14 April 2026 - Ordinary

Thank you, Councillors. I start by Hawkesbury City Council acknowledge the Dharug and Dharug people as 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 People of the country. General Manager.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd like to advise that in accordance with clauses 4.2 and 5.3.4 of the Code of Meeting Practice, the Council meeting is recorded in the terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Act. This mainly involves the recording of personal information provided at the time of the forum. The provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary. If any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address the request to address the public forum. 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. The recording may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations. And once again, if you do have your mobile phone on you, can you please either turn it off or turn it to silent. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, General Manager.

We have no official visitors or apologies. Declarations of interest, Councillors?

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I will have interest to declare in items 9.1.2, 9.2.1, 9.3.3 and 11.1.3. Thank you.

Yep, we'll go through that again, Councillor.

9.1.2.

Generally. 9.2.1.

Yep

9.3.3.

And 11.1.3.

Thank you, Councillor. Any other councillors? Councillor Wheeler.

I've got a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in 9.3.3.

9.3. 3. Thank you.

Confirmation of the minutes of the 10th of March.

Councillor Reardon. I'll second.

Councillor Creed

Those in favour?

Against? It's carried unanimously. Councillor Brogno, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Djuric, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Plotnko, Councillor Creed, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Sheather. The motion is carried.

There is no condolences. The Mayoral Minute. Councillors,

I'd move 7.1.1. Councillor Veigel.

Councillors, it's probably going to be a long night, so this is pretty self-explanatory. What we've got is a situation where, how it's come about, I'm not quite sure, but I had contact with the War Widows a couple of weeks ago who sent me some information. Requesting that this go before Council and further directed to other councils for support. I've since spoken to our local member, who is the Opposition for Veteran Affairs, and she's taken it on board as well. What the situation is is that, in the main, the spouse, the male, passes, and the wife, in most cases, is devastated at that time, I guess. And then on top of that, where there was concessions is now then taken away. How they come about, I've got no idea.

And the proposal is that, irrespective whether the spouse passes or not, that that rate concession stays. And it's written here in relation to our city and the feasible cost. I won't get read it; it's all there. You would have read it. But it's minimal. I think it was approximately five thousand dollars, a worthy cause. We're never going to give money away. So, councillors, any further debate? Councillor Veigel. Yeah,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you for the minute.

I'll make this brief. Councillor Veigel. I was going to say before the meeting, there had been discussions during the week, or leading up to this meeting, where it had been requested by the Minister for a standard address Council. I'm suggesting that won't be required any further.

Thank you. Look, I haven't written any—thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you for allowing us to sit down. I think a lot of councils appreciate that. I haven't written any draft on this, but let me just say this, and other people know the numbers a lot better than me. Let's go to the First World War. There was about 67,000 people died on the Western—on, in the Western Front. Another 67 probably died of war trauma, if not casualties after that event. Move forward to the Second World War, same event, Korea, same event, Vietnam. Well, we know the circumstances there, especially the trauma that they received not recognised for a great deal of time after the government of Australia sent them to war, and then we've got Afghanistan, Iraq and everything thereafter.

It's a long time coming, but those who took the pain and their spouse should be looked after in perpetuity, in my opinion. These guys gave their full length of measure by giving their lives, if not their mental ability, if not their physical ability. They gave it up to a nation, which is grateful. They served us for whatever reason, and I thank them for their service, every one of them. And even right up to now, the controversies that have been going through in those last couple of weeks. So yes, I'll be supporting the amendment, and I thank you for bringing it forward, and that's all I'll have to say. Thank you, Councillor

Any further

Debate? Councillor Wheeler.

Thank you. Could I just get some clarification as to what we're actually asking for here? It seems to me that we're supporting an amendment to Section 134 of the Local Government Regulation to expand the concession to include all war widows, and writing to the Minister for Veterans Affairs—for veterans, I'm sorry. We're not actually committing any of Hawkesbury's money at this point. The figures, to me, appear to be what it would cost us if the legislation was changed. Is that correct?

That's correct, Councillor. The reason that they're only asking for this, the section 134 is legislated of what councils can and can't do in relation to offer rebates and the likes, and it's not in there. And they've indicated in the documentation, after my discussion a couple of weeks ago, they went to the trouble of searching records for war widows in the Hawkesbury and come up with these figures.

Thank you. So my understanding, my mother is a war widow and is in receipt of a war widow's pension. She doesn't live in this LGA. She isn't eligible for the rates relief because of the level of pension that she receives.

So my understanding is that people with a TPI level of pension prior to the death of the serving spouse go on to receive the rates relief. Others do not. I think it is an anomaly with most other people on pensions are eligible for the, what we all know to be, a very limited amount of rates relief that hasn't changed in more than 30 years, I think, from the state government. The war widow's pension or the— Is, or

Veterans' pension is a confusing one in that it's not means tested. So some people have really significant assets, and I suspect that by pushing for rates relief across the board, we are going to come up against that as one of the criticisms. I suggest that we also take this—it's a shame we didn't have this earlier. This would have been useful to take to ALGA when we go. We could probably flag that for next year. But I suggest in the interim that we take this to Local Government New South Wales as a motion as well, as well as just writing to the Minister now and adding this: Local Government New South Wales has a policy of pushing for greater pension relief, and perhaps this can be added to that. Thanks.

Yes, thank you, Mr Mayor. Just a question for staff. There's a standing resolution from this chamber concerning looking at a variety of mechanisms that can make rates fairer, and at that time we flagged the pensioner discount as one of the things that could be looked at. Is it safe to say that this might also be on the radar of the report that should be forthcoming from staff about rating fairness, or at least by my suggestion, could this be added? To that work that's already ongoing.

Yeah. General Manager, in relation to that question, that I don't know that we can do it prior to the changes. If you could explain what the situation is, and it can be taken on board.

Thank you. Through you, Mr Mayor. The situation is that this would not be included in that scope, Councillor, simply because at the moment the law doesn't allow it to be. Any further discussion? Before I put— Councillors, our local member has joined us in the audience and has offered to deal with it in the way that she is need to within the parliamentary requirements, and I thank her

For that. Councillors, I'll put the motion. It's on—or part of it's on page 11. Those in favour?

Those against? It's unanimous. It's Councillor Brogden, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Marn, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Creed, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon and Councillor Sheather.

Exception items, which are items 922, 933 ,

942, 943, 944, 945. Yeah

I need to take note

Through throughout. Yeah. Okay. 9.3.3 will be excluded. There's a Councillor to declare an interest in that matter. Would someone like to move that those that I've read out, please? I'll move it, Mr Mayor.

I'll do that, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Reardon, Councillor Creed. Those in favour? Against? Carried unanimously. It's Councillors Zamprogno, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Djuric, McMahon, Councillor Kotlash, Creed, Veigel, Reardon and Sheather. The motion's carried.

The next item is 9.1.1.

Procedural question, please, if I may. Are we doing the items that people spoke on first, as we did last time, the ones for which we had speakers

Could

I move a motion?

Would you like to move that way, Councillor?

Yes, I'd like to move that way, thank you.

And Councillor Veigel has a seconder. Those in favour? Against? Carried.

It's unanimous. Councillors Zamprogno, Councillor Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash, Creed, Veigel, Reardon and Sheather.

I'll put my sheet away.

The first item was 9.1.2

Councillor McMahon.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I have a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in this item. I reside in Renbank, however I am renting and not a homeowner, therefore there is no pecuniary interest and I'll be staying in the item. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thank you. I'll move to defer pending councillors' input into the VPA. Second that, Mr Mayor. So to this point, councillors have had no input into this document. We've simply been presented, along with the public, with everything before us. Normally, we have an option. I know that things are complicated by the fact that we are no longer able to have briefings, but we really need some opportunity to have input into this. It's, for us, a fairly large development. There are some anomalies in this document. I also note that the applicant's representative has been unable to address us and has sent us a lengthy document that we actually haven't had a lot of access to in order to be able to incorporate that.

So before this goes out for public exhibition, I think it would be useful for councillors to have the opportunity to put some information into it. A few of the things that I would like to see amended in the document: there's no mention, for example, of roof colour. So we know that there's a lot of dark roofs in Redbank, which this development will become part of. We've clamped down very heavily on Jacaranda and had them substantially change their roof colouring to reduce

Dark coloured roofs. Another thing that we've got here is a 30% tree cover suggested. We're striving as an LGA to 40%, so we're behind the eight ball with this development from the outset. That shouldn't be acceptable for a greenfield development. And I'm assuming that that 30% tree cover includes the protected Cumberland Plain area that's on the site. So that means that the tree cover in the developed area will actually be lower than that 30%, which, as I said, falls well below our 40% aspiration. I'd like further discussion about the keyline system and the interpretation of that. And I don't know really what interpreting a dam means. There's no addressing of affordability. That just saying that you'd like it to be affordable isn't going to fix things.

Some of the street tree suggestions are really problematic. Hoop pines, for example, grow to 50 metres in height. 1.8 metre trunk diameter, four and a half metres is their usual span. These are not appropriate street trees for a residential development. They belong in a dry rainforest. They drop resin that's used to cement by Indigenous people. No one's going to park under that. They also destroy footpaths and roads. I can't see how the keyline system has been referred to in a good portion of this development. I'd like to see further information about the calculation of the rain gardens, and I'd really like to have a discussion about the loss of old growth trees on Grosvenor Road and areas surrounding Kemsley Park.

There is also insufficient information for councillors to make a decision about the cost of maintaining some of this infrastructure, particularly the cost of maintaining the retaining walls once council takes over the running costs of this development in five years' time. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I support Councillor Wheeler's motion because I, too, did not think that there was sufficient information. This is the first, I believe, this is the first time we saw this, and as the representative isn't here to have asked questions of, I think it's pertinent that we keep this and go back through it. It's a long time since the original Redbank DCP was done and the original VPA, and we in this chamber know that VPAs need to be scrutinised very carefully if they're to deliver into the future what we need for this community. There's some questions that I also had around the inclusion of the dual occupancy for R2, which is currently a prohibited allowance in our LEP. I know there was a special use provision to go in with the planning proposal for this, but I haven't heard if that all proceeded.

That may have been advised to us. We do need to know which works are necessary to be included in the VPA, how they will be covered for the maintenance in years to come once things are—I don't know how much of it is transferred. I know there's some public space that Council is responsible for into the future, and so we really don't have an idea of how much this additional development is going to actually cost the ratepayers of this area into the future. It needs to go further with the DCP. This is a real chance that it could be utilised to improve the sustainability of the area by including certain aspects associated with the development that occurs there. There is no reason why it should just replicate what the current Redbank is.

People might think that's good to fit in, but this was a residual parcel of land. That at the time when the original Redbank approval went ahead, there was great commitments given by the developers at the time that that land was not going to be—when people said, You'll just get that and put more houses, we were told over and over that was not going to happen, and yet here it is. There's various things that we could have in that DCP. Councillor Wheeler alluded to quite a few of them, but particularly around urban heat controls and the controls on the reflective services and surfaces and glazing and heat absorption to do with finishes, colours and materials there. I also had some questions about the tree canopy.

There's nothing in there particularly that is really dealing with encouraging renewables to a higher level, such as around the roof orientation for solar PV. Even to have things designed for the future that people would be moving to that. I'd like—and I hope everyone noted that the report on this included a reference to Novellum, which is the property which is adjacent to where the proposed Kentucky Fried Chicken McDonald's fast food thing is proposed, and that did describe the significance of the P. A. Yeomans Keyline Farm and their heritage significance to this area. So I think if we could go back and look at it, another thing, and I know that street widths—the width of streets have standards, et cetera, and that is how it's done, but at some point with these developments, we're going to either have to decide that people have to have adequate off-site, off-road parking in their properties, or we have to make the streets wider, because there's increasing areas that we drive down where people seem to have their vehicles on steroids, and we have these massive big— HOGs getting around the street that are huge, you have two of those parked one against, and you can't get a bigger vehicle through.

So if we could just go through those things in a workshop perhaps, that would be very good so that we can make sure that because this development is proceeding, that we can do it to be as sustainable into the future as possible.

Any further discussion? Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I don't actually have a problem with deferring that because, with deferring, because I think we could fine-tune this a bit. But I'm sorry, I just can't seem to find it. Are there any time constraints that we need to be aware of before we defer? I'm sorry, I just can't find any information on the timing.

It's really time frame in relation to this with any other. Through you, Mr Mayor, as I understand it, there are no time

Constraints.

Thank you. Thank you.

Councillor Feigl. Through you, Mr Mayor, just a question. So it goes out, it's a draft that goes out for public appraisal, yeah? So if it comes back, is there any reason why we can't make the amendments that have been suggested to the colour of the roofline? Considering West Rock, we discussed this resolution about roof colours in the western Sydney, what, about a year or so ago, and we like colours anyway, and then when it comes to tree planting, all of the thoughts, some of those things would be fairly flexible and easy to remove. When the draft comes back after public comment, could somebody advise me on that, please?

Councillor, I think with the comments that were spoken about, if there was changes in the voluntary agreement to the degree that the councillor spoke of, I think the public would want to make comment on those as well. Through you, General Manager.

Through, Mr Mayor. There are no logistical issues in exhibiting the documents now, taking into account submissions received by the public and making amendments to the documents thereafter. We're dealing with draft documents at the moment, so it's only up until the point of adoption that that might become problematic. However, in saying that, I do note that we're dealing with both the VPA and the DCP, so there might need to be some fine-tuning there when it comes to the recommendation, because the DCP relates to those development standards, or development controls, I should say, that deal with or speak to roof colour, trees and the like, whereas the VPA is more specific to the contributions that would have otherwise been payable and the maintenance of those assets that ultimately pass on to the council as council assets.

Can I ask another question? Thank you, Mr Mayor. Another question on that. It's , is the— I've always thought that it's about if the document changes by more than ten percent or, you know, if there's substantial changes, then it has to go back out for public consultation . Does that apply to VPAs as well as the other things we have, about ten percent?

Through you, Mr Mayor. The VPA is a separate thing to the development control plan. The VPA is an agreement between council and the developer, which is subject to negotiations between the party, irrespective of the changes that are agreed, because ultimately they need to be agreed between the parties. As for the DCP, I'm not aware of any percentile requirement that may limit our ability to make changes and thereafter adopt the document.

Right, okay. I guess I was just thinking about the... You know, if we do have documents that are significantly different, or whatever that benchmark is, that it will hold up the process even more if we don't do this sort of fine tuning now, I guess that's what I was... But it sounds like there isn't any need to worry about that. We just put it out on public exhibition and then change it

In

However we want. So that kind of doesn't make much sense to me, but fine. It's good to know. Thank you.

Is there a question?

The only thing that I might add is the duplication in the public exhibition process. If we were to go to public exhibition now, fine tune the document in the meantime, receive submissions from the public and then further amend the documents, there may be a need to further public exhibit. So logistically, ultimately it's a matter for Council, but it may be worthwhile looking at the documents now before we go to public exhibition and then amend the documents according to those submissions received if necessary at all.

Councillor Zamprogno. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll open with a question. I'd like to quantify the risk or the mechanics of the mechanism that might be available to the developer if we drag our heels and deny, or, you know, this is regarded as a deemed refusal. Does the applicant... Well , I know it's not a DA, but I'm saying if we drag our heels through this process, does the applicant have a mechanism where they can apply to the State Government to have this declared State significant? And if that occurred, would that reduce our agency? In this process, I just want to be educated

Through you, Mr Mayor. To the best of my knowledge, Councillors, I don't believe that the state has the ability to intervene on a voluntary planning agreement. It is an agreement between the parties, and Council ultimately has full discretion there. And to the best of my knowledge, remembering that the state has the final say-so, if you would say, over the rezoning, but not necessarily the development control plan. What you risk if this was to be delayed infinitum is a planning proposal that exists without the accompanying suite of controls that shape that neighbourhood. So that, in my mind, is probably the greater risk there.

All right then. That's useful advice. Thank you very much. I'm happy to support Councillor Wheeler's motion to defer this because I too have many misgivings about the shape of this VPA, and I chafe that we haven't had the opportunity to have more of a contribution to it. And I say that... Of course, nobody around this table would deny that the VPA that was inked with the then developers concerning Redbank was a perfect document. It had many flaws. And if this is a proposal to effectively extend Redbank by another third, this does give us an opportunity to have a look at the VPA that we could ink on this occasion to make sure it doesn't contain those defects. Among the things that I would like a clearer answer to are the fact that under the original Redbank VPA, when monies accumulated for various other purposes, they accumulated in the developer's account, and they had the benefit of earning that interest for years and years and years.

So, for example, the money that was accruing to build the Grose River Bridge, originally budgeted at about $24 million, although who knows how much it will cost eventually, that money has been accumulating in the developer's account, and they had the benefit of the interest thereof. That, I believe, was because the VPA that was inked at that time was weak. And if we'd simply said, well, I mean, there are these necessary expenses that will come up over the life of this development, and if monies need to be allocated to an account, I would be happier if that was our account, and that we were accumulating interest and we have the whip hand. Another thing that I have misgivings about is, I assume, and I'll put this in the form of a question to staff, schedule—okay, so we've got the attachment document, and then in Schedule 5 of the attachment document, which is page 29 of that bundle, it lists the contribution items.

And it doesn't escape my attention that most of the items relating to improvements with this VPA. are things that are necessitated because of the development itself. So footpaths and electric works and other things that relate to the development itself. When the Redbank development went through, there were other improvements that were of a broader benefit to the community. And the Grose River Bridge would be a signal example. However big Redbank is, that's a piece of infrastructure that will benefit the broader community and could be of a value of $30 million and up. So now here we are expanding Redbank potentially by another third. I would look for some similar ratio to be applied for the VPA benefits that would benefit the broader community, and I simply don't see them.

I'm looking at this schedule, and once you've factored out the things that are necessitated by the development itself, there's a sum of $695,000 for capital works in North Richmond, and even there tied in the sense that specific items are mentioned. There's no other broad improvement. But if this was of approximately a third of the scale of Redbank, and we were looking at $30 million pieces of investment, I'm doing very rough math here, I would expect there to be another zero on the broad non-specific improvements that benefit the whole of the community as a chamber. That's the only reason why we'd say yes to this. We're not in the business of lining the pockets of developers. We're here to make good policy that has a halo effect that's of benefit to the broader community, and this VPA just doesn't seem to have it.

And I'd like to know on what basis the quantum of improvements that benefit the broader community, how that was calculated. Because we could all have a stab at how much money the developer registered in Queensland is going to make from this development, and I think it's incumbent on us to be more engaged in that conversation. So for that and many other reasons, I think Councillor Wheeler's suggestion to defer is a good one.

Discussion, Councillors.

Right of reply, Councillor.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'll just be quick. It's important that, I think it's important that we really focus on what we're actually approving at the end of the day. All we have left to us, following the state government's changes to planning in 2018 and then further last year, and we've got some more coming again, is our control of the LEP and the various DCPs that pertain to the development in this LGA. If our only input into the DCP for another, what is to us, a fairly significant development is

Something that's come to us in a business paper and a 15-minute discussion in a council meeting, then we are not meeting our requirements as the custodians of this LGA. We have to have more input into these matters. This development will last a long time. 350, apparently , houses on this site will have a lasting effect on North Richmond and the wider Hawkesbury. It's our job to get the DCP right, not to take what the developer gives us, not to take a document that must say looks like the stuff that's in the business paper looks like it was written by the developer, not by the council, and give it a tick in the box and carry on. We are signing up for ongoing maintenance costs for this site that we don't even know.

So, this, we need to be far better appraised as to what's happening on this site, and we need to have far more input into what this site looks like. The Redbank DCP is more than 10 years old. Planning requirements, BASIX requirements, urban heat, water sensitive design, they've all changed in that time. The residents who are moving to, who will invest their life savings in their homes at Kemsley Park deserve to have properties that should meet the standards of properties in 2026, not the standards from 2013 when the Redbank DCP was inked. This is our one opportunity. So hopefully, we can now have some input. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor, the motion before you this evening is on your screens. Those in favour?

Those against?

The motion is carried. Could I have the hands, the motions for? It's Councillor Stambroglio, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Buckett, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Sheather. And those against were Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor McMahon. The motion is carried. Thank you, Councillors. The next item is item 9.3.1.

Councillor McMahon. Nine

Point

3.1.

Councillor Reardon.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll second it, Mr Mayor. I think it's essential that this recommendation go through. I'll second. And I'd like to thank the McMahon Park Management Association and staff for helping with it, and I look forward to further positive improvements at McMahon Park.

Thank you. The seconder, Councillor. Thank you. Yes

I did second it. I've just got two questions, if I may. The first one is, could I just have what is the actual figure available in the upcoming budget of the 7.12 contribution? I couldn't see it in there. Can someone clarify what would be being spent in the park within the next 12 months?

628.

Through you, Mr Mayor, I don't have the exact number on hand, but there is a figure of 650,000 from the 7.12 reserve, and my recollection is that there's another figure of about 100 or 150,000 from Council's general fund.

That's very encouraging. Is that for the playground and other works , or mainly the playground?

My understanding is playground and fitness equipment. Okay,

Thank you. The other question was, I did just receive an email from Mr Tindale, who spoke, and he sent through, as he had mentioned in his speech, there was a couple of amendments to the plan of management. They actually relate to the description of various buildings on site, and he's just wondering if these changes could be included before the document is sent off. Does that require an amendment to the resolution, or can I just maybe forward those, or I'm sure he's forwarded them as well? Can we have some clarity around that?

Through you, Mr Mayor. Unlike development control plans, with plans of management, once adopted, they are so adopted. So we'd need to go through that whole process again of amending, exhibiting, and then revisiting the plan of management and potentially adopting it. So in circumstances where the minor errors are non-consequential or are insignificant insofar as the general context of the plan of management is concerned, in the absence of making an amendment now, which would require deferral of tonight's matter prior to adoption, it may be worthwhile. Considering adopting and then conducting some housekeeping amendments sometime in the not too distant future, and then going through that process again.

Thank you. The two options are— Extremely minor. It was that the buses are stored in the garage where it's their storage shed, and that instead of them being stored with the sports equipment, the sports equipment is in the storage shed on its own. That was it. That level of amendment would require re-exhibiting, do you believe?

Through you, Mr Mayor. Yes, unfortunately, the Act is worded in a way that once adopted, it is so adopted in its unamended form. So, yeah, even the most minor of amendments would require that process to be recommenced. Okay

That is sort of symbolic of this entire process, isn't it? That level of pedantry, shall we say. Thank you for that. Well, I'm happy to adopt the plan as it is. It's a good plan to assist delivering for the future of the park. I'd also like, as Councillor Reardon has done, to thank the McMahons Park Management Committee for their management of the park, and the community members as well who frequently let me know what's been going on in the park when there's fallen trees or things like that. I understand the frustration associated with this very, very lengthy process. It has been a saga with the various anomalies around the Crown lands once there were the changes to the Crown Lands Act. I did just want to mention, and I'm happy to have that figure clarified around the playground, there's been some sort of questioning around the playground closures, and I just thought I'd take this opportunity to mention, I understand fully that people are missing it, particularly as for so long around there there hasn't been the fitness equipment, but I believe the time frame is six to 12 months to have all that work done, and during a play space audit.

The equipment was found to be unsafe. So it is, as safety is a primary concern, that equipment is currently fenced off. There's still plenty of space to run freely at the park and frolic, if you so wish. But hopefully these works will be done as soon as possible. I hope they are prioritised. It's a beautiful park and it has a lot of potential. So I'm very happy to see that the ongoing Crown Lands issue is resolved and hopefully — oh, that was my last question. How long? Oh, hang on, no, it's all been. That's okay. No worries. All done. It's too exciting for me. Sorry.

Any further debate, councillors?

I'd just like to thank the McMahon Park Committee and the volunteers that they have up there to operate the park. We've always had councillors on that committee up there, and very seldom is there any great concern of issues associated with the park. Well, I can't remember any, actually. And that's because of the dedication of Kurrajong to that, to McMahon's Park. And, yeah . So I support the recommendation. And if there's minor changes, we'll deal with those as quick and as appropriate as we can.

Any further debate, councillors? Councillor Feigel.

Just quickly, just to concur with you, Mr Mayor, I'd just like to recognise— Councillor Reardon and also Councillor Lyons-Buckett, for all those years they put in that park. I remember being on the sports council for many years and they used to get razed, as frustrating as it was, but it was all Crown land, and since I've been on council it was Crown land. But thank you for your putting in and bringing it back to council, because I know you communicated very well to other councils on this plan. Happy days. Let's close it and get on with it. Thank you. Okay

Right of reply, Councillor? Councillor Reardon? Not necessary.

The recommendation is in the business paper. Those in favour?

Against? It's carried unanimously. Councillor Zamprogno, Will, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahon. Kotlash, Creed, Weigel, Reid and Sheather. The motion is carried. The next item is 9.3.2.

I'll move some wording. I've just sent through to the staff. Sorry. I'll move some slightly different wording to the recommendation.

Councillor Creed.

And Councillor Veigel.

Councillor Creed.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll just wait for it to come up for other councillors. I've just slightly changed the recommendation in the business paper. It says, Point 1, Council resolves to locate the issue facility at North Richmond Public School. Two, pursuant to the terms of the Redbank Voluntary Planning Agreement, and having regard to the changed circumstances, site constraints and funding realities outlined in this report, Hawkesbury City Council and New South Wales Department of Education agree on the final value of the works and then allocate the agreed upon monetary value from the contribution in brackets, maximum 1.5 million, and then such amount to be applied exclusively toward the construction of a 60-place out-of-school hours care facility on the grounds of Richmond North Public School.

Number three, implement or enter into an agreement, government's arrangements, memorandum of understanding deed of arrangement agreement or other contractual arrangement with the New South Wales Department of Education to ensure financial risks are adequately managed. Point four, just slightly changed there, just taking out the surplus funds because we've increased the in point two, requires a further report to be submitted to Council following continued engagement with Redbank communities. Such report to detail the outcomes of that engagement and present options for the application of the residual contribution balance toward other social infrastructure priorities consistent with the voluntary planning agreement and the identified needs of the Redbank estate residents.

The reason I've just slightly changed, sorry. Just wait for it to come up. I've just slightly changed the recommendation, just in regards to the total. Rather than just putting a blanket $1 million on it, I think we heard the speakers tonight, and I'm just trying to get a sort of a balanced approach there that would make, that would be manageable for Council, the Department of Education, but also the community, give them confidence that we're serious about doing this and that we're not just going $1 million, that's it, and then the rest can go. I am concerned that with recent events, cost constraints will be an issue for any sort of new buildings and all that sort of stuff. So I'm just trying to get a balance here, but I'm happy to take comments from other councillors if they want to change it or go back to the way they were.

Thanks.

Councillor.

Mr Mayor, I'd just like to say that as we heard from our speakers tonight, the area from which the students are drawn goes right down to Wyer Lane at Freeman's Reach now, and we have new developments in that area. So I'm wondering if the facility is going to be big enough for their future needs.

Through you, General Manager, in the business paper there's an allocation of $1 million, Councillor Greed's indicating 1.5, where the difference has been spent. Is there commitments in other parts?

Sorry, can I just

Clarify what I mean

By the maximum 1.5? It's so that Council is to enter into an agreed price with the Department of New South Wales Education, and that the 1.5 is the ceiling that we don't go— I understand that. That's what I meant, and the 0.5 is coming out of the 800 and whatever it was. That's what I meant. Sorry, just to clear up any confusion.

Yep. General Manager, in the business paper, the contribution that was left over from the million dollars, is there commitments that we've made in relation to those funds already, or not?

Through you, Mr Mayor, no. That is the subject of point 3 recommendation in the business paper, was to have the further report submitted to Council around what to spend the residual amount on.

Thank you.

I just took—

Yep. I just need to clarify it, Councillor.

Councillor.

I'm going to ask a question for clarification. I'm not really sure, really sure I know, understand this. So the motion that's been put on the board has raised the 1 million that we've said we would allocate up to 1.5 million. So another half a million, and then it's capped at that. So what

Is that just a contingency for blowouts in— Costs of the whole project, or does that— I don't quite know how you've come to that 1.5 million, and what specific benefit that will do other than allowing us to have a buffer on price increases, which we don't really have for anything else, and we just seem to have to wear, you know, how markets change, like with fuel, et cetera. So you're not saying that we offer more places, or you're just saying that we need to buffer the cost? Is that—

Sorry, I think I— So what I've asked for is

That—

Sorry, through you, Mr Mayor, answering Councillor Cotlash's question. So the reason why I've just slightly changed it is that we actually get an agreed figure from Department of Education, and the reason I've put the 1.5 in there, because I originally didn't have that, and it was suggested that I put 1.5 in there as a ceiling that we don't go above it in case the Department of Education comes back and goes, Oh no, actually it's going to be 1.2 that it's going to cost. And so that's why I was trying to just put the ceiling in, because my concern is, like the speakers, is that if we just set it at the 1 million, and they come back and say it's 1.2, and then it's delayed, I'm just trying to pre-empt that, but also make sure that we get an agreed price for it. That's all.

Thanks, Councillor. Councillors

In the addendums, which I don't have on my desk, it does indicate what those additional funds may be used for. The money, the contribution is 1.853, that was in 2020. It's just over $2 million now because of interest. It's up to you whether you wish to pursue the motion. Councillor Wheeler. Thank you. Can I, I'm a little bit concerned that by putting a ceiling of 1.5 million

On this for our contribution

Out of the VPA contributions, we're committing more of the money that Council has to meet the needs from the Redbank development to something that isn't actually Council responsibility on land that isn't Council's. So I understand the need for the OSH. I understand that 40 places isn't big enough for the OSH. After listening to the speaker, I suspect that 60 places is also not big enough for the OSH. You know, the days where half of families still had mum at home for kids to come home to and not need a facility that's open till 6 o'clock are long gone, particularly if you're paying 1.3 or 4 million for a house. But this is Department of Education land, and this is actually not a local government responsibility.

We are providing a million dollars out of a VPA for a facility that we have no control over. That will probably be—one of my big concerns with this facility is that the community organisation that runs the facility will lose control of the facility, and that continuity of care will be gone within two years of it moving on to a Department of Education site, because we know they turn over these leases quite often, and they usually end up in the hands of private businesses, not community organisations, because they struggle to put up the same tender as large private contractors. So my concern isn't that we're paying for an OOSH per se, it's that we're paying so much of—this is well over two-thirds of the VPA contribution for community projects or community infrastructure, and we're also signalling to the state government that we're willing to cough this up.

This is their land. They have a much bigger budget than we have. They're not out for a 40 percent SRV, are they? You know, they're taxing their little hearts out, and we're paying it. So why are we giving them another half a million dollars for something that's actually their responsibility? That makes no sense to me.

Mr Mayor, the intended use from the VPA was for the OOSH facility, which will now be at— which will be North School, and that will be maintained by the Education Department.

Thank you. Councillors, just to be mindful, take non-board Councillor Wheeler's comments. A couple of years ago, we went into discussions with childcare facilities. We're back in the 80s and 90s, we provided buildings for services that weren't being provided and allowed childcare facilities at practically no cost that now costs a fortune for us to operate and run. And even tonight, there's negotiations in relation to how we deal with those. But we'd resolved some time ago to

Not disband in those, but do the best we could to both look at the finances of the council and the ongoing operation of those. And with the OOSH, when that was decided to go on the site at North Richmond, it too was because of a situation of need in the community, and still is, and very much required. But as Councillor Wheeler said, we talk about the other things, the brigade and the like, where we contribute to the fire brigades and others that state government has lumbered on us and we're paying a bill. And here tonight we're deciding whether or not we want to further contribute to that. And I'm not saying that any of us don't want to do that, but we need to be mindful that if we'd built that building on our property at North Richmond, we would have had ongoing, similar to the childcare facilities that we've got, the same problem.

There was an opportunity come up with the Education Department that our staff's been dealing with to... That would be benefit to everybody. The state gets out of it a little bit. We get what we need for the community with a relatively small contribution in the scheme of things, and it would be looked after by the education department, the school, and serve the purpose well in the position it's in. The concern that I've got, and it was touched on by one of the councillors, is that if we put the bill, and it's a park contribution to a project, and a good project, but they really have to step up, step up, and again our local members in the audience tonight have heard these discussions and is well aware, and we've spoken about it, but our obligation needs to be fair and just.

And there's other community facilities that need support, and in the document that we had attached to this, some of those things were in that.

Councillors, the reason I'm not going to support the motion, and it's not on the basis that I don't agree with it, because all of us agree that we need to get on and get it done. The longer it takes, the more money it is, but the staff is well aware of Council's position on the matter, and that if it's required in the negotiations that, as Councillor Creed indicated, that the million dollars isn't enough, I'm sure the staff will come back and tell us exactly that. But we need to be firm on... What our intentions is and the expenditure of public money that we collect on their behalf. Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Could I move an amendment, please, which is the recommendation in the business paper. I

Second that, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Redmond.

Mr Mayor, it's clear that mine's not going to get support, so I'll just withdraw it. Thank you, Councillor Creed.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll speak to the recommendation in the business paper. I do think, after just looking down, just working out some figures, the fact that that additional $853 ,243 was allocated to other social infrastructure priorities, I think, is a really important thing. I know it's more money because of the interest or similar, but I do think, as you just said, if it's going to cost a lot more, then we can perhaps look at it again then. We know that we do have this ongoing tension around cost shifting from the state government. We also have many issues connected to schools where there's a sort of blurred lines between what Council may be responsible for, what sort of money we should be putting into around issues relating to that.

I fully support an OSH being built, of course, and today I did have a conversation with Birgit Walter from the North Richmond Community Centre, who they are, of course, also in a grants and have been involved in the conversations with this. So I think it will be a good thing going forward, and I just look forward to it. It seems another one of these things that has been around, been discussed for a long time. I really look forward to it proceeding as soon as it possibly can.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I was worried that we were beginning to overthink this. I honour Councillor Creed's intent, but I took the recommendation as here's a million, the figure pledged for these kinds of improvements is substantially more than that. And like yourself, Mr Mayor, I think that if the amount required was more than that, then that would simply come back to the Chamber. This is just a statement of intent and getting the ball rolling. I think that the project overall is an incredibly worthy project, and I thank Mr Furling from the school for keeping us so well informed about the merits of this. I see now that I can see you in the face that I did go to school with your brother. In fact, you were hatched from the same egg.

Very distinct resemblance. So I want to do whatever we can tonight to get the ball rolling with this. If the recommendation fulfilled that intent , then I'm happy to go with what's now the recommendation. Thank you.

Thanks for your withdrawal and making your point. It's much appreciated. Right of reply, Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I don't think that's particularly necessary. Thank you.

Thank you.

The motion is in the business paper, Councillors. Those in favour?

Against? That's carried unanimously. Councillor Brogno, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMann, Kotlash, Creed, Weigel, Briden and Sheather. The motion's carried.

The next item is 9.3.3.

Two councillors. Councillor Wheeler.

I have a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in item 9.3.3. My son is a member of the New South Wales RFS Wilberforce Brigade. One of the subject DAs relates to the Wilberforce fire shed. The reason for no further action is that it's below the threshold for significance.

Thank you. Councillor McMann.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. My declaration of interest is both a pecuniary and a significant non-pecuniary interest. I have past connections to individuals who may be involved with the DA. Thank you. And I'll be leaving the room

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd like to move a motion. I have sent it through to the staff. It is relating to option four, which is the eight-lane pool and the gymnasium. I'll second that, Mr Mayor.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll just, I think, yeah . Thank you. That looks good. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Look, this, I think this has probably given us all a lot of contradictions in looking at how we look at this because, of course, we have to arrive at a balance between the financial aspects and the representations from the community, and also the fact that we are looking at something that we rarely look at, which is a project that will span the next 60 or 70 years of use. This isn't something that we're just doing for the short term. This is very long term. We're using the information in this report to arrive at something that we believe our community is going to need in the years to come.

I know, I appreciate that the eight lanes is an additional expense. It would increase the water volume and operating demands, but it will also deliver a more functional, future-focused public facility. If we're investing in a major upgrade, there is a sound case for ensuring the pool is built for the long term. That would give us an increased capacity for lap swimming, learn to swim, carnivals, recreation, etc. And this is really going to be needed. As we said previously, with a growing population and less backyard pools and an incredibly warming climate, we must look to the future. The addition of the gym was another thing to contend with, but we can see from the financial information within the papers that it is advantageous to have a gym, and that is a prudent financial move.

In these times when we must make every step to be more financially stable, a gym makes sense. It can increase the cost recovery from 68% to 90% to 97%. The purpose of including a gym is not to undermine existing private operators, but to strengthen the long-term viability of the aquatic centre and improve community access to health and fitness services. Modern aquatic centres. Commonly integrate gyms, group fitness spaces and rehabilitation services because these facilities generate year-round revenue, help to offset the operating costs of the pool and broaden the range of services available to residents. The focus should be on meeting unmet community need, improving affordability and accessibility, and ensuring the facility remains financially sustainable.

A gym component can provide an important revenue stream that supports the ongoing operation and maintenance of the aquatic facility, reducing the burden on ratepayers while enhancing public health outcomes. Private gyms and council leisure centres do not necessarily serve the same market. Public aquatic facilities often attract families, older residents, rehabilitation users, learn-to-swim parents, casual users and concession card holders who may not otherwise join a private gym. Therefore, rather than viewing it as competition, it should be seen as a broader health and wellbeing network for the town, offering different services and community access opportunities for different groups of people.

For example, the facility in the Hills, called the Waves Fitness and Aquatic Centre, has a large gym of a thousand square metres, which helps drive year-round use and ongoing revenue.

I understand that there are some challenges with going forward with an eight-lane pool, but I can have this clarified if I've read this incorrectly. But including a gym already will move the timeframe an additional two and a half months. So also having the redesign, etc. for an eight-lane pool would also be 2.5 to 3 months. Is that— Concurrent or is that additional? Is it five months or six months or three?

Three, Ms Mayor, it's not quite either. So with the inclusion of the gym, that ameliorates the risk of having to go back and get utility approvals. So we're reasonably confident in that number of two and a half months delay. With the inclusion of an eight-lane pool, that would require upgrading to some pretty significant electrical equipment, including heating of water. That would require re-engaging with Endeavour Energy. That's a significant risk, as it would likely trigger, as outlined in the report, an upgrade to the substations , as outlined from a single 1,000 kVA substation to 1,500s from recollection. Sorry, 1,500 to two 1,000 kVA substations. So whilst they are both normally two and a half months, the eight lanes being potentially up to three, that still has a significant risk hanging over it.

The other thing, as outlined in the report, is that the procurement could progress somewhat in tandem with the development of the gym, whereas the procurement would not be able to progress at all until the expansion to eight lanes had been resolved through the 80% detailed design. Okay,

Thank you. I appreciate that. I did have another question, which was when we were looking at Tamplin Field, there didn't seem to be any need to increase car parking in that area due to street parking. I'm just wondering why the increases for the car park area are so significant in comparison.

Yeah, so it's informed by two things. Firstly, the increasing population of North Richmond. And the second thing is that the inclusion of additional water bodies and spaces will drive additional patronage. That's not the same to the same extent for Templin, that it's largely a like-for-like replacement with some additional facilities, but it's not a wholesale drive of additional use as the redevelopment of Richmond Pool would be.

Thank you for that. Thank you for that clarity. I've put forward what is my preference as something when we're building a very significant piece of public infrastructure. I know it's not popular with those who have been working on the project. I understand that, but I think this is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to build something that will enhance our town

I would be happy with a smaller pool if that's all we can have. But I've put this forward to test if there's the support for this, and I'll listen to what other people have to say, either in support or against it. Regardless, I would think the inclusion of a gym is an enhancement to the precinct. So six or eight, or my real preference of seven, I would be happy, but I would prefer eight

Councillors, I've just got a question to the General Manager before we move on. The loan required for the motion that's been put before us, and Councillor Lyons-Buckett, you might want to change that. In A, the first word, retention of eight lanes, it's not—retention is not the right word. It's only six lanes. General manager, it's only six lanes, yeah.

It was the original. In

Relation to, it requires a $43 million loan, which is massive. And I take on board the comments that, you know, the longer we leave it, you know, and future generations will tend to pay for this. But I guess the question... In relation to our situation of loan repayments and availability for future funds to borrow that sort of money, what sort of restrictions may be put on Council in the future with repayments, and what would those repayments be in relation to monies that might be made from the pool?

Sure, I understand the question.

Emma's the cost of running the thing. Okay.

I'll pass the operational expenditure through to the Director of Infrastructure Services.

Thank you, through you, Mr Mayor. On pages 141 through 142 in the table, the operational outcome for all four options is presented in the fourth column from the right. Yep. Talks to the operational outcome in a financial sense. It has to be said that there hasn't been the same level of detail into options, really two, three and four as there has been one, given the amount of time that we've had available and the limited opportunity to really interrogate those numbers. So they're more of a qualitative assessment. However, it is there for councillors to see that the option as moved with the eight lanes and the gym looks at an average annual general fund cash contribution. That's a net outflow of cash from the organisation. In excess of 3.96 million. Yep.

What's the pool

Likely to retrieve on a yearly basis after the construction?

In terms of net revenue? Yep. I don't have that information immediately at hand, but we could take it on notice. It is in the attachments.

Yep.

Yeah.

Councillor. I've got questions through you, Mr Mayor. The interest rate on the additional money is, right, will we kiss it stain this or not, just quickly? You

Know, we're going to go and pull money out of other areas for this just to service the additional debt in the pool. Considering what the two lanes is, what, four million rounded? And the question is, that estimate, or three — you've got to remember every month it's going up by 110,000, isn't it? Is that what it is? Yep. Ish. So higher by the time we get this moving, it's going to be about four, if not more. Can we just get an indication before I speak to it?

Through you, Mr Mayor, the effective difference between the six-lane option with a gym, the annual loan repayments are at 3.59 million principal and interest versus the current lane design plus gym plus eight lanes is 3.86 million there. So whatever that is, 270-odd thousand extra a year. That's right.

So all of that needs to be funded, Councillors. So that's the reality of it, and we need to balance our budgets every year. So some of that substantial portion of the loan repayments will come from capital expenditure, but at the end of the day, the balance has got to be made. So whatever we spend here is less money that we're spending somewhere else.

Yeah, Councillors, I just indicate we've just asked for a rate increase. The first year, we're going to get $2.8 million. That's in the first year. It's over four years, and we're proposing, if we build this, that it's going to—the pool alone is going to cost us 3.8. So just be mindful, we did decisions that a rate increase is to fix our roads up, not to pay for our swimming pools.

Can I continue, Mr Mayor? Sorry? I know, Councillor, I'm not going to screen the light on, but just can I ask a question? If the interest and principal payments there, that would be the gross payments, not the net payments. So there's revenues coming back, it'll mark that debt down, would it not?

Yes, there is. I just asked the question. It's in the attachment, so I think it's just on a million dollars. A million dollars revenue? I think that's what, when I read the document, I think that's what it was, but I'm not sure. But the staff have taken on notice the question I've just asked.

I'll come back and make a comment on it later. I just want to hear a bit more of the debate.

Councillor Brogden. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm opposed to the motion that's before us. I may foreshadow an amendment, and the amendment would be the recommendation with the omission of 0.1B. That is to say, six lanes and no gym. Let me try and justify my position in this way. I'm thoroughly in favour of the broader redevelopment. For those of us that attended the site and saw the antiquated nature of that site, despite its nostalgia value. It really is time for us to step up, despite the fact that it's a very substantial financial commitment. But I form the view that the proposal before us, which was for six lanes and not necessarily a gymnasium, was itself at the very outer edge. It was the high watermark in terms of what we could justify, considering that there is every likelihood that the costs will continue to accelerate ahead of us.

It's a time of increased volatility in the world, and both borrowing costs and building costs are going to continue to exceed our expectations, even despite our ability to try and our desire to wire these in. I do not want this project to become a millstone around Council's neck, but I do want us to take the middle path and to do what we can afford to do.

I'd like to put a question to staff. In 1998, Council inked or agreed to a policy called a competitive neutrality policy, and we re-endorsed it in 2012. A competitive neutrality policy, based on guidance notes from the Office of Local Government, they suggest that every council should have a policy like this, says Council should take care if ever we should wander into a domain commercially where there are existing private or commercial players in a market. I remember that well. Council has a small print house, and we could do print jobs for people, but we had to be careful that we weren't infringing on commercial printers that were also in our community. And in the same way, and I made this point last time we were debating this, there are ten— Ten gymnasiums in Richmond alone, more in North Richmond and more in Windsor, from the university through to the industrial estate and down the main street of Richmond.

We're looking at one of the various attachments here, which is high-level advice concerning the gym expansion, and I don't know what we paid for this document, but it doesn't contain any information about the business case for a gymnasium. It doesn't contain any reference—well, it doesn't contain any reference to whether this proposal is a breach of the policy that Council still should be abiding by, which is a competitive neutrality policy, and what impact a gymnasium of this size and in this location will do to impact existing businesses, nor is there any analysis of whether those existing commercial gymnasiums are at their capacity or would be damaged by this, or offer the same range of services that we might choose to offer through a gymnasium of our own.

I hear Councillor Lyons Buckett's remarks about the advantage of a community gym and that it might attract a different clientele, but frankly that case has not been made, and it's an extremely weighty decision. And my concern is that in our desire to gold plate or maximise the scope of this development—to gold plate it, if I could employ a term—is that this goes directly counter to the advice that we sought at the last meeting and have now received, and that advice seems fairly clear that we can't afford this. As much as I would like for us to do more, I think the message is fairly clear. So on that basis, I think I will move an amendment and seek a seconder that my amendment is the recommendation in the business paper with the omission of point 1(b).

That is to say, the six-lane option and no gym.

I think it's the seconder for that.

Councillor Creed. To be honest, I was going to move an amendment, which was the recommendation. Sorry

I was going to move the amendment, which was the recommendation

In the business paper as it was. But, yeah, no, I was— can I ask the mover of the amendment if can he leave 1B in, or whatever it is, the one that he's asked to remove? Because then I'll move a procedural motion that we vote in seriatim, and then I'm happy to second it if

You will do that. That is acceptable to me, Mr Mayor. So my amendment is the recommendation, and then I'll also request that we vote in seriatim

Yeah.

Just a question, Mr Mayor. Can you see my wife? Well, it's been on three or four times.

We've got the gym at South Windsor, the staff, and we've had it for some time with Oasis. So the staff are aware, even though it mightn't have been reported here, how the gyms that operate, and I know it's South Windsor, it's not Richmond we're talking of. So there is some sort of continuity, I suppose, within the reports and the structures that our staff do. Councillor Veigel, you asked a question in relation to— The question you asked a while ago, the information we've got.

Operating costs. Yeah.

The operating costs, yeah. Yeah. So, through you, Mr Mayor, on the basis of the six-lane swimming pool, the total operating loss before financing is, on average, about $1.1 million without the gym. If you include the gym, that operating loss reduces to an average of about $115,000. $115 ,000 with the gym for a six-lane pool. So, in rough numbers, that works to about a 10-year payback.

Sorry, can I ask a question through you just based on that? Thank you for that. So if we built the eight-lane, is the revenue the same, or do you think the revenue is coming back, of the gross debt and principal, do you think the revenues will come down? What I'm saying, what is it, if it's 1.1 loss on six, what would it be on an eight-lane?

The increase, any increase in revenue with the addition of eight lanes, the advice we've got is borderline immaterial compared to the increase in costs.

Okay. Thank you

Thanks .

Councillor Ryan, did

You— Sorry, I did not see it.

Councillors. Thank you. Mr Mayor, I was going to ask the exact question that Councillor Veigel asked, and what is the payback? Time on this and how long, how much further could we extend it out so that this is a generational pool. And $115,000 a year if we have a gym seems very economical to me to cover that sort of thing, and especially over 10 years. I would be extremely interested in the eight-lane pool with the gym. I know there's extras there in relation to the electricity supply, transformer units and all that, I've read through all that. I think we've got it. This is our chance to do it. This is our chance to get it right. And I think we've all said around this council that this is a generational approach .

We should be looking for generations to come. Our population is increasing. It's going to increase rapidly when you look out around Oakville, and then we've got these developments at North Richmond. I heard someone comment, Well, we should leave it to a developer over at North Richmond to do. I come from Pitt Town. What the hell did we get from the developers out there? So I can't see us doing anything else but delivering this ourselves. And I think every councillor should be standing proud. And especially if we can get this up to a level that will service years, generations to come, like the old pool did. And I'd really like to see us have a big goodbye to that old pool because, as Mr Payne said, he's got a heap of photos, there's a heap of generations that have gone through that.

And I think we should really carry them along with us. And I fully believe we will make a decision tonight. I think we shouldn't walk out of this chamber until we have. But I think we have to take the people along with us and show them what's happening, and they will accept. Cowra is doing it at the moment. If you go onto any of the channels now and you'll see what Cowra is doing with their pool and how they're taking their community with them, and that's a huge thing. And if a community is taken with us, they are prepared to stand up and say, Well, yes, we can see what's happening. We're prepared to pay for it. So I'm still keen on pushing forward with the eight lanes with the gym, and in the gym a creche, because that's extremely important to people, especially females, but males, when they can go and they can have a break.

Now, a gym in our pool is a specialist gym. I've been going to the one down at Oasis for some time now, and you'll get gyms like the Punch Love gym up the road here where women go and punch bags, and it's female only. There's the heavy gyms where the men go, and that's only a man only. This will be a family-type gym where a whole lot of the family can go along and they'll either swim and they will either go to the gym or they use the creche. So Councillor Zamprogno's idea of taking it out, there's ten other gyms there. We're constantly told that we should act more like a business. Well, here's an opportunity to show people how to act like a business. And I believe that push forward with the eight lanes.

If we've got to take a 25-year loan out, take it out because in 25-year loan they'll say, The pool only cost how much? So thank you very much.

Thank you, Councillor Kotlash

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

This is sort of getting to be a really complex debate . And when I read, excuse me, when I read the data which it seems to be coming down to, which is on page 141 and 142 of the business paper, where we've got our comparisons between the different options .

Why did you—is it the case that you assume that the operating costs for both the six-lane pool and the eight-lane pool would be the same? And

Is that a risky assumption, since it's going to be quite a bit?

Yeah, through you, Mr Mayor, no, the assumption isn't that the operating costs would be the same. The assumption is that the operating costs for the eight-lane pool would be higher. We haven't had the time available, or in the time that was available to us, we didn't have the ability to go and model what those operating costs would be. They depended on a whole range of things, including the exact configuration of pool, water handling equipment, heating, et cetera, et cetera, but also on the impacts on the actual revenue-generating facilities such as the splash pad. All of these things will have an impact, and a cumulative impact. What we've tried to do is provide a qualitative statement that says operating costs will increase without a commensurate increase in operating revenue, and hence it will be a worse outcome with the eight lanes than just the six lanes, from a financial sense.

Yeah, okay. Look, I think that —I think where I've landed on this is that I think the community will benefit greatly from the design that we had in the recommendation in the business paper with six lanes, including the gym . I take Councillor Zamprogno's point about there's lots of gyms, but I also take Councillor Ryan's point about … The variety of gyms and their different characteristics. And I think there is room for a gym in this pool complex. And I think when I first saw the plans for this facility with the six lanes, I was a little bit disappointed. But then I thought to myself, well , this design is wow. I mean, it's great. It's going to be the community; it's going to love it . I think, but yet again, I do understand where Councillor Lyons-Buckett's coming from with this, you know, our once in— we only do this occasionally in, you know, lots of lifetimes.

But we have to be mindful of our finances. And I think that instead of being disappointed by just having six lanes, I think we have to be happy and content and

Feel responsible about only committing to that level. I mean, this is a big commitment anyway, but to that level, I can't see that adding all of the complexity of just two lanes is going to make a difference that's so—that's just large enough to warrant those unknowns. And, you know, I know you've done—that's a comparison, and that's fine. But, you know, I still think it's going to be more expensive up front, and it's going to be more expensive on an ongoing basis. And I think we really should be applauding. The way that we've managed to get this design. I mean, it's, I think this is the best we can do at the moment. And I think we should embrace that and move on without major disappointment, I suppose. So I will be supporting the, however that pans out, the option two in the business paper. Thank you.

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I won't be supporting the amendment on the screen. I have given this really considerable thought and attention. And while the costs are here in the business paper regarding the different options, and I know I made comments before about, in the previous meeting, about the gym and what that impact that would have on other local gym businesses, I've had to come to the conclusion of what my decision is going to be for the future of the Hawkesbury, and the word legacy keeps coming to mind for me. And although there's a sentence on page 133 talking about on balance, the evidence indicates that the eight-lane configuration does not deliver a proportionate benefit relative to its cost, complexity and risk.

If you look at page 143 from at the top where it discusses, I'll get my English right, discusses option four, a lot of those, that increased $13.52 million that it says it would cost for option four, a lot of that is assumptions. And while I understand assumptions must be made, and those assumptions usually go to the higher end of being cautious, I just wanted to bring it to people's attention that they are assumptions. And there's a lot of detail there with a lot of cost of that additional $13.52 million, not actually relative to the pool itself, but to other ancillary.. . Matters that must be taken into account, particularly a lot of additional car parking and earthworks. So I just wanted to bring that to everybody's attention there, because I am leaning towards the eight-lane pool and the gym.

And I think that if the last pool lasted how many decades it lasted, then we're sitting here right now having to talk about one shot at getting this right. And when we've got community-based people who use that pool, you know, on a daily basis or quite regularly, who can come into this chamber and articulate the benefits of having that eight-lane pool, then I need to listen to those people who know better than me in this area in terms of what the community's expectations and the community's needs are. So I won't talk much longer on that point. I just wanted to make it clear that my position would be to support option four, which is the eight-lane pool and the gym. Thank you

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I want to say that I respect the reason for putting forward the eight lanes, and it'd be lovely to have the most perfect project delivered for the community. But I think given the economic uncertainties at the moment and the cost explosion uncertainties at the moment, we've got building industry experts that are saying that due to the war in Iran, we're looking at an imminent 20% explosion in costs just on construction, and that's only in the short term. We don't know how long this is going to go for, how bad it's going to get. We're not even sure about the certainty of fuel deliveries at the moment, really. So I would like to be reserved on our decisions, and I'll probably be leaning with the recommendation in the paper. Thanks. Councillor

Thank you ,

Mr Mayor. I'll speak against the amendment . I cannot really understand why you would go for a six-lane pool without the gym when it's cheaper to have the gym. But I guess that, you know, some of the neoliberal free marketeers in here have had a bit of a backflip

Point of order, Mr Mayor. The recommendation is the full— Well

The actual amendment that was put forward wasn't that. Yeah, I know. I'm going by process of how it should be done . So we've got something that is— Well, it's not opinion. There was an amendment put forward that was to have a six-lane pool, no gymnasium. That was the amendment. There wasn't another amendment moved. There was a procedural motion . Anyway, I'm speaking, I'm saying I don't know why you would have a six-lane pool without a gymnasium when that will cost us more. Regardless, we have to do this pool anyway. We're going to be borrowing money anyway. Even if this entire project is scrapped, we would either have to close Richmond Pool or we would have to rebuild it at the cost of $33 million.

I see Sparky Sean nodding his head over there because he thinks the developers west of the river should pay for it. Dream on. Anyway, I think that what we are looking at here is, as Councillor Ryan just said and Councillor McMahon just said, this is a one-off project. This is something we're doing for our people in decades to come. Many of the decisions we have to make when we do strategic planning is we need to look into that future. And think, what's it going to be like living in Richmond in 2050? You know, you've got an eight-lane pool, you've got a six-lane pool. I'm looking at the Director of Infrastructure, and I don't mean to be stressing you out on this, but I was quite surprised that the cost wasn't that much more.

I mean, we have to borrow money. It's not a popular thing with the community when we do have an SRV. But I think what people don't understand—well, they don't understand the SRV—because the SRV is specifically related to our infrastructure backlog. Council operates in the way it does with its budget, which we're later to discuss, and this is a capital project attached to a grant-funded project where we're contributing. So I think that because we have got a situation where, regardless, we've got to borrow money to do something with the pool, my thoughts are that we would do the maximum to get the best result for the future. So I think just leaving it as it is, and with or without the gym—my preference is the gym.

And I think when we speak of that, I don't know how many times I've sat in here and people have said, We can't tell businesses what to do, or We can't do this, or We can't do that. And I would not like to be seeing anyone go out of business, but that really isn't our role. Our role is to see a need within the community, and there is an unmet need for people who may have challenged abilities, for people undergoing rehabilitation, for senior people. You don't see a lot of old people going—I'm not talking about you, Councillor Ryan —you don't see a lot of older people heading into the gym in their Lycra, in their G-string Lycra, to do a workout at a 24-hour active...

Sorry, I've gone too far. Oh, I now just stop

Councillor Lyons-Buckett, just the motion that's on the screen, when I asked for you to review it, with 1A, the retention of the current six lane, you were proposing eight lanes there, weren't you?

Yes, but this is an amendment, I think. It's

At the amendment that's

On.

Okay

Alrighty. Can I ask a question?

Councillor Kotlash.

Thanks, Mr Mayor . I'm sorry, I've just been wading through all of this stuff and I'm sorry if I've read it and I can't recall where it was. How, when the Director of Infrastructure was talking about the additional electricity substation requirements, if that, who pays for that, and if there's a hold-up or that's not possible for some reason, I'm not sure that we've got that information in here , does that risk the grant funding at all?

Through you, Mr Mayor, the risk rests wholly with Council for the cost of the upgrades, all associated costs. The risks with the timing, we would have to apply for another variation to the grant deed to extend the timeframes, the milestone timing, once we were— Level of confidence around what those dates would be.

So, if we go for the eight lanes, we would have to apply. I can imagine we'd have to apply to have an extension with the grant funding because, I guess, the electricity supply is not going to be, I can't imagine it's going to happen overnight.

So, if we do that, we might risk the project. What's the likelihood that,

What's the appetite of the grant authority to give us yet more extensions?

I mean, I'm just trying to

Get a handle on this because we have had an independent assessment of the eight lanes here saying it doesn't really make that much difference to patronage. It might, I mean, I'm assuming they did future forecasting here. I mean, we have to look at what it's telling us, and that's why I'm sort of asking you, you know, what are we risking for what? Is there a

Risk? Through you, Mr Mayor, I'm not in a position to speculate on behalf of the New South Wales Government as to what their appetite for an extension is. And on the question of the eight lanes, again, I'd encourage councillors to reflect on the social infrastructure strategy and keep in mind that our pools operate as a network. We have an eight-lane pool at South Windsor, sorry, seven at South Windsor. The future development, so the modelling for the Richmond pool is modelled out to 2041. That's kind of when we start to talk about capacity constraints starting to kick in. By 2041, It's well within the horizon of a renewal of Oasis. Oasis is the district level pool . These pools operate as a network, and that's how our social infrastructure strategy has determined they should operate.

And there's a future decision point for council, the council of the day at that time, as to whether they look to Oasis as the answer to the question of the eight lanes.

Just one other question, Mr Mayor, and I might have missed the answer to this. Peter,

Can you put your microphone closer?

Well, he does I can't see him. I do. Mr Mayor, in relation to the eight-lane pool with the gym, I see the six-lane pool will cost us $115,000 a year over 10 years. Can you just give me a price what the eight-lane pool would cost, and can we extend that loan out to, say, over a 25-year period and make it a multi-generational thing, and what would that cost us per year to run and to pay the bills?

I went through the figures earlier, Councillor. It's about $4 million, I think. A year? No,

To extend the loan. Through you, Mr Mayor, to the question of what it would cost on the eight-lane pool, the simple answer is that we would need more time to model that. We would need more information available to us in terms of— Water handling, as I've mentioned, water handling, plant, air, HVAC, chemical demand, all that sort of stuff. We simply have not had the time in the month to get the designs to a point where they support that level of detailed modelling for our operational costs. What we can say is that it will be more. It will 100% be more. The loan, it is already on the basis of a 20-year term. I'm not so sure if my colleague can do the maths on the run on what an additional five years to the loan term would be and the decrease in annual P&I costs, principal and interest costs, versus the overall interest bill that you would pay by virtue of the extra five years.

Thank you

Mr Mayor. I'm just trying to put it over another generation. My generation paid for the Richmond Bill. I'd like to see a couple of others pay for this one, to be honest.

Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor Veigel

Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor. I must admit I've been struggling with this a little bit. For whatever reason, we're going to get a new pool, whether it be six lane or eight lane, but let my position be clear. Number one, the business case supports the gym. It has to have the gym. We've already got the figures right. I know there's other small businesses out there, but they choose to go into a small business and they compete with each other. To have that business model done, and we decided on the gym as a no-brainer. The gym's got to be there. Now let's talk about six lanes versus the eight. Now I struggle with this because we see the Harbour Bridge built in '32, and we've got six lanes of roadway, two train carriages and two tram tracks, okay, in '32.

Every other piece of infrastructure in my lifetime... Hasn't supported an expansion anywhere. If you go and look at the M2, the M4, whatever, within 10 to 20 years they're coming back and they've been expanding the roadways at great expense to the community.

I guess from my point right now, fortune favours the brave a little bit, because I'm looking out in perpetuity for another 50 years. I guess the assets probably will last 50 years, I would suggest. I don't know, we've got another asset to look at. I've heard the arguments for the Windsor Pool, I get that.

I favour the eight-lane pool because I know that it will go into community needs. Now, when we had discussed this a couple of weeks ago, before I came here, before forum, whether you like it or not, once that bridge gets built at North Richmond, more land is going to be opened up over there. Jacaranda, Stardust, Elliston, and I guess there's going to be many more to come. All right, we'll have our say, but we're not going to stop it. More people. It's a very poignant position there that the block sizes are getting smaller, and you can't get a swimming pool in unless you've got 550 square metres or more. And it's a very small pool, and I don't think you can learn to swim in that because it's a splash pool. So, looking out, I think, yeah, okay, there's always a risk there because I don't know what tomorrow, and I've got a crystal ball.

So at the moment, the gym's in. I don't support no gym, and I'll put my hand up for eight lanes, but if that doesn't get voted up by my colleagues here, then I'll be voting up for the six-lane for sure. But I do thank the staff for all the work that you've done, all right, because it's exceptional development, and it is for the lifetime for many, many, many years. So that's all I've got to say. So let's, you know, when you're ready, we'll just vote and see how we all stand, I suppose. Thanks. Mayor,

Thank you, Councillor. My view is very similar. Councillor Veigel, what we're talking about is option two or option four. Option two is 70 million, with a repayment of 3.6. Option four is 73. There's not a lot of difference there, with a repayment of nearly 3.9.

The problem that I've got is the 3.9 bit for the period of time. It's all right to say we need to build for the future. We've got to pay for the future as well. And it concerns me that we chucked around a whole heap of ideas and still need a rate variation increase. And the first two years goes into the first year payment of this, and that's concerning.

But it's either we put a bulldozer through it and walk away, or we do it properly. If we go for the four or six lanes, and when you look at the amount of money, the difference between the— sorry, the option two and option four, in the scheme of things, there's not a lot of difference. But it doesn't matter whether it's option two or option four, the repayments over that period of time are going to put a burden on this bloke sitting on my right for a long time— third on my right, sorry. We've discussed infrastructure. This is part of the infrastructure program. And, and it's concerning that with the rate increase, we're putting predominantly into the roads, because that's, and it's going to take a long time, considering we're only going to get just under three million for the first year, and with road renewals, if we're renewing a road, it's a million dollars a year.

That's three kilometres. We've got 800 of them to do over the, you know, over probably the period of this lifetime of this pool we're talking about. The whole road system will be renewed over that time.

So, Council, if we make a commitment tonight, another one we need to make is how we get value for money and work for money, other than putting rates up. We can't keep doing that. That's not the way to do it. We talk about business amongst ourselves here, then be a business and think about how we operate things without ripping people off. There's ways to do it. People out there make money every day without ripping people off. They serve and provide products for their clients at a price, and we should be looking at the same thing. So, Councillors, I personally, as Councillor Veigel indicated with his discussion, prefer option four. But in saying that, and there is very little difference in the repayments, but in saying that, I can assure you, if Council, either one they go, we've got to work a lot harder to find funds into the future. Councillor Wheeler.

Thank you. Look, so I came here quite willing to accept the six-lane option, but I think you've all convinced me, including those of you who've spoken against it, that we are better to take the bravest option here and go with the eight lanes and view it as the long-term legacy project that it is.

By borrowing money to fund infrastructure projects, and look, we've just commenced another round of financial training from local government New South Wales, and one of the points that was made to us very clearly a couple of weeks ago from the trainer was that debt to fund public goods like swimming pools is a good thing, and it's actually a responsibility of local government to use debt to provide infrastructure, particularly infrastructure that provides intergenerational capacity for the LGA. The advantage of spreading a loan over 25 years isn't lower repayments, and I know that the current proposal is 20 years. I have to say I would prefer a 25-year loan. I know that that costs additional money in interest.

I get that. I've had a mortgage. I know how it works. But what it does is allow us to spread the cost of a facility that will be in use for 50 or 60 years, that we've managed to eke out more than 60 years out of the current pool, we will get the same out of this one across three generations, or at least two generations of ratepayers who will use that facility. If we pay for it over a 25-year period, there are people paying for it now whose children will be using it in 25 years when we finish paying for it. I think that's a really good proposition. I think that's a really good value proposition. I think the gym is a necessary, and I agree with Councillor Ryan that gyms that are put in facilities like public pools attract a different clientele.

What we see at South Windsor is a really successful model that provides a multi-use space that includes classes. The pool that we're proposing has far greater capacity than Oasis to provide rehabilitation. It has outstanding disability access, and we should be really proud that we are able to provide a facility that does that. People drive for really significant distances to access facilities like that currently, and I really want to applaud the staff's commitment to getting that in, come hell or high water, pardon the pun.

And I note the letter from Bridges Disability Services relating to accessibility and the need for that. What we'll have is a facility that continued to provide things like classes for ageing residents like we have at Oasis. Those residents won't necessarily go all the way to Windsor. Many of them don't have a licence anymore. They can't drive that far. They can't access that on public transport, but they will get subsidised transport down to the Richmond pool if they live in North Richmond or Richmond or somewhere nearby. Some of them will take their little scooters down and use those facilities, and that's a real boon for those residents. Once that bridge goes through at Richmond, Richmond and North Richmond will become much closer.

At the moment, obviously the distance between them won't change, but the capacity to access them will, and hopefully people won't be sitting in traffic for such a long time if all the state government's grand promises are true.

If we're going to do this, we need to do it properly. I want to challenge the idea that competitive neutrality forbids governments from participating in spaces where businesses also participate. And I refer to the IPART report of 2023, which states, competitive neutrality policies aim to ensure that significant government businesses do not have a competitive advantage over other businesses simply because they are owned by the government. Competitive neutrality does not prevent governments from running businesses or require privatisation. It also does not prevent governments from subsidising business activities where it is in the public interest. And I would argue that this gym is in the public interest, in part because it serves to make the pool more cost-effective, but also because the business that it provides will service a different clientele.

I've got two considerations. One is the loss of green space, and the other one is the affordability of the pool going forward, and that's why I'd call for the loan to be taken out over a longer period so we don't have to charge people as much through the gate. If they can't afford to attend, if they can't afford lessons at the pool, then we won't get the user funds back. We'll shoot ourselves in the foot.

Thank you, Councillor.

Any further debate? We've got an amendment before us, Councillor.

Mr Mayor, if it assists you, I'm reading the room and I'll withdraw my request that it be considered in seriatim.

Councillor, agreed. Thank you.

Well, we have a motion before us.

Can we have the motion on the screen?

Mr Mayor, did Councillor Zamprogno just said he withdrew his request to have it heard in Syriatum, not that he withdrew his amendment.

Sorry.

Could you clarify that, Councillor? Yes. Okay, so we have an amendment before us.

A lot of reply, Councillor.

Sorry, the amendments before us on the screen. Okay.

Sorry, Mr Mayor , can I clarify that if Councillor Zamprogno has withdrawn doing it in Syriatum, then does he want 1B taken out?

No.

Okay. Sorry, I just didn't hear that. Thank you.

The amendments on the screen, Councillors, and the only difference between that and the motion is one is six lines and one is eight lines.

Sorry?

I didn't hear that, Councillor. This is a vote for six, Mr Mayor. Yes, it is. It's the motion on the screen. Those in favour of the amendment

Is Councillor Zembrogno, Councillor Siri, Councillor Creed and Councillor Kotlash. Those against

Is Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Buckett. Councillor Ryan, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Sheila. The motion is lost.

The amendment's lost. The motion. I'll get it. The motion is.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you. That was a good debate. I think, I know and I understand for councillors it's not easy. It's never easy to commit to a lot of money. It's not easy to change funding, but very, very rarely, and I think this is probably the first time in my 14 years here, do we have the opportunity to be making a project of this significance within our community. We know that Councillor Wheeler did raise that, that the financial tutor that we have had for our training did say that public debt to provide intergenerational infrastructure is advantageous, and it's prudent that we do this and commit to supporting our staff, probably promising not to change anything else, but to support our staff and our community.

I want to stay alive. I think that we all, as Councillor Ryan said, we all have to pull together on this. This is a major thing that can be a really, really positive thing for Richmond if we all work together to assist to have it done, to retain the pool, which if we were to go for one of these options, we would be losing that pool. I think it'll be a wonderful project, and I thank our speakers for coming, Mr O'Connell, or Connell, Mr— sorry. Mr O'Connell and Mr Payne for coming and speaking to us and giving us their input, and I thank all the people who will come and use our gym and make it a very positive place to be. This will be an enhancement for our community. It will become a community meeting spot.

It will be a hub of sorts, and it will certainly enhance the opportunities for wellbeing and social cohesion within the Hawkesbury. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. That was the right reply. Councillors, the motion is on your screen. Those in favour?

Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lines-Buckett, Councillor Ryan, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Sheather. Those against is Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Zurik , Councillor Creed and Councillor Kotlash. The motion is carried. Councillors, there's a couple more items. We might do with them and then have a short break. The next item is 11.1.3.

Councillor McMahon.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. For the fourth time this evening, I have a pecuniary interest and significant non-pecuniary interest in this item. I have past connections to individuals who may be involved with the DEA, and I'll be leaving the room. Thank you.

Councillor Lines-Buckett.

I'll move the motion that's in the business paper, Mr Mayor.

Second that.

Yes . Councillor

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll speak to the motion, and I thank the speakers that came in and spoke to us tonight. We had one speaker who spoke with regard to the significant development applications item, and the two speakers that spoke— was it three?—spoke on this. So, thanks. With regard to this, we've had many things outlined about why people consider that this is a development that is not something that will enhance or improve our area. The decisions which stand to irreversibly alter the landscape fabric of our rural amenity must be made through a reflection of the wishes of our people. What they repeatedly tell us is that they value the vistas and character of our rural areas. To scar that landscape with multinational corporate branding, illuminating an area of currently untainted night sky, would intrude upon the natural environment with consequential impacts on native wildlife and neighbouring farms.

The question to be asked is: should our identity as a standalone semi-rural area, with a tourism and business sector serving us well, enticing visitors to visit, be transformed into an area replicating and indistinguishable from outer suburban development? In eroding our landscape, you enable erosion of opportunity and enjoyment for future generations. And how does one developer have a right to do that? When it is clearly incompatible with our strategic documents and the zone objectives for RU2 land, we must resist if we want the Hawkesbury to honour its tradition as a place with a proud history, especially the neighbouring property in Nevelin, established in 1951 as an experimental Yeomans farm.

We're talking about the loss of rural character, impacts on neighbouring farms, increased traffic congestion, impacts on local small businesses, loss of amenity and loss of future opportunity for what? This is a classic example of a pro-growth agenda against local values. I challenge the assumption that all development is good and equates to progress. It does not. That would be a retrograde step to think like that in this instance. Approving this land would be the beginning of the end of the area beyond North Richmond retaining its status as a rural semi-rural area. Agricultural land is largely irreplaceable. The incremental loss and fragmentation of peri-urban land represents an intergenerational issue as it diminishes future capacity for local food production, environmental services and rural amenity.

Sadly, New South Wales has repeatedly abandoned sustainability reforms due to political and industry pressure. We must not allow the lack of strength to protect valuable land stand in the way of protecting and preserving our locality. If we end up like any other outer suburb, it will not be accidental. It will be a deliberate ploy that the introduction of fast food outlets fall into the concept of path dependency, where past decisions lock in future directions, making it hard to change course and reinforcing existing development patterns. This proposal falls into a path-dependent trajectory of incremental urbanisation of the Hawkesbury. While that may have an element of being inevitable in decades to come, here and now is not the appropriate time to forsake what we value and treasure for one profit-driven development with one proposal to forever change where we live.

For

The vacant councillors, Councillor Wheeler. Thanks

Mr Mayor. Look, with the loss of DA powers to councils, actions like this are really all that's left to us. In the absence of a structural plan for the Kurrajong-Kurmond area, which we could have had but don't, we are left with this piecemeal attack on our rural character and amenity. We've heard from people today, we've seen on Facebook that people are horrified by this development, which really represents the beginning of the end of what we consider to be the character of Bells Line of Road once you get past North Richmond shops, really.

This development isn't consistent with our CSP. It's not consistent with our economic plans, and it's not consistent with the State Government's Sydney Plan, which sets aside areas like ours as being separate from the sort of development that occurs in metropolitan Sydney. This is just a sameness that is encroaching on all of Sydney. We see it at the entrances, we see it at the entrance to the Hawkesbury and McGraths Hill, we see it at the entrance to the Hawkesbury at Bligh Park. Now we'll be seeing it at the entrance to the Hawkesbury at North Richmond. This is not what draws out the tourism sector or day trippers to the Hawkesbury. It is not what people want to see on their way up to Bilpin.

It will have a deleterious effect on local businesses, particularly local food businesses that rely on a smaller, more boutique offering that people just don't get from rocking up to the Golden Arches or KFC. I know that people moan about not being able to get to KFC when we're flooded. They're not going to get an eachy-breaky across there anyway. You'll survive without it. We've managed before. We, I would like to, if I may, table the petition that Council received as part of the package of documents on our table when we arrived tonight. I note that it signed by, that it came, sorry, that it came from, I can't see the name on it, sorry, Fiona , Fiona Wurl, and has three pages of signatures so far.

And, sorry, I haven't tallied the numbers.

I do need to request an amendment to the motion. It's got the zoning is incorrect, and that's my fault. It's an RU2 zoning rather than RU1. If we could have that changed, please.

Several of the things that came out from the speakers tonight I think are really important. The difficulties that we heard from residents of Yeomans Road regarding the blind corner, the crest on the hill, their difficulties with getting in and out into the traffic on Bells Line of Road really need to be made mention of, the impacts on On economic activity due to this out-of-centre commercial activity, and particularly the impacts on the health and safety of children, the children at Colo High, and some of the anomalies that exist in the report. I too wonder what's happening with the 25 kids that are going in and coming out, and I wonder, in fact, what the CNKFC might stand for if they're keeping 20 a day.

But really, I mean, we can jest about this, but this is the loss of what we consider to be one of the treasured and unique aspects of the Hawkesbury, and I don't think that we, as an elected body, can just sit back and let this happen without having a say to, unfortunately, the unelected body that will determine this. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd just like to speak on the health issue that we have with this, and addiction to fast foods and that. I feel this is going to be a real strain on our, going forward with our generations, to have children here, they walk straight out of the school straight into a KFC and McDonald's. They have a childcare centre right next door. We're having enough trouble with addictions now. Would we have a TAB and a bottle shop right beside the school? I don't think so, because that's normalising this sort of food to our children. And there's real health problems with our children these days, and this is going to be put onto us for years to come. I really cannot see why this has to be right where it is, in front of a school with a childcare centre, where we will be teaching these children that this sort of food is good for them.

It is not good for them. It's been proven time after time, and I really... Wish we could just can this idea, take it back to where it came from. Have a look at what the Americans are having problems with over there. They're really having trouble with fast food. They're really having trouble with nutrition. They're really having trouble with generations going forward that have these illnesses from obesity and everything like that. And I don't want to see our next generation—I don't want to be part of it. I don't want to give our kids these addictions. So I'm totally against it. Thank you very much.

Councillor Kotlash.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'm speaking in favour of this notice of motion. It is possibly our way of getting , you know, local people and, you know, where local people's representatives. So this is sort of the only avenue we have.

I have to say, though, that I'd like to take Councillor Wheeler on task about her point that if we had the Kermond Karrajong investigation or place plan area, that this wouldn't have occurred. And I don't think that that's the case. I don't think if we had that place plan that it would have done anything to prevent this particular development. It's outside of that area. Place plans, my understanding of place plans is that they tend to be around

Shops, infrastructure, and they are designed to maximise, you know, development and— Excuse me, and extend housing. This sort of development that's really out on very rural land would never have been stopped by place plans. So I think that that's probably misinformation. We can't, we don't have place plans for the whole of the LGA, and we're never going to. So that, I just don't think that's correct. It's clear to me that the zoning, the intention, the objective of the zoning was not to have this sort of development. I mean, I think that's really clear. When you read the objectives of all of our zones, you know, it's kind of, it says that its objective is for keeping a rural landscape. Now, one fast food facility would have been outrageous. Two is, I just, I can't imagine that they're going to have the traffic and the passing trade. I just don't know

Who's done their calculations, but I just can't see that this area will sustain that. But that's possibly not our problem. But I think it's just not right for this location, and I will be very surprised if this gets a tick because. It's just so far from the objectives of that zone. Look, I think I won't repeat what everybody else has said. I agree with all of the things. It's just, it's just wrong. So we'll see how this pans out and, yeah , I hope it doesn't eventuate. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I will just reply. I just want to make it clear on the public record that this is not about the decision. This is not us deciding whether this goes ahead or not. This is the councillors taking a stance on whether we, as individual councillors, oppose or support perhaps this development based on what we've been told by those that we represent. So this, then we can nominate a councillor to speak at the planning panel when it goes ahead, and we've done this in circumstances before, and that's what we're doing. I'd just like to say that we had so many issues raised, and it's very hard to cover them all in this short space. But I note that various people raised individual concerns around noise pollution, light pollution in particular, traffic issues, safety impact on agricultural land, incompatibility with surrounding land uses.

This would give us another really big issue around conflict of land use, which is where the farms and the people who live down that road would be subjected to smells, noise, lights, intrusions of all sorts of things, increased traffic on their road, and then, you know, we do this to people who have invested their lifetime into living in these areas. If this were proposed in a commercial or industrial zone where there was not residential people living right next to it, that may have been a different story. Probably not for me because I'm not a fast food fan, but I think— We can take this forward and give our opinion if we have agreement if this passes here tonight, and we can raise some of these important local issues.

It's a very specific locality, and I'm a little concerned that a lot of planning these days is done sort of by using, you know, satellite maps or AI or all sorts of things. If you haven't driven up into that locality and seen the beauty of what you see there, you might not necessarily understand. And I just take on board what's been said about the various plans that are not in place, and it was structure planning, not place plans that was being done, which was part of the Rural Residential Land Strategy to identify where commercial precincts, et cetera, would be. But hopefully, you know, hopefully this is supported. It is the one function we still have to strategically determine the future of development in our area, to determine where growth goes and where development doesn't go and where it does go.

And whereas we acknowledge that we have to have expansion of both our commercial and residential sectors, this is not an example of what would serve us well into the future.

Thank you, Councillor.

The motions in the business paper, with that slight amendment that was requested in relation to a mistake that was made, is RU2. The motions on page 156, those in favour? It's unanimous. Councillor Brogno, Councillor Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett,

Ryan, Djuric, Kotlash, Creed, Weigel, Reardon and Sheather. Those against? The motion's carried. Through you, Mr Mayor, can we nominate a councillor to represent Council when it comes to the planning, please? Someone who can articulate it. Do you want to do it now, Councillors, or

Discuss it later?

I'll be speaking anyway. I'd like to nominate Councillor Wheeler.

Any opposition to that?

Those in favour? Councillor Wheeler.

Those against? It's carried. Could someone— do you mind— there's one more item, I think, isn't there?

Yeah . Yeah, April Public School, which was—

Sorry ?

Oh, right, okay. Okay, that's it, well. Okay, Councillors, we'll have a five-minute break, will that— Yeah. We need to get finished this half past nine. There's a fair bit to go through. We'll have a short break.

Thank you, Councillors. The next item on our business is 9.1.

Would someone like to move that way? Councillor Creed. Councillor Reardon.

Any discussion?

9. 1. It's a planning decision. 9.1

1

Need a debate, councillors?

Councillor Creed. Those in favour?

Those against? Carried unanimously. It's Councillors Zambrogno, Weir, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash, Creed, Weigel, Reardon and Sheather.

The next one is the draft operational plan and budget.

Councillor McMahon.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm declaring a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in this item and will remain in the room for two reasons. Number one, Thompson Square is mentioned in this item and I may have, I do have, future employment in this area. And number two, Turnbull Oval is mentioned and my son plays for the Hawkesbury Hawks. Neither of those matters are a pecuniary interest or a benefit in any way, and I'll be staying in the room. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Do we have a— Councillor Wheeler, you're proposing to move that?

No, I had a question about it .

Okay, do we have a mover? Councillor Creed. Councillor

Reardon.

You had a question, Councillor Wheeler? Yes,

Thank you. Can I just clarify that what we are deciding here is to take the option where we reduce the works at Turnbull Oval rather than reducing several other items as laid out.

Thank you,

Councillor. I'll have that explained to you.

Through you, Mr Mayor, yes, that's correct.

Thank you

Could I also ask where we're up to with the service level agreement for the Sports Council, please?

Through you, Mr Mayor, we had scheduled with the Sports Council a session with councillors early in April. Unfortunately, some last-minute changes on the Sports Council's end meant that they were not able to attend, so we're looking at some future dates to have that rescheduled.

Thank you.

The President was ill, was the problem.

Can I just clarify that that meeting, as per the council resolution, was with the councillors, all of us?

Yes. Yes. Yep

Right.

Councillor McMahon.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just a quick question on Turnbull, because I know I'm going to get flooded with questions tomorrow from users. We are, so it's only the $4.1 million from the— State government now, if we make this decision tonight, that's it. Yes? Yep? And, I believe—where you're answering, oh sorry, the director—and then that $4.1 million, two things. That's the building only, as the current concept plan is for the building?

Yes.

Yes?

With caveats. Yes. Anticipating the remainder of the question, or more to come. So the $4.1 million is for next year. The total grant, from memory, is about $4.8. The current estimates for the building only construct are slightly higher than that. So once we—assuming that council proceeds this way and we are successful in getting a scope reduction approved by the funding body, which would be the first step, then we would look to Value Engineer to bring the new building in line with the available budget, which is entirely the Western Sydney Infrastructure Grants Program. Okay

So there could potentially be a new scope depending on trying to fit into that funding envelope. And also, just to explain to people, we still— if we make a decision tonight to remove council's allocation, we still have to submit that new proposal to the state government to get approval for the building only for their portion of the funding.

Yeah. Yes, that's correct. And what's the chance—is there any indication that that could— I'm not in a position to speculate. Okay. So even if they come back, no, Mr Mayor, I think we have some strong advocacy there, because I think when I was the mayor on this issue, I didn't—the reason I was happy to contribute the extra funding was that I didn't want to throw away $4.1 million and say to the community, we've thrown it away. I'm happy to proceed down this path, understanding our longer-term and broader financial situation of the organisation, but we have to ensure that building gets done, and I know I keep reiterating the same reason, and it's no one wants to use those amenities in there. They are terrible. And talking about legacy, if I can fix those toilets. There's a legacy. Yep

Council.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Firstly, I'd like to thank the staff for so much work going into this. I know everything had to be duplicated. We had to have, you know, multiple scenarios and various things ready for us to look at and, in fact, to be ready to implement, you know, depending on the SRV result. So I appreciate that big amount of work that's gone into that. I'm supportive of this going out for public comment. It's a good time for all those lounge room experts out there who know everything about our finances to maybe make some meaningful contributions. I think that I'm happy to support the reduction of ratepayer funds going into Turnbull Oval. As you know, I never did support that.

But I think that just where that bit is explained in the business paper on page 32, it really shows a good example of what happens, you know, how easily programs, you know, are impacted because of changes like this that are made. I think that's a really good example of showing, you know, if we didn't do that, then these various things couldn't be done. And that really is indicative of the overall hard balancing act that we're faced with when we have to deal with prioritising some works over others. And we know that, you know, many changes can result in having to, you know, revise and review and change that. So there's quite a bit of information to absorb in here, but I think it sets out well all the various financial aspects of what is happening currently in the council.

And of course we'll just have to get back the submissions, and I'm not sure how that is going to fit in with our SRV. I think our SRV — Date given is May, is that correct? So we don't know, but anyway, I'll look forward to seeing the feedback.

Thank you. Any further discussion? I'd just like to make comment. We discussed this at length, but on page 28, there's a line there that says, After consideration of the above budget components, the overall bottom line result is nil or a balanced budget.

That's probably the best thing in the whole document, and there's a lot of work went into that. And I know there's choices that we're talking about making here tonight. But the amount of work that's gone in by the staff to achieve this, and the final outcome is considerable and appreciated. Any further debate? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Could I just draw people's attention to, particularly when talking about Turnbull Oval and our plans there, the findings of the New South Wales Legislative Council Portfolio Committee Number Eight's report into public toilets. The findings of this are really significant, and they lay out a really good case based on the public inquiry around the impacts of substandard public toilets and amenities areas, including the things that the Deputy Mayor has just referred to. The government report on it is unfortunately quite disappointing, but the recommendations that came out of the committee report are really useful, particularly for local councils. And things like finding six, that inadequate public toilet provision can significantly and disproportionately affect certain groups, including those experiencing ill health, homelessness, those living with a disability, and transgender and gender diverse people.

Finding five, that single-use cubicles with internal amenities that open directly into the public space, as opposed to multi-stall gendered toilets, are the preferred design, including for a broad range of people such as parents of young children, people with neurodiversity, psychosocial and other hidden disabilities. These are the things that This is expert commentary, not just people's whims and thoughts about what a good dunny looks like. This is the stuff that we should be relying on when we go to make a case to the state government, that the facility that we've got, even though we're not willing to kick in 3.78 million because we desperately need it elsewhere, still needs the 4 million dollars worth of improvement that the WISIG grant can provide.

And I think it's also worth noting again that the WISIG grants are quite different to normal state government grants. They were legislated by a previous state government. This isn't some funding that a funding body has got that it's dolling out that we're going begging for. The state government legislated that this money would be spent on infrastructure in Western Sydney when it flogged off the WestConnex road, that all our residents continue to now pay a private operator for. This is Western Sydney's money, and it should be spent in Western Sydney, not be sucked back into government coffers. And I think the funding body needs to be reminded of that. And if it looks like it's withdrawing its money , then we , as an elected body, need to start making a public song and dance about it.

Could I just have, before I finish up, just have someone outline the process that's now open to the public for the operational plan. We are putting this on exhibition. It's quite a complicated document. It's quite a big document. It's much more complicated this time round because it's got a variety of options in it, whether we get the SRV or we don't get the SRV. What input can the public, what constructive input can the public have beyond— Having a whinge on Facebook. My

Office has been waiting desperately for just a question.

Through you, Mr Mayor. So the public exhibition will make the documents available on Your Hawkesbury, Your Say, hard copy availability obviously downstairs in the administration building and our public libraries as well. We're also putting together some more detailed FAQs to explain what the SRV means in context of the operational plan, so it's a little bit more accessible and the information is a little bit more easy to digest. So we'll absolutely make that available.

Thank you. And what's the timeline for

People to respond? It's a normal 28-day exhibition, so 12th of May will be the

12th of May is the deadline. And can I just say to people who may be upset about the various decisions of Council that if you go into one of Council's buildings, the library, or into Council's offices, we make those decisions. The staff don't make those decisions. If you're not happy about Council's decisions, don't take it out on our staff. That's not a reasonable way to behave when you're not happy about a decision of an elected body.

Thank you, Councillor.

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I sincerely echo every word that Councillor Wheeler just said. And before I go into what I want to say about the operational plan, we put our hands up to represent this community, and that comes with sometimes praise and a lot of times bows and arrows, and we can take that heat. But I have had an absolute gutful of this community attacking our staff the way that they do. They are here to do a job, and they do a damn good job. And if anyone who wants to comment on social media about where we're spending our money, you do not have the right to comment if you don't read this document. This document will educate you. This document will show you exactly where we're spending our money.

So rather than speculation and rather than— Opinions that aren't backed up by data, read this document. I can't stress that enough. And if you turn to page 16 of the draft document, you will see that we are dealing with $240 million, and the mayor was right to say that the keywords are a balanced budget, and that has been a very significant challenge for both the staff and the elected body to give our direction on what we were going to do to get to that bottom line being balanced. And when you think about $240 million, you know, that is a lot of money. You think about how you manage your own household budget and make sure your income and your expenses are allocated properly. It takes a lot to do that to $240 million, and in that whole process, we're having to prioritise and make decisions about what should and shouldn't get funded and when, and they are hard decisions to make.

But I want to thank our staff again because while we all bring skills to the table, they are qualified in their relevant fields to make those decisions. And I honestly feel like our current staff have served the Hawkesbury well, and I am very grateful for their contribution to this operational plan. I do want to say that even in 10 years in here, there's still things I'm learning about what we do when it comes to putting an operational plan together. I do thoroughly enjoy the process as an elected representative to talk about with my colleagues what we will and won't, or may or may not, include, ensuring it aligns with our community strategic plan and the vision that we set when we first elected.

So please, I won't carry on too much more, but I really want to put a lot of emphasis on everybody reading this document, and I feel like I'm going to become a keyboard warrior myself whenever I see someone expressing an opinion and ask them, Have they read our wonderful draft operational plan? And I bet the answer is probably no. So thank you very much again to our staff. It's a wonderful document. Thank you.

Any further debate? Councillor Creed, right of reply.

It was Councillor Creed or Councillor Veigel? Yeah. Yeah. All good. Okay. The motion is before us, Councillor, the recommendation on page 25.

Those in favour?

It's unanimous. It's Councillors M. Brogna, Councillor Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash, Creed, Weigel, Reardon and Sheather. Those against? The motion is carried.

9

4.1 . Thanks, mate. Councillor Wheeler? I don't want to move

It as is, Mr Mayor. I don't

Agree with it.

Councillor Kotlash?

Councillor Veigel?

Councillor Wheeler?

No. Did you wish to speak on it, Councillor Kotlash? I, um

I am a little bit disheartened to find out that only— Three of our nine childcare centres have been able to agree to their new leases. And it's , but then again, having three that have gone through that process and have agreed to it and presumably happy that they can still function and serve the community in the excellent manner in which they have done for many years, sort of tells me that they, you know, that the other six may very well need to. Ramp up their negotiation and their dialogue with our staff about these leases. I think it's very important that everybody negotiates in good faith, and I think that we went through this last time when we made the decision to transition to rent, at 80% rent at least. So I think that unless we put a date on, draw a line in the sand about

When we need to draw a line in the sand to get this finished, I think that's going to assist. It'll just put, I guess, it'll put it front of mind in case there's sort of a feeling like there's no hurry for this. I'll leave it at that. I'm happy for us to give this deadline of the 30th of June. I think that's reasonable. I'm not quite sure why they're holding out, if that is indeed the case. But one thing I'll just ask before I finish up is in the original resolution , I put, I think it was a fourth point, that we offer the childcare providers financial assistance, and I was just wondering. I don't know whether it was called financial assistance. I think it was assistance with, you know, sort of transitioning. And I was just wondering whether that has been taken up , and is that a stumbling block for some of the providers, the ones who obviously haven't done much negotiation?

Through you, Mr Mayor. So what Council has done is, with the business advisory assistance, is to provide that as part of the lease negotiations. And the three childcare centres that have agreed to terms, part of those terms are that Council will provide that budgetary assistance once they've obviously signed the lease. Through you, Mr Mayor. So just a couple of points there is that council staff have been negotiating with the childcare centres around a number of those things you indicated, around the maintenance and so on. So that advice,

I guess, has

Been given anyway as we've gone through that.

As far as just probably a bit of an update around the nine childcare centres,

Obviously we have reports on the agenda tonight around three of those that have agreed to negotiations. Since writing this report, there's been some further negotiations with a number of the centres that have proceeded further. So out of the six remaining centres that still have not agreed to those terms, four of those are very close to now agreeing to those negotiations, and I believe those four are going to their committee to get ratification on those agreed terms. So we're expecting potentially that they may agree to those terms very shortly. The other two, we're still negotiating with.

Thank you. I don't support this motion. I didn't support the 80% fee for childcare centres to start with, and I won't support what, to me, looks like a holding their feet to the fire process to either push them to agree to a deal that they probably can't afford or don't want to take on. I also don't support a push to external tender. There's a continuity of care and service level that should be maintained in these facilities. To meet our suggested 80% of market value fee, these facilities either have to increase their fees or cut staff, which means either families pay more, and many of these facilities are in exactly the same places that our rates capacity to pay report showed don't have capacity to pay.

And I draw your attention to Hobartville in particular, where for those of you who went to visit the facility, you were told plainly by one of the administrators there that for many of the children who go to that facility, that is the only hot meal they receive all day.

Apparently our budget bottom line is more important than kids having a hot lunch or a hot meal. I can't live with that. What is the sticking point with this? Is it cost? We can fix that. This is a public good. We have a service level obligation that we have started, and now we feel we should change. I'm not surprised that these facilities haven't agreed to this. When they came in here and we made that decision in confidential session to go to 80% before coming back out again to tell them the good news, the childcare centres didn't even know what they were agreeing to. Somebody asked one of the childcare centre managers if they could afford 80% of the fee. That's fine if you know what 100% of the fee is, but they didn't. We didn't tell them. It was confidential information. So they were forced to agree to something that they didn't even know. Point of order . It's really still with me.

Point of order. Can I just get it clarified? We weren't asking the childcare centres to agree to anything.

They were. The manager of North Richmond

Do you have a question on the point of order?

My point of order was that Councillor Wheeler was saying that the childcare—we were forcing the childcare centres to agree to something.

My recollection is we weren't forcing them to agree to anything. We were saying that we wanted them to negotiate in good faith to come to an agreement. Sorry, I just— I don't think we were forcing them to do

Anything. I've got the question. I just asked the staff, were the negotiations, were they aware of the costs and the differences Councillor Wheeler indicated?

Through you, Mr Mayor, the childcare centres weren't aware of the rental, the market rental, until Council started those negotiations.

Was that before or after they come to Council? After

The Council meeting.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler. Thank you. So what was your—

The information that Councillor Wheeler indicated is correct.

That we forced them? No

They weren't aware of it, Councillor.

We had one of the managers of one of the childcare centres stood in this room and a councillor asked her, Can you afford 80 percent of the fee? and she ummed and ahed and she said, I don't know, maybe, and that became the justification for pushing 80 percent through. She had no idea what she was agreeing to.

We— they hadn't seen the full financial terms of the lease. So to come back in less than 12 months and tell them that they either agree now, or we put out a call for external tender, that looks like forcing to me. That's the very definition of forcing.

I'm pleased that we're getting further with these negotiations, but I'm not at all comfortable with charging fees that mean that these facilities have to reduce the services that they can offer, or have to bleed out of parents who are already under the pump, greater fees. I agreed to the SRV to prevent privatisation and loss of services. I can't agree to this.

Thank you. Through you, General Manager, what's our responsibility in relation to childcare?

Council doesn't have any specific—as Council is not a direct childcare provider, Council does not have any legislative responsibility, as you say, in respect of providing childcare services.

Thank you.

Further debate? Mr Mayor. Councillor Zamprogno. I feel like there's missing information here. The business paper says three agreements have been reached, with the other six being at different stages of renegotiations. May I ask staff, through you, sir. What the other six have said, whether they're claiming some unconscionable hardship, or they've dragged their heels, or they are seeking outside advice. Well , what the other childcare centres are saying may provide substance or refute what Councillor Wheeler is suggesting.

Through you, Mr Mayor. So there's a number of different things that have been negotiated, both with the three childcare centres that agreed to terms, as well as the six others that are currently negotiating. And they range from everything from the commencement date of the lease to who's responsible for certain maintenance, to the value of the bond that's required, to a number of other things. But I guess that what I can say is that of the three that have been negotiated, everything that they have asked for to be negotiated has been agreed to by Council staff and are presented in the report to reports to Council.

Okay, that's helpful. Permit me to go further. Have any of them said, as Councillor Wheeler suggests, that they've now had an epiphany, a dawning realisation of some existential threat to their viability because of what they're now being asked to

Pay? Point of order.

It's a question, Councillor.

It's not a question. It's imputing that firstly, they were incapable of understanding what they were being asked at the time. To infer that they've had an epiphany or a dawning of understanding is frankly insulting to those professional businesses or community organisations

I take on board your comment. I stand by my question, Mr Mayor.

Can I please have the question repeated?

Okay, I'll rephrase. Yeah, and leave the Tiffany out of it. I'm trying to seek some understanding about whether the delay on the remaining six is because suddenly they're saying, We didn't realise it was going to cost so much. We can't do this and we're going to go out of business.

Through you, Mr Mayor, not to my knowledge. The negotiations have been ongoing and a number of those hold-ups have revolved around when they can get before their committees, around staff leave and so on, and also to around about seeking clarification around a number of those items, including the maintenance and who's responsible for the maintenance.

Thank you. That's very instructive. I regret the necessity of doing what we have asked of these childcare centres. I wished that we were in a position where we could be more generous. I acknowledge the social good that these childcare centres provide. I balance that against Council's delicate financial position. Under the circumstances and given the answer that I've received, I'm satisfied with the report and its recommendation.

Thank you, Councillor. Any further debate?

Right of reply, Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I guess I'd

Just like to say on the public record, I think early childcare should be free.

I just don't think that it's a business that I think we need to, you know, to have going the way it does. I think that the people that run these childcare centres are just genuinely providing fabulous service, and I don't want them to think that their service is not valued. The problem that we have is that if we—we're not a bit hard-nosed about

Getting funding now so that they'll actually have a childcare centre in, you know, three years, five years, ten years. I mean, I think the reality is that we have to get users to pay a bit more. And it was interesting when we first broached this subject years ago, and I can't remember the date, when we asked the same childcare centres to give us, I think it was twelve thousand dollars, and that was to go to trying to, you know, make sure that we did have enough money to replace these centres when they needed it. And the fellow that was representing the childcare centres said to me, Oh, it doesn't actually apply to me because I pay the full fee because both my wife and I are on really good wages.

I think it's, I think we have to think about how Council subsidises some childcare places. And if we are serious that that's what we want to do, then we should means test it. At the moment, it's just that it's not, and that worries me enormously because that is not, to my way of thinking, equitable. I appreciate that we need to have subsidised childcare, and that's why the federal government offer very generous subsidies . And my understanding is that the most vulnerable in the community that can't afford much more will be able to get the maximum amount of assistance. So I think we have to keep this in perspective, you know, and we've got to look at who pays for the renewal of these childcare centres.

You know, there's less than 400, and I know it's not places , I'll call them places, and I know that that's not how it works, but that's the comparison that I made. And there's, you know, there's plenty of need in the community, and I think we have to be wise about how we spend our money. And I think that this is a wise way of doing it. I'm sorry that it might come across to some people as being, you know, as forcing

Their hand, but I think we have to be We have to be mindful that all of our ratepayers need to be confident that we have a fair system where some ratepayers aren't advantaged over others if we can help. Thank you,

Councillor. Okay, the motion is on page 86.

Those in favour? Those in favour is Councillor Seng Brogden, Councillor Djuric, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Creed, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Sheather. Those against is Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Ryan. The motion is carried.

Councillor Ryan.

11.1.1.

Thank you, Mayor. I'll stand up.

It's a lot easier

For me when you're tall than down underneath.

I'll second it.

Thank you , Councillor. Thank you.

This is about safety rubbish and litter at the Milegrave Railway Station northeast car park that Council write to the Honourable John Graham, Minister for Transport, outlining the history of previous funding allocations and Council's request for upgrades, and the current condition and safety concerns, and identify the serious issues with the north— East Railway Station car park at Mulgrave to request that the Minister direct Transport for New South Wales to undertake a comprehensive safety assessment and cleanliness audit of the Northwest Railway Station car park at Mulgrave and prioritise the funding of necessary works to ensure that the facility meets the safety and suitability standards , specifically for the allocation of urgent installations of adequate lighting throughout the car park specified to improve visibility and safety, particularly in the early mornings and during the evenings and nights.

Thank you, Councillor. Any further debate?

Councillor Buckett. Mr Mayor, I support Councillor Ryan's motion, and I thank him for going out and documenting, you know, the current status of the Mulgrave Station car park. I'm aware that Councillor Veigel moved a similar motion several years ago, and with our representations to the State Government, to that effect did not amount to very much at all. We know there are issues there. From my point of view, the most urgent issue we should be advocating for is the lighting. It's very, very unsafe. That's an area where there's children who are around from Windsor High School. There's, in these days when the days are shorter, it's getting darker much earlier. There's people still coming home from work.

It's extremely unsafe, and I think this form of advocacy is one of our very important roles. Getting this fixed would be, I know it cycles round each state election, it seems to emerge, and then it retracts back into its pothole, I expect. And then we are left to follow up on it. So hopefully this time, with this sort of advocacy, we can progress it a little further for the many people who use it. And I believe it's really widely used by people. I know Councillor Wheeler sometimes parks there. People from across the river use it as well as people going from the Pitt Town area and people from the Windsor area as well, I expect.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler. Thank you. Yeah, this is the train station I use. If I'm catching the train, it's just much easier to get to Mulgrave than it is to get to Windsor because you don't have to deal with the vagaries of the Hawkesbury Valley Way traffic lights, which may or may not give you a right-hand turn any time this week. More and more people are catching the train due to fuel prices. We saw this with the fuel price spike before COVID, and then everybody went back into their bubble again, and now they're back in. They're back on the train. And also with the increased number of dwellings in that area, and that's only going to get worse. And I think people use Mulgrave because it is a bit busier.

It feels a little bit safer than somewhere like Vineyard, particularly if you're getting off late at night in the dark. Mulgrave isn't great either, but Vineyard is a wilderness late at night. Mulgrave Station is actually dangerous. There's no kiss and ride facility, so that means that school kids are waiting around in a car park with no structure at all. There's no parking. There's no marked parking bay. There's no direction. There's no clear in and out. The road surface, I use the term loosely, is just laughable, frankly. Like, you shouldn't need a four-wheel drive to park at your local train station on the edge of Sydney. Fortunately, I do have four-wheel drive, and I'll chuck it in anywhere.

But, you know, really, it's completely chaotic. There's people blocking exits while they wait to pick somebody else up. There's people blocking parking spaces while they wait to pick somebody up. There's problems with theft. A Bilpin resident who has been caring for her husband with a traumatic brain injury, who's in the Westmead Rehab Unit, came back a few weeks ago to find that someone had stolen her car from Mulgrave Station. She was still an hour and a half

From home. Sorry It might be in one of the holes.

Yeah, could be.

There's outbreaks of bad manners, we shall euphemistically call them. When people get frustrated with the lack of structure and the lack of direction, there are people who just don't care if they get in other people's road or impinge on other people's capacity to park and catch the train while they're waiting for somebody else. I've seen evidence of people defecating on the station. I've been there and there has been faeces outside the toilet because the toilets are never open. This is just not satisfactory for a train station that is supposed to provide public transport. Councillor Loads Buckett is very amused by people defecating The trip hazards are made worse by the return to Eastern Standard Time because people can't see at night.

It's very dark at that station, and then you just get blinded by someone's headlights and lose your night vision. At the very least, we need the rubbish removed and the car park graded so that people aren't falling into potholes, tripping over huge lumps of concrete and bitumen, and those trailers that are parked there need to be moved along. It's not a truck holding bay. I would also like to thank Councillor Ryan not only for bringing this motion, but also putting on the public record in the background the sequence of events with the developer funds handed back, paid for by Pitt Town residents that were in part supposed to fix this mess, that were returned to the developer by order of the state government.

I'm sure the developer was very happy, but the rest of us still have a substandard car park. Councillor

Zamprogno. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I thoroughly concur. I've campaigned on this issue. I accompanied Councillor Ryan and our state member, Robyn Preston, in September of 2020, where we dragged the then Minister Andrew Constance out and basically, you know, stuck his face in a pothole and said, This is unacceptable, considering the amount of development that's occurring in the immediate vicinity and more coming down the road. And, you know, there's been a change of government and we're still no better off. The fact that some of us have been campaigning Councillor Ryan and myself and others have been campaigning for six years and still haven't seen any satisfactory answer. It's just completely unacceptable.

So I welcome Councillor Ryan's notice of motion. I helped Robin set up a petition on this question that's still attracting signatures, even though I set it up in 2021, hundreds of signatures on that petition.

Well, I think at a certain point we drew a line under it and it was submitted to the then minister to kind of underline the community support that was behind these things. But I think Council's voice should be reiterated. Yes.

Thank you, Councillor. I just mention that it's come to the attention of our local member, and I'll make sure there's correspondence in relation to this that she gets it.

Councillor Veigel. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yeah, here we are yet again in 26, and look at the history of it: 2008, 13, 15, 20 and 22. Nothing's changed. I've seen better train stations in India, Mr Mayor. It's desperately third world, this train station. And there's a demarcation here apparently between Transport New South Wales and rail, even though they don't talk to each other, so what hope have we got? But I thank you, Councillor Ryan, for that. To say it's a dog's breakfast is a complete understatement, as I said. So let's try and get some support. I mean, Councillor Ryan said that Andrew Constance did turn up, and Bega lost his seat, I think, didn't he, Councillor? And then he is no longer in power, but he's been trying to get back into some seat ever since.

Maybe if he looked after Mulgrave, he might have smiled on it and he might have won a seat. So anyway, I'll leave it at that. So thank you again, Councillor Ryan, for raising it.

Councillor.

Thank you. Just quickly, I support this motion. It seems quite unbelievable that this had gone on for such a long time. But I'll just, from my memory, and I'm sorry I didn't have time to look this up, I can remember that there was a problem with who owned the land that the car park was on. And so, could we get Some, I'll notice, or if you know that'd be terrific. I think that might be the hold-up here, because it is, it just doesn't look, it just looks like the land has been used for some other purpose and it's just sort of morphed into a car park . And I think that's why, when you look at it, it is such a hotchpotch of concrete and bits and bobs, and there's trucks parked there, and so just ownership would be good if we could. Question

Councillor Veigel. Yeah, to my point, Mr. Mayor, for Councillor Kotlash, those car parks, which are derelict, basically are owned by Transport New South Wales and State Rail, and there's a demarcation issue between both of them, and that's the issue. So I think car council can reiterate it, because that's what I was told some years ago.

I'm notified today, Councillors, reconstruction New South Wales wants to have a talk next week. We might look at putting something like that on the agenda. So , well, it is, it's coming

Any further debate?

I think the Director for Infrastructure could give us some information regarding to the ownership and some probably good news from the director. Through

You, Mr. Mayor. Yes, here's one I prepared earlier. Yes, the car parks are virtually 99% land under, most likely TAHI, the Transport Asset Holdings entity, the New South Wales Government landholder for transport assets. There is a road reserve, which is a council local road just to the north of that, and there is a very small amount of overlap, but the entrances and the vast, vast majority of commuter car parking, informal commuter car parking on the north side of the railway is land owned by Transport for New South Wales

Any further discussion? Councillor Ryan, right of reply.

Look, I don't think there needs a right of reply. It's fairly direct, and I thank everyone for their assistance and their support with this. And let's hope that we don't have to bring this to the chamber again, that we can push this home. There may be another way that we may be able to bring this to the attention of the government. Thank you.

Thank you , Councillor. The motion is on page 150. Those in favour?

It's unanimous. Those against? It's carried. Councillor Brogno, Councillor Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash, Creed, Veigal, Rieden and Sheather.

11.1.2, Councillor Wheeler.

Thank you. I'll move the motion in the business paper. I'll second it, Mr Mayor. Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you

Look, some of this is going to be hard to hear, and I thought long and hard about how I would do this. But I think it's important to have out in the open the level of discourse that is currently occurring in this LGA around racism, around race and religion . And I apologise in advance to the people who are going to be affected by this. I have cut the terms out of some of the things that I'm going to read out, but I'm sure people can infer . I'm going to read out a- A few, or more than a few, Facebook comments that have occurred in the last four or five weeks. Firstly, in relation to a place of worship thought to be a mosque, which is actually a temple for a religious group who've been active in the Hawkesbury for more than three decades.

From Amy: I got served at KFC McGrath's Hill by a... I drove straight through. No more KFC for me. Hayden: There, incorrect spelling, just messy, dirty, disrespectful, and they populate like rats everywhere they go. Glenda: Now we all know why our rates are skyrocketing. Council has to help them first. Mitzi: Too many. They make the place look untidy. Mick, your incorrect spelling, an anonymous moron, likely an unresourceful migrant. From someone who uses symbols instead of a name. I hope you live in a multicultural community. May I recommend Brazil or South Africa? Ali: I did my own survey over two weeks, and out of 13 morons doing 60 or less in 80 zones, 11 were indeed derogatory term. Mick: Might be a particular religious headdress cooking your brain, with a mocking photo attached.

Ali: This country has gone to... because of mass migration from third world holes. Luke: Go to such and such. Take your brothers and husbands with you, otherwise you may end up getting gang raped and left for dead. Leah: The Hawkesbury will soon be another little, like Chatswood is a little... This isn't multiculturalism, nor is it assimilation. It's a takeover. It's hardly our country, our beliefs, our culture, our heritage. It's giving up our sovereignty and who we are as a nation. Paula, that's what they call being a foreign in your own country. Anita, it's already south Windsor altered to be amalgamated with another country's name. Vicky, evil house for a particular religion. Brett, say it as it is, bud.

If it quacks like a duck or rapes goats and kids, then yeah, you're 100% correct. From Anonymous, remove all the benefits, they'll deport themselves. On the Gazette page, Adam, fix the roads instead of tending to derogatory term for First Nations people. John, how much respect before this mob go get a job? This mob lost the war. Aboriginal people burnt large sections of rainforest and introduced the dingo and did some rock paintings in 60,000 years. They now excel in their incorrect spelling, overrepresentation in the state's prison system. No respect needed, no apologies needed. These people are lazy, racist, liars, dishonest, thieves. Also incorrect spelling. And now just tonight, there's already racist comments about a staff member who is yet to walk in the door here on the Gazette page.

How do people expect us to attract and retain staff? All of these comments are still on here. One of these Facebook pages is administered by an elected councillor. And then there were the Facebook comments about throwing pig's heads and bringing their dogs to defecate on the mosque that they think is going to be built. That's actually a temple. The willingness to express views that elsewhere would be seen as rightly abhorrent is pretty shocking. I grew up in the Blacktown area. It was very diverse and is now more diverse. We didn't speak about people like this. I had never heard the words abo, gin or lubra used in conversation until I moved to the Hawkesbury. These comments are really hurtful.

Many are also still sitting on Facebook. I spoke to someone a few years ago who was renting a house in Redbank from a family who had to leave because their children were so badly bullied because they were brown that they couldn't stay in their own home. They moved out of the LGA. Now, I get that people are scared. I get that people are scared by rising cost of living. I understand that they're concerned about housing affordability and traffic and jobs. I understand the feeling of a loss of control about maintaining the look and feel of the Hawkesbury. But that isn't the fault of migrants. It's, or First Nations people. It's the fault of successive government policy.

Thank you, Councillor . Any debate, Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I support this motion, and I'm pleased to know the New South Wales Government has committed funding to assist with preparation of these strategies. An anti-racism strategy is at its core about inclusion and about the kind of community we choose to be, not just today but for future generations. The Hawkesbury is unique with its strong sense of identity, history and community connection. Like many areas across New South Wales, we are also experiencing gradual demographic change. While our community has traditionally been less culturally diverse than other parts of Greater Sydney, that is evolving over time. We know we have an above average population of First Nations people, with whom most of us enjoy a collaborative relationship benefiting from their generosity of sharing their culture and knowledge and, of course, their land.

At the heart of this is a simple question. Who gets to feel that they belong here? Let's not leave that question to local social media, as what Councillor Wheeler has just read out would indicate. As a council, we shape that answer every day through our services, our events, our public spaces, and the tone we set as leaders. One of the clearest measures of inclusion is participation. Every person in our community should feel that they can attend a council event, access our services, or simply exist in our shared spaces without feeling unwelcome. When people feel excluded, whether through overt behaviour or subtle signals, they withdraw, and when that happens, our entire community is diminished.

I've not personally experienced racism, but I've observed it and heard firsthand of people who have suffered it their whole lives. I spent a significant amount of time studying discrimination law when I did my honours thesis, so I've observed the evolution of mechanisms, particularly within organisations, to address racism. I know racism can manifest in subtle ways through assumptions, language, and behaviours that can make people feel like they don't quite belong. And over time, those small signals can have very real and lasting impacts. This is where the issue becomes more immediate. In recent times, we have seen a concerning rise in racist commentary, particularly across local social media platforms.

These comments are often premised with the I'm not racist, but intros, but they have real consequences. They shape attitudes, they normalise exclusion, and they can make people feel that they do not belong in a place that they call home. An anti-racism strategy gives us a framework to respond to this, not by shutting down discussion, but by clearly articulating the standards we expect of respect, inclusion and accountability. I'd just like to explain immutable characteristics. This is because it's really important that people understand that you cannot justify unequal treatment based on something a person never chose. There are things about us we cannot change, and these things should not be used to exclude anyone or deprive them of a right to belong.

A just society neutralises disadvantage tied to those traits. And yet, we still see attitudes that suggest some individuals believe that they have the authority to decide who is welcome to live here or participate in our society. That is a deeply problematic idea, particularly in a country where, aside from First Nations people, we are all part of a broader story of migration, settlement and opportunity. Many who question the belonging of others do so while themselves benefiting from the opportunity to live, work and raise their families here. That reality should call for humility and acceptance, not exclusion. Importantly, this is not about diminishing the Hawkesbury's identity. It's about strengthening it.

A community that is confident in itself does not fear diversity. It welcomes it while maintaining the values that matter of respect, fairness and connection. On the practical side, a more inclusive community is stronger and more resilient. When people feel welcome, they participate more, contribute more and build stronger community connections. That benefits everyone. The decisions we make now shape the community that future generations will inherit. If we're serious about equity, as we say we are, then we must ensure that we are not passing forward a legacy of exclusion or division, but one of inclusion. The Hawkesbury is changing, as all communities do. The question is not whether change occurs, but how we respond to it.

Supporting the development of an anti-racism strategy is a clear and practical step towards ensuring that the Hawkesbury remains not only a place with a strong identity, but a place where everyone feels they can belong.

Thank you, Councillor. Any further discussion? Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. My heart is actually racing right now because I was listening to you, Mary, but I also went and had a look at the post on the Hawkesbury Gazette that Danielle, sorry, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor [unclear], was referring to. And I am disgusted that on our page right now, on the Hawkesbury Gazette page, sorry, there is a post about a brand new staff member who has not even walked in this door. And the comments on there about this staff member are appalling.

And General Manager, I'm sorry to put you on the spot, but I would like your confirmation right now that the information on both the new CFO and the new Director of Planning had only been communicated to this elected body. Is that correct?

It had been communicated to this elected body and staff only. So my gut feeling is that someone's leaked that information. There is no way that that publication, and I refuse to name them anymore because they are not media. There is no way they had that information without someone, either in this— I doubt it's a staff member. Let's just be honest. Let's call a spade a spade. Someone around this table has leaked confidential council information to that so-called media outlet, and that person responsible knows who they are, and they now have just— Had one of our brand new staff members, who has not even come into this building, racially vilified by this community. And you can hear it in my voice, I am appalled. I am absolutely appalled, and whoever you are, shame on you. And let me also just say this.

People would have known that recently there was a council decision about a trip to India for myself that was broadly not paid for by this body.

I think there's about 340 comments last time I looked on the so-called media page who ran the story to try and whip up a frenzy in this community, people who didn't read the story but read the headline and had misinformation about the payment of that trip. Those comments on that story are a disgrace, an absolute disgrace, and that was shared into so many local Facebook groups where people backed each other, liked those comments, further shared them with some of the most racist remarks that I have ever heard.

I have to support this notice of motion because I am seeing a rise of this type of sentiment in the community. And some people may say to me, But Sarah, you went on that march and, you know, had the flag wrapped around you. Absolutely, because I love our flag. I love our flag. And I think that the federal government's got the numbers wrong when it comes to the number in terms of immigration. That's a different topic to being a racist. Being a racist and putting those types of comments with your name attached to it on a public forum where, again, members of our community back each other. In that behaviour is appalling, and it needs to stop. And again, I just want to finish by saying shame on the person who leaked that information about our staff member. I am absolutely disgusted. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. There is no room for racism in our society. I teach at a school where probably 70% of my students are of South Asian extraction, Indian extraction. And I love my kids. I don't see Indian kids and Anglo kids. I just see kids, some of whom were born here, some of whom came from other places early in their life, are in the process of adjusting, and you can hear it in the tenor of their voice or their choice of vocabulary, or in the rich and varied cultural experiences that they bring from the cultures that their families came from. And at my school, that's something that we rejoice in, very rightly. And we do Diwali and we, you know, it's always an occasion of joyful chaos.

When I teach my own students about the unkind comments that they report as they take the train on the Western Line, and then they get off at East Richmond and then they walk to the school, there have been incidents of unkind comments. And then we're left with trying to kind of process that and then work with the appropriate people to try and address those.

What I teach my students is that People are always entitled to dignity, but their worldview , whether it's religious or political or cultural, does not necessarily automatically—you don't automatically defer. It is okay to critique a religion. It is okay to critique a political ideology. But that old saw about, Is it true? Is it necessary? Is it kind? is something that I think we fail to do, especially in the online environment, which we know is very febrile and brings out the worst in people. I'm happy to support Councillor Wheeler's initiative. I just share a kind of cautious scepticism that it will do what we hope that it could do. I don't think it will, because you can't legislate morality, and many of these issues go well beyond our pay grade here in local government.

We can make the gesture locally that people are entitled to dignity and kindness, but their worldviews—and like the Deputy Mayor, I mean, we should be having difficult conversations about the level of migration and about Australia's social cohesion, and I suspect we share some of those views—but to do so in a way that is respectful. So I wish Councillor Wheeler's motion well. I'm just downbeat about whether it will do anything.

Councillor Vogel.

Yeah, thanks. Thanks for the motion, Councillor. Somewhere you've got to draw a line in the sand to total unacceptable behaviour, and this is unacceptable behaviour. I did look at this pretty carefully and said, Oh, how much protections have we got when it comes to the federal Act and the state? But this is completely different. It's got a lot to do with social media. I don't make any— But I shy away that I'm not on any Facebook or social media because I hate it. It brings back the very worst of people out in the community, and they hide behind, you know, pseudonyms and whatever. I've seen a number of people in this chamber being attacked year on year out. I mean, I might have been saying, Oh, why don't you want you can have a look at it?

I read it occasionally. I just wish you just turn it off and just try to ignore it. But I know that's very difficult. I'm particularly sorry that it has been anything that's been leaked to the two representatives. And I know this will happen, General Manager. They've got our 100% support. I don't listen to this crap that's out in the community. But if anybody's listening to this podcast, be careful, because I've got Asian heritage in my family, and all the councils around this room know, and a lot of the community do. I've never seen any racism towards any of my family members. I'm not saying there wasn't over the time. They have a long time ago, but not so much. I'm talking about early 80s perhaps anyway.

I think it's absolutely abhorrent, and I thank you for the motion, and I'll be supporting it. And we'll just have to keep calling it out. I hope we do make differences with this motion. I pray for that we will anyway, but let's see what happens. So thanks again. Yeah

Thank you, Councillors. I travel in a bit different circles, I think, than the people who have made comment, as Councillor Wheeler did. I occasionally hear someone with some animosity, I guess. I don't know there's proper intent in those discussions or that verbalisation. I would sincerely hope not. But it's something that I don't come across every day. I expect better than that from our residents, and I expect that many of them feel the same way as the discussion's gone this evening. One of the things we don't know, I guess, to a degree, is when there's comments made on things like Facebook and the like, where they come from.

And I'd be extremely reluctant to suggest that the majority of them come from our side of town. The people that I know don't conduct themselves in that manner. Certainly not as a way of life. Through frustration or something sometimes, like hitting your finger, you make a comment maybe you shouldn't do. And that needs to be pulled up too, I guess. But if having a motion like this betters our community, we're all the better for it. I'll be supporting the motion.

Any further debate? Councillor Wheeler.

Thank you. And thank you for your support. Look, I just want to bring up a few things before I round off.

Lack of intent still hurts the people who are on the receiving end of the comments. So whether people don't mean to be unkind, or they're just, or we just write them off as a bit of a relic or someone who doesn't get out much, their words still hurt. They need to be called out on the behaviour. It's not acceptable. These are local people. These are local, really specific— Pages . No one from Parramatta is posting racist stuff on the Oakville page that Councillor Zampragno administers and has left racist comments on for months.

Claiming colour blindness isn't a virtue. It's a form of racism. I urge you to go and look up the definition of colour-blind racism and its key aspects. It's problematic because it negates the lived experience of people who experience racism. It minimises the issue and it gives people— it perpetuates inequality and it masks existing disparities in health, education, justice and in access to services and the capacity to just go about your day without someone commenting on you because of your skin colour or because of an obvious religious affiliation. By claiming that race doesn't matter to you or to the spaces that you occupy, that allows individuals to feel like they're not racist while they carry on keeping up systemic inequality and systemic racism.

So it's not enough to say, I don't see— and I know this is hard to swallow. You know, I had this pointed out to me many years ago. Growing up, my best friend was Indian. I really didn't think that I saw that she was Indian and that she was different to me in any way until years later someone pointed out to me that I had just never noticed that the road for her was harder than it was for me because she couldn't take off her skin. She couldn't just slide in without those comments, without those looks, without people thinking those things about her. And I just naively thought that because she was my best friend, because we shared everything. It was all the same. So I urge you to check your naivety and check your privilege and look into that.

This is about us signalling what we will tolerate as an LGA. These are our staff. They're our children. They're the students at our schools. We can't legislate morality, but I tell you what, we can call out when people are racist, when people behave in an immoral way. The state government is currently funding anti-racism strategies. We can get ahead of the curve before our demographic changes any further. We are a predominantly white community. Our migration stats clearly show this. To look at the top five, Maltese comes in at 5.8%. That's our first non-Anglo-Celtic group , and it's 5.8%. Our demographics don't look like any other LGA in Sydney, except maybe bits of the Sutherland Shire. This has made us insular, and unfortunately it's made people scared.

And I think a lot of their voiced bigotry comes from that fear, and I think that's really unfortunate. But I think, too, people are being led down the garden path by other levels of politics who are blaming immigration and blaming people who look different or who worship differently for their own failings. It's the fault of successive government policy that housing has been commodified and is now unaffordable. It is the fault of governments that we haven't delivered sufficient infrastructure, that we've failed to transition the economy to one that's educated and diverse. It's a failure of government policy that people are having to pay over the odds for education and feel like they're locked out of those levels of the economy.

It's a failure of government to provide people with supports needed to provide a good life for everybody.

People don't get a say in what their LGA looks like anymore, and that makes them angry, and they're blaming immigration. Really, the reason they don't get a say, as we've already talked about tonight, is because that say has been taken away from local people and handed to a group of unelected, faceless bureaucrats.

This racism is not compatible with who we are as an LGA. It's completely incompatible with our goals and values of a vibrant and inclusive Hawkesbury.

Thank you, Councillor. Mr Mayor, can I raise a point of order?

Not till after we debate this.

Councillors, the motion is on page 154.

Those in favour?

It's unanimous. It's Councillors Ambrogio, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash, Creed, Veigel, Reardon and Sheather. Those against, the motion is carried.

Mr Mayor May I just quickly raise that we go past 11, given it's 10.58?

It is 11. Would someone like— May

I just move that we continue past 11 p.m., Mr Mayor?

Those in favour?

Against?

It's carried. Mr Mayor, I now have two causes for grievance. One is a point of order can be raised at any point during the meeting. It can be. That's okay. And the second is, and I very, very rarely do this, so I ask for your latitude, I am aggrieved at the suggestion that I am responsible for allegedly racist comment on a Facebook page. that I administrate. And what I would say, to my point of order, is that there was a famous court case in Australia, Fairfax versus Voller, and then as a result of that, the New South Wales government brought special legislation before the parliament in 2023 to make it abundantly clear that people who administer Facebook pages are not responsible for the innocent dissemination of, or comment that occurs on Facebook pages that they administrate. And therefore, I feel aggrieved at the imputation that was made. Thank you, Councillor.

Your point of order is noted, Councillor. Councillors, when we talk about the notice of motion that we just supported, and there's others similar, we need to be mindful that there's two sides to a story, and if we promote that in any way — and I was about to pull Councillor Wheeler up when she ceased with the comment — they're the very things we're trying to avoid. It's not that it doesn't need to be brought to attention if there's a problem,

But to aggravate that problem only makes it worse. I'm sure Councillor Zamprogno has taken on board what he spoke about, and the legislation he talks about, that I've had discussions with people recently just in that regard. So your point of order is noted, Councillor. Councillors, the next— Item is questions with notice.

Thank

You, Mr Mayor. I will speak to that. Mr Mayor, I've raised these questions in response to social media commentary and questions raised in parliamentary estimates recently, because I feel it's very important to have facts put out to the public and to shut down any disinformation that is being spread amongst the community. Recently I've just been watching the Hamish Macdonald show. Well, it was on Tuesday night, but I watched it on iview on ABC called The Matter of Facts, which was looking at, among other things, how misinformation, disinformation and the breakdown of shared truth in society is playing out. It's very interesting and well worth watching. I can recommend it. On that, I heard Maria Ressa, the Nobel Prize winner from the Philippines, say, Without facts, you can't have truth.

Without truth, you can't have trust. And without trust, you have no shared reality. Without all three of those, it's a threat to democracy. So I thought that was a very apt comment to make because I am very concerned at how often I see things that are non-factual, particularly in relation to Council. So seeing information, whether we know it's blatantly inaccurate, requires correction. So this is what I've attempted to do with this series of questions. They're put here with the answers received to give the public the facts and also so we can rely on them if people approach us and say something has happened, it gives us the actual answer. So contrary to a Facebook article which was implying that Council was imminently being subjected to some form of administration or was on notice, we know that this isn't true.

People have asked politicians to ask questions in Parliament where it seems there's no requirement that evidence is needed or any accuracy checked. And there's also no point to doing that if the answers that are given in Parliament are then not provided as well, which clarify the questions asked. That's unless, of course, the objective is simply part of an agenda designed to whip up anti-Council sentiment and plunge people into the mire of social media disinformation. The mechanism to put a Council on notice is the issuing of a performance improvement order, and as you'll see from the answer to the questions here, we have received no correspondence regarding that. In fact, Council, as you can see from the questions, has not received any correspondence in relation to any of the matters in questions one to three and seven and eight.

It's legitimate for constituents to raise issues about Council operations or Council decisions. If they are concerned or dissatisfied, there is an effective system for doing that. They can lodge complaints in a number of ways. They can contact councillors. They can contact staff. We can put in councillor requests, all to get information. It doesn't serve our community well to see misinformation and disinformation spreading and resulting in online vilification and harassment of our staff or councillors.

It may be a game or a power play for some people, people who maybe wish they had a seat at this table and don't, and they think that they can somehow utilise or determine the result of what happens here through other means. But it's not legitimate and it should not be tolerated. We must deal in facts. That's our job. That's what we have to do. Someone in Oakville wants a royal commission into the council and they want to know what they have to do, what they need. Well, the answer is you need about $30 to $60 million and a decision by the Premier or the Prime Minister to get that. So good luck with that. A royal commission into the council would be wonderful. Might have another job, Craig.

How about you people out there that are doing this to our staff and to the councillors and to the community in general, let us get on with our jobs. We were elected to do a job and that's what we should be doing. And we want to do it based on facts and without the distractions and sensationalised artificial intelligence rage-baiting stories designed to impede this community being strengthened. The facts are being lost in the quagmire of disinformation ecosystems that are circling around the Hawkesbury. If you want to know something, ask at the source. If it's about council, ask the council or ask a councillor. We can tell you. It's unfortunate that community pages have become the spot of engagement-driven conflict amplification.

Where among the great glimpses of good information, the venomous tone often dominates. It's time that we all stood up against this. It's destroying our community. It's destroying the good that we could collectively achieve, and I'm sure I'm not the only person in saying I've had enough of it.

Sorry, just one question, Mr Mayor. Is that all right? Thank you. Just in relation to Councillor Lyons-Buckett's question 11 on this, I think it's really important that I wanted to highlight this one, and I thank Councillor Lyons-Buckett for asking the question and having it on the public record, because there was commentary in the local community saying that where someone, particularly a staff member, may be aware of an alleged, given there's a criminal case going, I'm not getting involved, lawyer hat on here. If there's an alleged crime, that should be put aside for an internal investigation to take place first. And I thank the staff for the answer to this question because it breaks it down into three parts, which are very important to understand the obligations of a staff member of this council when something is brought to their attention.

There are three bodies that need to be alerted to any allegations or potential criminal activity. The first one is ICAC, and that is a mandatory reporting requirement under legislation. The second body is the Office of Local Government. That is not mandatory reporting, but it is part of Council's Fraud and Corruption Prevention Policy. So that must be done in line with the policy. The third body discussed in the answer to this question is the New South Wales Police. Now, if anyone suspects that anyone has committed a crime, that needs to be reported to the police. To actually put out there in the minds of our local community that that obligation to report to the police should be overlooked for an internal investigation first is absolutely mind-blowing to me.

And I cannot believe that that misinformation has been put out there for people to believe that that should be the way that our staff should have acted, despite the fact that they have to operate under mandatory reporting and legislation requirements. Doing so is doing due diligence and doing things properly in accordance with the law. And I think, again, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, for that question and the very succinct way that's been answered in line with the duties of people to report such behaviour. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and I'll just follow on from what the Deputy Mayor has just said. Can you imagine the headline if we'd kept it quiet and had a nice internal investigation? You know, it's just so dangerous to have this sort of misinformation being spread to quite a wide audience. But I actually wanted to just highlight question number 10 that Councillor Lyons-Buckett has put up, and I also thank her for this quite— Quite comprehensive trawling of the misinformation. I think we could probably have had another ten questions.

I was really dismayed and, in fact, annoyed by some so-called media outlets saying that our divestment of the Windsor sewage scheme was , you know, was such a terrible idea and it was costing us and we'd given away this very lucrative and profitable business. Because they didn't understand what they were talking about, but yet they whipped up this story

That for some reason we were shirking our responsibilities. And the other thing that really annoyed me was they said that the sewage scheme was broken and wasn't working. So all of these poor people on pump-out were going to be affected as well, which was just clear nonsense. So the facts weren't clearly, I mean, they weren't given to our community. They weren't. It just was an opportunity to , and this is what Councillor Lyons-Buckett and the Deputy Mayor have said, it's to whip up this frenzy of council bashing based on the most ridiculous things. It is quite hard to sit here and to stomach this sort of misinformation because there doesn't seem to be any good reason for it other than muckraking. Now, it says in the answer, which I think is really worth— Putting on the public record again, or at least underlining it.

It was claimed in the media that, you know, that this whole divestment was going to deny our ratepayers value. But yet when our staff and Sydney Water staff, ministerial staff, the mayor, our general manager and the director of infrastructure met with the minister for water, the Honourable Rose Jackson, her take on it was that she was willing to support us in any way she could in recognition of the significant benefits that arise to customers from the divestment. Now , that's— this, the whole scheme was always meant to benefit the eight and a half thousand people that this system served. But yet what we got was article after article after article of nonsense. And I absolutely agree, this has got to stop.

It is not— it is out of control. People are being, our staff are being treated like they don't know what they're doing and fancy, you know, giving away this wonderful asset. This was a really good decision. It was a canny decision, and our staff know what they're doing. And it's about time that people in our community recognise. The very great value they get from our staff. And if they have problems, like Councillor Lyons-Buckett said, come to us. We're the people that put our hands up to do the argy-bargy of political discourse. That's our job. But, you know, I think this is, I really can't put up with this any longer. It has simply got to stop. Thank you.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thank you. Can I ask, in relation to question four, there's reference in here to an external audit. Were there any adverse findings or feedback from any external audit in relation to disaster infrastructure funding?

Not to the best of my knowledge, Councillor. Thank you. And in relation to question six, the process of collection of developer contributions, it's clear from the response that funds can't be used for infrastructure backlog. Could I just ask, based on the experience of Central Coast Council, what happens to councils who use their developer contributions to fund budget deficits or infrastructure backlog or other black holes?

I won't unpack the tale of Central Coast Council, Councillor. Suffice to say that's unlawful.

Yes. And we all know what happened to Central Coast Council. They were placed into administration because it is indeed unlawful to use developer contributions contrary to 711 and 712 plans.

Question seven asks about flood mitigation funding. What flood mitigation funding did Council receive?

I'm not sure as to the nature of the question. I can only assume that that was perhaps in relation to either DRFA funding or grant funding post-natural disasters where there were, I think, what we call Cat D funding coming through either the Australian or the New South Wales Government. I would assume it's referring to that.

So no funding for Hawkesbury Council to hold back the waters, Jesus-like, of the Hawkesbury Nepean. How surprising. What we've got here, frankly, is a clear misuse of the budget estimates process. I've worked in state parliament. I've worked for a member of the Legislative Council who Still sits on these committees. She, in fact, chairs some of these committees. I understand very well the purpose of budget estimates because I sat through lots of them.

They are to determine the expenditure, performance and effectiveness of state government agencies, not councils, state government agencies. They are for state government accountability and transparency, based on the decisions, actions and advice of ministers and public servants. The questions that council was subjected to, that Councilor Lyons— sorry, that the deputy secretary was subjected to in budget estimates, that Councilor Lyons-Buckett has based her questions on, are a misuse of budget estimates. They have clearly been put to Mr Ruddick, the MP involved, and frankly, he would have been better to direct his questions to Hawkesbury City Council if he was interested in the correct answers to those questions.

They also contain a misuse of privilege to make adverse reflections on people who cannot defend themselves. This is against Standing Orders 4.19. MPs are entitled to parliamentary privilege, and they get to say all sorts of things about people without having to defend themselves, without being subject to defamation proceedings, unlike councillors, who are subject to whatever the courts or people decide to throw at us.

Further, there is a violation of subjudice in referring to active legal proceedings. I'm not sure who has been in Mr Ruddick's ear, but from one level of government to another, I would give him some advice: don't believe everything people tell you. Sometimes they're leading you up the wrong path entirely.

The next item we've got is 13.1. 1,

And we don't need a response for that. Mr Mayor, I had a question in relation to some of the content in this item. I'm just not sure of the protocol in the sense that we're not allowed to ask questions to put on notice, but I have a question in relation to this issue.

What is it? Okay then. So my question is this. In item 3, in response to a question that you put, Mr Mayor, concerning the catchment area of Oakville Public School and any potential overlap with the Vineyard Stage 1 Contributions Plan, and I note that the Acting Director of Planning, in responding to your question about the catchment area of the school, responds by referring to the Vineyard Section 7.11 Contributions Plan and that it does not apply to, extend to, or capture the land upon which Oakville Public School is situated. Now, it's very clear if you look at two maps. One is the map of the catchment area of the school, and the other is the boundaries. The other is the boundary of the Vineyard Stage 1 area.

There's very substantial overlap. So I'd like to question the acting director further about how it is possible that, given that the school is collecting from an area that's under intensive development, is that it could be so completely ineligible for any improvements that flow from that development. Can I put that on notice?

I'll give you the answer, and I'll ask for it to be responded to. The catchment overlap you're talking about is the drawing; it's not the school. The school itself is not in the catchment of the 7-Eleven contribution.

The school itself, but it's clearly bearing a huge influx. Yeah

The school collection area doesn't relate to the 7-Eleven plan. The plan relates to the area defined within that limit, and the school is outside that limit.

I don't want to labour the point, Mr Mayor, but I suppose my question would then be: I always thought that developer contributions were to be spent both in and near the areas affected by development to provide necessary infrastructure, and I suppose that's the question I'm looking for the clarification on. I'll clarify for you, Councillor.

Through you, Mr Mayor. When dealing with developer contributions, the development contribution plan itself is very specific as to the area in which that development contribution plan relates. And the legislation essentially tells us, as does the regulation, that the collection of contributions pursuant to the relevant contribution plan must be attributed to items identified within the relevant contribution plan. So if the school we are talking about is not identified within the relevant contribution plan, then we are prohibited from directing any funds collected by that plan toward the school and/or any facilities associated with that school. So it's very specific. There's a work schedule, which we've dealt with tonight on a revised work schedule under a separate contribution plan.

There is a work schedule in which we, as a council, upon collecting those contributions, must attribute those contributions toward.

Thank you.

Okay, moving on. We've got some confidential items, Councillors.

Councillor Kotlash.

Councillor Veigel.

Thank you, Councillors. The matter of 7.12, the Mayoral Minute in relation to the General Manager, I'll get the report read.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. In regard to item 7.12, Mayoral Minute regarding personnel matter, whilst in closed session Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Sheather, seconded by Councillor Veigel, that one, Council notes the confidential correspondence from Elizabeth Richardson, General Manager, to Councillor Les Sheather, Mayor, dated 14 April 2026 and accepts her resignation as General Manager of Hawkesbury City Council with effect on and from 17 April 2026. Two, Council conveys its sincere thanks to Elizabeth Richardson for her leadership and achievements over the past five years, which have included leadership, organisation-wide transformation and workplace culture reform to embed a high performance and customer-focused culture.

Leading Council through the 2022 and 2024 flood events and delivering a fivefold increase in capital works and overseeing an extensive flood recovery program restoring critical infrastructure to the Hawkesbury, driving financial sustainability through major service reforms, asset optimisation and commercial improvements, and achieving state and national recognition with many awards in sustainability, community engagement and climate resilience. Three, pursuant to sections 336 and 351 of the Local Government Act 1993, Council appoints Mr. Will Barton to be Council's Acting General Manager from the effective date of resignation until the commencement of a new General Manager for a maximum period of up to 12 months or until further resolution of the Council, whichever occurs first, provided that if Mr. Will Barton is on leave prior to Council appointing a new General Manager or appointing a different Acting General Manager, the Mayor, following consultation with the Deputy Mayor, may temporarily appoint one of Council's directors as interim General Manager for the period of such leave.

Four, the Mayor, following consultation with the current General Manager's performance review panel comprising the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Kotlash, be authorised to: A , seek an interim General Manager locum via suitably experienced recruitment consultants, with any further interim General Manager appointments to be made only by Council resolution; B, to invite Local Government New South Wales and other suitably experienced external recruitment consultants to submit proposals to assist the Council with the recruitment process to recruit a new General Manager for the Council; and C, to appoint a suitably experienced external recruitment consultant to assist the Council with the recruitment process to recruit a new General Manager for the Council, in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993 and consistent with the Office of Local Government's guidelines for the appointment and oversight of General Managers' guidelines.

Five, in furtherance of the above and consistent with page seven of the guidelines, the Council delegates to the Mayor the task of ensuring— The selection panel is established via a separate Council resolution. The general manager's position description is current and evaluated in terms of salary to reflect the responsibilities of the position. The proposed salary range reflects the responsibilities and duties of the position. The position is advertised according to the requirements of the Act. Information packages are prepared and applicants selected for interview are notified. Six. The selection panel referred to above prepare a selection panel report addressing the matters referred to on page 8 of the guidelines, which is to be presented to the future meeting of Council for consideration.

Voting for the motion were Councillors Sheather, Reardon, Veigel, Creed, Kotlash, McMahon, Durick, Ryan, Lyons-Buckett, Wheeler and Zamprogno.

In regard to item 14.3.1, regarding lease to Elizabeth Street Extended Hours Preschool Incorporated , whilst in closed session Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Kotlash, seconded by Councillor Veigel, that one, Council agree to enter into a lease with Elizabeth Street Extended Hours Preschool Incorporated , incorporated number Y0095045, for part of the property known as 22 Elizabeth Street North Richmond, being part of Lot 57 in Deposited Plan 236754, as outlined in this report, to authority be given for the lease and any documentation associated with the matter to be executed under the seal of Council. Three, details of the Council's resolution can be made to the proposed lessee together with the advice the Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of its resolution until such time as appropriate legal documentation puts such resolution into effect has been agreed to and executed by all parties.

For the motion were Councillors Reardon, Weigel, Creed, Kotlash, McMahon, Djuric, Ryan, Lyons-Buckett, Wheeler, Zembrogna and Sheather. In regard to item 14.3.2 regarding lease of Wilberforce Preschool Kindergarten Incorporated, whilst in closed session Council resolved— Mr Mayor

I think the vote has been recorded incorrectly. I voted against that motion. So did— Yep, sorry. Yeah, so

Voting against that, last one was Councillor Wheeler and Ryan, thank you. In regard to item 14.3.2, lease to Wilberforce Preschool Kindergarten Incorporated, whilst in closed session Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Kotlash, seconded by Councillor Creed, that one, Council agree to enter into a lease with Wilberforce Preschool Kindergarten Incorporated, incorporated number Y0314702, for part of the property known as part of 15 King Road, Wilberforce, being part of lot— 7. Section 1 in Deposited Plan 759090 and lot 8 in Deposited Plan 1096193, as outlined in this report, to authority be given for the lease and any other documentation associated with this matter to be executed on the seal of Council.

3. Details of Council 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 appropriate legal documentation to put such resolution into effect has been granted and agreed to and executed by all parties. For the motion were Councillors Reardon, Veigel, Creed, Kotlash, McMahon, Djuric, Zembrogno and Sheather. Voting against the resolution was Councillor Ryan, Lyons-Buckett and Wheeler. In regard to item 14.3.3 regarding lease to Windsor Preschool Association Incorporated, Council whilst in closed session resolved on the motion of— Councillor Veigel, seconded by Councillor Creed, that one, Council proceed to publicly exhibit the proposed lease with Windsor Preschool Association Incorporated, Incorporated number Y0279129, of the property known as part of 91A-95 Church Street, South Windsor, being part of lot 7303 in Deposited Plan 114110.

Lot 14 in Section Z in Deposited Plan 759096. Lot 15 in Section Z in Deposited Plan 759096. Lot 12 in Section 7 in Deposited Plan 759096. And lot 13 in Section Z in Deposited Plan 759096, as outlined in the report in accordance with section 47 of Local Government Act 1993. Two, at the expiration of the public exhibition period outlined in part one above, the following action be taken: A, should any submissions be received regarding the proposed lease to Windsor Preschool Association Incorporated, Incorporated number Y0279129, a further report be submitted to Council; or B, should no submissions be received, one, Council enter into a lease with Windsor Preschool Association Incorporated, Incorporated number Y0279129, for part of the property known as 91A to 95 Church Street, Windsor, being part of lot 7303 in Deposited Plan 114110.

Lot 14 in Section Z, Deposited Plan 759096. Lot 15 in Section Z, Deposited Plan 759096. Lot 12 in Section 7, Deposited Plan 759096. And lot 13 in Section Z, Deposited Plan 759096, as outlined in the report. Two, authority be given for the lease and any other documentation associated with the matter to be executed under the seal of Council. Three, details of the 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 appropriate legal documentation to put such resolution into effect has been agreed to. Voting. In favour of the resolution were Councillors Reardon, Veigel, Creed, Kotlash McMahon, Djuric, Zembrogno and Sheather.

Voting against the resolution were Councillors Ryan, Linesbucket and Wheeler.

In regard to item 14.3.4, lease of part of Hannah Park, 45 Beaumont Avenue North Richmond, whilst in closed session Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Creed, seconded by Councillor Veigel, that one, Council agree to enter into a lease agreement with Rubber Latex Laboratories Proprietary Limited for Lot 31 in Deposited Plan 841742, being part of 45 Beaumont Avenue North Richmond, in accordance with the proposal outlined in the report. Two, Council agree to enter into a deed of consent to sublease with Transport for New South Wales and Rubber Latex Laboratories Proprietary Limited for parts of Lots 31 and 32 in Deposited Plan 841742, being part of 45 Beaumont Avenue North Richmond, in accordance with the proposal outlined in the report.

Three, authority be given for the lease, deed of consent to sublease and any other documentation in association with these matters to be executed under the seal of Council. Four, details of Council's resolution be conveyed to Rubber Latex Laboratories Proprietary Limited and Transport for New South Wales, together with the advice that Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of its resolution until such time as appropriate documentation to put such resolution into effect has been agreed to by all parties. For the Council resolution were Councillors Reardon, Veigel, Creed, Kotlash McMahon, Djuric, Ryan, Linesbucket, Wheeler, Zembrogno and Sheather.

Thank you. Councillors, that concludes the business of Council this evening. Before I close the meeting, though, this will be the last opportunity, I guess, for our General Manager to sit around this room with us. And I just wish her the best in whatever she takes on, and thank her. There's some of the things that she's achieved over the short time that she's been here that is in the business paper. It's very little in what has been achieved, as she's been involved in both personally and directed. And for that, thank you. Is there any— Councillor? Absolutely.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Elizabeth Richardson, thank you so much for your service to this organisation and to this community. You're a remarkable woman.

Is there any other— Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Liz, for being brave with things that we didn't think we could achieve. They sound like little things: transitioning the fleet, a whole-of-business sustainability strategy, renovating the building when no one else was brave enough to back it because they thought that— because they couldn't agree with it, because they thought the public would frown on it, and you just said, I'm not having my staff working in substandard conditions. I'm going to do it anyway, and I'll wear the consequences. Thank you for being brave enough to lead us. I'm sorry that we weren't brave enough to give you the backing that you deserved.

Councillor Ryan. Elizabeth, although you've only been here a short time, but I thank you for your guidance, your patience and direction you've given me. I've learnt a lot since I've been here. For a man over 70 years old to start learning like I did was incredible. I wish you all the best and please look after yourself, your family, and make sure that you make yourself number one from now on. And please, I respect you and I thank you. Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor Veigel.

I can remember the first thing when I asked you when you got here, you were already here for a number of months in my first term, and I said, How is it going and how is the staff going? You said, Oh, they needed a lot of love. I raised that a few minutes ago, if not half an hour to an hour ago. I always seem to think that the greatest assets you have is the people around you, and you showed them that. Not to mention you went through the trauma of going through how many floods did we go through? Eight. Eight. And you had to deal with certain characters in council, probably I'm one of them, but you know probably who I'm talking about. I

Kind of sorry it's come to this, but I wish you all the best, right? So besides, I'll be over at Lane Cove so often, and I can track you down if you're over at Hunters Hill. I have ways because of my German name, dare I say. But for me, God bless, and to your husband and your son too. I'll miss you around the show. Thank you, Councillor.

Thank you,

Mr Mayor. Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you. Just adding to the thanks, and I hope that whatever you go on to next you find it rewarding. I'm sure that there are many, you've got a great deal to offer, and I thank you for what you did for us. And I know there's been many challenges. I know some of us are challenging. I know we gave you challenges, and you took those on, which is so admirable. It's local government is showing its ugly side at the moment, but I'm sorry that you had to, you know, endure that. But again, we thank you for it. And I just have to say, I just love that power lipstick you've got on. It's amazing.

Yes, Liz, I'm very, very sorry we're losing you. Thank you for all the things you've done and encouraging us when we wanted to apply for awards and things like that. I think you've made a great difference to Hawkesbury City Council, and I wish you all the best.

Thank you, Jill.

Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. And Liz , just above all of the things that you've done, and your, you know, your level of competence is huge, and you've pulled this organisation up dramatically since you've been here . And you're clever, and you've got a mind like a steel trap, and I admire you. But the thing I admire most about you is your integrity . And I'm sorry that you had to endure the dishing out from people that don't have any integrity. But yours is rock solid, and I've learned a lot from you. And being 66, and, you know, you think you don't need to learn anything, but... I have really learnt the importance of integrity and also the importance of leadership that lifts people. And you have always done that. You have always lifted people, and it's made a big difference. And I thank you for that, and I will miss you.

Thanks.

Thank you, Councillors. Every word deserved.

Just quickly, Mr Mayor, this doesn't have to be on the record, but I'll leave it. Just for the rest of you, right, we're here for you too, okay? So we're not going to forsake you, all right, and the rest of the staff, because I know you've got some transitions to do. So yeah, okay?

Thank you, Councillor Veigel. Councillors, I declare the meeting closed.