29 October 2024 - Ordinary

Good evening, Councillors.

Good evening and welcome to the Hawkesbury City Council meeting of the 29th of October 2024. I'd like to welcome all those attending the meeting and addressing the meeting tonight, as well as those attending online.

Hawkesbury City Council acknowledges the Dharug and Darrungung people as the traditional custodians of the land of the Hawkesbury. We pay respect to all Elders, past, present and emerging, and acknowledge the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Nations people of this country. I'll now hand over to the General Manager.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Members of the public attending the meeting are advised that in the event of an emergency, you will 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 the compiling of the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting and live stream of Council meetings. The provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary, and if any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting.

The gallery can be seen in our live stream video, and if you do not wish to be recorded in the live stream, please move to the foyer, and we will turn on the foyer speakers for you. The recordings may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations. The recordings are stored on Council's record management system and uploaded to Council's website. 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 requested that any person participating in the meeting has their mobile phone on them. Can you please either turn it off or switch it to silent? Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. As there's no apologies for tonight, Councillors, there's been a request from Councillor Tom Aczel to attend tonight's meeting via audio link means, and also the Director of Infrastructure is going to be online. He's crook this evening. Could I have a resolution to— I'll move

That, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Mary Lyons-Buckett. Councillor Zamprogno. Those in favour? Against?

Carried. The names of the councillors that supported this: Dogramaci, Reardon, Veigel, Creed, Kotlash, McMahon, Djuric, Aczel, Lyons-Buckett, Wheeler, Zamprogno, and myself.

Is there any declarations for tonight's business paper?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. My declaration is in item 12.1.1. It is a significant non-pecuniary interest, and I'll read it out at the time of the item. Thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Mary Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mine is in item 12.2.2. It's a pecuniary interest.

Thank you.

Thank you, councillors.

Two sets of minutes, the first minutes of the 13th of August. Could I have a mover and a seconder for those minutes of the 13th of August? Councillor

Mr Mayor, I just wanted to raise a correction in there, if I may. Councillor. Thank you. On page 19 of the minutes, in item 10.4.2, it says that Councillor Dogramaci declared a significant non-pecuniary interest, being that he had been supplying goods to the owner of the subject land for the past 24 years. The owner of the subject land is Council at this stage, I believe, so that would need to be corrected to say he was supplying goods to the proposed purchaser of the land.

That's a correct amendment, and we'd be happy to make that. Sorry, carried. Just a correction there. It wasn't 24 years. My association goes over 30 years, if it's going to make any

Change. Yeah, thanks.

Thank you

Here we go again.

Councillor Brogden, Councillor Wheeler,

Councillor Buckett

Councillor Aczel,

Councillor Djuric, McMahon,

Kotlash, Creed, Veigel, Regan, Dogramaci and Sheather. The

Minutes of the meeting of the 15th of

October. Would someone like to move?

Move that, please.

Councillor Veigel.

Those in favour?

Thank you. Unanimous. Those councillors, Dogramaci, Reardon, Veigel, Creed, Kotlash, McMahon, Djuric, Aczel, Lyons-Buckett, Wheeler, Zamprogno, Sheather. Thank you. Carried.

Councillors, we have five registered speakers for tonight's meeting. Item — Mr Mayor, may I interrupt you and propose a motion of urgency?

Yes, Councillor.

I just thought this was the appropriate juncture. All right then. My motion seeking urgency is that this Chamber appeals to the Hawkesbury District Agricultural Association to stay any destruction of works at Clarendon Showground relating to drainage until affected parties can meet and talk through this issue.

Yeah , thanks, Councillor. It's not a matter of urgency.

I haven't made my argument for urgency. That was the motion.

Yeah, I won't accept that, Councillor. The matter of urgency, I spoke to the GM this afternoon to see whether it's relevant or not. While it might be a matter of urgency for the organisation, it's not a Council matter of urgency, and I've arranged to meet with those people, and if there's appropriate letter or otherwise to be sent by me, I'll do so, but it's not a matter of urgency for the Chamber.

I appreciate your advocacy, and I accept your ruling, but for future reference, a person moving a motion of urgency is normally accorded the courtesy of making their argument for urgency before you rule.

Thank you.

Back to item 12.1.1, it's a rescission motion, efficiency and cost-effective weed management, and the second one is 12.2.2, rescission motion proposed sale of 295 Sackville Road, Wilberforce. We have a speaker in relation to item 12.1.2, Mr. Chris Dewhurst. Could you please attend the lectern?

Excuse me, Mr Mayor, I need to read out my declaration and leave the room.

You do. Thank you

So much. My declaration is significant non-pecuniary interest, as I have been elected to the board of the HRCC, and I believe the interests of Hawkesbury City Council and the HRCC are potentially in conflict in relation to this matter. I will be leaving the room and not participating in the debate, as should be done. Thank you.

Mr. Dewhurst says you

Have five minutes to address the council. Thank you. Good evening, Mr Mayor, councillors, council staff, and members of the public. My name is Chris Dewhurst, and I've been the general manager of Hawkesbury River Council since 2010. And prior to that, I worked extensively in the weeds management industry as early as 1993. I came to HRCC because I was motivated by a local government model of weeds management that I thought had the most potential that any I'd ever seen. Why? Because councils are not islands. They are interconnected seamlessly across landscapes and communities. And certainly from the perspective of weeds, they do not respect the arbitrary borders we have established to aid public administration.

It is in this light that it makes so much more sense to tackle a broad regional issue with a broader regional response. And this is why HRCC was established by an initiative that stemmed from Colo Shire Council in 1948. And since that time, we have tackled countless issues.

This includes managing the entire shutdown of the river from Salvinia and water hyacinth that happened in 2004, and we've fended off numerous new incursions of weeds, which have been little known but potentially devastating. But weeds, by their very nature, remain, and as such, the issue remains. They are an infinite problem that must be managed with finite resources. And the best model of doing that at a local government scale is via a county council model. Now, we've always been a small, agile organisation, and we're scaled to the level of a small business. We have a tiny office, a small depot, and we're strongly operational-focused with 11 staff. Now, we are compelled to employ a general manager, such as myself, under legislation.

However , even that role is scaled down to the organisation size. I have one part-time administration assistant. Every other person is focused on on-ground delivery and employed full-time. Yeah,

I keep talking.

Just in case, have we got what you said? Yeah, I've got.

Sorry .

We're right? Okay. Sorry. Thank you. No, that's all right. So . On that, we recently did a deep dive into our costs and our value proposition. We used our audited financial systems statements, and that of all our member councils, and these are all public information. We cost our residents $1.34 a year. $1.34, not a month, a year. Hawkesbury City Council costs its residents $1,319 per year. Now , of course, Hawkesbury, it's a much bigger organisation. You have many more services. But this means you need a larger administration, and this means you must have middle management, something that we don't have, and something that makes us extremely cost efficient. Now, the point of this mostly is to just highlight how efficient it is when you have a small organisation spreading its services across four large local government areas, such as we have in Western Sydney.

Now, Hawkesbury City Council, of course, has the right to hold us to account, to challenge our processes, and even attempt to leave. However, I firmly believe you will not get the same value for money for your rate payers if you do, and it could very likely cost you more than $1.34 a year to achieve less. Because as you know, Hawkesbury is semi-rural and it has large amounts of standing water. And of course, this is one of its very unique and special features that adds to its character. However, it is also one of the qualities that means Hawkesbury holds a much higher weed load than our member councils. And you'll be forced to tackle this challenge alone, without the support of three other large Western Sydney councils.

Now, we would love to see Hawkesbury stay. You're one of our founding members. But if you decide to leave, we will survive. Our value proposition will likely attract a new member council, or we could add an additional shared service, reducing costs to our members even further. But we really do hope you make the right decision in the interest of the environment and the community. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Duhurst. Questions from the councillors? Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Mr Duhurst, for your address. You tonight have the ability to act as a mouthpiece for our brother councils, who are also party to this organisation and have been for many decades. What's their opinion of HRCC and the value proposition that they get out of that? Has any other member council sought to question the value proposition as this chamber has?

At this point in time, all our member councils are very happy with the arrangement and reaffirm their commitment to HRCC.

Councillor Dogramaci. Thank you. Thank you very much. My question is very simple. If you can tell me, how did you come to that figure of $1.34 per resident?

Yeah, the answer to that's very simple as well. We used our audited financial statements of our total costs, and we divided it by Australian Bureau of Statistics census figures based on the population, and we use that as a comparison across all four councils.

And when you say that the number of the residents, does that include children as well?

Yes, it's per capita. Seventy

Thousand dollars.

Per capita, correct. And

Is that the money that we are... Somehow we're contributing?

Yes, that includes that money that you contributed. $70,000. Not $70,000. You

Said residents, I mean 70,000 people live in Hawkesbury.

No, well, I don't have the exact figure in front of me, but that figure is a simple division between our total costs and the total number of people across our whole county, not just Hawkesbury.

When you say whole county?

For Western Sydney councils. That includes Penrith, the Hills Shire,

And Blacktown, and Hawkesbury. I didn't understand, but okay, I'll take your word. Thank you.

Mr Stewart, I've got a couple of questions. There's about 4,000 square kilometres you've got. How do you relate to the community there with the work you do?

Yeah, okay, so we do over two and a half thousand private property inspections a year. We use each of those inspections as an opportunity to build a relationship with a landowner. So over, you know, close to 75 years of history, we've got many , many links to the community. Most of our relationships are very positive. On top of that, we facilitate the Landcare program. So we have direct linkages through the Hawkesbury and Nepean Landcare Network Steering Committee, and then furthermore linkages through community groups. So with only 11 staff in such a big area, we really have to focus on co-production models, working with the community to get, you know, our message out there and dispersed much more widely.

That was going to be the second question. In relation to the community, what sort of, how many groups or individuals would volunteer and get involved with the structure you've got?

I don't have the exact number, but it would be somewhere between 30 or 40 different groups, and it'd be in the hundreds. The number of Landcare volunteers is definitely in the hundreds.

Okay, and if Hawkesbury City Council was to leave the County Council, or indeed it was disbanded, would there be any funds that would come back to Hawkesbury at all?

No, no, absolutely not. Hawkesbury City Council has no legal equity in HRCC. If it did, it would be listed on Hawkesbury City Council's own financial statements. It's not. HRCC is a separate statutory authority, and if Hawkesbury was to leave, they would receive no funds.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Mr Djuric. I'm just wondering, what mechanism exists for a regular review of your operations? So I heard you say you reviewed the cost effectiveness. Is there any statutory requirement to regularly review the sort of the operation, the structure? Can you tell us what term that's done or by what mechanism that's done?

Yeah, we do a—we have an integrated planning and reporting process that works to the same time frame as our member councils. The only part of that that we don't have to do is the Community Strategic Plan, but we use that opportunity once every four years to review our 10-year business activity strategic program, and we also produce a four-year delivery program across the term of council and an annual operational plan as well. The production of all those strategic documents have the opportunity for community and stakeholder input.

Thank you.

Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor. Thanks for coming and talking

Thanks. The contribution rate for councils, that's determined by the board, I gather. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. I noticed the tables in front of Council. I mean, it's been modest increases between 16 up to 23, but there was a considerable jump to plus 13% from 23 to 24. Can you just ... the reason why that might have...?

That was primarily there to backfill some costs to meet the operational demands at the time of the organisation, and that was debated across our board at the time and, yeah, voted on unanimously to do that.

Okay .

Thank you.

Sorry. Thank you,

Mr Mayor. Thank you, Mr Dewhurst. I've just got a couple of questions. The term economies of scale has been used a lot in reference to the advantages of HRCC. Can you give us some specific examples of these economies of scale?

The economies of scale relate to the sharing of resources. So, for example, all our equipment has an economies of scale benefit. So if we produce, provide or prepare some new technology, such as drone technology, which we're currently expanding. The investment we put into the drones and also the training of the operators, rather than that being contained into one council area, it gets utilised across all four councils. So that cost is therefore, by definition of economies of scale,

Reduced proportionally.

That's good. Have you got another example that's— because I know that you've just started with drone technology, but this term has been used a lot in the past. So are there any other economies of scale that apply?

You could take the same approach to the specialisation of the staff. Our staff have very strong focus on weeds management because they aren't encumbered by having to do a whole range of roles like that in a general purpose council is. So that allows them to build up a level of specialisation that you won't find in most general purpose councils. There's simply not the availability of budget to skill staff to that level of specialisation that we've done

Sorry, when you mean specialisation, are you talking about the knowledge of particular weeds or geography or, I mean, what sort of specialisation are you talking about?

Local knowledge, also, yeah, experience and, yeah, technical skills, strategic skills, skills relating to control techniques. Yeah, just— You know, very, you know, it can be a very, you know, it's a very deep industry that requires a lot of knowledge to do well. Okay,

Thank you. The next question is a follow-on from that in a way. The Greater Sydney Regional Weed Management Plan gives guidance to councils on what types of weeds should be targeted to get the best economic returns. My analysis of the data that's on the public record from HRCC is that over the last three years, HRCC has been working on weeds that give us the least economic return. So I just want to know your comments on why that's in the best interests of the Hawkesbury.

HRCC is a democratic organisation. Whilst that strategy is a state government strategy wanting to achieve state government targets, we have a very informed and engaged community on weeds in the Hawkesbury and in our other three council areas. And we , you know, feel that as a democratic organisation, we need to also be responsive to our community. So we do do requests when they're feasible. We don't and can't fulfil every request a community person makes, but that fact that you're seeing data from weeds that aren't on the priority weeds list essentially is communities' representation pushing us in certain directions and us agreeing to it.

Okay, so that's, but I'm just trying to get to your notion of staff specialisation. I mean, you know, if staff are specialised and the powers that be and the collective brains, I guess, in our region say that we should be working on particular weeds, I find it a bit challenging that— HRCC is not taking on that role of guiding us towards the most economic outcome. I would have thought that that was your role, but that's okay. Look, I'll leave it at that. Thank you.

Any other questions, councillors?

Thanks, Mr Dewhurst.

There's a rescission motion before Council, signed by Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Wheeler and Zamprogno. It's a rescission motion 2.1.1. Would someone like to move that?

I'll move it, Mr Mayor.

And a seconder? Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. We just heard from Mr Dewhurst his perspective, which I was very pleased to hear because one of my concerns with this issue when it came up at the meeting in August was that we weren't hearing enough of the overall situation. We were getting, as Councillor Cotlass just referred to, a personal analysis that she had done of the situation, which is fine to do that. But I think that when we're looking at something like this, we have to be having a robust discussion and applying a mature attitude to how we make these decisions . I did check with Mr Dewhurst what the mechanism was for reviewing, and as they have the same IPNR reporting system as Council, I would imagine that that requires, aside from a community strategic review, that it requires quite a bit of review and quite a lot of assessment and updating of policies and various other things around the operation.

So I was happy to sign for this rescission motion because I didn't think that that was the correct way that we would deal with withdrawing from something of this nature, where there are three other councils involved, making all four councils making up the River County Council. So there was nothing beyond personal opinion really given to make a case to withdraw. So we've just seen Councillor Wheeler returned to be joined by Councillor McMahon as our councillors elected to the River County Council, and I have no doubt that they will raise any relevant issues, both within the River County Council and within our chamber, about the structure of that organisation, should that be necessary. And I hope they do give us a lot of feedback.

All of our input into any external organisation needs to be relevant and based on facts and an overall picture. That's how we should be making decisions in here. The simplicity put forward before that a single weed officer could manage outside of a structural organisation like the River County Council, and that such a change would deliver an increase in efficiency, it was unsupported by all the factors that we really need to consider around how employing somebody and the support around employment of a person in a role like that, how that would have actually been done. So I don't think procedurally it was correct to suggest withdrawing or writing to the minister on that basis in the last motion that was passed previously.

Nothing convinced me that the proposed changes would be advantageous for our community overall due to the lack of supporting information. So we have to be really careful in making these decisions, and I'm certainly not against Having any issues raised that we have, how we think we could be more efficient or how we think the River County Council could be more efficient. And I hope that moving down the track that we can come up with a framework in here where we have that dialogue, where we can actually call for more transparency if we think that's necessary. We can call for accountability, and that we use our delegates on that body to raise any issues that any individual councillors may have.

Thank you.

Councillor Aczel, had his hand up. Councillor.

Yes, yes, I did. Thank you very much, Mr Mayor. Just economies of scale. I wanted to ask Mr Dewhurst, the harvesters, which aren't being used every day, would he agree this is another example of economies of scale in sharing the costs amongst a number of councils within the HRCC?

We're in debate.

Yeah, being involved with the harvesters when they were bought and the like, I guess the economy of scale with the question you're asking, they were certainly warranted at the time. The fact they're sitting there a lot of the time not being used now is a good example, I think, of the persistence of their use and how they are operated.

Can I just make— can I just

Yes And Councillor Conolly will have something to say about that.

I just was seeking clarification. It is my understanding that both harvesters have been deemed— Redundant . We don't have harvesters anymore that we use. There's— in the last report from HRCC on asset management, those two harvesters were written off. So, as far as I'm concerned, there is no capability anymore in HRCC to do that. There has been no staff that are able to operate those machines for a very long time. So I think we have to get that kind of cleared up. If there is a salvinia or a floating weed outbreak on the river, there will be no harvesting done . We don't have that capability.

Thanks, Councillor. Mr Dewhurst, I just checked with the General Manager. There is clarification and appreciate if you could clarify that situation.

Yeah, thank you. Yeah, the harvesters— well, weed harvesting on the river is an activity that really only has to happen during drought periods of time. So it's correct that currently, with the amount of rain and the floods we've had, it's not required. We have sold our small harvester, and we have written off the large harvester. However, it still sits in the depot, and that was primarily done to get costs for insurance purposes to reduce ongoing operational costs. But the main thing is that if the requirement was to present itself again, we would know it was coming and we would prepare our plant and material to appropriately address the problem, as in if we had to buy new harvesters and new machinery, we would do so.

But it would still be— Reducing that cost and spreading that cost across four council areas. So, you know, at the start of the last drought period, the harvesters didn't exist at all in HRCC, and they were bought at the time with Commonwealth funding. So that's normally where you would extend the hand of need out to the higher tiers of government, because the river, of course, is a regional asset. It cannot be classified as a local asset, as it goes through 12 different local government areas. And there's a very strong case to get state and federal government support, as we did in 2004. But the county council is the repository to facilitate and organise and maintain and employ the staff when appropriate, and by doing so, spreading the costs across four council areas.

Thanks very much.

Any other speakers?

I just have a question, Mr Mayor. Sorry, just let me get it up. I understand that after the last, the motion went through at the previous meeting, the board chair at the time, Jerome Cox, sent a response on behalf of the Hawkesbury County Council board. I understand that was sent to the general manager and all councillors. Then I understand Councillor Kotlash responded to the then Mayor McMahon and also CC'd all Hawkesbury councillors at the time, including the general manager and Mr Barry Smith. I just wanted to know, did we get a response? From that letter, with regards to the issues that Councillor Kotlash had raised about risk audits, aquatic weed management, a number of issues, I just wanted to find out if we could have a response. General Manager.

Through you, Mr Mayor, no, I don't believe so.

Thanks

Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I was really reluctant to go down this path. When I first started as a delegate on HRCC, I did so with the notion that I could use my expertise in weed management, which I have, for the betterment of, or for local government areas, for the county. Now, I set out to do that, and what I found was an absolute reluctance not only to change things, but to even discuss options that we might have had to improve weed management and efficiency. I was suggesting in the early days in 2021 that we keep the shared services model and just change the governance structure, because it is my firm belief, based on data more than personal opinion, but, I mean, you know, based on facts and figures, that the county council model is not appropriate for the type.

of weed management that we do in this region. It is administratively top-heavy. It's the duplication in the amount of policies and things that have to be done. I think there's 28 different governance policies. I mean, and these are all policies that each multi-purpose council does routinely. It is just, the duplication is just monumental. And to have eight councillors running an organisation, and I'm sorry, I don't know whether there's nine, 10, 11 or 12 people working at HRCC because it seems to change with whatever you read, but just even saying that there's 12 people. Eight councillors to govern that body is just silly. I mean, I think it should be, we have our natural areas people sitting on that board, not eight councillors that don't necessarily have any expertise in weeds.

So really, I mean, I just really didn't want to do this, but I think I was forced into doing this because we need to have some change. You know, I wanted an independent review. I think that would have been the best way to do that. I want HRCC now to do an independent review, like truly independent. I don't accept that this is the best model. It's— It's flawed in so many areas, and I am not talking about staff here. I'm talking about the governance structure. I don't want people to think that this is a reflection on the staff, because that is just not warranted. They're hardworking. They, you know, they do what they need to do. But I think we can use our scarce resources in a much better way.

And I think that it would be good to get the ministers' take on this. This might be an area of opportunity where the minister can say that we could change, you know, who sits on the board, maybe. We could reduce the board. We could—I don't know what the possibilities are, and therein lies the rub. We have an obligation to our community to look at better ways of doing this. And as far as I'm concerned, we're just getting what we get told is just sort of, you know, it's, weeds don't have borders. Well, that's just—I think that's not an issue. When we had the frogbit outbreak in Oakville in 2022, I think it was, 17 council areas got involved in that. There were 60 weed officers that came from all over the place, not just our region, but all over the place.

And that was because the weed community, when you need them, are there. We don't need to have four councils saying, Oh, we're all connected, and that's as far as it goes. There is other borders from the county, so that sort of argument is a bit... Superfluous, I think. But really, my motivation is to save us some money. And I think that I'd be not doing my job if I didn't say that this isn't good enough to just say, no, we're not going to, you know, we can't go down this road. I think we can go down this road. It's a bold decision, but it's a decision we need to make for our community. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor. Councillor

Zamprogno . Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just a few points in response to Councillor Kotlash. She suggests that there is an independent review of Hawkesbury River County Council and the value proposition that it represents to us. We did that. We did that at some point between 2017 and 2020 , and it came back with a variety of recommendations, but generally attested that the relationship we have with that organisation provides outstanding value. Councillor Kotlash suggests that we need to get the Minister's opinion on this. I can predict that the Minister will say, Are you crazy? If you wanted to dissolve a statutory body of which you've been a member for over 70 years, you can bear the cost of doing the business study that justifies whether that dissolution is in your and the other members' interests.

And that cost will fall to us. Councillor Kotlash opines that there are eight elected representatives that sit on the governing body. That's true. What Councillor Kotlash is arguing against is the statutory instrument that set up the County Council. That's the way that these bodies are governed. It has four equal members, and each council sends members to that body, and that's been an effective way of governing. It's not onerous, and the stipend that those councillors are paid is very modest. And there's a lot of value that, when I was on that body for five years and two as chair, the collegial fraternity, the ability to sit around a table with members of other councils and talk about not just matters relating to weed management, but a whole heap of other matters, represented outstanding value in much the same way that our membership of WESROC confers that kind of value.

Councillor Kotlash suggests that there are no economies of scale or that shared service models do not deliver value, but there are plenty, plenty, plenty of studies— Point of order.

Point of clarification, Mr. Representation, rather. I didn't say that joint services models—I didn't say that. Joint service models are effective. Point

Of order, Mr. Mayor. We've got one point of order we'll deal with. No,

You've got a point of— you've got a point of— Mr. Representation, which is not a point of order.

I said that—

Thanks, Councillor. I know what I've got, Councillor Kotlash. I heard what you said. I heard what Councillor— I think you misinterpreted what he said. I think he said that I said that they— That's it. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councillor Wheeler , do you have a point?

The point of order was that misrepresentation is to be heard at the end of the debate, not during the debate.

Thank you. I rather agree, Mr. Mayor. A person claiming a point of order does not get to argue— The substantive matter. I have your conversation. Thank you.

I have described this before as an act of vandalism, and I repeat that assertion tonight. To seek to dissolve this relationship that has delivered such outstanding value to this community, to an organisation that is headquartered in our LGA,

I think is an act of vandalism. And I'll close with this point. Nobody agrees with Councillor Kotlash at HRCC. None of the other members of HRCC see the problem that Councillor Kotlash does. What she has offered is her opinion, which she is entitled to do, but it is just that. And it was disingenuous when we were debating this in the last term of Council for that information to be advanced in a way that made it look like this was Council's position or Council's opinion when it was not. The other members of HRCC love being a member, and the elected members and indeed the executive of those other councils, who are smarter than me, generally speaking, much, much smarter than me, when I speak to them, can't imagine why we would have this fit of insanity and try and divest ourselves of a relationship that generally we get the lion's share of benefit out of.

Of the four member councils, we get the lion's share of value, and that's been demonstrated on many occasions. And, you know, it was the opinion that I came to strongly when I was on and chair of that organisation. So I appeal to my colleagues, and especially those who are new to the chamber, to vote for this rescission motion and to preserve this wonderful relationship. Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor Creed. Sorry , I just wanted to also clarify.

Councillor, when you're finished, if you put your light up, it's behind the screen. I can't see it when it's on. When you're finished.

Oh, yeah, okay. All right. I just wanted to clarify. I asked about the responses with regards to Councillor Kotlash's letter. Did Hawkesbury Council or anyone in Hawkesbury Council respond to the, I think the former Chair, Councillor Cox's email from us in regards to his questions or his response? I'm not aware.

Through you, Mr Mayor, I can't speak for individual councillors who received the email, but the organisation, Hawkesbury City, did not know.

Okay, thanks.

Councillor Grimacci. Thank you, Mr Mayor. This is my second term. From the early days of my first term, what I have noticed is that this council and councillors are divided for some reason. Instead of getting together and finding a happy solution, it's always this way or that way. This place has been operating, the county council has been operating for so many years, I understand that. I have personal experiences on that. As you may know that, you know, I'm also in chemicals and lubrication business, which I was the main supplier and agent of all the underwater machineries . I know how they work. And now we heard from the general manager that, and Councillor Kotlash, I think we don't have harvester anymore.

What guarantees do we have from state or federal governments that, you know, we are going to get a certain amount of money to buy these harvesters? How long is that going to be? And while we don't have these machineries, which, you know, they come from overseas, mainly from Spain. What's going to happen during that time? I don't know what happened at the first motion. I have supported Councillor Kotlash, yes, I did, and I should have gone through the accounts thoroughly. I didn't. It was my mistake, and when I make a mistake, I own it. That's okay. Now, what I'm trying to say is that instead of moving a motion this way or that way, and since we have two highly knowledgeable, respectable councillors, Zampronio and Wheeler, are we in a position, or do we have the right to say that, all right, go ahead and have a look at it for three months or six months, and then, you know, come back and give us a report, then make a decision.

So instead of, you know, just chopping a bleeding hand, why not, you know, try to repair it or to have a look inside? You know, what was wrong yesterday could be right today. Let's see if we could do that. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other

Councillors? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I address some of the things that have been raised. The figures that were presented in the report to Council are not— they're not tested figures. They are Councillor Kotlash's assumed data, and they should be taken with that understanding. There are a number of assumptions in that report that was used for the previous motion. Statements like the depot is a lazy asset , that's not the truth. It houses equipment, offices and a meeting space. It is, in fact, a multipurpose facility. I'm not sure where you would put all of those things. If you didn't put them at the depot, you could send them to a cheaper part of the LGA, but then you would have problems with planning, and you would lose. The staff's capacity to move easily to the other LGAs that they serve.

The idea that council can use its mapping resources and its other resources to provide a similar service is currently not feasible. We haven't even mapped significant vegetation in this LGA. How are we going to extend that limited knowledge to weed management? We simply do not have the capacity to do that at this point, particularly not in the department of council that, through frankly no fault of its own, is our most stretched infrastructure services, thanks to repeated natural disasters. The idea that there is a duplication of policies under the same model ignores the fact that many of those policies are incredibly formulaic and require largely cut and pasting from model policies issued by the Office of Local Government that is also the driving body for the replication of those policies across every organisation in local government.

The idea that the weed harvesters are lazy assets or should be, or have been, or that are scrapped ignores the fact that local government accounting requires the depreciation of assets, and it's a normal accounting procedure. You heard the general manager of HRCC state it was a normal accounting procedure to save money. It's standard when plant is not required that it's mothballed and it's depreciated

You can't complain about lazy assets and staffing on one hand and then complain on the other when those assets are written off to save money. The idea that you would call for the dissolution of an organisation and it wouldn't affect the staff is, frankly , mind-boggling to me. This constant toing and froing about the future of HRCC in the previous term of Council has had. A frankly devastating impact on the Hawkesbury River County Council staff. You cannot have a motion on the books that states council writes to the Minister for Local Government. As a preference, the Minister dissolves the Hawkesbury River County Council and not have the 11 employees wonder about their future. These are people with families, mortgages, rent and responsibility. They are not just people to be toyed with under the idea of this Council saving a bit of money.

Point of order, please, Mr Mayor. I find Councillor Wheeler's accusation that I don't care about staff absolutely— Point

Taken, Councillor Wheeler.

I have never

Ever

Said that I don't care about staff. In fact, I care deeply

Point of order,

Mr Mayor.

Councillor Cottlass. Councillor Wheeler. I'll retract the statement about toying with the staff, but I will— Thank you. It remains, Mr Bear, that the staff of HRCC are impacted and have been impacted by this motion and previous discussions about the future of HRCC. That's not an opinion, it's a statement of fact.

The idea that weeds can be treated simply as an economic issue ignores the fact that weeds and the environment, as the greater environment, are both an environmental and a social issue and that they need to be considered in that context. Council is not just about simple economics. We are not a business. We are a service organisation designed to deliver the best possible services to our constituents, as is HRCC.

One of the things that is missed frequently in the discussions about weeds locally is the weed load that's carried by the Hawkesbury. It is far greater than our constituent councils, not just because of the size of the Hawkesbury, which is far greater as a land mass. Even when you take out the national parks, we have a much greater weed load simply because of the topography and the early disturbing of the Hawkesbury due to colonisation. We can always do better. We can always wish for more resources. We do need a better reporting mechanism. I'm happy to consider, and I always have been happy to consider, a different governance model. But that's not the motion that was put to Council. The motion that was put to Council was to dissolve the Hawkesbury River County Council or to withdraw, and we had to vote on what we had. Thank you. Councillor Creed.

Mr Mayor, I'd like to move the rescission motion be put.

We haven't had two speakers against it.

Sorry.

Councillor Creed. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Sorry, a couple more questions. Which one to ask first? Has Council staff costed what pulling out of our HRCC would add to our operational budget? What it would add to— sorry, if we pull out of the— if it gets dissolved, we pull out, have staff ascertained what it would actually cost us to employ people and the equipment to do the weed management ourselves? General Manager.

Through you, Mr Mayor, I'm just trying to recall which month it was. Question on that. Yes, we have. And so our staff have undertaken an exercise where, albeit with a lack of data, I think that's fair to say, the costs associated with performing a comparable, providing a comparable level of service would be, excluding any particular grant funding that may have come in from that, would have been slightly more expensive for Council to deliver the service versus the HRCC. Okay,

Thank you. Again, just through you, Mr Mayor, given that advice, what would the timeline be if we were to dissolve the Hawkesbury River County or pull out of it for Council to actually get their own operation up and running? Again, I get this is hypothetical, so I apologise to put them on

The spot. There's a process we'd have to go through first, but General Manager might explain that.

Absolutely, and we would be very much in the hands of the Minister in this regard. In terms of upping and operationalising a service of this nature, you could be looking at somewhere between maybe three, four, six months, something like that, to be able to get ourselves up and running, staff recruited and the like. And again, we would be in the hands of the Minister, and I would envisage that any agreement by the New South Wales Government to allow Hawkesbury City to pull out of HRCC would come with a lead time, and we would be a fully paid-up member of the HRCC, presumably to the end of a particular financial year, whatever that might be. Okay,

Thank you.

I realise I'm only new to this term of Council, and this was put through, I think it was the meeting before we went into caretaker period. I understand what Councillor Kotlash is trying to do, and I do take on board a lot of what she has said with regards to the governance of the HRCC. My concern is that whilst the Council could potentially run their own operation from this, I've had phone calls from other councillors, former councillors that have been on part of the River County Council, some that haven't actually been on the River County Council. I don't think I've had one person, whether they're councillor or in the public, actually turn around to me and say, This is a great decision. And I highly respect Councillor Cotlash's experience in this area.

I think probably the best way for us to go forward with this is if we do have issues with governance, we actually contact the member board, like the member council's board members, their representatives, and actually try and get them to, from the inside, as it were, change or make some adjustments. I noticed with Councillor Cotlash's response to Councillor Cox's letter, Councillor Kotlash has raised a number of issues with regards to Hawkesbury Council's order, the HRCC, questions on aquatic weed management, and there hasn't been quite a lot of— response to it. That's why I was asking the questions about whether we've had responses or not. I'll support the rescission motion this evening, but I think that we do need to go cautiously forward and actually speak to our other member councils.

I know a couple of them. I know the two representatives from Penrith Council, and I'm sure that we can speak to those on Blacktown and the Hills. If there are concerns in the way the governance of the Hawkesbury River County Council, I'm sure that we can still sort of work from within and actually come up with a resolution that will suit all parties. So I'll support the rescission motion tonight. Thank you, Councillor.

Okay, I'd just like to say a couple of words before we put the motion. Firstly, the effort that Councillor Kotlash has put into this is great. Secondly, that we've got two delegates on the County Council along with the General Manager here tonight, that debate would not go unnoticed within that structure if there's an opportunity to review that and the likes, I'm sure they would. And I don't think Councillor Kotlash is just going to sit back and say nothing anyway. So irrespective whether Councillor Kotlash gets it up tonight, it doesn't look like she is going to, but the purpose of her whole motion in the first place was to come up with a better resolve for our community. And in relation to the comment that Councillor Dogramaci made with the weed harvesters and the likes, if Hawkesbury City Council was to go to the government and ask for one, it'd be one council.

And as it is, there's four. And being the chairman of the County Council at the time when we first got the harvesters, and indeed hired one from Wyong to clean up 60 kilometres of the river literally cost millions of dollars. I'm not sure how much it was. It involved government departments. I think it was 19 million. But as a council, individually, that would have been really hard to do. And I know because I was the chairman at the time, and I know the effort that had to go in. And it was only the experience and the background of the County Council that had the ministers at the time that went unconditionally supported that organisation.

So, without further debate, I'd ask to— Write a reply

Mr Mayor.

My apologies, Councillor

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Whether we like it or not, statutory bodies are bogged down in bureaucracy. We see it in here, in what we do, and we probably can all see a bit of it in the River County Council as well. And I'm sure the people that administer that and the delegates that sit on that also can see that. My understanding of the role of the councillors who are part of that board is in administering, as Councillor Kotlash alluded to. But I'm not sure that when we sit as a delegate on an external body, that there's any requirement to have any specific qualifications. I mean, often we do have qualifications that can assist in something, but there's no requirement on that board that you have a scientific qualification.

Councillor Kotlash does. I do. Councillor Wheeler does. But that's not what's asked of the people that go onto that board. We go there—they go there to represent the Hawkesbury and to be a part of a board that administers a county council. I don't think the evidence is there anywhere in any of the information we were previously given, which categorically says we'd be saving money. And as Councillor Wheeler has outlined, the limitations we already have on delivering within our infrastructure department. You know, we've got a lot that we have to do, and I just think that around issues like this, we can do better. Councillor Dogramaci alluded to this being a divisive chamber, which it has been, and I agree.

I think we need more discussions, and I hope that going forward, we'll start to engage in more productive discussions overall. Having reactive responses where the first response is simply to withdraw from something based on dissatisfaction, in the absence of a systematic approach trying to address it, is not the best way to go forward. I think it's quite unfortunate for our new councillors to be faced with a decision of this magnitude when , you know, of something of this nature. But that's largely because this motion was only brought to the final meeting of the last council term. And in regards to the letter from the previous chair that was sent to council and to councillors, councils went into caretaker mode four days after that resolution was passed.

So we didn't have communications, or we didn't have the mechanism to be responding. I'm not sure why council as a body didn't respond. I'm not up. I only saw that after, you know, after we got back into council. So in summary, there are some significant risks around us going down this path, such as the potential cost of any demerger. The minister has said that all demergers would require the council requesting it to fund anything around that. The destabilising nature for the organisation itself and its operations, and the lag time, who would be dealing with the weeds in that. In that time, and also overall our complete, our ability to be able to deliver that service. So whereas I think that we're probably all in agreement that we're all committed to having any sort of issues around such an organisation brought to this chamber and passed on to our delegates to take into that other arena to raise these issues, I think we should be having more discussions and more feedback from our delegates going there.

I think that would be a productive thing, and that if anybody is wanting a review, then we could formally request it. I've not been on the River County Council, so I'm not 100% sure of how it actually operates, but I'm sure our representatives that go there could inform us of the best way forward if anybody has an issue, how we would be asking for that to be raised and for that to be dealt with satisfactorily. So I think that if we rescind this motion tonight, we can probably go forward with the spirit that we will continue discussions around this so that everybody can input and that if there are issues, we can find a way forward with it.

Thank you, Councillor. Okay, the motion is the rescission motion on page 71. It was moved by Councillor Bucket, seconded by Councillor Zamprogno. Those in favour of the rescission motion?

It's Councillor Zamprogno, Wheeler, Councillor Bucket, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Creed, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Sheather, and Councillor Aczel. And absent from the room was the Deputy Mayor.

And against. You've got to get the against, Mr Mayor. And Councillor Cott has to vote against it. Thank you. Okay

Councillor Aczel, did you have a question?

Thank you

Mayor. I didn't have a question. I was just going to make some comments, probably nothing that hasn't been said here tonight already. I appreciate, Councillor—I mean, the rescission motion has been passed, so probably I've got little to contribute now that that's done anyway. Thank you.

Yep, missed the boat there, Councillor. Thank you. Yes

My hand was up, but it didn't get noticed. It's okay. Thank you. I didn't see it.

Councillors, now move to item 12.2.2. Declaration of interest .

I have a pecuniary interest in item 12.2.2. The nature of the interest is that my husband owns an adjacent property to the land being sold, which is 12 T3 Place, Wilberforce.

Thank you, Councillor.

We've got 12.2. 2 in

The

Document. We've got 12.1.2.

Sorry.

Yeah. Yeah, Councillor, I referred to item 12.2.2 in the business paper. It's the proposed sale of 295 Sackville Road, Wilberforce, and it's written as 12.1.2. It's the same item.

Councillor Dogramaci. Yes,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I don't know whether my presence in here reflects or in any way is contrary to pecuniary interest or not. I don't know. I'm at a crossroad in here, operating in Hawkesbury for 40 years. I know every single one of the turf farmers, vegetable farmers, business owners. If this sort of thing comes in, if a farmer, you know, wants to turn his 5 , 10, 20 acres into something else, does that mean that, you know, every single individual, when they come in here, people that I know, I have to leave?

No, not necessarily, Councillor, but you have declared interest in the past in this matter, and it's probably prudent. That's all I can offer. I think I should stay.

Thank you, Councillor.

Okay, we have four speakers registered to speak. On this item. Mr. Bill Snedden. Sorry. He has declared an interest.

Mr. Mayor, Councillors, former and newly elected—oh, sorry, newly returned. I speak in favour of this rescission motion, as it gives the new Council a chance to reconsider.

Mr. Snedden, we just need to clarify that Councillor Ogumbarji has declared an interest in the matter. Councillor Djuric, would you mind opening both of those doors, please? Councilor, read his conflict.

Okay

Yep.

Thanks, Councillor. Apologies, Phil, I do have an interest, so I have to leave.

Yep.

Significant non-pecuniary interests? They do. Thank you.

Mr. Sen, thank you.

Thank you. I speak in favour of this resolution motion as it gives the new council a chance to reconsider the Sackville Road site sale. This has morphed into a somewhat more contentious issue than when the site sale decision was made in August. There has been a quiet groundswell of discontent in both the surrounding community and the equine community, feeling that a poor decision was made. The equine community knows that pony clubs are the entrepot for much of the horse industry, training grounds for many young citizens who will morph into horse owners, trainers, etc. This is akin to the Girl Guides, Boy Scouts, etc., or other junior sport activities. Council in recent years has recognised the important economic benefits of the equine industry, valued at many millions of dollars annually.

This— It covers professional activities, for example racing, gaming, breeding, training, feeding, landholding, employment, veterinary services, and recreational activities associated, and their multiple millions of dollars of spending on top of the professional area. There is a racecourse, two polo clubs facing each other across the residents' road called the Gaza Strip, and recently equine activity classifications on Richmond lowlands were voted on to lock in flood-affected land on extractive industry reserve land. Additional contention regarding the land sale arises from the proposed purchaser, Hypro. I've been aware of community complaints regarding odour from the pet food operations at Box Avenue site in Council's industrial area over quite some years now.

Residents are unhappy with both Council and EPA actions to stop these odours affecting them. Residents are now more unhappy that the odour producer and owner of the site also is the purchaser of the pony club land site and are concerned re the future land use after a three-year agreement lapses. This is openly reported in the Hawkesbury Post October edition, pages three and six. I'm holding the paper up, which also references the many years of long odour problems from the Elfarm site, farm supply site, the mushroom compost producers, which I was involved with over more than a 20-year period. I spoke many times in Council here. It was very contentious and is now resolved. I would also like to remind councillors of the solvent refinery fire of the 20th of January 1999 at Box Avenue, very close to the Hypro factory.

This fire polluted with toxic waste the site, and it is now a bare, unusable site into perpetuity. It parallels what's in the ground at Around at Castle Ray tip, I was on the closure committee for that. I know what I'm talking about. The parallel with Hypro is that residents' complaints were brushed off for years by council and EPA until the disastrous fire. Not reported in the Post is that another pet food factory at Mulgrave that also had odour problems, paralleling with the El Farm problems, is now fixed and is no longer an odour problem. There are other problematic contentious sites in the Hawkesbury, notably two on Stanix Park Road, very close to the council industrial area, and I've had things to do with them.

However, these are all valid economic activities, and they are substantially based on uses of low-value agricultural by-products or waste, and they turn them into valuable new materials, producing economic benefits in the Hawkesbury if the factories are well run. This is a sterling example of the circular economy in action, which our Sustainability Committee was constantly talking about, and examples of waste management and diverting from landfill. Now, if council opts to retain the site after a decision motion tonight, other beneficial uses additional to the pony club activities come to mind linked to the biodiversity on the site. Rather than being problematic, we could then have more horse-based medical and social therapy, similar to Riding for the Disabled.

Community group weed-controlled, saved by groups like Hawkesbury Environment Network or community interest groups, we have many of them. Flora and fauna studies could be on the site via universities or other. Cool burning weed control instruction, Aboriginal land practice, can also be based at the site. Educational studies at the site, similar to activities at Longneck Lagoon, also come to mind. A green buffer to the industrial area is also a basis of that site and a reason for its retention the way it is now. In fact, El Farm have grown hedges of trees around their site to shield it from view. So there is a precedent already with a former polluting problematic site. The express problematic constraints on that site now can be turned to advantages for appropriate uses if the land is retained.

Councillors, the land sale decision comes under what— So what I was taught in high school as the social contract. A citizen is expected to be a law-abiding person, i.e. follow the laws of the land, pay rates, taxes, etc., be loyal to the nation, etc. But in exchange is given reasonable returns economically and socially by instruments of government, including council. Now is an instance where councillors need to look at this social contract, not just follow.

We

Have a chance to do something better, councillors. Thank you.

Any questions?

Thanks, Mr. Sand.

Thank you.

We have a second speaker, Patricia Swartz.

Five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor and councillors, for the opportunity to address this meeting. My name is Patricia Swartz. I wish to speak on the item 12.1.2, which is the rescission motion for the sale of 295 Sackville Road, Wilberforce. I am speaking in support of the rescission motion. I am not speaking on behalf of any organisation, but I have consulted with individuals and local organisations and researched the issue for an article I wrote for the Living Heritage magazine, which is delivered to Council. There are two main reasons why I believe that 295 Sackville Road should not be sold. The first is the ecological significance of the land. Only 13% of Cumberland Plain woodland still exists. Most of that remains is fragmented and disconnected.

According to the Rural Boundary Clearing Code, Cumberland Plain woodland in the Hawkesbury region cannot be cleared. That applies to this site, I would imagine. Ecological studies have determined that a development on the site could cause serious and irreversible impacts to the biodiversity of the land. The site contains plant communities which are threatened ecological communities, threatened species and critically endangered species.

The land constitutes a wildlife corridor. We do know there are koalas in the area from reports from Stanix Road. These are reports I have received myself. So what does all this mean? On one hand, it is a positive thing to keep a unique area of land in public hands. On the other hand, any buyer who wants to develop this land would face backlash from the community and the endless jumping through hoops to get government approval. Now I'll talk about the Pony Club, which is my second reason for supporting the rescission motion. Now coming to the Pony Club, the second reason not to sell the land. The Pony Club was established on the site by Ted Lewis about 40 years ago. His daughter, granddaughter and great-granddaughter are still very involved with horses and are in the area living very close to this, to Woodlands.

The Woodlands Pony Club is well sited adjacent to the Woodlands Oval and playing fields and is on a scenic route to the Ebenezer Church and the Hawkesbury River at Sackville Ferry. At Woodlands, all maintenance is done by riders and members, so I believe maintenance doesn't cost the council anything. Last weekend was a maintenance weekend. Next weekend there are 59 registered riders for show jumping and equitation. 59 is a lot of riders. The family connections of the pony club are strong. Parents, children, grandchildren are sometimes all members. I have been sent some photos from the pony club of all sorts of family groups, generational things, all sorts of things. One of the most moving ones was a small disabled child with very serious health problems beaming from the back of her pony with a couple of helpers on either side.

This is the human side that gets missed when we only talk about money. This pony club has been established for a long time and is really very much a part of the community. It says in the council report that the land is surplus to council's needs. However, council has a duty to provide for the community's needs that this piece of land seems to fulfil. Developing this land is problematic according to its environmental credentials. And this is according to the council notes, there has been an unsolicited offer made for the land, and council has recommended accepting the offer. It seems straightforward, but this leaves out the full exploration of the benefit of the land to the community and to the council itself.

I feel a lot more thought should go into selling this land. Before a decision is made.

Thank you. Thank you. Question from councillors.

Thanks very much. Thank you.

Okay, we have another speaker, Ms.

Jermain

Good evening, Mr Mayor and councillors. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm speaking on behalf of the Bells Line of Road Business Council, and I want to focus on the very real costs to local businesses and our community of Hawkesbury Council's decision to sell 295 Sackville Road via private treaty rather than public auction. I want to start by saying that Hypro Group did what any business wanting to expand would do, look around for suitable land and make an offer to buy it. And Hawkesbury City Council's administrative practices have caused the BLBC, the Bligh Business Council, to make this submission to the councillors. The decision to sell 295 Sackville Road will, before, raises serious concerns about fairness because of the perception that council might be favouring one business over others, and this perception has costly implications.

The decision to bypass a public auction and accept an unsolicited offer from Hypro creates an impression that Council might be giving preferential treatment to one company. Now , perception risks undermining the confidence of other local businesses, who now see a public asset transferred privately without the opportunity to bid or compete on fair terms. When businesses lose trust in local government to operate transparently and fairly, they may hesitate to invest, expand, or in some cases even stay in the community. This results in a negative impact on the economic growth and job creation here in the Hawkesbury. What's troubling is that there is an urgent need for industrial land in the area.

Existing parks are fully occupied, so the demand for expansion is high and businesses are already leaving or resituating. So selling a prime piece of land without a transparent process denies other businesses an equal opportunity to benefit from this space, an opportunity that could have supported a more diverse range of industries and jobs. By favouring one company, Council risks stalling the potential growth of other businesses that could have really contributed to our local economy. Moreover, the private negotiation undercuts the fair market value of the property. So the average price of RU1 land for the last 12 months ending September 30 was $90.87 per square metre, therefore 76,850 square metres would be a sale price just under $7 million.

The actual sale price is short by just over $1 million. Local businesses rightly expect public land to be sold at competitive market-driven prices. This ensures ratepayers see the highest possible return. However, the Hypro purchasing the land at that price, it appears undervalued by regional standards, and other businesses are left questioning whether they too could have offered more given the opportunity. These kinds of council decisions are making it harder for local enterprises to feel secure in investing their futures here in the Hawkesbury. The long-term cost of this perception of favouritism is difficult to quantify, but very real. It diminishes the confidence of businesses in the council stewardship.

Businesses and investors will look elsewhere for growth opportunities. When council decisions cast doubt on fairness and transparency, our entire business community bears the cost, and that's the cost of loss. So I've spoken to you as a member and director of the Bells Line of Road Business Council, and I've brought to you sentiments and desires from our business community. And business, it doesn't just mean business owners. It means their employees, past, present and future, local residents, mums, dads, families. So tonight I urge you, our elected representatives, to support the rescinded motion, not just to address this sale, but to reaffirm your commitment to fair and transparent decision-making that supports all businesses and their communities equally.

Thank you.

Questions, Councillors? Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you for your opportunity for you to speak there and put your point across. You make an assertion that council is favouring one company over another. Do you have the data to back that up, or could you please confirm it is purely your opinion?

I made the assertion there's a perception within local businesses. Would you like to see emails? No, you mentioned a

Perception, and then you talked about, with fact, that council was favouring. You said that twice that I can recall. So how is council favouring one business over another when you make that as an assertion, not a definition of your perception?

Well, I've said that there's a perception that they might be. Should we take a look at my speech and send that through later?

No, I heard it.

I said that there's a perception that there might be favouritism.

Okay. Thank you. You also talk about a lack of transparency. Can you please explain how council has not been transparent when there's a report in the business paper to that regard?

The decision to go via private treaty rather than public auction, it sets a precedence, and that hasn't been accurately or, it hasn't been engaged with within the community to what we would prefer.

And what would you prefer? Explain that in detail, please.

The designation of this land could be used for many other resources as well, emergency services and so forth. So those paths haven't been explored.

With all due respect, it can't be because the reports already on the record show the biodiversity impacts on the land do not support that. Okay

A different approach to the sale via private treaty, via public auction, could allow for more funds to be implemented towards a different solution in another area to build such emergency services.

The land has already been purchased. Point of order, Mr Mayor. I'm just trying to ascertain the point that you're making because—

Point of order. There needs to be a question

The code of meeting practice allows for councillors, with a time limit, to ask questions of the speaker. It does not allow the councillor to debate with the speaker. Yeah

Right. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I have been asking questions and verification.

They've been straight questions .

I'll finish. I think I've made my point clear. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you.

I've got one. With hindsight, it's always good, and all the councillors got correspondence similar to what you've indicated tonight. But one of the documents we're given is a confidential document, and that was debated, I don't know, probably three-quarters of an hour by the councillors in this room, all the issues that you brought up plus a lot more are within this document, because the councillors have concerns in relation to the matters that you asked, and on the basis they come up because there's more to the sale of this property than just the sale of the property. There's consequences, like you alluded to. So that's what the confidential document's about. It's not about secrecy or the like.

There's information in there in relation to value of properties that you've indicated that was sourced from other sources as well, and the like. The councillors have had the privilege of that information and to come up with their conclusions. So it doesn't mean you shouldn't wear the spurs, but a lot of those issues are looked at in that regard. Thanks. You can.

And I think to that point, the community perception is everything, and if the community has perceived that that— ...

Closed doors.

Yep. There's friction there, and it's not going to have a positive impact on businesses, and, you know, it

Will continue. They're aware of that too. Thank you. Okay

Councillors, there's one last speaker, and it's Mr. Line Bucket. Lionel Buckett.

Thank you.

Mr Mayor, Councillors, I think we've had three speakers for the rescission motion, so I'm speaking for the motion,

Which makes it interesting. So we'll start. The policy of the council is not adhered to, so I see that as very problematic. So we are supposed to follow the policy so that people don't think things are happening behind closed doors and that there is no transparency. And there has been a closed meeting, and we don't know what went on in that meeting. We only know here, so what happened in that meeting. So I thought , originally I think the history is that the land was bought for the expansion of the industrial estate at Wilberforce probably 40, 50 years ago by forward-looking councillors. And today, if it was rezoned as industrial land, it'd be three-quarters of the area of the site is 57,000 square metres at $500 is $28.5 million.

And there's industrial land at $600 a square metre sales going through at— McGrath's Hill. So it gives you an idea of the council, if it did follow its policy and throw things open, that there would be a lot of interest from a lot of people to develop it. But that they also followed the original idea of developing it themselves, which is how that Woodlands Park got developed. That was developed by council. Then the council could benefit three or four times more than what it is with this non-transparent deal. Other councils do developments. Bathurst does them, and Bathurst, the price goes up to $500 and started off cheaply because they want business, they want people to have jobs. In Hawkesbury, we need people to have jobs near where they live for economic reasons, but also for environmental reasons.

That's an aim is to not have people drive for many hours to get to their work. And there's developments happening at Glossodia. The Wilberforce could be a start to what should be being put in, what should be being planned for.

So since I'm speaking in support, I was thinking along the lines of people cooperating and they think about things, and the potential there is $30 million, but the council is being short-sighted to get $5 million from the deal in a hurry to buy the land for the fire brigade at near the SES site. It's, you know, it's cutting off your nose to spite your face. And I notice that the council, on its conditions of the motion left open that it could add other conditions. So it could perhaps put a condition that council rezone the area for industrial land and that Hypro pay the increased valuation with a 20% discount. It would be an alternative way of looking at it so that everybody benefits out of it, the community benefits out of it.

I'm just saying there are alternative ways of doing things. But it's really important that transparency be adhered to and the policy is adhered to, because if you breach that policy, you lose trust. And the policy is there so you can't be accused of doing the wrong thing behind closed doors. Thank you.

Thanks, Mr Bucket. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Bucket, throughout your speech you consistently referred to the policy, the policy is not being adhered to. We have a suite of policies, so which particular policy are you referring to?

In the first business paper, a policy is referred to for the method of disposing of land that's excess to council's needs, and from memory, it's by auction. And that business paper... Also says that. It gives a couple of reasons why not to go after the policy. The reasons being some square metres off of road realignment. It was my interpretation of it, not needing to go to public auction. Well, that makes sense. I don't think this is comparable to a few square metres on a road being transferred to somebody adjoining it because the road's being realigned. Thank

You

Councillor

Zamprogno. Oh yes, I had a question. Lionel, thank you for coming along and speaking. It's been asserted that we need to expand the amount of land available for industry because there's a pressure to do so. And I draw your attention to Council's Employment Lands Strategy, which we reviewed and adopted in December of 2020. And in the various submissions that I reviewed towards that new policy, there was no great clamour for new or expanded industrial land. Industrial land accounts for 20% of our overall commercial lands, and it's dropped 5% in the decade previous, in line with. So I suppose my question is, given that that's the case, and if there was a clamour from industry for more land for that purpose, why did it not come before us at the appropriate time?

Mike.

Bells Line of Road Business Council has people coming to us at our meetings saying they can't get land. The little businesses, in our dealings with businesses in the McGraths Hill area. They're saying the bigger businesses, they can't get more land. It's not there.

Some councils seem to be more proactive in it. The Penrith Council bought the old Ricolla site, which is twice as big as the Wilberforce site, for 50 million bucks about 2020. And then they on-sold it a couple of years later for 77 million. But they bought it to make industrial land available for people in Penrith. And I think they conditioned the sale that the developer had to do it within a couple of years because they were so keen to get those sites so you've got businesses operating, jobs for people in that area . So Hawkesbury, I don't think. One of our ex-mayors is saying Hawkesbury hasn't had a rezoning done by an LEP for probably 20 to 30 years.

So my follow-up question would be, does the organisation that you represent, or businesses that have been looking for more land, are you aware of whether they made a submission to our employment lands policy at that time that we were considering our long-term plan?

No, none of them have mentioned that. I wouldn't expect them to. They're ordinary people that are not really engaged much with the council. They're engaged with the business council because, you know, we're in business, they're in business. They tell us their problems and they come to us and say, What can we do about it? So we're sort of like the interface because we're more used to the council. But I think there's a breakdown in council interacting with business, and small business and medium and even big business.

Thank you.

Thanks , Mr Bucket. That's the final speaker. Deputy Mayor, did you want to know what Part 9.1 actually says? You know what it is. Yep. Thanks. Mr Mayor, I'll move the motion. Councillor Zamprogno. Thank you. The motion is the rescission motion to oppose sale of 295 Sackville Road, Wilberforce and its item, as I said before, 12.1.2 in the business paper. Councillor Zamprogno. Do I have a seconder?

Councillor Wheeler . Thank you. Okay, I'll speak to this briefly. I opposed the sale in the previous term, and I support the rescission motion now for precisely the reasons that have been articulated by a number of speakers already. I believe that this has been a breach of process, and I noticed that when the Deputy Mayor, you know, asked for some proof that there had, you know, been any impropriety, this was moved into confidential at her urging at that time. And I would certainly like to foreshadow that, you know, we conduct—well, I presume now that you've let me move this, is that we're not moving into confidential for this, all right then. So I'm glad to know that we are conducting this—

That is unless councillors wish to, but I suggest the public make it pretty aware, just need to be mindful of some of the comments you make.

There's no desire on my part for this to be debated in confidential. I think that the community has a clear expectation that if we're discussing something where matters of propriety come up, is that we do debate this, and if we stray into the kinds of issues that caused us to be in confidential last time, the General Manager will intervene and guide us appropriately. A councillor who is no longer in this chamber tried to link this sale to the money that was needed to purchase land for the new fire control centre. And I objected to that at the time because it felt arbitrary. It wasn't an appropriate linkage in the sense that it would be just as arbitrary for me to say that we must sell this land at Wilberforce so that we could, you know, gain some other benefit, that we could, you know, seal Packer Road or that we could rehabilitate and improve Templin Field, all of which are things that we need roughly the same amount of money for, if not more.

But we wouldn't buy that argument because it's an inappropriate linkage between, you know, a source of revenue and a particular financial need. And as we all know, we have now secured the sale of that land for the new fire control centre. So that transaction has been concluded, and we will find the money where we need to. But I don't know that there's any benefit in linking it to this sale here.

It also strikes me that a number of speakers have said that we should support this rescission motion, but for completely opposite reasons. Those who value the ecological value of that site, an ecological value that was clearly significant enough to scotch our proposal to place the new fire control centre on this land, have a very good point. And then others have come, like Mr Buckett, to say that we should support this rescission motion because we're not selling it for nearly enough, and that if we rezoned it for industrial, it would be worth far more than the sum that we are letting it go for. I'm happy to accept either of those arguments. Clearly, this is a very bad idea and is ripe for us to re-examine.

And as far as the proposed purchase of themselves, Hypro, I've spoken to members from Hypro and they're remarkably philosophical about this. They will accept the chamber's call on this, and they simply said, look, we'd like to expand. If another piece of adjacent land was proposed, we would find it equally appealing. And then there was some suggestion of another adjacent parcel of land, but under council's privacy rules, they can't even get in touch with the owner of that other potentially equally appropriate piece of land to make them an offer or to express an interest in that land. And I share their frustration. So there's no particular reason why we should sell this land. And to Mr. Bucket's point, it may have been bought 40 or 50 years ago potentially to expand our industrial land.

But as I said earlier, there is no great clamour for that. We reviewed our employment lands policy. People were not beating down our door to say, my God, you need more industrial land. The policy that we adopted said that we should consider rezoning certain land as the need arises, and there is no particular pressing need in this case. And I'm suspicious of the fact that, you know, the amount that was offered for this particular piece of land was done out of charity. I don't expect Hypro to be philanthropists. I expect them to be a business that seek to maximise a return on their investment. And if they're offering us a certain sum, even if it's in excess of what we thought it was worth, it's because in the future they expect it to be worth even more.

So I hope that my colleagues will support this rescission motion.

Thanks, Councillor. Councillor.

Through you, Mr Mayor, just a couple of questions, if I could. I'm going to tread carefully around the confidential matters and not overstep if I can. The property at Sackville Road is 75% of the size of the property recently acquired at McKinnon Road, yet the original valuation was only a little over 30% of McKinnon's Road. Do we know what the reason is behind that low valuation?

Councillor, that's the exact piece of information that I need to be dealt with in confidential session, please.

Just another—

Sorry, can I just raise something? If we're going to ask questions, can I just ask that we move into confidential, get the questions out of the way, and then we come back out and can debate?

Because I have some that I'd like to ask, but I know I can't ask them publicly. Okay.

Sorry, I'm happy to do the debate out, but just the questions I need to do. No

Well, it's got to be debated. If you've got questions that need to be answered, they need to be answered before the

Debate. I move a procedural motion that we go into confidential.

Thanks, Councillor. Second? Councillor Veigel. Those in favour?

Against?

Those in favour, McMahon, Councillor Cottle, Creed, Veigel, Reardon and myself. Those against, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno and Councillor Aczel. I declare the motion carried. We shall clear the room. It'll only be for a few minutes, so if you want to make yourself a cup of tea, please do.