18 February 2025 - Ordinary

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to Hawkesbury City Council meeting of the 18th of February. I'd like to welcome all those who are attending the meeting this evening, as well as those who are attending online.

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 and present, emerging and emerging, and acknowledge all Aboriginal Torres Strait Island people as First Nations people of this country. I'll now hand over to the General Manager.

Thank you very much, 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'd 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 and live stream 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 gallery can be seen in the live stream video, and if you do not wish to be recorded in the live stream, please move into the foyer, and we will turn the foyer speakers on 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 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 if you've got your mobile phone with you this evening, can you please turn it off or turn it to silent for the duration of the meeting. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, General Manager. Before we start the meeting tonight, there's two presentations that we'll make. I'll introduce one and I'll pass it on to the second. The first one is Sarah Casson, and she's the Hawkesbury Citizen of the Year . She had commitments on Australia Day where these awards were given, and we felt it was only prudent to give her the recognition she deserves for the work that she's put in our community over a long period of time. And I'd ask Sarah to come up and I will make the presentation.

She's not gone away yet. Sarah is a local business consultant and founder of Hawkesbury Women in Business. She also helps business people to be more successful, and she fosters meaningful connections, leadership and professional growth among local women in business. She also is deeply committed to a number of causes. Some are mentioned here this evening, but includes mental health, some of us could do with that, through the Hope for You Foundation, the prevention of suicide and domestic violence. And I'd offer Sarah the opportunity to say a few words. Congratulations.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Firstly, I just wanted to say a massive thank you to Hawkesbury City Council for the acknowledgement, for the work that we do in the business community and in particular for women in business. So we started Hawkesbury Women in Business over five years ago now, and what we have managed to do is create more female leaders in this area. From my experience, a good leader creates other good leaders, in fact, greater leaders. And I feel like with the team that we're fostering within Hawkesbury Women in Business, we're able to continue to build that leadership within this area, which is absolutely fantastic to see. So a massive shout out for those who are watching online, that within our community, within Hawkesbury Women in Business and the wider community, because we together make a big machine and we're all a part of that machine, making it great.

So thank you everyone so much. It really does mean a lot. Thanks.

The second presentation, I'm going to ask the Deputy Mayor to come up, and she'll explain why that.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. It's my pleasure to stand here tonight and present again an award to someone who is very special here to the whole Hawkesbury community. While I say some lovely words about her, I will get her to come up now, and that is Rochelle Miller, if you'd love to make your way up here, please.

Now, Rochelle, there's probably not many people in the Hawkesbury who don't know Rochelle, and that's because she is a staunch advocate for many causes. Rochelle won our local Hero Australia Day Award in 2024, and sadly her award was lost in a fire. So we're very happy here today to present her with another award. As many people would know, Rochelle has made a significant impact through volunteering at Ebenezer Public School, and the reason there is someone on that crossing right now every day to protect the kids at Ebenezer is because of Rochelle's efforts. She also played a significant role communicating with the Lower Portland community and every single one of us, through all of her emails that we got from Rochelle during the floods, and that was a wonderful voice you were for the community out that way, advocating and securing funding for the restoration of Greens Road.

I'm very happy, therefore, to replace her Australia Day Local Hero Award because it is so well deserved, and I think because of how much you do in the community, getting two shots at it is something that's definitely worthy of Rochelle. So thank you very much

Thank you. I got a bit emotional when I got the phone call to say they were replacing this, so it means so very much because it's something I'm pretty proud of. So there's a heap of people here tonight that I invited that along the way helped. My good friend over there, when we were rallying to have a government criteria changed, was a vital part of that. Like, I had all these people around me helping me. We seem to cry when I come to council chambers. It's really weird. Obviously, it's been quite, quite trialling losing our home, and the first time I stood here and spoke to council was because I saw a six-year-old nearly get run over by a car, and they should be able to cross the road at school and get to school.

Secondly is Lower Portland Ferry. I've been very fortunate to meet the whole community of Lower Portland during a time where a whole community came together and met at Hawkesbury City Council and Hills Chambers to ensure a vital infrastructure that still needs to stay and still needs improvements, but that's not why we're here tonight. And I'm just, I'm just so grateful, and the people that we got to help during the flood, and there's people like Darren Osmond over there that was a vital part of that too, getting medical supply out during flood and having the communication there. And then I have family here that have supported us during this really difficult time. So it really means a lot to me to have this represented to me.

So thanks everyone who was part of that, and the consideration that went into that and the organisation, I really do appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you, ladies. Well done.

Moving on with business tonight, all councillors are present. There's no apologies. Declarations.

Thank you, councillors. Any declarations of interests in tonight's matters?

Councillor Wheeler.

10.2.1 and 10.5.1.

10.2.1 and 10.5. Thank you. Confirm— sorry, Councillor McMahon. Yeah, thank you, Mr Mayor.

10.5.1

And potentially

10.2.1, but I will confirm. Less than significant non-pecuniary.

Sorry, what was the second one? 10.5.1. Okay.

Okay, confirmation of the minutes

Of the meeting of the 4th of February. Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel.

Those in favour?

Against? Carried. Councillor Brogno, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash, Creed, Veigel, Reardon, Dogramaci and Sheather.

It's carried.

We've got one public

We've got three public speakers, one for and two against. That's in relation to the 10.3.3, submission to Richmond Bridge.

The first speaker in favour is Penny Sharp. Could you address the meeting, please?

Thank you, Mr Mayor and Councillors. I am a member of the Richmond Bridge Traffic Action Group and also one of the owners and custodians of the historic Durumbros property on Innes Lane, Richmond. Firstly, I'd like to thank Council for the heritage considerations given to our property in its submission. The submission also addresses many of the heritage impacts that Transport for New South Wales has not dealt with. A couple of the major omissions from the REF and Statement of Heritage Impact include the site of the 1820 stock route road and historic cultural landscape. Both these heritage sites are highly significant. The road built by William Cox in 1820 was part of a network of roads that formed the first stock route to the north via the Putty Road to the Hunter district.

This historic road is not only significant for its connection with two of the most recognised names associated with the early colony, Governor Macquarie and William Cox, the renowned road builder, but also for being part of what was the first stock route to the north. It is evidence of the early expansion of the colony during the Macquarie era and therefore very significant. It continued as the stock route serving large areas of New South Wales and Queensland into the mid-20th century and is an important cultural route and part of Australia's iconic history of droving. The historic cultural landscape features early settlement patterns dating from the 1794 land grants to Emancipists along the southern bank of the river and the larger 1802 land grants to free settlers.

It is one of the few surviving pre-Macquarie landscapes and is the setting for three exceptionally significant state heritage items: Durham Bowes, Hobartville and the St Peter's Church group, and also the site of the first Macquarie era stock route to the north. Together these features make this a unique and highly significant cultural landscape. Despite bringing the significance of these sites to the attention of Transport for New South Wales for the past five years, there have been no assessments carried out to determine their level of heritage significance. Because both sites are unlisted, Transport were required to investigate and assess them to determine their level of heritage significance.

This is usually done early in the planning process to inform choices and decisions, but this was not done. In April last year, Heritage New South Wales advised Transport and the heritage consultants who were preparing the statement of heritage impact as part of the REF that they needed to assess these sites, but this advice was not followed and the assessments are not in the REF or statement of heritage impact. Transport for New South Wales have an obligation under Section 5.1 of the EP&A Act to provide these assessments as part of the REF. Without them, according to the guidelines for Division 5. 1 assessments, the determining authority, which is Transport for New South Wales, can decide not to proceed, or that further assessment is required and would therefore need to begin the REF process again, or decide an EIS is required.

Given the likelihood that the site of the 1820 road and the Prima Quarri cultural landscape have the potential to meet the criteria for State Heritage listing, it would seem more likely that an EIS is required. We feel it is important to bring this information to your attention that was brought up at last Sunday's forum. Transport for New South Wales have not fulfilled its duty to provide the required assessments to fully understand the level of heritage significance of these historic sites. Without these assessments, the potential impacts and how they can be avoided or mitigated cannot be accurately assessed. Thank you.

Thank you. Questions from the councillors?

Councillor …

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Penny. I just, I may have just missed a bit there, I was just taking a note, but did you provide, have you have provided all that information both via submission and in person to Transport for New South Wales and to the Heritage Council , Heritage Office? Okay. Thank you.

Councillor Grbaci. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just a quick question, similar to Councillor Buckett. How many times have you submitted that application and when?

Well, we've been doing it for five years. I don't know how many times we've

Been— Two, three, four, five times?

Oh yeah. Yeah. Okay.

Thank you.

Any further questions?

Thank you.

The next speaker we have is Darren McLean.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Councillors, staff and members of the public. I'll keep it as brief as I can, more directed at the document itself and the review of that. So I briefly had a read through it, and the main points— well, first of all, I should say thank you for the staff for producing the revision. Job well done, much improved. And as we go down into the in-short, council demands the following. We see things like on how to mitigate or avoid impacts to residents. We'd prefer that we don't go towards the mitigation path and more closely align with avoiding the South E Road and Inalls Lane areas.

Further down, we have avoid use of roads currently with 50 k speed limits being converted to 80 kilometer speed limits, Inalls Lane and South E Road in particular, without appropriate traffic improvements and mitigation of the impacts. If perhaps that could be the without appropriate traffic improvements, we want to obviously avoid or eliminate that altogether. Because we don't want, well, I should say, we can't tell them what to do, but obviously there's strong objection to South East Road and Innes Lane.

The next page has these concerns seeking an indication of what the costs are to deliver Stage 2B so that the community has an understanding of the additional funding required to deliver the whole project. The community isn't really interested in Stage 2B, so we'd like to have that removed and possibly get a decent costing and investigation of other options that are more attractive and more suitable, sorry, more accepted in the community.

A bit lower down, we have Stage 2A and 2B are not adequate to manage increased traffic, particularly South East Road. Accordingly, Council stresses the need for funding to be secured for 2B as an urgent priority.

Again, mentioning 2B is not a path we want to go down. It's more towards avoiding the area again. We want to stay clear of Innes Lane. But we obviously want full costings of any new proposal that— They investigate, and there are many of those options, including a flyover at the Old Kurrajong Road intersection that provides immense benefits for the whole community, particularly the bypass.

Moving on, there's , in respect to the residential areas that may be impacted, this is under socio-economic and community impacts.

In respect to residential areas that may be impacted by this project, including Southleigh Road and Innes Lane, Council is partially satisfied with the mitigation measures. The whole paragraph perhaps points to accepting that Southleigh Road is acceptable, or the parallel new road proposed. Other options should be pursued and investigated. The following paragraph as well. Flood resilience. While Council acknowledges that the bridge and approaches are to be delivered at the one in 20 flood height, raised from one in five, Council still advocates for a higher flood immunity for the project.

I think there we just need to be careful of how high we want. Higher is always better, but obviously we do want to keep the costs in mind to make sure we get a quality project through and through.

Thank you, Mr McLean. That's five minutes. Excellent.

Thank you.

Councillors, any questions?

Mr McLean, did you have anything else on your list there?

Yes, I had something for the active transport, and that was,

However, Council wishes to emphasise pedestrian safety considerations through the active transport links, which will largely be located adjacent to the high traffic transport corridors, even with the construction of the bypass. Obviously, again, that's linked to a bypass that we didn't want. Down the bottom, just in summary, if I can add, in answer to your question, the suggested improvements down the bottom, which are absolutely great and spot on. We'd like to see more pointed, I guess, words talking about how critical it is about the flyover, and of course the mention of other aspects and a straighter route that gives us a better quality bypass.

Yeah, so obviously the budget down the very bottom is a concern, but we'd like to think that a quality outcome is priority one above the budget, and then once it's all investigated and costed properly, then the funding can be allocated. We either want a proper bypass or no bypass at all.

Thanks. Any other questions?

Councillor Locomarchi. Yeah, just thank you, Mr Mayor. To be fair to repeat the same question, how many applications have you submitted to Transport New South Wales over how many years?

So we have, I have submitted a couple. On behalf of our organisation, we have, we haven't submitted a lot yet. We've submitted only a couple as well. But we've had multiple private meetings with Transport for New South Wales, and they're well aware of our other proposals and routes that are available for a better bypass. Okay

Thank you.

We expect to do many more submissions in the next few days.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. McLean. Thanks , Mr. Mayor.

The last speaker on the same matter is Rod Alton.

I'm here as part of the Richmond Bridge Traffic Action Group and my family. I wish to thank those councillors who participated in our event on Sunday. Thank you for your time. Councillors and Council are very important. They represent us, more so, I believe, than any other level of government. My family arrived in the Hawkesbury in the 1850s. I've lived half my life in South Windsor and the other half living in Richmond near Inalls Lane, and have seen numerous floods, including those taking over the Inalls Lane lowlands. Even though I can speak on many events and changes in the area, us little guys rely on council and their staff to represent us. I trust by the end of tonight you will represent us and have enough knowledge to assist in getting the right solution.

So many times now I have heard those that participated in the original community stakeholder group that this proposal is nothing like what they expected. We also hear of misrepresentations of how this project formed. After dealing with Transport for New South Wales for a few years, we hear you, we understand. The Hawkesbury has a number of main road traffic issues where you will see a large number of traffic delays, for example, the missing dual lanes from Marsden Park to Windsor, the McGraths Hill flats, Macquarie Street to Blacktown Road traffic crawl in the afternoon. We are now focusing on the Richmond to North Richmond Hill most afternoons. In 2012, a report was produced with a recommendation for a four-lane bridge with four lanes to Richmond.

The cost, $165 million. That bridge and road would have been built by now. Twelve years later, we are back to a proposed four-lane bridge. Let me be clear. We 100% support the bridge. We do not support the proposed route through a heritage area, destroying the floodplain and terminating into a T intersection of a back street, dumping traffic on unsuspecting locals. Nor can the area wait until 2039 for a solution. I spoke with Transport's senior project manager, our friend Tim, on Sunday night in particular regarding a possible solution. This is an example of possibilities. I'm putting forward is based on fixing a number of issues with the current proposals, those being: one, a flood-free bridge; two, reducing congestion.

The majority of traffic to North Richmond travels along Kurrajong Road and originates from Windsor and Richmond. This congestion will continue to do so even when the current proposed bypass is built. The devastating effect of the road across the floodplains to Inalls Lane; four, the heritage impacts on Inalls Lane; five, the noise and vibration issues; six, the social impact; seven, a route to Blacktown Road; eight, It will even save a multi-generational home from being bulldozed. Again, this is only an idea. It uses existing road asset areas. The example is as follows. A four-lane bridge as proposed in 2012 and 2024. An additional two lanes from Richmond to North Richmond along Kurrajong Road as proposed in 2012.

Elevated to be above flood level. This could be two additional lanes elevated or four lanes elevated. I noticed there are already trees either side which would keep this road out of view of any heritage area, or most. This would provide the flood-free access required and alleviate the traffic snarl that is Richmond to North Richmond. As for those travelling to Penrith, Londonderry and some of the Blacktown Road traffic, Yarramundi Lane remains as their solution at ground level but widened. This continues to Crouley's Lane with a modified bend to maintain traffic speed requirements, bringing you to a roundabout at Castlereagh Road for traffic to Penrith. From the roundabout, the realignment of the driftway and the straightening of the bend on the driftway to again maintain speed will take you to Londonderry and Blacktown roads.

This is one example of using current road assets. However, there are also other assets in place, such as the easement of the power lines that travel from Yarramundi Lane to Londonderry Road. In discussions, Transport for New South Wales confirmed that the western end of Yarramundi Lane is at a height already above most flood levels, and the removal of the embankment to Inalls Lane would save money.

Just before Christmas again, we received 13 documents with 3,810 pages. It's a mammoth task to take it all in and one that we rely on the experience and expertise of council staff and the direction of councillors that we can come to a suitable solution with Transport. The Hawkesbury deserves it. I ask that Council clearly reject their current bypass proposal due to the many reasons we have provided and that Council has concerns with. And I ask that Council request an extension to the Transport for New South Wales response deadline. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Any questions, councillors?

Thank you, Mr. Alton.

Councilor Lyons-Buckett. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to move a motion which is sort of based on the one that is in the business paper, with some amendments. I've sent through the amendments to councillors and to Patricia. I only just finished it before, so rather recently.

I want to put that forward. We'll see it in a minute. I'll speak to it in a moment.

Councilor Creed, second?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think the amendments being brought forward are based on what we've heard, and I did just hear Rod ask about an extension, perhaps to the process. But I think that we can proceed with this sort of an amendment because we know that the process still has a way to go. The amendments need in this motion before us make it clear that this is neither our final commentary on the REF, nor is it an endorsement of the proposal before us. It's not to be seen as an endorsement because we are not endorsing that proposal. The information in the submission is good. The staff have done a great job of presenting many of the concerns raised by the residents and many of the issues that Transport for New South Wales need to be aware of.

But I've added in there some more requests and demands based on the input from the community and from councillors, and in that, part of that is to seek a further opportunity to comment on the REF once we have additional information or on an EIS, should that be what's determined to be necessary. So, in speaking to this, we're not road engineers. It's not up to us to provide solutions or dictate precise routes to Transport for New South Wales. Our role is to identify the shortfalls in what we've been presented with and to convey the issues raised within the chamber and from the community about the proposal. We've heard the speakers and nine of us attended a community forum on Sunday to hear what our community had to say.

I also acknowledge that representatives from Transport for New South Wales attended that, and I acknowledge their role in this project and that, of course, they're working within limitations of scope and budget provided to them, and also many changes made along the way. We're also fully aware that major infrastructure projects will always impact someone somewhere, and so any suggestions made here today for alternatives cannot be endorsed without appropriate levels of further consultation with anyone else standing to be impacted. And one of the calls is for further consultation with people directly impacted by this proposal overall because we have heard claims that there has been inadequate consultation, and certainly not the face-to-face consultation you would expect with people who are living in an area standing to be impacted as such.

It's blatantly apparent that further information and further steps need to be taken before we can be moving anywhere towards endorsing something like this. The project and its timing has been structured to fit a budget, but we're talking about a major exit route out of Sydney to the west, and we require an outcome in line with its importance, which will be complete and adequately funded to deliver a viable project to improve traffic congestion and improve flood immunity, rather than something which has become captive to and limited by successive election cycle announcements. So here we have a proposal incomplete. In its capacity to be delivered in its entirety, about which there is a broad range of concerns.

We don't want to see a half-baked project proceed, and I think that what Rod just raised about what happens when we have these missing gaps in infrastructure projects, that section from Marsden Park into Windsor, for example, where the two lanes just finish. We know the frustration that comes with that, the increased hazards around that, and often the increased cost in terms of road maintenance. So we want this to be a project that is done well and that delivers a really good outcome. We, as a council, cannot afford additional costs of road repairs and maintenance on our local roads, and yet uncertainty remains about what happens in the absence of the project being complete in terms of who maintains what.

We seem to have reasonable agreement of the design of the bridge itself, although I still can't understand how two bridges close together is acceptable in this location when it wasn't in Windsor, where it was considered dangerous to leave the old bridge in place. However, that's what we've got. Our submission needs to make it clear to Transport for New South Wales that what we're saying is that this is not our final commentary on the matter, and our points are not an endorsement of the current proposal. Transport for New South Wales are well aware of the concerns and requests from the Richmond Traffic Action Group. They're also well aware of the other options, and we're calling to get some costings around those options and some other alternatives that can perhaps deliver, can minimise the impacts and deliver a better result.

So there's a number of changes. They're not huge. I don't know if the members of the public can see them, but they are including that we're demanding a flyover at that intersection of Kurrajong Road and Inalls Road. If we're going to have something that's functioning to move traffic, we need to do it properly. This , let's not forget though, this project is a long time in the making. It's been spoken about in various iterations over across decades. I've known about it ever since I've lived here, and I've lived here for 44 years now. It's important, and public expenditure on it will only occur once in a century, if that. So we need to get it right. It needs to be done right. It's got a long timeline, so we're not causing any real delays by requesting further information and additional steps in the process to work towards the best possible outcome for now and for the future.

We don't want a solution that is simply just for today. We need a solution that's for the future. We don't want, and nor do we deserve, a second-rate solution in the Hawkesbury anymore. As part of balancing our growth and resilience into the future, we need to ensure that we're not exposing our ratepayers to further financial burdens, to further inconvenience through failing to address traffic congestion, to increasing vulnerability of flood impacts. And on that matter, we also are calling in this for details and studies around the impact of putting structures in the floodplain and how that will impact on upstream, downstream and residential communities. So if we're putting things within that floodplain, it's not just about where the bridge sits at a flood height, it's about the impact on the movement of water when we have heavy rain inundation, et cetera, to be able to ensure that we are not increasing flooding vulnerability of anybody within the floodplain.

Councillor. Yes.

Five minutes is gone.

Okay.

Thank you. Well, by— is anybody objections for the councillor? She's put a lot of effort into this, and it certainly covers the points.

I was only just finished up. We've seen examples of effective bypasses, I was going to say, which has been acknowledged, of course, by various people, that they're not necessarily easy. We have to have hard conversations. We really have to sit down and go through these things and work out the best way to do it. So our role is to advocate for that, for the best possible solution. And I believe that making a submission along these lines is the best way forward at this point.

Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor Kotlash. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I have to say a big thank you to Councillor Lyons-Buckett because I think this is a good way forward. What we have to remember in this sort of process is that if we don't give comments on mitigation and if we just say, no, we don't want that route, we might actually be, you know, putting ourselves in a position where Transport for New South Wales don't have any idea of what we're thinking about if this particular route goes ahead. So I like the idea of keeping the submission as it is and also saying these points in it as well. And I think that saying this is not our last word on it is very effective and a good move. So I'll be supporting that motion. And , yes, we've got a lot to do and there's lots more information I want about this whole project. So thanks.

Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor Brogdon. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just a question to seek clarification from Councillor Lyons-Buckett. If we could scroll back to the top, I'm just trying to establish whether Councillor Lyons-Buckett's intending this document, which she did kindly email to us, is the entirety of our response, or is merely a substitution of some paragraphs of what is clearly a much longer...

Sorry, it's only— sorry, I meant to clarify that. It's only a replacement of, like, the first page, just for where those sections are, and the rest... So those other

Sections are still included.

Yeah, yeah, all the other information, background information is still included.

Well, if that's the case, I also give this my fulsome endorsement and refer people to my remarks at the earlier meeting.

Councillor Creed. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just — I've just spoken with Councillor Lyons-Buckett. I'd actually just like to add another point in there, and I'll send it to the staff now, that a review is taken with regards to Stage 2B, Bells Line of Road upgrade section one, in relation to the T-intersection car parking that already exists in the four-lane part of Bells Line of Road to potentially maintain the status quo of that section. And I'll send that to the staff now. The reason I want to put that in is because if we can, we can actually try and limit the issue with this parking outside the post office and other shops out the front. There's already four lanes there. There's no need to redo that section for another four lanes. So if we can look at doing that, if Councillor Lyons-Buckett's happy.

Fine with that, Mr Mayor. I think we should just specify we mean at North Richmond.

Thank you. Councillor Veigel. Yeah, thank you, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, for putting this forward. This is quite a no-brainer. Just refer to the public. I stand with the community, as with I think most of the council—well, all of the councillors in this room, I hope. Leaves a majority, I guess. Let's see how it votes. I can't speak for everybody, but I probably can speak for a lot of them, but they can speak for themselves. I'll defer back to what I said in the previous meeting, what we said, as with Councillor Brogdon. But again, I'd like to thank the strength of the submission anyway. As no use building the Power Station, right, if you haven't got the conduit's doing. It's not a job lot, and it's not a final project.

It's half-baked, as we've already heard. So I'm not going to bore you with any more of my comments on it, but I fully support it, and I hope the vote goes up unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I wholeheartedly support Councillor Lyons-Buckett's submission there to strengthen the council position that we are going to be putting forward to Transport for New South Wales. I was wondering if I could also make a suggestion to add on there, and that is to discuss Redbank Creek Bridge, and it's only two lanes. If there's a point on there about ensuring that the route actually widens the Redbank Creek Bridge to four lanes, I don't know where that goes in your points, but if you could

Add it on there, would you be happy with that, Councillor Lyons-Buckett? I'm happy to include that. There wasn't really much emphasis aside from what

Councillor Creed just put on the north side, so happy to include that

Yeah, thank you. If that can be included somewhere in there, that part of our submission touches on Redbank Creek widening to four lanes. That would be great. It looks like we are going to have an endorsed position here tonight that the whole elected body supports, and I think that's really important when you're talking about the three levels of government, to have the local council that is the closest level to the people that, let's be frank, has no say in this bridge. It is a state and federal project, but we do have a voice. And given that we've had disunity over bridges in the past, I think it's really important that on this particular bridge we are speaking as one voice, and I think that's really lovely to see, and I think it's good for our community to see that the councillors are all on the same page.

I don't think that— We can have half a billion dollars of taxpayers' money wasted on a project that does not deliver the bare necessities when it comes to the outcomes that this community deserves, and that is to alleviate traffic congestion, to deliver something that has more flood resilience than a one in 20 flood. They do say that it may have stayed open in the last flood events, but we're lucky the last flood events weren't over 14 metres. We need something that, when we do have those really drastic floods, and they will come again, that people west of the river are able to access the other side of the river and continue to live their lives, not have situations where the local grocery shops run out of food.

That should not be happening, and our community deserves better than that from the state and federal government. I want to thank the speakers here tonight. I want to thank the organisers of the community meeting on Sunday night, that Councillor Lyons-Buckett was right in saying nine councillors turned up. Nine out of 12 councillors came to that meeting because we believe it is so fundamentally important to this community. I briefly touched on the history of that project at that meeting, starting with the fact that there have been so many announcements and so many funding proposals in that vicinity to try and get a decent crossing of the Hawkesbury River there, and so far they've not added up to the community expectations.

First of all was the Castle Reight corridor that still is on the map but stops at the river, and no one understands where that's going or what that's supposed to be. The Redbank development, the council before me endorsed the Grose River crossing to be part of the VPA, so we do have a bridge going in that area over the Grose River. That will be a one in 100 bridge, although the approach roads are not all one in 100. In 2012, the RMS bought out the proposal for the high point to high point bridge that was part of the 2019 funding of the $250 million. Now that proposal there was simply to ease traffic congestion. It did not address flood resilience in that proposal to Transport for New South Wales to design the route.

I think it's important to remember too, we had the 2018 corridor debacle, which it didn't matter which coloured party you were part of, we were all against that. And I think it was a lovely representation of our council at the time to stand up to what was wrongly the coalition government's wrong proposal for our area. But the coalition did get it right in 2019 with the 50-80-20 split between the feds and the state for the first round of funding for the third crossing of the Hawkesbury River, as it was called then, and in 2022 doubling that to $500 million. There then came a community group who sat with Transport for New South Wales representatives to design what they wanted that route to look like.

What was interesting out of that is that they wanted a bypass of the North Richmond township from that group. That formed part of what was the green route, which we now know the community does not want. However, it was sad to see that that bypass, which is what community representatives told Transport for New South Wales they wanted, was changed to a duplication by what I firmly believe was political activism by a local group. Therefore community benefit was put to the side by political activism. That did not measure up to the outcomes the community wanted. We are now stuck in 2025 with a Stage 1 and a Stage 2A and a Stage 2B that is unfunded. Whereas if 2B continues to be unfunded, means that Southey Road residents and residents in that area cop a huge amount of traffic that will absolutely disrupt their lifestyle.

I think what's important to see here, what has happened is that the coalition government, state and federal, delivered half a billion dollars to this community. The government changed to Labor under state and federal around about the same time and the whole thing has fallen apart. And we are left with this now. And I think the Labor representatives, the Labor ministers who are part of the Labor government, need to be held to account for the mess that we now have that is unfunded and is going to hurt our community so severely. This REF has failed. The route has failed. The community has been failed due to the impacts because it is unfunded. I really am proud that we are, as I said before, as an elected body coming together to deliver a submission that is strong, that is stronger.

I urge every councillor here to also put in an individual submission, which I'll be doing before the 21st of February. We need to make sure that we are telling Transport for New South Wales and the state and federal Labor governments loud and clear that this is not good enough. Thank you.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Councillor Djuric. Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'd also like to thank Councillor Lyons-Buckett for putting forward the amendment and better reflecting the sentiments of the community. The Upper House member for Schofields and The Farms, Mark Banasziak, is on the parliamentary committee on budget estimates for Transport for New South Wales. I'd like to add to the recommendations, if possible, please, if we send the submission to Mr Banasziak as well as the state member of Parliament and the federal member, Susan Templeman, if we could please.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Yes, that would be fine, Mr Mayor, as a point two in the actual recommendation. So the first one being about that we endorse, and it's not part of these amendments, it's a point two that we endorse these amendments, and the second point would be sending to the various people Councillor Djuric just mentioned.

Councillor Creed, you happy with that? Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Mr Mayor. I've sent forward through just a small expansion of the point about heritage in the motion, which should magically appear, I hope. It will be in your inboxes, but should appear on the screen as well, and it's just a tightening up to reflect Ms Sharp's address to council. Could I also ask that point two include the Greens spokesperson for Transport, Cate Faehrmann. I'm meeting with Ms Faehrmann tomorrow to discuss estimates questions regarding this project . Yep that's fine, Mr Mayor. Councillor Creed. Yep. Thank you. Continue, Councillor. Thank you. We received an email today from Angela Erin talking about this project, and I just want to quote something that she said in her email: We're merely swapping one traffic issue for another at a different location.

It's not a solution for our traffic congestion. This funding is a once in a lifetime opportunity. And I think that really summarises exactly what we're doing. We're really just shuffling the deck chairs. We will get one go at this. What we've got here is something, a project designed to a budget, not a solution. We were very clear when we met with Transport for New South Wales as a community group that we wanted two things: a traffic solution and better flood immunity. We're not really getting either with this two-stage approach. We've seen this before from Transport for New South Wales, or the RMS. This is their classic playbook. The first step is a political announcement with all the fanfare, then an inadequate budget, and then you get five or six options.

Two of them are unviable, so they're tossed immediately. The best one is too expensive, and the remaining one pits two sections of the community against each other, and that's what we've got now. We've got the people who benefit from this, the people currently living west of the river, and the people who are paying all the costs, the people in Hobartville and parts of Richmond. And at each stage of this process, we have inadequate community consultation. Classic Transport for New South Wales play. It's increasingly clear that this is about access to west of the river at the expense of Richmond, Hobartville and its existing residents. We can't leave Transport for New South Wales with any doubts about this council's position.

We deserve better, and our residents deserve better. At the meeting on Sunday, we heard from those residents, and they said 159 premises affected by noise.

Much of the community is ill-informed or not informed. There will be no incentive under the current route to pull traffic from Blacktown Road. The big build-up of land with small bridges to let water through will have a dam effect and impact on flooding. The flood report doesn't talk about impacts outside the study area. The black spot on Southic Road and Londonderry Road is not addressed in stage two. The 5% AEP, the reduced congestion between Richmond and North Richmond and arterial roads, and the catering for growth seem to be the focus.

People don't want to be locked in their houses with the windows and doors closed to block out noise. There are no adequate footpaths on Southey Road or Valda Avenue to make it safe with increased traffic. People are already selling. People are sick of what is being put to the community. Lots of houses on Southey Road went up for sale. The post office has gone up for sale. We heard from the new purchaser of the post office who had no idea that he'd bought a pig in a poke, and I thank Councillor Creed for bringing that additional point forward. People are burnt out by a barrage of information. We heard about resident stress levels and the impacts on their health. And we heard about the obligation to identify and assess sites under the EP&A Act.

Where are those assessments? Where are the proper heritage assessments for this incredibly important area? I've got real concerns about this as a vehicle for increased development west of the river before we see any solution. Transport for New South Wales have told residents that they've never seen so many applications come west of the river before. There's a huge roundabout that joins to nothing at its other end. What's that for? There are real concerns about the Castle Ray corridor. Penrith and the Central West are still pushing hard for that corridor. We need to be really careful what we wish for. This project in its current form will make us nothing more than a thoroughfare. If that's what we want for our Hawkesbury, then we can sit back and accept this.

But if we want better, if we believe that our community deserves better, then we have to fight this proposal in its current form.

Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As I always support logic and common sense, I will be supporting Lyons-Buckett. But a couple of things, a few things that, you know, upset me the most. What a waste of time. What a waste of money. Huge amount of it. Now, we have federal election coming very soon. God knows that, you know, we'll be running short, and I wonder, you know, whether they are going to chip in more money or not. This project has been going long before my time with the council, and it seems that, you know, they are, when it comes, you know, to this kind of things, Transport New South Wales, they are the ones that, you know, we have to blame. One comes, the other one goes, and one of the bureaucrats wakes up in the middle of the night.

Suddenly he has the power and starts doing something to satisfy himself. We cannot do anything. While inflation is up, everything is up, and those people, some of them have been in there, you know, for so many years. They got sick of it. They sold their places, and new people, you know, they came in with the expectations that, you know, this project would go. More consultations. And I was told, I was told the consultancy firms, directly and indirectly, over seventy million dollars, and it will go up. And while people around that area will suffer more and more, and mark my word, they are not going to start this year or next year. Something else will happen. Some other consultants, you know, will come in.

That's how it is. That's how they make their money. God help those people, you know, who are going through, you know, all this problem. But like I said, I don't know what kind of power we have. God help you all, and I'm really sorry for you people. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor Ryan. Thank you, and thank you for the people who addressed us today. I'm from Pitt Town. If you've ever heard of the Pitt Town bypass, it started 70 years ago. I've had two generations of my family fighting to get this pushed through, and it has been an effort. And I commend you; you're going in the right direction. And I can show you out there the effects that an overloaded road through the middle of a town has. The mental health of people who live along our route is unbelievable. We regularly talk to them. We've only just got a footpath there where people had to drive from two houses away to get to the doctors because they couldn't walk on the nature strip, and they couldn't walk on the road because of the number of trucks and the traffic that comes through there.

They couldn't even back their cars out of their driveways. They still can't. It takes them 10, 15, 20 minutes to back their car out of a driveway. Luckily, we are getting a bypass now. So I wish you all the best. If I can support you in any way with the information we've got, please don't hesitate in contacting me. I'm also going to ask, along Shane's, that we put Peter Primrose, the MLC, Labor MLC, on our list to move this forward, if Councillor Lyons-Buckett is happy with that. He did a tremendous job for our issues in Pitt Town, pushing them even when he wasn't in power. Now they are in power, he really has a heart for the people of the Hawkesbury. So thank you, Mr Mayor.

That's fine, Mr Smith.

Councillor Creed. Did we get that name? Thank you.

Any other speakers? You’ve still got your light on, Councillor Ryan. Firstly, I’d like to start off too by thanking Councillor Lides Buckett.

The motion indicates from the comments the councillors made that all councillors are concerned with what’s being proposed, and we will follow through those through that if this is supported, and I suspect it will, very strongly, we’ll do what we can to get the best outcome. I’d suggest to the community that if you’ve got concerns, you write those submissions in. Council won’t do this on its own. The submissions from the community will make a big difference. On Sunday, we had our two local members, state and federal, there, and our candidate, one of our colleagues here, that were all there listening to the comments that were made, and all of them were taking notes. They appreciate your concern and efforts, and the council will do what we can. Councillor, is there any further discussion?

Councillor Creed. Thanks, Mr Mayor. I’m not going to talk too long because I think everybody’s said a lot of information. I do want to just clarify something that Councillor Wheeler said. Yes, the people of South East Road and Hobartville are massively affected by this proposal. I don’t even know if you’d call it a proposal, to be honest. But people in the west of the river are also affected by this proposal. The fact that they want to essentially just move one bottleneck of traffic to another point, just so it's over the other side of the river, going from four lanes into one is just, or four lanes into two, to me is just insane. You're not actually solving the traffic problems, which originally this entire proposal was actually based on.

There's a number of other issues that I had. The traffic lights put in again after the bridge when you're heading into Richmond, put in another set of traffic lights in there. Traffic lights don't work. Traffic lights are a lazy option. They should actually only be there, you know, the last resort that they can actually, that's all they can do is put traffic lights in there. There's multiple different things they can do there. But I think, as part of our submission, a flyover is, to me, is a no-brainer. When you're already spending half a billion dollars, I'm sure you can find that little bit of extra money to do a flyover. The Southey Road part is just, I never understood why it went down or why they were pushing it down Southey Road.

It just, to me, I thought, okay, they could try and go into the WSU. I understand there's issues there with the university and not actually wanting to come to the table and negotiate anything. There was a few things that we had, we've had submissions and letters from residents. I wanted to bring something up. I'm just trying to find it in the email from one of the local residents that Councillor Wheeler actually mentioned from Ange. Where is it?

Ah, here we are. The Valder Avenue is home to Hovey Public School, set in extremely close proximity to homes which already experience traffic congestions at school times. It also contains a small chicane at the Southey Road end of the avenue that is barely wide enough to fit two passing cars. Passenger and school buses combined with 1,040 cars per hour on this narrow curve or near the school will not work. Now you need to understand, so when bureaucrats turn around and put out these projects, especially at a state level, and they turn around and go, okay, we're going to split it up into a couple of stages now. Usually, when they're serious about completing the project, it will come out with the entire timeline, the full costing of the project, so that it'll get done.

When you get projects that turn up and they're broken up into stages, which was never discussed with the public or even council, and they say, okay, we're doing stage one and then we're going to go over and do stage 2A, but that's now the only part that we can fund. But stage 2B, there's no funding announced, there's no costing available, there's no timeline there. To me, as soon as I see that, it rings alarm bells and I sit there and go, well, that bit's never actually going to get completed. So, and if that actually happens, you're going to have stage 2A coming up Inalls Lane at the roundabout, and then where are they meant to go? Because they haven't completed the second stage of the project.

They're going to be all going up Southey Road on a 50-kilometre street that, again, is council-owned. We don't have the finance to continually maintain this road. There was no answer from Transport for New South Wales or the government on what they actually planned if they weren't going to provide the funding or the timeline for it. When I pressed them for it, I finally got the answer that it was 2039. So let's just put this in perspective here. So we first got the first plans for this project, the original draft one, back in 2012. I think it was the first time when Councillor Lyons-Buckett and I first got elected to council. So that was 13 years ago, and we're now up to, again, another design and another layout from Transport New South Wales, and then they say, Oh well, we're looking at potentially being completed by 2039.

That's nearly 30 years. To get this done. This is a once in a lifetime project that will last our community at least a century if it's done correctly. There is no point in shortchanging the community on half a project and then coming back in 50 years and going, Oh, well, we really should have done something back then, but okay, now we'll try and, you know, do some Band-Aid solutions to it. It's just unacceptable. If you're going to turn around and actually put a project like this out into the community, make sure it's got a proper timeline on it, make sure it's got the full costings on it, but actually listen to the community and what they're saying. We don't want it down Southy Road or, you know, parts of Innes Lane.

It's just, to me, it was just— nobody wants to delay the bridge. We all want the bridge, but it's this other section they don't want. You can easily turn around—I just realized the time is going out, sorry—you can easily start building the bridge part, but then they can still go back to the drawing board and fix this ridiculous proposition they've given us and the community. Thank you, Councillor.

Any further discussion? Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Right of reply.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just briefly, I think essentially the submission that we've got now is a good reflection of what our community has told us and what councillors have inputted. And thank you for the additions, especially Councillor Wheeler, for assisting firming up that heritage. I think that's one of a really important thing. It's very problematic to hear that a whole component has been ignored in a project of this magnitude. We don't want to, nor should we have to fight. To get decent infrastructure in this area. Every time we drive in other areas of New South Wales or Australia or even overseas, and we can smoothly traverse across a city or around a town or something, we shouldn't have to be asking why we can't have that here as well.

We deserve it. And I think that we just need to continue working towards getting a, you know, a good result here. So this submission will seek more information, and it sets out what our expectations are in terms of what we want. And quite simply, it conveys the message that what Transport for New South Wales has given us does not deliver an acceptable outcome, and we don't accept it in its current form. So we need that proper information, especially around costings. There's a hesitancy to give any commitment to costings of other stages or overall project, but we really need to understand that. And it is a major project, so it's going to cost a lot of money. But we need to know about that. We can't continue to have to live with the uncertainty around these things.

We need to see a project like this progressing towards delivering us a viable outcome, an outcome that is going to enhance our area not just today but into the future, because that's why you would be spending all that money. But we also don't want to be in a situation with a half-done project where people capitalise on that and they think that expansion of development in certain areas hinges on simply having a bridge bit, but not the rest of the project. So we want to focus on safety, effectiveness, and we want a good result, basically. So thank you for the support, and let's hope that Transport for New South Wales are listening.

Sorry, can I just confirm point two. Councillor Drewick said to send it to the Upper House member for the Shireders and Farmers, the Greens spokesperson, Peter Primrose, the federal member and the state member. Is that on there? Have I missed that? Sorry, he moved that it was Mark Banaszak, I guess he's saying the same, but also the state and federal member as well. Okay. Sorry, I just want to make sure that that's— so they know our position.

Okay. The motion before us is what's on the board that Councillor Lines-Buckett put up. There is no amendment.

Mr Mayor, just a correction. It's got Transport for New South Wales— it's just the spokesperson for transport

She gets to deal with other— fortunately she has other things in her portfolio than just the entity. Sorry.

I'm sure that when we send the letter, any typos will be clarified. Is everyone aware of the motion?

Those in favour?

Sorry, Mr Mayor, Elizabeth Watson-Brown is the federal member. The Greens spokesperson for transport is Ms Kate Faehrmann.

Yeah. You can send it to the Feds if you like.

No.

I'm sure the staff and the motion, the intent is well received. And any of those typos will be sorted. Okay. Again, those in favour of the motion?

That's unanimous. Thank you, Councillors. Sam Brogno, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash, Creed, Veigel, Regan, Dogramaci and Sheather. Those against? Carried. Thank you, Councillors.

The next item is the exception reports . There are one, two, three of them. It's 10.2.2. That's 10.10.2.2, excuse me, National Assembly of Local Government conference motions. The second one is 10.3.2, draft plan of management Church Street Reserve, Oasis Aquatic and Fitness Centre and Windsor Preschool. And the third one is 10.4.3, investment report December 2024. Moved that way, Mr Mayor. Councillor Kotlash and Councillor Reardon. Any discussion? All those in favour?

Unanimous. Thank you. Those against? Carried. Those in favour was Zamprogno, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash, Creed, Veigel, Reardon, Dogramaci and Sheather.

Okay.

The next item we've got is 10.2.1, six-monthly progress report. There's two councils that indicated they might have a conflict.

Deputy Mayor. Yeah,

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have a less than significant non-pecuniary conflict of interest. The Hawkesbury Fire Control Centre is mentioned in the report, and I am a member of the Hawkesbury Communications RFS Brigade, and Turnbull Oval is also mentioned as part of West Invest, and my son plays for the Hawkesbury Hawks. There's no pecuniary interest. I'll be staying in the item.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I've got a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in item 10.2.1. My son is a member of Wilberforce Brigade New South Wales RFS, and I'm the member of the Hawkesbury Communications Brigade New South Wales RFS. My involvement does not meet the threshold for significance, and so I'll stay in the meeting.

Thank you, Councillor.

Would someone like to move the recommendation in relation to 10.2.1?

Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Veigel.

Any discussion?

Just briefly, thank you, Mr. Mayor. This was a really good report. It's really interesting. It's so nice to have all of this, the myriad of projects that we have presented in such a clear way. So I commend the staff for this report. It was really interesting, and that's about it. It's self-explanatory. Thank you.

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks

Mr. Mayor. One of the things of interest in the report was the mention... Of the use of artificial intelligence in the DA assessment process, I'm wondering if we could have that come to a briefing, please. It was something that was raised as a matter of concern at the Local Government New South Wales conference, and I think councillors need to be appraised of how that will work in that space and the implications for us. If I could perhaps add that as a point to the motion. Happy to include that, Mr Mayor. I think that's—

The wording was, Councillor?

That Council receive a briefing on the use of AI in development assessment before its rollout.

The mover and seconder happy with that?

And I've got another one while I'm at it. If we could also add a workshop, a councillor workshop on local procurement.

Thank you.

Councillor Kotlash. Councillor Michael. Thank you.

Can I just speak to that, Mr Mayor? So the artificial intelligence stuff, I think we need to be across before it comes into being. And the local procurement, councillors , when we met at the end of January for a group discussion, local procurement was one of the things that was discussed amongst us as needing attention and some ways forward. So a workshop on that should get that ball rolling. Some of the other items in this, the North Richmond Community Precinct, there's comment in here that the operating model is under investigation. To determine staffing operating costs, and I think we've got a bit of a chicken and egg thing going here with this and the WestInvest projects. And one of my real concerns about WestInvest, or it's whatever its current handle is, is the ongoing costs once we've built those projects.

So it would be really helpful, I think, for us from a decision-making perspective to have some idea of the staffing operating costs before we proceed to adopting the design. So this investigation of the operating model at that precinct, I think, needs to be happening in conjunction, or at least part of that needs to be available to us before we can adopt any design. A question, if I could, on hazard reduction. We had a motion from Councillor Calvert, I can't remember how long ago, but it was two or three years at least, around the use of cultural burning. Could I get some feedback? I'm happy to take it on notice about any further action on that, on the use of cultural burning for hazard reduction.

Do you want that now, Councillor?

No, I'm happy to have that come back. I don't expect that to be answered immediately.

Thank you.

I am very happy, though, in here to see that our vegetation mapping is on track and that it should be completed by February 2025. That's very exciting news.

And the other thing that we're still waiting for, but looks like it's finally getting a bit of a kick along, is the reconciliation action plan, which I think may be the slowest in history. Thanks to it getting stuck with the State Department. The other thing that I think that we would like to see hurried along a bit is the economic development strategy, which I think was deferred in June 2024. And again, that's something that councillors have flagged as an issue. So that's probably the end of me. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

Any further debate?

Okay, the motion is as it is in the business paper, plus what's on our screen. Everyone clear of that? Moved by Councillor Kotlash.

No right of reply required, thank you.

All

Those in favour? Against? Those in favour. The motion is carried. Zamprogno, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash, Veigel, Regan, Dogramaci and Sheather. Councillor Creed was absent. 10.2.2, National Assembly and Local Government Conference motion. Sorry, it is the—

10.3.1, McDonald River, Colo River, Webbs Creek, Greens Creek flood study and floodplain management study and plan.

Yeah, so I'll move that, Mr Mayor.

I'll second it

Thank you. Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reagan. Yeah, thank you.

Any discussion?

If I may, Mr Mayor, please. If I could just refer to my colleagues on the item on page 22, the recommendation point two, the outcome of public exhibition, the draft. I'd like if you could change prior to adoption for consideration when it comes back to Council. Seems a bit of fait accompli that it comes back and it's an adoption before we have a consideration of councillors. So if we could just make that amendment, please, if it's all right with my colleagues.

Yep

Otherwise

Just very quickly, I'd like to thank the staff yet again for another report that can go out for draft, and hopefully if there's any tweaks to improve it or reject those that's controversial when it comes back at a later date. Thank you.

You happy with that, Councillor? So it's just the last word where it says Council prior to adoption, that changes to consideration when Council consider when it comes back.

Okay. Any further discussion?

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. This is a really useful report. I think it's finally we're looking at all of the floodplains, not just the big Hawkesbury-Nepean floodplain. And I think hopefully this will be a body of work that will be welcomed by the community and provide them with some more certainty. And we'll also cover a large enough area to be useful for those who are intending to do some property modifications. We've had people who've put DAs in and have spent quite a lot of money putting together flood studies in order to have those DAs accepted for assessment . So this is the sort of suite of documents that Council needs, particularly a council that has these dangerous and complex floodplains. And these are really complex floodplains.

And I want to just, for the sake of putting them on the public record, the comments that are in these reports, these are complex floodplains with serious consequences for people living there, with rapid rise. They're deep and fast flowing, and they're nearly all very high risk. And they're things that we really have to keep in mind. The other interesting things that came out of the briefing that we had last week from the consultant were the fact that there are no warnings for the McDonald Valley from the Bureau of Meteorology. I'm sure the residents of McDonald Valley are all very well aware of that. But as decision makers, sometimes we are not across this level of detail, that there's a very high concentration of risk, including risk from the Hawkesbury-Nepean into that system.

These are not standalone systems. There are no environmental enhancement options possible. If we're really fair dinkum about flood safety in these areas, we need to consider allowing people to leave, to either be part of voluntary purchase, raise their houses, build more flood resilient buildings, access improvements, and we need to put in place zoning and development controls. And these are the things—I'm particularly keen to get the community's input on what they think of this information and these suggestions, so that Council, yeah, we're not going to be able to do this ourselves. This will require significant funding and a lot of advocacy from Council, and we need to have this information in the hands of the community.

This is a very well-informed community. It's a highly engaged community. I'm very interested in seeing what they feel about ways forward so that we can have some hard but really important conversations. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor [ inaudible].

Thank you, Ms.

Inaudible

Your light's off, Councillor.

I agree. I'll say it again. I agree with Councillor Wheeler. It is an integral part of our suite of documents. I'm just hoping when it's adopted that it will really be at the forefront of considerations, not only when looking at issues in the actual McDonald Valley, but when we're looking across the whole catchment, the whole regional floodplain. It's not something that can be viewed in isolation, really, and it's not only pertinent to properties within the McDonald Valley, but it's a part of a whole moving system of waterways that we need to be aware of how we best manage that floodplain. The absence of any warning systems is quite concerning, but we knew that happened, and I'm not sure to what extent that is curtailed by the sort of inadequate telecommunications down there, whether that plays a part or whether that can be overcome.

But I think it's something that we should be pushing forward with . I don't know what the best mechanism to do that is, but I believe we should be pushing for that. Whereas the community down there is very well equipped to communicate amongst themselves and also to get information around through their warden system and through their two-way radio system, the absence of warnings is still a very dangerous thing to exist because we know it's not only residents who are down there. We also have people, a lot of visitors within that area. So we need to address that as soon as possible, or whoever's responsible for it needs to address it.

Thank you, Councillor. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just wanted to raise a potential point three based on a conversation you and I had today in your office about a public meeting during the consultation process. I'm not sure if there is an appetite for that, but I know that there are probably a lot of people in that community who don't have access to the internet or will not be aware that this is out on public consultation. I just wanted to know if the mover and seconder might want to include that as a point three.

Sorry Oh

Star has

To be. Councillor Veigel. Councillor. So that'd be a point three. The public meeting be instigated in relation to the—

During the consultation process. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Mr Mayor.

Thank you, councillors. All of you are aware, my view is in relation to what's happening with lifting the floodplain level. The government's not going to build— sorry, they're not going to mitigate floodwaters in our valley anywhere . It's not an appetite of either government to do so, even though I don't think we should take it off the table. So if we're not going to mitigate floodwater, there's only one other thing to do, is get you the hell out of there. They can do that two ways. They can do it financially, or we can plan it so you simply can't live there. In relation to the valley, it's a bit different to our floodplain where we're sitting right now. There's two warning areas above, one is the Normans and one in the Howes Valley. Most of the time aren't working.

And we've got Yango, we've got Greens Creek and Wright's Creek, a whole heap of other places up there that these people have woken up in the middle of the night with their beds floating, with no warning. Two problems. One is there's not enough warning systems in the valley. They aren't that dear. Like we've been pushing for Bridgeston, we spoke about it tonight and all that sort of stuff. But when you look at the opportunities, the involvement with the SES with communication, that can work if the phones are working, if the power's working and the like, which in floods they never are. Flood warning systems and scoping, well, the only way that we can really do anything there is to put more information that as the water comes down, what height it is and how quick it's coming down.

That's not costly. In relation to response plans, stuff like that, emergencies, they're not going to take flood boats up there in the middle of a flood. Those people up there, when it floods, they're on their own. You go up the mountain and that's the end of it. In relation to flood warning signs, as soon as the ferries go off at Webbs Creek and Wisemans Ferry, and they go off when the river's at a certain height, it's already over the roads, both Settlers Road and Webbs Creek Road, so nobody's going anywhere. And up in the Common, it's underwater as well. So the people in the valley are where they are when the water comes up. Evacuation, if they're lucky they can get choppers in there, they're not going to get a boat in there.

Camping ground education and the like, you can't get to the campgrounds when the ferries go off. These are all things that get talked about, but that's all that happens, it gets talked about. The data collection following floods, we had one in 10-year events down here, one in 20-year events. In the valley there, they're getting one in 100-year events. Big difference. And improved flood immunity and crossings and that. Well, the crossings go out on a high tide, a bit of a rainfall. Most of those things that are discussed take up pages, people's time, with no intent to go anywhere with them. The things that we need to be pushing for in that valley, and this plan and the information we've got certainly supports that view, is education.

Let me tell you, the people in the valley don't need education. There's some people probably sitting around this table, and I'm one of them, that do need education. But in relation to the warning, we can provide that. In relation to the electricity and communication, again, we can push for that. They know they've got to go there, but it's too expensive. Well, we're not asking the bridge to nowhere or a bridge across the valley. We're asking for a simple thing, one hour out of Sydney that most people expect, and that's power, and they can do it, and they can back it up through either solar panels or diesel generators, and have it so that it's there when those people need it. It's not a big ask.

So, councillors, I'm going to support this because I think the public need to be aware of what we're looking at. Down the track, I'm not saying that I'll support it at all. I've got great concern that we're trying to save them from flooding, and if you can't insure your properties, and I know that to be the case, then you can force them off their properties financially. That's an issue that we haven't dealt with, nor has the government, and it's a matter that needs addressing.

Councillor.

Spot on, five minutes. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just wanted to ask you a question. In your address, you said that a warning system, and we can do that. It's my understanding that warning systems aren't a council responsibility. Can I just have that confirmed?

Yeah. When I said we can do it, I'm talking about things that are practical that we can push for and state that would provide. We'll get some clarification exactly, but it wasn't that we're going to put them in.

I

Guess

My point is, is that this is a very complex area and people often get quite confused about who does what, and I think we have to be really careful that people understand, you know, our capacity to help them in these situations. That's all. It's just really important because people, you know, quite often think that council do it all. Thanks.

Yeah. Clarification. Yeah, thank you. Through you, Mr Mayor. So there's a number of things related to warnings. So there's the gauge network, of which there's many owners. So part of our flood recovery grant from the Office of Local Government, we helped to support through that funding the installation of and repair of some gauges, St Albans on the Colo and Yarramundi. The next step then is to use that data to start to produce flood warning products, which is the responsibility of the Bureau of Meteorology and SES, and we can certainly advocate and facilitate, but it's not the responsibility of council.

Just a follow-up. Are those gauges, I remember that when we did those repairs, so they're on our, on Crown land that we manage, those gauges?

Through you, Mr Mayor, no, not necessarily. So they're generally on structures or if we have Crown land or our own land indeed, but we work with the state agency, Manly Hydraulics and so forth.

Any further discussion? Councillor Veigel?

Not necessary, Mr Mayor. Just vote on the item, thanks.

Thank you. We'll put it to the vote. It's as written on our screen. All those in favour?

It's unanimous. Thank you. Those against? Carried. That's Sam Brogno, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash, Creed, Veigel, Reardon, Dogramaci and Sheather. Thank you.

Move the recommendation in the business paper, Mr Mayor.

You can, Councillor.

I'll second it, Mr Mayor.

Yes, Councillor.

Thank you. This has been a long time coming, and it was really, it was really wonderful to read this document. Whilst it's quite high level, and I suppose what we got from the comments from the community were the community give us information about sort of things that are closest to them and get down to the nitty gritty about the services or the facilities they have. But I think the beauty of this document is that, and I think I talk for all councillors in saying that we often get quite down in the weeds, if you like, about what we offer, and it's so nice to have this document that just lifts us up and gives us a platform to think about all of the services and all of the people and all of the community types that we have in our LGA.

And I refer to the graphic on page 17 of the document. It's a really simple graphic, but it just gives you, and I think it gives everybody, and I'd urge people in the community to just have a quick look at this graphic if they haven't read the whole document. It just gives us a really good sense of all of the things that we need to take into consideration. When it comes to social infrastructure. And, you know, it's really not just one thing. It's not just recreation. It's not just the libraries. It's open space, community, recreation and culture. And all of those things we have to balance in how we plan. And it's really interesting because we all know that our societies grow and change and expand and different types of facilities are needed.

And I think that because we have this platform now, and I'm just calling it a platform, I know it's a strategy, but I see it as a platform from which I can think about things in that broader context. And for that reason, I think this was a really excellent document . And I thank the staff for putting it together. It's really, I really enjoyed reading it. It really did lift me into that, as I said, that more critical thinking space. And just so we know, on page, it doesn't have a page number, 12.8% of our community don't have internet. Councillor McMann's not here, but that's some information that we now have because of this strategy. So well done, and I hope everybody supports its adoption.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Kotlash moved that. Who seconded? I

Did.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I do wish to speak, thank you. I agree with what Councillor Kotlash has just said. It is a wonderful document, and I think that there's a framework of general planning principles, of general social infrastructure planning principles on page 31 of the document . And I think that gives a really great overview of what sort of integration of things that we're trying to have to combine the social wellbeing of our area with economic prosperity and valuing things like our First Nations culture, etc. I think it'll be a really good document to use, and I think that as we sort of approach how we have to look forward to our growth and development into the future, we need a document like this that is going to ensure that we don't allow people to be located in areas where we don't have the appropriate social infrastructure to enable them a good quality of life and for their wellbeing to be well serviced.

I thank those in the community who provided feedback and ideas. It's noted in the business paper, of course, that some suggestions are not directly addressed at a strategic level, but the suggestions can be considered in other documents or budget discussions. And I really hope they are, especially around pricing for people to access some facilities. I think when people are telling us it's too expensive to go to the pool or it's too expensive to do something, we really have to address that, whereas we have to cover costs in those areas. If we want people to be enjoying our facilities, we have to look at perhaps some ways in improving that. With people who are keen for enhancement along our river precinct, it's something I've long promoted, and hopefully one day the logistical obstacles of that can be overcome so that, you know, including the structural integrity of the riverbank being required to...

Make sure that we don't have increased vulnerability during flooding. I'd really like to thank the health network for their valuable insights into specific needs, particularly around the access and inclusion for women and girls. This is something that we can definitely explore through other avenues, and we really must do that, as well as addressing our ageing population. It's a fundamental requirement, and provision of facilities to ensure safe walking and scooter access, which are part of our active transport plan. I need one—our active transport plan. I think, you know, we, Councillor Wheeler and I were at a conference, I think you were there too, Mr Mayor, where they were speaking about the absolute value of having walkability in your community, and we can't undervalue that at all.

It should be a priority and something else that we look at. So, a really comprehensive documentary—I swear

I haven't been watching Netflix or anything. I'm not —yeah, I'm just not going well.

It's only coffee she's having.

One thing I wanted to address was how fortunate we are to have such an abundance of open space. It's a commodity that is highly sought after as other local government areas see their open space being swallowed up for development. And we do have an abundance. A lot of it is flood impacted, but we, I believe that we should have, within the regional and state sphere of things, we should have a value attached to that, so that we are providing a lot of open space and just fresh air, basically, for people who pile out of the city on the weekend to access our open space, to really enjoy what we have here. And I think it should carry a value with it, just as the provision of housing carries a value to get more improvements and just how other things have a value.

So, well done on our open space. We're also very fortunate to have the level of volunteerism that we have, and that is identified in there. One thing I think that we do have to address sometime down the track is that it is known within some parts of the community that it's often felt that there's a Windsor-centric focus when it comes to major events and various other things. So a dispersal of events across the whole LGA, however we can and whenever we can, would be a really good thing to work to in here. Sports-related tourism, I think, is another untapped potential we have here. We have a lot of good sporting facilities. We would need accommodation to go with that, but because we have some really good facilities, we could actually be encouraging more people to come here to go beyond just local competitions and to expand that.

So, having said all that, I think this is an overarching document that can be just utilised in so many ways. It's wonderful to have finally, and I think that— Oh,

Okay. No ding, no warning

I made two mistakes. Can I have another 30 seconds ? No, you can't.

I can whistle if you like.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Clearly, everyone is missing that Zen bowl noise that we had.

Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, councillors.

I agree. This is a really complex, detailed and really useful document, and I think it should underpin much of our future planning and funding endeavours. I wish we'd had this level of insight before we determined our grab for WestInvest funding. What it should lead to, if we keep it front of mind, is less piecemeal, more connected service provision. And that's, but that's only possible with Council on the front foot, leading with really proactive planning, not a take what you're given approach that we've had in the past. I don't want this to go in Councillor Calvert's draw with those things that, you know, we determine and never see again. I think this is something that we need to dig out and look at really regularly because it's got some really valuable insights.

And I think that 12.8% of people who don't have internet is a really good example of how understanding the community we're attempting to reach is so important. We rely so heavily on social media and online information, and yet more than 10% of our community can't access it. I think it's also interesting to see the stats. We've got an ageing population, we've known that. We also have quite a high percentage of young people, so we're catering to two different ends of that spectrum. We've got the fact that we have higher rates of long-term health conditions should be of real concern to us. As people in the planning space, we impact on people's health, and we need to be aware of that too. We do have a high participation in sport.

We have a higher than average Aboriginal population, and that is increasing, particularly in areas like South Windsor, and that has impacts on both the requirements for Council services, but also requirements for other levels of government as well. And a high proportion of people volunteering, and that's quite remarkable, I think, in a community like the Hawkesbury, where we know many of our community have a very long commute. The fact that they manage to find time to volunteer for often very time-consuming pursuits like the RFS or the SES that are vital in the function of our community because we don't have state government services to carry that load is, I think, something that the Hawkesbury should be very proud of.

There's some really useful stuff in here about just access to things. The pool's being too expensive, a lack of bins and seating, lack of spaces for young people, lack of access to public toilets. These are really fundamental things that need to be front of mind for us as we plan and deliver our cities. I find some of the regress to insights that compare the Hawkesbury to other LGAs sometimes difficult to take on as good recommendations. For example, it refers to the library being quite large. The library is one of the very few large air-conditioned spaces that we have in the LGA. We don't have large shopping centres where people can just go and sit. We don't have covered recreation spaces where people can go.

So our large library actually performs a couple of roles. There's a serious lack of spaces for young people. I don't agree that cultural spaces are well catered for. Two of the culture and creative spaces listed in this document are currently under threat: the men's shed and the woodcraft co-op are both looking for alternate premises. And in fact, the woodcraft co-op is getting very desperate. They've got to be out by May. So that's an example of how these things can turn in a blink when we rely on community and volunteer-run organisations. The findings from our interactions via the Enhancing the Arts workshop showed that there's a real need for modern performance space and smaller spaces with storage for performing arts groups.

And there's the— There's a couple of other things that I think we have to really discuss and make provision for as we go forward with this document and with our broader planning. The increasing expectations and different use from the community that we've got much more visitation, for example, of facilities is shorter. People tend to buy food rather than bring food, so they require that provision. People are time poor and their timetables are more frenetic, and that's difficult. We also have the impact of a warming climate on infrastructure needs, particularly on sport, and I think that's something that we also need to keep in mind. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

Have we got an issue with the clock?

Yeah, it wasn't on. I

Know. I've got one on my wrist, but is there a problem with this one? It doesn't Yeah. Yeah, okay. Yeah

She was about two seconds over, so thank you. Okay. Any further discussion? I'll just make a couple of points. I've discussed this quite a bit, and I'm not going to go into it tonight. I've discussed it with the staff and the like, and the issues that I've got we can work through, I'm sure. But something that does concern me is, and I've been to a few of the hubs and stuff we're having in relation to getting information from the public, and it's concerning. There were 300 people that was involved in this document.

It's $370,000. And I know what effort the staff go to to try and get that information. As I said, I've attended the last two or three, and I intend to go to the rest of them that's happening now in relation to another thing we're doing. But the people who have attended the ones that I've been to, apart from one, I think, one person, are involved in other community things. So if we're doing something, that they would probably respond on behalf of the organisation they're with. And when we ask them to front up at public meetings, they are. But they're the same people. And it's concerning because we don't get that cross section that a document like this deserves. So I'd spoken about the opportunities of perhaps a newspaper or some sort of document where we can get information out to the public.

And on my desk the other day there was one that it's only about six pages, but it tells you all about the library, museum and art gallery. And if we can do it for that, we can do it for the community. And all I'm talking about is a paperback thing that can be delivered to local stores and stuff to be distributed. Because what we're doing is not the best. And with documents like this, not only do the community deserve it, but the staff, they work with all the stuff that comes before us out of these sort of documents. So it's got to be accurate, it's got to be spot on, and it needs to represent the people's wants. So when we talk about access to the community, I'd like a bit of support in relation to how we do it.

Any further discussion?

Councillor Kotlash. Thanks

Mr Mayor. I just, just quickly, Councillor Lyons-Buckett reminded me, I had in my notes to also say that the Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District comments were really insightful. They were really excellent, and I also wanted to thank them for those comments. So, yeah, it was just really good to have their insights. Also, I forgot to mention that I think it's really exciting now we have this document and, you know, with all the things that we need to do, and I know that there's a lot of planning that goes and a lot of things that need to be done, you know, underneath this document, that now we have the opportunity to hone in our needs for grant funding. And I agree with Councillor Wheeler, it would have been just fabulous if we'd had this before the WestInvest came along, because that was really hard going.

And as I said before, this document has given us this wonderful overarching, much more strategic look at how we have to start thinking and continue to think. So, yeah, I just wanted to quickly wrap up on that, and well done to everybody involved in this document. Thank you.

Thank you. All those in favour?

It's unanimous. Thank you. Those against? It's carried. Councillors Zamprogno, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash, Creed, Veigel. Regan, Dramaci and Sheather.

The next item is.

The next item is 10.4.1, the quarterly budget review statement.

I'll move that, Mr Mayor.

It was moved by— sorry.

Sorry, me.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Councillor Reardon.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. It's really pleasing. One thing I particularly wanted to point out to the public was it's really extremely pleasing to see an increase in full-time equivalent positions in this document, all through grant funding and an initiative to increase apprenticeships and cadet positions within councils across New South Wales, actually. I'm not sure they all got funding, but I know it was open to them all. This is something that I've longed for to happen in this council, to have more apprenticeships available. And I commend the state government for its introduction of this program, and also commend the council for allocating the new positions to the areas that they have, because I know that's going to be so valuable there.

It's government money well spent, and it assists us enormously. So I really look forward to seeing how those cadetships and apprenticeships progress, and I hope that we'll have more. I'm not sure if it's an ongoing program and we'll add to it next year or whether it's a one-off, but hopefully it will continue and that that will assist us. In other things, I know there's not financial staff here for questions, but I was just going to point out the, I think the increasing importance of this document for the community to understand, because sometimes when people expect us to do something, they don't understand how much, first of all, how much reporting and how much accountability there has to be around all of this, around the operational plan and what's going on, and that a document like this actually allows us to see really just how the scope of what is done in the council can fluctuate so quite dramatically from quarter to quarter as we go along.

Of course, we like seeing favourable adjustments where things have turned out. Out better than expected, but it's always a bit of a worry to see, you know, that sometimes things aren't quite how we had expected. And one thing that really does concern me, and I did have a question around that, is that our shelter operating at full capacity. Could I just have an update on how the agreement with the other participating councils that share the facilities, which is a number of other councils, how that agreement is progressing and whether we think that there's going to be a significant increase in how much money comes to us? Because I don't think this is sustainable to have variations on a quarterly basis of that magnitude because our shelter is full, because we know that those animals are coming from out of area, and I'm concerned that our ratepayers are being a bit short-changed on this agreement.

Thanks, Councillor. There's a couple of things for General Manager to respond to in relation to— Thank you. —

Your

Comments.

So firstly, in relation to the animal shelter, I may pass that to the Director of City Planning, but I can certainly advise that all of the agreements with the neighbouring councils have been entered into. What we've done in this quarterly budget review is to adjust for actuals. What we're not quite sure on yet is what that revenue is going to look like as all of the councils navigate their way through the new fee and charge system. I can certainly say that the staff are hopeful that that shortfall that we've identified, the unfavourable adjustment this quarter, is likely to be rectified in their view, and that's what we are expecting. But at this point, that's reflective of the adjustment needed on the actuals. Thank you.

And certainly in relation to the cadets and the apprentices, we were really thrilled yesterday to start a cohort of the cadets and apprentices yesterday. We had a group of eight funded through the Office of Local Government's Apprentices and Cadets Program, with a small cohort, maybe three, who are permanent positions within the organisation structure. The People and Development team have done a really brilliant job developing a really robust induction and learning and support program for that group, and they will be nurtured through the organisation as a cohort. So it was really important yesterday that we got them all on board together. And so there are later rounds coming this year, another two rounds of that program.

So we'll continue to put our hand up for more of those young people, or not so young people, depending on what we get. And obviously we'll be dependent on the grant funding to see how long that program exists for.

Thank you. So the grant funding for the ones that have started, does that cover their whole apprenticeship?

Yeah, there's at least two years' worth there, is my understanding of it.

Yeah, I met with them yesterday, and they were a group of enthusiastic young people, I can tell you. It was very good to see. Councillor Kotlash. Yeah,

Thank you. Just a quick question about the cadetships. Are they apprentices or cadets? Will they be, you know, at Sydney Water we have the same sort of thing, and one day they'd be in— You know, in the lab, next day they'd be out in the field, you know, six-month sort of slots. How that works?

Yeah, there's both. So the apprentices are those staff who'll be undertaking their effectively trade qualifications through. We've got two in civil construction, two in our Parks and Gardens teams in particular, so they'll be working through their horticulture and civil qualifications. And then we have a group of cadets, or back in the day we would have called them trainees, so the students. So student planner, student environmental health officer, there's an accountant — I'm going to miss one — that we've got one of our staff members that's in a permanent position, in a service, so they are doing their qualifications through TAFE and things. So there's a mix.

Any further discussion? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Yeah, I too want to commend the apprentice and cadet program. It's nice that local government has been advocating for this sort of program for a long time, and it's nice to have the state government finally listen and pour some money. We know that it's difficult to lure people into local government because the pay is not as good as the private sector, but we also know that once they start, they're more likely to stay, and I think that's a more long-sighted view of skilling up local government, which is really welcome. Just a couple of things that I wanted to mention that are in here. The $50,000 allocated to repalette the Windsor Bridge artefacts, that was a recommendation from the Windsor Bridge Working Group, and it's been paid for with money provided by Transport for New South Wales when Windsor Bridge was demolished.

They're really limited funds in that pool, and they need to be used really carefully. So the artefacts after this will still mostly be out in the weather, apart from the best selection of the bricks from the site, and still subject to further deterioration. So we really need to find some funding for an interpretation study and a plan to utilise those artefacts, which at the moment are mostly either taking up space in the Wilberforce depot or taking up space and rusting in the East Kurrajong depot. And I'm sure that the Director of Infrastructure would be happy to have them out of his space. There's a couple of other things that I think are worthy of mention. We've got some really high fees going on that are associated with planning and DAs, which represent a really high cost to ratepayers that I think we need to be cognisant of.

The higher than expected costs that the animal shelter are also concerning, and I think that we may need to look at a piece of work of education and prevention in conjunction with the other LGAs. The council's facility is designed to house animals that need it while they get rehomed and to be part of that rehoming process. We expect the other councils that use the facility to meet their requirements to stop animals both breeding and getting out onto the streets, rather than just using us as a drop-off and walk-away point. And I think that's perhaps that's something that the mayor can discuss at some of, or that can be discussed at some of the other spaces that councillors go into with mayors from other or councillors from other LGAs.

The LGAs in question, for those who aren't aware, are Cumberland, Hills. Penrith and, of course, the Hawkesbury, and Hornsby, I think. Did we take Hornsby as well? Yeah. There's two big red flags for me in this quarterly budget review. They're not a surprise, but they're things that I'm keeping my eye on. One is the livability project and the likely cost overrun with that project. Let's be really clear about how that's happened. This project should be finished, and it should have been fully paid for. We can't afford to delay it any longer, and we can't afford to go down the same path with West Invest. And that's the other project that I'm concerned about. We need to be very transparent to the community about the risks of both, the sources of funding, and the likely shortfall.

But we can't afford to play the same games with West Invest, where we keep changing our minds in response to pressure from small groups when the project is three-quarters determined, and then end up in this space where ratepayers are on the hook for something that should have been fully paid for. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor.

Any further debate?

Councillor Lyons-Buckett, would I reply?

Not necessary. Thank you.

Thank you.

All those in favour?

It's unanimous. Against? It's carried. Councillor Brogden, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash, Creed, Veigel, Regan, Dr Marchant, Sheather.

10. 4. 2, draft submission to the local government model meeting code amendments. Someone like to

Move? Yeah, I'll move the

Recommendation. Councillor

Kotlash. Councillor

Veigel. Councillor Kotlash.

Look, we had a very rigorous discussion in our briefing, and I think, I'll leave it at that. I think we need to let the state government know that their proposed changes for the code of meeting practice are really not suitable for the Hawkesbury. I don't know whether they're suitable for many councils. The changes, just for instance, the changes to allowing people to join a meeting, councillors to join a meeting online , is something that since COVID has really been a real game changer. And I think also for the councils that are out in less populated places where they, you know, they have to drive an awful long way to get together. So I can't imagine what they were thinking on that one. There are a lot of points that we've listed in the — Attachment .

I think it's pitched probably correctly. I don't know whether there's a lot more that we can add to that. I'd like to thank the staff for taking on those discussions that we did have in the briefing sessions, which brings me to one of the most disheartening points of the proposals, rather, and that was that they had a blanket ban on councillor briefings. And my personal take on that is that councillor briefings are absolutely essential . They're essential for information sharing, but they're also essential that we as councillors can have more — well, we can have discussions that aren't restricted by the rules of debate. And whilst we're not a rabble in briefings, you can, you know, you can sort of have a two-way conversation and discuss things and you can, you know, it's just less formal than the meeting .

And that's really essential because sometimes getting somebody else's perspective on something does actually change — you know, that's what we're supposed to be doing. We're supposed to be acting as one as a council and trying to get the best outcome for our communities. And the community expects us to do that. I'm sure they expect us to do that. Many, many people have said to me that they want council to work together. And I see this as being banning our briefings to me seems like a step backwards from that. You know, that gives us less opportunities to work together. Building trust and relationships is also a part of what we have to do as councillors. So I can't imagine how that fits into that scheme of things.

Look, I'm not

Going to go through every point, as I said . I'll be really surprised if any councils think this is a good move. Some things are okay, but some I think are really in need of review. So I'll leave it at that and, yeah, we'll wait

For the response. Thank you. Thank you,

Councillor. Councillor Veigel . Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor. I just want to make a comment on audio-visual. Externally , I've been a part of two audio visuals externally because of business, okay? There should be a right to attend. I was surveyed after I did the last one last year because I was in Melbourne on business anyway, as you know. It's difficult to participate in such a meeting when the audio-visual in this chamber is very limited to where it's focusing on. As I can recall, there was only just a few of you I could see, but I couldn't see the executive nor the mayor. And to be honest with you, I think it's probably pretty difficult to manage by referring back to a camera looking at me or looking at anybody else there.

Having said that, right, there should be an opportunity for any councillor, if they're away, to participate in any council meeting, to listen, if that's the only thing, to listen and endeavour to get their point of view across if they can or would. I think there was somebody away in the last term that wanted to speak, but — It wasn't picked up by the chair of the meeting at that stage, and it was all too late because the discussion had closed and the vote had went through. So my point of view, it should be available, depending on what, and let's take it out. I mean, it's just incompetent as far as I'm concerned. My fear is that the — there's an interesting card, the Minister for Local Government, I think.

He sits behind the speaker, and you can see him in the chamber when they're talking in state, and he's got an interesting background as well. So my fear is that his mind's already made up because

He's somewhat blinkered. But I'll pray that he may see common sense. And, yeah, I think briefings should be still done with councillors, as we're doing it here too as well, what I had. But as I said for the audio visual, to say no to that is just ridiculous. So I'll leave it there. Thank you

Councillor

Lyons-Buckett. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Basically, I can't see anything really in the recommendations that are specifically advantageous. I'd be just happy if they just actually left it alone, the existing code of meeting practice. There's a statement in the start of the information from the Minister that reads that the amendments are part of the government's agenda to ensure that councillors are visibly in control of their councils, demonstrating to the community that decision-making is local. Well, I find that almost bordering on offensive because I think the suggestions that are being made are actually the antithesis of that. They are antiquated, they are unnecessary, and to be quite frank, local decisions have been diminished by a series of state सरक ा रs'control exercised over councils over the past decade, removing all of our planning powers, increasing cost shifting, and now they're putting more rules to reduce individual council's autonomy by prescriptive and proscriptive meeting practice procedures.

So the local government minister is out of touch. I think we sort of identify with that, that the suggestion that having councillors stand up for the mayor each time or each time we speak, to suggest that that somehow equates to a dignified and democratic chamber just shows how out of touch he is. And that's no disrespect to you, Mr Mayor. It's a thing that to present that if people stood up for somebody, then you immediately have a harmonious situation is just farcical. We've got to foster passionate and diverse opinions in local government. It's really a part of what we do. But what really underlies a cohesive and functioning council is respect, acceptance and tolerance of diverse viewpoints.

So with strong leadership and robust debate, we can reach workable solutions. And we've seen that here tonight. As working together, we don't need an increased amount of power vested in the mayor to achieve that. We need to work together. The one thing in there I do agree with the minister on is that debate has been stifled by the misuse of the code of conduct, and it's been wielded as a political tool over the years in this chamber to the detriment of building a more respectful environment. With regard to the briefings, they're a valuable tool. I've got no issues with the public knowing what we discuss in there, unless it's confidential, which in that case it's confidential. But we don't make decisions in the briefings.

We have an exchange of information and ideas. We ask questions. We toss around ideas. And quite frankly, if we didn't have that briefing and those matters came into the chamber, we'd be here forever because we'd all be asking the questions and we'd all be going over the things that we would otherwise deal with in a briefing. That's not to say that I don't think the council, that the community should be privy to what we discuss. I think that they should be able to ask what information we've received about various matters and so on. As always in these things, there's the dilemma around definitions. So with regard to the briefings, we could have a workshop, you can have a workshop but not a briefing.

But anyway, that's my thoughts on it. I gather the submission will go in. I just wanted to raise an issue about the code that I think our community wants to, and I have actually asked about, is about voting and the requirements to do so. There's no specific changes except a broad scale sort of one clause in section 11 proposed, but it's about when councillors choose to abstain, this is taken to be a vote against the motion. So I don't know that our community understands that. It's clause 11. 5 in the code. So a decision to abstain does not eliminate a councillor from the counted vote. The only way to do that's to be actually physically absent or to, you know, or to have declared a conflict and go out.

So our current code... Our current code, we do record all voting, except I think, I don't know that we always do record voting on procedural motions. I'm not 100 % sure on that. But I know we don't have to, but the inclusion in here in one of those is to record all. And I just was seeking, well, to me it doesn't really matter because I think that you must record a dissenting vote in a procedural motion, is what it says. So if someone's voted against a procedural motion , that's something that should be recorded. Apart from that, I think, you know, I do agree with the suggestions around the submission, but my thoughts are that this does not in any way enhance the democracy within the chamber.

I think it's unfortunate that it's an opportunity to maybe make some good changes,

But I just can't see them within this document. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Creed. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Can I just through you to the staff, can I just get clarification? Section, what is it , the meetings held by audio visual link

Attendance by councillors at meetings by audio visual link. Where they are prevented from attending the meeting in person because of ill health or other medical reasons or because of unforeseen... I thought they were talking about changing it that they didn't have to get council to vote on it, that a councillor could attend by vote. Can you just clarify that for me? Sorry, my head's not working tonight, so.. I've been up since 3. 30, so. Well, it's just the change. We're talking about, where is it, for a councillor to attend a council meeting via audiovisual link, like Councillor Veigel just said he did last year. Do we vote on that now and approve that? I mean, what is the changes they're proposing that we can only do that — Sorry ?

We vote on it now. Yeah, and so the changes are that the only way they can do it is if it's ill health or other medical reasons or unforeseen caring responsibilities. So they're the only three reasons that you'd be able to attend via audiovisual. The General

Manager will clarify. Sorry,

That's correct, Council. Yeah.

Okay. And we've put — So in our draft policy, we're saying we agree with that. Is that correct? Am I reading that correctly? No.

Am I

Looking at the wrong thing? 5. 19, attendance by councillors at meetings by audiovisual link. Agree. Council supports the proposed changes in the model code, but would recommend the reasons for audiovisual attendance be expanded based on individual council needs. I just, that, I get it, but it just seems a little bit out there, that's all. Maybe it's — I think we just keep it as it, like we should be supporting it as is. We don't actually — Otherwise we're just limiting, like something could happen and a councillor may need to attend. Get it clarified for you, but I think that's what the intent is, that's the way I read it. That is the intent? That it is, it's not based on those three. Yeah. Okay.

All right. Thank you. I'll come back to — I may as well just say it if nobody's

Talking — Sorry, I couldn't see your light, Councillor. For the 13 and a half years I was a councillor on the Hills Council, we stood up when the mayor walked in. I thought that was a mark of respect. I'm used to that. And also we stood up when we were going to speak, which gave us a presence, and that worked well.

So I'm used to

That.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Mr Mayor. I want to thank the staff for their work in —

It's difficult to, I think, to evaluate a document that is largely aimed at the other side of the chamber. And so I think there's been a lot of hard work that's gone into that. Because of some of the inclusions, I can't support it in its current form. But I think that there is a lot of good work in here. I agree with Councillor Lyons Buckett. I find this an incredibly paternalistic and patronising move from the Minister. And frankly, I think it's indicative of how long he has been out of local government and his lack of understanding of what local government currently looks like, particularly following 15 years of the devaluing of local government. And if you want to see the impacts of the previous government on local government, you need only read the article in, I think it's the Herald today about the impact of rate rises, of amalgamation and subsequent rate rises on many councils, much larger than us.

Part of my concern with the proposed changes is that in an effort, what the Minister perceives to be an effort to get a more dignified debate, he hands far too much power to the mayor. Unlike the Speaker or the President of the House, the mayor is a partisan political appointment in a council, and that may not be made on merit. The mayor can be part of or the source of the problem. That a mayor could withhold a councillor's pay is utterly absurd. Giving the mayor the power to expel a councillor and cut their pay is undemocratic and potentially a breach of safe workplace regulations. That doesn't earn respect. Dictatorships really do. Mayors should not be given the power to issue infringement notices to members of the public.

That it is an extraordinary overreach. You can't make people apologise if they're not contrite. Again, an overreach. No one should be made to be a hypocrite in order to stay in a meeting. I am pleased to see the minister's focus on robust debate and for freedom of political speech, something that's increasingly lacking. But I think he's forgotten that we're not elected to act as a government and opposition. We are instead elected to represent the sectors of the community that have voted for each and all of us.

I think the question of briefing sessions in the open is really complex. Albury Council has been doing this for the last eight years. I think we need to be cognisant of the fact that councillors aren't permitted to make decisions in briefings. And I think open briefings risk becoming performative. I agree that the public should be given access to the information that councillors have, but briefings are a valuable opportunity for councillor discussion without people

Without the need for the community to be watching our every word and our every move. I'm also concerned that public briefings will reduce the flow of information from staff to councillors in many councils. I think the minister needs a serious rethink about what promotes respect and dignity. Standing up for a mayor who may have the power to dock our

Already limited allowance doesn't engender respect. Standing up is ableist, it's outdated, and it's a pretty shallow mark of respect. I'm wondering whether women will be ordered to wear skirts and curtsy if we carry on down this path. Councillors and members of the public should be able to attend meetings via audiovisual link. I think it would be a miserable council that refused to allow one of their fellows to attend a meeting because they had some extenuating circumstances. I attended a council meeting from a hospital bed . If we ever get someone elected in St Albans, I would hope that they could attend a meeting by an audiovisual link to stop them having to drive an hour and a half in the dark at night in the middle of winter.

This is 2025. We have the capability . Our LGA is vast. We meet in the evenings. People have other responsibilities, particularly people who have carer responsibilities to a parent or children. Single mothers, single parents, people with work responsibilities all need that flexibility. I disagree with — I think we're at odds on 12. 2 and 7. 1. If individuals can determine whether their councillors stand in meetings in a council meeting, I don't know why we have to stand up in committee of the whole. That doesn't make any sense. 15. 11 and 15. 12, I fundamentally disagree with. Councillors should not be made to be hypocrites in order to remain in the chamber. If a councillor refuses to retract, or if a mayor believes that

They have said something that

They should

Apologise for,

Then there is a code of conduct process that can be used. They should not be expelled, and the mayor should certainly not have the ability to dock their pay. On that note, Councillor. Yep. Thank you. Councillor Creed. Thank you, Mr Mayor. So I think a lot of what has already been said. I'm reluctant to support the, and this is no disrespect to staff, but there are some

Things in there that I

Do have issues with. I just want to clarify, have I missed something when Councillor Wheeler

Mentioned the infringement notices that

The mayor

Could — where did I miss that? What section is it? Oh, okay. Sorry

I was using

The council staff, the submission we were putting back. Okay. What section will you have to clarification for, Councillor? The infringement notices that the mayor could issue

To

The public. Sorry I didn't mean to stump everyone on this. No, I missed it and I'm like, I thought I read it pretty clearly, but it's in there. We'll find out just what section it is.

Maybe I can just ask through you, Mr Mayor,

The

GM

Are

We not supportive of

That or are we supportive of that as a council through the report? Sorry. Anyway, while that's happening... I have to agree with a number of points that my colleagues around this chamber have made, especially about the briefing sessions. I find the briefing sessions extremely informative because no one around this chamber is an expert in every single department that we deal with here. We're not an expert in planning, engineers, finance, infrastructure, and, dare I say it, communications as well. Not all of us are great at that either. So I think the briefing sessions, making them public, will become a very public and, as Councillor Wheeler said, a performative process, I think for some councillors, not saying here, but other councillors as well.

I don't like the politicisation of the chamber. I think, whilst we're all elected in different parties and independents and all that, I personally have the view that when you walk in the chamber, you leave that at the door. You leave your personal baggage at the door and you try and do what you can for the community and work together. Yeah, as I said, I don't like the issue with the audio-visual saying it's only depending on whether you're sick and then who actually determines how sick you are and whether you're allowed to do it and all that sort of stuff. I don't — I get Councillor Wheeler's point about standing when speaking. You know, it's if someone gets elected into this chamber in the future and they're in a wheelchair, like, you know, what happens then?

Do we all not stand? Do we single someone out? So I do understand that. I don't have an issue with it, but I do understand Councillor Wheeler's point with that. And no offence, Mr Mayor, it's not directed at you, but this chamber, or council chambers, are not federal or state chambers where you walk into a chamber and you have to bow to the speaker or the president, depending on which house you're in. I find — Council and councillors, when we come in, it's like a board meeting. We have the CEO, we have the chair, which is yourself, and then we have the board members around this table. And we are actually responsible for managing the finances for the community at a local level. As I've said, we've had a lot of power taken away from us at a council level through successive governments, and even more so just recently with this government, they're looking at taking away even more power.

I have continued to say that I feel like we'd actually be more effective as councillors if we went around in a garbage truck and collected people's rubbish at the moment, because that's how little power we have compared to what we used to be able to do as elected councillors around this table. I'm still humming and harring whether I'm actually happy with this or not , to be honest. I find the minister's submission, or, you know, what he wants to do is very quite old-fashioned. There's a number of things in here that I just sit there and scratch my head and

Go, who actually came up with

This?

Was someone just actually trying to justify a job in the minister's office or from the department? Because it just doesn't..

I don't actually understand why we had to go through all of this and change it. You could have had some tweaks here and there, but this is just trying to rewrite

The entire process. Did we find it? Yep. It's not in the markup. So, sorry, let me... I apologise. Where did I just put it? He's going to what, sorry? Absolutely. Yeah, yeah, that's what I thought. If it's a infringement notice, it's got to be in the legislation. Yes, certainly,

Councillors. I think the Chamber is correct. Like, the code of meeting practice can't confer a power on a mayor to issue an infringement notice. That has to be dealt with through regulation. The discussion paper has flagged that at page six, where it talks about conferring power on mayors to expel for acts of disorder and remove a councillor's entitlement to receive the monthly fee, etc . But that's just been flagged as part of the suite of reforms rather than necessarily the code itself. Okay, so can I just, just to finish off, because I know I

Had

30 seconds left, can I just make sure that we as councillors and staff just keep an eye on that, because I think that's a real, massive issue that I just would never be able to support mayors being

Able to issue infringement notices. It's not a thing. I just mean, in the future, just, yeah, that's all. But thank you. That's me. Yeah

Thanks, Councillor. I'm not sure whether it's

Infringement notices that's proposed here. Is it, or just a loss of income in relation to not attending a meeting? Could that be clarified? Mr Mayor, the infringement notice is intended for members of the public, and for councillors it's a docking of the monthly allowance. Yeah, so it was two different things. Councillors. Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, I think what it's saying on page six of the discussion paper is that the discussion paper that's put out by the Office of Local Government back in September regarding councillor conduct and meeting

Practice indicated those reforms were being considered, and they include conferring

On the power on the mayors to

Expel councillors and to remove a councillor's entitlement to receive a fee,

But also around the ability for the mayor to expel members of the public and issue a penalty infringement. So I think that's

What it's talking about rather than necessarily the code of meeting practice. Mr Mayor, could I just add to that? Was that a question, sorry? It was just to say that on page 10, it actually explains about the amendments will be made to the Act and regulation to empower councils to issue penalty infringement notices to members of the public who disrupt meetings. Thank you. Got someone wants the door. Councillor Creed. I just wanted — oh, that's what I wanted to ask. If hypothetically, if this goes, if we don't vote this through tonight , what ’ s — it just means we don't put a submission through at all. Is that correct? And we just,

Yeah, okay. Yeah. So we essentially have to put something through to say that we've put

It in. We can't just write it down. Yeah. Otherwise we don't have anything to submit. That's right, Councillor. When we went through the briefing, the notes were made by the staff reflect the documents before — No, no, no, I understand that. I just wanted to know what if we didn't put

This through tonight, then we have no submission towards

The — Individually you can make submissions. No, I know, but as a council body, that's what I'm asking. Because we won't have time to come back

To this, will we? I'm not sure when the date runs out. It's Friday the 28th of — Yeah, so we don't. We've got to do it tonight. Okay. No worries, thank you. It also happens to be my birthday. Thank you, councillors. With the proposals being made, the changes that being made, most of them , as we've all read and seen and talked about , is unfair and probably unjust. That's come around about with some of the other stuff we've been talking about tonight, where the powers have been taken away from councillors in relation to DOs and all that sort of stuff. That relates to the conduct of councillors, and that in some cases councillors haven't been

Doing their job properly, and consequently you get a minister come in and says, Well, I'm going to sort yous out. And with some councils, that's the case. Excuse me. So when we have meetings like tonight and you think I'm delighted,

You're dead right. Is there any other councillors who

Wish to make

Comment? Okay, just before I put the motion, Councillor Kotlash, thank you for moving before you get right of reply. I know that you moved this, and I know that it was uncomfortable, and it's appreciated. Thank you. Thanks for putting that out. Do you wish to — I'd just say, I'll just say, I think that we need to put in a submission, and I hear you, Councillor Greed. I agree with most of the things that have been said. I think we have to put in this submission, and hopefully this is not the end of the matter. I think hopefully, if all councils, you know, give their take on it, we might actually get a better code of meeting practice, a model code of meeting practice. Look , I, just going back to something that has been said over, I've never had anybody ask me what we discuss in briefings.

Ever. I mean, and I, when I was elected in 2016, how, you know, how many years is that, whenever. Nobody has ever said anything. And if they did, I would ring the general manager and say, what can I sort of divulge? So there's no hiding. It seems that the kind of the inference here is we're in there hiding away. What we're actually doing is working and discussing and, you know, and doing what we were elected to do, which is to, as a collective, represent our communities. And that collective needs voices and

We need to talk to each other and we need to get all those perspectives and then we build consensus. That's our job. So, look, I'll just say that, you know, I just wanted to make that point. So let's, look, I urge

Everybody to support this submission. I really thank the staff for doing a really good job of putting it together because we did have very robust discussions in our very, at least secretive briefing the other night, which I'm sure everybody has probably said what they said in the briefing. So there's no, you know, there's no secrecy here. I think, yeah, I think we need to shout out loud that we're not happy with

These particular proposals. Yeah. I think it was well intentioned.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. I'd put the motion. Those in

Favour? I'll go around the table. Councillor Sam Brogno, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Djuric, Councillor McMahon, Councillor

Kotlash, Councillor Creed, Councillor Vigel, Councillor Reardon, and Councillor Sheather . Those against? Councillor

Dogramaci abstained

It's carried.

Okay.

Okay. 10. 5. 1, Capital Expenditure Project Report. Councillor Wheeler and McMahon, you'd made a previous statement.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm declaring a less than significant non-pecuniary interest within this report. It discusses Hawkesbury Fire Control and I am a member of Hawkesbury Communications RFS Brigade, and it also discusses Turnbull Oval as part of the West Invest projects, and my son plays for Hawkesbury Hawks. Both of those roles have no pecuniary interest

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Mr Mayor. I have a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in item 10. 5. 1. My son is a member of Wilberforce Brigade, NSW RFS, a member of Hawkesbury Communications Brigade, NSW RFS. The reason for my further action is that the involvement does not

Meet the threshold for significance. Thank you, Councillor. Would someone like to move 10 . 5.

1? Councillor Creed and Councillor Veigel. Any discussion on the

Matter?

Those in favour?

Sorry. Discussion

Sorry, Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I did ask some questions earlier today regarding this, and I'll just sort of clarify them because a couple of them were from members of the public. On page 80 — Something in here. With regard to the black spot area, the on hold Francis and West Market Street traffic calming devices, I had asked if that was to do with the changes where the roundabout was eliminated that we voted for, and the response was that there are two primary issues delaying the project, and that is regarding de-scoping and delays with the removal of the roundabout. And there's also some Sydney Water works along Francis Street, which will see impacts from the excavation works. So that's why that is being held up a little.

I do have a Sydney Water question to do with that. But the other question was on page 89, there was a list of road sections being done. Where it says Milham Street and Kurrajong, it actually refers to pavement rehabilitation , and that means doing it all up and doing it properly on Old Bells Line of Road from the Kurrajong CWA Hall to Drummond Road in Kurrajong. Just clarify that because people had asked me about that. In addition to that, I do reiterate my concerns around the Western Bypass, which I think we all do have about cost escalation, and we know that we've got further information coming to us shortly on individual projects in that regard where we can have bigger discussions. I did have a question about the wayfinding signage.

Am I correct in that being only specific to town entry signs and entry to the whole LGA signs? It's not including

Any directional signage

Yeah, my recollection, sorry through you, Mr Mayor, my recollection, Councillors, was that it was the town entry sign and the LGA entry signage. I think what the staff were working out was should there be surplus budget available in that particular project, there may then be scope to expand the scope to either further towns and villages or perhaps predominant parks or regional areas.

Yeah, light, Councillor. Sorry, I've got one that can be expanded to

I was asking

Or I would like to know the mechanism to get a directional sign clearly showing where the PCYC stadium is, because there's an address that gives it as Stuart Street, South Windsor, and that is not the access. So for ambulances attending the centre, there's no sign saying that the access is from Greenhill Way, I think it's called, Greenhills Way . So if we could somehow have that fed into the system, I have asked for this before, but I think this could eliminate some confusion. And if there was any spare funding from the wayfinding, that would be a good resource to be used for that. So thank you for detailing all of various projects. I know that there's so much work going on. There's so much more to be done for us to understand what we can actually deliver and what sort of changes need to be made to some of these rather large projects that need to address the cost escalation, the cost differences.

I know that the two projects that are on track, one of which is the wayfinding and the Fernadell Park upgrades. It's good to see that they are on track, as are many of the other projects. But in terms of the West, I'll call it West Invest because I don't know how to say that other word, that I really look forward to us to be able to knuckle into getting some sort of results around that, as in to what we can afford, because we don't want to be burdening taxpayers, ratepayers with additional funds having to go either into the capital costs of that or the ongoing maintenance costs of it.

Thank you, Councillor. Comment in relation to the time. Councillor McMahon . Thank you

Mr Mayor. These quarterly reports are a wonderful way for the community to see how much work Council actually does. And I know that probably a lot of people in the Hawkesbury don't read these reports,

But they are a

Wonderful way to

See the volume

Of work that we do. And I know people are really quick to judge Council, but if you just take a look and read it, all of the stuff that we do, you know, on a quarterly basis, it's astronomical. What I really wanted to touch on, though, was the point about the Hawkesbury Fire Control Centre. Now, a lot of people know during my time as mayor, it was something that I was really passionate about, ensuring that was delivered for the community. And I've made that declaration, obviously, that I'm in the comms brigade, as is Councillor Wheeler. We thoroughly enjoy it. It's actually a wonderful brigade to be a part of, and it is within the Hawkesbury Fire Control Centre. So just putting that on the record.

But the delivery of that for our community, after what we went through in the 2019-2020 Black Summer bushfires, is fundamental. Now, I know that that was a state government commitment, and that commitment was made without giving Council the heads up that we needed to provide the land, hence what happened and transpired after that. But we've got that land now, and that is on the public record. I'm looking at the staff being very careful I don't tread into confidential territory here, what I can and can't say. But that has been locked in. I think that was voted on in a previous Council meeting just gone, and that's known to the community. What I did want to touch

On, and

It's the third paragraph under Hawkesbury Fire Control Centre about Council officers meeting with senior RFS leadership, including Deputy Commissioners and the Commissioner late last year, to reconfirm the importance of the fire control centre and the ongoing commitment of the RFS to that new centre. I'm pleased to say, and the GM has said I can say this because we will be doing some comms on it in the next few weeks, we did receive that letter from the Commissioner, and the councillors have been privy to that. And I am so pleased that that has happened because there was a little bit of unrest in the community, especially within our RFS brigades, about whether the funding was secured and about whether the fire control centre was definitely going to be delivered to our community.

And I do want to thank the Commissioner, Rob Rogers. He offered to provide that letter of his own initiative at a meeting at Fire Control last year in December. We didn't ask him for it. He offered to give it, and that letter arrived in our inbox. Our inboxes in January. So that's a massive deal to ensure that the RFS also locks in the state government. It was a bit of a power play by all different agencies there to ensure that that funding was locked in. And as I said, we'll be doing some more comms on that later, but I wanted to put it on the record that and bring everyone's attention to that paragraph there, that we have had that commitment from the Commissioner himself that that funding will be locked in and we will be getting a new Hawkesbury Fire Control Centre within the next couple of years.

And I know if anyone, you know, what we experienced in those bushfires, the fact we are an LGA that is prone to those natural elements, this is a really, really big deal for our community. And I want to thank the RFS, the state government commitment, and of course our council staff for their due diligence in ensuring that land was available when we were caught by surprise with that announcement. It's been obviously a very, very difficult task for our staff, and I think people know I'm a champion of our staff, and I will never, ever underestimate the work that went into making that happen. So I just wanted to bring everyone's attention to that part of the report. Thank you. Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Councillor [unclear]. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Two questions I

Have. One of them

Is page 89

On Francis and West Market Street traffic calming services devices on hold. Do we know the reason for that? That's the one that Councilor [unclear] spoke of just a while ago,

But I'll have the staff clarify. Yeah, thank you. Through you,

Mr. Mayor. So with the removal of the roundabout from the scope of works, we've gone back and requested the, or preparing to request the contractor to reprice that scope. At the same time, we were made aware that Sydney Water were planning to undertake works up Francis Street, I think it's associated with the sewer trunk diversion from North Richmond to the Richmond Wastewater Treatment Plant. That work, we're told by Sydney Water, is imminent, which would bring the schedule into conflict. We don't want to go in and do those works and then have contractors come through and rip it up. So we'll look at our schedule. To reprogram that to avoid that conflict between our works and Sydney Water's works. Thank you. I'm not sure,

I tried pushing it again.

Okay, I didn't. And the second question

I don't know whether I could ask this question or not. From Navua Reserve to the last one, 69, we have 60 projects. Is it possible if I could have the ratio, the ratio of these contracts procurement completed, ratio our local people, local contractors , local excavation companies, and outside the Hawkesbury? Through you, Mr Mayor, we

Could look at doing something in terms of a workshop, but that would be difficult information to try and gather and require a lot of work by my staff and procurement staff to try and ascertain what percentage has flowed to local businesses and contractors. We don't record that data. We do. As a

Matter of fact , I think, you know, the last term, I think, you know, we had about 34, if you can remember, Mr. Mayor, 34 percent of the contracts were awarded to local people. We'll take that

On board, Councillor, and see what we can provide with the information we've got. Please. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, could

I ask a question just following on from what... Mr Barton just said, regarding the works that Sydney Water seem to be doing quite a bit of work around here, I was in a cafe a week or so ago and I wondered why so many men in fluoro were also in there, but they were actually holding a consultation, a Sydney Water consultation for the public in a cafe, which it was a great idea, it got a lot of attention . And I was just wondering if I was in the middle of it, but I'm just wondering if we could have some sort of an update or a briefing on the various works going on, because they seem to be quite significant, and it would be good just so we know when people then ask us, you know, what is going on. What we might try to

Do, Councillors, we might see what

Publicly available information is available. Rather than take up our precious briefings time, we might see if we can get together a briefing note or some sort of a memorandum with all of the maps and things from Sydney Water. That would be good, just so it shows,

Because they're doing something from North Richmond to Richmond. That was a wastewater thing, and they're doing something else in Richmond, and so just if we got a picture of what's happening. Any further, Councillor Veigel? If you

Wouldn't indulge, thank you, Mr Mayor. Just to add on what the Deputy Mayor just said about what Council does. Just after the floods in my first term, I was sitting in the dental reception area, and there was a lady there that said, ‘ Oh, what does Council ever do for us? They just take our rates and they do nothing. ’ And I'm thinking, well, I could come into the conversation and be very polite and respectful, but I thought, well, and I did mention, well, you do get your garbage bins picked up once every week. And she said, well, what else? But the problem we see, well I see, and I've seen it for a long, long time, people only really remember the one thing out of the tens of thousands of things people do, which is — I might have heard on.

Most people tend to, you know, they learn from it, they move on. This document just shows, with many of the documents we've seen this, what council actually does. So based on the thanks that the Deputy Mayor has given to our council, from Madam General Manager and her directors and all staff cascading down, thank you for the many things that you do do right. And I do tire when you get mud thrown at you for the one thing that somebody might think, well, what are they doing ? That's wrong. And you get criticised for it. I have to say , if it were me, it'd just hard me sometimes on some of the things you have to deal with. But having said that, that's on the record. So good on you, and well done.

And now I have a document in the business papers where the next conversation I can have, I can just reiterate the many things that council does. Thank you. Thank you,

Councillor. Councillor

Wheeler, follow that.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Challenge

Accepted. Just a couple of things, first up. When's our next discussion on West Invest , WESIC, whatever it's called? When's the next discussion due? Through

You, Mr Mayor, I've

Asked the team to pull together a program or a timeline for when the next several reports on individual projects will be coming through. I don't have that information at hand at the moment, but we'll get it to you shortly once we've got that program pulled together. Thank you. Firstly, I think I need to sit —

I was hoping to do it over the Christmas break and didn't — but I need to sit down and get straight in my head what's workable within that space. But I also think that it's really important for us to take the community along on any of this redesign. People are already talking about it. I think there's reasonable public expectation that these projects aren't going to look like they did. Everyone is aware that everything costs more. The community aren't naive. They, and they're not, you know, they're — They're better than we often give them credit for, I think, in this space. North Richmond particularly concerns me

Because we've got infrastructure there that should have already been delivered that we've now packaged up into this bigger project, and it's having impacts on the facilities that are there, particularly the childcare and the preschool and the community centre, and that has knock-on effects to the community. So that's one that I think we need to have a really hard discussion about. There's been quite a bit of discussion in the community around the Brinsley Park and Breakaway amenities. I don't know if this is the right place to have that discussion, but there does seem to be a bit of angst about what we're doing and where. And a few things that spin off that, and some of this comes from the social infrastructure study.

Do all these upgrades that we're doing provide accessible all-gender facilities? Are we catering for women and girls to the same extent that we are catering for men? I'd have to double-check individual projects, but generally that's certainly our approach, and one

Of the probably the largest drivers, to be honest, for upgrades is to ensure that there's adequate facilities to accommodate for growth, both in terms of female participation, but also growth in participation, full stop. Just further on that, Councillor, in relation to the Sports Council's progress in that regard, with any of

The new facilities which is in consultation with council staff, either through the users or proposed users of each ground, that'll be through their associations to see what involvement women have in particular competitions and how that might be interacted or moved forward. So, and that's done usually a couple of years in advance with the associations and clubs that propose any changes to what's existing and gives an opportunity to plan for those things to happen. Thanks. I think this is very much a case of if we build it, they will come, and if we

Don't build it, they are excluded. And we need to be really cognisant of that. There's a couple of things that I'm really pleased to see in here. The restoration of the wheelchair accessible table and infrastructure at Navua . I was asked about it specifically at the Volunteers Thank You lunch in December, so it's excellent that that's happened so quickly. The people who have used it a lot previously will be really pleased to see that back. That's excellent. And also the Karuahon Kermon Cycleway. Active transport was raised at Sunday's Richmond Bridge meeting, and one of the things that was raised was that the active transport that it's proposed the old bridge is turned into won't have anything to link up with unless we get the rest of those connections right. So I'm glad Council is playing its part while we wait for the state government to play theirs

Final question: how much from the council reserves has been allocated to livability in the 25-26 budget? I can take

That on notice

It was the agreed shortfall figure. I've got a figure of 2. 6 in my head. Yeah. So to your question, Mr Mayor, what was that for? If you'll recall, the most recent advice from staff was that we had sufficient budget for the full completion of the livability project and the Windsor Mall upgrade. What was questionable was our ability to deliver it by the hard deadline imposed by the funding body of 30th of June. So Council resolved, whilst we are doing absolutely everything

In our power, I think that worst case figure is about 2. 6 million. Thank you. And then I'll end with an anecdote. I was talking to a friend who has previously been a councillor on Wollara Council. She finished up at the end of last year. She was talking about the miracle of providing a kilometre of footpath that was raised over every fig root, and what a marvellous thing that was for Wollara Council to do. And I thought about this document, and I thought, you know, you might be able to raise one footpath above every fig root, and I'd love to see how you'd cope with 27, 000 square kilometres to provide infrastructure for. So, you know, I think that it really highlights — the other document that really shows what council does is the operational plan, if you want something that'll get you through quite a long dental appointment.

But these are indicative of the stuff that council deals with. It's not roads rates and rubbish. It's far bigger and it's far more complex

Than that. Thanks. Thank you,

Councillor. Deputy Mayor? Just a question, and I don't want to trigger anyone. I just would like the answer to this. The amenities at Navua Reserve, I saw that they were two unisex toilets. I know that they are wheelchair accessible. Can I ask why they were two unisex and not one male, one female? I'm happy to take it

On notice. Through you, Mr Mayor

I'd have to take that on notice. Any further

Discussion? Councillor Creed, right of reply? Not necessarily, Mr Mayor. I've got a red frog. Thank you. Not

Necessary. Okay. All those in favour

It's unanimous. Councillor Sam Brogdon, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McBurn, Kotlash, Creed, Weichel, Reardon, Dogramaci and Sheather. Those of the against? It's carried.

11. 1. 1, Local Traffic Committee

Councillor Creed. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll move

It. Thank you. I just want to — it's very, very brief. Councillor

Reardon. Just in the general business, I actually asked a question about an issue with Whitsell Road up at Kurrajong Heights. There's been some new work done there, and there's no line marking, and so when people are coming up from the bottom of the mountain and as they turn around the corner , there's no lines across the road . There's no sort of traffic calming thing, and it doesn't seem to have been noted at all. They said they were going to come back to me, but I thought it was actually going to be minutesed in the committee meeting. Can someone find out why it wasn't mentioned ? It just says there's no general business, and that wasn't the case. Through you, Mr Mayor, I'll have to take that on notice, and the member of staff's on annual leave at the moment. Right. Okay. Well, I might just take up the issue anyway with you outside. Thanks. Okay. Any further questions or debate?

Councillor Creed. By reply. Not

Necessary. Thank you, Mr Mayor. All those in favour? Councillor Ryan. Those

Against? That's carried . Are you

In favour, Councillor Ryan? Thank you. I see you were busy there. I was just checking. Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash, Creed, Veigel, Reardon, Dogramaci, and Sheather.

The last item is 14. 1. 1. It's in relation to a question

That I asked.

Any discussion

On that? Councillor Wheeler. Thanks. Could I just be the

Village Pedant and ask that

We use the

Proper there in that question, please? Use the proper?

The proper there. We've got the possessive there rather than the — Sorry

Yep. Okay, councillors

With

No further business, thank you for participation tonight, and I'll declare the meeting closed.