9 September 2025 - Ordinary

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 are carrying your mobile phone on you this evening, can you please either turn it off or turn it to silent. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. Before we start this evening, Councillor Zamprogno, there was something you wished to say.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. At the previous meeting of Council, where a number of contentious issues were discussed, at a point of frustration, I muttered under my breath, for fuck's sake.

I prefer you didn't mutter it again. Under the circumstances, that was an unparliamentary thing to utter. I do confirm that both the video and my esteemed colleague to my left, who sits proximate to me, and your own review of the evidence indicated that that was not an audible remark and that it was under my breath. Anybody that heard that, or heard differently, is in error. I apologise unreservedly.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillors, this evening we have six items that are going to have public discussion. The first one is 10.3.1, Management Plan at North Richmond Park, Turnbull Oval, Tyre McFarlane.

Sorry, Mr Mayor, could I please declare interest?

I have interest to declare, please, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. On that item.

Item 10.2.1, 10.3.1 and 10.5.1. 10.2.1? Yes, 10.3.1 and 10.5.1. 10

5. 1.

Is there any other declarations?

Before we have Mr— sorry, Councillor Djuric.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'd like to declare an interest in item 10.4.5 and 12.1.1. Thank you.

The second one, Councillor, was?

12.1.1.

Before we have the speakers, Councillors, we need confirmation of the minutes of the previous meeting, the 12th of August.

Councillor Reardon. Councillor Veigel. Those in favour? Against? It's carried.

Okay.

The first item is Tyrone in the room. If you can address the council at the stand. Tyrone, you've got five minutes. You'll get four minutes. There'll be a buzzer just to indicate that you have a minute to go. Thanks, mate.

Sorry, Mr Mayor, may I declare my interest, please?

Yes.

Thank you very much. I have a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in this item, as my son currently plays for the Hawkesbury Hawks at Turnbull Oval, but I'll be staying in the meeting. Thanks, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Councillor.

Thank you. Okay,

Thank you everybody. My first time speaking in council, so thanks for having me tonight. My name is Tyrone McFarland. I am the president of the Hawkesbury City Hawks Junior Rugby League Football Club. I'm also a father of two teenage girls who play for Colo Netball Club and Hawkesbury District Netball Association. I'm here tonight as I'm a strong advocate for the much-needed upgrades to the Turnbull Oval sporting complex. Having been involved with the club for the past eight years and stepping into the role of presidency this year, I have seen firsthand a long-standing neglect of these facilities. In my time there, there have been no major improvements, and from speaking with long-term members, it is evident that the complex has seen minimal investment over 30-plus years, aside from the small storage extension more than 15 years ago.

At present, the facilities are in poor condition and fall well short of acceptable standards. We continue to face ongoing issues such as power outages, blocked sewers, leaking pipes, broken showers, damaged tiles and taps, swollen doors, rodent infestations, broken toilets. Substandard cleanliness, unpleasant amenities, inadequate lighting and poor drainage of the fields. Importantly, the facilities do not adequately cater to both male and female participants playing sport and refereeing, at a time when female participation in our district is growing rapidly, doubling year after year. I've been actively involved with the development of the current concept plan and engaged in discussions with stakeholders.

I believe the proposal reflects about 90% of what is needed, but I do recommend several key adjustments. First of all, Turnbull Oval is not a parkland or recreational reserve. It's a sporting complex located in an industrial zone, surrounded by commercial infrastructure with very little residential nearby. Just 150 metres away is Henna Park, which is a community space perfectly situated for leisure activities with the Hawkesbury River, barbecue facilities, gazebos, pathways, a skate park, and a children's playground across the road. This distinction must be central in our planning decisions for Turnbull Oval. Turnbull Oval is the only sporting complex west of the Hawkesbury River and is home to three major sporting clubs.

Therefore, I strongly recommend the following amendments to our plan. I strongly recommend removing the playground from the proposed works due to safety concerns. Its planned location adjacent to the fields of play possesses a high risk of injury to children and parents both from footballs and cricket balls. Impact on the netball facilities: the playground displaces the fourth netball court, currently a grass court, reducing the number of courts to three and then converting one court into a shared public basketball and netball court similar to Peel Park. This reduces Colo Netball's secured training spaces from three courts to two courts. The club already struggles to access inadequate facilities and often relies on sending teams to Peel Park, where conflicts do arise with public and have occurred, and netball rings and basketball rings are facing opposite directions.

I have personally been requested on multiple occasions to go and swing these around, which is not a simple task. Better alternative by removing the playground, council could instead consider upgrading current grass netball court to a concrete surface, providing Colo Netball with proper training facilities at one location, Turnbull Sporting Complex, and reducing their reliance on shared courts. In summary, Henner Park already provides a high-quality recreational space for families, making a playground at Turnbull unnecessary and counterproductive, being a sporting complex, not a park.

The proposed walkways are also unnecessary in this setting. As mentioned, Henner Park already provides community pathways, providing them with the scope could reduce project costs by approximately $300,000, funds which could be redirected towards concreting the netball courts. If anything, a small pathway may be required from the main building to the cricket practice nets and mini field. A major omission in the current concept is a dedicated clubroom. While council has dismissed this request, citing that other facilities do not have them, I stress that such places do exist, for example at Hawkesbury Netball Association and Benson's Lane. The role of sporting clubs today is far more complex than 15, 20 and 30 years ago.

Clubs now require meeting spaces for board meetings, general meetings, coaches meetings, training courses, discipline hearings and members' engagements, pretty much like tonight. A shared clubroom would provide a professional and much-needed facility for the three clubs at Turnbull to operate effectively. I strongly encourage the reinstatement of a clubroom as per the original design scope, with the role shared relocated to the cricket practice nets.

Thank you. Cheers. Any questions for councillors?

Thank you.

You're all too nice.

Question to the General Manager, or through you, General Manager. That request was sent to Council some time ago. If Council was to support the adoption of this and the management plan, what opportunity to make changes in relation to the comments that were made tonight, if there is a...?

Through you, Mr Mayor, the adoption of the plan of management as it's currently written wouldn't preclude any of those matters that were outlined by the speaker. All of those could be accommodated within the current plan of management. Thank you.

Councillor

Thank you, Mr Mayor. What's the cost of a playground? We need a motion,

Councillors.

I

Need a motion.

I'll move it just to get it going.

Councillor Creed.

Councillor Veigel. Yeah. Yes, sorry about that. Thanks. Are you seconding it? Yeah, I'll second it, thank you. Thank you. Just if you remove the playground, have you got a capital cost on that, please?

Through you, Mr Mayor, I don't, in front of me, Councillor. I can take that on notice. No

Thank you very much.

Councillor Creed. Just a question through you, Mr Mayor. Just based on the Director's previous answer, if those changes were to be taken into consideration, would that just be a staff decision or would it require a Council resolution?

Through you, Mr Mayor. The matter before Council currently is the plan of management. Later on in the agenda item, we've got the concept plan for adoption. That would be the time when amendments can be taken on board. However, many of the details that have been outlined tonight are a matter for detailed design, perhaps with the exception of the playground.

And I should add also that we'd have to review the outcome logic map and the scopes that were committed through the deed of agreement. My feeling is that the playground was a part of that.

Councillor Vigo, what was your question in relation

To the playground? The capital cost, if we took that out and applied the funds back into what was suggested by Mr McFarlane. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yeah, I don't think he was suggesting that the playground not be there, just not in that location, I believe.

No, sorry, can we clarify that, Mr Terrain? Because I thought I heard he might not have wanted— That can be done later, Councillor.

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll keep my comments short on this item because, as the Director of Infrastructure just rightly pointed out, a lot of those items that were raised by the speaker, and rightly so, should be debated under the item 10.5.1. So I will be raising those questions by the speaker under the relevant item for the Western Sydney Infrastructure Grants Program. But in terms of the plan of management, just for those in the room, if I can just flick back to the page

35. Basically tonight what we're doing is just noting the public exhibition of the draft plan of management and adopting that plan of management, which will then, of course, lead towards other outcomes such as the works to be done at Turnbull Oval under the WSIG program. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Kotlash, you had your lighter. Look,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. No, I was going to ask a question about the playground, but I agree with the Deputy Mayor. It will come later in the

Proceedings.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Thank you. I'm a bit uncomfortable with how linked this plan of management is to the West Invest project. We just heard a speaker who raised, I think not an insignificant number of changes from what is being presented, and I think they're all valid things. But one of them was around the playground and around the distinction between what is classed as a recreation area and what's classed as a sporting area, and I would think that's rather a fundamental distinction when we are the managers of a specific piece of land. I'm just wondering, can, through you, Mr Mayor, can the staff just give a brief rundown for the members in the gallery to understand what the—I know we have to have a plan of management—but what the advantage of having a plan of management is and what the degree of flexibility is with changing it from the concept plan that could be attached to it.

General Manager.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. So for all land that is known as Crown land, we're required to have a plan of management. And part of that is to categorise the land, so for the particular uses. So in this particular case, we have to—there's categorisation for general community use, sports ground and car parks. So they're the requirements that we have to go through to meet the Crown Lands Act and the provisions there. So it basically sets out the, I guess, the provisions that are allowed on a particular park, and then future development applications have to adhere to, you know, respond to the plan of management.

Thank you. Could I just have a follow-up question, Mr Mayor? If the project for the Westinghouse was not to go ahead, but the plan of management had been adopted, how do we do the works there? What is the scope of changing the works compared to that concept plan is what I'm trying to get to. So I understand we have to have a plan of management, but if we were to want to do something else there, how complicated would that be to change that?

So just in terms of, you know, the plan of management isn't a commitment to funding all the elements in the plan of management. And obviously, in terms of this one, it has been driven by the WSIC project, which is highlighted here, but not all the WSIC funding will deliver what's in this proposed plan of management. So future grant opportunities will arrive, and if you have a plan of management that's able to adapt and take advantage of those grant opportunities, then funding is sourced through that way. Or potentially improve future council budgets.

Thank you, Mr. Kearns. Mr. Mayor, I'll speak to it. I will support the plan of management going ahead, but I'm quite a vocal opponent of ratepayer money being put into this project, $4 million almost. I do understand, though, the importance of having a plan of management so that if further opportunities come up, that we can do other projects there. But I do think I have concerns when I hear a speaker come and say that for 30 years there has been no upgrades done there. We see some fields have a lot of upgrades and some clearly have none. I think this is something we need to look at. This is what I've pushed for around wanting to know where money is going and seeing the plans that the Sports Council has for upgrading various facilities, because I think it's quite unacceptable to hear a person representing sporting bodies to say there's been longstanding neglect of a particular area.

And I do know those sporting fields reasonably well. So I hope that the plan of management will be something that can assist to deliver better things to that area. But I do hope ongoing we get to the core. issue around how funding is distributed throughout our recreational and sporting facilities, because that has caused me quite a bit of concern. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah

Thank you, Councillor. I'd just like to clarify that the buildings are under council control, not the Sports Council. Any other speakers?

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Look, I'm still a bit on the fence with this one. I'm, again, concerned about supporting a plan of management that seems very, very ambitious.

But there's some of the things that the speaker has said I think we, I would like to see addressed, particularly where we're reducing netball facilities. This is a sport that is incredibly popular with women and girls in the Hawkesbury and elsewhere, and it's, I think it's fine for us to say, kids, we've got a facility at South Windsor. But anyone who has tried to get from North Richmond to South Windsor on a Saturday morning and back again understands just how difficult that is. And it's the same every afternoon. So if you've got kids who are playing at any level, really, we talk a lot about elite sport, but before kids get to be elite athletes, they start off as ordinary kids in ordinary teams.

And so transporting kids around, and we know if you live west of the river, you're transporting your kids. They're not getting themselves there. To reduce those facilities, I think, is a backward step. I'm not convinced about playgrounds. I think playgrounds on sporting facilities are often used by the families of other children who take those kids to sport, who are tied up for lengthy periods while their siblings either play or train. If there are safety concerns about that playground, though, then I think that's something we really need to listen to.

Just a question, I'm happy to take it on notice. Do we have any facilities with only male toilets or change facilities where there isn't a dedicated space for anybody else?

We have, yeah.

We have. Yeah. Could I get details of— I'm happy to take that on notice. Could I get details of the number of facilities we have that only have a single gender facility, please?

I'll take that aboard, Councillor.

Thank you. And the other thing that I think, this is a really ambitious plan of management, and we've got essentially two main asks from the end users. One is that we keep the number, at least keep the number of netball courts on site, and the other is that there is a dedicated club room. Now, I notice that there's another request in the submissions that there is more storage, and this is something that we hear always . So I'm a bit reticent to pass a plan of management that misses three key things, and , yeah, look, I guess that's where I'm sitting with it. I'd like to see that changed.

Thank you, Councillor. Excuse me. Just to clarify your question about the toilets, some of the grounds at this stage don't require female toilets in the sense of competition. There are female toilets available for spectators, for instance. With the sporting, with the continuance of sporting, if that particular sport is promoting women's actions in that sport, through the clubs and the sports council, they're notified, and those arrangements have been made in conjunction with the council in the past for that to happen. So when they're required, they have happened. It's not as though that they haven't been approached or haven't been done.

Councillor Zembradno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm happy to understand the distinction between the adoption of a plan of management and the affirmation of a particular concept plan that will cost significant funds. Council will remember that that was turned down on the meeting at this chamber of 22 July. I'll have further questions to ask at that point. But we have many plans of management for parks around the district that are aspirational in nature. We've passed plenty of plans of management where we did not have the funds to execute the fullness of that vision, but we did so understanding that it future-proofed us in many senses. It gave us something to aspire to, and it made future funding sources shovel-ready, as they say. So I have no difficulty with passing this plan of management. Yes, it has things that we may take a contrary view to even later this evening, but I can live with that. Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Councillor Veigel right to reply. Not necessary, Mr Mayor.

It was me anyway.

It was me , but that's okay. Sorry, Councillor Creed. Councillor seconded the motion.

Councillor Creed.

Okay, the recommendations on page 35.

Those in favour?

Councillor Zembradno. Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Councillor Ryan, Councillor Djuric, Councillor McBarn, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Creed, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon and Councillor Sheather. Those against?

Councillor Wheeler. The motion is carried.

The second item that has speakers is the review of the childcare.

The second item that has speakers is the review of the childcare centres. We have three speakers,

Four speakers. The first one is Chansey, is it?

Chansey Shorey Corian.

Have I pronounced

That right? No, nowhere near it probably. My apologies. I'll put the hammer away.

The hammer away. Good evening, councillors. I'm here to speak in support of renewing the current lease model with the current tenants of Golden Valley Children's Learning Centre. Golden Valley has been serving families in this community for 37 years. For almost 20 of those years, the current director has provided consistent and dedicated leadership. Golden Valley is more than a childcare service. It is a place of learning, care and belonging. The staff provide valuable learning experiences, including problem-solving, forming relationships , confidence, respect, and giving each child the chance to thrive. They also carry out critical early intervention work, helping children with additional needs during the most important stages of

Their development. And for many families, the centre provides a safe and supportive community. As a parent of a

Child with autism, I know how hard it can be to find a trusted and supportive community. My son struggles with mild aggression both physically and verbally. At Golden Valley, the staff didn't see this as a problem to control. They saw it as a need to understand. They worked patiently with him, used calming strategies, consistent routines, and gentle redirection to help him feel safe. Instead of isolating him , they included him. They taught him ways to manage his emotions, to use his words, and to build positive relationships with other children, as well as working in partnership with myself to ensure that we, as his family, felt supported. This support made a huge difference in his growth and confidence as he entered primary school.

Today he still feels respected and welcomed when we arrive to pick up his two younger siblings who currently attend Golden Valley and Thrive thanks to the same dedicated care. By renewing the current lease with the current tenants, it will ensure consistency and stability, proven quality built on decades of experience and trust, community first values with every dollar put back into the children's needs, and workable partnerships with Council. The current tenants are in agreement to, for option one, including gradual rent increases and responsibility for building maintenance. If the lease were handed to another provider, I fear the risks of higher fees for families, disruption for the children, potential loss of long-standing staff, and in worst-case scenario , we could lose the very centre that has been the heart of Glossodia for nearly four decades.

Any decision purely made on financial grounds risks overlooking the deep and lasting human impacts on children, family, and the wider community . Golden Valley is a clear example of a Council's vision in action: fair, community-driven, and sustainable. On behalf of the families who rely on it every day, I'm hoping to secure the future and quality and affordable early childhood education. I respectfully urge Council to renew the current lease model with the current tenants, who are willing to negotiate with Council on the proposed increase

Thank you, Shanice. Any questions?

Thank you. The next speaker we have is Chrissy O'Mara.

Continue in their role of providing fair access to the premises at an affordable rate, which they have done for decades, and keep the current lease model ongoing. Thank you. Thank you, Shanice. Any questions? Thank you. The next speaker we have is Chrissy O'Mara. Good evening, Councillors. My name is Chrissy O'Mara, and I am the office manager at Hobartville Long Day Preschool. I have overseen the business and finance operations of our service for the past 10 years, and I have been a proud resident of the Hawkesbury for 27 years. Firstly, I would like to thank Mayor Sheather and Councillors Ryan, Lyons-Buckett and Wheeler for visiting our service this week and seeing firsthand the important work we do at Hobartville Long Day Preschool.

I am here tonight to ask the rest of the Councillors to also support our service. Ideally, we would love to see no rent charged at all. But we understand that this is not realistic. What we are asking is that you carefully consider the devastating impact that putting our service out to tender or charging full commercial rent would have. If either of these occur, our not-for-profit preschool will not survive. We are a true not-for-profit. Every dollar we receive goes back into our children, staff and

Building. We pay our educators above award conditions, including paid lunch breaks and RDOs, to reduce burnout and maintain high-quality care. Many of our staff have been

Ratio every day, aiming for four educators to ensure children are safe and supported, and where casual staff are never employed. This is especially important given the number of diagnosed children we welcome in our service who would otherwise be lost in a system unable to meet their needs. In the past five years, we have invested $ 404, 583. 16 in upgrading and maintaining our centre in line with Council's Fit for the Future program. This includes $ 276, 000 to renew all three of our playgrounds and shade sails, $ 23, 000 to install new flooring, $ 105, 583 on essential services such as air conditioning, plumbing, fire testing , security, pest control and rent. The financial information provided to you in the business paper is out of date, as many improvements have been made by us, and again, we welcome you all to come and visit our service to see firsthand the improvements that we have made.

All of this has been achieved without asking Council for financial assistance. We funded these works through federal COVID support, general income, grants and community fundraising. In fact, our community has raised more than $ 52, 000 in the last five years. Just a fortnight ago, we raised $ 5, 600 at our latest fundraising event, which we are putting towards redesigning our front entrance, again at no cost to Council. As part of our future planning, the next area we are going to focus on is new air conditioners in all rooms and putting solar on our roof. We have applied for many grants for this , but have so far been unsuccessful, as it has been seen as an investment in a Council building rather than a not-for-profit preschool.

We are deeply connected with our community. We partner with the local public school, health specialists and early childhood professionals to deliver a strong transition to school program that benefits children from across the entire Hawkesbury. Our latest event was held on the 25th of August this year at the Richmond Club, where families and educators from across our community-based services were all invited to attend. Hobartville Long Day Preschool has served the community for 33 years. For 28 of those years, Council generously charged no rent, and for the past five years only minimal rent. Our community is sincerely grateful for that support. We are not opposed to paying a fairer rent, but we ask that Council allows us to work towards this gradually over several years and to share the burden of maintenance and improvements that are required to the building.

We also ask to be granted a 15 to 20 year lease to provide long-term security for our children , families and staff. Because if we are required to pay full commercial rent, we will face heartbreaking decisions such as making two full-time educators redundant, closing our kitchen and making our chef redundant , where some children may receive the only hot meal, increasing household costs for families who will then need to supply food, and inevitably raising fees. If our service is put to tender, we cannot compete with larger corporations. We would ask That would mean the end of a much-loved community service built on passion, care and connection, a loss that would be devastating for our families and the wider Hawkesbury.

I respectfully ask you to work with us to find a sustainable path forward. Thank you.

Thank you

Kirsty. Any questions? Councillor Zamprogno.

Ms Amara, thank you so much for coming this evening. I have figures in front of me that I can't mention because they're part of our confidential information, but I could ask you if you'd be willing to volunteer what the cash assets of your preschool are.

So our balance sheet after we pay out our entitlements is $120,000.

I wasn't asking after you've paid out entitlements. I was just wondering what the figure was at this hour.

What do you mean by, like how much do we have in the bank? Yes. Okay, I think we've got about $280,000 to $300,000 in the bank, $160,000 of that being for entitlements for staff that are owing. We have many, many long-term staff that are required long service leave, myself in January, and it would cost us redundancies $113,000 if we were to close.

All right then. I'm looking at the publicly available information in the business paper that says that there's a 10-year maintenance budget on Hobartville of over $390,000. Are you aware—I mean, if you were to describe the building that you inhabit at the moment, what state is it in, in your opinion?

Really good condition. I think that the things that we would need done are—our air conditioner's worked, don't get me wrong, but they are definitely in need for improvement. I think we definitely need to work on our guttering. There is an area in the back where, when it rains, it floods over and goes onto the pavement. Everything else in that service is working. We've paid all the plumbers. We fixed all the toilets. We could do with a renovation in the bathroom, but it's more visual than structural. And the kitchen—we would like, the kitchen is old—we would like a stainless steel kitchen that's, you know, commercial quality. But other than that, I think we—all our yards have been completely done by ourselves.

We've upgraded them. We've got great areas for the children, and I wouldn't— we increased our shade sail in the area. We put more up than what was originally there. I don't understand why you think it's $390,000. Sure

And one last question. Does Hobartville diligently return its quarterly maintenance reports to Council?

No, it does not do that every quarter. It does— it has returned them, but it does not do it every quarter.

I can't let that lie. Is there any particular reason why?

No, no reason particular why. Okay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler. Did you vote your item?

Okay. The next speaker we've got is Mr Robert Spicer.

Evening, councillors. My name is Rob Spicer, and I'm a local resident and a parent of a child attending Windsor Preschool. Thanks for the opportunity to speak tonight. This decision will shape the future of early childhood education in our community for decades. This proposal is not just about leases; it's about children, families, and fairness. I understand Council's responsibility to manage the community's assets wisely, but with respect to this proposal, moving to a commercial leasing model risks creating bigger costs, social and economic, than it saves. I'd like to use my time tonight to share five key reasons why this proposal should not proceed. Reason one. These centres are community assets, not commercial tenancies.

Council owns nine childcare centres, which provides 390 licensed childcare places across our community per day. These not-for-profit and charity centres are not just businesses. They are places where children begin their educational journey. Windsor Preschool has served the community for 48 years with an emphasis on school readiness, meaningful relationships with children and families, and alignment with the Early Years Learning Framework. Their focus remains on quality education and care, not profit margins. They are run by local committees, staffed by qualified, passionate educators who deliver high-quality early education and supported by families who see them as part of the community fabric.

To treat them as unrealised revenue is to misunderstand their purpose and true value. They are not liabilities; they are investments in our children's future. Reason two. A commercial model risks affordability and access . The

Council's report acknowledges that the risks include increased childcare costs and decreased affordabilities for families. These outcomes are surely a certainty and will negatively impact hundreds of families in the district. The report mentions average revenue figures.

But what matters is this. These centres operate on tight budgets, as not-for-profits. There's very little flexibility, so any significant increase in costs will flow straight onto families, or force services to cut back. There is no surplus to absorb higher rents. If fees rise, parents, especially mothers, may leave the workforce. Others may reduce their children's attendance, affecting development and socialisation. And for vulnerable families, even small increases can mean losing access to early education altogether. Reason three: it disrupts continuity and undermines quality. If centres close or are replaced by commercial operators, children lose trusted educators and familiar environments.

That continuity is critical in early childhood. It's not just about care; it's about relationships, stability, and emotional security. Commercial operators may provide quality care, but they are not rooted in the community in the same way. Their priorities and accountability differ, and they may not provide the early intervention support that community-based centres currently deliver for children who need extra help. Reason four: there are better alternatives. Rather than shifting to a commercial model, I would suggest a refinement to the current arrangement: improving maintenance oversight, adjusting contributions modestly, working collaboratively with centres to ensure sustainability. This approach preserves affordability, maintains educational quality, and upholds Council's commitment to equity and community wellbeing.

Number five: the human impact must come first. The report focuses largely on dollars and cents, but what's missing is the human cost on children, families, and educators. At Windsor Preschool, my son learns not just letters and numbers, but confidence and kindness. If fees rise or these centres close, families like mine lose more than childcare; we lose stability, trust, and the relationships our children depend on. I ask you to please reject the commercial leasing model and commit to a community-based approach that keeps childcare affordable and accessible. Thank you for your time.

Any questions of Mrs. Spicer?

Thank you, Daniel. The next speaker we've got is Danielle Shepherd.

Thanks Mr Mayor and Council members, thank you for giving me the opportunity to address you regarding the current review of childcare leases. I'm the director of Elizabeth Street Preschool, and today I'm representing our service, and looks like I'll be echoing the other three speakers on this matter. The parent management committee and I have thoroughly examined the proposal. We acknowledge that the financial figures require attention and understand the reasoning behind this review. From a council management viewpoint, transitioning to commercial lease agreements is logical, as it would allow the council to recover building maintenance costs and reduce the dependence on local rates for funding these expenses.

As a not-for-profit organisation, our preschool's mission is focused entirely on serving the children and families within our community. Every dollar we receive, either from government or community grants, is reinvested directly into fee relief, enhancing our programs, facilities and support services. Unlike commercial childcare providers, we do not operate with profit margins or possess significant financial reserves. This makes us particularly susceptible to sudden increases in operational costs such as rent. Should the proposed changes proceed as drafted, our ability to offer affordable, high-quality early childhood education and care would be seriously threatened. We strive to keep our fees low while ensuring that children have access to excellent resources and opportunities.

Our commitment extends to meeting all regulatory, legal and community standards. We employ highly qualified and experienced educators, maintain staff-to-child ratios that exceed mandated requirements and prioritise the safety of every child. Our philosophy aligns with federal government objectives to nurture children so they become enthusiastic lifelong learners who can contribute positively to society and the workforce. While we do not oppose the need for a lease review, the currently recommended option, transitioning to market rent within five years, appears to benefit the council disproportionately rather than supporting the families and communities we serve. A swift move to market rent would force our community-based not-for-profit model to resemble a commercial for-profit operation, which puts financial considerations ahead of education and care.

This would likely result in increased fees for families and a reduction in staffing, undermining the high-quality service we provide. Given our current financial situation. And I'm speaking for Elizabeth Street Preschool. We have significant concerns that a five-year transition to market rent would place an unsustainable burden on our centre. We are still feeling the effects of decisions made during and after the COVID period, as well as a recent management transition, I assume the director role in January '23. While we support the idea of contributing to a more sustainable financial model, the proposed timeline is simply too short and would endanger the ongoing viability of our service. We respectfully urge Council to consider extending the transition period beyond five years, which would enable us to fulfil Council requirements while continuing to deliver a viable, high-quality service to the Hawkesbury community.

Thank you.

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your remarks this evening. If you were looking or thinking about a model that was more than five years, what would be a suitable time frame? Would you say 10 years?

Well, I hadn't thought that long, to be honest. I was thinking somewhere between six and eight would be really, really helpful. When I took over—can I speak more? Okay. So when I took over the service in '23, we had a significant loss when

We had

Our audit done for the '22 year. So I've been clawing our way back since then. Last year, we've only just made a small profit of $3,000. So I've always thought to myself, with this service, I had a five- or six-year plan to get us back on track, to have some money in the bank to maybe start improving the service. I'm guessing most of you would recognise that Elizabeth Street Preschool was gazetted for a knockdown rebuild, so it has had very little maintenance done on it, and the past management hasn't spent much money on the building, thinking that we were going to get a new— Building . So with all that, like we need to consider that going forward. There is stuff that we need to improve on and maintain and do, aside from what Council can do.

So I've always had a five or six year plan. If we could stagger the payments for a longer journey out, six to eight years till we can get to that 100% mark, that would take the financial burden off the preschool and off families, and collaboratively, I think we can get there all together. We really do understand that Council need a little bit more input from the childcares. We've been so very lucky to have you guys support us and have a very small amount of rent being paid and for a long time nothing. So we're so not saying we're not going to do it; we just need maybe a little bit more time to rush it in a five year period might see some of us really struggle, close the doors or some other aspects where we're going to struggle.

Thank you, Ms Shepherd.

I just want to say thank you. It's refreshing to hear you have a balanced perspective, so thank you for bringing that to your speech.

Welcome. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Ms Shepherd, do you know what Council intends to offer as market rent?

So we are just guesstimating on what we sort of know from around us. I think that we are zoned commercial and we're guessing it could be around $2,500 a week at 100%.

Thank you. So you haven't been directly told what

Market rent? No, we haven't been told, no. Thank you Unfortunately, I couldn't attend the meeting. I was at a funeral.

Thank you, Ms Shepherd. Councillor Sapp was the last speaker. There's matters that we're going to deal with in confidence, which means that the gallery needs to leave when we go that way. But so if you've got something to speak about it now would probably be to move the recommendation.

Mr Mayor, can I move?

You can.

Recommendation. I've given it to the staff. I'll second it, Mr Mayor. I've seen it.

Councillor [unclear], you second?

Yes.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'll read it out for those who are playing at home and can't see the board . That Council enter into 10-year leases, so 10 years plus two five-year options, with the current tenants of Council-owned childcare centres, transitioning over five years to 50% of market rent for each centre, stipulated in Table 3, Item 15.3.3, which is the confidential section of the business paper. Leases are to include annual CPI increases and annual reviews of rental affordability and annual maintenance. Two, that monies collected from rents be pooled into a dedicated fund to be used for renewal, improvements and upgrades to childcare centres.

Just to clarify the wording, we don't have childcare centres. They're leased to childcare centres; they're buildings.

Council

Owned buildings, housing, childcare centres.

Would you like to get a... That's fine,

Mr Mayor.

Could we have appropriate wording? Sorry, I would actually suggest that it's leased, not housing. The general manager will come back. You've got the gist of it, councillors.

Councillor.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. So my reasoning here is we know that the current model is unfortunately unsustainable. It's particularly unsustainable with regards to long-term maintenance and upgrades of these facilities. But we have also heard loud and clear tonight, I think, and I thank the speakers for coming in and giving up their time to tell us how much these childcare centres, running on a community childcare centre model, mean to them and their children and the broader community. By shifting to a commercial lease, my concern is that many of these facilities won't be able to continue with the style of childcare that they provide to children who, in many instances, are vulnerable or who thrive better in smaller , more community-focused childcare centres.

We've heard, well, I've certainly heard from the centre managers that I've spoken to, the centres that I've visited, and the numerous Hawkesbury community members who've contacted me in the last few days. There are issues around safety concerns, and I think that's highlighted, particularly in light of the Four Corners report from a few months ago. The loss of continuity of care that they fear with not just a change if we lose any of these centres, but with a for-profit model where the staff tend to stay for far fewer years. Reduced staffing numbers. Most of these centres exceed their staffing ratios. The additional needs of children, particularly those children with special needs. Family connections, siblings.

We've got some centres where there's multigenerational arrangements, where children and families are now bringing back their children. Many centres want to expand, but they're too scared to commit because they haven't had a structured lease. We've got issues with staff retention grants, which was the additional funding that was paid to centres to help retain their workers because pay is so low for early childhood educators. Uptake of those grants means that centres cap fees if they are to transition to a commercial model. They can't recover that money through fees at this point. We've got some centres with very low socioeconomic standard standing kids who rely on these centres for very long day care in some instances, and also rely—we heard from the Hobartville Centre—that for some of these kids, that's the only hot meal they get a day.

We also know that the preschools that run out of these centres are key for school readiness, including for children who don't attend any other form of childcare, in the case of Wilberforce, for example. All of these centres are loved, respected and relied on as part of their communities. Trusted and caring were words I heard over and over again. We've got highly experienced, highly trained and dedicated staff, most of whom have worked at the centre for years, sometimes decades, and a far more home-like cosy environment where, as one parent said to me, the child feels safe, nurtured and known. We've got some of these centres already claiming a maximum federal rebate, and the money that they've socked away is in large part for employee entitlements.

I had one—I'm going to read a comment that someone made today, which I've scribbled on the back of. If the daycares are moved into any other option than being able to stay community-based, it will leave some of the most vulnerable children in our community at risk. My child, who has special needs, attends one of the childcares in question, and he would be left without a safety net if it had to close. He would not cope in a traditional childcare setting. The only reason he survives there the time he does is because of the incredible educators' love and support his needs in a way mainstream centres never could. I'm sure he isn't the only special needs child that attends one of these special services that would fall through the cracks in other centres.

I don't want commercially viable childcare. I want really high-quality, caring and affordable childcare. While I don't think that these two sets are mutually exclusive, I don't think they're both easy to achieve, particularly not in four years. So this motion is intended to be realistic; it nets us some money paid for by childcare providers from both fees and childcare assistance, but it doesn't shift council-owned centres to full commercial rents because they're not commercial centres. The centre managers I've spoken to said that this is manageable, but it's not. Well, no.

And I do thank you, Councillor. Councillor, we've got a bit of a situation with your motion, and I'll just get the staff to clarify it for you.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Three of the nine childcare centres are located on land classified as community land, and there are requirements under the Local Government Act for Council if it's wanting to enter into a lease with an organisation on community land, and before they actually enter into a lease. So we have to advertise and negotiate around that before we come back to Council and Council decides to enter into a lease. Therefore, that's the recommendation within the confidential report is leaning that way, saying that way by endorsing a particular proposal and then Council adopting, indicating that they want to negotiate with the childcare centres around those lease arrangements and then coming back to Council once those negotiations are finalised, and then Council then can then enter into a formal resolution with each of those childcare groups.

I'm happy to make that change so that Council begins the

Negotiation process. Okay, Councillor. We've got a resolution before us that we're discussing at the moment with the intent that you've put. What's been offered by the staff is when we go into confidential, it'll be worded in your regard for discussion.

Thank you.

Yes, Councillor.

Shouldn't we be discussing this in the confidential session? No

What's in the confidential you can't talk about in this room at this stage. The matter that's before us is whether we head down that track or the like, and some of the councillors want an expressive view.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett was next.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm happy to second this motion because I see it as a compromise and a balanced outcome all round. I think it came through very clearly from the speakers when we heard words like the delivery of what these centres give, such as fair, community-driven and sustainable, passion , care and connection, and that these are the foundational parts for many children's education. I think that speaks loudly and clearly to what I've garnered from my engagement with the centres I've visited and the directors I've spoken to, that this is—you cannot put a monetary value on the value of this type of childcare. And whereas I fully acknowledge that we do, we can't just leave it as it is and not work towards getting some more money in for the maintenance, etc., I think this provides quite a balanced approach going forward.

There's the point of view around having an annual review around the rent and the affordability is, of course, that we can't implement something that is simply unaffordable. And because there have been no details given to the centres around the figures, we had no way to garner whether these things would be affordable changes for them or not, because they weren't made aware of what they may be being charged. So they were guessing when they were responding to us and speaking to us about what sort of fees they may be up for, what sort of lease amounts they may be up for into the future. Therefore, I think this, with some reviews on an annual basis around the maintenance, etc.—I know that a lease can't have a lot of flexibility, but the review system is something that can be part of it.

The value in these centres is so enormous that I don't think that words can fully capture it, because — We just know that if this sector falls apart and if we do things like go out to tender, we could stand to lose some of these particular centres that exist now, and that would leave a really gaping hole in our community because people rely not just on the centres being there, but on the type and the quality of care that is delivered by the people that work in them. When we talk about how much money some people may have in the bank, and I'm not going to use any figures or anything, but I just think that I admire how people in the not-for-profit sector often can manage their funds and stretch their funds and utilise what they've got while being prudent enough to keep enough funds should they have to pay out their staff entitlements for any reason.

Should they have to have unforeseen things come forward that they have to deal with. So I think that money in the bank is not necessarily a negative that implies that they've got too much money or anything. Just trying to see , I think the final speaker said that it would be manageable over a longer period of time. I think this is the same period of time, but of course it's reaching to a different level of the market rent, so a 50% of market rent, which I hope would satisfy, having the same effect to allow them to rebuild, as many businesses and not-for-profits have had to do after COVID. We've heard about the investments that the childcare centres make. I've seen at some of the centres what works they've done and how amazing this is for our local children.

So. I don't think anyone wants to see it going out to tender where people with more financial means may be able to defeat the people that go every day to give the care and the high quality care that they deliver in this sector. So we don't want to see places having to raise their fees. We don't want to see them having to put staff off. We also want to deliver certainty to the staff who work in this area that there is a solution, that they will have some security of their employment going forward. So I hope we can work around this and that that would give a balanced approach so that we can both increase our income from this sector while not totally killing it off. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor.

Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm speaking against this motion. There's a few things that I think I want to say for starters, and that is we aren't, tonight , we aren't assessing the value of not-for-profit and charity-based childcare . I think all of us, and I know I should speak for myself, but I'm sure everybody in this chamber agrees that these centres are valuable. They're, you know, they're run with the best intentions, and we have wonderful outcomes from them. That isn't in question tonight. I've heard a lot of people say, you know, that these centres are... are precious , and they are. The problem that I have is that I did a bit of number crunching. In the 2021 census, there were 4,200, about 4,200 children between zero and four living in the Hawkesbury.

About 2,400 of those attended some sort of childcare.

400, the 390 that's in the business paper, I'm going to add 10. About 400 of those children attend our nine centres that are the subject of this item .

Now, that means that 2,000 of our kids, equally deserving, are outside the not-for-profit system . I'm really hoping, and I'm assuming, that they don't get such a bad deal, and the 400 that attend the not-for-profits are getting, you know, some sort of special treatment.

That brings me to the point of thinking that, as council, we do own these facilities. I think the decision that we have to make is , is it equitable that we subsidise, heavily subsidise, these childcare centres,

Or do we Transition , I don't think that going out to tender is appropriate. I think that would be a disaster.

I think that the money that we might be able to recoup from the property that we own could be going to other facilities , other services that might spread the benefit of that money, that public money, to more people in our community. Now, I know that you're all mumbling and you're upset by that, but that's what— to make a good decision on this sort of thing— is what we have to do.

I'd appreciate it, Mr. Mayor— Yeah. This is hard enough to

Try and assess this.

Thank you, Councillor. We won't have any discussion.

Thank you, Councillor. We won't have any discussion from the gallery. Some of the stuff we might want to hear. Let the councillors speak in silence, please.

Now, I've heard that— I've heard Councillor Wheeler and Councillor Lyons-Bucket talk about the affordability of paying commercial rent. Apparently, the centre operators are estimating what that might be. So we don't really know that. So we don't really know that they can't afford the transition that's in the business paper. I mean, I'm not that unhappy with it transitioning for a longer time, but I think that we have to—I think we have to assess and really think clearly about whether we opt for point four, which is the money that we get from the property that everybody owns. It's public property, so it's for the, you know, for as many people as we can possibly— You know , get derived benefit for. Getting the rent money from those nine centres and reinvesting it into those nine centres, to me, is very inequitable . So I think that— oh, sorry, that's me, is it?

Thank you, Councillor.

Thank you.

Councillor Zembrogna.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

I'll make the remarks that I will here in public session because I too want as much of this debate to occur in the public domain as possible, because that's what fosters a sense of agency and trust among people. The difficulty I have with Councillor Wheeler's proposal is that it fails to distinguish between the financial circumstances of those nine not-for-profit childcare centres. I can quote chapter and verse when we move into confidential session, but I'll speak generally and choose my words carefully in this way. We have figures before us that indicate that not all these childcare centres are equal. Not only are some very solvent. And turning a healthy profit, and can easily meet all of their staff obligations.

You know, were they to fold and they had to pay out those obligations, they could easily do so and have very handsome sums of money in the bank. I would encourage all people listening to this debate to ask your childcare centre how much money they do have in the bank, and how much would be left over if every cent of staff payout entitlements were drawn upon at once, which of course is itself an unlikely circumstance. And yet we have others in this list who are not currently solvent, whose most recent financial figures presented to us do not show a profit at all, that they've had to draw on whatever cash assets they have to get by and are in the process of trying to remedy that situation. Councillor Wheeler's motion doesn't contain any nuance in that sense.

So when we do move into confidential session, I would be advocating that those childcare centres that are clearly well situated in terms of their geography and their numbers and their economies of scale, and who could make more of a contribution towards the upkeep of their buildings, do so, and those that are genuinely struggling. And I've got to say, in defence of our staff, they have done a fantastic job. I've always been heartened by the heart of our staff in terms of the way that they've come to us at briefings and to say, we are engaging directly with these stakeholders. We want to understand their individual circumstances, and we want to do this in a way that's sustainable. And I take them at their word, but this approach doesn't quite get us there.

And I think the angst that we're hearing from the community is that some are well able to make more of a contribution, and I believe they should, but others are genuinely struggling, and we as a Chamber should do everything that we can to support them. For what it's worth, I sent my son to a community-run preschool, and that season in his life may have been when he paid more attention to his education than at any other point. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor Ryan . Thank you, Mr Mayor. What I'm looking at this, and I look at the children. I'm a grandfather of ten grandchildren, and they're great. They are our future, and the best thing we can give any child is an education. We can give them sports and all this sort of stuff, but I feel we have to give them a good, strong education for them to move forward into the rest of their lives and to become good Australians, to support our nation, to give us something to work with. We support sporting bodies and all these other things fairly solidly. Okay, I can understand, and I've looked very closely. I've been to a couple of the preschools in my former life with the grandchildren, and I've always been impressed with our preschools.

There's something that are the gold standard, and I believe if we start knocking that standard down, the commercial ones might say, Well, we don't really have anything to strive towards. And I've never heard a complaint from any of my daughters-in-laws and daughters about our preschools. None of our grandchildren go there anymore, so I don't have any connections with them. But I think, Councillor Wheeler's very close to the mark. It might need a bit more fine tuning, but we really have to look after these generations of children. And let's not put the dollar sign there. We need to be affordable. We need to give them good quality education in good quality buildings, that the rest of the childcare industry, and we know it's been getting a bit of caning lately, use as a standard, probably a gold standard I'd call it in the Hawkesbury.

So that's what I'll say. I'll have some more to say in confidential. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor McMahon.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. This item before us tonight is exceptionally difficult. And, you know, my nine years in the chamber, we've had to make some really difficult decisions, including some additional decisions coming up tonight on this very business paper. There's a couple of items later on that come to what I believe is the core issue of similarity between all of these items. And that is having to make some really tough decisions about the financial viability and sustainability of this council based on a whole range of different factors and scenarios. And this is one of them. There's an item later tonight that discusses potentially whether we have a rate increase. There's an item later tonight about Turnbull Oval and whether we add ratepayer funds to state government grants that have been given to this council.

Just so everybody in the room knows, all of us sitting at this table here live in the Hawkesbury. We have raised our kids here. We love the place so much we put up our hand to make these tough decisions, and they're really, really hard.

What I'd like to do is kind of break it down to something that's a little bit the way I try and make my decisions in this chamber. And while we're talking about millions of dollars and tens and hundreds of millions of dollars in terms of our budget, our revenue and our expenditure, seems like pie-in-the-sky figures. If you break it down, what we have to decide around this table is no different to your household budget. And we all have to make sacrifices in our household budget. We all have to go without. We all have to not have dinner out on the weekend because we've had another bill come up. And this is exactly what we're having to do with this and other items tonight, and again over my nine years in this chamber.

Balancing those responsibilities is really hard because you know that you're going to hurt some people, or that some people are going to be affected more than others. That even comes around every year when we discuss our operational plan and how we spend our revenue and how we do our rating structure, which over the years has caused significant debate and heat in this room. A lot of what I want to ask the staff is unfortunately I can't ask in the open session because they are based on figures that we are privy to in the confidential part of this motion. I still am not sure whether I'm supporting what's on the board, but what I will say is that at least what is on the board is acknowledging that the current model isn't working.

And that's why I think that some sort of transitional arrangement is needed. Let me make it clear to everybody in the room that I will not be supporting Option 1 or Option 2. Some sort of, and that's what I at least acknowledge with Councillor Will's motion, is that it is somewhat acknowledging that Option 3 is the way to go. Some sort of a transitional model for the childcare centres to pay some sort of commercial lease towards the buildings that they are operating in. But what that magical scenario is and how that works is something that I think we have to debate in the confidential session because I know it might anger some people in the community, but there is confidential information from a commercial sense where Councillors and progno touched on that the nine centres are operating differently.

And I know you can't see that, but we can see that, and that's why we have to make decisions, because there are some centres that just aren't cutting it, and there's some that are excelling. And so it's not that everyone's in the same boat because they're just simply not. And I'm really sorry we can't have that debate in front of you tonight because that would be unfair to the other centres and exposing their budgetary positions, and I completely accept that. So I did want to say that. While I'm still not sure I'm supporting this current model, I have questions for the staff relating to what the bottom line would be to Council in different transitional situations. Because even though the one on the board says transitioning over five years to reach a 50% of market value, and again, I can see those market values, and you can, and I apologise for that, but that's just the way that it is.

I still think there needs to be a transitional model that does reach the 100% market value in some shape and form. And that's why I thank the last speaker for those remarks by acknowledging that this is a real problem that we have before us. It's not about, in terms of getting rid of the childcare providers or making, you know, the children don't have access to those childcare facilities. And Councillor Kotlash was right when she opened her debate and her remarks by saying those things. It's got nothing to do with that. It's got everything to do with us as the 11 elected people around this room having to really look at the numbers and see which way we head in terms of a whole suite of different decisions we have to make as councillors.

So I did just want to make that point very clear, and I will be asking the staff further questions regarding the commercial reality in the confidential session. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Just before we go on—excuse me—if this motion, as it is before us tonight, is accepted, the confidential stuff will not have to be discussed. So just have a think about that.

I can't

Do this

I have to ask questions. That's why I asked you before whether we should be doing this. Well

Mr Mayor— Councillor Brooker. Sorry, a procedural question. We have a number of other matters where people are waiting patiently in the gallery to address. I thought that there was an elegance to the way that this was structured, because we were simply receiving and noting this portion of the business paper, and could defer that confidential portion until mostly most of the people in the gallery have already gone, to kick everybody out when there are still items subject to public address. Councillor Wheeler's motion rather upsets that. I'd prefer it if Councillor Wheeler would consent to revert to the receiver note that's this item and then reintroduces this in the confidential part of the business paper at

The end of the evening. Councillor, we were going to go into confidential during this debate anyway. I'm just letting you know that if this motion is supported without a motion that we go into confidentiality, then it's moot. So in saying— Can I

Ask a question?

Yes, Councillor.

Are we able to negotiate different transitions for the different types of childcare centres? So that instead of having one, we just say we will negotiate with each of the childcare centres? Well

You can do anything. This chamber decides, Councillor, but I don't know that I'd be recommending that we— Well,

There's only nine of them, it's not like there's a hundred.

But our staff, with this, like this is not the first time this has come before us. We've discussed this over a long time. And to get the ball rolling, what's before us tonight is—and where the staff would go if what was proposed in the business paper was to happen, and there was three different options in there. During the course of any of those three options, if the staff was to hit barriers, or indeed the community hit barriers and come to any one of us, there's the opportunity to bring it before Council again. So the avenues that are open to the chamber and to the community is always there. This process that we're going through tonight is the options after discussions with us that the staff felt they were the best options to move forward on this.

So , in saying that, I was on council when we set most of these buildings up for childcare back in the 90s. The council didn't get involved in childcare because of the issues and staffing and all the issues that are involved with childcare. But we did provide— we did, I'm not the only one that leaves my phone on, see—but we did see a need, and there was a great need in the community for the council to support something that's not a criteria of council to be involved in, along with a lot of other things. We've got state and federal governments to deal with those things, but it was a community need, and we got involved to the degree we did in the council supplying accommodation for those units.

What's happened nearly 30 years later is that, as the Deputy Mayor spoke, where we, like most of everybody else, needs to watch the dollars and how we manage those. There's not too many organisations in our community that pay little or nothing. For a facility that they accommodate to the value that these are. And considering that all our community do not have children, then we need to consider, on a fair basis, what's equitable. We do work and we maintain the buildings and the like, and it's reciprocated, excuse me, by the users of those organisations to manufacture those buildings for a purpose. And it's worked well. And we need to decide tonight whether or not we need to pull back a little bit and give over time, and there's no indication by anybody in this room about other than negotiating a time period that would work to put out for expressions of interest.

I don't think any person discussed that whatsoever , nor was that intent. So it wasn't about coming down tough on any part of our community, especially this part. It was about the responsibilities as councils got to look after the community on a fair basis. And all the things that have been said about the childcare centres tonight, every one of us are well aware of what they do for our community and the people they serve, and thank them for it. Further debate.

Deputy Mayor

Unless Councillor Creed wanted to say something, I was going to seek your indulgence to move into confidential. I can't make a decision without asking commercial questions.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. The situation is to the gallery that to discuss the matters and questions asked by the councillors and the staff, it is confidential, and we can't have people in the gallery. I don't know how long this will go for. I would hope not. Most of the staff has been discussed, so the questions need to be precise in what the intent is. Do we have a motion to go into confidential? Deputy Mayor. Move

Into confidential. Councillor. Councillor Kotlash . I'll second that

I'll put that to a vote. All those in favour?

It's unanimous.

Councillor...

Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Djuric, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Creed, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon.

Thank you, Gallery.

Thank you.

Councillors, at this stage, we've only got a motion before us, which is on the board, put forward by Councillor Wheeler. There's a proposed amendment that's being worked on at the moment. Is there any discussion on the motion?

I thank the Gallery for their patience, by the way, while we work through this.

Councillor, do you have an amendment?

I do, Mr Mayor . No, it's an amendment to the motion. It's an amendment. And I'll just wait for staff to put it up.

So the amendment, for those in the gallery and reading at home or watching at home, point one is to endorse the proceeding with option three, continue leasing with the current childcare centre tenants, transitioning to market rentals with the transition over a five-year period of 20% of market rental in year one, 40% of market rental in year two, 60% of market rental in year three, 80% of market rental in year four, and cap it at that, and then have annual CPI increases as well as the annual reviews of rental affordability and annual maintenance. Point two is the same as Councillor Wheeler's, and point three again is the same as Councillor Wheeler's with the reduced... With the removal of point four.

Deputy Mayor, would you like to speak to

This? So, I will just speak briefly on this. I'm trying to get a balance here. This is one of the harder things that we have to do as elected representatives. We have to make decisions in the best interests of the entire community. I understand what Councillor Wheeler was doing with the 50%, but unfortunately, we have to make decisions that will actually benefit the entire community. And this, I think, is a fair and fairly balanced approach. I also want to note that the reason why I've kept in the annual reviews of rental affordability and annual maintenance is because I think that's important for the childcare centres continue to speak with council staff and be able to negotiate what issues they've got and if they are struggling, to be able to come back to council and go, Look, this is the issue.

We might not be able to meet it this year, or, you know , I just— it is a very, very hard subject because it is a matter that pulls at the heartstrings, but unfortunately, we do need to be realistic and we need to make sure that we're doing the right thing by our ratepayers, especially given what we are about to discuss later on. We're about to ask the ratepayers to go to feedback, to go out to the public and get their feedback on potentially a special rate variation. So on one item, we can't turn around and say we're going to subsidise for— I have actually done the maths to Councillor Kotlash, the amount of children in the not-for-profit childcare centres, it's 382, according to the information we've got, and commercial children it's 2,053.

So we're subsidising for 382 whilst the other 2,053 children are not being subsidised with ratepayers' money. We have to get the balance. I don't want to— I hate doing this sort of stuff, you know, because you end up pitting people against each other, and that's not what we're here for. We have to do the best that we can, and I think this is hopefully going to get a balance right. Anyway, we'll see what other councillors think of the amendment. Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. If it's okay with the mover and seconder of this motion, I'd like to add a point four. The

Amendment of the motion? Oh

The amendment, rather, sorry. A point four that is to offer the council offers any childcare centre assistance with this transition. And that kind of assistance could be in the form of some sort of business analysis and, you know, trying to maximise their expenditure, et cetera. And that's not to say that the centres don't know how to operate, but to , you know, it always helps to have some sort of assistance with things that you might not have thought about. So if that's okay with the mover and seconder of the amendment, I'd appreciate that because that, I think that that's the message that I want to send to all of the centres, that we're with you in this. This is really, truly a partnership. And

I think it is really reasonable, because we are asking you to do this change, that we also assist you in the nuts and bolts of it. So, yeah.

Oh

No, I thought they already had it.

Just checking the wording, Council, you're right.

Have you finished, Councillor? Councilor, you're light.

Yes,

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll speak against the amendment. We've been told that individuals will suffer and some children will not have access to childcare if we raise it to 100%. I believe there's the choice for everybody to go to a private or a community preschool, just as we have the choice to go to a private school or to a public school. I don't believe the council is subsidising. What the council is doing is we , as a council, have created this situation 30 years ago by setting up these facilities, and we're now in a form of catch-up around the maintenance and various things. And we know that the centres have an awareness that they have to contribute, that they will contribute more. But in the absence of them being told how much the rentals may be, They've had no way to really gauge or to tell us we can't afford this or what the exact impacts would be, although many of them have projected that that will have a significant impact both on the way they can staff their centres, the facilities they can provide.

To hear that for some children, a Centre gives the only hot meal of the day is heartbreaking to me. And I think that when people are comparing what the money we get in from this with what our financial position, with what we need to finance a $99 million backlog, it's a very insignificant amount compared to the value of what our population, or those who are doing it a bit harder than others, may need to access. And we've heard about the value for people with special requirements who can access these centres. I think that giving them assistance, I mean they're managing it well now, and I think it's a punitive approach to think that, you know, various centres that have more money in the bank than others, you know, should have to pay more.

I find all of that very distasteful. It's something that I think the 50% was reasonable. I think it was achievable. I think it would have allowed the centres, and then of course they'll be ongoing. So we could then, if it was an easy thing to do, we could perhaps increase maintenance or work around those sort of things. It wouldn't have been the end result forever of this sort of thing. But I think this would deliver a fairness to everybody and, you know, I really don't buy the notion that comparing how many children go to different centres. This is about these centres. This is about the people who are in council-owned facilities that have a lease with us and how we enable them to continue the valuable work that we're doing while also extracting from them some money towards the upkeep of those centres and improvements in that sector.

So I don't support the amendment. I remain with supporting the original motion of the 50% increase.

Thank you, Councillor.

Sorry, point of order, Mr Mayor. Can I just clarify Councillor Lyons-Buckett, this isn't going up to 100%, we're going to 80%. And we're not asking one to pay more than the other. That's all. Just clarifying. Councillor

Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. There has been some horse trading here. And again, nobody, nobody suggests that every preschool and childcare centre in the Hawkesbury isn't doing a magnificent job with the resources that they have. Nevertheless, it bears remembering, I'm looking at figures here that show that there are five of these childcare centres on council land who charge fees that are greater than comparable commercially run childcare centres, sometimes even in the same suburb, that the amount of subsidy that each child in childcare attracts, never mind the fees that are charged to parents, but once you add in state and federal government funds of one sort or another, such as the Strong Start scheme, every child attracts $29,000 worth of funding to attend preschool , pre-K education.

There are many councils that seeded this field decades ago and do not in any way subsidise childcare. And it's always been a badge of honour that we were able to offer peppercorn or lower than commercial rates to a number of community providers. I was always happy to do so on the tacit assumption that they offered extra value, extra value as not-for-profit or charitable operators operating out of council facilities and that their rates were especially low. It's generally pleasing to see that our council run, or our council hosted facilities. are at the lower end of the price scale. That's good, but there's some variance, as I just indicated. And I think we can, if we can get this through, we can say that we are still providing a degree of subsidy because when, you know, the worst case scenario that some of who were in the gallery came in thinking it's the nightmare scenario.

Danielle from Elizabeth Street, who worried that, you know, based on commercial rents that she saw around her, that she'd be paying $130,000 per annum. The amount that we're going to arrive at is, you know, much closer to half that. So the nightmare scenario has been avoided and we're moving to 80% of market rentals. I concur with Councillor Creed, the particular financial storm that we're in right now, we're in within this very meeting, we are going to be invited to debate and then consider jacking everybody's rates up by a third only seven years after we did that previously does not lend people to think well of Council's financial management. But I want to encourage those that have been exceptionally patient in the gallery to say that we're doing our very best under difficult circumstances.

So I will endorse Councillor Creed's amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll keep my remarks short because I realise that everyone in the room, and I thank them for coming here tonight and for being passionate about this particular item, but I know you all just want to see us vote. Let's be honest. You want to get on with it and stop hearing politicians speaking. But I do want to just point out the fact that the option on the board to me is the middle ground. It's not quite what the business paper, the recommendation was suggesting. It's not Councillor Wheeler's motion. This is the middle ground, and I think this is what is fair. It's capping it in four years' time at 80% of the market value, and then it will raise it each year by the CPI.

And thank you to Councillor Kotlash for adding point four, which is understanding that there will be some difficulty during this transition period for some of those nine centres. So for Council to come and assist. With that transition and any questions they have to try and meet those transitional targets, I think is a great outcome. I think capping it at the 80% also does show the community and those nine childcare centres and their members, their children, their families, their staff, that we're not going to that 100%. We've heard you. We have listened to your remarks. We understand that there is a fear when it comes to change. That's for anybody in any circumstances, and you don't know what that's going to look like.

So to know that Council will assist you and support you in this transition, I think is a wonderful thing. I think tonight it shows you that we have to balance so many different decisions with such a limited amount of money in terms of the revenue that we can, after our expenses, of course, then the net balance that we can actually spend. In the community, it is exceptionally difficult. So I think tonight, after listening to the speakers, after seeing how many people are here, understanding the community sentiment about these nine childcare centres, the value that they offer our community, I think this is a very reasonable, sensible and smart outcome. It is something that I'll be supporting because I think it's achievable across our community.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I'm not supporting the motion. The

Motion or the amendment?

Sorry, the amendment.

I think this is a bridge too far. There's been a number of incorrect assumptions that have become the basis of this discussion.

Part of it is that childcare is some sort of money spinner because of a federal government subsidy. If we think that childcare is a money spinner, we should run it ourselves. But we don't, because we know it's really hard work, and it's really hard to regulate, and it is best done by the people who care most, really well-qualified, experienced educators and their communities. And that's the model that we've got here. We are putting that model at risk by trying to bleed 80% of as much as we can possibly bleed out of them. And that's what this 80% figure is based on.

There's a lot of assumptions. One provider was asked on the spot if her centre could afford a sum of money. She doesn't even know what that sum of money is because she hasn't been told. And yet that became the basis of thinking that centres could afford that money. If they're all charging the same price as, if some of the centres are charging the same price as a commercial centre or more, that should tell you that the market is maxed out there. And that if they offer, and that they can't charge more to recover the additional rent that we're about to charge. Most offer more experienced and qualified staff in excess of required ratios. And that, for many families, is part of the appeal. The fact that they're community-driven models that aren't profit-seeking is another big part of the appeal.

There's also assumptions about how many children are being serviced here that are based on adding up a table in the business paper that accounts for the number of places. The number of places a centre is licensed for is not the number of children that that centre serves. For example, one centre is licensed for 40 children, but it serves 76 throughout the week because not every child goes every day or all day. One centre is licensed for 40 children, and yet it serves 80, again because the kids aren't there all the time. So we're serving far more than the 350-odd kids that you think this is going to. This is not a grand subsidy for just a small sector of the community that has no other value.

High quality community early childhood education always benefits the whole community because it sets these children up for life.

We subsidise a whole lot of things that not everybody uses. Not everybody plays sport. Not everybody has kids who play sport. And yet we've got a $4 million subsidy for Turnbull Oval in this business paper.

This is about prioritising. What I seek to prioritise is high quality early childhood education and childcare for the most vulnerable members of our community, our children. If that costs us a buck, so be it.

Thank you, Councillor.

Any further debate?

I shall put the amendment.

The amendment

Is not what's on. Yes, it is. What's on your tablet. It was moved by Councillor Creed, seconded by Councillor McMahon. Those in favour of the amendment?

Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Cotlass, Councillor Creed, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon and Councillor Sheather. Those against? Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett,

Councillor Djuric and Councillor Ryan. The motion is carried. The amendment becomes the motion. Right of reply, Councillor Wheeler.

I don't need to say much more than to say that I'm really disappointed. I think this will have long-term impacts for these centres. I think it will have long-term impacts for the community, and consequently it will have long-term impacts on Council. We have not ring-fenced money for maintenance. We are seeking to do this in order to put money from childcare into general revenue, and that will come at the expense of childcare. I think this is a really poor decision by Council. I don't think it's a future-focused decision. I don't think it's consistent with our resilience plans, with our stated aims for what we want for our community going forward. I'm bitterly disappointed that we have come to this.

Thank you, Councillor.

The motion before you, councillors, on the board. Those in favour?

Councillor Zambogno, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Cotless, Councillor Creed, Councillor Bligh, Councillor Regal, Councillor Sheather. Those against? Councillor Wheeler, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Lines-Buckett. The other ones are around a bit further.

Councillor Ryan and Councillor Djuric. The motion is carried. Thank you, councillors. The next item on the business paper is 10.5.

Councillor Ryan and Councillor Djuric, the motion is carried. Thank you, Councillors. The next item on the business paper is 10.5.2. It's the Infrastructure Grants Program at North Richmond Community, with scoping options. Bridget Walter.

Good evening. My name is Bridget Walter, and I'm the manager at North Richmond Community Centre. Thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. I'm here to speak on behalf of North Richmond Community Centre Inc. in support of the recommendation regarding the North Richmond Community Precinct, namely Option C3. So there's various options there, and that is the one that we really like to see your supportive possible. This option allows to go ahead with building a new community centre without a reduction in space, which from our point of view is extremely important, as we already have to turn back potential hirers regularly due to lack of availability of space. It also allows to build a purpose-built evacuation centre, which during non-emergency times will be used as a youth centre and for other groups.

The new sports and dance hall would accommodate some of our current dance and sports groups, but also open up opportunities for more sports and exercise, and for exhibitions, larger functions, and for performances. So that would be a great addition. Whilst that means that the library will not be built until further funding can be secured, it will continue to allow the community to access all the activities that they have come to rely on for social connections, friendship, support, learning, resilience, and wellbeing. So what does North Richmond Community Centre actually do? So during the last financial year, 32 external groups and organisations have used North Richmond Community Centre. All up, they have used the centre on 1,046 different occasions.

So that's the amount of bookings from external services. So these groups were children’s dance groups, adult dance groups, seniors exercise, martial arts, tai chi, playgroups, spinning, weaving, wool craft, patchwork, embroidery, drumming, Orchid Society, a seniors leisure group, church groups, several counselling services, and many more. Plus there were several private functions, so it's a wide variety of things happening there. And another important point, North Richmond Community Centre actually receives state funding to coordinate the community centre activities, also to run a youth service, a group for mums with young children, to run events for children, young people and the general community, and provide information and referrals.

This funding has allowed us to run another 122 group sessions and four community events for people of all ages. And then there is our free weekly pop-up cafe to combat loneliness and foster connections. So that's why we're calling it our Cafe Connections. It's self-funded through our bargain corner and through donations. So the total number of bookings or sessions last financial year was 1,224. So that's how many times people have met at the centre. That's an increase of 63 bookings compared to the previous year. So it's an average of 23.5 per week, but that, you know, if you're including all the closure periods over Christmas and so, but for example, during an average week like this week, we have 30 different bookings and roughly estimated, and that's, I guess, done by looking at how many people attend the different groups, so that may be 50 or 100, I don't know.

But so around 700 visits to the centre. That's just this week. So I just wanted to show how important the centre is for the community. As you can see, our centre is an essential meeting point for the community where people find friendship, connection, support and a sense of belonging. We also have a free book exchange, including a children's section. We have free Wi-Fi at the centre. People can get photocopying done. Plus we run a little bargain corner, which I just mentioned, which funds our cafe connections and our little emergency food pantry. So when people come in without food, at least we have something to give them. So in closing, I would be very happy for you to endorse the recommendation for option C3, as this will allow us to continue to provide these essential services to the community plus more.

The proposed staging of the process, namely building the EVAC centre first before the community centre build starts, will hopefully allow for continuity of service for our funded services, plus for several more groups, as we would envisage to move into the new centre whilst the current community centre gets demolished and rebuilt. So this part of the staging is very important for us and for the community to guarantee as much continuity of service as possible, and will also mean that our funding will not be jeopardised. So it will no doubt be a very challenging time for our service and the community, but we're hopeful that with good planning, good communication and good will, we'll get through this.

So thank you for listening.

Any questions? Thanks for what you do out there.

Councillor. Thank you very much. That was very impressive. How many people do you employ or engage with you to deliver these services to the community?

That's interesting. I didn't prepare that. I think it's usually around six or seven full-time equivalent staff, but we only have one or two full-timers, actually. So except of our nominated supervisor at our children's service, all of them—and I didn't even mention the children's service because that's not part of this. So we also run an out-of-school hours service. So I'm also interested in the child care debate, which doesn't affect us at this stage, but probably will in the future. So we have one full-time staff there. So including all the educators at our children's service, our youth service, office staff and myself, how many staff have we got? I think it's about 15 or so, 14, 15, but we also have about the same number of volunteers.

So we have a volunteer management committee. Our cafe is run by four to five volunteers. We couldn't do it without that, and we have some other volunteers as well. So all up around 30 people engaged there, paid or unpaid. Look,

Thank you very much. That's very impressive. It's something that we all should be proud of, that you people do for the community.

Thank you. Thank you. Any more questions? No. Thank you. Thank you.

Councillor Creed. I'd like to move the recommendation in the business paper.

I'll second it, Mr Mayor

Second.

I'll just keep my comments brief because we've already been here for a long time and we've only gotten through two issues. And given the amount of people that are still waiting to deal with other issues on the business paper, I think this is a good outcome. Well done to the staff. I'm glad to see this is finally going ahead. So, as I said, keep it brief because people want to go home.

Any further debate?

Mr

Mayor, I just take the opportunity there for a good while this week, and just to get the inside information on what's going on over there. And it's great to see someone come along and their group are happy with what Council are delivering. They've really worked well with us, and to get this up. And please, I'm speaking, it's my time. So, look, I congratulate them. They've obviously worked well with Council staff, and Council staff have worked well with them. And that's something that I think we really should take on board and use to go forward with. So, look, I wish them all the best, and let's hope we can soon get out there and see the progress moving forward. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Councillor. Something we don't do is promote the people who serve the community so well. And as a matter of fact, I believe the Gazette next week is going to be running something that Channel 7's doing, a community volunteer, you know, nominate a good person in the community. As Australians, we don't do that very often, and not enough.

Councillor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and through you, just a question. I'm believing the aftercare centre has been moved into the Richmond Public School. It was slated for this community centre originally, I think. So was it not, or is it just a brain fog from me?

Yeah, through you, Mr Mayor. No, the OSH, the out of hours school care, out of, I can't remember, the OSH was never part of this project. It was on the same site, on one of these seven lots that this centre sits on, but it was a different project, different funding, entirely different, that has, as you've alluded to, now gone to exploring options with North Richmond Public School.

If I may too, just a question. I know this is a bit outside, and that'll be funded by the state government, I believe, and no longer by council?

The operation of the OSH? That's my understanding, yes. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I support the motion wholeheartedly, and it is pleasing to see one of these projects where the end user is very happy with how the process has gone ahead. I think it's important to point out the benefits that will come, particularly from the other—there was other funding besides WSIG funding—to upgrade the community centre and to have an evacuation space in that location. We know how valuable it is during disasters that we have that happening there. And as Beigert pointed out, the centre is highly used. It's the sort of the pinnacle, the meeting spot for things in North Richmond, and it's wonderful that it's managed in that way and it's going to be great. Hopefully this will be one of the projects that gets going soon, because I think they've waited long enough, and it should, hopefully we should be seeing something before too long happening.

Thank you, Councillor.

No further debate. Councillor Creed, right of reply. Nope. Thank you, Councillor. The motions on the business paper, page 101. Those in favour?

Those against? It's unanimous. Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyles-Buckett, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Djuric, Councillor McMahon-Kotlash, Councillor Creed, Veigel, Regan and Sheather.

The motion's carried.

The last item that we have with speakers is item 12.1.1. It's a notice of motion, Councillor Zamprogno.

Mr Mayor,

I'd like to declare an interest in that. I've got a significant non-pecuniary interest in this item in that I'm a part of a group that operates out of the showground at times, and I'm going to leave the meeting. Thank you, Councillor

There's two speakers, Breanna Peacock's the first one, and Jeff Oliver—sorry—and Adrian Roth after that. The first one is Breanna.

Good evening, Councillors, Council staff and the gallery, especially all the local equestrians who've joined us here tonight. I speak in support of the motion regarding the need for conciliation around the Clarendon dressage grounds and to reinforce the urgent need for Council's leadership and assistance in resolving what has become a deeply frustrating situation . I do note in the Council papers that the cost of the mediator was called out as an issue for Council , and I understand that they may not want to spend ratepayer money on that, but Equestrian New South Wales believes that if necessary, it is an appropriate use of member money. So we will continue to contribute towards the cost of the mediator.

Equestrian NSW has worked tirelessly since the Extraordinary Council meeting on the 19th of June to engage constructively and respectfully with the Hawkesbury District Agricultural Association in relation to the future of these important dressage facilities. We've done so in good faith, in the spirit of community and in response to Council resolution. The proposal was delivered as requested by Equestrian NSW. It was comprehensive. It met every request made of us by HDAA, and it aligned with Crown Lands' expectations and Council's strategic plan. We offered to take on all maintenance and operational costs, open the facility to more community groups, and establish transparent, equitable use. And yet HDAA declined our proposal without discussion, without a meeting, and without offering a reason.

Let me repeat that. Not once in this entire process, despite our requests, has the HDAA been willing to meet with Equestrian NSW to explore solutions. They requested a proposal, then dismissed this proposal, and this has been deeply disappointing as our organisation has invested significant resources in meeting the requests of HDAA. We are left to conclude that this is not a rational decision because the proposal covered everything. It's a personal one. And unfortunately, that means the equestrian community of the Hawkesbury is being punished for a long-standing and completely inappropriate dislike of the discipline of dressage by HDAA . Hence, we need third-party conciliation to resolve this issue.

If that wasn't disappointing enough, we now understand that HDAA not only intends to demolish the Clarendon Dressage Arenas, but expects the equestrian community to pay for the demolition. Just to repeat, HDAA plans to destroy over half a million dollars worth of publicly funded and community-funded infrastructure that serves thousands of riders across Greater Sydney, 90% of whom are women and girls that participate in this sport, and they want the very same community to foot the bill for the demolition. Tonight, I also bring the strong voice from our national body with me. Yesterday, the CEO of Equestrian Australia, Mr Ben Houston, wrote directly to Minister Steven Kamper, and you are all copied on this letter, to express his profound concern over the risk of losing the Clarendon Dressage Grounds.

In his words, and I quote, The Clarendon Dressage Grounds are not merely a collection of sand arenas. They are a vital piece of our national sporting infrastructure and a cornerstone of the equestrian community in New South Wales. The proposal by the HDAA to demolish this critical infrastructure should be concerning for all Australians. Mr Houston outlines the venue's role in developing multiple Olympians, Paralympians and elite Australian athletes, and makes it clear that this is a national issue, not a parochial one. Mr Houston is not only the CEO of Equestrian Australia; he's also the President of the Commonwealth Games Board, and he has significant experience and understanding of the requirements of sports infrastructure, and I trust his judgment.

You will also have received a letter from Stuart Hodge, CEO of Sport NSW, along the same lines.

Councillors, retaining the Clarendon Dressage Grounds is not only good policy, it is consistent with your own Council Strategic Plan, which recognises the size, significance and contribution of the equestrian community in the Hawkesbury. That community needs space in which to train, compete and grow. Note that we're not asking for money. We're not asking for new grounds. We're not asking really for anything from you other than to be able to do what we've done on those grounds for 35 years. Tonight's motion is very important to the equestrian community in New South Wales, and particularly in the Hawkesbury. Equestrian NSW

Represents its members and subsequently requests that you support this motion, that we go to conciliation to discuss for the first time the proposal. Thank you.

Thank you. I brought friends.

Early in the night, I asked to quieten it down, let the speakers speak. And I'm sincere with that, because if that sort of thing happens again, whether you support someone or don't, I'll be asking you to leave. It's an important question, and people need to be heard, and their opinions appreciated. Thanks for your discussion. Councillor Creed, you've got a question.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Just through you. Thank you for coming here tonight. I just want to understand, after the extraordinary meeting that Councillor Lyons-Buckett brought forward a few weeks ago, or a couple of months ago actually, this motion is asking us to pay for a conciliator and two parties together and all that sort of stuff. The problem is, everything that we went through in the last meeting, it is understood that Council cannot actually direct HDAA to sit down and do conciliation. We can ask. We can. What do you actually expect us to do here tonight when we've already gone through this and we know that we don't have any legal standing to be able to actually force HDAA to do anything?

Thanks. This is not my motion. Maybe I'll ask Nathan to, Councillor Zamprogno, to explain. I'll

Speak to that at the

Appropriate time.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you. Thank you, Farina. Just out of interest, the grounds aren't currently being used, are they? No . So what's everyone doing while that facility hasn't, because it hasn't operated for some time, so is there an alternate venue that people are using?

We are currently running far fewer competitions in the Sydney Basin. There are some private facilities, certainly in the Hawkesbury, where some of the people in this room are actually offering their own arenas, are running one-arena competitions, which is hardly in the spirit of a competition. We recently ran the State Championships at Horsley Park, which is a children's event, and we've got a number of our young athletes in the room. It cost $120,000 to hire the facility from the New South Wales Office of Sport to run a children's event. The Sydney dressage community are looking for a public space to run their competitions, and this one exists.

Any further questions, Councillors? Thank you.

I guess to further answer your question, we are looking to meet with HDAA. That's what we're asking for is conciliation and an opportunity to meet and discuss what the problems they have with our proposal. Thank you.

Thank you. The next speaker is Jeff Oliver.

Evening everyone.

We're here again because we want to work well with Council too. That's our goal in all of this.

I'm Jeff Oliver and I represent Clarendon and the equestrian community. I'm here to speak in support of the motion calling for HDAA and Equestrian New South Wales to come to the table and negotiate in good faith, a resolution that is amenable to both parties. Sound familiar? I think Mike mentioned it already.

Council made the outstanding effort to call an EGM and unanimously passed a motion for both parties to do just that. But it didn't happen, and that's why we're here again tonight. E New South Wales followed due process and made multiple requests to HDAA to meet, discuss, negotiate. All were refuted. Instead, HDAA requested that E New South Wales lodge a formal submission to lease the grounds. Equestrian NSW complied with that request, absent of any discussion or negotiation. A month later, HDAA advised that Equestrian NSW could address their committee meeting and present a summary of the submission. Time allowed was 15 minutes between 7:15 and 7:30 p.m. NSW Equestrian complied. There was no time allocated for Q and A or for any discussion.

The following day, HDAA advised that the committee had voted and the submission was rejected. When Equestrian NSW asked why and for what reason, they were told, We can't tell you. It was a secret ballot. I'm a Catholic, and for a brief moment I thought I was back in the Vatican.

But sadly I wasn't. I was in the Hawkesbury, confused, confounded and struggling with the reality of what I'd just heard. I think it's an absolute affront to the integrity of both Council and the community that this occurred. You all know the stuff about the importance of the grounds and their place in equestrian, recreational and sporting history. Thirty-five years, 35 years of history. The importance of the grounds has been endorsed by Equestrian NSW, the NSW Office of Sport and Equestrian Australia in a formal letter to both Minister Stephen Kamper and to Council and to all of you individual councillors, which you would have received last night and this morning. All three organisations have expressed this to Council and the Minister.

This is not about a bunch of sand arenas. This is about critical, invaluable equestrian sporting infrastructure paid for and built with community funding. It belongs to the community, and it sits on community land, Crown land.

The cost of demolition is estimated at 150 to 200K to destroy $2 million worth of infrastructure.

What's going on here? It's unfathomable. Let me put it in a broader perspective.

Let me read some quotes from Hawkesbury City Council's recent strategy paper, Equestrian in the Hawkesbury. It's a good read. The Hawkesbury is a recognised centre for equestrian activities, hosting various events and attracting participants from across New South Wales and beyond. The region caters to a wide range of equestrian interests, including racing, polo, show jumping, dressage, trail riding—well, not dressage anymore—and club activities. Equestrian events and facilities draw visitors, boosting the local tourism centre. The Hawkesbury is home to numerous top-class breeding stables and training facilities, supporting the equine industry. I'll go fast. The industry provides jobs, generates revenue through various businesses, including stables, farriers, veterinarians and related services.

The equine industry indirectly supports other businesses in the region, such as those involved in feed, transport, transportation and equipment. Council's role. This is the good bit. Hawkesbury City Council plays a vital role in providing and maintaining the infrastructure needed for equestrian activities, including sports grounds and other facilities. The council supports the equestrian industry through planning, funding and facilitating its growth and development within the region. That's what council does. That's in the strategy paper. Community engagement. The council recognises the importance of equestrian activities to the community and works tirelessly to ensure its continued success.

Council, you've got our back. It's on the record. Let's sort this out and get the job done. Thanks, Mr Oliver. Thank you. Oh

Question. Question. We're likely to have the rest of the night pretty quiet if that keeps up, I can tell you.

No clapping, thank you.

Any questions of Mr Oliver

Excuse me. I'm going to ask you to cease, or otherwise I'm going to ask you to leave.

Well, it's a chamber and I can, and I have asked . I'd ask you to leave, please. To leave. I'm not leaving. I have a

Right to be here. I can make you leave if I want.

Councillors, we're going to have a break for five minutes.

Thank you, Councillors.

The last speaker we've got is Andrea Roth.

Just while Andrea's coming up, the reason that I asked for the no clapping, if that's allowed in the chamber, then there has to be the similar support for someone who may jeer someone, and we're not going to have that. So I really appreciate that we hear the speakers and the debate in silence. Thank you. Andrea.

Good evening, Mr Mayor, Councillors, staff and members of the gallery. Thank you for the opportunity to address you here tonight. My name is Andrea Roth, and I'm the administration and business manager of the Hawkesbury District Agricultural Association. I'll be the sole representative of the association to speak against the motion submitted by Councillors Zamprogno. I'd first like to address a couple of statements made by Ms Peacock about the dressage community paying for the removal of the arenas. In an agreement signed 10 years ago between HDAA and Dressage New South Wales, the agreement was that at the end of the licence, the land would be restored to how it was received. Let me repeat that.

The Dressage New South Wales agreement agreed to restore the land to how they received it. This was a good faith agreement made between the two parties. Secondly, Hawkesbury Equestrian Centre next door, which forms part of the Showground Reserve, is 40 acres totally dedicated to equestrian sports, and there are four sand arenas there that have been running events and could be running these events for dressage. And thirdly— It's just an echo, I'm sure. And thirdly,

There's

A government-funded facility at the Sydney International Equestrian Centre that caters for dressage. This is funded by government taxpayer money, and that facility is available. But let me continue. The association's a little confused by the motion that Councillor Zamprogno has requested tonight because at no time has any representative of the HDAA asked that this be brought before the council. The HDAA board was asked to vote either in favour of the proposal and enter into negotiations with E New South Wales, or reject it completely, which they did. So I can't understand why Councillor Zamprogno would think they wanted to arrange conciliation when they had voted against it in the first place.

And I'm sure Councillor Zamprogno is aware that Hawkesbury Council is not the owner of the showground. The grounds are owned by Crown Land, for which Hawkesbury City Council is the Crown Land manager, and HDAA hold a long-term 20-year lease. HDAA owns and pays for all the assets on the ground. This debate is surrounding a proposal received from Equestrian New South Wales to sub-lease part of the Hawkesbury Showground. So even the title of the motion is misleading. It's not about a couple of riders coming in on the odd occasion to use the arenas; they do this already. It's about Equestrian New South Wales taking over these grounds and having exclusive use of them while still utilising all of the other facilities on the ground, which are owned, managed and funded by HDAA, without compensating HDAA for this use.

Again, there are 40 acres next door, which form part of the showground reserve, which are Crown land that should be made available to the broader community. Currently , 70% of the total showground reserve is dedicated to equestrian sports. This is a disproportionate allocation to a single discipline and a restriction on the ability for us to offer other community groups access to the facility.

The reasons for HDAA rejecting the proposal have been covered in Section 10.4.5 on this agenda, within an extremely well-written and factual report put together by HCC's corporate services. Lastly, HDAA has made no request, nor do they expect HCC to waste $10,000 of ratepayers' money on mediation for this issue, as there's no dispute to be resolved. HDAA does not have a contractual arrangement in place with Equestrian New South Wales. They are a third-party external party who want to come in and take over the showground, and the association has said no. HDAA now considers this case closed. They have voted and rejected the proposal, and it's now time to move on. The outcome on this will not change, and so HDAA asks that you vote against this motion so it can be put to bed. Thank you.

Any questions, councillors? Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you for coming and speaking, Andrea. I'm confused, and I'm sure that with a little discourse we can clear it up for the benefit of the chamber and all of those patient souls who have given over their — Your entire evening at this point to come and hear this discussed. Are you aware of the conversation that I had with HDAA's designated representative when I reached out to HDAA seeking to have a conversation, and that I spoke to James Hall? Yes. Okay. So I spoke on the phone for the better part of an hour with James Hall, and he said specifically, he asked me to bring this motion to the chamber, and gave me his personal assurance that should such a motion be brought to the chamber and that it passed, is that he would personally advocate to the committee that it enter into a further mediated negotiation.

You've denied that that's the case, so could you clarify that for us, please?

Absolutely. And I'm sure if he was here this evening, he would deny that. I have brought this issue to his attention, and he denies categorically asking for you to bring this motion to the chamber.

That's not the case, but I'll speak to that presently. You've indicated fairly bluntly that council would be wasting its time to invite parties to a conciliation because you've said that there is absolutely nothing that is amenable to further negotiation. Can we be clear about HDAA's position?

Absolutely. This proposal was put to our board. Forty members sat. They were given the proposal to consider. They listened to a presentation by the CEO of Equestrian NSW, and they were asked to vote that we would either accept the proposal and go into negotiation or to reject the proposal outright. And not one of them voted in favour of accepting the proposal. So the board has spoken. They have said they are not prepared to accept the proposal.

Would you accept that the— Public support that's been expressed by figures such as the CEO of Sport NSW or the national CEO of Equestrian Australia has no weight in influencing the HDAA's position on this issue?

I'm only privy to one of those papers, of which some claims were made, and I'm sure the person who wrote it has never stepped foot on Hawkesbury Showground to say that the arenas are in excellent condition, so I'm not privy to those documents.

I'm getting there. Andrea, are you indicated that in the report that's in our business paper, item 10.4.5, which is the report back to this chamber about the negotiation, as that the reasons for HDAA's refusal have been articulated clearly in this item in the business paper? Can you indicate where in the business paper those reasons are articulated?

If you read through the business paper, there was a response that was sent to Council addressed to Laurie Mifsud, and it's clearly in the papers there.

Can I put it to you that there are no— Point of order,

Mr Mayor. This is not a court of law, and Ms Roths is not deserved to be cross-examined by Councillors, and— Fair enough,

Councillor. Can we stick to the question

Councillor? Well, I'm being civil, and these issues are relevant to the discussion that will ensue.

Be mindful it's not one of your colleagues.

No, no, no, that's correct. I do apologise, Andrea. I'm looking for the reasons, and furthermore, I'm looking for why whatever reasons have been articulated, why they are not amenable to further negotiation if it could be considered. That this chamber does have a role in exhorting parties in dispute to come to agreeable settlements for the benefit of the broader community, and furthermore, to seek proof that the parties are arguing in good faith.

Mr Mayor, Ms Roth is the business manager and admin of the HDAA. She is not a member of the board, and she cannot speak on behalf of the board or make representation on behalf of the board in the way that Councillor Zamprogno is expecting.

Thank you, Councillor.

Ms Roth, if you feel the question is out of order at all, you answer it appropriately or don't answer it.

Well, I'll just refer to page 79, the second last paragraph. It explains why we rejected the proposal. I'm not privy to the minds of 40 board members and what their thought pattern was. However, they rejected the proposal. I can't say any more than that.

I would contend that that document doesn't state reasons, but moreover, to clarify— Clarify Councillor Wheeler's objection. This has gone too far. To clarify Councillor Wheeler's objection, Ms Roth came to the lectern and stated explicitly that she was HDAA's representative. Sorry, point of order, Mr Mayor. What is the question We're

In questioning. I'm sure he was getting to it. It's just taking a little time.

That's okay. No further questions.

Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I do have a question for Ms Roth, and it may relate more to the other report, but I just wanted to understand what is the current status of people hiring those arenas? Can people casually hire to go and have a competition there? No.

Well, those arenas are— belong to Dressage New South Wales, and so the agreement that was in place between HDAA and Dressage New South Wales gave them the right to use those grounds. As a result of the agreement expiring at the end of June, nothing has—and no competitions have taken place since November last year. So those arenas are overgrown with weeds. Whenever it floods, they fill with water. The area hasn't been maintained. The judges' boxes, the bench tops, and the doors are blowing off in the wind, and so on and so on.

So, in light of that, just to clarify, if the report has said that there would have to be a development application to remove them, is that if that occurs—I'm just trying to work out what happens going forward—would the Show Association submit that? And I gather from what's been said here tonight that the onus on paying for that removal still rests with the Dressage New South Wales. Is that correct?

Yes. So we've been working with the planning department to establish what the scope of a DA would look like, and yes, it would need to be put in by HDAA on behalf of Dressage New South Wales. Okay

Thank you.

Any further questions? Thank you.

Councillor Zamprogno.

I'd like to move the notice of motion in the business paper with an additional point that I've communicated to staff. The additional point arises from advice that's been given to councillors in the business paper in section 10.4.5 and relates to confirmation that any works to demolish Capital improvements at the showground would also require ministerial consent, and I'd like to invite the Chamber to consider writing to Minister Stephen Kamper, Minister for Lands and Property, and indicating its preference that those capital improvements not be lost from that site. If people like some parts of this motion but not others, I'm open to the idea of it being considered in seriatim. I'll seek a seconder.

We need

A seconder.

Call for a seconder. Even for the purposes of debate?

I'll second it for the purpose of debate, Mr Mayor, possible amendment.

Thank you, Councillor. I'm grateful to Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

I am acutely aware of the constraints of Council's role in this situation. We are the Crown land manager, but we grant to the lessee wide and seemingly unfettered powers to run that site in the way that they wish. And despite the strident tone that I took with Andrea, I want to again make it entirely clear that one of the things that's terribly distressing about this whole situation is the fact that we think the world of the HDAA and the stewardship that they've given that site for many, many decades, and their tireless and largely voluntary work in improving that site and making it available not only at extremely public times like the Hawkesbury Show, but for a variety of other purposes throughout the year. Good on them.

But we also think the world of our equestrian community, and it's so deeply ingrained in the fabric of the Hawkesbury community, it must be conceded. Surely it must be conceded that as the Crown land manager and as the potentially mediating figure, we have some role in asking parties in dispute to come to the table and to keep talking. The ambition of this motion is merely to invite the parties to keep talking in the hope that they will do so in good faith. There is some evidence to the hand that parties are not committed to arguing in good faith. I'm concerned that after the previous resolution of this Chamber, which clearly stated our desire for the parties to come to an agreeable settlement, as that HDAA poorly treated Equestrian New South Wales by refusing the invitation that they were well aware of, that this be independently mediated at a neutral venue, that both sides could send whatever representatives they wished, and that the goal would be an agreeable settlement.

I still hold hope that that can occur. What I've heard this evening does not increase that hope. Nevertheless, we lose nothing by passing this motion because , A, we invite the parties to continue talking, two , we hold faith with the significant community within the Hawkesbury that rely on access to these fields. We continue to get use and indeed revenue out of a portion of our showground, the community's showground, that trains Commonwealth and Olympic champions, something that we should be very, very proud of. And we avoid the unpleasantness of what is clearly going to evolve and increase with representations to the media or representations to ministers to override us. And I'd rather the parties talk and come to some kind of agreement .

Andrea stated that there was no request from HDAA to take up everybody's time tonight, not just the Chamber's time, but all of the people that have taken time out of their evening to be here and listen to a lot of extra debate before we arrived here. I can declare that James Hall asked me specifically. I would not have done this. I would not have wasted everybody's time unless that request had been made. He said that if this motion were brought, That HDAA would continue to treat with these parties and that some, whatever the reasons are, the as yet not yet fully articulated reasons that were the sticking point, could be further debated and that an agreement could be made over 8% of the showground site.

Over land that HDAA have since promised in writing they would continue to make that land available for equestrian purposes, and yet since November that land has not been used for equestrian purposes. The community are the losers here.

It doesn't escape my attention that council's own advice to us says that there is a moderate reputational risk to council if the parties can't come to some kind of agreement. We should take that advice seriously in this chamber simply by doing what I've proposed here, and that is we invite the parties to continue to talk. Anybody that votes against that, I think, is perverse. And furthermore, since ministerial consent is going to be at issue, is that we make the chamber's view clear on whether we'd like to preserve those capital improvements. Thank you,

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just a couple of questions before my time starts, please. Given the confidential legal advice attached to item 10.4.5,

Is the staff willing to provide a summary or anything of that, or can I not even go there?

We've been advised in the past, I'll ask the general manager to clarify. Thank you,

Mr Mayor.

Through you, at the last time this matter was considered, I think it was at the June meeting, council officers did provide a summary, not extracting that legal advice for Batem, so as not to breach privilege. But that legal advice, I guess the general framing of that legal advice was provided in an open session at that point, Councillor. The substance of that legal advice was discussed at that last meeting, if I recall correctly, and the general terms of which were that with the lease being in place to the HDAA, council had no role, power or ability to either intervene or indeed enforce a sublease to any other party without the consent of the HDAA.

Thank you very much. I think that that sentence pretty much sums up the entire debate here this evening. Again, before I start, one more question. Councillor Zamprogno has put in the second sentence of the background portion of his motion that Hawkesbury Council is the owner and Crown land manager of the showground. That is incorrect. We are not the owner. Can I please just clarify?

Through you, Mr. Mayor, no, council is not the owner. Council is, however, the Crown land manager.

Thank you again for clarifying, General Manager. Therefore, the first two sentences of Councillor Zamprogno's motion before us tonight are nothing short of misleading. If someone was not here listening to the debate this evening and you were reading that business paper online or a hard copy of this notice of motion, you have been deliberately misled by an elected representative of this chamber. I find that appalling. Further to that, based on the summary of legal advice that the general manager has just given to this chamber, how dare another councillor force the rest of us into a position where we know we cannot legally do anything in this matter and make us look like the bad people for simply following the law?

Everyone knows I'm a practicing solicitor. I work every day at a law firm in Richmond, and Councillor Zamprogno is asking me tonight to break the law and go against legal advice that has been provided by legal professionals in this motion because he dug himself so far into a hole that he is trying to save face. I find that absolutely appalling, that the good people of Equestrian New South Wales have come here tonight, given up their time for a councillor who's trying to save face. Now, I'm pretty good mates with Zach Miles. People might know Zach. He's the chair, if I've got that correct, of Equestrian Australia, if I've got that right. Zach gave me a phone call yesterday. He's also the mayor of Hunters Hill.

Zach gave me a phone call yesterday and we had a chat, and he deliberately asked me to put it on the record that he had advocated the position of the parties to me, and I wanted to note that he did make that phone call. We really are in a situation here that I find appalling that we're in because there are good people, very good people in this room tonight from Equestrian New South Wales. I know the history with Dressage New South Wales and, of course, speaking to Zach on behalf of Equestrian Australia. Good people who've been led up the garden path by Councillor Zamprogno.

And in the process of doing so, he has made the HDAA look like the devil. And how dare he do that to an organisation who is largely built on volunteers and who provides the second biggest and best— oh, sorry, I won't say second best, second biggest. Let me get my facts right or I'll get quite a few emails tomorrow— show in the state of New South Wales, and with the tourism and the small business benefits that that brings to the Hawkesbury community.

I cannot, in all good faith, support this notice of motion. Quite frankly, I was hoping it wouldn't have a seconder. Because what Councillor Zamprogno has forced us to all do, as I said previously, and I don't like repeating my words, and I don't even have a prepared speech, I do not look like— Point of order, Mr Mayor. What point, Councillor?

I very rarely raise points of order of this type, but Councillor McMahon's remarks, very personally directed at me, and it's with great deference this isn't about me. I know I live rent free in her head, but can you please instruct her— I think it's the other way around and we're all aware of your Facebook posts that are about me. Can you please instruct Councillor McMahon to be more focused on the motion rather than the man? Thank you. I will be focused on the motion, and again repeat for those listening at home or in the chamber that your first two sentences of the motion I'm amending— I actually ask the

Mayor to rule on this. Councillors, I've asked the gallery to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner. I appreciate the comments of the Deputy Mayor and the inferences that you've made. If we can stick to the debate, I'd

Appreciate it. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Please to do so. At the end of the day, we have no legal ability to force these parties to turn up to a conciliation. We may invite them. We may spend $10,000 for a conciliator to sit in that room and wait for them to turn up. But there is nothing we can do to force these parties to participate. So therefore, to put this motion on the agenda tonight and essentially, in my very firm opinion, waste people's time, I find is very poor behaviour. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Yeah, thanks, Deputy Mayor. I'd just give a bit of background to my involvement. It's probably a couple of years ago when I first got wind of what was happening, and it wasn't until I was mayor that the equestrian approached me to help facilitate a position to utilise the grounds that they had been using with dressage for many years. And I was involved when they first went up there 30-odd years ago. And all of you know my commitment to sport, and it's not limited to football or cricket. When I'd spoke to them, one of the first things I did was went to the showground and spoke to the Show Society first and got an overview of the issues of concern. Then I went to the back of the showground, the 40 hectares that Andrea spoke about, and spoke to the horse fraternity in that area because they do have similar opportunities as equestrian, and heard their concerns.

And I thought this is not going to be a good outcome. What I did do was asked a good friend of mine, who sits on the Sports Council, who's been involved in equestrian. So he's probably a little bit lopsided in relation to the attitude or the view of the showground. But I asked him to sit there and keep me informed of what was happening on the basis that there be reasonable discussions around that. That was probably far from what happened. There was animosity in both camps that probably has led to a situation we're in today. That's tried to be worked through with other people. The arrangement that was made with Dressage was not continued by Equestrian. That's probably where it should have happened, and it didn't.

And then there was a view that the grounds would be made available simply because they were there and they had been used for time, not taking into account the obligation and the lease arrangement that had been done with the showground. And as mayor or anything else, I was not going to get involved. We've given an agreement with the showground to have control and management of that ground. We have not a complaint in all the years they've run it, and it's a lot. They've shown no cause, and I know most of the people that are on that committee, not that I have a lot to do with them, I know them well. And the decisions they've made in the past has been decisions that require the activities and how they manage the showground, and I have not a reason to question that.

From the Equestrian point of view. The. They've got something they believe is theirs, and they're putting up a goddamn fight to keep it.

When it come to us, and it's come to us, and we've dealt with it on the basis that, as leaders of the community, that we have got an obligation, I believe, to set down a particular view to try and resolve such issues. And three occasions it's come to this chamber to try and achieve that. And the view and the outcome hasn't changed from neither parties, and we get nowhere. And there needs to be a stop to where we're involved with this. I don't know what opportunities there are for the parties to get together, if there is any. It's certainly indicated by the show society that they've got to get on with their work and the like. And we've got a horse group that need a facility to conduct their activities.

And there's a lot of negotiation. It's landlocked land. There's no toilets, there's no water. It's supplied by the show society. There's no parking area. There's no access. To indicate that it can be multi-use grounds would mean that anyone that went there had a key, which creates a security problem on the grounds. It's a nightmare, and the show society is responsible for that. And they feel they can't overcome the issues that were proposed, and it was a fairly lengthy report where it was asked them to consider. I believe the council's done all we can to have a group or a mediator to attempt to go any further. I think at this stage it's fruitless, and I don't know where to go, but I don't believe it's our business.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I think this, much like the childcare centre, I think it's a series of sort of unfortunate things emerging from, you know, a history that we as a council have no control over. I was happy to second this motion not because I support it, but because I think that I brought the previous motion hoping that a resolution would come from the engagement between the parties, and that didn't eventuate. So I think that now letters have been written to the minister. I believe we have a copy. I think if there's anyone who can do something now, it will be the minister because, as Councillor McMahon alluded to, we don't have any options left to us as a council. The only option would be to terminate the lease with the show society, and there's no appetite for that in this chamber at all.

For that lease to be varied would require the agreement of all parties, and we can see from what has been said that that doesn't exist. There is not a likelihood that there's going to be an agreement around that. And even if that did go ahead, we then would have the process of how to lease Crown land, which in itself is a process, so we would have to go through all of that. I do think the parties will obviously have to have some continuing engagement, particularly around whatever happens with the development application and the costs if it goes down that path. So I'm hoping they can still engage with each other into the future. I mean— What it boils down to is we can't force people to do things.

We can't make people talk. I'm a realist and I'm also a mediator, so I know the ingredients that are needed for a mediation, or in this case it seemed to be a conciliation, which is slightly different. But the two are similar, both in that the person facilitating that dispute resolution actually cannot determine anything. The parties still have to come to agreement. So for them to do that, they have to be willing to compromise. And I think it's fairly clear from what we've heard that there is not really any flexibility around what that may result in. That is unfortunate and not what the equestrian community want to hear, but that is what the situation is. The board of the HDAA considered what the proposal was.

It's not our role to adjudicate on whether that consideration was what is considered by the other party to be suitable. We don't have an adjudicatory role in this regard. You know, we have a role as Crown land managers, but we didn't generate the situation of one group turning, you know, another group coming in where another group had left, et cetera. All of that is beyond our scope to determine what happens or to direct anyone to happen. It's sad to hear that facilities are being unused and left there. Nobody likes to hear that. The complexities around this are quite large . There's, you know, there's issues around it, but I cannot see that the motion as it stands would bring anything new to bear.

And I do think that, aside from perhaps ministerial intervention, if there's a flavour for that and for us to express our wish that the parties would continue to speak about various issues, I still remain unconvinced, probably because I don't understand why, that there can't be any further engagement around the other 40 hectare or 40 acre space that's there. I don't know why people say that's not suitable. It's dedicated to equestrian. I'm not sure of all the logistics. I don't understand all the different groups, and I don't understand why that wouldn't be a feasible option. But I'm concerned now that if there's too much damage of the arenas, it will become too expensive to repair. But I don't know enough about that, and to be quite honest, that isn't our place to be saying that.

So as much as I had hoped that there would be negotiations that came out with a resolution, if that's not to be, that is not—there is nothing we can actually do to change that outcome. But I would still hope that maybe, even if it's some sort of interim arrangement, I would hope that that could potentially happen by the parties involved.

Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor Creed. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just want to clarify if I can a question that Councillor Lyons-Buckett just raised about, again, the tearing up of the lease. I asked this at the extraordinary meeting the last time this was up, and I just want to get clarification again so everybody is under the understanding of what that actually means.

As in, we have no grounds? Is that essentially— you can't just tear up a lease. It's not to do with the appetite of the Chamber. The process to terminate a lease. Yeah.

For Council to terminate a lease, it would have to be a breach of the lease, and then Council would then have to notify the lessee about that and go through a process outlined in the lease to terminate that lease. No,

Thank you. And that's what I just wanted to clarify so people actually understand that it has been stated out there that, and concerningly, I have heard allegations of it being used as a threat, that this council can just tear up a lease and start again. That is not correct. The HDAA have not actually been in breach of the lease. They have not given us grounds to tear up the lease or, you know, essentially kick them out. I'm really quite annoyed this has come back up. We spoke about this at the extraordinary meeting. Councillor Zempronio has brought this up on numerous occasions in briefings, and we have had this discussion. We have gone through it. We have gone through it numerous times. We've had two sets of legal advice, in-house as well as outside.

We have no legal role to play here, and I just feel like you've been absolutely led up the creek without a paddle. Whether it was by good intentions or nefarious means, I don't know. Only they can comment on that. But this is getting to the point where it's becoming not only a waste of council staff time, councillors' time, but also the community's time and the people that have come in here tonight thinking, once again, that this council will be able to do anything legally to force the HDAA to any sort of table for conciliation, mediation, or whatever you want to call it at council's expense. And again, we cannot force anybody to do anything. If we turn around and spend whatever it was, $10,000 on a mediator or a conciliator, and then it turns out that only one side turned up, we've just wasted $10,000.

You know, I know how hard it is to just try and get $10,000 for a community group through this council through a notice of motion. So to be able to say that we can just Spend that money when we have no legal responsibilities on this is just, I just feel like the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and getting exactly the same result. We're exactly where we were two months ago. We do not have any control over this. We have no legal rights to be able to force HDAA to anything. The only, as Mary, sorry, Councillor Lyons-Buckett stated, and to be honest, this is what should have been said to you from the get-go: Council has no responsibility. The only way you can probably go through this is through ministerial intervention, and that's what I would have advised months ago, even back when September, I think, when I first saw this, when it was coming up before the council election.

Thank you, Councillor.

Any further debate? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, I can't support the notice of motion in its current form for a few reasons.

The two parties are now really poor candidates for mediation. Two or three years ago, that may have been different, but that's not the position that we're in now. And I think there's a lesson for council in that, in that when we have situations like this that arise, where there is a transition between potential sub-lessees and friction is likely to arise, council should move to independent professional mediation from the beginning, not try and get around it to get an outcome. That should be our default position. That is a professional way forward. What we have now is a situation where both parties have such little goodwill left towards each other that mediation and conciliation are impossible.

We can't remove facilities without a DA on this site. So that's the next step , that the HDAA puts in a DA, and it's determined whether that DA goes forward. Now, that will require ministerial approval, and that is the point at which Equestrian New South Wales can lobby the minister to get a different outcome. But we cannot force an outcome of mediation. We can't stipulate the outcome that we would like out of mediation or conciliation. That simply isn't how the process works.

There isn't a funding source for this. I've always been led to believe that if you didn't have a funding source attached to a notice of motion, the motion wasn't lawful. So I've got issues with that as well. But fundamentally, we cannot direct a lawful lessee. We either determine that this lease has been breached based on legal advice and act accordingly, or we must continue with the current lessee . That's the position that's available to us. I am willing to support point five where we make representation to the minister that we think that the infrastructure, which has been publicly funded, largely through grant funding and through the work of Dressage New South Wales, the outgoing sub-licensee, is worthy and could be used for future benefit, and that that be retained and maintained.

But I don't feel that I can support— I'd like to have a good outcome out of this. I'd like to see Equestrian New South Wales still able to use its facilities on community land. That would be great. But I don't think we're going to get it out of this notice of motion for the parties involved at this point in time. Some of that is on us, and some of that is just what it is. So I don't think that this provides us with the way forward that both Equestrian New South Wales and Councillors and Pronio would like. And look, I don't have a problem with Councillors and Pronio bringing this back to the chamber. We can't make decisions in briefings. So us having a discussion in a briefing or having a discussion in the Mayor's office after a briefing is not the way to settle this once and for all.

The place to settle this, and our place in this, is in the chamber. But we have to have a motion that we can actually move forward with, and this isn't that motion.

Thank you, Councillor. I don't remember having a briefing in the Mayor's office about it after any meeting, actually. Sorry

Can I just clarify? I was talking about the fact that he has raised this with us and staff, and we have decided this in Council.

Councillor, I just want to make sure I'm not being misrepresented. I've just got something to say. In relation to the legal aspect of the motion, Councillor Zane Brogno in his motion isn't pushing for any position or demanding of Council. He's asking Council to mediate, which is quite proper. Now , Councillor, you were saying?

No, I was just clarifying that I wasn't being misrepresented. Okay.

Councillor? Thank you, Mr Mayor. I really resent that we're being asked to deliberate this again.

I'm not going to vote for it, and I'm not going to vote against it. I'm just not going to vote, and I just dismiss it as being proper Council business. I think it's really disingenuous. I think it's tried to draw us into pitting one part of our community against another, and I just am not going to have anything to do with it. Yeah.

Thank you, Councillor. Just for information, not voting is taken in the negative.

Any further debate? Okay. Thank you. Any further debate? No. No. No, sorry. Sorry, the debate's within the chamber. I'm sorry, we can't. Yeah , no. I'm sorry. When Council's in debate, there can't be any intrusion from outsiders. No, well, no, I can't do that, sorry . You've told me that on several occasions, and I'm telling you that I can't.

I really appreciate that support. Thank you. Councillor Zamprogno, right of reply.

Thank you. There are a number of misunderstandings here. Firstly, it cannot be stated that a notice of motion that invites feuding parties to attend a mediated negotiation is attempt to pit sections of our community against each other. It's that entirely the opposite. It cannot be said that I am expiating to meeting council to $ 10,000 worth of expense when you assume, and I'll make it clear for you, that I asked the general manager first. I asked the general manager months ago. I said I think this needs to be mediated, and the general manager gave the assent to say if the parties are willing, council will provide a mediator. And I was very grateful, and I proceeded on that basis. Am I disappointed that council as an organisation did not apply more pressure in its expectations to the parties that this should be the subject of a mediated discussion, which the council are willing to make?

Yes, I am a little disappointed, because in the absence of that pressure, HDAA, I can employ a punt at the whip hand in saying this is going to be agreed to on our terms. On our terms, you've got 15 minutes, there'll be no questions, and when we say no, we won't have to give reasons. It is not correct. To say that I am portraying HDAA as evil or the baddies from this situation. People in the HDAA

Are my friends.

Sorry, I should have this on. People in the HDAA are my friends, but we occasionally disagree with our friends. The HDAA on this particular occasion are being stiff-necked. It's my view that the people in the HDAA have not argued in good faith. They're welcome to argue to the contrary. It is not open for the HDAA to claim that I have brought this motion on a deception, and it is increasingly inappropriate for the Deputy Mayor to say that I have actively tried to deceive this Chamber and to waste its time and to waste the time of other people who have been led to a false hope. Because when I had that discussion with James Hall weeks ago and he made that specific request and I said, I'll bring it, then I immediately after that communication relayed the substance of that communication to other parties who will attest that the very day that I'd had the conversation with HDAA's designated representative, as that I said, Right, there may be a way through here.

I'm happy to bring this back to the Chamber. I hope my fellow councillors are of a similar mind.

Reading the room, I'm happy for this to be presented in seriatim. Consider that all I'm asking us to do is to invite the parties to attend a mediation, and I would expect them to turn it down if they believe that there's genuinely nothing to be negotiated any further. No is no. End of the story. I lived in hopes that the reasons, which we're not aware of, by the way. Why HDAA turned down this, what I believe to be fairly comprehensive proposal that was advanced to lease 8% of the showground for a certain number of weekends during the year, and to use the other facilities that HDAA offer on that site with appropriate compensation and all of the relevant negotiations that would surround access, keys, security, toilets, cleanup and so forth, which were completely acceptable to the HDAA for all of the years in which they had that sublease agreement with Dressage New South Wales.

Now this is totally unconscionable. It can't be considered. And furthermore, the reasons were, were to tell you, are not amenable to further negotiation. Yes, I think HDAA could have comported themselves a little better. But the council would be irresponsible if we took the advice that we've asked for and which has been given to us and says, hey, there's a moderate reputational risk here, not a minor one, a moderate reputational risk, unless we use our clout, our unique role as Crown land managers, to ask the parties to keep talking. I'm not ashamed of that. All I can say is that if I ever get to the point where I become as cynical as the Deputy Mayor, I hope I have the good sense to retire from politics at that hour.

Point of order, Mr Mayor. Point of order. Debate stops when a point of order is called Mr Mayor, please, I am entitled to my point of order.

What point of order, Deputy Mayor?

That Councillor Zamprogno has called me cynical, and I haven't finished. I know you want to cut me off. I have not finished. And quite frankly, for him to say I live rent free, he lives rent free in my head, when clearly I live rent free in his to the point he was just expelled from the New South Wales Liberal Party for it, I would call you to account when he consistently has to talk about me in a negative fashion in this chamber. It's quite— this is my place of work, and I do not have to put up with what he has continuously done in this chamber for nine years. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Yeah, thanks, Councillor. We're all here for a common purpose. Just be mindful that some of the things we do say might be taken indifferently to the person that hears it. And the Deputy Mayor is right in what she said, but it's a two-way street too. All of us, from time to time, say something to try and win an argument or a point or whatever it may be.

But, you know, we all put our hand up. We swear an oath to do the right thing in this chamber. And it's prudent that we do exactly that. Just be mindful of your colleague. Thank you. That's it, Councillor. Thank you. That was right of reply, Councillors. That wasn't put to me before. There is no move, Councillor. The right of reply has been dealt with

Procedural motion after right of reply, there can be.

Why, Councillor? We have a procedural motion that the items be dealt one at a time.

I'm happy for one through four to be presented together because they're linked. I'm trying to separate point five in the hopes that perhaps my colleagues will at least concede that it's worth sending a signal to the Minister that we don't want the capital value of those facilities at the showground to be lost. If some have suggested wisely that the next step will be ministerial intervention, I think it would be appropriate for the Council to send that signal. So one through four. Lose or fail, and then five separately, if

You'd like . Four and five separately. For procedural motion, I need a seconder. Councillor Wheeler.

The procedural motion is that one to four is voted as a block and five is voted on its own. Thank you. Those in favour?

Against? In favour of the procedural motion. Yep.

Those against?

The motion's lost. The motion before Council is on page 181. It's Councillor Zamprogno's motion as it's written, from one to four. Those in favour? Sorry. Sorry, there's a 0.5 on the paper.

Those in favour?

Councillor Zamprogno. Those against?

Around the table, it's Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Djuric-Abbson, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Kotlashes, abstain, Councillor Creed, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Regan, Councillor Sheather. The motion's carried. Thank you. The motion's lost, sorry, my apologies.

Okay. The next matter is—

The next matter is the matter on block. Move that way, Mr Mayor. Councillor Creed

Yep

Nathan, can you chase Councillor Djuric up for us?

Shane, can you hear us?

Councillor Creed, you moved. Yeah, I moved on block. And Councillor Reardon. Councillor Reardon. The block items is 10.4.1, 10.4.2, 10.4.4, 11.1.1, 11.1.2, 15.3.1. Oh, sorry, they're in confidential

Any debate? Those in favour?

Against? It's carried. Nathan's absent from his seat. Those in favour? You got it. Okay.

The next item is 10 .2.1, six-monthly progress report. Councillor McMahon.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm declaring a less than significant non-pecuniary interest. The Hawkesbury Fire Control Centre, the brand new one, is mentioned in this report, and I'm a member of the Hawkesbury Communications Rural Fire Brigade. It's a non-pecuniary interest, and I'll be staying in the meeting. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you,

Councillor.

Sorry? It's supposed to be open, but it's not locked.

Sorry, is Turnbull in this one as well, Director Infrastructure?

The operational report, no.

No.

And I'll also just put on the record in case Turnbull Oval has been mentioned in this report, I have a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in that item as well.

Thank you, Councillor. Okay, do we have a mover?

Yeah, I'll move it.

Councillor Kotlash.

Yep.

Seconder? Councillor Creed. Any discussion?

No

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks

Mr Mayor. A few questions, if I could first.

1.5.4 in the table refers to the community land review and the car park review. What's the timeline on both of those items?

Through you, Mr Mayor, the remnant land review will come before Council in the next probably month, two months, and the car park review is pending another strategy piece that Council's working on with the car park before Council. enters into any sort of agreement to carry out that work.

So we haven't begun the review, is that correct, or we haven't? Where are we up to?

The car park review has not commenced yet.

Thank you.

I might just ask the Director of Infrastructure Services to provide Council with an update on the parking studies that are actually informing that strategy.

Through you, Mr Mayor, the car park strategies which focus on the four town centres of Richmond, North Richmond, Windsor and South Windsor, all the field work has been completed and we've got the draft reports which we're reviewing at the moment. The member of staff responsible for that's currently on leave for a few weeks and we'll be looking to finalise that on his return.

Thank you. So when will that come to us, that information? Will it just feed directly into the strategy or will it come to us on the way past?

Through you, Mr Mayor, I think it will go through the strategy. We haven't yet pulled together the exact process yet.

Thank you. I raise both of those things because they're something that we've waited for, for, in

The

Case of one of them, nine years now. And I'm not laying blame on the staff. I just would really like these pieces of work done. And the other question I've got is where are we up to with the development of the Youth Advisory Group, which is, I think, 1.6.2.

Through you, Mr Mayor, I'd have to take that one on notice, unfortunately,

In the Director City Planning's absence. Thank you. So there's actually a lot of really good information in this. I found this report extremely helpful. There's a lot going on and I think this is really useful reading for anybody who wonders what Council actually does all day and does with their rates. This is what we do. Some of the things I think we're probably not kicking goals as well as we could. The floodplain study, for example, we didn't actually resolve to do very much. We still have a dangerously low flood floor, flood planning height, with legal advice that states that council is now liable due to ignoring the recommendations of that study, and we should keep that front of mind .

2.1, which refers to the Sports Council plan, that wasn't endorsed. So while it came to us, it's not actually complete; it's still in limbo . 3.1, the Disability Inclusion Plan. I'd really like a briefing on this, and in part because I'd like to know who's informing and what that means for us long term. The more information that we can have about this sort of stuff, the better we can look to service provision when information comes to us. The Windsor Bridge artefacts working group needs to meet. It was reconstituted through this iteration of the Heritage Committee, but is yet to meet. I want to make particular note of the nursery and bushcare outcomes. 54,000 plants in 12 months have come out of that nursery.

That is an extraordinary piece of work. Our staff really should be commended on that, and so should the volunteers who do a lot of the propagation work. That's a really significant contribution to both revegetation, but also to greening our space and providing both urban cooling and habitat. There's some very good heritage outcomes there. It's nice to see, as Koala Fest is on this Saturday, that the fine-scale vegetation mapping is complete and that the Hawkesbury Priority Koala Food Tree list should be ready any day now as well. There's been some big gains around cybersecurity. I do want to comment that I have real concerns about the use of AI in DA assessment, and I'll be looking for some more information and some I guess some peace of mind around how that's being used within our development assessment, and that's certainly something that was raised last year at the Local Government New South Wales conference as a red flag about potential problems.

And I think in this LGA, we've got plenty of ways that that can go wrong. And I want to make a final note of the fact that 100% of our fleet has shifted to hybrid or electric, apart from the four-wheel drive fleet. That is a huge achievement, that those of us who tried to get a motion through a previous council and were told that that was both impossible and ridiculous didn't quite think we'd see in our time on council. So well done. Thank you.

Thank you for that overview, Councillor. Well spoken. I just make comment in relation to the review of the Sports Council. There was a meeting on Monday night. I spoke to our executive. There's a proposal that the executive of the Sports Council will have discussions with council staff to work through any concerns that are there, and there'll be a presentation to the councillors before the end of October. So that's where that's up to.

Any further discussion in relation to the progress report? Thank you. Councillor Kotlash, right of reply? Thank you. Those in favour? Against? It's carried unanimously. Councillor Brogden, Councillor Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash, Creed,

Spiegel, Regan and

Sheather

10.2.2, councillors.

Someone like to move that way?

I'll move that. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Councillor Kotlash. Councillor

Spiegel. Any discussion?

No, not very much. I'll keep this brief. This is the beginning of this process, and as the recommendation explains, we are starting out on —sorry, I did a swear in my mouth before. Sorry. We're starting this process , so I am going to really look forward to what the staff will come up with after this engagement and the analysis component.

And I just have to commend the staff for doing all of the work that you've done so far. Really excellent, really excellent piece of work. And I think, whilst it might seem a lot, the $80,000, I think it does seem a lot, but it will be well spent because I think we really do have to do this entire analysis of where we're heading and have sort of responsible financial management, which I'm happy to say I think we do, but this will really, really— Start to illustrate what areas we need to look at and how we're going to pay for it. So that's all I'll say at this stage because I think this is really just the fact-finding mission. And I hope everybody supports it so we can get on. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Wheeler. Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Question through you, Mr Mayor. This being the start of the process, is the community engagement that it would be going out to, would that be including the figures that are in the business paper, the 11.73 times 3 for three years?

Through you, Mr Mayor, yes, it would.

Okay.

I'll just wait.

Any further debate? Councillor Veigel. If I

May, thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, I'm supporting it, it's obvious, and so when the community comes back, it's got to be an issue of narrative, but you've got to get that right, and I'm absolutely confident the council will, or those who will be taking the message out. So I could well light a candle in church for you, because you might need it for a few people. Whether you like it or not, they're going to try and stick rising Main City against some of this, or counter it. All right, keep to the roads, because the roads are appalling. Who else is going to see a council request on George Street down at South Windsor tomorrow because that's appalling and it's breaking up after the rain. That's to state the facts a little bit.

You've heard us say a lot of ... most of this room's fairly ... are competent. And I've heard the fact before about depreciation costs and everything else about what we're trying to do. But the fact of the matter is that New South Wales is going to be bereft of $1.65 billion of the GST receipts. They've already brought that down to 27.1 from 29 last year. New South Wales accounts for 31%. So where are we going to get the overall money from? Buggered if I know. Whether they're picking up Victoria, which has busted, the leaners of this great nation of ours are 3.7 billion. So I don't reckon you're going to get that many grants when you're going to put them in there. And if you do, they're not going to be what they used to be, basically the flood time and everything else we've got to do.

So get it out there. Let's have a debate, and let's argue it because it'll be up to everybody in this room, elected as well, to push this argument to get the rate variation in. As much as I hate to say it, but it comes back to your point, Mr. Mayor, and a couple of others. You'll have to be frugal and be tight with whatever money we spend. Every buck's got to not be spent if it doesn't have to be spent. So if any projects that come on board, you've got to just stick to what we've got and to the scope and not move on it. If somebody comes and says, Oh, can we manipulate it to do it better? The answer should be no. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett first.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think I'd like to move an amendment, and I'll explain once I've done it why I do, and that would be that Council defer this matter. I know there's a timeline, but Council defer this matter to a further briefing to workshop in more detail the potential models, including information regarding lower figures over a longer period of time. And outlining specifically which infrastructure is to be renewed. And

I'll speak to that, Mr Mayor. And I know that's not a palatable thing when there is a specific timeline, but I think it wouldn't push it back way beyond.

I just don't feel I've got enough information, and I'm very aware that this staff don't want us to say, go down this path and then vote against having an SRV. And I'm not averse to an SRV as a mechanism, but I'm concerned at going out to the community at that rate when we've not been given any information ourselves on what it would be like regarding a lower figure. My preference would be to have something preferably less than that going out. We know that all councils are subjected to this after years of state government constraining our revenue intake through rate pegging and the cost shifting that occurs. But before we go out, and we know there'll be a frenzy in the community about this, I would just rather know that we had a model, which we've been told as councillors we've not had a lot of information about this, and I understand.

The motion that's in the business paper is to do the analysis and so on, but then it becomes too late to stop what's happening. We've seen this happen over and over again in here. It's gone too far down the path to stop. I just would like if we could take one more workshop to go through just a few more of those things to get it really clear before we go to the public for that type of analysis. We know that rate increases can have adverse impacts on those beyond the ratepayer themselves. The increase can be passed on to renters. This is one of my concerns, and to tenants in shops. While there's been some recent relief for those with mortgages due to a lowering of interest rates, landlords don't typically lower rents when the mortgage drops.

They will, however, hike the rent when rate rises, if rate rises significantly. So tonight we've already looked at the potential changes to childcare, which could impact some families paying more for childcare, and potentially, when we look at other, the WSIG thing, there could also be projects that burden ratepayers by having the cost escalations or the ongoing maintenance around those projects. So that is going to also add to our asset base and therefore our ongoing costs. Because it's such a big business paper, I would have put more questions and asked more questions, but I think Councillor Wheeler did ask some more questions about lower figures. And I would just really appreciate having a little more information.

I didn't have time to go over it all. This has been a big business paper, and engaging with the childcare centres and things has taken up quite a bit of time. I'm also concerned of how we do manage it going out publicly. You know, for those of us who pay rates, when it comes each quarter to pay it, people often reflect on what they're seeing for the money that they're paying. And, you know, when we're making decisions around putting a lot of money to supplement other projects, it's difficult if we haven't really looked at what other options we could be putting out publicly. With the new projects we're having done through WISIG, we're adding to the number of assets we're going to have to maintain and renew.

And , I mean, I don't really understand how that fits with our existing long-term financial planning. It concerns me quite a bit.

I just feel I need to understand it more. I don't know how others feel. I'm not trying to fob it off, but I don't want to say I support going down that and then turn around and say, well, I don't support it at all. And I'm unsure too, you know, how are we going to address with the public about the service levels and their, you know, how are we going to decide around these things? I just feel it's all a little bit too unclear at the moment. So that is what I would move an amendment for. The staff can say if that's unachievable in terms of the timeline. I know IPART's very strict on the requirements, but that would be my preference at the moment.

General Manager.

While we're waiting on some confirmation. Is there someone who would like to second?

I'll second.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Councillor Wheeler, just before you speak,

If the motion can be supported, I'm not proposing to support it. And I'd like to say I'd rather not support the motion too. If we head down the track of extending a lower and a longer length time period to collect funds, we're chasing our tail, big time. And the information that was given to us a couple of months ago, and it was spoken to us about the staff, the best thing is gather the whole hog the first year and be done with it. And that makes sense, and it hurts, and that's why I come back that it was over a period of time. All of you know my view on rates and above CPI. I've expressed it all my life.

And I think there's ways to achieve different outcomes to what we've assessed in the past. I'm proposing to support the recommendation tonight, but there's some stuff I want to chuck around that I want the support of you people and the staff to pursue them, to look at avenues. That council can do better with the finance we've got.

I'm speaking against the amendment.

In the meantime, life's got to go on. The staff have put a lot of work into the information that's been given to us. Whether we achieve something along the line the councillor Buckett's talking about, or any ideas that I might have, whether they come to fruition or not, it's not going to happen overnight. But the costs and the bills go on, and our responsibilities do.

And for that purpose, I'll be supporting the recommendation in the business paper.

Yep. General Manager. Yeah,

Thank you through you, Mr Mayor. To circle back to Councillor Lyons-Buckett's query about the capacity for this to be deferred and still meet timelines, my advice there would be that that's going to be very difficult, given the quite tight timetable that we've got in order to submit any application to IPART in February. I think what will happen is that we're going to start to have very significant overlapping of activities around undertaking the analysis work, then doing the community engagement whilst preparing the application. And I think that we certainly need to allow for an adequate amount of time for that analysis work to be completed so that we've got that full information package when we go and inform the community about the proposal.

Mr Mayor, if I may, and I would like to withdraw my amendment on the basis that I would prefer the maximum amount of time be given to the engagement with the community, which is more important, and the analysis. I would ask, however, if we can have some mechanism that we can perhaps get some more back and forth up front. If we have questions, I don't want to burden the staff, but we're going to have a huge role when this hits the public. And I didn't want to defer to mess up the process. I wanted to defer to have some things clear. So if we can do that at some point, have a discussion about it as well. Thank you

Your comments are taken on board, Councillor.

Sorry, can I just add to Councillor Lyons-Buckett's point? If councillors do have questions, can we ask that the responses and the questions come back to all councillors so we all are on the sort of same playing field? That's all. Thanks. We know what we're talking about.

Questions in relation to our budget review process go to all councillors. Fair enough. Easy. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I think we all know that this is an exceptionally unsavoury topic, and no one wishes we were sitting here tonight discussing this. But it also can't be denied that we have been briefed and briefed and briefed and briefed and briefed about the statistics, the numbers, the asset renewal program, the whole shebang. We have been given such an amount of information, and I'm glad that the motion to defer has been withdrawn in that regard. I do want to thank our staff for what they've done because it's not easy to come up With the numbers that they come up with and present it to a politically diverse chamber, knowing that it has the potential in the community to become a political hot potato.

But I do want to thank them. We all around this side bring our own skills and attributes to the table, but we have to remember that we employ the people on this side of the room because they have specific skill sets to do with the information that come in these reports to us. And I know that when they probably sit behind their desks crunching numbers, looking at the state of things, going, Oh my God, I have to present this to 12 crazy personalities. So, 11, gratefully 11. Sorry, had to say that. So what I want to basically say is, and I want the staff to just nod at me if this is right, I know you're calling this an SRV to address the critical funding gap in the asset renewal program. That sounds fancy, but to the layman out there, this is a roads SRV.

This is a roads rate rise. Triple R, there you go. Triple R, I've given it a branding. This is a roads rate rise. And I think that from what we've discussed in briefings, the amount of feedback we've already got from the community, especially on council's own Facebook page, when they put up anything to do with roads, our poor communications team has to monitor it, if not stop the comments because of the feedback on roads. And I think the way that we say to the community that we're presenting this rate rise is you have already given us an overwhelming amount of feedback to say you are not satisfied with the quality of the roads in this LGA. And mind you, that does come after eight floods, let's be honest, and the fact that our staff have had to do an excessive amount of work on top of business as usual.

But if we can tell the community, if you've already told us your expectation is here, our budget literally means our expectation is here, our current reality, sorry, is here. We have no choice but to implement, I think it's 11 point— 7. 3, is that right? Percent? 11.73 percent per year for three years to make your, the reality meet your expectation. And I think that if we tell the community that that's what we're doing, I hope that they understand that. And I think at the end of the day, we know who's to blame for the situation that we are in. And I don't give a damn whether it's the Coalition or Labor Party. It is the state government, and I don't care who's in power at the time. It is all of their faults for not being, not having a backbone to change the Local Government Act, give us a better way to charge our ratepayers for rates rather than relying on the ridiculous rate peg model that we have in front of us, and a ridiculous amount of limited options for a rating structure where we really don't have many things to toggle with, many levers to toggle to try and change what those rates are for our ratepayers.

So let's blame the parent, because we all know we're the child. We only exist because of the state government legislation. I always refer to it as the parent and child relationship. And in this situation, our parent has let us down because they have not given us the tools to be able to put into play proper ways that we can gather revenue and therefore pay for the expenses or the service delivery that we are supposed to do as a council. So I just wanted to make those points. To me, if we don't go through with this, the other option is to deliver what would be the first deficit in Hawkesbury City Council's history, I believe, next year in terms of our budget. And no one wants to be delivering a deficit and saying to the community that we can't, we don't have the money to meet the service needs that you expect from us.

So I'll be supporting the recommendation, the business paper tonight. Obviously that will come with community feedback, that'll come back to the chamber. I thank the general manager for her comments regarding a very tight timeline to be able to implement this in terms of getting this to IPART in February. We'll just have to wait and see what the community says. Can you just let me know when that report will come back, what month that will be?

Yeah, the next report that Council will see will be in November, and that's the community feedback. Yeah, that's lovely. All right, thank you, and I think I've said enough. Thank you.

Councillors, this is a pretty big deal. If you're not going to support a rate rise, we're going to go to the community. There's going to be discontent there, and take on board the comments of the Deputy Mayor. Whether they want the rates done or not, it's not going to be a popular exercise. If you have a view not to support a variation if it's recommended by the staff down the track, don't support it tonight. Don't mislead people by saying we're going to put it out there and then it'll make me mind up later. The information we've got is as good as you're going to get. The other information we get is likely to be the comments from the community and how we might deal with that. So the only thing that I would ask you now is that you be consistent with your view

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Just as an aside, the Local Government Act requires us not to make a decision until we've heard all the information pertaining to an issue. So I can't make a decision tonight that binds me between now and late November. That's actually not lawful under the Act.

I didn't ask for it to be bound, Councillor.

Well, you did. I'm not supporting this motion this evening, not because I don't concede that we need an SRV. We all understand that we are in financial circumstances in local government where it is increasingly difficult. Some, I think, would argue reasonably impossible for councils to raise the revenue that we need under the rate peg model. And it's the rate peg model that is to blame here. It's the rate peg model that causes this knee-jerk response every however many years and a push-up, an SRV that is always, always higher than if we were allowed to simply charge what we needed to at a much lower level with a smooth rise. I would like to see that modelled. I asked for it. I was told that it wasn't feasible.

Unfortunately, what we have is this feast and famine, and we're back in the famine . The reason that I can't support this is that there is insufficient information. We've been presented with one model and insufficient information about how that affects people across the LGA. We have a great diversity of rates across the LGA because of the difference in land value. I can say we were provided with some more information after I asked for it about the distribution of those rates, but that wasn't given to us as part of this business paper. It wasn't given to us as part of a briefing, and we may have been told last year that we couldn't afford all our WISIG projects, and we've known for some time that there's a hole in the bucket.

But we were presented with this information in a councillor briefing two weeks ago, and now all of a sudden we're being asked—I don't know what projects are covered under this. I've been told it's for roads. That's a pretty nebulous idea. Where is the detailed information about that? We've been told that it's 11.73 percent per year for three years

We don't know what the rate peg is. We don't know what the total quantum of that is. It's about 40 percent after three years. That's a lot.

And where is the targeted program of works? When will we see that? When it goes to consultation with the community? I'm sorry, but we are the elected body of this council. We need to have more information before we make decisions of this magnitude.

There simply isn't enough information to allow me to support this, nor have we had a reasonable discussion about what we all want a rates rise to pay for. I would like to see us looking at some sort of cost of living relief. There is none of that. In fact, all that comes out of this is more pain for ratepayers and, as Councillor Lyons-Buckett has mentioned, the onflow from that to renters. This,

The best thing for council isn't necessarily the best thing for ratepayers in the short term. I know that we have to balance both of those, but I don't think you're doing that at this point.

Before we go on, Councillor, it's two minutes to eleven. We need a motion to carry on the business after eleven o'clock. Would someone like to move that we— Councilor Reardon. —that we extend

To finish the matters.

Councillor Reardon.

Seconder? Deputy Mayor.

Any discussion? Put the motion. Those in favour?

Light on. Just to make some comment. Oh, extension. Oh, extension, yes. Okay, yes, all for it.

Those in favour? Yes .

Councillor Kotlash? Yep. It's unanimous for the councillors who are in the seat: Zamprogno, Councillor Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, McMahon, Kotlash, Creed, Veigel, Reardon and Sheather . Well , stop scratching your head. Those against? Those against. Councillor Creed. The motion's carried. And we're back to the special rate variation application, Councillor Zembrodner.

Yeah, I agree with the Deputy Mayor. This is, this is traditionally an—

Those against? Those against

Councillor

Creed. The motion's carried. And we're back to the special rate variation application, Councillor Zamprogno.

Yeah. I agree with the Deputy Mayor. This is traditionally an unpalatable subject . But we also know that worldwide there are any number of studies where if you engage a citizenry and you ask them what standard of services and infrastructure do you want, do you understand how much that's going to cost? We might have to put taxes up. Well, are those taxes nebulous and go into general revenue, or are they hypothecated and put to a particular purpose? And people can be on board, and we can win people over. And that's exactly why I entered public life, so that people had that sense of agency and participation in their government. I'm happy to endorse the recommendation tonight because it's not ultimately about, you know, whether we're going to put up our rates by a certain amount, but it's about commencing the process.

And I do disagree with you, Mr Mayor, by Councillor Wheeler, that it's okay to commence the process, but there's a lot that I still want to ask and hear about and know more about before I can be comfortable to sign off on this, because I've spent the last nine years on council voting against every rate rise. And that was a pledge that I made. This time, I'm on the fence. And I remember when we did this seven or so years ago, there was a comprehensive program of public works. The sweetener, the optics, require you to be able to go to the people and to say, well, we will be able to bring certain road repairs out beyond the very edge of our public works program and to bring them within what the other tiers of government call the forward estimates.

We can do them sooner. Or we may be able to seal some dirt roads that are currently not sealed, and I have a list. We may be able to commit to certain programs that are currently unfunded. But if we had this resource, what would you like? What are you prepared to pay? And I did also endorse that process where we had options, and option one, two, three, status quo, lifted a bit, lifted a lot, and then allow the public to engage with us in conversation about where that point of balance is. If it's presented as a fait accompli, and if it's presented with a nebulous or absent public works program that's quite specific about what we forego if we don't do this, where we slide to if we don't do this, and what may be able to be a lasting benefit to the community, none of that has been clearly articulated.

So if the purpose of this evening's motion is to commence that process, this is the beginning of a very long and fraught conversation.

Thank you, Councillor. If it's a wish list, I can tell you I'll be changing my mind in a couple of months. This is not about a wish list. We're playing catch-up, and this is a proposal to attempt that catch-up. And that information will be provided, as indicated, in a program to support the documents in relation to any increases.

Any further debate?

Councillor—

Mr Mayor, I'll speak on the motion. Sorry? I'll speak on the motion. I'll speak on the amendment before. I've got a lot of concerns about this because it is a really short time frame. I think that's what's concerning me most. I know when we did the previous SRV, we had done years of work before we went into it, and I know there's been a lot of financial things, and we've been told that there's going to be big holes. I mean, to be quite honest, I'll sit here and say I think local government is always going to be chasing its tail on roads. I don't think that there's anyone in the world that believes having an SRV is going to fix all the roads. It isn't. And I know in the previous SRV, we had done a lot of work with the community in the previous council, even to the one that we voted on it.

We had done the work through the fit for the future strategies . And I'm just—I'm really concerned about the shortness in this time frame of rolling out something that is so excessive , I would think people are going to think it is, because we know that people in the community, there are elements of, you know, concern about the types of road repairs and about the failings in road networks, and we know that some of that can be attributed to natural disasters. But we also know that there's, you know... I don't know. I guess it's just we can always do better, I guess, as we all can in many things, but there's a little bit of distrust about that.

I'm concerned voting on something that I feel that I'm a little in the dark on. I did think that maybe in the report there would be more detail. I've still got concerns around the businesses, and I'm concerned that because of the time frame, by the time it comes back, it'll be set in a way that if we were to suggest any changes, we'll be told it's too late in the process, which would mean then that something was going into IPART, and I would not be able to support it if I thought that that wasn't it. That's not to say that I don't support doing something, and I'm not shying away from that. I'm just really expressing my concerns. You know, I would really — I've been watching Blacktown just currently undergoing their SRV, their rolling out, you know, similar infrastructure backlog,

And people think a big council like that doesn't have to have an SRV, but they have the backlog as well, and they're having to do that. And I do note with them they've got a two-tiered business rate. I don't know if, you know, you can do different rates. All of these questions have just emerged while I've been looking into that. If we do go down this path, and I'm pleased to see that the councillors that didn't support the previous SRV are now supporting having one on the very same basis and for the very same reasons that we raised previously. But I hope that the public engagement won't have the— You know, the very volatile situations around it that we had last time, and I guess this time there won't be the added thing of very large land valuation increases for some, you know, parts of the community that had that before .

I'm imagining that I won't support this tonight because I don't feel comfortable with not knowing. But I'll certainly, I'm assuming it will go through from what others have said, and I'd certainly want to engage more. I'm just feeling a little overwhelmed by being put in this position, I think. And in part, I have to say that is because there's been so much else on this business paper that's had to be dealt with. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Any further debate? Right of reply is Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

It's interesting, in our last, the last time we did an SRV, we were very specific about what we were going to do, and I think we came unstuck because we were a bit too prescriptive. And I think there's a danger in that because, well, a lot's happened since then, so it wasn't anybody's fault that that went a little awry. I mean, we had lots of natural disasters and all sorts of floods and COVID and everything else. So to be prescriptive is a little dangerous. Possibly this time around it will be a little less risky, but I'm really comfortable with this report. I'm quite surprised that some in the chamber aren't clear on... On what we’re doing, I think that our briefings have been quite good and quite clear, and really not too prescriptive, but also taking us, allowing us to know what the community has been telling us from when we did the Community Strategic Plan and the Delivery Program and the Operational Plan.

So we’ve gathered so much intelligence from the community that I’m quite comfortable with the timeframe. Obviously, it’d be better if we had a bit more time. But so I think that this is actually quite well pitched. I’m comfortable with the percentages that have been given to us. My understanding was that there was quite a lot of work behind the scenes to get to those figures, and from memory from those briefings, we did ask how that was arrived at. So I’m completely comfortable with that. The other thing too is that my understanding is that the IPART assessment has changed somewhat, and the reason that we’re saying it’s for the— well, we need our backlog, infrastructure backlog, to be addressed, but that is a real strength for our submission to IPART, and that is very clear.

The other thing that I’ll just quickly read from page 24 and the top of page 25 in the business paper, and it said, IPART’s role includes assessment against the criteria set by OLG, which is great, which includes demonstrated financial need. Integration with long-term planning, community engagement, affordability and evidence of productivity improvements.

An SIV is one of the primary structured avenues for councils to respond to community priorities and increase investment in critical areas. So that, to me, says that whilst our staff have done all the background number crunching, if what we come up with after we go again for more community consultation is going to be presented and assessed under those scenarios, so that gives me comfort. I think that this is a really sound way to go about it. The other thing too is that if some councillors are a bit worried about percentages and thinking that that's quite a big increase, there's nothing to stop IPART from saying to us, Look, you've gone a little bit too far, which it has done on occasion. For instance, the Northern Beaches, partially their submission was partially approved.

So we're going to get an assessment whether we know exactly what they do or not, but that gives me comfort. I think this is a really good way forward. I disagree with the mayor about, I think we always have to reserve our right to make our decisions in good faith with what's in front of us. So, for this particular item, we've been asked to start this process. I think what we've started on it is excellent. I'm really satisfied with the amount of information we've been given so far, and I look forward to reading all the more number crunching that undoubtedly come our way because we'll hear different things. So, again, well done to the staff, and, yeah

I'll look forward to the next round. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. The motion is in the business paper. Those in favour?

Councillor Brogdon, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Buckman, Councillor Creed, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Sheather. Those against? There's Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Mary Lyons-Buckett, and Councillor Ryan. The motion is carried. The next item.

The next item is 10 .4.5, dressage facility Hawkesbury Showground.

Move that way, Mr Mayor.

Mr Mayor, can I declare an interest? You're going to be outside as

Long, I hope, this time, Councillor.

I've got a significant non-pecuniary interest in this item as I'm part of a group that operates out of the showground, so I'll be removing myself from the meeting. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor McMahon.

A seconder? Yeah.

Councillor Creed.

Any discussion?

No debate from me.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and I'd like to thank the staff for preparing the report was part of the motion from the extraordinary meeting, or the motion at the meeting. I think it clarified, you know, really the situation as it was, particularly around the responsibilities regarding any removal of those facilities, and just made that clearer. So I

Still think that there's a situation there that needs to be dealt with, which is that the dressage arenas are there. They will have to work on that, but as stated before, that's not our doing. But to have that all confirmed around the process, around the ministerial consent being required, did clear that up in one way. So I appreciate the report being done and presented. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

No one's responsible for it out there. The showground's not responsible, and it hasn't been used since November. Since November last year, was it? Nearly 12 months. So we get overgrown weeds. We've got timber around the perimeter that would be rotting. It's full of water every time it rains, and that's part of the problem. There's a drainage problem with the facility. So Equestrian's not responsible. Dressage has walked away. The showground has got to get on with their business, and this is smack bang in the middle of it, and we're making a big point of saying you can't do anything with it without a DA. So if they say, well, it's not our responsibility, and dressage, in an arrangement, was to pay for the rehabilitation of the ground but aren't doing so, we've got a situation where the showground doesn't have to, the people that had it have an obligation, and so nobody does nothing.

So if it sits there for another six months, we'll have rubbish growing out of it that won't be any good to anybody, and we're saying we can't give authority without the minister to clean up something that is likely not to have a life. Just think about some of the things that we get ourselves into sometimes, and the position that we might ask of people, that is the responsibility, in this case, of another party that indeed has walked away, and they weren't represented here tonight. It was another party again. So, we concern ourselves about heritage and the lack of the community involvement, with the dereliction of doing nothing to heritage buildings and the like. And now we've got a facility out there that's exactly the opposite.

We're saying you can't do anything where people want to do something, whether the parties can agree to it. So just be mindful of some of the decisions we make put people in an awkward situation, including our staff who have to deal with this in the form of a DA, to progress it in any form, whether it's to be done up or indeed removed.

Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll only make this observation, and only in passing. You speak of us requiring those parties to submit a DA as though that's an inconvenience, but it's actually section 2.23 of the Crown Land Management Act that stipulates that a DA would be required and ministerial consent would be required. That's not us or any member of staff making that decision to, you know, annoy somebody. That's just the law. That's all I wanted to say.

Yeah, appreciate that. Thank you.

Councillor McMahon wrote... Not necessary. Thank you, Councillor. The motions in the business paper. Those in favour?

Those against? Carried. Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Wheelan's bucket, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Djuric's out of the room, Councillor McMahon, Kotlash... Councillor Creed's out of the room. Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon.

10.5.1, Western Sydney Infrastructure Grants Program.

Can I declare my interest please?

You can, Councillor.

Thank you. I'll be declaring a less than significant non-pecuniary interest, as I always do in this matter. My son currently plays for the Hawkesbury Hawks, which is based at Turnbull Oval, but it is a non-pecuniary interest. I'll be staying in the item. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Would someone like to move something?

I'll move the recommendation in the business paper.

Thank you, Councillor Kotlash.

I'll second it, please.

Councillor Veigel.

Any discussion?

This is— sorry, you right? We all went. No, no, no, go. No

Can I just go back to the question to the speaker about the Hello, how are you? and thank you for waiting around. You're very patient.

Have we got debate going on here, or— No, sorry,

Mr Mayor. Sorry, Mr Mayor. Well, no, it's not. Councillors. But my question's going back to the speaker originally about the playground. There was just— I'm just seeing some confusion. Can

You just re-clarify that one ? Would you use

Mr Mayor? The playground on the drawings is not far from the sideline, of one of the sidelines. Football's played on the ground, predominantly football and cricket. But if someone involved with football, playing football, kicks to the sideline— In a penalty, for instance, the ball is extremely likely to land exactly if it was in that direction where the playground is. It's only about 10 metres from the sideline, and the matter's been discussed with the staff, and it's probably appropriate that the staff respond to that.

But it's been brought up both in questions most recently with the staff and written documentation for that to be addressed.

Thank you through you, Mr. Mayor. The Mayor's characterised, in part quite correctly, that the nearest point of the playground is approximately 12 metres from the touchline. However, what I'd stress is that firstly, there's opportunity through detailed design to address that risk. Secondly, there is proposed to be a fence, vegetation, shade sails between the sporting field and the playground. And thirdly, the location of the playground is to take advantage of the proximity of the sporting field so that the, or for the principle that parents with more than one child can have a child occupied on the playground whilst they watch the other one playing, either on the courts or on the rugby field.

And it is also located in a reasonable proximity to the amenities which follows the SEPP, the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design principles. Fundamentally, that's the reason for the location.

Just another question, if I may. Is there a requirement to have a playground on that oval?

The requirement stems from the deed, so it was identified through the business case for the grant itself, and the grant in part, a small part admittedly, but in part was granted on the basis that there would be outcomes attached to that playground.

Just further to that, Councillor, the Sports Council resolved some years ago where there was opportunities, and the Council has provided them on quite a few grounds in most recent years to have playing fields in the proximity—sorry, play equipment in the proximity of playing fields for the purpose that was just spoke of.

Yeah, I'm aware of that, Mr Mayor, and I was on the Sports Council when that was decided, but I'd have to say my observations are a complete waste of money because a lot of them never get used. And I draw you to the line of the one at Benson's, on Benson's Two there, which created a lot of money, and I never see any kids on that. Yeah.

Isley Park's a little bit different, and so is North Richmond. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm very happy if you say no to this request, but given the speaker, Mr McFarlane, spoke a number of hours ago and has been exceptionally patient listening to so many other items, would I be allowed to ask him a question just to clarify, or would he be able to if he's amenable to answering questions?

Councillor, I ruled on that earlier tonight, and I'm reluctant. I know you did. I thought you thought you'd say no. Yep, I'm reluctant to do so.

Precedent set. I just wanted to double check what the issues were with the current plan in case I had to move any amendments, and I've just forgotten because we've had so much debate since.

Yep. Just to clarify, the document that was read this evening has been made available to staff and to the Sports Council, and I don't know—some of us, I certainly got it, some of the others got it— and all those issues will be addressed by the staff. There is reasons being indicated why some of those might have been designed where they are on the drawing, and if the discussion comes up later that it's inappropriate, I'm sure that they'll be changed in accordance with those requests.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. So just confirming with the Director of Infrastructure, there's ability to tweak.

Yeah, through you, Mr. Mayor, to the extent that the concept and the plan of management allows it. But we are still physically constrained. So, for example, a request for the fourth netball court, physically, once you allow for modern runoff, it just doesn't fit.

Yeah. All right, thank you. I'll enter my debate now. Obviously, I make the very big point every single time, yes, my son plays for the Hawks, but he may not want to play next year. He may play golf. Who knows? So, I've got to make a decision that's about the legacy of this facility for the good of the Hawkesbury without that being a consideration. Having said that, because I am so often at the facility, I could not in all good faith not support this tonight. Obviously, when I was the mayor, it came up to look at adding council funding to— let me just check the amount— the $4,780,000 odd from the state government. And I think then the argument that I made was I could not, in all good faith, say to the community, I'm going to vote to give back $4.7 million when we could have put that towards something.

And yes, we had to put a big chunk in as well from council, and I want to thank the staff for their diligence in being able to find that. I know we've had other topics tonight about, you know, the roads rate rise, about money for conciliation, about money regarding what we're doing for childcare centres. It's been quite a debate tonight about the different ways that we've got to make decisions on the minimal budget that we've got. But given that this one has been around for so many years, this is not a new idea. This was voted on years ago. As I said, when I was the mayor, I believe that this is greatly needed for the children who use the facility, and the adults, of course, let's not forget, we have adults using it.

But for the footy players, both male and female, and there is that increased participation in female rugby league players. Have you ever watched them? They're awesome, let me just say. They're rougher than the boys. And for the cricket players as well, the cricket— when it's cricket season— All of those users who lived west of the river really need an upgrade in this facility. And I know that we are also getting a significant amount of funding to the North Richmond Community Centre, which we've already discussed as well tonight. It has been quite a big agenda. So North Richmond is going to see, and of course the bridge is coming eventually, North Richmond is going to see a real boost in the quality of its facilities for our community out that way.

And given the fact that we've heard tonight from the speaker that it's potentially been decades since this facility has had a refurbishment, and whether you want to blame councils before us for not prioritising that, go for your life. But the point is now that we have this option on the table, and I could not say to the community, to those facility users, to people, little under-sixes playing footy coming up, little cricketers who think it's the bees knees to be playing there under the big Panthers sign of the club, I could not say to them, I'm not going to support improving your facilities. That's the bottom line that I come to. I could not do it. And I think that the plan that we've got in front of us, I know the staff have had to tweak it because of the numbers and the blowout in the cost delivery for all of the WISI projects, and it's not easy.

I couldn't imagine sitting there and having that as my day-to-day job. Very difficult, in fact. So I will be supporting the motion in front of us tonight to go ahead with that, which is a total commitment of $8.545 million, and I think every damn cent is well invested in our community. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. Councillor Reardon.

Mr Mayor, I think this will be a great outcome for Turnbull Oval.

Thank you. And we're probably lucky that We've got a retiree amongst us. One of our councillors was involved in building that structure many, many years ago, Councillor Ryan . No , it wasn't Councillor Kotlash, it was Councillor Ryan. The facility I spoke of earlier, the inadequate of it today, it was built in the mid-70s. And while it's been slightly modified over years, it's a building that was built in the 70s, and it's not appropriate for the activities of today in any shape or form. The canteen's been adjusted. Even the change rooms, the layout in the change rooms don't support the activities there today. Access in and out of it. The users of the park have done well over time, but it was time to do something with it.

And the reason for going out there with the initial talks, we were hoping for a grandstand over a new building. We're getting grandstands, smaller grandstands around the place, but the building is going to be gutted and made good. So, and not very often the funds do come along, and I know we're putting funds with it, but none of us want to do that. But there's a program that was put in place that we... That we have supported in the past, and I guess the funds come along once in a lifetime. It's been from '73 to now to get anything done, and I suspect it's probably going to be about the same time before it happens again. So it'll be much appreciated by the users, I can tell you that. And I think we're, you know, if we diverse from what we've asked for, I've had discussions with the staff, and any other changes that are anywhere near viable for us probably wouldn't be supported by the people who are getting the funds to do it.

And that would be a great loss for that facility.

Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We would recall that when this came to the chamber on July 22nd, it failed. The vote was split six all, and you declined to use your casting vote to resolve the deadlock. And I think, if I remember correctly, the mood of the chamber was we understood that the budgetary position was so dire that we were prepared to sacrifice $4.7 million worth of government money, which we then understood could not be reallocated to other projects, something which I still think of as perverse, in the sense that, you know, if only we could have cut a project and then said, State Government, look, you've trusted us to allocate these funds in the most prudent way, we think that— We should redirect these funds.

Can't do that. And the sticking point was the top-up of council funds to any degree. This report says that that council co-contribution has been reduced from 3.76 million down to 2.1 million. But I thought that the mood in the chamber was that any council expenditure was too much, which is why the vote came down to such a knife edge.

And I know of your affection for all of our sports fields and for you to choose not to use your deliberative vote, Mr Mayor, when you could have, said a lot. I'm still uncomfortable that we're spending 2.1 million dollars. I think in the current environment, where we're about to go out to the community and have a very fraught conversation about our long-term financial viability, 2.1 million dollars is too much money. We can't afford that. I was, you know, perhaps hoping that if this was going to come back, it could have been cut further so that we could have confined ourselves to the WISIG funding and leave it at that.

So I'm still very conflicted about this, but I'm listening to my colleagues.

Thank you, Councillor. Just to touch on the comment, I did speak to the staff about what options we might have, and the outcome wasn't good with any of them. So it wasn't that it hadn't been looked at. The staff haven't done anything because there was no resolution of Council, but I'd asked the staff in relation to what opportunities we might have in relation to reducing the funding or our contribution, and none of them were good.

Councillor Wheeler, did you have your light on?

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I can't support Option A and therefore the motion that's in the business paper. I would be willing to support Option C, which is the reduced scope that commits Council only to the WISIG funding, and no Council funding, or Option D, which is design only. I understand that both of those have risks, that both of those risk WISIG not coming to the party, but we have been told repeatedly through this process that costs have been met up to and including the design phase, and that we could always decide to stop if we didn't feel that it was financially prudent. I don't feel that this is financially prudent at this time.

We've been told for quite a while now that we are effectively living beyond our means. The majority of this chamber has just approved commencing the process for a rates rise. For Option A, Council is committing 3.765 million to this project. That's more than the 10-year building maintenance budget for the childcare centres. It's just under the first year of the proposed rate rise variance of 4 million dollars. And it's about five years' worth, from a rough guesstimate, of the childcare centre lease money. So we're desperate enough for money to charge some of the most vulnerable people in our community, but we've got money to update a sports facility so that we can get some money out of the state government. This makes no sense to me. We, we

These WISIG projects have the potential to put us into a really dire financial position once we start to consider the effects of both depreciation and long-term maintenance, and we still haven't got estimates for what they are. So I'm not willing to commit any more money to, particularly not $3.7 million, to this project. And

We're still likely to have a cost blowout after this, just because it's the nature of the beast . I don't begrudge kids having really good quality sporting facilities, but I do begrudge taking money from one group so that we can add to what was a political stunt prior to an election from the Liberal state government. And I think we need to start pushing back on this WISIG funding. This is enshrined in legislation, that the state government has to spend this money on West Invest projects. They have to. It's legislation. We are going there cap in hand and going, Oh, please, please let us vary things, and then we're chucking ratepayers' money after it, like we think we'll get into trouble if we don't do it.

Why aren't we pushing back to the state government and saying, Listen, we're spending your money, and it has the potential to send us to the poorhouse. How about you cut us a bit more slack? Because the state government knows exactly how much stuff costs as well. We should be pushing back, not constantly opening our coffers to prop these projects up. We've just cut North Richmond, and yet we're still sinking money into Turnbull Oval. I just can't support it.

Thank you, Councillor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Likewise, I haven't supported this from the word go. When there was a choice to put in four million of ratepayer money to get another four million, I thought that was a most, you know, a silly thing to do. I mean, we are repeatedly , as Councillor Wheeler just said, being told that we have to tighten our belt. I agree that it's greatly needed at Turnbull Oval. It's terrible that it's been neglected for so long. If you say nothing's been done there since 1973, I'm appalled. What's happened to all the user group funding that's gone into there? I used to coach netball there for years and I know we paid. Councillor, just to

Clarify, I didn't say anything. I did say that what had been done had been done, but— Well , the speaker

Said it had been neglected as well, that it was in a state of disrepair, and clearly by the amount of work

It's a bit like me, Councillor; it's getting aged.

Well, that's right. Everything's ageing, we know. But we've also heard from the speaker that it's not a recreation, not considered a recreation space. It's considered a sporting field, which means only a limited group of people, you know, are using it, which I'm happy. I've got no begrudging for them using it, but it does fly in the face of the argument that the rationale for the childcare centre debate was that we were subsidising one area that everybody doesn't use. I don't think that this, it does deliver some benefits, but it doesn't. As you said, the grandstand was the original thing that was going to be, you know, sort of the centrepiece of this project. That's no longer there. An upgrade would be nice, but I don't think it equates to the other things we're going without by putting in that four million dollars, and that includes the rate rise, and it includes many other things.

And on top of that, as I do firmly agree with Councillor Wheeler, and I have expressed this on previous occasions, the ongoing impacts of these projects and what they may mean to our ratepayers into the future. You know, it's all well and good to say we've got this thing, but how fair is it on generations to come if they're going to be paying for it in other ways when we pick and choose who we'll support and who we won't with our money? If the financial situation is that dire, then I don't see the benefit in putting in four million dollars of ratepayer money into this when we could have done it through other means. The other thing is, of course, we're told that there's, you know, scoping proposals going in for North Richmond.

There will be various other opportunities. Clearly development is targeted in that area somewhat, so there will be various opportunities coming up into the future as well. So I won't be supporting it.

Mr Mayor, just a question, if I could please. I was just curious why this has come back for direction at a meeting and not a workshop. I just find it odd that we're once again voting on something we just voted down.

General Manager.

It's come back simply because we're seeking direction, Councillor. It's no a yes, no would be all we're really looking for in this particular circumstance because of the decision that Council made at that last meeting was no decision.

Mr Mayor, assuming that Councillor Cotlash's motion was to endorse option A, the recommendation in the business paper, I'd like to propose an amendment to change that to option C,

Which is the option with the WISIG funding and no Council contribution, and the attendant risk.

10.5.1. Is

There

A

Seconder

Is there a seconder?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll speak to the amendment.

We can't afford this, but I don't want us to lose the money that's been pledged. That would be perverse. This option has many shortcomings. I acknowledge that. It does require us to go back to WIZIG, but I take Councillor Wheeler's view is that it would be very politically unwise, and I believe from a political perspective, unlikely that we would get a flat refusal.

It's the middle ground as far as I'm concerned. It's either that or a no to the whole thing. I mean, the Chamber effectively voted no to the whole thing two months ago. This at least allows us to salvage the position and have the WIZIG funding, and to get some of these benefits, which can be staged for future augmentation. That's what it says,

And doesn't overly tax our ratepayers at a time where we are going to them and asking them to take a big hit. I think it's the only thing that is commensurable under these circumstances.

Thank you, Councillor. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you. Before I speak, may I ask the staff of the very real risk that if we don't contribute funding to this, the state government will pull the entire funding from this project.

And the implications if that happens. Yes

Through you, Mr Mayor. The likely outcome is that the program office wouldn't support a variation of this nature, and Council would be required to submit a new business case or a new application supported by an additional business case for which we don't have funding to try and secure those grant funds.

Thank you. So we essentially go back to zero dollars and have to start again.

Plus the attendant risk that sunk costs amount to $700,000, which council could be liable for

Which could be, could be liable for. So we lose everything and potentially have to pay $700,000 in costs. I'm sorry, but am I living on another planet? That's just not logical to me. And we have sat in this chamber and nearly everyone has acknowledged the decline of those amenities. And it actually says here under option C, which excludes amenities building. I don't care about the playground. Excludes amenities building. Are you joking me? Has anyone tried to go to the toilet at Turnbull Oval? Let me be crass , but if you tried to do that, it's appalling. And we've sat in here and acknowledged it was built in 1973, and we are now going to say to the users of those facilities, to those sporting groups, we don't believe you're good enough to have an upgrade. I find that that is absolutely appalling. The risk for me here is absolutely too high.

I'm looking at it here because obviously I had not read in detail option C because I didn't think that we'd be even going down this path. But looking at this now, it's going to deliver landscaping , the courts upgrade, cricket nets upgrade, new line marking to existing fields, large outdoor paved area partially covered, lighting upgrades, replacement of perimeter fencing, signage and wayfinding, additional shading, landscaping furniture. But that ugly , awful, dark, unusable almost building doesn't get touched. I don't know how you say to those users that that's what we're doing. I understand all the financial arguments. I understand, and I said it in my last speech on this matter, all of the decisions we've had to make tonight that come down to funding.

It is bloody difficult to sit here in this chamber and make these decisions. But I'm not prepared to give up $4.7 million and take the risk of going to the state government and they'll just say, No, you're not getting it. I don't think taking a risk on the fact that they won't see that as politically viable or political— I don't think they care. They just wouldn't care less. They'd say, Come on, Hawkesbury, get your act together. We're just not going to support this. We're going to pull the funding completely. I think this is being disingenuous to the users of that facility that have engaged voluntarily and in good faith to get to the point where we are at now. I think to our staff who have sat there, I'm sure.

Ben over their desks trying to find ways to deliver this within the scope, and just to have us rip that from them, well, from all of their hard work, I think is appalling. I mean, in hindsight, if we knew what would happen with West Invest, WSIG, whatever you want to call it these days, if we knew what was going to happen in terms of the other projects we've got to talk about, Richmond Pool, all the other things, the cost blowouts of everything, the fact that we thought we were given a $98 million gift and it's turned into, let's be honest, a delivery nightmare, and how we are going to fund it moving forward, not just the asset renewal but the depreciation on our bottom line and then, of course, funding staff for some of these facilities.

These are real issues we've had to deal with in a financially challenging situation. But I think the amendment on the board for option C is as ridiculous and ludicrous as it possibly gets, and I would hope that that fails and option A, which is the recommendation in the business paper, is the outcome. But hopefully we'll see how the debate goes in the chamber. Thank you.

Further debate?

Councillor Kolasch.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm , I am— I'm really quite stunned that the logic that's used in one item of our business paper gets flipped in another. Some people, some councillors around this chamber, were happy for us to subsidise, heavily subsidise, 400 or so children for childcare.

And yet, when we see the state of this particular area,

The grudge giving these kids and people that use this facility the money that really, truly should have been coming since the 70s in a

Kind of measured and incremental way, like has been happening with the childcare issue. I find that really quite unbelievable. I really want the people that use this facility to have something nice. I think we can afford it. I think we can afford it. Can't afford it now, but we're making inroads to be able to. I think this is just catch-up. I'm sorry. I find it really quite bizarre that some in our community apparently get more deserving of something than others. I find that really, really problematic. Thank you.

Councillor Michael.

Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor. I can remember being on the Sports Council for 11 years and turf I used to get razzed off and— Where's the funding? It's run down and we did everything possible to upgrade it. Unfortunately, the costs outstripped what we could finance anyway. It has to be a job lot. You know, you can't buy a car with three wheels, can you?

Well, you could, but you're not going to get very far with it. But I'm just saying to— Sorry, the general manager had to go last week with three wheels. Well, you know, if you want to go and change it so you can't— I don't really care, but I think you know what I'm coming from. I think you've— sorry, I think you've just got to get on with it. It is infrastructure renewal, there's no doubt about it. And it does cater to the North Richmond community. Well, doesn't it just cater to the community whatsoever? All of it. I'm not so sure there are other people still coming into the Hawkesbury and using the fields if they get pushed off other areas, Mr Mayor. Maybe you could tell me what it is, but it is an important facility for the community. You know, I'm well aware of what we need to tip in onto this one.

Anyway, no doubt you've got it in the operational plan for three seven for the next 12 months or so, have you not? You've budgeted for it, I would have thought. So therefore I'll be supporting option A, thank you.

Thank you. Just further from your comments, Councillor, the sporting community, including the sporting community in that particular facility, has put more money into council's assets than any other organisation in this area, and continue to pay their way. With whatever fees have been put against them, without any debate about it. The building's just an old building, and like all our buildings, we do what we need to them when they need to be done. And the facilities, from time to time, there's been work done on the toilets, other times the canteen and the like. But it's when it's been to a stage where it really can't be used anymore. The kitchen's been done up a bit because of the requirements that's necessary and the like.

But the sporting community pay for that. And on top of that, with the things that Council has been able to provide, lighting and stuff like that, it's for their sport. And predominantly they kick the tin by two-thirds of the cost of it. That's the amount over the years. And they certainly wouldn't be arguing about the childcare facilities. Some of them, I dare say, use those very facilities, and appropriately so. So the decisions we need to make, we've got the facts before us, and we need to deal with those as they are. The comments that Councillor Zambognan made, I remember when it first came up, we were in the room next door here when we spoke about the funds. No one was happy with it, and it wasn't whether we were going to get the funds or not.

That wasn't the deal. We were going to get the funds. We just topped it up to make it all work.

Could you clarify?

The funds that we, that for Turnbull Oval, when we put the submission in, that we put the additional funds in to forward the plan. It wasn't, it didn't come from the government authorities that we needed to put money in for that. It was our view .

Through you, Mr Mayor, that decision rested with Council. If you recall, out of our defined allocated pool of funding that was guaranteed to Council, there, I can't remember the exact circumstances, but a separate report was definitely brought back to Council where a decision was made to forward the Turnbull Oval project, acknowledging that it needed co-funding at that point in time.

Councillor Creed

I want to put the motion. Sorry? I want to put the motion, or the amendment. Just vote. It's five to twelve. We have been discussing this a lot. I'm moving a procedural motion to put the motion.

There's a motion. The motion be put. Those in favour?