes, Councillor Sheather, more women.

So, because when you've got— because a representative democracy needs to look like the people that it represents, not like the people who can afford to take on the gig. I think having superannuation paid, I think, is another one of those reforms that's helpful, particularly for women, because women usually end up worse off in the superannuation game because we take more career breaks. And young people as well, if they forego wages at an early stage of their career, they miss out on the benefit of compounding interest, and their super is lower down the track, which impacts on their retirement. These are the things that we need to be pushing. But I agree that it's problematic that it's us that sets these. The tribunal should just jolly well set them and stop this being a political decision, because it's not reasonable. Nobody else does this. It's daft.

I also want to note here that across the local government sector, employees are again taking an effective pay cut. They've got a two percent rise, I think, from the ruling that was handed down, I think was five percent over three years. We've had five percent inflation this year. Our workers are taking a three percent pay cut, and that's not something to be proud of. So we — It's also worth noting that this applies, this decision applies to us for 12 months. If we can get a year where we don't have a pandemic and a natural disaster all at once, maybe we, and we think we're a top tier council, maybe we can pay ourselves the top tier fee. But I think this is part of our, it will mean very little difference to us at the end of a month.

I think this is largely a show of good faith with the community who we're about to hit up again with the rates notice. So I think this is the best we can do. Councillor

Jerick.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I want to say that whilst I recognise we've gone through some tough times and people have had to tighten the purse strings on their spending due to COVID and some other things, that I think this is a practice that probably should stop where we stay with the status quo. I think it does leave council open to people running for council with ulterior motives down the track if we've gone for a long period of time where we don't remunerate the members. And in fact, I think in 2019 I heard people saying that people run for council because it gives them an opportunity to do untoward things. Now, I'm not suggesting, I don't support that at all, but I mean it gives that perception to the people that if they're not appropriately remunerated that they are coming here for alternate reasons.

And if we're saying that, and we have had some significant stagnation at the moment, if we're saying that we've got 5.1%, you'll find every worthwhile economist telling you that it's closer to 10%. That's just the official buff figure of 5.1%. But I do concur that we are at difficult times, and we probably should stay on par with what we are, but I do think that needs to stop. Thank you. Thanks.

Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, we are going through hard times, but I don't believe next year will be any better than this year. There'll be something else. And are we going to go on forever saying, while we can't afford that increase this year? It appears that that's what we're going to do, because this would be possibly the third time that we've considered this or done this. Not all councillors are in the same financial position. And what we're doing here is painting all the councillors with the same brush and saying, we don't need the money, but that may not be the case. And as Councillor Sheehy pointed out, it may not be the case for future councillors either. We, I think we have a—it's a matter of principle that we pay councillors what is recommended by the tribunal, not turn that down and say, no, we're doing fine, we don't need it.

Because that principle of paying members of Parliament and elected members goes way back to the 1700s in England, when the House of Lords used to run everything, but they weren't paid. They were there because they were rich, because they were a lord. And what did they do? Of course, they looked after their own. And the principle came out that when the House of Commons was created, that they were paid so that anybody could run for Parliament and anyone could be the Prime Minister. That was the principle. Now, I know we're only talking small amounts of money here, but that principle is still true for us in the council. People get paid to be councillors because it allows us all to start on an even basis.

It's not a place where rich people come and look after their own interests. It's a place where anybody can run and be a councillor. As well as that, the 2% is just an acknowledgement of the hard work that's done by councillors, plus an acknowledgement that councillors also have increased costs. I mean, you're talking about how, you know, stagflation and how it's difficult for everyone. Well, it's difficult for councillors as well. Who's to say we don't need the 2, or all councillors don't need the 2%? If councillors feel strongly about it, of course they can always give the money back. You don't have to take the money. If you think we shouldn't be paying councillors, then send the money back.

Don't say that no councillor should have the 2% increase. I believe all councillors should make up their own mind and give back whatever they feel is appropriate. But don't tar us all with the same brush. And I'm not in the job for money, and I don't actually need that money, but I'm talking about the principle of the— it's a matter of principle. And this council is already one of the lowest paid councils, especially in the metropolitan area. And to say that we're going to forego 2% off a very low figure is really just tokenism. We're just saying to the community , look what we're going to do. We're going to turn down this 2%. Aren't we great?

And it's just a way of some councillors trying to make us look like we're concerned or look like we're involved with the community. When actually, I think most people in the community wouldn't worry too much if we had a 2% increase, and they would expect they could also get a 2 or 3% increase. So I think we're looking at this in very much the wrong way. It's quite patronising to the local residents. It's mostly tokenism, and it's a matter of principle that we should continue to pay councillors what they're worth and what is recommended that be paid. And therefore, I'm going to support this recommendation. Thank you. Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Look, permit me to attempt to say what many people at home might be thinking, watching this debate. There's a lot of casuistry here. Casuistry meaning very ornate reasoning that proceeds from a faulty premise. We have, in the short space of time that this chamber has sat, halved the number of meetings that we attend, and I think, and at this meeting, voted for less accountability. I think many people at home are sitting back and going, What a bloody high. What an absolute high, these councillors granting themselves a pay rise of any degree. So I'll be supporting Councillor Richards' amendment.

Thanks, Councillor Zamprogno. I just had a question for you, if possible. I know when we discussed the meeting schedule, you mentioned that your workload was going to half and that you thought that councillors should take half the pay. I just wondered if your workload has halved since we made that decision, and if you have returned half your pay.

Well, unlike Councillor Dogramaci, who pledged his salary to a variety of causes in the lead-up to the election, the point that I made—I mean, if you're asking me that question seriously, Mr Mayor— Yes

If you'd answer it, it would be good.

Well, the fact that a significant portion of our duties consists of attending chamber meetings and considering detailed business papers, and that is now going to be half as many of those as there used to be, I think is something that the community will recoil against and treat us with contempt.

That's the

Point that I was trying to make.

My question was, has your workload halved, like you said it would, and have you taken half your pay, like you said would be appropriate?

I don't suggest that our workload had halved. I'm saying that—

That were your exact words.

Mr Mayor, I find your line of questioning extraordinary.

Thank you. I think the—I guess what I was getting at is just in response to the ‘water hide’ comment. When we sat in this meeting a few weeks ago, and you said that— I think your exact words were, ‘Our workload is going to halve, and are you going to take half your stipend?’ And I just wanted to follow up with you now that we've started experiencing that. I know my workload certainly hasn't halved, and I wondered if yours had, and I wondered if you'd followed through and taken half your stipend. And I take the answer is no to both.

Look, I think the evidence at hand at this moment is that we're still in a meeting at nearly 11 p.m., is that we have fewer meetings, but we consider, you know, a very great workload of content, which may have deserved more extended commentary over a more generous spread of meetings, but— Let's leave that there, Mr Mayor.

Best if you might be best if you don't answer, I agree. Is there any

Question?

Councillor Dogramaci, you've already— just very quickly, yeah. So you've already spoken, you can only speak once. So I think actually probably everybody has spoken, I believe. If it's a question, you can ask a question, otherwise we'll move on.

Sorry, just when my name was mentioned during the election of donating my money, do I need to, or am I allowed to mention the charities that, you know, I'm donating my money, the persons and the charities, or

Is it something personal? I

Think probably that's fair enough, given that the comment was made, yes, you can go ahead and do that.

Okay, well, I am donating it. Thank

You. Thanks. Okay, we'll put the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment, please raise your hand. In favour of the amendment are Councillors Zemprogno,

Councillor Richards, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Dogramaci. Against the amendment are Councillors Conolly, Reardon, Sheather, Kotlash, Calvert, Jurek. I'm going to declare that carried on the casting vote. I said I would go with the majority, so I'll do that. So amendment is carried and becomes the motion.

Those in favour of the motion, please raise your hand.

Yeah, we're keeping it the same, yeah. Oh, sorry, I'm so sorry. Right of reply, Councillor Kotlash. Thanks

I've got all these notes. For once I've made good notes. And one of my notes, I'll just say thank you, Councillor Calvert, for alluding to it. We're talking about the principle of this. We're not really talking about, you know, what 2% means or what our fees are. There's a principle involved here.

Some of us forfeit a paying career to be here to represent the community, and I guess I agree with what Councillor Willer said before about we have to start thinking about what that means and what that means for our democracy and how we might change things to be able to achieve a better balance and a cross-section of our community to represent us. But that's a decision I made to forfeit my career. So I just wanted to put that in the mix. I think a lot of people don't quite understand that that's the decision you did allude to it though, Councillor Sheather. I think we have to decouple our worth with the plight of our community. And as Deputy Mayor Calvert said, there's never going to be a good time to increase our fee.

That's never going to happen. And I think if people around the room who have talked about the plight of our community were really serious about making a difference, then why isn't there an amendment on the table for us to go to the minimum that the tribunal has said? Why aren't we talking about that? So what we're actually saying is we want the top. The maximum fee that the tribunal has determined .

But we'll give the community this little token that we won't take a 2% increase this year. That is tokenism underlined , and I find that really a little bit disturbing. And, you know, if you're a really fair dinkum about, you know, that we're really not worth that money, why haven't we reduced it to $14,380? Just a point.

Sorry, I'll stop there. I could go on. I did make lots and lots of notes, but I'll stop there. The principle is the key to this, and again, I think we should think about, we wouldn't do this to our staff. Thank you.

Thanks.

Could

You clarify the motion, please?

Yeah, so the motion before us now is that we keep the fees set at the current rate, as they are for this year. If you'll bring up on the board, surely

No, that's all right. We're kind of, unless we want to go lower, someone can foreshadow something else, but I think we're probably there. Put the motion. All those in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. Favour are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Richards, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zemprogno.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett, against. Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash, declare it carried.

Get a motion to keep going past 11 p.m. Moved Councillor Reardon, seconded Councillor Richards. All those in favour? Carried.

Next item is a response to Councillor questions on notice. Ah, sorry, that was ambitious. Environment Committee minutes.

I was there and happy to endorse as a true and correct record, if someone wants to move that. Ah, Councillor Wheeler, do you want to move something?

I thought part of the point of these things coming back to Council was that we highlighted key findings for everybody else. So I'm happy to move the recommendation in the business paper.

Okay. Is there a seconder for that? Seconded for the

Recommendation, seconded Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Discussion?

So some of the things that are notable that came from this, this is the first meeting of this committee, and it involved a number of resolutions that had been considered by Council, by previous councils, and the Environmental Sustainability Committee. Notably was the Cool Burning recommendation, and I think with the addition of the person who came from Local Land Services to talk about the potential for Cool Burning, we probably ended up with a better outcome than we would have had that discussion not proceeded. So Brad Moore was the individual involved, a Darug man who does Cool Burning, and the decision I think that the committee reached was that Council identify some potential spaces where Cool Burning can be used to To manage some of our own areas, rather than just shunting it off to the

Bushfire Management Committee and Local Land Services, if we can use our capacity as land managers to highlight the use of cool burning, then that, I think, will be particularly helpful. It was a really interesting discussion with lots of knowledge shared in it, particularly, and something that I think we probably need to explore further down the track is the use of some of these sites as demonstration sites for additional community understanding of this method of land management, but also the idea that burning isn't necessarily the best method of managing some spaces and our need to identify land that isn't suitable to be burnt, that in fact becomes more fire prone with repeated burnings, and that that's particularly the wetter areas that grow different vegetation types like melaleucas.

So useful, I think, as a long term. Some really nice examples of some nice ideas about how council can better manage the litter problem in the LGA, and a couple of things that have been kicked around for quite a while that now seem to be getting off the ground, including signage around our drains identifying that that goes to the river,

And some additional activity on Clean Up Australia Day. And I think it came out that Clean Up Australia Day, because we had a flood for Clean Up Australia Day, we're pushing that back to another date. So hopefully we can all get on board and support that with our gloves and garbage bags. One of the things that really needs to be better attended to is Council's use of single-use items, both for promotion and for activities. COVID made this much worse. We need to really redouble our efforts at cutting down on that. And I was really pleased to see some advancement on the tree canopy proposal that is now long overdue. And I think we've seen in the last couple of weeks some loss of tree canopy and key koala habitat with the use of the rural boundary clearing code.

It's become apparent that we don't have mapping in order to protect and improve our tree canopy and those habitats, and that's something that we really need to get on with. It's not good enough that we just leave it as a free-for-all, which is effectively where we are.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Question, Mr Mayor. In relation to the cool burning, what's the criteria for the information that's provided by the Land Council? And I ask that on the basis that cool burning hasn't been done in this area in the last hundred years, and that the indifference that there might be between some of our Rural Fire Service expertise in that similar cool burning. So the question is to Councillor Wheeler, you at the meeting, what's the criteria for someone who is offering that information?

Through you, Mr Mayor. So currently there is cool burning done in the LGA. I've witnessed it. I've witnessed it in the Black Summer bushfires, the use of cool burning. It's incredibly effective and fascinating to watch. It's done at, that was at Upround St Albans, but it's done regularly at Yellow Mundy. It's the management technique used at Yellow Mundy, where it's managed by an Aboriginal group. The management has been handed back to them, and they've had real success, both using it for fire mitigation and for weed management, where it's particularly effective. So , but Local Land Services certainly has expertise, and Durrig expertise with cool burning, and in doing training with and in close contact with the Firesticks Alliance, which is probably the main, the key Indigenous body that handles cool burning across the country. Thanks . Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just had a question, not around that, I'm happy to support that. It was around the committees and the segment matters to be referred to committees. Is that only something that comes the following week, or is it up for open every meeting, once a month rather, not every week, once a month?

The reason I ask, and I wanted some clarity around this, was that I can't attend at four o'clock the meetings on Tuesday, and yet that is part of the constitution for the committees to meet at four o'clock. Although subsequent to that, there was another motion, I think Councillor Calvert included it in a motion about meeting on the Tuesdays where we no longer have meetings. So we now have spare Tuesdays, which were going to be for workshops. We've now got workshops on Thursdays, some on Thursdays, some meetings on other times. But we have had some free Tuesday nights, which has been really hard to decide what to do when one has a free Tuesday night. So I'm just wondering, I'm trying to find a way because I couldn't get to the meeting, to introduce the decision I would imagine would be for that specific committee to decide on a time, but I wasn't at the meeting.

But— I'm confused about how I introduce this.

So is the entire question, just can the committee meet at a different time?

Yes.

Yeah, I think it can. Yeah. Can

I—

I don't think we need a resolution of anyone to do that. But there

Is, there's a

Constitution

Or something that

Says— Yeah, I don't— but I don't think that's binding on anyone. I think if the chair wants to call the meeting at a different time, that's fine. So I think we just call the meeting at a different time now we know that.

Okay, so I just ask, can we not have it at four o'clock on a Tuesday? Can I say

I've already in discussions with Mr Kern about moving that? Sorry.

Good. Okay , so we do have spare Tuesday nights, so I think that that would be a logical time to have it It's happening.

Good. All right. We'll put the motion then. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Feigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lainsbury, Councillor Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno. Against? No one. Councillor Richards, were you in favour or against? In favour. Councillor Richards is in favour. Declare it carried.

So next now we—

Move to response to councillors' questions on notice.

Any questions on questions? Councillor Lainsbury

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you for the answers to the question. I'm glad the liquor accord is going again. The second question, which now it's a bit late and I've forgotten what it is. I just had a follow-up.

Timeframe for North Richmond Community Centre.

Oh yeah, the timeframe, yes. With regard to the staging of these works, I'm just mindful that there's been a number of other applications for funding around that which may succeed, as well as promises of funds that are afoot. So are the design and scheduled stages of that compatible with additional works occurring, so without having to go back and undo some work if it's done? Is everything organised so that if we get more money it just adds on?

Mr Bissed. Thanks, Mr Mayor. Yes, so these works are staged and they will continue based on that timeframe. The other grants that have been applied for that are in addition to these works, so if they are successful then they would be added on to that.

Thank you.

Thanks. All right. Someone move we go into confidential. Moved Councillor Wheeler, seconded Councillor Reardon. Discussion? All those in favour? Carried. We'll move into confidential.

Okay, I just pass the General Manager to advise what happened in closed session.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. In regards to item 98 regarding community representation on the Hawkesbury Heritage Committee, whilst in closed session, the Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Reardon, seconded Councillor Lyons-Buckett, that Council: one, appoint the following community representatives for community members of the Heritage Committee until September 2024: Markel Edwards, Graham Edds, Jan Barkley-Jack, Cheryl Ballantine, Gay Wilson, Deborah Hallam, Michelle Nichols, John Moxon and Erin Wilkins. Two, advise all applicants of Council's determination and thank them for their interest in this matter. The four the motion were Councillors Conolly, Calvert, Djuric, Dogramaci, Kotlash, Lyons-Buckett, Veigel, Reardon, Richards, Sheather, Wheeler and Zamprogno.

In respect of item 99 regarding the assignment of a lease from Britannia Catering to Windalore Pty Ltd at the Derubbin Centre Cafe, 300 George Street, Windsor, whilst in closed session, the Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Wheeler, seconded Councillor Lyons-Buckett, that

One, Council agree to the assignment of the lease for the property known as the Derubbin Centre Cafe, 300 George Street, Windsor from Britannia Catering to Windalore Pty Ltd as outlined in this report. Two, authority be given for the assignment of the lease and any other relevant documentation in association with this matter to be executed under the seal of Council. Three , details of Council's resolution be conveyed. To the proposed signor and the proposed signee, together with the advice that Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of its resolution until such time as appropriate legal documentation to put such a resolution into effect has been agreed to and executed by all parties.

For the motion were Councillors Conolly, Calvert, Djuric, Dogramaci, Kotlash, Lyons-Buckett, Veigel, Reardon, Richards, Sheather, Wheeler and Zamprogno. There was no councillors against the motion. In respect of item 100 regarding Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee,

Whilst in closed session, the Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Sheather, seconded by Councillor Veigel: one , appoint an independent chair and two independent members of Council's Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee until the end of the current Council term in September 2024, as follows, subject to satisfactory reference checks: independent chair Michael Quirk, independent members Rhonda Wheatley and Rachel Harris. Point two, delegate to the General Manager the authority to appoint the next highest ranked candidate for the position of independent chair and independent member if any of the appointed members do not accept their appointment or their reference checks are not satisfactory.

Point three, Councillor Lyons-Buckett was appointed as a non-voting councillor of Council's Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee until the end of the current Council term in September 2024. For the motion were Councillors Conolly, Calvert, Djuric, Dogramaci, Kotlash, Lyons-Buckett, Veigel, Reardon, Richards, Sheather, Wheeler and Zamprogno, and there were no councillors against the motion.

Thank you. So we'll declare the meeting closed at 11:26 p.m. and thank everybody for your attendance.