9 May 2023 - Ordinary

Okay, good evening. I'm Sarah McMahon, Mayor of the Hawkesbury, and welcome to Hawkesbury City Council's meeting for the 9th of May 2023. Hawkesbury City Council acknowledges the Darug and Darkinjung people as the traditional custodians of the land of the Hawkesbury. We pay respect to all Elders past, present and emerging, and acknowledge all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of the country. I'll now hand over to the General Manager.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Members

Of the public attending

The meeting are advised that in the event of an emergency, you'll be asked to proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exit following the guidance of our warden. I 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 may involve the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting of Council meetings. The provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary. If any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting.

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

Thank you.

Thank you, General Manager. I take it there are no apologies tonight, as we have all Councillors present in the room, which is fantastic. Are there any declarations of interest?

I'll just make one of my own. That is item 4.4.1, a less than significant non-pecuniary interest. Could I have someone confirm the minutes of the last meeting, please? Councillor Conolly, seconded Councillor Reardon. All in favour? Declare that carried.

Okay, the

First items tonight

Will be those subject to public address. Madam Mayor. Oh, sorry, yes, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Sorry, you do have

A procedural motion.

Is that correct?

I do, and I have something else as well. I also have an urgency motion, but I'm happy to have it directed to you after the public speakers. I'm just alerting you to it.

Oh, okay.

Once we've heard all

Items subject to public

Address. Yes, and then I'll also move the procedural item.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor.

Okay, fantastic. Therefore, the first item tonight that has a registered public speaker is item 4.2.1, draft customer feedback policy, customer service experience policy and customer service experience charter. Our registered speaker against the motion is Stephanie Calaborns.

Hi, thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. Firstly, I'd like to question what the numbers 79351, 159586, 95496 and 96333 mean. I'm quite concerned about the ongoing concerns with Council about the use of abbreviations, use of numbers and so forth, which means that people in the community can't completely give feedback to Council on issues. It's also, according to the Local Government Act, if Council does not provide information to people in the community that is, you know... That is complete and clear and precise. How can we adequately give feedback into this? I'll continue nevertheless. Firstly, why is there an internal audit? Why not call in, for example, the Office of Local Government, the Shadow Minister of Local Government, or the New South Wales Ombudsman to completely do an audit that is responsive to what the community needs?

Also, the lack of using and engaging the community to develop policy. For example, in the Certificate IV of Community Services, one thing I learnt is a SWOT analysis. For example, if you are not engaging the community first and foremost before making , you know, trying to do a policy or trying to form a policy, you are far removed from what the community needs. There are massive weaknesses and massive threats in not engaging community first and foremost. How customers can provide feedback. Firstly, I don't actually like the word customer. Customer means that there's an exchange of something, an exchange of funds, an exchange of labour or so forth. Council need to provide services for this community.

That doesn't mean that there's an engagement of services, an engagement of funds, or an exchange of labour, so as to say. For example, you're saying that you're adding the word experience. To me, trying to change things, for example, page nine says the customer contact and service standards. You want to change it to customer service experience charter. Anything that council changes, to me, is a failure of accountability to this community. If council is already, and I am not saying this— For no other reason than how it is, I have witnessed over time council not being accountable to the community. So anything that you do to actually lower the standards is not working towards accountability. You're looking at, you're looking at a complaint, trying to want to change a complaint policy.

If people have a complaint, they have a complaint. And you want to change it to customer feedback. Then you want to change a complaint handling guide to a customer feedback as well. Then you say you consider that the community is of equal importance to other stakeholders. If the community was of equal importance, you would have come to the community first.

Then I'm looking at, for example, one thing that really concerns me is that the mayor and councillors play a role in referring requests for service,

Meeting requests for services handling, and escalated complaints to council for action. And you say that you need to be consistent, you need to be accurate, you need to be efficient, you need to be effective, you need to be solutions focused, you need to be responsive, you need to be professional, respectful, and uphold the rights of all customers. This is something that is really, really concerning for me because I have not seen this occur . Page 11. You have the six drivers under customer commitments. I do not see how currently Council is meeting any of these drivers. Then you say, despite complaints to staff and councillors, and councillor complaints, issues are still occurring. So you can say what you want to do, but when issues are still occurring now, it's quite concerning.

I have a concern, and I have a concern in my heart where I believe that people who are coming to Council for employment are not adequately—

Point of order, Madam Mayor.

Thank you

Thank you, I was allowing— thank you, Councillor Conolly, for pointing that out. I was allowing Ms. Calabornes to finish her sentence. Your time has expired. I will ask any councillors if they have any questions for you.

Yes, Madam Mayor.

Thank you, Councillor Sheather. Yeah

Stephanie, with the public consultation you spoke of, we've discussed it at length around here. Without adequate newspapers and stuff that we have, or very limited, what's ways that you would suggest that we might be able to involve the community in that sort of stuff?

Well,

I found in the past, Councillor—

I found in the past, Councillor Sheather, where consultation has apparently occurred from Council, but it's occurred in one area. Now, Hawkesbury has, I admit, and I have heard from a member of staff previously, that Hawkesbury is a big area. All councillors and all staff that are working in this area, whether, you know, as governance councillors or member of Hawkesbury Council, have a role to ensure that consultation occurs in all of Hawkesbury, not just in one pocket area. Because the way that people live in one area isn't the way that people live in another area. For example, as you would understand, Councillor, that shops, supermarkets, facilities like vets, sporting facilities differ. So the feedback from people in one area is not the same as another area. And that's why, you know, I believe at this stage that this shouldn't go ahead until that consultation has occurred.

Any further questions, councillors? No. Thank you, Ms. Calaborns.

There are no further registered speakers. Do I have any councillors wishing to move something? Councillor Conolly.

Just to move the recommendation.

Do I have a seconder? Councillor Veigel. Councillor Conolly.

Thank you. I'm very pleased to see this come to Council. It was one of the earliest priorities identified when we had a new general manager and some new people on the executive as something that needed to be changed. This is not, I think it's just worth pointing out, consultation is very important. That's why we're putting on exhibition, but we're not doing anything revolutionary here. We're just putting in some customer service standards that any organisation of our size and type would have. Having these service standards in place means that we as councillors, whose job it is to hold the staff accountable, actually have a document that sets out our expectations of how the organisation will respond to the community and how our community will be treated, and gives our staff clear guidelines on what we expect so that when a dispute arises as to whether something has been handled correctly, we have clear guidelines.

And also it's giving that direction in the first place to avoid those disputes. It also gives the community a clear set of expectations about what's going to happen when they contact us, and there's not that question there. So I think it's fairly straightforward, but I think it's something we absolutely need. Very interested in the community's feedback. There's certainly, if you're talking about service standards, there's certainly things you could tweak a day or a week here or there, but I think the key concept is very important.

Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak? Councillor Wheeler. Thanks

Madam Mayor. As I raised in the briefing last week, I have ongoing concerns with the use of the term customer in this context, largely because it reduces Council's relationship to the people that it provides services to to a transactional arrangement. And I think that's unfortunate when we are—we're not — I understand that the focus of this document is to improve our interaction with people who contact us and to make sure that we are better at servicing our community. Unfortunately, the repeated use of the term customer leaves us in a very transactional space. A customer is someone who buys things, and so we have then statements like, the customer service experience mission, our why, our customers and working together is at the heart of everything we do.

I would think, as a Council and as a service provider , of numerous things, not all of which people pay directly for, that our community and working well together is at the heart of everything we do, not our customers. We are not a business. We are a service provider. Many of the people who come and use our services don't pay directly for them. They may pay rent as tenants, and their landlord may pay rates, but they may be young people who don't pay rent or— All rates to us. They may be from outside the LGA and still come and use some of our services, and all of those are valid. They are all valid interactions with our council, and all of those people have the same entitlement to receive a good quality of service from us.

So to reduce them purely to customer, I think frankly sells both the community that we serve and the services that we provide short. And I think that's an unfortunate space to be in. I would much prefer to see that word changed throughout these documents, and consequently the focus of how we deliver, what we concentrate on when we deliver our services altered. I agree that we've certainly got room for improvement in many of the things that we do. I take on board Ms Cullabone's comments regarding the involvement of the community, and I think she's right in that, you know, when we go and we consult on these things at shopping centres, for example, we are looking at a segment of the community at a particular time and place, and that doesn't always give us broad engagement.

One of the things that I learnt in some of the early placemaking training that Council sent me on when I was first elected was to always ask, Who isn't here ? And I wonder if that's what we're asking when we look at these documents. Who isn't here? Who aren't we hearing from when we ask how we're doing as a service provider, and who aren't we serving that we should be? And so I think we— The Councillor Sheather is correct when he highlights that the way we interact with the community has substantially changed. And increasingly, I think we are interacting—social media has meant that we are interacting with a different segment of the community, but perhaps a smaller and smaller segment of the community, those who are actively engaged on social media.

And going out and finding people who don't participate, who don't look at these things because it doesn't pop up into their Facebook feed, I think is becoming increasingly difficult. I think there is a place for us to move into spaces like community centres, say the morning tea that's held regularly at North Richmond Community Centre, some of the senior citizens organisations, the retirement villages in Richmond. That's a different segment of the community that we are currently not engaging with, and I think we are probably missing out when we don't do that. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think—and thank you, Ms Calaborns, for raising those points. I'm pleased to know we'll have a revised version being looked at, just to go on public exhibition. But I had a question first, and that would be around what will be our online manifestation of this policy? Will we have an accompanying something on the website? I looked at other councils, and they all seem to have an upfront thing where you can put feedback, whether it's a compliment, a complaint, or whatever. Is that intended to form part of this?

Thank you, Councillor. I'll just hand over to the Business Transformation and Customer Experience Manager.

Through Madam Mayor. One of the— sorry. Sorry. One of the next steps that we're looking at doing is introducing online forms where people can put a complaint, put in feedback, put in a compliment. But also we're not excluding those that decide to call us or provide the feedback via email. It will still be part of the process. So that's one of the next steps that we're looking at, as well as updating the policies and charter on the website as well, because they are on the website at the moment. Okay,

Thank you. Yes, I understood that. I just think it's a good landing spot probably on the website for something like that. The other question I had was around the frequency of reviewing and measuring how we're travelling on this. What will be the framework around that?

I'll hand that one to the general manager. Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor, that's a great question, Councillor, and part of the substantial work that has been going on in the back of our systems for a little while now has been around being able to capture that data. And at the moment, our ability to capture data on key performance metrics as it relates to our customer service interactions is great in some areas and very, very limited in others. So we've really got to, as part of this, the action plan is actually uplift our customer request management system to enable, ultimately, you know, my vision and hope is that we've got, you know, at one point, real-time live tracking around our performance on this stuff. That's the sort of the end goal on that.

Thank you. So that's a work in progress. That's good to see . I'm happy to see this coming forward. I do think it's a crucial part of the organisational approach to how we engage with the public, who I share the concerns around using the word customer, but I accept that that is the terminology used in this day and age. However, I do think that the definition should, in some respect, include something that references that the customers are ratepayers or residents generally. I mean, they can be other people, but the fact that people are paying rates brings with it a certain expectation that certain things will be provided. So putting it into what sounds more like a commercial sense of a customer business relationship detracts from the fact that people pay their rates each year and in return for that, they expect a certain level of services and facilities to be provided for them.

And that's not an unrealistic expectation. That is something that people are quite within their rights to expect to have given to them. So I think the definition could perhaps, and maybe when we get the public feedback, people may have some thoughts from their perspective of being a ratepayer and how they feel they would like to be perceived in this interaction that's going on. I think it's great. I hope that, as with many policies, I hope it doesn't just become words that exist. I hope that it is implemented with a consistency because I think consistency when we're engaging with our residents and ratepayers is really important. We want people to be getting the same message, regardless of which avenue they're going through, and I am really looking forward to seeing something in place which can give us the actual measures of these things.

It's one thing to have a policy, but without having the accompanying measurements to be able to ascertain how well that— Well, that policy is being implemented. I think that that's the crucial part of it. So I'm looking forward to hearing what the feedback that comes in around this is, and to seeing what comes next and to seeing the next steps. Thank you. Thank you,

Councillor.

Councillor Sheather. Thanks, Madam Mayor. I won't go on about community. I think all the councillors have heard my view. Some time ago, I don't know when it was dropped, but where we've got Hawkesbury City Council logo up there, it used to have underneath it, Where people make the difference. That was— and because we can have whatever plans we want, it's the interaction between the staff who deal with a person that approaches us, whether it's applications or advice or the like, and how that interaction takes place. Because if it's a good experience, we're doing our job well. I'm not getting a lot of phone calls saying that's happening. And I don't know what the frustration is. In relation to these documents that are going on public exhibition now, and following on from Councillor Lyons-Buckett, can we have a graph indicating whether it's personal approach, whether it's email or whatever it is?

It'll only be ten lines or something, just how people interact with a view on these policies and where they come from, how they come to us, because that might offer some advice on the sort of things that Councillor Wheeler spoke of, the people that are left out. Not the ones that are in. The ones that are in, they might have a view, good or bad. The ones that are left out, I can tell you it won't be good. So, and I don't know, you know, I know that I know a lot of the staff here. I know how hard they work to achieve a good outcome. But there's still frustration there, and there's room for us to do a better job. And, you know, hopefully with policies that the people that read these, both staff and the community, look that there's two sides to a fence, and it depends what side you're on.

So, Madam Mayor, I'm going to endorse the recommendation, but I'd be interested to see what results come back and who sends them back.

Thank you, Councillor. I did just glance at the General Manager as you were asking that question, and she has confirmed that that's possible when that comes back. So thank you. Any other councillors wishing to speak? Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I was recalling when I worked as a public servant many years ago, we were all sent out on courses to learn about customer service, and there was a bit of resistance from public servants saying, Well, these people aren't our customers. You know, we deal with people all over. And it was told to us that that is a generic term, and it refers to the people that you relate to in your job, whether you actually sell them something or not is not the point. What the point is, it's supposed to be saying that we work for the people, we serve the people. And that makes them our customers, and we don't actually have to sell them something or provide a service for them to be a customer.

So I have no qualms with that word anymore. I did 15 years ago, but now it's generally accepted that that's what customer service is all about. Also, in terms of community consultation, at best, community consultation can only be a sampling process, unless, of course, you want to hold a plebiscite or a referendum . Otherwise, you're going to end up with a sample, and what it's all about is how good is that sample? Is it a quality sample, and what breadth does it go into in the community? And I think this document addresses that. It tells us to make sure that we don't just take a small sample, but we take a realistic sample. So I'm quite happy with what we've got here about consultation. But I know that consultation has always been a problem in all my years on council, because you can't reach everyone.

But you've got to find a way of reaching as many people as you can, and not people that are concentrated in one area or one kind of particular career or whatever. A sample right across the community. And we've tried to do that. Councils try to do that, and I think council still tries to do that. And if people have a suggestion on how that can be improved, I'd love to hear it. And as Councillor Sheather asked, how do you improve it? And if we had answers, if people could give us these answers, well, I'm sure we'd run with them, because we want to hear what the people are telling us. We don't want to ignore what the community says. We want to hear it. And if the process is not working too well, then please let us know how we can fix it.

Not just tell us that we don't want to hear people, because we do want to hear people. So look, and the other thing is with customer service, a number of people have been criticising that term, but I have yet to hear an alternative being offered. Until it is, I think this one will have to do. Thank you.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Anyone else wishing to speak? Right of reply, Councillor Conolly, not necessary. I'll ask those in favour to raise your hand in favour of the motion. In favour are Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno, and Councillor McMahon. I declare the item carried.

The next item subject to public address is item 4.3.1, public exhibition report of draft place plans. We have three registered speakers. The first speaker for the item is Mr Lionel Bucket.

Sorry, I might mark that up. I'm sort of like, I'm for it getting there in the end, but in its current state it's not great.

I'm the chairman of the Carriageong Heights Bowling Club, and the club is disappointed that Carriageong Heights isn't considered a place. It thinks that, you know, it should be in the placees plan. The big concern with it is the quality of it. For Bilpin, there's about 40 kilometres of bike tracks, which would be worth a fortune, from Botanical Gardens to Bilpin to Carriageong Heights to Mount Lagoon. They'd be excellent for tourism. But the Bilpin one's got a lot of defects in it. It's got public toilets in the front door of Grumpy Baker's. It's got a town square where the old heritage post office is. So there's no actual room in Bilpin for a public square. And the cafes have got a mobile cafe marked in front of them.

So a lot of it looks like the writer probably didn't ever go to Bilpin and that. How it's laid out, you'd kind of think somebody at a desk in the city with a consultancy has written it from there without even going and having a look. So I'd like to ask that the councillors will defer it and make it better. But failing that, extend the public exhibition to like three months instead of 28 days, because a lot of people won't know about it, and 28 days is a short period of time. Communications aren't that good in the Hawkesbury anymore. People rely on Facebook, and then the older people that don't use Facebook don't really find out what's going on. So it should be like in the post office, in the hall, and the council should try to engage people in it rather than have them all go, Well, how did that happen without us knowing about it?

But yeah , it's got things in it that really belong in a city. It's got a viewing platform near the DMR dam, and Bilpin's got some beautiful places where it could have viewing platforms. And what it could have with the push bikes is Bilpin has Bowen's Creek Road where the bushfire brigade got held up because the road's depreciated because the council years ago decided they wouldn't fund the maintenance on the road. So the pushbike tracks could be extended down that road so we had tourism, and it would give access for firefighting during fires. But really, I don't think it's had decent consultation with the public.

That's my thoughts on it.

Thank you, Mr. Bucket. Is there anyone wishing to ask questions? No? Oh, to Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam. Mr. Bucket, would it work if we put the plans are as they are on exhibition for, say, 28 days as a first phase and collected some data from that, and then did a second phase where we did more targeted engagement in specific towns where people know their space best? So, you know, maybe a table at the markets at Bilpin, for example, and something up in the post office. Would a two-phase approach work?

Yeah, that would work if that engaged more people. The other thing that it could do is the Bells Line of Road Business Council is getting quite huge. There's probably 50, 60 people in it now. So it's really important that they be involved. And we have BRAG, which is an action group. That's probably only got about 50 people in it. We've got the Garden Club, which is huge, probably over 100 members. So there's a lot of ways of communicating with the community. Garden Club, great for the older people that aren't using Facebook. And there's quite a few garden clubs. There's big garden clubs at Kurrajong, Kurrajong Heights. So that understanding what groups are in a community and approaching them directly so that they're engaged would give a better outcome for this kind of a plan.

Thank you.

No further questions. Thank you, Mr. Bucket. Appreciate that. The next registered speaker against is Stephanie Calleborns.

Thank you for allowing me to speak on this item. Again, I've got some concerns about the use of numbers without any explanation as to what these numbers are. Again, I will say that the use of numbers and the use of abbreviations and so forth disenfranchises the community from having a complete say into motions and items before Council. Anyway, I will say that the City Design and Development Team vision document, I'm concerned again about the use of Council staff to actually formulate policies without empowering the community to have a say. Again, I will say that it is a weakness and it poses a threat and it disenfranchises the Council from having policies in place that represent the community first and foremost, and it can actually lead to challenges down the track.

The community engagement policy that's mentioned dates back to 2007. There is no current community engagement policy from 2007. The pop-up engagement that is discussed in this document, a number of times I was at the recovery centre because my place in Grose Vale got flooded by torrential rain a number of times, so I actually attended the recovery centre. At the recovery centre, the Council staff that were at the recovery centre, in fact one day I drew a mud map for them on how to better engage the community next time there is a disaster, which they accepted and said thank you. At no stage did they actually ask me anything apart from the floods and the damage to my property. There was nothing else that would actually warrant what is actually stated here with regard to the draft place plans.

It was, how is your place damaged? Are you safe? Do you have anywhere to go? How can we help you? That was it. Where it actually states bushfire and recovery efforts and place plan information. Again, as I stated, when I was at the recovery centre, I was asked some very basic questions. I wasn't asked anything about the community I live in. I wasn't asked anything about, you know, outlying areas or anything like that in Grose Vale or Grose Wold. So again, I am actually stating that there are serious threats, serious challenges to going ahead without first and foremost engaging the community. I would argue that the data that Council has actually looked at is not adequate to actually warrant current place plans, and I would argue that this actually be prevented from going to exhibition until people are given the opportunity to have input that is substantial input.

I'm also arguing that

The amount of times that I've seen Council being pulled up because the data that they are currently using is not up to date, and I would request that Council first and foremost bring their policies up to date before pushing ahead, because every time that you push ahead, you get pulled back, and there is a cost to the community for that. There is a cost to your image for that. There is a cost to everybody in the Hawkesbury for that. Do your homework first. Do what's needed first. Bring your information up to date. Stop putting stuff on public exhibition until you are— until you can walk, basically. Let's be frank, until you can walk. So thank you for allowing me to speak.

Thank you. Are there any questions for Ms. Calaborns? No. Thank you very much. The next registered speaker is Fiona Germain.

Good evening, and thank you for the opportunity to speak. I stand here for the Places plan, in a capacity from the Bells Line of Road Business Council as a committee member, and I vote to withhold, again echoing what the BOLO has iterated in that, not necessarily for or against, but would like a revision and an improvement on what appears to be a poor quality execution of the plan. From a business council perspective, I would also like to just re-specify that Mr. Buckett did say 50 to 60 people. Our business council is 50 to 60 businesses; that is what we represent, so that’s quite significant. And from, you know, the Bilpin perspective, we’d like to see revisions on this because Bilpin is a visitor economy, and the tourism aspect to this and how that melds with the local community seems quite poor.

Echoing again the same issues, we’ve noticed amenities on private businesses at the Grumpy Baker, the Bilpin Hall earmarked for events, yet there’s no car park or traffic management. And we do know the Garden Club has had issues with this in putting on their flower show each year, which is set to be in its 80th year this year, and there’s always an issue putting that on. So again, the amenities for Bilpin Hall, which I know will come up later. Again, echoing that it misses an entire township of Kurrajong Heights. Kurrajong Heights is really significant as a thoroughfare on Bells Line of Road with the IGA where it is. It is a real stop point. It has a large permanent residential population for that Bells Line of Road area, along with, you know, visitors as well.

So, and to echo that, to have investment in amenities such as a lookout over a dam when we're sandwiched between the Devil's Wilderness and the Wollemi Park, I don't think tourists are putting that on their itinerary when they come up here. So we would like to see an improvement on that. And I appreciate, I think Councillor Wheeler's idea and proposal in a two-phase approach to this, and further integration with our stakeholder groups. That's Bragg, Bells Line of Road Business Council, and the Kurrajong Heights Bolo is something that I would like to see the councillors here tonight consider in going forward with this. And that's it. Lovely.

Thank you very much. Any questions, please, councillors? No. Thank you very much for your time. Do I have any councillors wishing to move the recommendation? Councillor Wheeler.

I'll move the recommendation, Madam Mayor, and I haven't got words ready, I'm sorry, but, so

Point one stayed as it is, which is the public exhibition for a period of 28 days. After days, a comma, as phase one of the consultation process.

Two,

Councillors be provided with plans for a second phase consultation with relevant groups in the towns named in the place plans, and then two becomes three.

And I'm happy to hear improvements on that.

Thank you, Councillor. Is anyone else wishing to second that? Councillor

Lyons-Buckett. Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. So, look, I'm doing this a bit on the fly, but I take on board the speaker's comments that what we have here is, I don't think it's entirely a desktop analysis, but I think it is written by people who don't know these communities as well as the people who live in them. And I think we all raised that when we were briefed on this item. Each of us lives in a particular town, and the nature of the Hawkesbury being what it is, those towns are different. They all have different personalities and different strengths and weaknesses, and those of us who live in them know them best. So I can, for example, look at the Wilberforce plans and say, well, look, probably not where I'd put a park, given that, you know, it spends some of its time underwater and the rest of its time far too close to, and all of its time far too close to the main road.

You know, better linkage with the Australiana Pioneer Village would be helpful in Wilberforce. You know, the park up on Copeland Road could perhaps be better utilised. We could do with some toilets somewhere, anywhere that people could use. You know, so I know that about my town. And I think, yeah, we've heard from people from Bilpin who know that town well. And I think it may be we need to do this 28-day exhibition period, and that I think is a useful first pass. But I think we can then do more direct consultation with the people who will spend the most time in these towns and who know how they need to function best. What we've seen from the experience, particularly in Windsor, is that when people don't feel that they've been engaged with, we have an ongoing issue with the plans that we make for those places.

And that causes a lot of backtracking, a lot of unpicking, and a lot of work for our staff and the potential for lots of lost money. And that's where we are in Windsor. It also sets up a round of animosity and Chinese whispers and misinformation that is extraordinarily difficult to deal with, but also very divisive. And I think we should try to avoid that where possible. The purpose of these plans is so that we can improve the towns and the experience of the people who live and use them, so that we have projects ready to go when funding becomes available, so that we're not making ad hoc decisions about what we put in these places as we move forward as a community. And I think we've seen with West Invest, for example, this huge drop of money that we were probably ill-prepared to make decisions about in such a short turnaround time.

The use of place plans should make us Much better prepared for changes like that in the future or for opportunities like that in the future. But we have to get them right because otherwise we end up making decisions that people aren't happy with, and we come up with ideas that don't work long term, and we make mistakes, and that's really problematic. And I go back again to that point of who isn't here when we make these decisions, who isn't having a say in the plans that we put forward for our communities for the next 20 to 30 years. And that's—they're really important questions that we should be asking. So I think if we use this as an initial phase of consultation, then I think it behoves us to run a far more targeted second phase of consultation with relevant groups and to look at the information that we've got back and who gave us that information and say, who isn't here?

Is it older people? Is it people with disabilities? Is it the homeless? Is it people who don't have much money? Who are we not serving when we put these plans in place? Because as we move forward, particularly in constrained financial circumstances, we are going to have to cater for all those people, and that's our job to do that well. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor

Kotlash. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I don't think that we need to do this in two phases, I'm a bit— I understand what Council Wheeler was saying about the need to get to different sectors of the community, but I'm not sure that having it in two phases is necessarily a sensible way to go. It seems to me that we're saying, well, phase one will just be, you know, what we do already, but all of the actual good consultation is going to happen in the second phase somehow. I

Hearing all the speakers talk about, you know, what they want and what's missing in this plan, it seems to me that we have already had some consultation. We have ten points that the community has told us that they need, and I am actually reading from the billpin part. And whilst that might not be an exhaustive list, it does give us some information about the types of things that those people that were interested enough to respond to a survey or talk to people at a pop-up or however this was collected. So , and the types of things that were mentioned have actually been addressed in those plans. And I appreciate that these plans are fairly high level, and the types of things that people have said, maintenance of public spaces and street furniture, things to do in the evening, well that's a commercial thing, that's, you know, that's probably from the sector that we've heard from tonight.

Cleanliness of public spaces, elements of the natural environment, and we've had a comment about the viewing platforms. I think it's all there. I'd like to see us have this first 28 days of public exhibition and maybe ramp up what we would normally do . Let's try and get a cross section of the community and target some more specific consultation. Maybe that's the answer. I can't, I just don't think that adding a phase two. That is predicated on the information we get for phase one is going to really bring us any closer to where we want to get.

I'm happy for the extension of maybe an extension of the exhibition period. I think that's possibly okay, but we have to— let's hit the ground running and not waste time. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Conolly

Thank you . When I first heard Councillor Wheeler make that suggestion, I thought it made sense, but what's on the board ended up being slightly different to what I'd expected. If the intention was that stage one would be a consultation, and then from that we would find out which particular towns required further consultation, and that would happen before we adopted it, that I would find quite sensible, and I think answers Councillor Kotlash's question, that from the feedback from stage one we might find that, you know what, nothing's going to change in Bligh Park because nobody made a single comment, but we got 15 responses about Bilpin and there's more work on Bilpin. That might make sense.

We then come back and get a report on, here's where you got the feedback, here's where you should go and spend your time and money doing further consultation. I don't know if that was Councillor Wheeler's intention. What's on the board sort of suggests we're going to just do another round for everything, in which case I can see what Councillor Kotlash is saying, that we might as well just do it properly the first time. But if the intention was to target the second round based on the feedback from the first round, I can get on board with that.

Thank you, Councillor Conolly. I will ask Councillor Wheeler just for the purpose of getting it right if there was any intention to take on board those comments.

I don't really care either way, frankly. I think the two options are that we do a longer, more targeted consultation so it's open to the public and you go and see those groups. I think there are advantages in doing it separately. There are advantages in doing it together. The concern that I have with only contacting towns or groups within towns after you've done the 28 days consultation is that if you, the ones that don't feedback may only feedback because you haven't asked them, because they didn't know what was happening. Yeah. And I know that we rely on the community to be engaged and to be active, but that's not the same as—and again, it doesn't answer that question of who isn't there and where is their input.

You know, these are a big deal, these plans. We need to get them right. For the sake of spending a bit more time consulting, I think we could knock ourselves out in this instance.

Thanks, Councillor. So you wish to keep it as is?

I think there's two—there's, I don't think that item 2 is so specific that it precludes what Councillor Connelly would like, which is why I've asked for us to be provided with plans. It's not saying how we will do that consultation. It's asking for plans to come back as to how we do that consultation. You can decide then.

Can I ask a question? Yes A really simple way to make that clearer would be to swap around point 3 and point 2, and then I'd vote for it.

So if point 3 became point 2 and instead

Read

Further report be submitted to Council including plans for additional consultation arising.’ Does that work?

I'll just check with the General Manager, if you don't mind, just for clarification if staff know what is intended by the proposed resolution.

I'm becoming clearer. I had sort of envisaged, as Councillor Conolly had suggested, that we would go out to exhibition for a period of 28 days, garner as much feedback as we can. Where we need to, we tailor those plans, and then we go back to those particular affected communities with the revised plan and say, have we got it? Have we not got it? How much disagreement do we have? Because, Councillors, there's unlikely to be perfect unanimity in these sorts of things. And then we bring that back to you. So what I don't want to have to do is to go and — that would be an extensive exercise for us across all 10 place plans — to have to go and sort of handhold community groups and the like through those where perhaps they're not in a position to necessarily have a problem with them. So I think I'm okay with where we're landing.

Councillor Conolly, so I know you can move an amendment if you like, but I guess we just all want to try and get this one correct. I'll refer back to Councillor Wheeler. Would you be happy to make point 3.2 an expand on point 3 about that second phase?

Yeah, I've just made a suggestion for point 3 becoming point 2,

And I've forgot those words

I think you're just adding to include,

To

Include, and then putting point 2 there. Yeah.

Yeah, but not saying phase 2, not saying second phase, just saying — Yeah .

I'll just refer to the general manager. And

If I may suggest where we've said, for a second phase of consultation where required with relevant groups. That's fine.

Are you happy with that, as a seconder? I am happy with that. Excellent. And you may speak, Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and that's a good revision, I think, of that, because what we're putting out here, and I have to say, I'm really pleased that to see, with everything that we've been through, I think it's really good to have made a start on this, and I appreciate what's been done so far on it, and I think it's encouraging to have this underway. And we're moving now to the opportunity for people to have more feedback, and this is that opportunity. But firstly, I think it's really important for people to realise that what's put before us, they're only initial concepts, which won't all be suitable, and they won't necessarily be the end results. It's just a start, and of course, we'll never get agreement by everyone, but we always have to start somewhere.

And I think in the past we've seen people cling on to these original concept plans and throw them back at us as being things that were really intended, and that's not really true. We just have to have a launch pad to get us started on something. I mean, obviously, within these documents there's some major omissions and a few little errors here and there, which of course members of the public will no doubt draw attention to. For example, at St Albans there's no mention of the common, which of course is a very fundamental part of St Albans, and there's a few mislabelled photos in there as well. But I think that it's encouraging to know that the community want to be involved in this, and of course it's in their best interest to have this done because, of course, I think we need to upgrade it because I think some of the responses gathered so far seem to have been quite reactive in the space of when there had been quite recent disasters, which is understandable because that's had a cumulative impact on people.

But when we shift that to looking forward to how we want our future in these villages and towns to be, and given that the objective around this is to enhance resilience and drive economic, you know, activity and so on, we really have to move on in positive ways where we're continually getting the feedback in from the community. And I think that where Councillor Wheeler was heading with suggesting a second phase was to get over that hurdle where we get feedback and then we generate another plan, and then that isn't—we haven't really captured the essence of what people were really trying to tell us. So I think this is a good result in terms of being able to double-check with people that what the feedback they gave us has been translated into any subsequent plans that have been done.

I think the concerns that people have raised within each of the communities are really very valid, and I think that it's beneficial for us to see those. But we know that along the way, since we've had grant funding and we've had projects, some of those have been addressed. So now there may be another set of needs. And I mean, of course, any document like this will always be evolving, so we'll always have to review and update it at points. But I think that when our objective is to strengthen our communities, we really need that to be driven by the people within those communities who want to get the cohesion to be able to become stronger and therefore to really be more resilient. And then of course we have to make sure that when we include things like placement of amenities, which has been raised, and which characteristics of our villages are really valuable to people, and things like the use of temporary cafes, we need to really make sure that we look at the impact on, so for example with something like that, that we look on the impact with existing businesses and that we really get the whole picture around it.

And we can only get that by really engaging fully with the people who are on the ground every day living and working in those communities. So I think that I'm really looking forward to people feeding back in and hoping that we do get a broad range of perspectives coming to us around all of these issues, because it's a great opportunity to be able to have such a plan in place so that, well let's hope there are no more disasters, but sadly there may be, so that when there are allocations of grant funding and so on that we have plans that can back up how we can apply for things to get more facilities and more amenities and upgrades to our existing facilities, and also to have initiatives that drive forward various aspects within the communities, whether that be tourism or agriculture or anything.

It's really important that we're backed by a framework of planning that shows that the community has been involved in formulating where they want to see their township going into the future. So I look forward to that feedback and I thank Councillor Wheeler for her revised motion.

Thank you, Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you. A couple of statements that I have are non-controversial. One. There's nothing worse than a place plans of this type that haven't adequately consulted with their communities, because the communities end up worse than angry. They end up insulted, and they say that something's been foisted upon them, and they'll kick against the goads forever and a day. I've said repeatedly over the last seven years that when we do community consultation, it's very difficult to reach all of the people that are potentially affected by a decision. That's no slur on staff. It's just very difficult to get people to switch on. But if we're hearing in a setting like this a place plan about Bilpin and the chief community groups in Bilpin are saying, I think this needs another pass, or if we look at the kind of community plan that we came up with in Pitt Town, I couldn't imagine putting together a community plan like this for Pitt Town without deeply engaging with stakeholders that I trust to represent that community fairly, like the Pitt Town Progress Association.

I don't know whether they were on board with this. It's mildly ironic to see the list of things that we want to improve about Pitt Town. It's basically a list of the things that Keith Johnson never delivered and promised to. So I'm perfectly happy to accept that another pass at this would be a good idea. But I'll close with this. The places that we've chosen, I think this forms a wonderful template to kind of expand this list, because there are certainly some areas that are facing properly existential questions about what their future looks like, like Oakville, and I go on about Oakville because the family's there, where this kind of consultation and planning, I think, could guide this chamber about what the residents of Oakville want the future of that suburb to look like.

I mean, it's good to do this in places that are... Not in a state of status, but I mean, we're talking about things around the edges of these already well-established communities that aren't going to be subjected to huge pressures in relation to development, for example. No objection. But in areas where there's a real need, where there are some massive changes coming down the turnpike at us, I think this process, if this goes well, is something that we could emulate in other areas like Oakville. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Sheather.

Yeah, a question, Madam Mayor. In relation to the policy documents, the scale-down of public exhibition, on the front page we've got draft and a date, but you turn to page two and there's nothing. Ken, is it practical to have draft on the documents, taking into account the comments that were made by Councillor Wheeler, that documents that haven't been supported by Council are draft documents, and the community needs to be aware that that hasn't been adopted. And two things I believe will do it: one's a date on when it was done, and the other one is the word draft put on the documents. Is that practical?

I refer that to the General Manager.

Through you, Madam Mayor, I think that's probably fairly simply dealt with in the footer at the bottom of the document, Councillor. I'm more than happy to make those edits before we pop it out on exhibition.

Thank you.

Councillor Colash. Can I just ask some questions to seek further clarification on the points on the board? I'm sorry to be pedantic, but I don't quite understand it yet. The first point I get: we're going to have a 28-day consultation phase. Point two says, at the expiration of the public notification exhibition process outlined in point one above, a further report be submitted to Council including plans for additional... Consultation — is that additional consultation phase two, or is— because we don't need point three if that's the case.

Oh, sorry, did you — Councillor Conolly has suggested that. It's just that additional consultation presumably means phase two, which is Council is be provided with plans for second phase of the consultation where required. So all we have to do is have point two, including plans for additional phase two consultation where required. Full stop.

We get all the plans and then we only consult where necessary.

Oh, is that what you're

Pointing to

Yeah, so it's currently in the bottom of the screen.

Oh, sorry. I'm so sorry. I don't usually read this because it's a bit small

I just typed up what Councillor Wheeler said before.

Okay. Do we have clarification there, or — I can see the point Councillor Kotlash is actually trying to make. Point two ends on additional consultation. Point three starts with a second phase of consultation, so it doubles up on itself.

Madam Mayor, there's a — we can see on our screen a second iteration of the motion.

That's not up on the board, which only

Has two points there. You can't see up on the board, and it's much clearer.

Okay, we might see if we can get the board updated. No, no, you're right to be confused, Councillor. We're just sorting that out now.

Councillor, don't worry. I wasn't looking at my screen at all. I was completely looking up on the board as well, thinking, no, that makes sense. We'll just wait to see that update. We'll let the staff work on that. In the meantime, was there anyone else wishing to speak? Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Yes, carrying on from what Councillor Sheehan said, this is a draft. And going on what some of the speakers said tonight, I don't know whether it's quite understood what a draft is, because we were told by one of the speakers that we should not proceed with this until we have community consultation. But actually, that's what we're doing here. We're putting out a draft to get more community consultation. That's the plan. And the second thing is, when this comes back under our normal 28 days process , when it comes back, we can do whatever we like with it. We could put it out again. We can send it back to staff and say, rewrite these bits, or write the whole thing, or make these changes.

That's what this exhibition is all about. It informs us what to do with this draft and whether it's any good. So in some ways, what's been put up here about a second phase is not actually necessary, because we always had the power to do that anyway. But I'll support it because that seems to be the way we're going. So look, the other thing that I wanted to put in is it was mentioned that Kurrajong Heights was left out and Oakville. There's also Agnes Banks and Freeman's Reach. There's a number of these suburbs, or villages, whatever. I agree with Councillor Zamprogno that it would be good if we extended this in the future and went to all those places so that we could talk to all those communities and come up with further drafts to go out for public consultation.

So just the other thing is that Councillor— Wheeler asked who is missing. Well, you could say that with Bilpin, the people that are missing are the tourists. Do we need to ask the tourists? Do we need to consult them? I mean, that's—I'm leaving that as an open question. But I don't think we have done that, so maybe we should consider it.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Anyone else wishing to speak? I might just add a few comments. Just to say that I thank the public speakers for their commentary tonight, and I understand the importance that you have to your communities and wanting to get this right. I thank Councillor Sheather for his input about the word draft, and that is really what we do have here tonight, is a draft, a starting point, so that we can go out to the community. And I guess there was some confusion with a particular speaker who's spoken a couple of times saying that you have to go to the community before you decide something. Well, we actually have to have a template of something to take to the community first. That's how we are able to do consultation, to say, hey, this is Council's direction, this is our idea, and this is what we want to do.

So I will emphasise the fact that these are draft plans. But what I will say in a positive way is what I'm seeing here in the Council for the first time in a very long time is Council being proactive rather than reactive. Now, a lot of the times a grant application will come out, or an opportunity for grant funding, and we're left scrambling to get our plans together because we didn't expect that grant to come out. We love the fact there's money on the table for our community, but we don't have anything to put together, so we put something together really, really fast, which in essence is what happened with West Invest. Mind you, I still think those projects are fantastic and we'll get there somehow.

But this is Council being proactive. This is Council saying— We know we need to enhance certain parts of our LGA and our towns and villages. This is our preliminary idea on how to do so. Once we've got the bones of what we want to do, we then go out to the public and community groups and say, please give us the detail. And I think that's what we're doing here today. And once we have all of that further detail and we come back again, I really feel that these place plans for these towns and villages are going to be something remarkable for our council. As soon as any grant funding opportunities occur, we can straight away go, right, this falls perfectly within this town and village and what they've said they want, we'll put in an application for that grant.

So again, I thank the staff for their time in making sure that we are prepared prior to something coming out rather than reactive. And I look forward to the public's comments and engagement throughout this process. Anyone else wishing to speak, or I'll go to right of reply. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor, and thank you to the councillors who helped get this in a slightly better state than when I blurted it out at the beginning. I understand the Deputy Mayor's comments that we can do whatever we like with this after it goes out to consultation and comes back to us. That certainly is true. But I think it's important for us to send, with a document of this importance, and it's already on the public radar because we've had three people come and speak on it, I think it's important for us to send a signal that this is the beginning of the ideas process and that we want them to contribute. What we don't want is scenes like we saw at the last meeting where people came in with concept plans that they thought were written in stone and that they were then jumping up and down about and saying, but you said you were going to do this, when we never did, and the campaign that then started around that misinformation.

So I think it's really important, and this speaks to Councillor Sheather's point about making it very clear that this is a draft. This is the beginning of the conversation about the future of these places, not the end. And I think, so I hope that this motion then sends a strong signal. Particularly to the people who've been interested enough to come along tonight, and some of them representing groups, to show that we are interested in having a conversation about the future of these places; that we aren't playing the overlord and telling you what you're going to have where you live. And look, there are things that aren't necessarily right or even clear in these documents. You know, Wilberforce, for example, the fire control centre is moving from where it is.

In three years' time it won't be in that place on the map, and we need to have a conversation about what happens at that site. I've got no idea what a gateway feature is at Kurrajong. You know, these are discussions that need to happen. I think that the conversation about what happens in other places is a really interesting one. I think this document probably represents the low-hanging fruit. These are the obvious towns and villages that we need to plan around. You know, we've done three major rejuvenation projects in Windsor, Richmond and South Windsor. Now we need to look at the next level down, size-wise, and this isn't about importance; this is about scale in lots of cases. But I think it's true that we really do need to have a conversation about what happens in some of these other towns, particularly those that are likely to see major change going into the future, so that we take the communities with us.

That question of who isn't here, I would like for us to be front of mind for us, because when we engage and when we then predicate further engagement on who engaged in the first round, we really risk missing people. I would like us to be going back to communities, to organisations like Hawkesbury Helping Hands, for example, Mountain of Joy up at Bilpin, and asking them what of the facilities that we are proposing here work for the segment of the community that you service that we aren't hearing because they don't necessarily have the capacity or the headspace to engage with us. Because they're really important conversations that we have to have, and if we don't do targeted consultation with them, we won't hear from them and we won't ever meet their needs adequately, and that will be a failing on our part.

I also want to make specific note of Ms . Calaboni's comments about asking people questions at a time of crisis. I know it's convenient when people are in front of us to ask them things. And I know that we made a genuine attempt to ask questions of people who relied on us for support during a time of crisis. But the answers that people give at a time of crisis are different from the answers that they might normally provide, and we need to bear that in mind. These documents are made with an eye to the future. They should help us, if they're done well, they should help us move forward to be both better prepared and more resilient, but also to give us a stronger future and a better future for the people who live in our towns.

We've seen that the livability process has increased business confidence in the towns that it's serviced, and we can see that from the reduction in the number of empty shops. What I hope long term for these plans is that not only do they give us a ward of shovel-ready projects to get funding for, but they also increase the confidence and the optimism of the people who live in these places, so that these do become places where people want to live but feel that they have a say in how they live. And that's really what these documents should provide us if they're done well. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor. I'll ask everyone to place their vote for the motion as it is on the board. Those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno, and Councillor McMahon. I declare the motion carried.

The next item subject to public address is item 4.4.1, March 2023 quarterly budget review. I will just quickly read out my declaration of interest, which is less than significant non-pecuniary. Turnbull Oval is mentioned within this item, and my son currently plays for Hawkesbury Hawks, but there is no pecuniary interest in that matter.

Madam Mayor. Oh yes. I was going to move a procedural motion to remove part of that, a segment of that report out. Should I do that before the speakers or after?

I’ll just refer to the general manager.

I’m not quite sure of the nature of the procedural motion as to its relevance. That’s

A good idea. We’ll just hear it and then we’ll make a decision. Okay. The council removes the discussion and decision about the Bilpin Hall car park to be heard separately from item 4.4.1, which is the balance of the budget quarterly review.

Councillor, if we’re removing it from the item, then we don’t have an item for it, if I’m understanding correctly. That is correct,

Madam Mayor

So it would be a new item?

Yes. The reason I was hoping to do that was that I can’t see how it would fit with the resolution for the quarterly budget review. However, I would also be happy to include an amendment in the budget review item and have them heard in seriatim.

I think that may be the best course of action, Councillor, if that’s okay. So therefore, we’ll proceed with the registered public speakers. The first speaker is Mr Lionel Bucket.

And also, I have a copy of the grant, but I've only got four copies.

Mr Buckett, could you just maybe put on the record what you're handing out, just so that people are aware of what councillors—

Yeah, I'm handing out a background on it. Sorry, now I've got five . I had thought each councillor could have a look at the grant details.

Mr Buckett, I'll let you pass around that. We usually don't allow this in a council meeting. It is the chair's call, but I will allow that to be passed around, but I might just get you to start speaking and what your points are would be great. Thank you.

Just on this second one, the grants for— this for Bilpin Car Park RFS staging. It's for the car park and for community use,

And a description on the grant,

Which is on the second page.

So I'd like to start by saying the grant's federal money. It's the same grant round for Kurrajong Heights Bowling Club, and there was also a grant awarded for Telstra Towers for $4.1 million in the same round for towers at Barangbing, I think McDonald, and one of the other Colo Heights. So I'm particularly concerned about the grant because it's money you don't always get, and it's really important for the community, particularly for bushfires, for staging areas. I think it's got a really high level— Legitimate bona fide community need. The car park is for RFS staging area trucks and the local community. It's for community resilience. Last two fires we've had are six years apart, so the staging areas was used for a week in both those fires, or more than a week.

On the day after the Mount Wilson backburn got away, there were 100 trucks in Bilpin, RFS trucks and fire and rescue trucks. They have five crew members on them, and they do a changeover. So Bilpin Hall had a thousand people pass through it each day that all those trucks were there. So it's a big usage for fire, and firefighters have to put up with dirt and dust and mud. So they're doing crew changeovers, they're resting. I think that we should be trying to make that a better facility so they don't have to be in the dirt, the dust and the mud when they're having a rest and having something to eat. So the use is more than like once a week every 20 years, and it could become even closer together times.

It's an emergency support area west of the Hawkesbury during floods and bushfire. Fiona knows more about that than me. Now, the place plan has Bilpin Hall marked as an event area. It is already an event area for markets, so every Saturday attracting tourists and locals. Yesterday a local suggested getting the Blue Mountains dinosaur display into Bilpin and asked me where could it go? And I said, Well, the car park at the hall, if it was built, would be somewhere that it could go. So there are secondary uses for it, but they are also very important uses. So I've had the argument it's a costly council because it's a depreciating asset. So even though it's mainly provided by the federal government, the asset depreciates.

It needs to be depreciated over, say, 50 years. So it might be on $300,000, six grand a year on the books. Now I initially presumed that mean council puts aside $6,000 a year into a sinking fund for 50 years for replacement of that asset in 50 years' time. Or I'm not sure, I'm hoping Patrick knows this, it could be, you know, just bookwork and a figure, so we're increasing the figure of what the council's got to come up with over time. But I don't think that in any way should stop that staging area car park from going in.

So on costs, the bowling club grant was $811,000. It's got two tanks and we put in a concrete car park. Admittedly, we had a lot of community goodwill and help, so we did a car park three times bigger for $150,000. Since then the prices have risen by about 25%.

So that club now can fill up 75 trucks, refill one an hour with a bore, hold about 20 trucks and feed people and let people rest. But that's really more use to Kurrajong Heights than it is to Bilpin. It's good for Bilpin for foreign rescue going through to Bilpin, but Bilpin really should have just as good a facility as Kurrajong Bowling Club has.

So that's my submission, is that it's a really important thing and I'd like to see all the councillors work together to see that it comes about.

Thank you very much. Are there any questions for Mr Buckett? No.

Thank you very much, Mr Buckett. Our next registered public speaker is Fiona Germaine.

Okay, so again I am here representing the Bells Line of Road Business Council as a committee member, and then also I would like to introduce myself in my capacity having worked with the Mountain of Joy through these emergency crises that we've experienced up in the Hawkesbury, and it sort of talks back to what Councillor Wheeler was looking at about how can, you know, Hawkesbury Council consult better with these charities and social services that are up there. I think just jump straight into it. So we would really like to, you know, the Bells Line of Road Business Council would like to endorse that the councillors put forward a motion to convene a meeting of stakeholders from the Bilpin area with the capacity to deliver construction of the Bilpin Hall car park and report back.

To the next council meeting. It's really imperative that the councils recognise Bilpin Hall as an essential community infrastructure, and that they also recognise that this grant was due for completion in December 2023 and has been failed to be delivered. And we would like to see a motion that demonstrates some kind of tangible action for the next council meeting, given the failure to deliver this grant.

And I think it's important to note that the Kurrajong Heights Bowling and Recreation Club received funding from the same grant and completed the construction of the car park. So I would suggest that indeed they are a stakeholder group to consult with on how this car park could go ahead. And the Bells Line of Road Business Council and Mountain of Joy certainly endorses the upgrade to the car park. It's really important that we do get some actions out of this because we need to see a commitment to future delivery of these essential infrastructures to Bilpin. The benefits to the community were not valued. It wasn't valued to invest in this infrastructure because of the community benefit. And I think there has been some kind of oversight as to what the real benefit is.

I'm not sure how these benefits were established and what metrics they were given. But to speak from the Mountain of Joy and the impact that having a staging area for emergency supplies had , if you saw any of those Woolies hampers that everyone was taking photos with with the SES deployment throughout any of these flood crises, that came directly from Bilpin, and I organised all of that, so I can say that safely. That shows how Bilpin is such a strategic point. Even during floods, Bilpin is not directly flood impacted in that sense. Yes, we are cut off at times entirely, but the Bilpin Hall serves as a strategic point. We had 18 wheelers from Woolworths coming in delivering at Bilpin Hall, and in fact, that is not structurally meeting the requirements or the standards to unload.

And in the end, we had to send 18 wheelers down to the kind Methuselahs at Bilpin Blossom Farm, who put up their hand to take delivery of that. So we see community welfare, emergency community welfare supplies, and. You know, the government's really leaning on the shoulders of local businesses to ensure that the community gets what they need in that time due to a lack of infrastructure and ability to do that. And that's just one example. The RFS, it's been mentioned before. During a section 44, Bilpin Hall is declared as the evacuation point and staging area. It's the first point that's opened. So we know that during emergencies, that place is vital, absolutely vital, not just to Bilpin, not just to the few hundred residents that we are, but to the west of Hawkesbury.

And we don't have any emergency services that side of the Hawkesbury. Heather Gilliam, OAM from Red Cross, she cannot send her volunteers round the long way to the west of Hawkesbury during these crises. It's too dangerous. So it's really important that we are supported in a way, and that, you know, government agencies don't rely on businesses solely to make that happen. A few other points as to why we would like to see action for this car park is that it's not just for emergencies. Arts and culture. I've talked about the Bilpin Flower Show previously. It's an 80-year-old tradition. It brings tourism and drives economy as well. People stay for the whole weekend. Education. You've got playgroup, early childhood learning.

Community engagement. You've got elderly exercise classes. And, you know, no real safe car parks. I drop my child off on a dirt car park. He's getting the real country experience, but it could be better. We could do better. And community education and environmental education also occur at the Bilpin Hall on permaculture and seed savers, and that also brings Greater Sydney tourists and visitors to Bilpin. So the benefit to the community is far-reaching beyond Bilpin and into the future. And when I say Bilpin, it's not just Bilpin. It's Mount Tootie, Mount Lagoon, Berambing, Mount Tomah, and Kurrajong Heights. So I would really like to see a motion recognising Bilpin Hall as an essential everyday and emergency amenity with the car park.

Upgrade and essential infrastructure investment going forward.

Thank you very much. Are there any councillors also wishing to ask a question? No, thank you, Mr. Mayne. Much appreciated. Do I have any councillors wishing to move something?

Councillors? Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Councillor Conolly, you can move something, I'll add to it.

Else? Something . Yeah.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett, what would you like to move? I've got a dilemma, though. Why don't you just explain your dilemma? Okay, well, I don't want to move the recommendation in the business paper because there's part of it I don't support, and yet I'm understanding that other people will want to move it like that, and I don't want to move it direct negative, but I'm happy to add my point three about the Bilpin car park if Councillor Conolly wants to move that.

I'll move the recommendation and then I'll be open to an amendment depending on what—

Thank you. So Councillor Conolly is moving the recommendation as is. Do I have a seconder for that, please? Thank you, Councillor Reardon.

I would just say, I think it's worth noting that whilst the speakers have focused on the fact that there's a line in this quarterly budget review that says Council's made a decision, there's nothing in this resolution about making a decision about Bilpin Car Park. That's a decision that's been made and been communicated to the community. If we wanted to do something else about Bilpin Car Park, I don't know that this item is about whether we accept the budget impact of all these changes or not and adopt a new budget, effectively. I think we have to do that. If there's discussion about Bilpin Car Park or a suggestion we should do something different, I think that needs to come from somebody at some point, but no notice has really been given of that, I would suggest.

Thank you, Councillor. What I might do, and sorry to put the staff on the spot, is just ask either the General Manager or the Director of Infrastructure, based on the public speakers tonight, is there another way we can open discussion for the remaining funds in Bilpin Hall without putting it into this resolution? Or does it require a resolution? Through

You, Madam Mayor, if I understand the question correctly, the question is, can we deal with the funds through Bilpin for the Bilpin Hall car park for another means without a resolution?

Without impacting on the current resolution or the quarterly budget review statement. I guess it was a decision of staff not to proceed with this grant funding. Can that be taken on board with the feedback tonight, or you need it put into a resolution for a pathway forward?

I might actually have to refer that question perhaps to the Director of Corporate Services, as it goes to the heart of whether we can proceed on a course of action with or without a resolution.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I would think that the fact that in the quarter review it's mentioned that Council was not going to take up the grant, that if Council, I guess, if wanted to do something around Bilpin Hall, they probably would need to resolve that way.

Thank you. So it will need to be part of a resolution if there's an appetite for that tonight. Councillor Connelly, what did you wish to do?

Wait for Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett, would you like to put forward a point three, and I understand your intent or your request is to vote in seriatim?

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and I did send—I have sent it to the minute secretary, and I did send it to all councillors earlier today. The reason that I do feel it's important is that the members of the public who contacted me had been told that this item would be discussed tonight at Council, that we were to take a decision tonight at Council. Now, I'm not 100% sure who told them that, but it came from multiple sources, which was why I brought this forward, and which was why, because there is no line item for it in the budget quarterly review, was why I thought it could be dealt with as a separate thing. So I was trying to get around all of that and then, you know, my added dilemmas. What

I might do before you continue speaking is wait to see your motion on the board so that I can get a seconder. I

Don't know if that's what Councillor Connelly's reading

I think — Okay. What I might do then, I think, Councillor Connelly, if you would be happy to allow Councillor Lyons-Buckett to move her intended motion once we see it on the board, find a seconder, and open debate. Oh

Okay. Sorry, just a technical issue. The big screen's not working, so councillors will need to refer to their screens in front of them, and I'll need to read it out for anyone viewing at home. So the proposed motion that Councillor Lyons-Buckett is talking about is that Council, one, receive the information contained in this report regarding the March 2023 quarterly budget review, and that the budget adjustments as summarised in the report—I can't see the next bit because I've got an eye. Oh, there we go—detailed in Attachment 1 to the report be adopted. Point two, note the information in proposed funding arrangements regarding the Turnbull Oval upgrade project under the WestInvest Program.

Three A, defer making a decision tonight on the grant funding under the Black Summer Bushfire Recovery Grant for the Bilpin Hall car park upgrade. B, seek an extension from the funding body on the delivery of the project if needed. C, resume consultation with the relevant stakeholders with the objective of reaching a suitable outcome for the project within the scope of the grant funding. Councillor Conolly.

I'm happy to move that. I guess I wouldn't—I mean, on the one hand, we've got nothing to lose, right? We're talking about handing the money back. If the alternative is we ask for longer to make a decision and keep talking, well, we're not—other than potentially flogging a dead horse, we've got nothing to lose in that. The only comment I would make is that we, I think we should be careful not to raise community expectations through this because we have had discussions as a group as to why we thought that making that decision was a reasonable decision, not to go ahead. I think that's been communicated in writing to the people affected in Bilpin . So I don't want to—I wouldn't want to raise expectations that this is going to overturn that decision.

I'm, I guess, being faced with a decision between kill it or, you know, have another discussion. If people feel strongly we should have another discussion, I'm happy to back that. Before

You go on, I might just see, are you happy to move that so I can get a seconder? I

Did say that. Oh, sorry

And the seconder was Councillor Kotlash. Yeah. Thank you very much. Proceed, Councillor Conolly.

I think you said—okay, it's gotten confused.

Sorry, it was Councillor Reardon. That's what I'm saying. I don't see Councillor Kotlash raise her hand. It was Councillor Reardon. Okay.

I was pretty much finished speaking.

Now that we've had a free-for-all, why don't we get on with the structure of our chamber, and I'll refer to you, Councillor Conolly.

Yeah, I was done

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank you, Councillor Conolly, for taking that on. I do think it's a bit of a peculiar situation because I wasn't aware that it was going to be a decision being made tonight, but, and unusually probably as well, I was contacted by various people coming from different perspectives, from different groups, from everything from people who want nothing done to people who want other things done. And it became quite apparent that they were all under the impression that tonight there was going to be a decision being taken around this, and that came from their conversations with council staff or whoever they had been speaking to. And I don't think it came from councillors because I wasn't even aware it was in the business paper when I was first contacted about it.

I think that this is a way forward, how we can, as Mr. Main had said, you know, recognise that of course we do value the Bilpin Hall and its role it plays in the community overall as a community facility, but particularly during those times where we have some disasters. I'm wondering, and I guess the questions that are outstanding that we still need to explore are: could the scope be reworked to reach compromise if there's some issue around how it's delivered? Because essentially I think what we're being told is that, you know, there's a need for something to be done there at the car park, and because I'm not really across all the details of the grant itself, I think that we just need to defer making any sort of definite decision about it until we can look at it more closely .

We know that there can be timing adjustments around some of these projects so we can look more closely. And tonight we've been looking at the place plans, which are around community resilience and enhancement, and Bilpin's one of those villages there. And so finding a solution, I think, even ties into how we're talking about building up these community centres to make them stronger and better for when we have emergencies. We've also seen tonight Mayoral Minute coming forward about the emergency services levy, which is another imposition on this council to be giving more money. And here we are, we've got some money with an opportunity to upgrade a facility to increase its resilience. And, you know, we've just got a single sentence, I think, around not being in the long-term interests of the council.

So I think it's really important to explore that further. We did have an email about it, and I think that since then, because the community have contacted councillors around it, that I think it's become apparent that there was some issue or misunderstanding or, you know, a real willingness for some groups which don't even always work together necessarily to come together and to see what can be done to deliver a better facility at the Bilpin Hall. I think Mr. Main raised about the flower show, which is, of course, a very big thing on the Bilpin calendar, of course, and the issues about the car park when you have an overflow of people there. So I have moved this in the spirit of hoping that the council and the community can explore any other options that there are before we make that decision of whether it's viable or not, whether it's viable in the long-term interests or whether it's viable to be done within the scope that it was applied for and granted and funding was granted for.

But it definitely does not seem good decision-making to take a decision around sending that. that money back and eliminating that project before we've explored these other avenues. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else? Did I have any time left?

A minute . So, a minute twelve, because I wanted to also speak against— I cannot support the magnitude of ratepayer money supplementing grant funding for the Turnbull Oval upgrade. I think that putting $4 million of ratepayer funding into that at the moment, when we've got so many other things that our community are calling on us to be doing , is just not good. It's—we're essentially saying that we'll take the grant money from where our hard-earned taxpayer money is paying tolls every day and getting doled out some shiny new things, and there we are saying that we'll put $4 million of ratepayer money towards that as well. So I won't be supporting the upgrade to Turnbull Oval. Not that I've got anything against Turnbull Oval.

I think it's wonderful, but I think there's other things in our community that are going to be south. We need to do a lot of smaller projects that don't have money allocated to them. We could do some things at Turnbull Oval, but to put forward ratepayer money simply to get a bit more of that grant funding, I think is not a very prudent decision to have made, and I do not support it.

Thank you, Councillor. What I might just do is move a procedural motion that everyone— to put the items in this motion in seriatim, all those in favour of voting in seriatim, please raise your hand. I declare that carried. Any other councillors wishing to speak? Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Sorry, I meant Councillor Wheeler. I was looking at—I don't know. Just please proceed, Councillor

Wheeler. Different colour. Yeah

I'm pleased to see that we can take this in seriatim, because I too have concerns about supporting the funding for Turnbull Oval. There's some stuff in this budget that, in this quarterly review, that I'm really pleased to see. I'm very pleased to see the Paco Road sealing going ahead, still going ahead, albeit in the next year, and also the Ian Street Glossodia drainage upgrade, unfortunately with an increased cost. That's work that that community has been waiting for for some time. In fact, when the Director of Infrastructure and I were out at Glossy meeting with the residents of both Ian Street and Mitchell Drive, they were showing us letters from 1995 where Council had promised to do that work.

So it's unsurprising that they are running out of patience. There's a couple of things in here that I think are worth noting. The Macquarie Park Place to Swim funding, I was contacted by a resident who was quite concerned about that. Her family were affected by one of the drownings last year, and I want to assure residents that this money won't be used to increase swimming at that site, but instead to improve amenity of the park itself and of the safety and signage in that space, to make it very clear that Council doesn't endorse swimming at that site, but may at least improve access for emergency services if needed. The other thing in there that's notable is the driveway to Ebenezer RFS station, where they've really been battling getting in and out of that station for a long time.

So I think the members of Ebenezer RFS will be very pleased to see that. I'm glad that we have, well, we may have a way forward on the Bilpin car park upgrade.

A few questions, if I could. Section 4, it refers to later financial years, items that we funded in later financial years. It would be helpful if those later financial years were actually specified rather than that job lot, because I don't know what that means, and therefore I don't think members of the public know what that means either. Is it the never-never, or do we actually have dates around that? The other question I've got, and I'm happy to take this on notice, is how much will be in the property development reserve after we allocate that additional funding to it? And it would also be good to get some information about where we're up to with the Argyle Bailey Bridge, because I know that's been a big concern for the community involved, and that there have been online briefings for the community, and I'm sure they appreciate that, but the rest of us don't know what's happening, and I think we need to, so that when people ask us, we don't sit there looking like we have no idea what our own council is doing

Councillor, I'll just confirm the staff are happy to take them on notice and provide responses to the councillor, to all councillors. Our General Manager has a comment.

It's going to simply agree.

Oh, yeah. Well, thank you Thank you, Councillor.

Thanks. The Turnbull Oval stuff I find really concerning. I think we are spending money to chase funding, and I think that's a concern. I think we've also committed to far more at Tamplin Field than the community is comfortable with. Given that we have gone to great lengths with the West Invest funding—sorry, with the livability funding—to go back to the funding body and ask for extensions and revisions and all sorts of things, I wonder if it's now possible, particularly with a change of government, for us to go to the West Invest funding body and ask if it's possible for us to reduce the scope of works at Turnbull Oval and take the money that's on offer without us finding $3 million from our budget black hole—sorry, $4 million—which is coming from other projects, let's face it, money that could be spent on road safety, road upgrades or other community projects.

Or perhaps we repurpose , instead of repurposing funding from the general budget, we repurpose funding from the West Invest budget, remove the synthetic turf from Tamplin, given that the athletics club has objected to it, and given the ongoing costs to Council if we're going to worry about depreciation for other items, and use that funding to upgrade Turnbull Oval so that that $3 million can be spared. I can't support items one or two in this motion with that $4 million funding allocation to Turnbull Oval. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak tonight? Councillor Sheather.

Yeah, Madam Mayor, just in relation to the last comment that Councillor Wheeler made, is there any opportunity— To switch some of that money, because there was a comment in the business paper here that some of the money, perhaps from Richmond Pool, may be directed to another location. What about Templin, to North Richmond?

Thank you, Councillor. I refer to the general manager. My understanding is the funding for each project was quite tight, but I will get a confirmation for you.

Thank you through you, Madam Mayor.

The Western Sydney Project Office has been really strict and really clear around the governance around these particular projects, in so far as we have made requests to them previously around dissecting projects, shifting funding around, and in every circumstance that has been, the advice has come back that as they have progressed, all each of these projects have progressed through the necessary stage gates in terms of their approval opportunities, that there is effectively no opportunity to revisit that. What there is still work going on, obviously, in the very early stages of a number of projects. The Templin Oval project has been mentioned here this evening, and that is something that we have already met with the Athletics Club and will continue to meet with all stakeholders there.

And the West Invest Project Office has given us, I guess, a performance-based outcome there. So if we've got an all-weather playing surface, for example, that isn't necessarily synthetic, that that's something that they may well be amenable to us lodging as a variation to that project, for example. That said, Councillors, that doesn't produce any significant financial windfall that even if you wanted to, could be transferred to another particular project, that the West Invest offices will be managing the contingencies, and that remains a point of contention amongst the Councils, that the project office is holding the contingencies. But it is still a key point that we are having to manage within our budgets for each individual project.

So at this stage, my advice would be that no, it's not transferable.

Any further questions, Councillor? Just your microphone.

I don't disagree with the comments from the councillors about the funding, but we, as a group, put it to the general manager to come back with a purpose for the expenditure of the additional funds when this was first happening. So for that reason, we agreed at the time, and I would agree with it now. The concern that I have had, and in relation to the question I just asked, is there's a tall possibility to move the money. Tamplin Field is a good example. You've got a tartan track around the outside. You can't run sprigs over it. You can't have soccer and football running over it, but we're proposing to have the centre of the ground where we need for things like archery and shot put and all that sorts of things.

There's not enough room for them. If we're talking about a great facility, and we are, you can't have those two facilities on top of one another because who's going to use it Saturday? Is it going to go out to soccer or football, or is athletics going to use it? When you look at the major carnivals, it's a problem. And you've either got to have an underground tunnel to get to the middle, which is impractical, so that the sprigs don't damage the tartan track. Now, I've pushed for 15 or 20 years for an athletic facility in the Hawkesbury. It's in Sports Council's management plan, has been for years, and so is the synthetic ground. But to have both of them on the same ground, when we talk about council's building white elephants, this is one of them.

Councillor Sheather, I will just let you know Tamplin Field isn't discussed in this item, so it's not relevant to the item or the recommendation.

Okay. What is, is a question one asked on page five. We got time adjustments were made for the following grant funding works, with completion now anticipated during the later financial years: it's Fire Control Centre, it's Upper Hawkesbury Powerboat Club, and there's a couple of others there. The other one's Floodgate Restoration and Repairs. Now, it's been over two years since the floods. Why is it that we're looking at later financial years to make good Upper Hawkesbury Powerboat Club and indeed look at our floodgate restoration program?

Those questions you'd like answered now? Absolutely. Thank you, Director of Infrastructure.

Through you, Madam Mayor, there are several grants that are listed under that section proceeded by the comment across financial years. Most noticeably is the Fire Control Centre, which includes the — sorry, I'm going crosswise. I was thinking about the Rural Fire Service. In essence, there are various grants under there, including the restoration of public assets, which will proceed and which will require the next two, at least two financial years to repair. So that statement covers off on all of those grants. Not all of those grants that are listed there under will be delivered in future years. Many of them will be delivered next year. In terms of specific timing on each of those grants that are listed below, happy to take that on notice and provide that detail to the best knowledge that we have at the present time.

Councillor.

I've got real concerns about, especially like the Powerboat Club. It's been two years. They've got major events. They've got the Bridge to Bridge coming up later in the year. They've got the world nationals that'll happen with the Bridge to Bridge this year. That brings literally thousands of people, and a lot of them world competition stuff, to a hole in the bank down there and a building that's got a fence around it. And it's been that way for two years. If that was our office here or this room, it would not be like that. And I don't know how we go about rectifying it, but when we're talking about later financial years, that's a real concern. And a concern along the lines that Councillor Wills spoke about, that where we're topping up, I guess.

And look, I love sport, but we've got to be fair to the community. And there's things here the community expect. And while I do expect that sport will get its fair share, and with what's in this Western Investment, like, it's massive. I mean, it's got nothing to do with us. We were lucky and got some money. But that is going to help sport into the future quite a bit. But it concerns me, as with the sealing of Packer Road, and I went for a drive out there last week, and no wonder I can't walk. The roads are terrible, and you can start with the... Kermond Road, you can come back this side of there, or you can go up higher, it doesn't matter where you go. Driving those roads of a night time is absolutely dangerous.

And I went down River Road down to Lower Portland. There's now a quarter drive for about 30 k's. It's atrocious. The southern end of Comleroy Road, dirt. Don't take a car down there either. They're the sort of things that this has been two years in the making. And I won't get on a sackful road. There's been some markings done this week and it looks like there's some work going to be done there. But it's been two years too, and it's the main road. Section is as big as this in front of us, just now the tar. So when I say that we need to be mindful of our finances, then the community expects us to do exactly that. And like I said, with the programs and that we've got, I don't have issues with them.

But I do have issues where we're allocating ratepayers' money on things like Packer Road, and I've been down Packer Road many, many times. I come back along the River Road and the like, and the River Road's really good shape. The best road in our city is Wollomombi. That's the other side of Stanhope. It's about five cars that use it a day. But you can sit on 50 k's, not a pothole in it. That's how all our roads should be. And I'm really coming to grips that if we've got the money,

They should be started two years down the track. And I know we're waiting on money for government funding and the like, but some of our money, and when you look at the details in the back of this document here, and I've been through all of them. Things like our grading program. In the last 12 months, we've spent less than half a million dollars. With our patching programs, not much different — potholed stuff, I mean. So, Madam Mayor, I have frustrations. I'm not going to make an issue out of this here and now, but I am going to look further into these projects and the likes. And this time next year, I certainly won't be supporting a program that is non-track to service the public that we represent.

Thank you very much, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak?

I might just make a few comments before right of reply. I thank the councillors for their contributions tonight. I think the decision to defer the issue around the Bilpin Hall is a smart one. It's very difficult when a community group, I guess, can deliver the same outcome a council's trying to deliver when we have so much red tape. It's a huge positive thing to the Kurrajong Heights Bowling Club to deliver the car park that you did. I do hope by deferring this item there can be some sort of outcome for the community as well around Bilpin Hall. I did just want to touch on the Turnbull Oval situation and remind councillors it was not a position that we wanted to be in, but one that we found ourselves forced into a corner in by the Western Sydney program.

And the decision basically came down to not just spending ratepayers' money for a facility, but also having to make the decision of forfeiting nearly four million dollars, I think I've got that correct, of funding because we had that gap. So we either had to decide to face the community and tell them we gave away four million dollars of funding, or cover the gap for a project that added up, which was tasked to the general manager to source that and give us that objective outcome. It was not something that any of us wanted to be in. But when it comes to saying that ratepayers' money should not be spent there and should be spent on roads, I think if you actually read the quarterly budget review statement, and I know many of you have, we aren't short of money on roads.

It is time, it is contractors, it is materials that is our issue. So there is, you look at the amount of grant funding that we're receiving for the roads, it's huge. It's funding that we've never really had before. So I guess that's where we come as decision makers to have to balance those priorities across the LGA. And to me, when we were forced into making a decision about that, I did not want to look one person in the eye, given the state our LGA is in after repeated disasters, and say I gave away $4 million in funding, when we could top that up over a number of financial years. It's not to come out just in one financial year; it's over a number of financial years. I know Templin wasn't in it, and I called that to account.

But I did want to say we are discussing that with the Hawkesbury Little Athletics Club, or City Athletics Club. Appreciate those comments that you made and know it's probably not realistic, but I anticipate that could be still a positive outcome based on some better quality turf rather than synthetic. So with those comments in mind, I will be supporting all of the parts. I do remind councillors that we will be voting individually on each point. And if there's no other speakers, I will hand over to Councillor Conolly for right of reply, which is not necessary. I'll therefore call for the vote on each part of the resolution in front of you. Those in favour of point one, please raise your hand.

In favour are Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, Councillors M. Progno, Councillor McMahon. Those against, please raise your hand. Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler. I declare point one carried. I'll just need the motion back up on our screens, please. I think we've all read, though, point two. Those who are in favour of point two, please raise your hands. Those in favour are Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, Councillors Amprogno, Councillor McMahon.

Those against point two, please raise your hand. Councillor Lyons-Buckett and Councillor Wheeler. I declare point two carried. Those in favour of point three, please raise your hand. Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillors Amprogno and Councillor McMahon. I declare point three carried also.

That is the last item on the agenda tonight subject to public address. I do thank all of our speakers tonight for your attendance and for your advocacy for the relevant sections of our community.

We have no condolences tonight. The next item in order is the Mayoral Minute. You all would have received my Mayoral Minute today. I'll just talk on that. I apologise for its lateness today. As you can see from the content within the Mayoral Minute, and I'll just read that out for anyone watching, which is about damaging increase in emergency services levy costs. This is something that was imposed on us kind of out of the blue. The new state government is making a series of decisions right now that, as mayor and as councillors, you should be very concerned about in terms of the outcome for the community of the Hawkesbury. This item is not about the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall, but I'll mention that's something that has just been, without consultation, taken from our community.

This is another item that has been, without consultation, now imposed on us as a council. Most of the motion here, I'm very happy to say, is part of a template I've added impacts for Hawkesbury City Council as my own notes on the back of this. But I wanted to raise the fact that it is a template because we are very fortunate in this situation of the 128 councils across New South Wales to have the full support of Local Government New South Wales in terms of its advocacy on this issue. When the state government made the decision to scrap the ESL, and I'll refer to that in terms of emergency services levy, subsidy for councils, they did not let us know that that was going to happen. They did not give us a timeframe to provide feedback.

They did not say to councils, This is something that we wish to do. What are your thoughts? They made a decision, a very, very bad decision, something that affects the emergency services that we rely on so heavily here in the Hawkesbury during our times of crisis. And to add insult to injury, the new Labor state government did it at a time where we had already publicly put forward our operational plan for the next 12 months, where our staff had worked diligently, item by item, dollar by dollar, to put our budget together to make sure that we had the maximum impact and benefit for our community. Whereas this decision now by the state government forces our staff to look at where they can find that extra $149,000 that will be needed for this year alone.

to cover that gap, which means that we will need to cut services or cut infrastructure delivery. Something has to give if we need to put it somewhere else. I find this absolutely appalling. I haven't held back in my personal remarks, and most people will say you never do anyway. But I think that it's very important to put it on the public record that Hawkesbury City Council makes the strongest case that it can to the New State Government, to all of the relevant ministers, and as it states in the further points in the motion, write to IPART about this and also the President of Local Government NSW to seek that ongoing advocacy for this issue. It does basically amount to a significant case of cost shifting.

I know that's been a topic we've discussed plenty of times in this chamber, and I'd like to take this moment to publicly put on the record and thank the Deputy Mayor for his comments and advocacy in terms of this situation in his additional role as the President of WESROC. Thank you for coming out so strongly. You certainly made an impact last week with your comments right across many forms of media. So I thank you very much for being a staunch advocate for Western Sydney and, of course, as the Deputy Mayor of Hawkesbury City Council for the financial situation it puts our council in. What I'm asking councillors to do tonight isn't quite controversial in terms of a political decision. It's more of an advocacy piece in those different points, noting the impacts it has on our specific council and writing to the relevant bodies to express our absolute outrage that this has been done to us, because it's not something that is just going to be done for the next financial year.

It's something that will be put on us every single financial year that we need to fund this gap. And as I said before, when it comes to funding our emergency services, the people that keep us alive in the most dangerous times, I can't believe the state government has completely walked away from this responsibility. I therefore thank councillors for taking the time to look and consider this Mayoral Minute, and I therefore put it forward. Councillor Conolly.

Thank you. Just a question. And I might have this wrong because obviously we don't have much time to consider this, but from my recollection, there is a compulsory ESL amount and then an additional voluntary amount we contribute to the RFS. Just want to know what's the quantum of that voluntary amount, if that's correct.

I'll just refer to—

I think it should be Laurie.

Sorry? Thank you, Councillor, for your advice there. I will just look to the staff who would like to answer that question. Can we take it on notice, Councillor? Okay Thank you very much. I'll task a relevant staff member to get that answer to us. Anything else you'd like to add?

No, I support the minute. Just, I mean, the next step after this, assuming they don't listen, hopefully they will, will be to work out what impact that has. And I think part of our powerful public advocacy would be to point out that we're already contributing more than we have to, and that the obvious response would be to stop doing that.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I also support the minute, and I did have that same question for Councillor Conolly because a few years ago I think we were paying somewhere in the order of around $250, 000 or something more above what the mandated percentage was. As the Mayor has pointed out, this is another example of cost shifting, which, you know, we've seen increases for years, increasing the burden on councils and as such on our ratepayers. And of course, because we deliver services to our ratepayers, we continue to bear the cost, and because we must get the crucial services out, and that is a very unfortunate thing for our ratepayers because they don't like paying more rates.

I think playing politics around emergency management should be universally frowned upon, and I expect it will be in this instance across every council that is impacted by it. There's a growing blocking of local government from crucial decisions, and I know there was a move when the National Cabinet was on to have local government seat at the table. I do think now the federal Labor government have included local government, but I hope the state government will, you know, listen carefully to the advocacy put out by organisations like LGNSW and WesROC when they raise these really valid advocacy pieces and really get through to the government the impacts that this has, particularly on areas like this one, which has been so heavily impacted.

It's got to stop. I mean, this cost shifting really has to stop. Both of the major parties do it and have done it, and it's just gone on for too long. The capacity of local government to remain financially sustainable is continuously under threat because we never know when something like this is going to be imposed on us by another level of government, well, mainly the state government. Given that the state government relies heavily on a large volunteer workforce and the efforts and resources of community members and organisations who are tirelessly working through disaster after disaster, this is a very unfair imposition on our people. These are the people who pay their tax, they pay their rates, and now the government wants to slog them with more burdens via contributions to the emergency services levy.

The previous government's given us a lot of money for projects and so on, and I think that it's time that at some point we need to call a halt to it all and do some proper prioritising around where government funding is going. So we need to fund what we need to keep our community safe in the first instance, and then we need to ensure that funds are secured to allow financial sustainability into the future, because it's no use getting a few things here and there if we can't run as an organisation in a viable sense and be able to really deliver what's really crucial to our community, and that is particularly around emergency management. So we've seen other items here tonight about allocating funds, and we do that all the time, but we really need to keep in mind what our role and our main objectives are, and I hope that the government listens to this.

I suspect they will when they see the reaction across the board, and I'm pretty sure that will be fairly universal. I just think it's unfortunate that it happened like this, and of course it speaks to the very problem that is a bigger growing problem in that the frequency of disasters has increased. significantly, and of course all levels of government have to deal with doling out more money on that front. So it's an issue that really needs to be addressed. But I think that also speaks to the need to prioritise how government funding is allocated and spent into the future. And I certainly hope they listen and that we can review that. And also, I guess as Councillor Conolly said, if we are giving over and above what is mandated, we will have to consider if this has to come out of that allocation, this additional money.

Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak? Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I also support your Mayoral Minute. I just wanted to add a couple of things. When WesRock sent me a draft press release on this matter early last week, I looked at it and it sounded to me rather extreme and rather

Inflexible, and we were having a real hammer and tongs go at the State Government. And I sent it back and said, Look, surely we should be looking for discussions and having conversations with the State Government before we do this. And it was explained to me that actually what had happened is that local government New South Wales had already tried to have conversations with the State Government, and the Treasurer said to the local government New South Wales, No, I do not wish to talk about this. You will pay it. That's when I got hold of the press release and sent it out and said, Yeah, that's because to me that was what was wrong. There should have been a process by which local government could discuss this, and there are ways you could have got through it.

I mean, they could have said, We'll increase it by 5 percent a year or something, and it's something we could have discussed. But no, there was no discussion whatsoever, and to me that is the— That is the clincher. That is why I put out that press release. Now, also, it's been said that this is cost shifting. Well, it actually isn't. I know the government cost shifts a lot of things, but this decision was made several years ago that Council should pay more money towards emergency services, and it was the Perrottet government, and bless their hearts, said, Okay, you can't afford it. We'll look after it for a couple of years. We'll subsidise you with that, but eventually you will have to pay it.

When this new government got in, I think we assumed that that arrangement would continue, but the new government said, No, we're not going to continue that. You're going to pay it. You're going to do it now. No conversation. To me, that was very disappointing. Also, I think in your mayoral minute, the critical point is 1D .3, where we need to develop a fairer, more transparent and financially sustainable method of funding critically important emergency services, because what's happened here, this can happen again. What we need is something that we all agree on, a process we agree on, a way that makes sure that we don't get any of these nice little surprises every now and again, because frankly, we can't afford it.

And I hope that that point is taken up and that we do have some meaningful discussions so that we don't get into this situation again.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Any Councillors?

Thank you, Madam Mayor .

As an attendee of the Australian Local Government Assembly, every year I go down to that conference. They update us about the toll of cost shifting. Millions, tens, hundreds of millions of dollars. There was a 2018 Local Government NSW report in 2018 that identified $820 million worth of cost shifting from other tiers of government onto the local government sector in one year alone, and identified $6.2 billion over a 10-year period. So clearly it's getting worse. Lord only knows what that trajectory has looked like in the five years since I was able to dig up some figures. It's also true that local government rates represents 3.4% of all taxation revenue collected in Australia as a percentage of GDP.

Investment in local government in Australia is tiny. We were presented with a graph at the last conference of 30 OECD nations, advanced nations of comparable living standards to us. We had almost the lowest investment in local government of all of those countries. It was on the order of about 2.5% to 3%, and many other countries had an average of about 10%, whether they were federated nations or otherwise. That just tended to be the standard. So it is a dirty trick for the new Labor state government to put this impost when their rhetoric before the government was about fairness and accountability and transparency. And as far as I'm concerned, they've simply reverted to type and put an impost on us.

We're in no position to defend ourselves. We ought to. We ought to because it's our ratepayers that get a raw deal out of this. So I'm happy to support the mayoral minute. Thank you.

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. I speak in support of the mayoral minute, and I note that this is a campaign by Local Government New South Wales, a predominantly Labor organisation in its current form. And I think that's one of the interesting things about local government, is that when slapped by another level of government, it doesn't matter what the political makeup of us is, we tend to stand up for the sector because, frankly, we don't have any other choice. You've heard Councillor Zamprogno's details of just how little funding we get on a regular basis. And I think we've probably been lured into a false sense of security by the money that we've received in the last few years. But I think we're about to hit a lean patch, and this might be the beginning of it .

It's worth noting the starring role of the Kurrajong RFS on the front page of the Local Government New South Wales document, where they're putting out, I presume it's part of the Section 44 , no clearer illustration, frankly, of the worth of the RFS than their actions then . The Emergency Services Levy Act came in in 2017 and, as the Deputy Mayor says, it's been problematic since its inception. And I think we got this sort of fob-off. The previous state government kicked the can down the road, and now we've got a new state government dealing with the implications of that. And I would ask you, Madam Mayor, if you're willing to include letters to the Shadow Minister and also the crossbench spokespeople

For

Community services, because I think the more people we can get lobbying on our side, the better. Sorry, just

Before you go on, I'll just.. . Say to the staff who obviously will be amending the motion, for all of those roles in point one, please add the shadow role as well. Are you happy with that? Oh, sorry,

And the crossbench

Roles as well

The amount of the contribution that's required, it's worth noting by each of the organisations, is set by the SES, the RFS and Fire and Rescue New South Wales. And this year it represents a 53% increase in costs across the local government sector. That's a massive impost for an organisation that has very little capacity to collect revenue. This has come once budgets have already been determined and well exceeded. And I will note that IPART and the state government set what we are entitled to collect from our ratepayers in order to fund these costs. So it's very nice for them to pass these costs onto us, but we are not allowed many means of collecting them. But one of the big problems here is actually that this represents a significant double dip for residents, businesses and ratepayers in the Hawkesbury, because we pay twice under this emergency services levy, and we pay disproportionately the second time round, and that's when the emergency services levy is calculated on our insurance premiums.

So because we are a disaster-affected LGA, our insurance premiums are higher than the bulk of New South Wales, certainly far higher than most of Sydney, and therefore our residents pay higher insurance premiums. The emergency services levy is calculated as a percentage on those insurance premiums, 18% on residential premiums and 40% on business premiums. So our residents, because that's a percentage figure, our residents are already paying extra. And Hawkesbury took that motion to LG New South Wales, which passed unanimously, that those state-based duties and taxes be removed from insurance policies because of this double dipping, but also because of the significant impost on the very communities that are impacted by the physical, financial and emotional costs of natural disasters.

What the state government is doing with this emergency services levy, and I don't care which state government it is, but under the current Act, is creating... Haves and have-nots. We have communities who bear the costs of natural disasters and bear a disproportionate cost for the emergency services levy, and those communities who will get to be safe in the future and not pay. And then we've got the additional costs, a triple dip perhaps, of the depreciation of red fleet and building costs for which Council and our ratepayers also carry a financial burden. So, you know, all of those people who have sat both in this chamber and outside talking about Council and roads rates and rubbish, well, this is the extra bit.

This is where the rates end up. And I think, you know, even the Insurance Council of Australia is calling for this model to be changed. The current local government funding model is unsustainable, and this is a really fine example of just how unsustainable it is. We need an equitable, transparent and sustainable model going forward, and this certainly isn't it. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak? No. I'll therefore put the mayoral minute. All those in favour, please raise your hands. In favour are Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillors Zamprogno, Councillor McMahon. Those against? You're abstaining from the vote. Thank you, Councillor Dogramaci. I declare the mayoral minute carried.

Before I go on, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, you had mentioned to me a motion of urgency. Was that to do with the Bilpin matter, or no

It's a separate motion

I'll

Hear your motion of urgency. Okay,

Thank you, Madam Mayor. It is a motion around vegetation clearing and the Rural Boundary Clearing Code, and the reason it is urgent, I have sent the motion through. I'm not sure if that gets set up first. I just sent it through before, but the reason for urgency—

Sorry, and I will just confer. I think we have to refer at vote whether to put the urgency motion

First. Yeah, once you hear it, we hear it. We don't vote you to decide. Okay, I'll listen to it. So I do it without putting the actual motion up. So it's information that's only really just emerged. So it was too late for the deadline to submit anything for this business paper. The urgency is around the immediate threat to habitat due to vegetation removal, and because of the limited opportunity to mitigate the loss due to only one meeting per month, and there's not another meeting for five weeks. I think that's too much delay in seeking to instigate a process to ensure protection of the environment in this instance, and yet I think it's a matter that would require a decision in the chamber. So therefore I am seeking to have it heard. It is not anything like trying to overturn the code or anything. It's about implementation of the code.

Is there a specific part of the LGA or area you're referring to, so we know why it's urgent? It's referring

To—well, it's referring to the whole LGA, but it is due to some instances in Kurrajong.

Okay.

I'm not sure if there may be a conflict of interest for me on deciding this one. It's in general terms. It's in general terms. Okay, thank you. I'm going to rule that that's not urgent. I don't have the specifics of what you're talking about, if you are talking about in general terms. I'm going to rule that non-urgent and request that that be put as a notice of motion at the next Council meeting.

Okay, Madam Mayor. Thank you. I'll just put on the public record my concern about the threat to habitat in the area and Council not dealing with that.

Thank you, Councillor.

Okay, I will now move the items on block, items 4.4.2 and 5.5.1. Can I have a mover for items on block? Councillor Reardon, seconded Councillor Veigel. All those in favour, please raise your hand. I declare that carried.

I therefore move on to item 4.5.1, polystyrene recycling collection. Councillor Conolly. Please

For a recommendation.

Seconder, please, Councillor Sheather. Over to you, Councillor Conolly.

I only to say I think the report sets out well why this is a good way to move forward with the trial and get information from that, so I'm happy to endorse that.

Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I wasn't sure if we needed to specify an option under the recommendation that was in the business paper. That was my understanding, that the recommendation for us was for us to pick one of three from three options.

Is that correct, or are we picking option two based on what's in front of us? Certainly it was, the report favoured option two.

I will just pass your question on to the Director of Infrastructure.

Yes, through you, Madam Mayor. For the avoidance of doubt, it's option two, which is the engagement of a contractor to cart away bags of the expanded polystyrene.

Just pop your microphone on, Councillor

Sorry. In which case, I'm happy to support that. I think this is actually an excellent and really thorough report, and I'd like, if you could pass on my thanks to the staff who prepared it. There's a really good level of detail in this report, particularly with respect to end use, which I appreciate. I think given the RedCycle debacle, it really behoves us to make sure that we know where this stuff ends up, because it has a big impact on whether the community participates in these schemes. If they think that it's nonsense, then they're not going to play, and they're certainly not going to pay, and that's an issue for us. I think also the points raised around the financial benefits of recovering polystyrene from our own landfill, whether we are an end user of this product or not, this incredibly lightweight product takes up an enormous amount of room in our landfill.

It's one of those, unfortunately, it's one of those examples where we as the— As the, at the end of the cycle, the collector of the waste deals with the financial impost of a product, and the manufacturer walks away scot-free. And in an ideal world, you would bundle all this stuff back up and send it to Harvey Norman or wherever it was that it came from, and we wouldn't, we and our rate payers wouldn't have to wear the cost.

I think we, so, and having said that, I think we really need to continue pressure on the state government, perhaps via Local Government New South Wales, and I'll scan through their current positions and what motions have come to them around polystyrene and see if that's something we take to the next conference, because I feel really strongly that we keep being the end, the patsy at the end of this who keeps wearing this, and our rate payers end up paying twice. You know, they pay through their rates, they pay through the management of the waste facility, and they pay for the product at the front end, and the manufacturer and the retailer just walk away scot-free. And that's a bad system, not just for polystyrene, but for waste in general.

So I'm really pleased to see that this is the direction that we're moving in. I hope that the trial yields a good result. It would be lovely if we, if like some of the other LGAs, we could do this for nothing, but I think this fairly low cost is a good way forward. We will have to make sure that the community is well aware that this facility exists, though, and I suspect that in many instances it will be businesses who use it. Perhaps, you know, people will band together with their neighbours to gather up their polystyrene and truck it to the tip, but it's— And it's not going to be— excuse me, I don't think it's going to be the occasional broccoli box. It's going to be, sorry, when you get the new big screen TV and what have you, that you'll have enough to go to the tip. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak on the item? No right of reply, Councillor Conolly? Not required. Thank you. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno, yes, and Councillor McMahon. I declare the item carried.

The next item and last item is item 7.1.1, response to Councillor questions taken on notice at the Council meeting. Councillor Wheeler.

No, I was hoping that the resident who forwarded the question to me, if I contacted him to see if he was happy with that answer, I was hoping he'd get back to me, but he hasn't, so thanks.

Thank you, Councillor. That being all items on the agenda this evening, I declare the Council meeting closed at 9.01 p.m. and thank everybody for their participation. Thank you.