10 March 2026 - Ordinary

Thank you, Councillors.

Thanks for attending the Council meeting of the 10th of March, and those in the gallery, thank you for attending. Firstly, Hawkesbury City Council acknowledges the Darug and Dharawal people as the traditional custodians of the land of the Hawkesbury. We pay respect to all Elders, past, present and emerging, and acknowledge all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders people as First Peoples of this country.

General Manager.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Members of the public attending the meeting this evening are advised that in the event of an emergency, you'll be asked to proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exit following the guidance of our warden. I also like to advise that in accordance with Clause 5.3.4 of the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of the Council are recorded. In the terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting and live stream of Council meetings. The provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary.

If any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting. The gallery can be seen in the live stream video, and if you do not wish to be recorded in the live stream, please move to the foyer and we will turn the foyer speakers on for you.

I'm about to give a mobile phone speech. The recordings may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations, and the recordings are stored on Council's record management system and uploaded to the Council's website. Meetings of the Council may be separately recorded with the prior authority of the Council. Finally, it is requested that if any person attending the meeting this evening has their mobile phone on you, can you please turn it off or turn it to silent. Thank you.

Thank you, General Manager.

There is no acknowledgement of official visitors, but I would make note that we have a former Councillor with us this evening. Former Councillor Christine Payne. There is no apologies. Declarations of interest, Councillors.

9.3.1 and 5.— sorry, 9.5.3.

Councillor, I'm sure those flowers in front of you are very nice, but that's it.

I can't see when your light's on, Councillor. Thank you. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. 9.3.1 and 9.5.3.

9.3.1

And 9.5.3. Confirmation of the minutes of the meeting of the 17th of February.

Councillor Reardon.

Councillor Creed. Those in favour? Against? It's

Unanimous

It's Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Djuric, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Cottle, Councillor Creed, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon, and Councillor Sheather. The motion's carried . Councillors, there is a Mayoral minute that's confidential, and I'll leave that till we deal with the confidential matters later in the meeting.

Mr Mayor, could I move a procedural motion to bring forward items 9.3.1 and 9.5.1, the items that were discussed in the public forum prior to the Council meeting, so that the people who came for those

If it's 9.

3.1.

9.3.1

And 9.5.1.

9.5.1

Any debate? Those in favour?

It's unanimous. Those against? It's carried. It's Councillor Ambrogno, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash, Creed, Veigel, Reardon and Sheather. The motion is carried. The first item, Councillor Wheeler, is 9.3.1.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I have a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in item 9.3.1, the significant development applications. My son is a member of Wilberforce Brigade, New South Wales RFS, the subject of one of the DAs. The reason for no further action is that it is below the threshold for significance.

Thank you, Councillor.

The

Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Mr Mayor, I'd like to move the recommendation in the business paper. I'll second that, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Kotlash.

Councillor Wheeler. Councillor Lyons-Buckett, sorry.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr Mayor. This item that comes to us tonight, just for explanation to the public, is a list of significant development applications that the Council currently is assessing or having assessed, some of which will go to a panel, some which will be done by Council staff, or in fact they may all go to a panel, given their significance. The purpose of this is to alert the public to the existence of these developments so that, for example, when, as we heard the speaker, Ms Bicklier before say, she received a notification around one of the developments, which is the one for the McDonald's and Kentucky Fried Chicken across the road from Colo High School, that people know that they're in the pipeline, and when they get that notification about the development coming up and the public exhibition, they have the opportunity to give us their feedback before it goes any further down the pathway of being assessed.

There's a number of ones here that are probably of very significant interest to people. There's a school at Oakville. There is the one that we know a lot of people have already contacted us about at Hermitage Road at Kurrajong Hills at Little Islands there. There are various industrial ones which may be of interest to people living in those areas in particular, and they're of a variety, and they are before us so that we can alert the public to their existence, because we do hear quite often that people haven't known about these things, and this is a wonderful tool for us to ensure that the public does know about it. In terms of what was raised by our speaker tonight, raising some of the issues in opposition, which can then be captured by people either for or against a proposal through the appropriate pathways to submit their feedback.

Back Forest, I just do ask, that seemed a very short window for such a large application with multiple facets to it. I'm just wondering if at some point we could have some confirmation. Of course, we can request—I don't think I would do it through this item—but we could request an extended length of time for those submissions, given that there is quite a serious amount of documentation on the DA tracker for that particular application. I'm hoping that through the public forum facility, people can come and give us our opinions. Tonight, we've heard fantastic opinions on different items, and it's so meaningful before we do make decisions—not that we're making a decision on this; we're just noting this—but it's a really valuable tool for the public to address us on matters of concern or matters that they wish us to understand and for us to let them know they've been heard about these particular matters.

So thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you. Gentlemen, just take on board Councillor Lyons-Buckett's comment in relation to large developments. Do we

Deal with, like, extensions of time as a matter of course because of the size of it and matters addressed, or does the process rigid and follow the lines that Councillor Lyons-Buckett spoke of?

Thank you through you, Mr. Mayor. All of our development applications are publicly exhibited and notified, consulted with the community in line with our community participation plan. So that, in the vast majority of instances, will be 14 days, except there will be some instances, largely around where there may be integrated referrals, those type of things, that would extend that out to 30 days. But 14 days is our standard notification period that we—after the closure of that 14 days, Council does have the ability to determine the development application. What we do tend to do, though, is take a fairly liberal approach to submissions that come in after the closure of that period where we still have an application under assessment.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, again, I think we're seeing this new addition to the business paper proving useful in alerting the community to the DAs that are before the various different levels of planning determination now used in New South Wales. And I think it's worth noting, following some comments on Facebook around another DA that people were quite confused about, not all DAs will be on this list, and not all DAs are determined by planning panels.

None of the DAs anymore are determined by Council. So hopping on Facebook and having a rant about those out-of-touch councillors and, yeah, who have approved these things in their LGA is just now misinformed. We haven't had the ability to determine DAs since 2018, when the Liberal State Government removed that capacity

So if you want to look at a DA that isn't— if you're concerned about a DA, the best place to check is Council's DA tracker. The next best option is to sign up for something called Planning Alerts, which is a free search. You can set your radius, and it will alert you to applications when they're first submitted. They usually don't have documents attached to them for a couple of weeks. I've got concerns about a couple of the DAs, or three really here. I have particular concerns about... DA 60/26, Bells Line of Road. I thank the speaker to the public forum who spoke about the Yeomans history on that site. It's not called Yeomans Lane because of some harking back to some feudal farming system.

It's named after P. A. Yeomans, who, quite frankly, was a genius at managing farmland and water, who set up his two farms, one of which has now been obliterated by the Redbank development, and the other, Nevallan, as demonstration sites in the Hawkesbury. They are internationally renowned and known for their ability to store water in the landscape. What we didn't know at the time when Yeomans did this work was that they are also incredibly effective at storing carbon in the landscape. He really was ahead of his time. He engineered these properties to store water to cut bushfire risk following the death of his brother-in-law in a grass fire. It's work that we should be prioritising copying and sharing far and wide as one of the real achievements of one of the earlier farmers of the Hawkesbury.

Instead, we are building really inappropriate development over the top . I've got real concerns about site suitability for the development mooted, particularly slope and traffic concerns. Councillor Zamprogno, can I ask you to stop flashing me in the eye with your phone

I have concerns about the potential negative impact on local food businesses, also the views and vistas and tourism of the area. I will seek a council resolution at the next council meeting opposing the DA. With a submission and request to address the planning panel. What this does show is how little control we, as the elected body and our community, have over the future of the LGA without good structural plans in place and without the capacity for council laws to make these decisions. I really urge people to put in submissions about this development Don't leave this for somebody else to do, or we'll, as usual, just get what... Given, I agree with Councillor Lyons-Buckett that the submission period really does need to be extended.

Fourteen days is not long enough to comment on a development of this magnitude, particularly for local businesses who will be affected. I have other concerns about 108 Mulgrave Road. The odour from this property recently has increased. I hope that that's due to weather conditions and not to the biofilter breaking down, but the previous expansion on that site was only allowed with really stringent EPA requirements, and I would hope that an expansion doesn't result in the stench that used to pervade five towns in the Hawkesbury, including the hospital. I also have some concerns about 100 Ferry Road. I'm not quite sure what's going on on this property. A quick internet search shows that they're still attempting to sell 12 industrial units are still on the market, and yet there's a development application for a large recycling plant.

There, I presume they're recycling concrete or some such, and I really do wonder who is going to pay for the local roads that are going to carry the weight coming back and forth to that. Thank you

Councillor. Any further discussion?

Right of reply.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and I thank Councillor Wheeler for her comments, which I agree with wholeheartedly. I think the point I didn't raise before, I guess, was the reason we want the community to know about these particular developments is that, as Councillor Wheeler said, we are quite constrained in what we ourselves can do, and yet we are the representatives of the community. So alerting them to these, we say to them that this is the opportunity for them to use their voice. It's up to them to shape the future of what we want this area to be like. This is where we live, and these are the very developments that can have significant impacts, irreversibly changing what our landscape looks like, what heritage is retained or what heritage is lost, what areas are subjected to potential industries that may impact on them.

And as Councillor Wheeler just raised an extremely important point, as in what ongoing costs the Council may have to contribute to if these developments go ahead. So it's a call out, I guess, to the community in our inability to do anything much more than alert them to it and to put our efforts into strategic planning, which is an ongoing process, that we want them to know that when they feel strongly about something, they can contact either us directly, of course, and we can advocate, but we cannot make decisions and we cannot interfere in development applications as such, but we want to hear from them and we want to hear their points of view. So thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Councillor.

The motion is in the business paper for 9.3.1. Those in favour?

Against? It's carried. Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, Kotlash, Creed, Weigel, Rieden and Sheather. Councillor Djuric, would you like to grab Councillor McBain, please? Councillors, the next item is 9.5.1, Western Sydney Infrastructure Grants Program, the Richmond Swimming Pool. Councillor Wheeler? No, I'm happy. Councillor Lyons-Buckett. I'll move the recommendation. Second?

Thank you, Councillor Veigel.

Thank you , Mr Mayor

Oh

I

Should

Stand,

Shouldn't

I? I want very much to be able to support this. I am supportive of this. But there are some steps, I think, along the way that we've lost a little, and I wanted to kind of draw the Chamber's attention to it. When we did a tour of the Richmond Pool last year... We saw the dilapidated state that the pool was in. I described it as a kind of anachronistic throwback to the 1970s, and it really does look like that, with the besser block change room and the lack of accessibility and the lack of privacy and the bare-bones canteen. And in fact, we have a report before us this evening that shows the very significant deterioration of that site. So, when we did that tour, the Director of Infrastructure at that time said, Well, this argument largely makes itself.

We have 30. It now turns out that we're going to have to borrow another 30 to complete this. But if we didn't do that and we handed that money back, we would be up for as much as 40 million dollars within a decade merely to do an in-place refurbishment of the current facility. And I remember that figure distinctly because the Director of Infrastructure gave that to me in response to a direct question, and I've been known to make that statement and argument in public since. It makes perfect sense that, you know, we could borrow 30, get 30 from the government, and have a handsome new facility. Else , we would have to spend more than that just to maintain the status quo or refurbish the current facility.

I thought that I would see some backing of that logic in this report. On page 58 of the business paper at the bottom, it revises that figure down to between 23 million and 30 million dollars.

So, I'm now a little woolly about what the refurbishment costs, because this hinges, you know, a very substantial decision for us to borrow another 30 million dollars at a time of financial constraint. Hinges, for me, on the compelling nature of the argument that it will cost us at least as much merely to maintain the status quo should the facility be allowed to continue to deteriorate and require a refurbishment that would only deliver the level of service that we currently have now, but with a new lick of paint and the leaks sealed. So I'd like to turn, with a question to staff, if I may, and to ask if we can get a little more meat on the bones about this alternate figure, the scenario one or scenario three, decline or resolve, because my willingness to support $30 million of additional borrowing hinges very much on a very detailed argument about what it would cost merely to refurbish, and I think the public scepticism needs to be addressed, because to suggest that we can have a new facility at a cost of $30 million to ourselves, but to merely refurbish the existing facility costs nearly as much, could I just get the staff to address that, please?

General Manager.

Through you, Mr Mayor, I'm a little bit unclear on the exact question, Councillor. You brought in the scenarios related to our long-term financial plan, but if I can offer it by way of an answer, the figure of approximately $40 million that I gave to you in person on that day that we inspected Richmond Pool, firstly it was a far more, or far less informed number. Whilst it had some, it had backing in information from quantity surveyors, it was a very round figure based on the information available at that time. That has since been revised to some extent with the work done in preparation for this council report. The other thing that I would note is that this figure does not, the figure in the business paper, $23 to $30 million, does not include any allowance for escalation.

And as you'll note elsewhere in the report, escalation is currently tracking at about, for a $30 million figure, at about $500,000 every six months. So that's a million dollars a year that it's escalating by over a 10-year period. That's approximately $10 million, and I'd like to say by design, but that gets you to a $40 million figure, or thereabouts. That's the nature of the challenge that confronts Council with that facility. Okay,

Thank you. I'll listen to debate around the chamber. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I've got a question before I start, if I may. It's probably been anticipated by the Director of Infrastructure, and that is: what is the chance of reviewing to an eight-lane pool?

General Manager. Through you, Mr Mayor, the decision—well , there's a number of facets to the decision to maintain it as a six-lane pool. The first is the role that Richmond Swimming Centre has to play in the broader network of pools within the Hawkesbury. So the Oasis is our premier aquatic facility. It was never intended that Richmond pool would, I suppose, compete in that space. And the social infrastructure strategy adopted by Council— Last year or the year before, identified Richmond Pool as playing that lesser role, that subservient role to Oasis and being a district-level aquatic facility. So it's never intended to compete or to offer the same product that Oasis does. Having said that, with the design that is before Council tonight, given the flexibility, the inclusion of additional water bodies, it effectively breaks it down to an 18-lane 25 metre pool.

That is, we've got a 15 metre six-lane pool, which can be split in two by a swim wall. That gives us 12 25 metre lanes, and then there's the 25 metre indoor pool, which again has six metre lanes. So the water bodies available to support learn to swim, to support other activities, increases quite significantly, reducing some of that demand that currently exists on the full 50 metre outdoor Richmond pool that has been referred to tonight.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just a follow-up question, if I may. How do you feel about a seven-lane pool?

Through you, Mr Mayor, the other part I neglected to mention is the cost, of course, which is between—again, it's a figure that we haven't interrogated to any great extent, given that the business case was for a six-lane pool, but we ultimately went, sorry, with Council's endorsement, it was a six-lane pool. But the cost on higher-level figures we've been given is indicative of between two and five million dollars. That may sound excessive. It's important to note that the current design of the pool is to fit largely within the existing excavation, the existing hole. Of course, widening the pool to eight lanes would increase excavation, would increase waste disposal requirements, and have other flow-on effects and so forth.

So, in answer to your question about a seven-lane pool, if Council would be willing to commit to the funding of that seven-metre pool, that is something that we could look at.

Thank you. Thank you, Director. Would that be—and sorry, did you say that would be an extra two million dollars?

I don't believe I referred to a figure. A figure would be for the seven-lane pool, but an eight-lane would be between, I think I said, three and five, two and five, something like that. Again, though, I stress, if we were to go back and start looking at the design, the costs are escalating at a rate of about 1.1 million dollars per six months.

Thank you. I appreciate that, and I do understand that could greatly impede the project. I'll speak to the motion, Mr Mayor, and I do support this project overall. I'm a little more inclined to think that the gym should be included and may move an amendment as such to that. But tonight we've had the very great value of speakers come in here who have really added value to our understanding around the pool. There are people such as Mr Payne with a long association, both historically but also ongoing, who utilises the pool and gave us some great insights, and Mr Snedden's local knowledge as well, and Ms Stevens, I think—yes, Stevens—from the Department of Education, who of course really amplified the value of these facilities for our young people.

As we know, doing a project such as this is something that's going to last for generations. It's something that in the future many people will benefit from. And in saying that, I believe the need is really growing in this area, not only from a growing population, which is slowly growing, particularly on the outskirts of, you know, areas that do use our pools, but also we find people are building bigger houses on their blocks. Less people have their own pool. There'll be an increase probably in multi-storey dwellings that don't have access to a pool. And so in a place like Richmond that is so hot and getting hotter with climate change, we're going to see that a public pool is going to be a real necessity and, you know, something that people both expect but also something that people greatly utilise.

I thought the statistics around the usage of the pool by our school children were very interesting, and I'm extremely sad that we do not have the capacity for 27 public schools to be having their swimming lessons there, and I certainly hope that this project would enable that to happen. Of course, the benefit in reducing drownings in our area, where we know we have some sad statistics of river drownings, where if we had an increase in capacity at our pools, hopefully more people would swim at the pools. Increasing participation for health reasons, increasing access for people to do all-round aquatic activities will be greatly utilised. I understand the increase. If we were to go to an eight-lane pool, I can really see the validity in doing that, and I think that would be wonderful if we could, but that's still an ongoing conversation.

I really do think that the gym is something that we should be seriously considering. If we're going to have to be borrowing money for this, surely it's more prudent to, in borrowing money, that we are actually putting it towards something that is a revenue-generating stream to come back into us. So we know from figures that we've read that we would have less input having to go from Council to maintain a service if we had a gym that was making money. And we know this from other pools. I know the Hills have got a pool that has a very large gym, and that is bringing them in money. Pools cost a lot of money to maintain, of course, and this is a decision where I think we have to be able to justify putting so much public money into it.

But I also think that it's a facility that is universally loved by our local community and many visitors, of course, who also use it. We don't have a pool on the western side of the river, which is unfortunate, and some people may think that the expenditure of so much public money on an existing facility is not warranted. But given, as Councillor Zambrano had alluded to, the expense to simply upgrade our pool or replace it as it is is almost equivalent to the amount that we would have to put in to actually get this much more modernised and much more functional facility with the indoor part of it, and also the upgrade of the various filtration and things like that, which we did go on a tour of that and it's remarkable, and I'd like to put a shout out to our pool carers for what a wonderful job they do of the pool, because despite it being an old pool, it's a pool with a huge amount of character.

It's a pool that really services the community well, and given that they're working with outdated and older equipment, et cetera, they do an absolutely fabulous job. So I really do support this project overall. I'm just going to sit down and listen and possibly move an amendment. Thank you.

Councillor. Councillor

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just have a couple of questions. In the design, can I just get it confirmed by the relevant staff member, in the 50 metre pool and also in the other two pools, that little extra lane is actually a lane ramp for disabled access. Is that right? Is that what I'm reading? Yes. Cool. Thank you. Another question is, I think we discussed this previously, the length of the outdoor 50 metre pool, we've taken into account the length for the touch pads for school comps. Thank you. The other question is for you, Mr Mayor. I just wanted to ask whether you or the staff have met with the responsible minister to see if we can get the extra funding or get some sort of agreement from the state government about the WISIC funding. Have we gone down that road yet?

To do with this funding, no, I haven't. Okay.

I've got a couple more questions, but I'm just going to write them down, so thank you. Councillor, did you say for additional funding?

No. So we've got a certain amount for WISIC funding that's been given, and we were under the impression we were trying to see if we could get other funding or we could use it to complete this project without having to put council funds in. And I was asking if we've met with the relevant minister yet. Have we gone down that path, or

I wasn't aware of that, Councillor, but I know the staff looked at rearranging other projects to see if money could be shifted, and I know that they've tried different methods of funding processes. But in relation to approaching the minister, no. Okay.

Maybe that's something we could look at doing.

Councillor Scott.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. This is a very difficult decision because there's so many— I'm speaking in favour of this recommendation. It's a difficult project because we are spending a huge amount of public money. I'll start by saying that I am satisfied that it would be a very bad use of public money to try and refurbish the existing swimming pool. I think we all know that it would be spending good money after bad. I think that our community deserves a really top-notch facility, and I'm so glad that we have the bulk of the money coming as a grant, but we do have to put in some of our general funds as well.

When I was reading, I thought the most interesting part of the business paper was attachment four, which is the assessment of the 10 years—what will be the financial assessment for 10 years of running the new centre when it's built. They've made a few assumptions, and I was just tweaked to one of the assumptions that they used, in that they have learned-to-swim groups as being in a 15-minute drive population. But we heard from Fiona. Sorry, Fiona. Yes, Fiona. Stevens Thank you, Stevens. Sorry, this is really bad standing up because it's not very easy to get one's notes. That if this project goes ahead, the message that we got was that there will be more, many more children than the nearly 3,000 that was mentioned in that report.

So I think there is some wiggle room for more income. So I think it's in this way that we try to look at chunks of this project in stages and try to find the money for them. The six to eight lanes, I was very keen on knowing whether that actually increased the opportunity for us to make more money in fees for international meets, or maybe not international, national meets, or does that bring us up to a higher grade? So I suppose my thinking is that we, I think we're in a good position to get more funding. I know borrowing is sometimes seen as the last thing that we need to do, but I think borrowing in order to have such a wonderful facility for so many people. The visitation statistics for this development in the first year was 220,000 visits.

I mean, that's a huge service. That's a brilliant service to our community. The other thing that I think, nobody seems to be going anywhere near, but I think the fees and the assumptions of what people will be willing to pay, I imagine that's what this report did, I thought was very low. I think a lot of people would be prepared to pay possibly a dollar more. Like if you get 220 visitors a year and they all pay an extra dollar, I mean, we're looking at some nice financial inputs . So I think I'm happy to support this project in its form. Let's hope we get eight lanes. Let's hope we can get more kids there to learn how to swim. Let's hope we get the gymnasium. I think this is really a positive thing, and we could all work really hard and try to find streams of money that will suit.

I don't think we're going to get any money out of WIZI. I think that's probably done and dusted. I think we look for further afield.

We do have a big river running through our LGA, and I think we might be able to attract funding for teaching kids how to swim, or any sort of learn-how-to-swim programs. Even for adults. There's a few adults that can't swim either. My time's up. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you.

Councillor Vile, have a go. Yeah, thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm not going to repeat much of what Councillors, but I fully support what's been said so far. The first thing when I looked at this paper, there was a $30 million possible borrowing on the refurbishment of a critical infrastructure project, right, in perpetuity, it's going to last for 50 years. Right. Those costs are going to be embraced by an increase of, I guess, residents within the area, and that's going to happen no matter what. It doesn't matter if you try and contain it or whatever, there's going to be increase in development in the LGA, and the cost of that pool or any debt that we take will get less. So when I had a look at the debt ratio, I thought, yeah, okay, Council's given us all the information to finance this, and I thank you for doing it because it was within the parameter.

Now I just wish to remind those who might be listening and those who are here, we're dealing with a debt with Rising Main C for the repair of that, and that was an extraordinary cost on Council, and for what I've seen so far, we've dealt with that, and that was about, well, $30 to $40 million, and we've dealt with that within three years to four years since I've been on Council, especially after the floods. So that's been dealt with very quickly, and it's going to be dealt with in the next two years, dare I say, and it's been run down approximately to three years, which is not too bad considering it's probably a five-year payback. I will support in this, and it just goes back to a couple of things about the learn to swim lesson, and I thank you, Fiona, for coming and talking about that , because a lot of us who are here were recipients of how to learn to swim during primary school, and as I set out before you, we did it in May, which was always cold before they closed Lane Cove swimming pool, and that pool was never heated, by the way.

Now it is, dare I say. But just on that basis, right, I know a lot of people in my career that have come from other countries that didn't know how to learn to swim. It was only recently I was told that one of the engineers that worked for me some years or so ago, because I hadn't been in this business, that I heard that he drowned at Wollongong trying to save his son, his seven-year-old, which was saved, but Anton died. So he didn't know how to swim, and many of the people who come to this country. Don't know how to swim. Now, it's a quintessential Australian thing, swimming, and that's your Olympic Games, and what does everybody target? It's the swimming, right? That's the first thing they're going to do, and that's we're proud of when every time we get a gold medal.

You couldn't do it without the harbour pools. We couldn't do it with Olympic pools. We can't do it now without it. So, it's a fundamental duty of care, I think, not so much as a council, but the whole of Australian community to try and deal with swimming programs, especially for our young kids. You don't want to see the tragedy of somebody losing a kid out there. It's a simple lesson just to go and get out to a bank and just save their life. So, yeah, look, I'll be supporting this anyway because I think council is responsible. They can do it fairly. I am pro probably looking at the eight lanes. If we're going to do something, we should do it properly. Let's have a look at it. And the other thing, thank you, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, for bringing up the gym.

I think as a business plan towards council, I think the gym is pertinent, right? It will drag in more people, it will pay for itself. It'll be a one-stop shop, as they say. Some people said, Oh, what about the private gyms? If you want to go for a private gym, a bit of a private, you go with it, right? But for the pool to make it viable and pay it off quite earlier, throw the gym in there too. So, I'll consider that when it comes to council. I'm not going to say much more than that, but I'll be supporting the motion for the building. And thanks to the staff for the work they've done. Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor Reardon.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I think this project is something for the future that we should look to with the eight lanes and the gym, and I really think the people, the locals, deserve something like this. It's great for their health, and it's great for learning to swim. So, I'm very supportive of it.

Thank you, Councillor. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. It's very difficult for us tonight to be here when we are, of course, as a council discussing a rate rise, as well as— Significant expenditure on the renewing of some of our very important community assets. Now, there's been debate around the Chamber whether this funding of almost $100 million, when we got that for a range of different projects, was worth it, or whether that was going to cost Council significantly more funds. Undoubtedly, it's the latter. However, we still have to be somewhat grateful that that money has still been delivered as part of what they're calling it now the WISIC program. If we're looking at delivering a renewed Richmond Pool for our community, there's no way we could come up with that $60 million ourselves, and we'd be having a much different conversation here tonight without half of that funding being delivered by the State Government.

Having said that, I am not praising the State Government. The cost shifting that they have done and put councils in in a range of different areas is why we're having this difficult conversation tonight. Councils holistically are being expected to do so much more with so much less, and we have to have these really difficult conversations in here about how we juggle those funds, and it's a really challenging thing to do. I want to thank the speakers here tonight for their advocacy. I do think it was important getting those actual figures on the school children who are participating. We don't usually have those kind of figures delivered to us, and to hear that, I think it was 691 children.

Yeah. So to have

That number and think— That little program they did as part of their end-of-year activities affected positively 691 children is a really big deal. I know we have that same, a similar thing going on at Oasis, but as to Mr. Snedden's comments, Oasis always seemed to be the jewel in the crown and poor Richmond got forgotten. But I also had a really special feeling about Richmond. I actually, no offence to Oasis, but I preferred to go to Richmond. It was just such an old school feeling. It felt like you were in the 1950s or '60s, not that I was born then, but that's how it felt. You know, you were going back to something old school Australian, and I loved the feeling of that. However, we do know from our briefings previously that the pool needs upgrading, and to sit here and do nothing, I think, would be negligent of our council.

I am particularly favourable about the eight lanes, hearing the debate in the room as well. I understand the cost. However, if you're going to do something, you may as well do it right. And if we're hearing that that would open the facility up—I'm not saying it wasn't done right, stop it—that would open the facility up to potentially being competition ready and competition quality, then I think that's something. I mean, we're going to spend $60 million of public money, so we may as well do it where it's going to be able to be open to competitions as well. The significant escalation in price is challenging. Obviously, doing those mathematics around the loans times 20 years is significant. Looking at the two scenarios, though, without the gym and with the gym, I'm a bit concerned about the gym, and Councillor Veigel touched on the gyms in the private sector.

I have had advocacy in the past when new gyms have opened in our community where other gyms are already in existence, and there seems to be quite fierce competition between gym owners in the Hawkesbury. And I don't have a dog in the fight, but I just want council to be conscious of the argument that we'll get from gym owners about taking their core business away from small business owners. So whether they're running a franchise or not, it doesn't matter. They're still a small business owner. So I think we need to be conscious about that as well, even though for us, there's a cost benefit, obviously, to a gym membership helping us pay for those bottom line costs. I just wanted to put all of that on.

The record. I think we're kind of, you know, between a rock and a hard place. The community expects that we have quality infrastructure and quality services for them to use. If we've been told the data says that the shell of the pool only has a limited lifespan, then we would be doing something wrong if we didn't look into fixing that. I think kids across the LGA, even though there is no pool on the other side of the river, they really do enjoy using Richmond. I know as a North Richmond resident, my kids would catch the bus down to the pool, worked out the bus systems, helped them become independent in that way, and I think it's just a great facility. So I'll be supporting that tonight. I'm hearing chatter of potential amendment.

Whether that's about the eight lanes or not, I'll wait to hear that. But I will be supporting the recommendation. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Councillor Ryan. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Look, I'm going to go back over a few things because I think a couple of the councillors stole my homework. Back in 1961, this was a great thing, and everyone back there said they'll never pay for it, and it was about three, three and a half million dollars. But it was a generational thing, and it's paid for over generations. And many kids have learned to swim there. They've had their first race there. Now there's been romances there that still go on today. You bought your first lot of chips there with too much vinegar. All that sort of stuff happened, and it really did, and you just put too much vinegar on it. Look , the staff, the plans you've drawn—I'm right into plans.

I really love—my sat there for hours reading them. I looked through them. I went onto the internet and looked at other plans, and they're first class, and I thank you for presenting that. The staff that took us out there on the day when we had the excursion and really showed us the problems. Like, it's held together with Band-Aids and makeup. That's all that's there. And they do such a great job over the last few years to just to keep it there. And it's losing hundreds of thousands of litres of water a day, which is a real problem. And that's soaking down into the ground. We've got reactive clay under it, and what happens to concrete with reactive clay? It'll lift. It'll do anything. And I think that problem has to really be solved.

So we sort of came up with, I came up with three things that we have to do, coming from my background. I go the where, when, why and how do we do it. The hows are, do we just fill it in, put the historical marker up and say the pool was here? Yeah, I'd hate to try and get elected again, because we'd be in a lot of strife. Do we try and rebuild it? I think that's really not going to happen that well, because we'll end up with the same problems, and as the director of infrastructure said, it'll end up costing us as much money as redoing it. So do we rebuild it with a gym? I think at this stage, I'm really open to the gym. I attend the Oasis one two or three times a week down here at South Windsor, and the amount of people that use that gym and then they're straight in the pool or vice versa, and the amount of mothers that are there with young kids and using the gym and all that sort of stuff.

It'd be great if we could get a crèche in there, but it's not going to fit, so that's not going to happen. So to me, that's the three choices that we have. The eight lanes, that'd be great if we could have it, and that'd be really a big plus to us. And realistically, the amount of money we're spending on it, I think we should go to the top level to get this sort of thing for our people. Look, I know it's difficult. Things are tough out there, but if we build it now, we build it properly, and we make it an intergenerational issue over years, I think the people will be quite accepting of it. We are not going to pay for it straight up. We're going to have to hold back some of the council's infrastructure in other areas just to cover it, but that's the cost we'll have.

And I really think the people of Hawkesbury will accept it. Paul, about these people drowning, I've been in that position in my previous life, and most of the people that I retrieved drowned were non-swimmers from out of Australia, and that was huge. That really had an impact. It had an impact on me that these people went in the water, especially the river or a dam or something like that, and they couldn't swim. They thought it was safe. No, it's not safe. But if we can give them a safe, positive area to learn to swim, and then they'll say, well, I'd sooner swim in the pool than in the river. I think that's a great thing. So look, I'll support this wholeheartedly, and thank you very much to the staff and everyone that's worked so hard on this because it's a great project.

And truthfully, I did love drawing these plans. It was great. Thanks for those comments,

Councillor. Mr Mayor, I have a question. It's just regarding the eight lanes again. The notice, the recommendation in the business paper relates specifically to the attached report. So for any change to that, we would have to specify the eight lanes, is that correct, number one. And just perhaps if we could have answered the length of time. I do understand the constraints around that and the cost escalations, but if we could know the length of time that a redesign — it would not be a complete redesign, I'm assuming, just a little bit of moving a lane over, a bit more excavation. Figure it over a bit. A time frame on that, if we could

Please, Mr Mayor.

Thanks

For the questions, Councillor.

I might take some of that initially before passing over to the Director of Infrastructure Services. Councillors will want to— Be quite clear about the implications as best I can about making a decision on the run at 80% detailed design to add two lanes to an aquatic facility. What you have is, as the Director of Infrastructure Services has indicated, is an increased capital cost of approximately somewhere between the ballpark of two to five million. We have, for every six months that this gets delayed while we go back to the architects, we are facing escalation costs in the order of $1.1 million. We are facing increased design costs, and they are considerable on a $60 million project, Councillors.

The architecture costs and all the suite of subconsultants cost considerable sums of money. What I would urge Councillors is, if you are inclined to want to progress an eight-lane option, is that allow the staff to come back with a more robust assessment of the benefit cost of that. We could probably turn that around for you within the month so that you do have a full appreciation of the costs. And frankly, Councillors, our capacity to pay the loan back, right? Loan is not free money. We have to pay the loan back. So I do think that would be the prudent way forward at this point.

Thank you.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Just a further question, leading on from what Councillor Lyons-Buckett was saying, and that refreshing, stabilising fact that we really need to make sure that we can pay this back. Can we, in that regard... As well as considering the design changes for the lanes, can we look at extending the assumptions that were made in the Otium report? Yes, because they assumed a 15-minute drive. Now, you know, I live in Kurrajong Heights and I drive hours to go anywhere. Like, you just get so used to, that's a factor that this report might not have taken into consideration. We're a fringe LGA. Just if that's relevant, it sort of might be in here, but I don't think it is. Are we able to get that as well?

So if Councillor Lyons-Buckett was going to move an amendment that we possibly get a further report and consideration of the extra lanes, can we, you know, would it be okay through you, Mr Mayor, if we got, you know, just a little bit more on the income and the power to generate that money that we would need to pay off a loan? Thank you, Councillor. General Manager. That would be really helpful. Thanks.

Thank you, through you, Mr Mayor. The Otium analysis was informed by staff experience, particularly our pool staff. The, dare I say, the risk of going back and starting to reanalyse some of these numbers is we are starting to risk increasing the length of time that we're playing. And in all honesty, we have been, I won't say generous, but we've been, I think, struck the balance between sufficiently conservative but without torpedoing ourselves in those numbers. So I'd expect that there's a very, very minor marginal rate of return in going back and firstly spending the money to You know, adding of ten or twelve additional people a week , and I dare say that it's already been reflected through the good work of our staff in contributing to the OTM report and doing that peer review and that fact-checking. So I would just counsel that there is a risk with going back and litigating this

Yeah, so thank you. And just to be clear, I actually wasn't suggesting that we get this redone. I was just wondering whether we could take some of the assumptions and just sort of be confident that we might be able to land on more

Revenue, I guess, to be, you know, to have the option of having more options. Sorry.

Your comments on that, Councillor.

Thank you.

Councillor Creed, you had a question? Thanks, Mr Mayor. Just on the WSIC funding, is there a deadline on when we have to have— like, because the other projects have got a deadline. What's the deadline for this?

So at the moment, we have extensions approved through to the end of 2027. You'll notice that part of the recommendation is to endorse the further scope. Review for the Tuwisig, part of that scope review will then be to push out those dates once again into 2028, which is when we're currently forecast. That's before we do any further work to look at additional lanes or anything like that. So that's our deadline at the moment. Okay,

Thank you. I'll just speak briefly on it. There's been a couple of— firstly , I just want to point out, we've got three options tonight with this particular project. The first option is we know the pool's run down. It doesn't have much of a life left, and we just decide, no, we'll just let it run its course, and then when it's at the end, we just fill it in and we don't spend any money. Second option is that we just replace it in 10 years' time, and it's going to cost us close to what we're already looking at budgeting for if we completely redevelop it. The third option is to redevelop it and get a completely new facility that's more state of the art. I will just point out with this particular outdoor pool, and I did have it clarified during the break, because of the 15 metre, one metre shallow end, the pool won't actually be able to be used for certain types of comps.

So I think it's the state, sort of like New South Wales State Championships, all that sort of stuff. It won't actually be able to be used for that. It'd be able to be used for school comps and zone and that sort of stuff. So I think we just need to make that clear. I would like to see more squad and training, water polo training competitions. I used to do that when I was Younger, most people will probably sit there and look at me now and go, Geez, what happened? It's because I like cooking and obviously eating. So I think, you know, there's a lot of potential here, and I have to agree with Councillor Lyons Buckett, the gym. I think if we're going to do it, you do the gym as well, because pools are not a money-making machine for councils.

It's the gym aspect that makes the money for councils. And I understand there's other gyms in the area, but we have a responsibility to the entire community and to make sure that when we do these sorts of projects, they're not white elephants, and they are actually returning investment for the community. One thing I will say, and just—and I hate bringing it up because it is a bit of a sore point for councils—is the North Sydney pool blowout is always concerning, and that does, you know, make me a bit nervous. But I'm sure that we don't have that sort of stuff here, or those issues that we've had there with the contractors and all that sort of stuff. So, you know, I am wary of the amount of money that that's blown out to.

I will note that the Hills, when they redeveloped theirs, I think they spent, was it about eighty-something million, but that was what, just before COVID or just as COVID was hitting. I asked some information from one of the Hills people, and I said, you know, if you were to do that same sort of facility today, and they said, Oh, you're looking at probably at least 120 million. So my concern is if we don't do this now and we delay, and then potentially either lose the funding and then later on we go down the track and go, Oh yeah, no, we're going to borrow 60 million and try and build this big facility. The community is out of pocket by at least 30 million, and it's probably actually going to cost a lot more.

So I think this is probably the one project that the community absolutely would get behind, because it is not just for a small component of the community. It is for everybody. Everybody will use this facility. It's not something that's only going to last five or 10 years. It's going to last the next 50 years. This one that we've got now has somehow managed to last, what, 70-odd years. And so I think— And everyone knows that I'm very picky about, you know, spending what we don't have and, you know, sort of keeping within our means. But I think this is probably the one project that I could actually say that the community would actually be okay with us, you know, they'd be nervous, but they would be okay with us putting and investing in their recreational future.

The other thing I was just going to point out, and I've completely lost my note . Sorry, I've been writing all sorts of notes down here. Oh, something that Councillor Ryan was talking to me about earlier, it's our communication strategy. It's about us trying to bring the community with us and actually putting a proper, you know, whatever you want to call it, marketing PR, communication, whatever you want to call it, but actually getting the community involved and bringing them along with us. And Councillor Ryan suggested something that we could, you know, once if this goes through and it's the last day of the swimming pool, we have just a big free day at the swimming pool and say, Come on, let's send off the old girl.

That was a quote from Peter Ryan. And I actually genuinely love that idea. I think he said that he'd supply the vinegar and everybody just bring their own chips. So I think Councillor Ryan's on the money there. But I just, honestly, it makes me nervous borrowing this amount of money because I know that it's going to take us a while to pay it back. But I think if we're going to do it, we do it properly and include the gym because that's what's going to make us the money. So thank you, Councillor.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Mr Mayor, I'd like to move an amendment. I'm a little reluctant in doing so, but I've just been— Considering , after what the General Manager has informed us of, and after what seems to be support around the room for the increased number of lanes, I do understand. I do apologise, firstly, to the staff for doing this. But I do think that it's pertinent that, given we've been given that request from the community and that it's been raised as something that would be of significance, that it's quite important that we can show the consequences of what that would cost. I don't want to delay the project. I fully support the project. But if, as the General Manager said, that could come back in the April meeting, I would be happy to move an amendment that we defer this matter until the April meeting to receive further information on the possibility of an eight-lane pool, so that we can consider that with the correct information there.

I also had another point to add to that, if I may, Mr Mayor, which is that, and I'm putting you in this without asking you, so sorry, that the Mayor makes a specific representation to the Honourable Steve Kamper, I think that's his name, K-A-M-P-E-R, the New South Wales Minister for Sport, regarding funding to supplement the WISIG funding, given the significant catchment area this pool relates to. Because this is a pool servicing a lot of people, even though it's only a district pool or not a regional pool. But can I add that in, Mr Mayor, and move that amendment.

Have you got wording that you've...

I think, yes, I think

Okay. Yes. Is there a seconder? Can I ask a quick

Question, Mr Mayor

I need a seconder first. Councillor Reardon.

Oh, well, we're going to do that as well.

Oh no, I was just going

To ask— Councillor Kotlash, you had a question.

Yeah, I was just going to ask, in the list of recommendations, is there anything that we could still do to , instead of deferring the whole thing? I mean, I get where you're coming from, through you, Mr Mayor. I understand where Councillor Lyons-Buckett's coming from, but I think there's possibly a few points in this that we could get on with, because we don't want a delay. So if that's amenable to the mover of the

Amendment I'm happy with that, Mr Mayor. I don't know, I can't see anything in there that really would not be dependent on— if there were to be any changes that could go ahead, given that they all relate to the specific attachments to this particular business item. I would, however, I would be happy to give in-principle support for a gym, though, if that helps, to move that forward so that any information that may be relevant to that could come back in the same report.

I'll ask the general manager to clarify what she sees as the amendment and the questions that were just asked.

Thank you, through you, Mr Mayor. I don't know that there's any of those four parts to the recommendation that could reasonably be actioned whilst we were awaiting a final decision about whether the six-lane pool becomes an eight-lane pool, just because the design is dependent on it, the cost is dependent on it, the cost drives the loan amount, we can't lodge the development application. It will just sort of come to a point there. So in respect of the potential gymnasium, if Council's of a mind to— I want to progress that. We can get busy on doing that further work. We were intending to do that anyway, to present you a firmer set of cost estimates and a benefit cost analysis there. But we can get moving on that regardless.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll speak to the amendment, and I thank the General—

Just before you go on, Councillor. I'd like to see the wording, Mr Mayor.

Yeah

Mr Mayor, could I add in the local MP as well as the Honourable Steve Camper, and the Member for Hawkesbury, Robyn Preston MP?

Yep

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll speak to the amendment. And I really, I was genuine when I said that I did that reluctantly because I don't like to see this project deferred. But I think what we've heard tonight and the level of support that we see warrants having this further information come back to us, particularly now if we can get some more information about the gym before we make a final decision. And I understand it's more work. I understand it changes what we had previously agreed upon. But I do think we heard some really valid input tonight, and I think in fairness to everybody, we need to examine that prudently and to have that information before us. As the General Manager said, we can't be making decisions on the fly without having all that information.

So I appreciate that we will have that coming back to us. And I won't reiterate my spiel about the importance of the pool, but it definitely is a project that will cost money, but for what I think we will see very good results. So I'm happy to put this amendment forward. With regard to point 2, Mr Mayor, I really do hope you can make a convincing case and that you're happy to do this. I'm willing to assist if you need to come along. We could all go along, all 11 of us.

I don't know whether he wants to see all of us or not.

Well, I do think that could carry a little bit of power if we all arrive there for the minister, because quite frankly, I think that given that this initial, the WSIG was, well, all but very gratefully, but almost imposed upon us without adequate timing for all the various, you know, investigations to be done before we got it, we're most grateful for it. But given that, I think that it's not unreasonable to ensure a project such as this can go ahead and that it would be very, you know, a very good investment for the government. Particularly around those issues of safety and drowning prevention, safety, accessibility for people in a warming climate, that we could have this extra money. So the local member, the member for Hawkesbury, Robyn Preston, was, of course, involved in the delivery of announcements around these projects.

So I'm sure she'd be a good advocate to have on board to be pushing for some more funding. You know, putting money into pools is surely something of priority. I did read somewhere, and I know I think it came out of the Western Sydney Business Group, a proposal to have a pondi at North Richmond in the river. So I think if anyone's having these quite unusual ideas of putting a beach in the river at North Richmond, we could actually be taking that money, if there is any money, and we could be putting it into a pool, which is safer and more logical at this point. So, Mr Mayor, I am sorry to have just imposed that on you, but I hope that can be done because I think that we could mount a very good case for getting some more funding for our pool.

Nothing like a trip to Macquarie Street. Councillor Creed.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll support the amendment. I'm a bit concerned that we're probably, the eight-lane part of the pool is probably, we're a bit late in the process, and I'm not sure. I'm supportive of an eight-lane because I think these sorts of pools should have eight lanes. Most council pools that I've swum at over the last few decades have all got eight lanes. But I think we have to be realistic. I think we've probably missed the swinging paddle on this one, and I think we're just going to have to go potentially with what the design is, and it's a good— But I think we just, we have to be realistic. I'm concerned that if we do defer for any longer, and I understand the point of the amendment is to get more information about the cost and all that sort of stuff, and I do thank Councillor Lyons-Buckett for putting it up.

But maybe it's the cynic in me, I just, I'm concerned we've already sort of missed the boat on this one. So, but happy to support the amendment.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillors, I support the amendment. I think everybody's headed in the same direction here . With the discussion we've had about all the WestInvest programs and the like, when they first come to us, everyone was frustrated , and it was all about costs of the exercise. The staff, all but one project, is on budget now , and it's only just off it. And it looks as though that before the project starts, with what's happening, it'll be bought on. A massive achievement, considering the indifference of prices for what the estimates were originally to the money we got to spend. The staff well aware of the concerns of the councillors in relation to the funds that we've got and how we spend them and the likes.

With the pool, it's a, we have it or we don't. It's not logical to try and spend money on something that'll fall apart as we're trying to fix it. And some of the stuff simply is not fixable. With the inspection we had out there, it was made obvious to everyone that was there, the patch quilt that's kept it going to date. And as Councillor Ryan indicated, those leaks in the pool, with construction, there's likely to be issues in and around the pool because of that very problem. It doesn't go away. To try and rectify those issues is expensive. And to try and keep the pool open. You know, we were told that there was divers there that were trying to fix those problems simply to keep the pool open without emptying the water.

When it comes to our role as providing facilities to the community, swimming, as was told to us this afternoon by Ms Stevenson and others, for our children, there's lots of things we should do. But learn to swim and to teach them how to drive is two things that we don't do well . And there's one that we can't do much about, and that's we're not involved in driving schools, but we are involved in waterways and swimming. So the opportunity to rectify some of that lies with us. With the amendment in relation to the expenditure, the staff will come back with the feasibility and, practically, both the construction and the financing of the project. And it's prudent that we look at that. The effort that's gone to provide the information to date, with what you've got, is immense.

And that's clearly done because of the attitude amongst the staff and you councillors about our responsibility in relation to how we fund or operate and spend money that we're responsible for. So, councillors, I support the amendment. Councillor Zempoglo, did you particularly want to stay with your motion, considering the supporting council, or withdraw? Yes

Sir, and I was

Prepared to speak against the amendment. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Wheeler was next, sorry.

Thanks. Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, I'll speak in favour of the amendment, although I'm quite happy to support the original motion as well. I think there's one of the— this is a clear indication of what council looks like. Now we can't have briefings, because we could have had this discussion two weeks ago in the room next door, kicked this around for 45 minutes, come to this point and probably had what we're now asking for a month-long deferral to do. So, you know, just if Minister Hoenig is watching, cheers, you've cost us another month.

It's he, Councillor.

I did say that. Oh sorry. Yeah.

And I also want to just speak to that comment about river swimmers and learn-to-swim lessons making river swimmers safer. That is certainly true, but the vast majority of people who have drowned in the Hawkesbury River in recent times have been very good swimmers, in fact who have overestimated their ability in a river environment. What we really want is for people to swim in the pool and not in the river, in a much more controlled space. It's really clear that we can't do nothing, that will result in the pool's closure within the next few years. And WISIG is really problematic. West Invest was applied for really quickly. It was done to facilitate a series of election promises from the LNP government, and it's disappointing, I must say, to see the Member for Hawkesbury running council down on social media and in public.

She is well aware of the funding constraints of this council. She's well aware of the funding limitations of the West Invest slash WISIG program, and I welcome the chance to make specific representation to her. What I'd really like, actually, is for her to come and have dinner with us on one of the nights that we're no longer allowed to have a briefing, and for her to really understand the financial constraints that this council operates under, because her comments on social media are not reflective of a supportive relationship with council. We really need to push back. We're carrying more than our fair share of the load with this pool. We're already covering other LGAs. February, the pool was closed nearly every day of the week for school carnivals and school programs, which meant that local community members can't use it .

We need to discuss with the local member and the minister the impost of these projects and get their advocacy. But it's also really easy to run with SIG down. The truth is, without WSIG, we would be looking at closing this pool within five to 10 years. So what I think we need to do is, and we would then be probably looking at maybe spending the 30 million in additional borrowings on just replacing what we've got, which, as we've heard, is underutilised because it's not big enough, it doesn't meet the accessibility requirements, and it's a really cold pool. My son learnt to swim in that pool. Homeschoolers get the worst lesson slot available because they're the most flexible, and all those kids were blue and, you know, covered in goosebumps each time they came out.

They loved going to the pool when it was sunny, and they hated their swimming lessons, and that was nothing to do with the instructors, who were fantastic, but those kids were frozen solid when they got out of that pool. If we don't do something with this pool, if we close it, the kids that are playing in those pools now won't be able to take their kids to that pool. And I think that would be a really sad thing. I think we all want to hand on this LGA in a better space than we found it, or at least maintain what we've got, but if we can't maintain our facilities, then we're unable to do that. I agree with Mr Payne when he said that this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and we've heard from the Department of Education, and I think that data is really helpful.

That would be really useful data to take to the minister to show just how much... How much this pool means to the community and to schoolchildren in both our community and surrounding areas. But we've heard that the pool is not accessible, it's not safe enough, and it's not utilised enough. We also know that this is really expensive, and the community is up in arms about raising rates. No one's going to be delighted at the idea of a 30 million dollar loan, but no one's going to love closing the pool either. We get to make those hard decisions in here because apparently we're paid the big bucks And I do note the very many helpful suggestions in emails today about how fat and ugly I am and how I should exercise more.

So I'll probably take myself off to the pool once we've tarted it up a bit, and the gym, but only if it's warm because I'm old and a sook. Look, realistically, the cheapest time to do this is now, and the longer we put it off, the worse we hand over the facility to the community. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor

Councillor Zamprogno. Mr Mayor, I'm going to be speaking against the amendment. I regard the 30 million dollars that it's proposed that we borrow as being at the very extreme outer edge of what would be financially responsible for this council Unfortunately, and I agree with Councillor Wheeler that this is a result of our inability to have proper briefings, which is the stupidest decision that the Labor governments ever made in the local government space for some time , means that we are making some very untidy decision making here . It's what I refer to my students as the ice cream for everyone fallacy. I mean, we are well intentioned. It would be lovely to have a gym, it would be lovely to have an eight-lane pool, but at the rate at which costs are escalating.

I simply can't justify that. $ 30 million of extra borrowing in a fiscal environment like this where, when we borrow those funds, at whatever the going rate is through TCorp or whatever instrument that we can get that through, we're in an environment where globally, I suspect inflation will be spiking and interest rates will be spiking. And that will be the case for the foreseeable future. It doesn't escape my attention also that it took me only moments to look up on Google Maps that there are eight gymnasiums in Richmond. There's one at the university, there are seven in town, there are two more at North Richmond. And this additional feasibility report, which really consists of a single page of a spreadsheet, Lord only knows how much we paid for that.

But the point being, there is no business case here. There is no testing of the market to see whether a handsome new ninth gymnasium in Richmond would deleteriously affect the private commerce of those gymnasiums that already exist or fills the niche that otherwise needs filling. I might observe that the original motion already asks Council to come back to us with a little more information on this. So I was prepared to support that. What I'm not prepared to support is additional delay, which is going to result in significant further cost escalation so that we can have an eight-lane pool. I do not deny that having an eight-lane pool would be a lovely thing, but I don't think we can afford it.

And therefore, I think doing what the original motion suggests, which is to approve the 80% design. As it stands, it's the best and the most that we could hope for tonight. The last comment that I'll make relates to the fact that, yes, the model is completely broken. We were given WestInvest funding. The former mayor knows well that we were induced to go for a lovely photo opportunity and to pose with the large sign and to extol the virtues of a shining building with curved walls and all the rest of it. And I don't blame the former mayor for that, because we believed that we could get that asset for the money that was being pledged. The fact that it would cost double as much, I think, should leave us all feeling scammed, burnt badly by this entire process.

And here we are now trying to pick up the pieces. Councillor. Any

Further discussion, Councillor?

Yeah, thanks, Mr. Mayor. I'll talk to the amendment, thank you . Not so much on the council deferment, because all I want to see is where the eight lanes are going to lie, because, I mean, I'm going to agree to it when I see the numbers, but I'd like to see the numbers. I said obviously, if it's pathetic, I'm not saying I'm giving agreement to it. So I'll talk to that. The only thing I can make a suggestion, it's probably just a statement for your benefit, Mr. Mayor. I believe that for your benefit, when you go and see the honourable Steve Camp, our New South Wales Minister for Sport regarding funding, it's interesting how the government can find $15 billion on a gun buyback. All they've got to do is just take about 30 million out of that and do it 14 billion and 70 million, and we should be A-OK.

There's funds available when they really look for it, OK? This community desperately needs significant funding in many areas, so I wish you luck with that one. So firm hand with a velvet glove there, I say. Thanks.

Deputy Mayor

Just a question, please, just to the staff. Based on whether or not we're deciding to add these extra two lanes, will the oasis, because we've got two pools or two facilities in our LGA, is Oasis going to be an eight-lane once it's got its touch pads on? It's going to be full competition quality. And will we already have one of those in our LGA?

Through you, Mr Mayor, so Oasis isn't getting touch pads. If you recall, the inclusion of the touch pads reduces the length of the pool below the standard for competition. So, I've forgotten the rest of your question. My apologies. I

Was asking whether Oasis was going to be of a standard where it could host proper competitions, that were the timings would be credible for the competitors. So

My understanding is without the touch pads, they wouldn't be.

Thank you. I just wanted to ask that would form my decision about whether, if we're going to have eight lanes here, would they also be of a, not just a width of eight lanes, but a length where that would be quality with the touch pads to be able to have proper competitions? So the benefit of the eight lanes would give us a pool in the LGA that could host those type of competitions, please.

So I was receiving advice as you were speaking. Just to clarify, with the current design, albeit at the six lanes, it's still sufficient for Richmond Pool? It's still sufficient for state-based qualifying? And my apologies if you could repeat the rest of your question. No

I just wanted to know that, oh gosh, this standing up thing. If, because Oasis is ruled out of that, if we are going to invest in the eight lanes, will that have the touch pads and will that be able to host the competitions so that there is a pool in the LGA that can do that?

Yeah, so the current design allows for the touch pads, so it would simply be the addition of the two lanes.

But the eight lanes is what it needs as well to be able to host those things, not the six?

That's my understanding. So it needs the eight

Lanes. But we'll

Take that on

We'll reflect that in the report. Even with touch pads, does it need the eight? That's my question. Yeah, we'll reflect that in the report. Yeah, thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Creed. Sorry

Just to touch on that. So the actual design of the pool with the 15 metres, that's at one metre. Can you also include whether that actually will allow for, because I'm pretty sure there's regulations when it comes to certain base compositions, that 15 metres where it's only one metre depth is actually not, what would you say, regulated for quite a few of those sorts of things. If you can just include that. Yes, yes.

Yeah. Thank you, councillors. Councillor Willie, you're so right about the length of time for fairly what seems simple questions to be asked, where briefing sessions in the past we would have discussed this stuff. In a whole night, to get to the facts of the matter and allow the staff appropriate time to come and address Council in a proper fashion. Yeah, the system's a little bit broken. Any further debate? Thanks, Councillors. Right of reply.

Sorry. Sorry, the amendment is on the screen that was moved by Councillor Lyons-Buckett, second by Councillor Reardon, is on the screen. Those in favour of the amendment

It's Councillor Sheather, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Creed, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Maher, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler. Those against? As Councillor Zembrodno. The amendment's carried, becomes the motion.

Right of reply. Is there any discussion? Right

Of reply, Councillor.

Yeah, it's simply to say this. I've sat around this table and see us tie ourselves in knots over mere matters of hundreds or several thousands of dollars for an animal desexing program, and yet this effectively commits us to a significant additional delay.

Councillor, just clarify, we're not making decisions tonight whether we borrow money. As the report will come back whether we should or not.

Well, you know, I've seen us tie ourselves in knots over far smaller sums. Absolutely. That's all. Okay.

Thank you, Councillor. The motion is on the screen in front of you. Those in favour?

It's unanimous. Councillors Zamprogno, Councillor Wheeler, Councillors Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahons, Kotlash, Creed, Weigel, Reardon and Sheather. Those against? The motion is carried. Thank you, councillors.

Mr Mayor, would we be able to have a five-minute break?

That sounds like a good idea. Thank you, councillors. When we call the meeting, I'd really like everyone to come back in so that we can get on. We've got business that we've got to deal with.

Thank you, councillors.

Councillors, we'll resume the meeting. We've got one, two, three, four, five items for adoption with exception.

I'll move that way, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Is this on block, Mr Mayor? Yes. Can I intervene ? I'd like to, with your permission, pull out item 10.1.1 and consider that separately.

10.1.1, the minutes

Of the Local Traffic Committee, yes. Thank you, councillor.

Okay, we'll deal with that when we get to it. So there's one, two, three, four on block, which is 9.2.1, 9.2.3, 9.4.1 and— 9.5.4. The seconder was Councillor Creed.

Those in favour?

Against? It's carried unanimously.

Who was in favour?

The mover was Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Those in favour were Councillor Brogden, Councillor Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash, Creed, Weigel, Reardon and Sheather. Those against? The motion is carried. Thank you, councillors.

The next item is 9.2.2.

I'll move that, Mr Mayor.

That was who, sorry? Councillor Ryan.

I'll second it.

Was that Councillor Creed?

Councillor Ryan.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd just like to bring a couple of points up in relation to this strategy in events strategy, if you don't mind. I've been going to quite a few of them lately, and we seem to be just running on the parks. Do we really need to have a park opening on every park? It's, I think, can we save the funds up and spend some more funds in our parks or on our major events? Because to me, ice creams and face painting is, yeah, virtually had its day, and perhaps we can just start being a bit more economical with this. People are screaming at us, you know, we're wasting our money, we're spending our money on things we shouldn't be spending money on. There's some real serious things I believe we should be spending on, but things like park openings and small events.

Can we please really seriously think about cutting back on them so that we can just show— Our community, that we really are taking this seriously and cutting back and saving funds for the council.

What's an example of the smaller event you're talking about, Councillor?

I was up at one at Church Street the other day. I don't know how many; that was already had been opened previously. It was an upgrade. There was, yeah, quite a few people there. I spoke to some people. A lot of them came from one family, I think came from Penrith for Play in Our Park. Are we going to keep this for our people? That's where I'm coming from. And just small events like that, do we need to go overboard with it? Just have our councillors come along, cut the ribbon, wish the kids all the best, and let's get on with the business of running the council rather than putting a party on all the time.

Okay. Thank you.

Any further discussion? Deputy Mayor . Thank you

Just very brief comments. I want to applaud the staff for the strategy. I know how much work goes into these documents, and I think that that's a wonderful thing. I think the council's current event program on page 23 and 24 is a remarkable example of how much work our staff do. And for people who have been to our major events, the buzz, the community feels, and the atmosphere is amazing. And I think when people so heavily criticise our council and say so many negative things about us and our decisions, these are the things that really bring people back to seeing what council does for the community. Even though I'm going to be supporting the item, I did want to put again on the public record my little protest against having Savor the Flavour and Light Up Windsor only once every two years.

I believe that they should be annual events, and I think when Savor the Flavour is not on this year, I think that's the cycle we're on, people are going to miss that, because I know that when Light Up Windsor wasn't on last year, I had a lot of people coming up to me asking about when council was going to do the event. So I think that those things are going to be missed, and I think that the funds that we didn't spend on having those events yearly, in my mind, was a poor decision. They are just such amazing events, and I do want to give credit and thanks to our events team. They put on such a wonderful event every single time, whether it's small scale or large scale. Even the International Women's Day here the other day, an example of our smaller events.

Where people are just buzzing and people afterwards just send me messages on my phone that it's just so much fun. It's such a positive environment and as I said, whether it's big or small, we really are. Our events team go above and beyond. We cannot fault their hard work. I did just want to bring into focus the School Leadership Program and as people would recall, that was something I bought in a Notice of Motion I brought in many years ago. But the staff were the ones who wrote that program and it's an amazing program. The only question I have is how are we going to get more schools to engage? And I know I've spoken to the manager of communications and events about that because the schools that come are just so excited to be here.

They absolutely love it. Their kids' eyes light up. They have the best time, the best experience. I don't know what else we can do to advocate to our local schools about how worthy this program is that they participate. I spoke to teachers last time who said their school calendars are just so full and they don't know how to put it into their own school calendar. I don't know what we can do about that. I just wanted to put on the record that it is such an amazing program. I don't want to lose it, but I just want to get more schools here because it is so much fun for the children and so educational as well. Thank you. That's all I wanted to say. I'll be supporting it, but gosh, I wish those other two events were yearly.

Thank you.

Thanks, Deputy Mayor. Councillor Cotlass.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just want to say that while I kind of understand where Councillor Ryan's coming from about the, you know, frequent small celebrations of success, that can be kind of misconstrued as possibly being, you know, a little wasteful possibly. But when you have, when you need, when you're— Objectives, or one of your objectives, is to bring people together and to celebrate things. Sometimes it's good to celebrate just the small things, and connection is good no matter at what scale it's at. And I think that I was under the impression that those small celebrations of park openings, et cetera, weren't that much of a drag on our funding. So I just kind of just wanted to mention that, that I have a little bit of a different perspective on that.

I think we should celebrate those sorts of achievements. It's good for the staff to be able to be acknowledged for their work. I have to say that whilst this business paper was a cracker, and I feel a bit like I'm going to have to go to the optometrist to get new glasses, this was an absolute pleasure to read. It was really well done. Like the Deputy Mayor said, I mean, our events team have really kicked some fabulous goals on this, and so I commend you on this. It was really, really easy to read, brilliantly set out. Yeah, well done. That's me. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

Councillors, with the events , I've spent quite a bit of time where we've got tents and stuff with our staff, and to listen to the comments that come in from the people that come for different reasons to the tent or to seek information from our staff. And I suspect most of the time, they , they're people that feel, I guess, as though they're not part of the community, as though they, you know, that we don't, why are we speaking to them, Atte. You know, they feel privileged to be able to come and speak to the staff, who answer their requests with clarity. So the events and the support we get from the community in that regard, you can't buy. In all the places that I've been, I have not heard one person amongst the thousands that have come up and bagged the council.

So in different places that might happen, but it doesn't happen with the events and stuff that's happening. Taken on board Councillor Ryan's comments. I don't know how much it costs for smaller events like park opening, but again , why there's only a few people there, I guess it depends where it's at. There was one at McGrath Hill 18 months ago. I'm guessing there's 60 people there. One at South Windsor the other day, I know there might have been 50. One might have expected a bit more at South Windsor. But there's been a bit of work in that, but there was cages up around the place until a week before. We hadn't had rain. It was dry. It had only rained a couple of days before, and the place looked a dream.

The week before, it was a nightmare. And I know the staff worked really hard to accommodate that, you know. So, and in relation to the costing, I know the staff are involved in matters now that relate to this document we've got to look at minimising costs and expanding on the ideas to involve the community and the activities that we're involved in . And what's been proposed here is we support a document that is ongoing. The staff are reflecting and reacting to the community wills and needs in relation to a budget that we've cut . I think they're doing a great job, and they're certainly mindful of the costs, as we are with this and other projects of Council. But there's a cost-benefit ratio, and I think what's been happening here is certainly in our favour.

Thank you.

Councillor Creed. Thanks, Mr Mayor. Thanks to the staff for putting this together. I do actually echo the Deputy Mayor's comments about the two events that we've ended up going biennial, and I was against that at the time. I understand why we did it and all this sort of stuff, but I just draw people's attention to page 30 of the actual strategy. I just found it a little bit ironic that the response that we had for the people for the Hawkesbury, the two events that we've cut and gone to biennial are the two biggest events for people from the Hawkesbury, and the two we've kept every year are the lowest amount. I just thought that was an interesting bit of data, that's all. I understand that's with the sticky bits and the postage to do.

I just, I looked at it and I just went, Oh, that's interesting. But I have to say it's well presented, it's easy to read. Thank you for doing this. And I have to concur, I've been to a couple of the park openings now, the little ones, and I understand Councillor Ryan's point of view, but it is a nice little, you know, celebration of something for the locals to come and enjoy. You know, do we need as many? You know, that's something up for the staff to discuss. But I have to admit, I think the locals do enjoy it when we open up a new little park for them and all that sort of stuff. But, you know, again, we are watching what we do when it comes to finances and all that sort of stuff. We're trying to, but I think this strategy is a good one.

And thank you to the staff for the work they've put into it. But yeah, I just, I thought that was an interesting piece of data, that's all. Thanks.

Councillor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a question through you, please. Is there an expectation when we open parks through federal funding and state funding that the members expect an opening and a park ceremony and breaking the ribbons, etc.? And if they do, are they contributing? Up to the events. Well, maybe they should, but yeah, do they expect it? Thank you.

Through you, Mr Mayor, yes, it's usually a condition of our grant funding from federal or state

Bodies. So on that reason, now we know why we do the park opening. Thank you very much for answering the question.

Councillor Cotlass

Just, yes, just a question if I may. The data that Councillor Creed was just talking about, my understanding was that those two events were chosen because they were the biggest and the most expensive, and that's why they're the most attended. So whilst that's an interesting statistic, that was the reason that we had to cut those particular events. We didn't cut them because they were most popular. Because

They were— No, I said that. Yeah

Sorry, I wasn't clear what you were saying. Thank you.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'm speaking for the motion. I think we should note that Light Up Windsor seemed to work reasonably well without us last year, and that originally the plan for Light Up, for Council taking over Light Up was that we would get it to the stage where the community could run it, where those business groups could run it, and perhaps that's something that we need to revisit. The idea was always that we would get it to that standard and hand it over, and that then would allow us to run Save the Flavour every year, which has the advantage of being in a different town centre. I mean, if we're going to talk about, if we don't get the SRV, this is one of the places that we're going to be looking at for cost savings.

And so I think we have to be quite clear about what we're trying to achieve and why we're doing this. And I think that those small town events, park openings and things, have an advantage in that they are close touch points with communities that we're not often in. Our staff have done a whole lot of training around dealing with homeless people and people with various other issues in front of house spaces. And one of the programs that they've worked on talks about pennies in the cup for dealing with people who are angry or not behaving particularly well or something in a space. And I think that these smaller events are probably worth more from a pennies in the cup perspective than our larger events are.

What does come out clearly, though, in this report is a real need to shift one of these events west of the river. And I think we genuinely need to consider that. Hawkesbury Fest, I think, seems a doable event to move. It's probably an event that could occur, and I mentioned this last time we revisited the events program, an event that could move to different locations. There's two other things in here that I think are really important that we shouldn't lose sight of around the entertainment side of these events. One is the sustainable events policy. We're still navigating our way through getting plastic out of these events. I think COVID set us back significantly, but we really need to be pushing forward on not making these events so full of single-use plastic and waste that ends up in landfill that could either be composted or recycled .

The other issue is accessibility, and I know that there's large sections on both of these in this document. Accessibility needs to be the first thing that we think about, not the thing that we add in order to tick some boxes. And it's, I think it's very important that when people with access issues are trying to get information about an event, they can find that information really quickly and easily. It needs to be within the first three clicks, that information, because as much as it's easy for us to navigate through three layers of a website, it's much more difficult for someone who's visually impaired or motor neuron impaired or something like that. So I'm pleased to see that they are listed as considerations.

They need to be very, very high up in all of our considerations, though. And one of the issues that we have with our events is that many of them occur in a park on grass, and for people with mobility issues, that can be quite challenging . Councillor Creed's comments about the two big events we've cut, I think it's worth noting, and I did at the time, that the event that costs a lot, that attracts fewer people and results in a lower spend in the LGA is actually Australia Day. So if we're using this as a bang for buck for both our businesses and our residents, then That event that we are so wedded to is actually the one that provides the least. Thanks. Thanks

For that, Councillor. Any further discussion? Councillor Ryan, would

I reply? Thank you, Mr Mayor. My comments in relation to the smaller events, I can see that, yes, they do have great value to the community. But I'm asking, can we cut back on the things provided? Because I have a great affinity with the school leadership, and I think that's something we really have to push harder and to get these schools involved and invest more money in the school leadership so that we get them here. And that's probably, to me, is better than face painting and donuts and ice cream. Okay, we can still have some of that, but I think we should also limit it and to get these real events that really have long-lasting qualities. There are more community events that are coming up before us, and I personally feel if you let the community develop and run the event themselves and just afford them the funds to start it and run it is probably the best way.

And there I come back down to we have to have the funds put in the right place. So I will support this issue, but I will really like to see us moving towards the issues, the matters that I raised in relation to funding what I feel are the real important things in this. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor

The motion is the recommendation. Those in favour?

It's unanimous. That's Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash, Creed, Veigel. Reardon and Sheather. Those against? The motion is carried. Thank you, Councillors. The next item is 9.5.2, Western Sydney Infrastructure Grants Program.

Move that, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm pleased to see— Sorry. Councillor Creed. Sorry . Okay, sorry. I'm pleased to see this at the stage that it is at. We did, I think we did have a briefing on this, while briefings were still allowed , and we went through quite a bit. I have had some positive feedback and wish to thank Leanne for the engagement with the Disability Committee to look at some issues that I believe they raised to do with this plan, which of course gives us a better outcome for people with disabilities who will be accessing the centre. I really look forward to seeing this, as was just said in the around events. Sometimes west of the river people, we folk over there feel a little left out from the events and from the facilities and services.

And to see this community centre being upgraded to a new level that can be used, it is a centre with its current programs that really engages the youth of the area, and that's so vital, particularly in an area like North Richmond where you have quite a lot of young families, and they do a wonderful job. Seniors, everybody from, you know, birth upwards can access programs in that community centre. So it's going to be greatly valued by the community. I think it's a great plan. I think it'll work well. I'll look forward to the day when we see the whole lot delivered, when more funds become available. I don't think we need to add on three metres of building anywhere. I think it's just fine as it is.

So I appreciate the work that's been done. I think it's a good plan. I think it's going to be a wonderful hub for the community of North Richmond.

Councillor Reardon.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm also very supportive of this project, and I think the library will be a wonderful asset for people west of the river.

Thank you.

Further discussion? Right of reply was Councillor Buckett

Not necessary, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. Was there a question, Councillor

No

I like that pre-emption. The vote's— sorry, the motion is the recommendation in the business paper. Those in favour?

It's unanimous. Those against? It's carried. It was Councillor Zamprogno, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlas-Creed, Veigel, Reardon and Sheather. Those against? It's carried

The next item is 9.5.3, Quarter Capital Works Project. Councillor McMahon.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I am declaring a less than significant non-pecuniary interest. The Hawkesbury Fire Control Centre is mentioned, and I am a member of the Hawkesbury Communications Rural Fire Brigade, but there is no pecuniary interest and I'll stay in the item. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks

Mr Mayor. I have a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in item 9.5.3. I'm a member of the New South Wales RFS. My son is a member of Wilberforce Brigade, the New South Wales RFS. The reason for no further action is that it does not meet the threshold for significance.

Thank you, Councillor. I need a motion, Councillor. Councillor Creed. Yeah, I'll move it. Thank you. But I also have a question. Seconder? Councillor Veigel.

Your question

Councillor. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just want to ask the question. So in the attachment we've got , second last page, details of project variation requests with their outcomes are presented in the table below. Wilga 308 turned below and an amenities upgrades. It's got status approved. My understanding it was out of public exhibition. It was due to come back to Council. What's the— I'm just confused on the approved bit, that's all. Could you just explain? Sorry

Thanks. Through you, Mr Mayor, that table relates to the contingency requests that we have made to the State Government. So the approved refers to our request for the release of contingency has been approved by the State Government.

And so the rest of them, so the North Richmond Community Precinct and Fernadale— not Fernadale, where is it? The wayfinding signage, adjustment to milestone payments, and the Oasis Aquatic and Leisure Centre. That's all just to do with the— The same thing.

Through you, Mr Mayor. So the, my apologies, I was referring to the second table on that page. So the table I believe you're referring to, which are the variation requests. Yep. Yep. So they're where we have either varied scope to descope to fit the project within funding. We've then made that request to the funding body to vary that scope. And where that's been approved, that's noted in that table. Where it is still pending, for instance with North Richmond Community Precinct and the wayfinding and oasis and aquatic, that's still with the department awaiting their determination. Okay. Thank you.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Just three quick questions, if I may. When is Woodbury Reserve likely to be fully open again?

Woodbury

Woodbury Reserve?

Through you, Mr Mayor, the details are not in the business paper. I'll have to take that on notice, the current construction program.

I couldn't quite see a date. There's some detail about what's closing when, but I couldn't quite see a date.

27, I think.

Will the Rickerby's Creek cycleway we had that out on public exhibition, is that coming back to council with those comments?

Through you, Mr Mayor, no. So council resolved to endorse the concept. We then use detailed responses to the public exhibition as a catch-all to inform detailed design.

Could we see those comments outside of the meeting cycle?

Through you, Mr Mayor. Yeah, I'm sure we can facilitate that.

And when is the furniture likely to appear in Thompson Square? We've had, I think, two new businesses open in the last couple of weeks, both food businesses, somewhere for customers to sit with some shade would be great.

Through you, Mr Mayor, my recollection, I'll confirm the details, was that the delivery was towards the end of this month, but I'll confirm that in detail on notice.

I've got a question, and I apologise for, at the Sports Council meeting last night when I was looking at the financial program, the capital works program 25 and 10-year plan, there's only two projects that we've got in our capital works program, but there's others that they've got programmed in. How are we going to, and some of them will be ours to do because it's to do with lighting, they're programmed and financed them . But they're not listed in our works program. Are they proposed to come into them, or what's the process there?

I was about to say through you, Mr Mayor. In answer to your question, Mr Mayor, for this current financial year, yeah, I need the details of those to understand where they fit in our program and when they would appear in the report.

Okay , I've asked them to forward to you for that assessment. I just wonder on the process. Thank you.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just a question regarding the AGRN 1212, is that what it's called? Is that money that we've got through that funding, is that adequate for the repairs? It says there's $15 million across 150 projects. Is that sufficient to do that, or do we have to put in money for that?

Through you, Mr Mayor, I'm not aware of any claim which has been denied by the reconstruction authority. So as far as I'm, or the advice that I've received is that everything that we've claimed, we've been approved for.

Further debate? Sorry, just— yep, if you don't mind. I've just got two questions. One is just to do with Grossvale Road. You're currently reviewing the concept designs with construction due to commence mid-2026. It says $7 million. What's the length? Is there a certain length, or is it just certain sections that we're looking at doing, or— sorry.

Through you, Mr Mayor, this is in relation to the infrastructure recovery works. Yeah. So that is specific sections that were impacted by those two events. Yeah. I can get the details of exactly where they are on Grossvale Road for you. Yeah, if you can send it to the

Councillors, that'd be great, thank you. And just while we're on this, I haven't seen anything mentioned in it, but I'm getting a lot of questions about, and I'm happy for you to take it on notice, about Francis Street in Richmond and what is going on with that. So I'm happy just to take it offline and get an email to all councillors if we can just get an update, if you can't do it.

Yeah, through you, Mr Mayor, Sydney Water's contractors are still working in Francis Street. Yeah. As early, or as recently as today, we've requested an updated construction program from them with dates, anticipated completion dates. We haven't yet received that. Sydney Water and Council agreed to full, or to restorations where they're— Impacts on the road for specific, or to a specification which includes a metre either side of the trench for pavement restorations and a full lane width or a centre of lane to centre of lane wearing course replacement for the full length of the pipeline. Those full restorations won't occur until Sydney Water is satisfied with the works undertaken by BMD and the mains have been commissioned. At that point they'll do the full restorations, the temporary restorations up until that point. Okay,

Thank you.

Do we know when the time is likely to be? A piece of string. Piece of string . Okay. Any further debate? Right of reply, Councillor Creed?

Not necessary.

Thank you. The matter before us is 9.5.3, the recommendations in the business paper. Those in favour?

Those against? It's carried unanimously. Councillors Zamprogno, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash-Creed, Veigel, Reardon and Sheather. The motion is carried. Unappended

Right.

Response to questions. Yeah, yeah. The next item is 10.1.1. Councillor Brog, you asked that to be withdrawn from block. I had, and

Thank you for allowing me to do that. I've sent a form of words through to staff. I'll bring that up onto the screen and seek a seconder, and then explain myself.

That's a good one.

All right then, so this is basically to accept the recommendations because it's just the local traffic report and we're receiving and noting, but I've put a couple of other action items there based on what's actually considered in the local traffic report. Will somebody second that so I can

Speak to that? Councillor Veigel.

I thank Councillor Veigel. I'll stand up. All right then. I've been fighting for many years for improvements to the pedestrian and traffic safety around Oakville Public School. I'm proud to say this was the school that I attended, that my son attended, that my sister attended, and now my two nephews are attending right now. I draw your attention to page 119 in our business paper tonight that shows the catchment area of Oakville Public School, and you'll see that at the moment the catchment of that school extends deep into the area east of Boundary Road into the suburb of the Gables, and the school is heavily burdened by an influx of students from Hills LGA. And not only that, it is turned into something of a transport hub, and many students that aren't Oakville Public School students come and go, and there's, you know, long queues of buses and— Oakville Road and Ogden Road can scarcely cope.

So I've long identified the need for there to be improvements. The fact that this has come up in this meeting of the Local Traffic Committee means that I would be very negligent if I didn't take the opportunity to draw your attention to this and to ask for some small action, which would be taken very gratefully as a token of our intent towards this heavily burdened school. I'd also like to recognise the role of Councillor Creed on our Local Traffic Committee and the continued advocacy of Oakville Public School's outgoing Principal Sean Montgomery, its incoming Principal Alana Cassidy, its outgoing P&C President Jane Soper, and its incoming P&C President Lisa Macklin. I spoke to the new Principal, Alana Cassidy, this afternoon and have her blessing to bring this to your attention this evening.

I had hoped that there would be a speaker to this, but they didn't get somebody registered in time. Now, what's in the minutes of the Local Traffic Committee is a program of proposed works that I'm really excited about. To finally see costings attached to a variety of works, some of which are funded and some of which are not funded, is vastly overdue. There are improvements to the intersection of Ogden, Oakville, Hankel Road that are funded with federal black spot funding, and that's fantastic. But there are also footpath works, extensions to bus bays, kerbing, and other works that are not funded. And all I am seeking... Through these additional dot points is that we receive a note, the broader local traffic committee, that we as a chamber recognise the desire of the Acton Public School community to see these improvements to pedestrian and vehicle safety, because it's becoming quite dire around that school, and that we give some priority , if any emphasis were needed, but that we do give some priority to seeking a source of grant funding now that these engineering diagrams are complete and the project is, as our director of infrastructure says, shovel ready.

The last thing that I'd love for us to do, and this is the stretch, is to ask you whether you're prepared to direct staff to allow the footpath works only to be further refined and presented for our contemplation at the next round of our capital works program and budget. And I think this would give some comfort to the Acton Public School community that we're not leaving them high and dry with exhaustively planned works but absolutely no money to execute. In the meantime, we may seek those grant funds, and we could have this money repaid. And if we try and put it onto a future revision of our capital works program and that budget , it may be that we've secured funding by then. But in the meantime, this allows staff to refine the relative priority, since we were talking about our priority matrix, and then coming back to us with that information.

Thank you.

Through you, General Manager. In relation to public facilities like schools, what— Commitment does the state give in relation to kerb and gutter, footpaths, driveways, bus stops, that sort of thing?

When I say consideration, I'm talking about finance.

Through you, Mr Mayor, they do tend to lend themselves neatly to the occasion. Grant program. There, to the best of my knowledge, not any directly attributable sources from the New South Wales Government. I know certainly examples of P &C, P&F committees raising funds for those types of improvements. I might just throw my Director of Infrastructure Services a question just to just double check that I'm on the right path there, though.

Just further to that, the catchment area of the school, does it include Stage Vineyard Stage 1? And is part of any voluntary agreement or otherwise, can that be related to things like schools and infrastructure in that regard?

Through you, Mr. Ald. I'll clarify or confirm the comments to the General Manager that generally funding for infrastructure around schools are through specific grants programs from time to time. I'm not aware off the top of my head of any at the moment, but trust me when I say that I have a very keen team who is well across what grant opportunities are out there at the moment. To the question of what's included in the contributions plan, I might defer that to Acting Director of City Planning.

Through you, Mr. Mayor. I think I'll have to take that question on notice in relation to specifics concerning the contributions plan. However , as a general proposition, I would submit that the contributions plan would be essentially limited to future works that extend beyond the area of the school itself and provide A more broader benefit to the community and/or the area that is subject to the relevant planning proposal, for example.

Thank you.

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. And here I was hoping I was going home without an argument. Nevertheless, you have just admitted, Councillor, you have family members at a school you want to spend public money on. You have family members at a school you want to spend public money on. I don't apologise

For that.

We're not going to debate amongst councillors here. Thank you.

I've just made my point twice, and I want it on the public record. Next, I'm not sure if you quite grasp the hypocrisy of your request to prioritise a pet project that you've advocated for on your group, hence why you don't want to be embarrassed for it not to go through because you've publicly advocated for it. The hypocrisy of not supporting an SRV yet wanting us tonight to put your pet projects as a further priority in our budget program. It absolutely gobsmacks me that you can sit here and not support an increase in our budget for infrastructure such as this, but you want us to make an exception when you demand that we make an exception. Now , I wanted to make it very clear to Oakville Public School, you are a great school, and whatever I've just said does not mean that you don't have needs that need to be met.

However, I don't like that an elected representative and a politician is trying to use this pathway to ensure that he's not humiliated by a rejected outcome tonight because of what he has put so publicly on his page. And might I just say— That that Oakville page, and my comments here tonight, better not damn well open me up for an attack on that page tomorrow, because your page, the Oakville Group, administered by you, has become a ground for hatred, for vilification, and some of the most disgraceful discourse in this community, and you are allowing that as an admin .

Councillor, we need to keep this subject. If there's an issue, we need to take it up in another place.

I have nothing further to say. I've made my points. I think it's hypocritical. I want, again on the record, that Oakville Public School is an amazing school, but this is not the method to get the funding required. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

I agree wholeheartedly with what the Deputy Mayor just said. I am really, really disgusted that you think that you can advocate your school that you went to and your family went to in such a way. You distort our priority matrix and the processes that we discussed when we last discussed this, how we actually arrive at how we spend scarce public money. We have to be confident that we spend public money in the best possible way to the areas of our community that are in most need. You have not given us Any compelling evidence, other than this is your patch, I find that so unacceptable and so such . I just don't understand why you don't get it. We are all, each one of us is elected to do the very best we can for the 67,200 and whatever people we have in this LGA, and this is not the way to do it. This is pandering to your pet project is something that I'm just not going to address.

As the Deputy Mayor said, this has got nothing to do with the Oakville School, and this has everything to do with how one of our councillors thinks that it's a good way to roll. I just cannot believe

What other people's

Councillor, if he hasn't got the message, there's something wrong.

I

Think we need to keep to the item we're talking about, and that's— We're talking about I know what we're talking about. An item

That has been brought up

I don't want to argue with you, Councillor. We talked to the subject before us. Why?

What did I say that wasn't the

Subject matter? Well, I won't make a statement, Councillor. Just take my word for it, we need to stick to the item.

Okay.

Thank you.

What I will say is that, and the staff can take this on notice if they want this question, are there any other schools that might be in as much need as Oakville? And if they are— How do we progress them getting a slice of this public money? I'm just trying to point out how gobsmackingly unfair this is, and it just—

Playing to your base is one thing, but this is so outrageously blatant. I'm really, really disappointed .

Thank you, Councillor. I

Won't go on because you'll, you know, I'll repeat myself. Thank you

Councillor Lonesbucket. Thank you, Councillor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll probably move a procedural motion to have this heard in seriatim. Similar to what Councillor Kotlash just raised, I couldn't possibly prioritise one school without any other information of what other schools also are requiring. I know the Deputy Mayor and I were both contacted about Kurrajong North School and an issue there. I've been contacted about footpath in the North Richmond School area. I'm sure there's all schools that have that, and I do echo the sentiments that it does come across as extremely self-interested to come in and purport that the school that you went to should get some sort of special treatment. I would like to see, we also, to have certain footpath works decided upon on the fly for the budget without that information before us is also not a suitable way to be making a decision.

We will get the information on the budget as we look more into the operational plan coming forward . I'm happy to recognise that Oakville Public School has a desire to have footpaths. I think all schools want more improvements. All schools want safer access for their kids to be dropped off and picked up. Many of those issues, I believe, my personal opinion is that the Department of Education should be involved and assisting in that way. We know that schools like Oakville, of course, are in growing areas, so they're getting increasing populations, and they may require upgrades. But there are also areas that get various significant contributions that go along with having the development, and we'll probably see a lot more development in Oakville and the schools will grow bigger and things will adjust as that goes on.

So, Mr Mayor, I will— But wait till the debate concludes on this, and I will raise a procedural motion to have those things heard separately.

Thank you, Councillor. If I might offer a direction, I'm prepared to accept an amendment, which is a recommendation in the business paper, rather than debate the matters before us.

Councillor Beard.

Madam Mayor

I understand Maroota School is similarly affected as students from the Hills also go to Maraylya, and they're having similar problems.

That's true. Thank you.

All right, Mr Mayor, I'll move an amendment to the recommendation in the business paper. Do we

Have— Councillor Kotlash.

Councillor Zen Brogner. I'll be speaking against the amendment for the following reasons. I want to point out to the Chamber that the Local Traffic Committee has already endorsed the necessity of these works. The report that came to the Local Traffic Committee resolved that the proposed works along Oakville and Ogden Roads, outlined in attachments one through four, be endorsed. So by us accepting the minutes of that Local Traffic Committee, we also are accepting the objective need. It is not a pet project of mine. I am simply pointing out to the Chamber that this is the first time in years that the particular needs of this particular school and its community have come to the Chamber, and I'm very pleased that that's the case.

There are 21 public primary schools in the Hawkesbury, and I support each and every one of them. But it is outrageous to suggest that on the rare occasion that a particular school's needs have come to the chamber, have been through an exhaustive process of engineering and feasibility, as that it would be unacceptable for any councillor, even a councillor that happens to have a family connection with the school, would dare suggest that we fund it. Because we're not in the business of simply generating engineering reports and then never funding it. I think the community expects us to advocate for funding of things, not because we play favourites. And I might point out to the Deputy Mayor that the code of conduct clearly states that it is not prohibited for any councillor to advocate for any issue simply because I pay a fee or charge, or that a member of my school, a member of my family, goes to a particular school.

So it's a complete non-starter and as a lawyer, she should know better.

Yeah, point of order, Mr. Mayor. I will not. That's personal vilification. It's not allowed in this chamber.

I think the Deputy Mayor is entitled to her opinion.

I think the Mayor will rule on it. Since you're not sitting in the chair, Councillor, I've made a point of order, Mr. Mayor. That's personal vilification. At the start of the meeting, it's read out that that's not allowed. What

Was the wording that you— You

Didn't hear it?

Sorry?

You didn't hear him?

No.

Were you not listening?

The Deputy Mayor, as a lawyer, should know better.

No. He

Needs to retract that statement, Mr Mayor.

I didn't hear what exactly the wording that was offensive to you.

That's offensive that as a lawyer I should know better. He's insulted me as a human being. He's insulted me for my qualifications and my employment.

Councillor, I suggest you retract that comment

No, no, no, I'll certainly do so. In the Deputy Mayor's case, despite the fact that she is a lawyer, clearly she doesn't know better.

Oh, come on, Mr Mayor, point of order, that's even worse. I withdraw.

I withdraw. The last point that I'll make— Councillor , you were saying you— I withdraw. Thank you. The last point that I'll make is this. The motion that I proposed didn't say that we would pledge the funds and wire it into our budget. It simply asked that Council recognises the gesture of this Chamber to do the relative prioritisation exercise within our matrix and then present that at a future revision of our capital works program and its budget. That's not playing favourites. That's using the process. That's asking for our staff to go away and to say there are many competing needs, not just among the 21 primary schools around the district, but across the entire Hawkesbury district, and this is where we think that it sits within that priority matrix.

I was suggesting that in the absence of my motion, even that process would not occur. Okay? And I think that the community of Oakville would be very interested and engaged to— Know what the views of various people around this table is, and I can assure you they will know.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just a point of order there, because Councillor Prognow has just said exactly what I said he would do in my speech, and that is going to publicly tomorrow on his page that he administers vilify his colleagues. He's just basically admitted that, and I want that on the record that he said that. And when that happens tomorrow, I'm going to be bringing it to your attention, what he allows on his page, because he's just openly admitted that he's going to engage in vilification.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, I look forward to some other piece of vilification on the Oakville page because really they've spent quite a lot of time on me lately. So I'm sure they'll be keen to talk about something else.

Seems like you're sharing, Councillor.

Yes, I'm in that sort of mood, Mr Mayor. Just a couple of questions, if I may. Where does this project currently sit in the priority list? I'm sure it must be in there somewhere, or we wouldn't be sending it to the Traffic Committee. So clearly it's on the list.

Good question, Councillor.

Can we get some information about where and why, I guess, it's where it is?

Through you, Mr Mayor, it's not correct to say that it necessarily sits in the priority list because it's been through Traffic Committee. Sorry. I won't lift it up. Don will get mad with me. What was I saying? It isn't necessarily the case that because it's been to Traffic Committee that it sits on the priority list. These are often driven out of engagement with the school by our road safety officer, and it is a precursor step to looking at the technical merit. So the Traffic Committee doesn't endorse the need. It looks at the technical merit and endorses the technical merit compliance with standards, et cetera, of the proposal. That is generally a necessary step prior to seeking grant funding from one of the aforementioned grant programs as and when they come along, and we want them to be shovel ready because generally we've got short timeframes with which to submit applications.

So, in answer to your question, it isn't, as far as I know, although I will check. It doesn't currently sit on a priority list per se. It would sit on our unfunded list, and as and when we review that list from time to time, we would assess it against funded projects. I'd repeat my advice to, or my previous advice to councillors, in that renewal of assets is our primary focus and should be our primary focus for financial sustainability.

Deputy Mayor.

I just have a question, please, Mr Mayor. Yes . Should the Chamber have voted on this tonight to approve it, what project would have been lost for this one to replace it? I mean, that's probably something you can't answer, but there would clearly be something. I guess, could you confirm there would have to be something else that would have to drop off the list for this one to take place, replacement?

Through you, Mr Mayor, the current capital works program for 2026-2027 is fully committed. So, consideration of any project which currently isn't on that draft program would mean necessarily, unless there was some other funding source that we're unaware of, that another project would have to come off that list.

Councillor Wheeler, question?

Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor. Just a further question. It seems to me that, in addition to the Plackspot funding that has already been, that we're in the process of receiving for the island Ogden Road, at the Alden Road intersection, that it seems we're looking at an additional $930,000 to complete the three additional stages of these works. Is that correct?

Through you, Mr Mayor, I haven't done the maths, but quickly in my head that's an approximate figure, yes.

Yep.

So, I think it might be helpful if we had some articulation of how we set the list. I think there's an idea that there is a priority list and that there's a way of getting on the priority list, and I think there's perhaps a view that advocacy is the way you get on the list and that determines your priority. I think it would be really helpful for both councillors and the public to have some articulation of how we apportion that funding. Do we have five or six projects and if we've got $500,000 from a grant, then we pick the one that comes up to $500,000, or are we genuinely looking at the priority, at the need of these sites? Because I don't think anyone debates that there is a need at Oakville.

That area around the school is quite rugged. It's got quite a lot of open drainage and things. It's a difficult prospect to negotiate with small children. So, I don't dispute that there's a need there at all. I think what we need to have, though, is a discussion around how we set our priorities and how we put the very, very limited footpath funding. And let's be really clear, until some of us were elected in 2016, this council hadn't put a penny into increasing the footpath network for two decades. That's what we're trying to fix up. So, when you refuse an SRV, when you refuse funding for capital works projects, you're refusing to fill these needs that come back to bite the community down the track, and that's really what we're seeing at Oakville.

We're seeing an area that now needs more resourcing than it's getting because more people are moving there. I don't think that we doubt the priority of this. What we want, though, I think, is to put that priority in context with the other areas that are crying out for this funding as well.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor

Creed. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Golly gosh, I didn't realise the Local Traffic Committee report would bring so much drama to the Chamber. I think I have to say the Director is right. The Local Traffic Committee is not there to approve or say they're in support of certain events or certain things. It's there to do it based on technicalities and legislation requirements and all that sort of stuff. We don't actually have a view on an event or anything like that, and the staff do a good job putting these together. I understand what Councillor Zamprogno is trying to do. He's trying to advocate for a certain project, but, you know, this was literally just to get it shovel ready so that if there were any grants or anything like that.

So I understand what he's trying to do, but I'm happy to support the amendment, which is the recommendation in the business paper, and then, you know, let's look at other funding. Like, go to the State Government. We've got a State election in 12 months. If you want money, it's a school, it's their department. Like, how about we actually look at other ways of funding it rather than, you know, taking one project off the list or raising rates. Like, we've got them there, so let's use it.

Any further debate?

We've got an amendment before us, which was moved by Councillor Lyons Buckett, and that's the recommendation in the business paper. Those in favour of the recommendation?

Those against? The motion is carried. Councillor Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash, Creed, Veigel, Reardon and Sheather. Those against? Councillor Zambrogno. The motion is carried. Thank you, councillors.

Sorry, the motion now is in the business paper. Those in favour?

Against? It's carried unanimously, which is Councillor Zambrogno, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash, Creed, Veigel, Reardon and Sheather. The motion is carried. The next item is 13.1.1, information.

The rest of the matters are confidential, councillors. There's three matters. There's the

Mayoral minute. We'll leave that to last because the staff need to leave for that. The three matters before us— Move that we go into confidential. Sorry? Move that we go into confidential. First, we need to move whether we deal the three of them in block. That's 14.3. Do that in confidential. Sorry?

We'll just do it in confidential.

Okay. To go into confidential. Moved, Councillor Creed. Councillor Lyons-Buckett seconded it. And Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Those in favour?

Those against?

It's carried unanimously. Councillor.

Okay, Councillors, can we—I have a motion to move back.

Councillor Reardon. Second, Councillor McMahon. Those in favour?

Against? It's carried. Yep.

Thank you, Councillors. In respect of

Item 14.3.1, road reserve lease to Jasbi Kermond Pty Limited as trustee for BP Kermond Trust Unit, whilst in closed session the Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Creed, seconded Councillor Bargel, that: one, Council commence public exhibition and notification of the proposed road reserve lease to Jasbi Kermond Pty Limited as trustee for BP Kermond Unit Trust in regard to the road reserve adjoining Lot 105 in Deposited Plan 1042797, being 501 to 509 Bells Line of Road, Kermond, in accordance with the proposal outlined in the report and as required under Section 154 of the Roads Act. Two, at the expiration of the public notification period outlined in Part 1, the following action should be taken: A, should any submissions be received regarding the proposed lease with Jasbi Kermond Pty Limited as trustee for BP Kermond Unit Trust, a further report be submitted to Council.

B , one, should no submissions be received, Council enter into a new road reserve lease with Jasbi Kermond— Chaspikermont Pty Ltd is trustee for BP Kermond Trust Unit for the road reserve adjoining Lot 105 in Deposited Plan 1042797, being 501-509 Bells Line of Road, Kermond, as outlined in the report. Two, authority be given for any necessary documentation in association with this matter to be executed under the seal of Council. And three, details of Council's resolution be conveyed to the proposed lessee together with the advice that Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of its resolution until such time as the appropriate legal documentation to put such resolution into effect has been agreed to and executed by the parties.

For the motion were Councillors Impragno, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash, Creed, Virgil , Reardon and Sheather.

In respect of item 14. 3.2, lease to OSR Group Pty Ltd, Windsor Function Centre, 7 Dyst Street, Windsor, whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Creed, seconded Councillor Virgil that: one, Council agree to enter into a new lease with OSR Group Pty Ltd for the property known as the Windsor Function Centre, 7 Dyst Street, Windsor, as outlined in the report. Two, authority be given for the lease and any documentation in association with this matter to be executed under the seal of Council. Three, details of Council's resolution be conveyed to the proposed lessee together with the advice that Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of its resolution until such time as the appropriate legal documentation to put such resolution into effect has been agreed to and executed by the parties.

For the motion were Councillors Impragno, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash, Creed, Virgil, Reardon and Sheather.

In respect of item 14.3.3, acquisition of part of 315 Commercial Road, Oakville, whilst in closed session Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Creed, seconded Councillor Veigel, that one, Council undertake the compulsory acquisition under sections 186 and 187 of the Local Government Act, an area as shown in Attachment 2 to this report, in the order of 565.5 square metres, within part of 315 Commercial Road, Oakville, Lot 2 in Deposited Plan 543132, being the proposed Lot 2 in Deposited Plan 1312479 for the purposes of a roundabout and road widening. Two, the Council approve the making of an application to the Minister for Local Government for the issue of a proposed acquisition notice, a PAN, under the Land Acquisition Just Terms Compensation Act 1991 in respect of the acquisition of land.

Three, Council approve the making of an application to the Governor for the publication of an acquisition notice in the New South Wales Government Gazette under the Land Acquisition Just Terms Compensation Act 1991 in respect of the acquisition of the land. Four, Council bear all costs in association with the process of acquiring the land. Five, authority be given for any documentation in association with this matter to be executed under the seal of Council. Five, Council grant delegation to the General Manager to execute any documents on behalf of the Council associated with the compulsory acquisition process which do not require the seal of Council to be affixed. And seven, details of Council's resolution be conveyed to the affected landowner, together with the advice that Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of its resolution until such time as the appropriate documentation to put such a resolution into effect has been executed.

For the motion was Councillors Improgno, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Durick, McMahon, Kotlash, Creed, Weigel, Reardon and Sheather. Mr Mayor.

Thank you, General Manager. In relation to item 7.1.1, Mayoral Minute regarding the renewal of the General Manager's contract,

Whilst in closed session, the Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Zamprogno, seconded by Councillor Veigel, that Council receive and note the Manager's Performance Review results in 24-25 by the General Manager Performance Review Panel; two, receive and note the General Manager's Performance Agreement for the 25-26 financial year, including as attachment one to this report; and three, approve a performance-based increase in the General Manager's annual total remuneration package of 4 percent based on the results against agreed performance measures in 24-25 review. This would bring the General Manager's package to $420,067.44. Further, the TPR will automatically increase by 3.5 to $434,769.80 on the 1st of June 26.

For the motion was Councillors Zamprogno, Sheather, Reardon, Weigel, Kotlash, McMahon, Ryan, Lyons-Buckett and Wheeler. Against the motion was Councillor Creed. Councillor Djuric, the motion was carried.

Councillors, thank you for your attendance tonight and the effort that you put into it. Appreciate it. Thank you very much. Meeting closed.