16 June 2026 - Ordinary

Evening, councillors and public. Welcome to the meeting of the 10th of June 2026. I'd start by Hawkesbury City Council acknowledges the Dharug and Darkinjung people as traditional custodians of the land of the Hawkesbury. We pay respect to all Elders past and present and emerging, and acknowledge all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the First People of this country. General Manager.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Members of the public attending the meeting are advised that in the event of an emergency, you will be asked to proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exit following the guidance of our warden. I would also like to advise that in accordance with Clause 5.34 of the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of the Council are recorded. In the terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting and live stream of Council meetings. The provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary.

If any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting. The gallery can be seen in the live stream video, and if you do not wish to be recorded in the live stream, please move to the foyer and we will turn the foyer speakers on for you. The recordings may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations. The recordings are stored on Council's record management system and uploaded to Council's website. Meetings of the Council may be separately recorded with the prior authority of Council. And finally, it is also requested that if any person participating in or attending the meeting has a mobile phone, that they either turn it off or turn it to silent.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, General Manager. Councillors, apologies. I just ... Mike, Councillors, where Councillors, please note that the previous Council meeting held on the 2nd of June 26, Council accepted an apology from Councillor Mike Creed and granted leave of absence from Council meetings until the 30th of June.

Declarations of interest, Councillors.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I have an interest in item 10.5.1.

Thank you.

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Item 10.2.1, item 10.3.2, and item 10.5.1.

Councillor Wheeler, do you have something else?

Oh, sorry

Thank you.

Can I have confirmation of the minutes dated the 2nd of June 28, please Councillor Reardon.

Councillor Ryan. Any discussion? Those in favour?

Against? It's carried unanimously. Councillors Zamprogno, Councillor Wheeler, Councillors Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash, Veigel, Reardon and Sheather. The motion's carried.

We've got two speakers in relation to the public address in council this evening. Frank Reed—they're both in relation to 10.2.1, Frank Reed and Grant Gerrish.

Mr Reed, excuse me, if you'd like to address Council, you have five minutes. There's a buzzer at four minutes just to let you know that the time— it's a minute to expire.

Mr Mayor, may I just read out my declaration? Yes

You can.

Thank you . Thank you. My declaration is less than significant, non-pecuniary. The item mentions funding for Turnbull Oval and my son plays for Hawkesbury Hawks. However, that is not a pecuniary interest. I'll be staying in the room. Thank you. Thanks

Deputy

Mayor. Mr Reed And thanks for the opportunity to speak tonight. I'd like to just give a short overview, and then I'd like to take a focus into the deep part of the centre because, as you know, all the councillors here have received my email with photos of the courts and also the list of supporters. So tonight I have my colleagues with me, and also we have a 170-strong team called FORT, which are the Friends of Richmond Tennis. You also have a list of those. We speak in support of the draft plan and the 200k that has been mentioned. That's very exciting for us, and I hope it is for you. I do wish to bring some key details into focus. And I'd also like to personally thank three of the councillors who've actually taken the trouble to come out and have a look at the courts and fix the road afterwards, which was great.

And that's Mayor Sheather, Councillor Veigel and Djuric. Thank you for that. A quick overview of the situation is this. This is where it's come to now. The HDTA, that's the Hawkesbury District Tennis Association, demise started back in 2018 and collapsed during COVID-19, like a lot of others, I hear, sadly, with no funds. Since then, the coaches run the centre, really holding the thing together, if you like. And of course, in that situation, controls all the revenue and pays all the costs, including council's lease. The court hire revenue, 75% comes from that alone. So court hire revenue, social, juniors, comps, tournaments, the whole thing, is deeply relies on that to survive. Our current situation here, and this is really focused, there are two tennis courts here over at Windsor, the town courts.

There's one up there at Freeman's Reach. There's a couple up there, someone reminded me of at Kurrajong Heights, which is a bit far away. Three viable tennis courts in the district. We have 14 at Richmond. Let me just explain to you the situation with the Richmond courts. And I'm not pointing a finger of blame here. There's a lot of factors that have come into this. Six courts are unsafe for play. That's 42%. Four courts are cracked, worn, faded, and below competition standard. That's 28%. Two courts have potential trip hazards where the recently removed fencing has left the footings and the posts have been painted so we can see where we can trip. Two courts have good playing surface, but unfortunately one has a bent post, so therefore it's not good for competition either.

So we're down to one high-quality court for competitive play. That means there are 91% of the courts have some sort of an issue, and if I'm running a business, that's a worry. So that is one of our main concerns here, and it is urgent. It also is a worry in terms of OH&S standards. We've had someone have a look at those courts, and probably a couple of them should be closed. Lighting is also under pressure because of the age of the lights. Now, there are a couple of remedies in terms of time, and they're suggested by Council: reform the HDTA. Well, that's a start-up with no funds to pay rent, insurance, a number of other things, and a centre that's less than operative of 10%. The last effective HDTA was in 2010.

They had a $17,000 profit. What we've got the problem with now is volunteers, time-poor people, and of course no revenue stream because they all go through to the coach now, who's been holding the fort. The centre runs seven days a week, including four to six nights. It's a high-intensive business. The coach could continue as is with a renewed centre under Council's management. That was suggested by Council, and also Council could take over the entire running and automate the centre and provide management. The challenge is the draft plan for four courts is great. What's included? We estimate it's about $60,000 short of getting those four courts done effectively. We also have other supporters there that play other sports other than tennis: pickleball, futsal, training, disabled tennis, hotshots.

It's a multi-purpose centre. We believe that for $460,000, Council could fix those courts in one hit. I'm not talking about lights here, I'm talking about services, both ends, and we would have a fully functioning centre. Tennis New South Wales has also suggested they could come up with $90,000 as well. Thank you for your time, and if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Mr Reid. Just touching on what you just said then, under what conditions would Tennis New South Wales give the $90,000? Would that be contingent on Council giving something?

Well, absolutely. Absolutely, yes. And what Council can do as the owner of the courts is actually apply to them with help. They are very keen to help, and they will offer up to 20% of the overall cost. So I figure that's about $90,000 at this case, of that $460,000. And obviously it'd be less related to the $200,000, which we're happy with too, of course.

Okay, that's good. I'm glad you're happy with that. What about other avenues for grant funding? Do you know of any others? Like, are there many grants? It's not an area I know

About. Yeah. Well, because I'll take the risk for a bunch of old guys here trying to get our tennis courts together. I mean, I was there in 1972 when they opened. It is a pretty arduous task to get it to this stage. We're certainly not going to be able to deal with a committee situation. So that's kind of where we're at. All

Right. Okay, thank you.

Thank you . Any further questions? Yeah, just one at the moment. Mr Reid?

Sorry, do that. That had an on-call

Before? Yeah, no, I think.

That bell was just to keep you on your feet. You can thank me for the on-call. Thanks

Very much

It was just one pair of hands . You've roadmapped a lot of this and you missed out on a WSICA approval by about one point, I believe, when they were up, up, up , when you applied for it back in about 2020 .

I think you're right. I wasn't involved then, but I think you're right because Luke out there told

Me it was awfully close. But basically, you've got a roadmap for improvements on that development. This is what Mayor Sheather and I were given, ready to rock and roll. So there is a plan on what you'd want to do and what you're trying. Absolutely

And Council also have a plan.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah, been talking with Michelle there, Michelle Engelhard there. They've done a feasibility study. We're well on the way. Good, Mayor. Thanks for your time. Thanks for your time tonight. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, councillors. That will debate that matter prior to the— sorry, we've got another speaker on the same matter.

Mr Grant.

We note the clock is not functioning. I could say I'm nervous, but that would be a porcupine, a quote, a phrase that I learned from an extremely hardworking Windsor resident. You remember last meeting, you gave honorary commendation to Jan Bartley-Jack. Her husband, the late Ian Jack, has the best 15 words that I have ever heard, and I read them every two months for the last six years about Windsor. First of all, I do consider it a privilege to be here, and I think probably the 400 that will manage is consider it a privilege. And I really suspect that all of you consider it a privilege. And what I suggest, and I'm happy to say, I think it's a privilege for me to suggest this and a privilege for you to endorse it.

Now the 15 words. I don't need to read them. I've memorized them. Old Windsor has suffered dreadfully, five, capped by ten more. This is all a great pity, chapter 7 this is. This is all a great pity because Windsor deserves better. I do believe most of you believe that. But he goes on to say, when you approach Windsor, you come over a high-level bridge to Macquarie Street, which has been widened with simple brutality. You know it's ugly, but across the street there is something splendid. Is it not the official, semi-official entrance to Windsor? I want to propose to you this phrase: reclaim a name. Proclaim a name. The park across the street has had four names. But as, as many of you know, a few on Friday, a stone, beautiful substantial stone wall has been placed five meters long, which we'd like to think last a century, hence my point.

What should go on that? Yes, you could just opt out and do the mediocrity, which would be, say, Macquarie Park. But given that that splendid space has had four names, why not do the highest standard, which I'd like to suggest to you, you will see in your documentation there. Not my idea, the council's. Praise. What was it called? Not only was it called Church Green and Windsor Park and what it is now, but its most prestigious name. How can this not be the time? And I ask you to halt, if there is a plan to affix tomorrow metal letters to that, you say, Halt. Let us ask the community. And what would we ask them? We'd say, well, given that our own documentation in various places says this was called—is this not beautiful?—The Great Square.

What's the pedigree? Some clerk a hundred years ago came up with it? Lachlan Macquarie himself, and he did that 215 years ago, and he walked it. He created it. He measured it. He named it. How remarkable, therefore, and that's why you have this page, to not have that as the showstopper, contrasting with the ugliness of Macquarie Park. When you come opposite where we are right now, how would you not want to feature the Great Square? I can provide research to say this is the oldest and the finest great square that the visionary Lachlan Macquarie, or any colonial governor ever created. There it is across the street. I'd suggest that if you do this, it will show two things to the committees, the heritage committees that can't be here, that you're willing to ask them, and you're willing to say that we 11 or 10 are united in this.

This would be a unifying thing. And to the new staff executive people, Will in his position and Monica, who comes from a good pedigree of Canada Bay doing beautiful things, you'd be saying, yes, we cannot be accused of—which people do—of, You don't get it. You don't get what the Blue Mountains does. You don't get what Tasmania does, which is there is the link between enhancing every way possible historic character and boosting the tourist economy. I close by saying, doesn't it make the— Stand up on the back of your neck to think that when you go home tonight, if you go to that footpath and you were alive 215 years ago, you would see Lachlan Macquarie. Not maybe. That's where he was. He didn't sign a decree.

He came out here. He came out here in 1810 and 1811. So why not seize this opportunity to do something that is, frankly, I quote the person who assists so much in this and did much of this work, which is Noel Bridge, who is an owner-restorer of the 1840s former inn up the street. It would be magnificent. Thanks

Grant.

Thank you.

Councillor Zamprogno. Grant, you've had a great idea.

Well done. Well, thank you so much. But recall, it isn't me. The council's own documentation, page after page. This is the Great Square.

So before you leave the lectern, let me ask you: is it your opinion that if we wanted to give effect to this change, that we would have to go through the bureaucratic process of changing its name and gazetting it through the Geographical Names Board? That's

A great thought because in the past the council did change the name. The sole brother, if we'll say a hundred-plus years ago of Donald Trump, was a man named McQuaid who, now that you've asked, did a bit of sleight of hand. He voted as a councillor to have even for and for against to call it after himself. And then he stepped back and then, as the Australian has the hilarious account of, the Australian newspaper, as he came in again as the mayor and used his casting vote to name it after himself. Then when the council rescinded it and called it Windsor Park, which is what it was gazetted as, he came back, mayor at another term, and rescinded the rescindence and called it McQuaid Park. So decide, do you want to have the first-class Australian generosity of Lachlan Macquarie, that visionary, or do you want to go do a replica of, frankly, the Donald across the street? I'll just answer your

Question is yes.

Thank you so much. Seize the opportunity. Thank you, Councillors. The matter

Before us is the operational plan on page 19, 10. 2 .

1. Could I have a motion, please? I move the recommendations, Mayor. I'll second it, for you. Councillor Reardon , Councillor

Veigel

Any speakers against?

If I may, Mister Mayor

Did someone else have their light on?

Yeah

Just a

Question through you, Mister Mayor, if I may. Can we just come back to the Richmond tennis courts and the operational plan? I think there's $200,000 allocated for maintenance for the next year.

We've got a timeline where that might start, and if so, can we work with the representatives of the committee or management or whoever. I know it's a little bit complex because there's a third party involved in here, but we can get the biggest bang for the buck because it desperately needs TLC, if we could, please. Thank you.

Yeah, there's been a lot of discussion with the staff in relation to the opportunities that may create the best opportunity to get that work done, and there's people still working hard at it.

Are we got any idea at the moment when the works may commence? I suspect it wouldn't be right on the 1st of July, dare I say, because it needs some thought that the money's put in the right direction, with the 90,000 that may be forthcoming, if that was the case. I'd just like to point out, I think Tennis Australia goes a dollar for dollar for each grant too, eventually. But I would also encourage, if I may, through you, Mr Mayor, to encourage the people who represent the Richmond Tennis Club that maybe they should get an association with the sports council, because they can help a great deal when it comes to grants and stuff like that and assist council in that manner. But that's just a recommendation from me, nothing. Yeah ,

Through you, Mr Mayor. Look, it's always a balancing act in terms of proceeding with expenditure, given that funds or projects indeed already commenced generally aren't eligible for grant funding. So before we launch headlong into it, and the intention always was to try and identify a dollar for dollar grant to leverage that $200,000 into a $400,000 project. If that's not looking likely, then we'll forge ahead with doing what we can with the council's contribution. The councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

I also thoroughly endorse Frank's suggestion, and I thank Frank for coming in and talking about the Richmond Tennis Centre. I think it does need some more attention. I was interested to learn, and I did not know, that this tennis court, nor several of our other tennis courts, fall under the wing of the sports council, and I rather think that that feels like an anachronism to me, and I would have hoped that all of our sporting facilities had the ability to be represented and managed through the sports council. So I was engaged in that conversation you were having in the foyer, Mr Mayor, and I have that the thread of that is taken up. I'd also like to ask through you, Mr Mayor, the General Manager, what would the mechanics be of changing the name of Macquarie Park to Windsor Great Square? Would it require the Geographical Names Board process? Would that be expensive or long-winded?

Through you, Mr Mayor, the first thing I'd say is that the sign is intended as a Windsor entrance sign, so the sign isn't Macquarie Park or any other park; it's Windsor. So it's announcing to visitors the arrival to Windsor as the destination. With respect to the question of renaming, the process that we have recently undertaken, for instance for Fernadell Park, I would imagine would be the one that we would have to follow, including various consultation with members of the public and the check through the GNB naming policy. So

Follow-up. So the proposed wording to go on those sandstone blocks has been settled. What is the current proposed wording?

Windsor, along with Bulga Nurrang, which to my great shame I can't recall nor find the translation of. All right then. So

Windsor and then the Aboriginal name. Okay. I didn't know that.

I'll be voting against the adoption of the operational plan and the associated documents because, one, it includes a further ratification of the SRV, which I did not support. But beyond that, I'd like to point out a couple of things that I think Don't meet the community's expectations about the way that we report our operational status or our long-term financial plan. And I'd mentioned this in discussion with some of my colleagues, but I'll bring that into the chamber now. There is nothing in, for example, the long-term financial plan document, which is otherwise an excellent document, that says anything about council's level of debt. You've got to dig really deeply into some of those particular tables to see any indication of the quantum of debt that council carries.

There are various references to our borrowing costs or our debt servicing ratio, which are also relevant metrics, but there is nothing to tell us, or the voting public, the quantum of debt that council carries, the way that that debt is allocated, because there is such a thing as responsible debt. Debt that's applied to a purpose for capital improvement is a badge of responsibility, no objection there. There's nothing to indicate how our level of debt has changed over the years or measures up against our demographic or geographic peers, and nothing that indicates in a clear way what the projected debt will be. Now again, there is the echo of some of those things in some of the figures that appear in the long-term financial plan.

I'm simply saying that for people who were interested enough to pick up such an obscure and dusty document as council's long-term financial plan, I suspect that they would appreciate a one-page summary with an attractive infographic that draws together the relevant information and presents it in a way that's easily digestible. I do not share the view that was expressed by some of my colleagues as that if we publish those figures, it would simply form grist for the mill and a source of future dissension. I trust the voting public to be able to take facts and to discuss facts in a civil and mature way. So I flagged that as a potential and future improvement to the way that we present this kind of information.

I think it's a sensible thing. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Sorry

Councillor Ryan has his light on.

Oh, sorry, sorry.

My apologies, Mayor. I was going to ask a question, but it has been answered. Thanks, Councillor Ryan. But I do have a second one in relation to this, it may help me. The service level agreement with the Sports Council, has that issue been resolved as yet?

I can say from last night the Sports Council resolved to meet with council staff to sign off on that. I don't believe that that's actually happened at this stage. It hasn't, but it was resolved last night that that happened. Will

That be signed off by the end of this financial year? Can you make a commitment to that? It'll be

Signed off as soon as they can make arrangements for council staff to do so. Before the end of this financial year? Yes. Thank you.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just had a few questions before we start, just a bit of clarity around a few things that have been raised by people in the public. If I could just do those before I speak. I'm just wondering if we could have, for the public's benefit, a brief explanation of the 2.5 percent additional special variation that was in 2022-23, if that could just be explained to the public. Thank you.

Yeah, through you, Mr Mayor, this was a one-off process offered by IPART in response to unusually low rate Pegs. That was set during the COVID-19 pandemic, and around 86 councils applied and were approved for small additional rate rises, essentially to match the expected rate Pegs at the time.

Thank you. So essentially, yet we had to apply for that. What were those funds utilised for? They weren't for specific projects, were they?

They weren't for any individual projects, just to maintain our current service levels. Our rate peg granted was 0.8%, and we'd budgeted for 2.5%, which is what we asked IPART for as part of that application.

Thank you. So it was filling a gap so that we could cover costs, essentially. Thank you. Did the IPART assessment that was done, I've read it, and I believe it says that Council complied with the reporting requirements for the 2018-2019 SRV. I've read all the reports. Can you confirm that that was, both that the SRV was completed and the reporting—well, not completed because the 10 years hasn't finished—but that that was reported adequately? That's correct. Correct. Thank you. The other question I had, could we have a brief summary of how the information relating to works carried out with funds from the current SRV will be presented so that the public can be sure that we will keep up to date with how and where the funds are being spent? I know it's mentioned in the business paper, but if you could give a summary of that, please.

Yeah, absolutely. So Council has produced a totally separate budget model to track all of the revenue from the SRV as it comes in. The program that's dedicated to the SRV will be separately documented in the operational plan as it is tonight, and will be reported on as such through the annual report and also through a new page on our website called Delivering Local Projects, which will have a dedicated SRV section where all of the projects as they're being completed will be documented and reported on.

So, just sorry not to labour the point, but what would be the frequency? Would that be like a list of what's going to happen and then the status of that particular project?

Yep. So as those projects are commenced, they'll be added to that website section, reported on on there in terms of just getting that information out there. And then from a more formal point of view, our annual report, as required, will have every project that was delivered throughout the year relating to the SRV funds.

Thank you for that. And sorry, a final question. The sullage, I just want to check that I have this right. When I read in it, I didn't send through a question. Apologies. The sullage rate for 25-26 was $3,047 for an annual fee for the fortnightly collection, and this year is $3,199, which is a slightly less than 5% increase. Is that due to the new contract, or is that a cost recovery? Just to understand that increase.

Through you, Mr Mayor, it's a combination of a number of things. So the new contract has actually delivered a slight saving on where we would have been with the option had Council decided to exercise its option. We've seen a significant increase in fuel costs, of course, since March, which has weighed into it. And we're also seeing a very, very minor increase in the cost of… Testing of the effluent of the sullage that used to be absorbed by the sewerage business. Now that the disposal will be going to a Sydney Water facility, not Council's facility, that cost shifts across into the sullage. So there's a monitoring and compliance costs associated with that, which is very minor. Okay

Thank you for that explanation. I'll speak in favour, Mr Mayor, of the recommendation. I'm actually quite surprised that nobody has come tonight to speak to us about the SRV. Given the online outrage and condemnation of this council in our financial management, I would have expected that somebody would have, you know, come and tried to justify such condemnation towards us. But regardless, I'm very thankful to those who made submissions on the operational plan. If you've read the business paper, you will see many of them were relating to the Turnbull Oval project. A few of them were state-based matters, which will be referred onward to people for that to be dealt with. And we do appreciate the feedback that comes in on the plan.

And, of course, we've had the two speakers tonight who've raised issues that they want us to consider. I don't know if we can make decisions on those on the spot, but we've certainly committed, I think, to further discussions around that and to supporting, you know, looking at those things. I've had a change. The past few years, I've not been supportive of the operational plan, in large part because of the inclusion of four million dollars of ratepayers' fund, which was being used to secure additional WestInvest money. In the last council term, I think everybody except Councillor Wheeler and I voted to use that money to get more state funding. But I never supported that because I didn't think it was a prudent use of ratepayer money.

But what we can see in the report before us is that the additional money that was being put towards it is being removed and utilised for several key infrastructure projects, while the amount from the WestInvest—I'll call it WestInvest, I know it's got another name—can still carry out the upgrades outlined in the report. So there will still be work done at Turnbull Oval, but I think it's the covered seating and one other. aspect of the project that can't be done, although that will of course be ready, I assume, so that if we can access further funding or any form of developer contribution, that can be done in the future. So to me, that's a satisfactory outcome. For example, the $994,000 allocated for rehabilitation works to Racecourse Road is very much needed, as is the swing renewal at Matheson Park.

I know these will all be welcome projects.

I've got a lot of notes. I'm just going to pick out some things here. What I wanted to say was when I've looked through supporting the SRV, which is, like, quite frankly, I don't want to pay any more for rates either, just like everybody. Nobody enjoys paying more, but the reality is that the costs are rising across every part of our economy, from construction and materials to costs of labour, insurance, energy, etc., and local government's not immune to those cost increases. So I think that we've done a very good job at coming up with how we can minimise the impacts on the community while delivering some tangible improvements, because delaying the investment today means leaving growing backlogs and bigger problems for those who come after us.

There's been a resistance over the years to regularly draw in a little extra income, so we haven't done that, and that's contributed to the growing infrastructure backlog. A backlog being when assets needing renewal each year exceed the amount the council can afford to renew. So ageing infrastructure, natural disasters, cost escalations, etc. all contribute to that backlog existing. What I'd like people to do would be to really read the information that is in these reports and in the IPART report. It's very comprehensive. It's not actually difficult reading. If you read through it, all the information we so often stand accused of not providing is actually in there. You just have to read through it.

I don't know that it's overly complex when it's set out into sections, but we really also need to acknowledge that we do suffer from cost shifting. We suffer from big gaps that develop from inadequate funding, particularly through the financial assistance grants from the federal government only being half what they used to be, and cost shifting from the New South Wales government, including not a big return on our waste levy we pay and various other things.

That's

It .

Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd just like to start by asking a few questions to follow through, excuse me, on some of the things that Councillor Lyons-Buckett was asking. One of the things that troubled me a lot about the public commentary around the SRV was that people wanted a list of things that they were going to get. And at the time of the SRV, we were trying to explain that it was best to not have a list that we commit to because we By committing to a list, with all of the changes that happen in the life of a project, it's very hard to stick to some of those commitments. So my question through you, Mr Mayor, was on the new website page, when we list the projects that we are going to do with just the SRV money, how often is that going to be reviewed?

Because when we were talking about this , you know, not having a list and just sort of trying to be nimble and go from, you know, do what we could with the money that we had at the time and with price rises, three months—it was quoted, I think you said, Mr Barton, that it really changed every three months. So can we expect that on that website?

Through you, Mr Mayor, the intention is to populate the projects list, the project part of that website, on the adoption of the annual works capital works program, and then identify those projects which are ostensibly funded by the SRV or have some element of contribution from the SRV, and then project updates made regularly as projects commence, as they progress, and so forth. We're still reviewing the extent to which we identify a longer-term program without specific years attached to particular projects. But I do stress, and we're living through it right now, where in the past three months we've seen escalations on construction costs between 10 and 25 percent, which have a significant bearing on what it is that we can actually deliver.

So it's about balancing— As you've pointed out, the need for transparency versus acknowledging that it is a very dynamic situation that we're in. And that's before we consider the need from time to time to prioritise in response to how, particularly in our road network, how our road network is responding to the weather, to traffic demands, and so forth. And that is the exercise I think I was referring to about kind of three-monthly, is that each quarter we do have a look at that element of the program. And it may be that we do prioritise projects which otherwise weren't in the capital works program for that year because they have the greatest need.

Thank you for that, because I think that's one of the things that, well , there was a lot of commentary over the SRV, but that particular thing that people felt like they needed a list, a definite list that, you know, set in stone. And I think that if we can get that website right, and possibly even, I don't know whether you have designed this into it, but the reasons why, when something changes dramatically, just, you know, in a corner have the reasons for that, because I think people don't quite understand that, you know, there's all sorts of constraints on projects, and even workforce shortages, you know, we just can't get people to do the work. All of this sort of stuff, it's quite complex.

So that would be a really good opportunity to, I think, do it simply. I mean, I don't want it to be too busy, but I think that would help people understand about, you know, how this is going to be worked out. I'm really looking forward to seeing some of these backlogs and this maintenance done because When you think about it, excuse me, one of the most, I guess, noticeable and important pieces of infrastructure are our roads, and people have been telling us that roads are the most important thing that they want their money spent on. So I think, yeah, I think it's going to be wonderful, and I'll be looking at that website all the time probably.

The, gosh, gone out of my mind. There was another thing I was going to say. Oh yes, in terms of reporting to IPART, is that every year? So a yearly thing specifically?

Through you, Mr Mayor, we don't report to IPART per se. The requirement on us through the approval is to include reporting on the project outcomes, the outcomes associated with the SRV in our annual report

Report, yeah. Okay.

Thank you. Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Mr Mayor. First of all, I'd like to thank our speakers—oh, they've left, some of them —Not all of them. for coming here tonight. And the point I wanted to make by thanking our speakers is for touching on the points that were important to them, but also to echo Councillor Buckett's remarks that not one person in a community of over 68,000 people—of course not all of them are over 18— but not one person registered to speak tonight. Despite the fact that when we voted about the rate rise, let me be specific, despite the fact that when we voted to send the potential special rate variation to IPART a couple of months ago, there has been consistent community vilification for those who chose to make a decision.

In both the organisation and the community's best interests. And we're not going to sit here, I'm not going to sit here and keep talking about what has been said online. I just think it was really important to point out that no one wanted to give up five. Minutes tonight to come and tell us how they don't approve that special rate variation. Of course, we have received submissions on that. That's detailed in the report. Of course, submissions were received when we were voting on it in the first instance earlier this year. But not one person tonight, and given some of the votes we've had in this chamber over the decade I've been here, to not have anyone turn up on something so significant makes me feel a little bit better about the decision that I made after having read all of the information available to me.

I think it's important to point out as well that this decision to raise the rates over the 3.1% rate peg to 8.66% per year for four years hasn't been done lightly, and it hasn't been done without independent scrutiny. And having that assessment and application sent to IPART and approved by an independent body, not only is the law and we have to do it, but it is a vital step to show the community that nothing that we're doing here tonight is political. It is what needs to be done to deliver what the community wants. And we've had to listen to that feedback from the community over the last couple of years, especially after the disasters that we've had in our area. What did they want more than anything else?

What were their expectations more than anything else? And that was for safer roads. So we listened, we took that feedback on. Now, when we sit here, we have to balance those numbers. We have to look at the figure, the dollar value we have in the pool available to meet the community's needs and expectations. And when that pool of funding isn't big enough, we need to find a way to increase that pool, and that's what we've done. Other councillors have touched on cost shifting, and of course that is a huge issue, because the services that we have to deliver to the community are not funded by our parent, which is the state government. In fact, the state government consistently cuts us off at the knees, and we therefore have to be in situations like we are tonight.

I'm looking at the time. I've got a lot to say. What I would like ratepayers of the Hawkesbury to do when they get their rate notice in the mail soon. is a couple of things. Only look at the line item in relation to rates. Don't look at the bottom line, because the bottom line takes into things that do not encompass a rate rise, and that is your waste charges, your pump-out charges if you are on pump-out, stormwater charges. Only look at the rates and please compare that with the line item from last year, because by and large the difference that you'll see over a year is the price of a cup of coffee a week. I cannot reinforce that enough. For the price of a cup of coffee or a little bit more a week, you're going to get the roads that you want.

So instead of the big hoo-ha about 40 percent rate rise, please have a look at how that is broken down. And the thing is, we all live in this community too. Every single person sitting around here lives here. We hear you. We know how hard it is. We drive these same roads. If we were driving these same roads and doing nothing about it, then that would be the complaint. But we're doing something about it, and we're doing it the best way we know. Just a couple of things really, really quickly. Turnbull Oval I have a huge issue with, as everybody knows, but I'll be voting for what's in the recommendation regardless. The reduced scope bothers me, but I really urge you, Mr Mayor, to continue that advocacy to the state government to ensure we don't miss out on that west invest portion of the funding.

I really want to thank our staff. I know how hard this has been for our staff to not only put together the documentation required under the law, but also to sit there and endure the disharmony that's come from some elements of our community. But thank you. Thank you. I want to name you, but I also don't want to name you on the public record. Thank you for putting together the operational plan. Thank you for turning up every day and working in this organisation to ensure the services are delivered to our community. And the last thing I want to touch on again is something already said tonight. To the community, please read the information before you comment. It is there. It's in black and white.

It's actually a really good read, and you might learn something. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thanks, Deputy Mayor. Just with your passion, Deputy Mayor, you indicated it was 3.1, and then you said it was 8.6, with a total of the 8 percent. Just to clarify. That's

What I was saying, yes, that the rate peg's 3.1. The total is 8.66 per year over four years. Yeah.

Thanks, Deputy Mayor

Could I just have another minute?

If you need to clarify something.

I forgot to read my

Notes, and that

Was to thank the staff.

Yeah. Really,

Yep, ditto. Everything that—

Councillor, you've spoken. It's clarification or

Councillor Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll just— I'll be speaking in favour of this motion. Look, I haven't taken this lightly, to be honest. It's a hard decision, and that's what I was elected for, to make the hard decisions. I attended a number of the workshops, listened to the people, and roads, roads, roads was everything they said. I also attended a number of the information sessions with the SRV.

I considered the current residents and future generations, and that's what we've got to look at, future generations. And I feel strongly that future generations should not inherit a debt from us. We shouldn't be kicking this can down the road. It's ours. We have to work with it. At present, from what I've read in the reports, Council has a 99.1 million dollar— Underfunded asset renewal shortfall, which if we leave it alone, it'll increase to $170 million by 2034-25 if we don't address it. And that's what we'll be passing on to our kids. And that's just not right. We're going to have to take losing a cup of coffee every day for that. Council's got $1.4 billion worth of assets which need to be serviced, maintained, and at some stage replaced.

And that's growing all the time, and we have to keep up with it. The current method of rate pegging, I'm just stunned, being the first time councillor, that a state government can put us under this pressure. It doesn't even hit anywhere near the rate of inflation. It's 3.1% this year, and what I looked up today, inflation's at 4.2. Now that 3.1, that's all involved in our 8.66. So everyone, don't get all panicky that it's going to go up another 3.1%. It'll stay at 8.66. And this makes it virtually impossible for council to deliver the services. We're virtually losing money by doing what we're supposed to do. I believe that if there was a realistic rate pegging that kept up with council's inflation, we wouldn't have to go through this SRV thing all the time.

But people, we could just roll along and get things right all the time. Maybe occasionally, if we had issues like our natural disasters and all that, well, okay, we'd have to put our hand in our pocket a bit then.

I can assure you, not one of the councillors here in this chamber want to burden the ratepayers with any extra money. I don't want to do that, but we have to. Yeah , this decision needed to be made. So we need to move on from now

And make sure that all these items in the budget tonight are passed, and councillors will have to secure around delivering. Every councillor here tonight will have to make sure, and that's my job as a councillor and every one of you councillors here, to make sure that council delivers these things. That's our job. We're not out there to do it; we're out there to make sure that it's delivered.

So we're right here, right now. We've got to start again and start moving forward. I've dealt with the staff reasonably regularly now, and I want you people to start getting a smile. Some of you people are dragging your feet, and I don't want to see that anymore. I want to see you inspired. I want to see us get on with the job and deliver this for the Hawkesbury, for the people that come, so that they say, ‘Geez, they went through a rough period with all that COVID, with all that natural disasters, and they came out with all these assets like a tremendous swimming pool.’ Imagine how forefathers would have said, ‘Oh, too many people complained about the swimming pool at Richmond. We won't do it back in the fifties.’

What would we have had? Yeah, we would have had houses built there. So let's work together. We've got a lot of pressure outside who probably won't even listen to what I've said, probably won't even care. But we are the ones that are here to care. We are the ones here to deliver. So I thank you, I thank the staff, and I thank every councillor here that's going to make sure that this is delivered.

Thank you.

Thank you, councillor.

Councillor Veigel.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just a question. The local government sense— or the government sense of benchmark for debt, don't they? Am I reading in the papers? Is that true?

Sorry, Councillor, can you repeat that

The debt service ratio, or the debt service ratio in the accounts, the government sets that benchmark against all local LGAs. Yeah, Office of Local Government, correct So we're standing at 3.9 projected for next financial year, are we not? Well, it's in the paper, so just agree with—if you want to agree with me, I'm not going to lie

About it.

I would say that's fairly conservative anyway, but if you need to drill down a bit more with other questions being answered, that's fair enough. Can I make a statement, if I may, Mr Mayor? Just with the case of the SRV, I'll talk to that in a moment. I just want you to be aware, to be compassionate, because it might put financial hardship on some people in the LGA. I know you have programs to help these people in the way, but just keep an eye on it and be careful of what we're doing with that, because people see an extra hundred or dollars coming out of their rates. Councillor, you've spoken before. Yeah, well, I don't know. It's been spoken before, but I'm just putting my stance on it. If the rate was raised before, then fair enough.

Now, I'll just talk to the SRV. The SRV was one of those councils that when it was first submitted, I said no to it, and I had my own reasons. I didn't anguish over it. I had some sympathies for SRV, but at that time when it came back, I thought it was excessive, and then they came up with another option, which was the payment over those four years. Hence saying that I am not going to take a point of view to overrule an independent tribunal. They had all the data in front of them, and they probably know better than I, although I still have some great concerns. It might be a bit of a stretch for some people. I will add to comment, and I'll back up my colleagues around the table when it comes to the federal government, the state government.

Maybe the people of our LGA should be slanding a lot of the blame home back to the federal government and the state government for not funding LGAs the way they are. I get ... I too much get really annoyed now that they take the money and they say, Well, you find it. We're just a tax grabber for them, where they can't be bothered to do it, and I find that completely immoral on their part. But they're derelict in their own responsibilities because they don't want to fund us. So based on that, I support in the paper to push the SRV through. Thanks, Mr Mayor. Thank you

Councillor Duke, is your light on? No. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. A few questions before I start, if you wouldn't mind.

A question around the overdue rates and charges interest rate. We discussed using that only for people who had not entered into a payment plan with Council. Is that the case in this instance, or is everyone who is in arrears charged the 9.5% interest?

General Manager.

I'll refer that to our Chief Financial Officer.

Through you, Mr Mayor. So everyone is charged that on overdue rates, and then we do assess that if need be.

Thank you. Can I flag that for a future discussion, please? I think if people are willing to come forward to talk of their financial difficulties and do need some support with that, then we need to look at not charging them such a savage interest rate.

Thank you, Councillor.

How does someone who wants to spread their payments out, and I know that we have a number of ratepayers who do this, how does someone get Come to an arrangement with council to pay. I know you can easily pay by the quarter. How do you pay, for example, by the month if you want to budget more?

Through you, Mr Mayor. So we have a hardship policy, so we assess ratepayers who are going through hardship and offer them payment arrangements, and we try to explain to them how to, you know, get their debts in control with the payment arrangement amounts that we negotiate with. Yeah, so it's based on each individual ratepayer and what position they're in and the amount of the debt and the payment arrangement amounts that they can afford, that they can keep paying on a regular basis without missing any payments.

Sorry

Can we provide that

Service then for people who don't want to get into debt, who want to pay, say, regularly to council to avoid incurring a debt? Or do we leave people to make their own budgeting arrangements and deal with that quarterly?

We generally leave people on their own until they are in arrears or overdue, and then, you know, we contact them in terms of the debt and then try to organise a payment arrangement or some sort of an arrangement to bring it back down, yeah, into terms.

Further to that, through you, Mr Mayor, council is currently investigating the possibility of using a service— Provided to even out payments to avoid that quarterly bill shock. That's a process that we're working through at the present time.

Thank you. And what I'd be most keen to see is some sort of process that doesn't cost people an additional fee, because that's the least we can do, I think, for people who are trying to keep on top of their payments. Council isn't one of the better ones in the state for debt recovery, although interestingly, our capacity to pay shows that people who can pay are often the ones who don't. Regarding Turnbull Oval, the bits of the project that we are not completing, they will still be shovel-ready from a design point of view and staged, and could be rolled out should funding come available from somewhere else So not off the table completely. A few questions about tip fees and clean-up. There's quite a lot of commentary on tip fees that council charges.

What's been our EPA levy costs for the last couple of years? I think last time I asked, it was $3.1 million per year, of which $100,000 was returned to council for education. I'm happy to take it on notice if necessary, but are we still up around those figures?

Through you, Mr Mayor, we're certainly up around those figures, but the exact figures I'll have to take on notice. Sure.

Thank you. That would be helpful. Regarding the council clean-ups, there is, as usual, lots of complaints about council not offering 10 or 12 clean-ups a year like Blacktown. Not quite sure why you would have 15 cubic metres of stuff that council needed to cart off for you, in addition to a 240-litre garbage bin a week, but apparently it's very important that we have a quality of clean-up. Are we still at the figure of around a quarter of residents using that clean-up?

Through you, Mr Mayor, that's my understanding, that we're still around that 25 per cent of residents actually taking up their annual clean-up.

And is that annual, is that calendar year or is that financial year?

I think it's financial year. If

It is financial year, can I suggest that we put out a Facebook post, Quick Smart, and say to people, because basically you ring and book with Cleanaway and they come and it magically disappears. Can we put out a Facebook post reminding people that they've got a couple of weeks to claim their financial year? Because I'm sure they'd be delighted that they could get two in this year.

They might, well the contractor will have to cope with that, won't they? Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'll speak for the motion. As usual, the operational plan contains lots of information about all the things that Council does, and it's a really long list of things that local government just ticks along doing: companion animals, caravan parks, regulating health services. I mean the headings are fantastic: skin penetration, cooling towers, performance security administration fees. It's not roads, rates and rubbish that local government is covering. It's a huge list of stuff that we manage all the time for— Often quite a reasonable cost. One of the things in here that is a big cost, and I want to acknowledge that, are the surcharge fees.

They are a really massive impost on those pockets of the community that have to pay them: Bowen Mountain, parts of Ebenezer, parts of Kurrajong, Kurrajong Heights, et cetera. This is a failure of planning that remains from 30, 40, 50 years ago that this council is still dealing with, and a failure, frankly, of the state government to come back and tidy up this mess. Sewer is not a council responsibility. Sewer is a state government responsibility, and yet we are still here doing it in the hope of getting a better and cheaper service for our residents. And I know it doesn't feel like that for any of those residents, because it's, you know, three grand a year for a fortnightly pump-out of your septic tank is a lot of money, or your collection tank.

If your septic tank needs pumping out fortnightly, you've got a problem with your septic tank. I would highlight here that if residents do need to save a bit of money, the easiest way to manage that is to change the size of your garbage bin or to change the collection regimen of the frequency of your bin collection. We default to a 240-litre bin in this LGA. I've never understood why, but if you switch to a smaller bin, which is the standard in most LGAs, you save about 300 bucks a year. I would also note that Council is still paying out a fairly substantial amount of money for pensioner subsidies, which are not met by the State Government, and that that pensioner subsidy has remained the same for several decades now, not years, decades.

So should any member of the State Government point the finger at Council, perhaps they could consider getting onto that. Other things that are impacting on the LGA are the number of heavy vehicles, and I'd love to see us look at some levy for places like Racecourse Road, where the heavy vehicles from the Moits facility there are wreaking havoc on our roads. Kermond Road is a similar thing. I'm not delighted with voting for an SRV. Nobody wants to pay any more. Everyone around this table either pays rates or pays rent. We are all affected by this too. We don't get our rates for free, unlike some of the suggestions online. I'm pleased to see that we will have a separate SRV tracker. There is no alternative to this SRV.

If there was, I'd be voting for it. I wasn't happy about voting for the SRV that we've gone with, but I was willing to send it to an independent arbitrator. IPART has come back and said that this is necessary and that it is affordable for most. The cost of everything's gone up, including basic council functions. Councillor Ryan has outlined some of that. The most expensive thing we could do at this point is nothing. And I think the people who have gone out to the community and claimed that doing nothing was an option, or putting this off for a year or procrastinating a bit longer in the hope of the perfect solution. are really doing this community a disservice. I supported this rates rise largely to prevent service cuts.

Our promise to the community is that we will track the progress of this SRV and that we will deliver it. We owe it to both the community and our staff, who are not lazy, they're not corrupt, and they're not incompetent. Most of them live here. Most of them are part of this community, and frankly, from their community, they deserve better treatment.

We owe this to future generations, hence the Richmond Pool spending. People did say that was too expensive. They said it would bankrupt council and that council shouldn't borrow money. Four generations of children have learned to swim in that pool since. We owe it to future generations to keep this LGA ticking and to make sure that we have a reasonable level of service and infrastructure. That's what this OP is for. Thank you

Councillor. Any further discussion?

Councillors, I know the passion that's around the room in relation to, in particular, the operational plan. There's a lot in it and some that's been discussed by some of you that we discuss all year round. But the rate increase is probably the closest to people. And it doesn't overly surprise me tonight there's no one here, that it's been discussed, it's been looked at independently and supported. What we need to do now is make sure that what our community, and I expect the reason they're not here tonight in any force, that they expect us to do the right thing. The staff will not put up proposals that they will not spend money that doesn't come before us to make a decision on. So us sitting around this table— We'll need to heed those recommendations and look at how we deliver what we're proposed to in our long-term financial and management plans.

And if we don't do it well, we'll get criticised for it. We've all made comments in relation to getting it right. Now we have to live up to that. I thank councillors for their comments tonight. And Councillor Kotlash, I didn't mean to cut you short. I'm sure the staff well appreciated your comments. Any further discussion?

Councillor Redden, right of reply.

Not necessary, Mr Mayor. I'm happy with it.

Thank you. The recommendations on page 19 and 20, 10.2.1, those in favour?

Those against? The motion is carried. Those in favour was Councillor Wheel, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Ryan, McMahon, Kotlash, Veigel, Redden and Sheather. Those against was Councillor Zamprogno and Councillor Djuric. The next item, councillors, is 10.3.1.

I'll move that, Mr Mayor. I'll second it. Sorry, I'm coughing.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm very pleased to see this come before us to be going out on public exhibition. This is a very important document, and it's very important to get input because we know that sustainability can be viewed through different lenses by different people. So therefore, when we talk sustainability, we know that within our community, people may think that one element of sustainability is more important than another. So for us to understand what our community feel a sustainability policy should encompass is really important. What this document does is that it aims to make sustainability a core part of everything that Council does. So we must build sustainability considerations into our decision-making, our operations and our services.

It demonstrates how we can lead by example, which is a really important thing for us to do because we cannot expect our community to come on board with things if we ourselves don't lead by example. So we can encourage our community, our businesses and other stakeholders to adopt more sustainable practices. It recognises our First Nations people, and it reinforces our existing commitment to net zero emissions, energy efficiency, renewable energy, water efficiency and climate resilience. What it does is it functions as an almost overarching policy that brings together Council's various sustainability strategies under a single policy framework, and it outlines the responsibilities for implementing, monitoring and evaluating sustainability goals.

I do really urge the public to read and comment. It's our combined future that we want to be sustainable. And if people read and understand a policy like this, when we have challenges within our community that relate to how, whether it be an economic sustainability issue, whether it's environmental, or regardless of what it is. If people understand that we have a framework that we operate within, it's important that they know that that is there. And it's important for us to understand the community expectations for something like this, because that is really what should be driving many of our decisions as we look toward the future. We've just discussed in the operational plan about our long-term financial sustainability, but that, of course, is intertwined very much with our preservation of our precious environment and our social cohesion and other aspects about which we make decisions in here every meeting.

So I urge the public to bring forward their information that they may have around that. I'm sure some of our local community groups and environmental groups will comment on that, and I am very pleased to see that it's ready to go out at this stage of the process and look forward to it returning. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Councillor Linesbucket. Councillor Linesbucket, I was after something to thank you for, and I couldn't remember what it was, and it's probably more appropriate that I mention it in the last item, but we're talking about sustainability. The Red Fleet, the state government is taking that on, and Councillor Linesbucket's asked for a report in relation to the impact that that has within our council. So when we talk about cost shifting, we probably need to lower the barrier a little bit. There's been a great win for councils across the state in that regard.

I agree, Mr. Mayor. Thank you.

Councillor Feigl. Yeah, thanks, Mr. Mayor. Just a couple of questions.

What's the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, and why are we aligning with United Nations policy? I would have thought our local sovereignty would— What would have been done, but going to the United Nations and ask them for advice?

Through you, Mr Mayor. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction is a global framework agreed to by countries in the UN in 2015 Yeah, 2015. And it identifies, from memory, five kind of pillars towards reducing disaster risk across the world, and about 14 actions from memory. So just like the Sustainable Development Goals of the UN, they're kind of the global benchmark in guiding policy in how we make progress towards disaster risk reduction through things like sustainability practices.

Are they achievable, or just another motherhood statement coming out of the UN?

Well, I asked you the question when we talk about net zero. I've asked this question in this chamber before, and it was honestly given back from the officers: will this council meet net zero? Categoric comeback, no, you don't have a chance. I suspect that doesn't change. So there's a motherhood statement that's never going to be achieved. So why is it in any of our documents?

I wouldn't agree with the characteristic that it's a motherhood statement that won't be achieved. Time will tell, I guess. The Sendai Framework talks of measures such as reducing global mortality, improving awareness of disaster risk across populations, reducing economic impact from disasters. So it doesn't call for some absolute number, but it calls for a trend downward and to improve outcomes across the globe.

Can

I— Is that available to us? Because I've never, I haven't read it. I've never seen the benchmarks against this. Yes, it is. Okay, thanks. Since this is a draft, we'll let it go out for draft comment, and then I'll make final comments when I see my ... behind it before I vote up on it. Thank you. Councillor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd like to move an amendment, excuse me. I'd like to make the point three in the recommendation to essentially upgrade the definition of biodiversity. One of the things that I often come across—excuse me, sorry, I've got this terrible frog in my throat tonight.

Have you got an amendment there, Councillor

Yes, I have sent some words to staff,

And yes, this particular—

Oh

I need a seconder.

We

Need a

Seconder.

Mr Mayor, I'm happy for that to just be a point three of the motion. Good, I agree. Is I the seconder? Yeah.

You happy with that, Councillor?

Yes. That's great, thank you. Look, just quickly, this is in the vein of what's just been discussed. This is sort of upgrading our understanding of biodiversity. I see quite often, I see biodiversity being written as like it is an entity. Biodiversity is a descriptive term, and it describes the variety of living things. And this particular definition sort of strengthens that definition and doesn't take us down the path of where we were kind of going to before. Saying that biodiversity provides something, it doesn't provide anything . It's a description of a measurable— it's a description of a measure. So when people say biodiversity gives us clean air, clean water, it doesn't really. One tree gives us oxygen.

That's not a function of diversity; that's a function of its biology. So it's just really, I guess I'm speaking with my environmental scientist hat on. I think we have to upgrade this, and especially for this policy, because I agree with Councillor Lyons-Buckett that this is a really important policy. We have to start to think about the decisions we make and the world we live in in a different way, and we have to lead this. So I hope everybody is okay with that upgrade, and it really doesn't change anything else in the document. I commend the staff on this document. It's very well done. And I think it is probably worth reading some of those documents about how this has come about globally, because I think it's It's what we have to do in order to make the best decisions for our community and for future communities as well.

So thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Mr Mayor. I too would like to commend this policy. I think the thing that I am most excited about from this is the whole of council scope in the policy and the six key principles, which include intergenerational equity, and I think that's particularly relevant given the budget that we've just passed in the previous item. I really want to thank the staff for putting this together. I particularly want to thank the former General Manager, Elizabeth Richardson. I frankly didn't think a work of this scope was possible in this council a decade ago. A decade ago, we were a council that barely acknowledged that climate change existed. We had to fight to get a sustainability committee, and we had to fight to gain any ground at all on sustainability actions.

So to see this now become the benchmark for our decision-making across the organisation, I think speaks to many of the disasters that we faced as an LGA, but I think it also speaks to the growing maturity of this organisation as well, and our better understanding that we can't deny science, that science isn't like religion. It's true whether you believe it or not. And I think sustainability is something that has benefits across the whole. of the organisation and also the whole of the LGA. There's just a couple of points that have been raised previously. There's an advantage in using established frameworks like the United Nations Development Goal, and you don't have to love the United Nations.

You can still believe that they're poisoning us with chemtrails and that it's a global takeover of the planet for the advantage of, I'm not quite sure who. But, and appreciate that the United Nations Development Goals provide a consistent framework across organisations. The University of Western Sydney, which is the top tier of educational organisations across in the LGA, are renowned internationally for their adherence to the United Nations Development Goals. I'm also happy with Councillor Kotlash's change to the biodiversity definition. For two particular, there's two elements of that change that I'm most pleased to see, and we're

Blessed or burdened, I'm not sure how you'd put it, with three scientists around this chamber. So you're probably going to get more comment on this stuff than you would in a number of spaces. But the change definition allows for an acknowledgement of redundancy, which, as we know, is key to resilience as an organisation and as an LGA. But the principle of redundancy within biology is one of the key principles of biological resilience. The more redundancy you have in a genome, in an ecosystem, in an organism, the more resilient, the better that organism is to adapt and survive. We as an organisation also need that level of redundancy. It's not a waste of money. It's not something that can be fixed with some sort of economic—

Tidy up and trimming of the fat, it's a vital element to survival, and that idea of biodiversity is key. The other thing about that change to the definition is that it takes nature away from being a service and makes it a viable entity in itself. Nature should exist whether it serves us as humans or our economy or whatever, or not. Just because it should exist. It makes— it's a vital part of our survival, but it's a vital part of the survival of the planet and ecosystems as well. I'm really keen to hear the community's opinions and to start referring to this policy when it comes to our decision making. It's really important that this becomes the framework underlying our decisions, that it doesn't end up in a dusty drawer, and that we run all our processes with this framework front of mind. It's the very least we owe the present, but it's also the very least we owe the future. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor.

Any further discussion? Councillor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You'll probably pick up I'm not one of the scientists in the room at the moment. It stands out, Councillor. Thank you very much. I am a person, my own person. There's one example that I believe really should stand out to our community and our people is a good while ago, Council decided to go to electric vehicles, and how well has that served us in this last oil crisis? It has really kicked goals there and really taken the pressure off Council, because just the fuel bill would have been excessive. And these little things, I think people out there should be made aware of, that Council are making these good decisions, these great decisions, and moving forward and leading the way. So I thank you for that.

Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor Durick

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I've got a couple of questions, if I can. In regards to disaster resilience, does Council do any work around the managed retreat program?

General Manager. Through you, Mr. Mayor. I have to take that on notice, as I quickly grasp for various bits of policy in my head.

To my knowledge, there isn't any formal role for Council in what is publicly available. The reason I use publicly available is that we still have not yet seen the disaster adaptation plan, which comes from the State Government, and the, I've forgotten the term they use, but the more substantial disaster adaptation plan, which is being developed as we speak, still hasn't been provided to us as a draft. So I can't comment on those two. But in terms of a formal role for Council, I don't believe there is one for us, but we'll confirm that.

I'm of the understanding that the Sendai Program and the managed retreat program are supposed to work in a collaborative manner. Is that still your position, since we've not received any information on that? We're not sure yet.

Through you, Mr. Mayor. The Sendai Framework is a very high-level global framework for dealing with all disasters of all types. It's not specific to any one natural hazard or artificial hazard. It's, as I said, a very high-level document consisting of four key areas and seven targets about reducing mortality, reducing impacts, both human and financial, increasing awareness, increasing disaster risk planning, increasing governance around disaster risk reduction, and so forth. So I'm not aware of any hard link to a managed retreat program.

Councillor.

The reason I ask is that recently there was a push to raise the flood planning level to 19 metres, when the average of our top 10 floods is only 13 metres, and only one flood ever over 15.1. And if we were to add the 1.2 metres to account for global warming to the year 2100, that only gives us a flood level of 16.3 metres. Community members are concerned that the 19 metre flood planning level is unnecessary hysteria, and further there is a suggestion that the state is looking at a 21 metre flood planning level, which would potentially make one half of the Hawkesbury flood disaster zoned and one half fire disaster zoned. And I understand the UN claims that the aim is to proactively remove communities before disasters occur.

Through you, Mr Mayor, off this policy, what's the chances that at some point we might be considering removing people off their properties due to forecasted potential events?

Through you, Mr Mayor, that calls for a level of speculation I'm not prepared to make. Thank you.

Any further debate? Thank you, Councillors. Right reply, Councillor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Mr Mayor, and I just think, just with a view to what Councillor Durick just said, I mean the uncertainty and the unpredictability of what lies ahead makes it very difficult for us to do that. But I do believe that the mandatory retreat concept

Is part of the current flood studies being done by the State Government. I'm not 100% sure, but I think there was some reference to it at the flood conference.

I do agree with the addition of the definition from Councillor Kotlash. Thank you for that. With a policy like this, the interaction of ecosystems, of course, lies at the very core of what this policy is about. So overall, we know that the notion of sustainability relates to the capacity of us to flourish over the long term. It's about the balance we need to enable and support us to grow appropriately within our means and without burdening those who come after us. We need to acknowledge, of course, that nature has an intrinsic value that we must uphold and we must acknowledge, and that the systems around that nature require to remain healthy, resilient and adaptable over time. So with that framework in mind, we have generated a policy that can implement those notions along the way, and I'm very pleased to see it.

I thank Councillor Ryan for raising the benefits of electric vehicles, which we know has occurred here, and will continue to provide benefits for us into the future as more of these various targets we have around transitioning. In a new world, so to speak, in a new climate. And I do urge, really urge the public to give us their point of view on this, and look forward to reading that. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Councillor. The motion's on page 39. It's 10.3.1. Those in favour?

Those against? The motion is carried. The motion was carried by Councillors Ambrogno, Weal, Lyons-Buckett, Bryan, McMahon, Cottlash, Feigl, Riden and Sheather, and those against was Councillor Djuric. The motion is carried.

The next item is 10.3.2. Councillor McMahon, you had a declaration? Yeah,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I have a pecuniary and a significant non-pecuniary interest, and all I can say is that people I was previously associated with are involved in one of the DAs, and I did not write down the number.

It's the second one, I think.

It's the second one. That will do. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll leave the room.

Thank you.

Councillor Wheeler, you marked

This off?

I'm happy to move the recommendation, Mr Mayor. I just have a question. Second, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Councillor Lyons-Buckett?

Just a question regarding the... DA for 100 Fairy Road. Could councillors be provided with any input that council has made to the consent authority here? I'm particularly interested in whether we've made comments regarding impact on road infrastructure, the floodplain from any additional fill on that site, and impacts on stormwater. So you'll note that that's for a concrete recycling plant. It comes off a number of local roads. They are big , heavy trucks, and they cause us a lot of damage and therefore a lot of expense. And while that is an industrial area, it's a cost that is really a lot to bear for this community, given that the majority of the stuff being trucked in and out will not find its either its beginning or its end in this LGA. And I think we need to make our feelings known to the consent authority. Thanks.

Thank you. There's a question there.

Yes, through you, Mr Mayor, yes, we can provide that to the councillors.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Buckett.

Thank you. I also just had a question. I just wanted to know, with these applications that are state significant, of which there are several at different stages of the process, will we get any— so, for example, the school proposed at Speets Road, Oakville, which is up to preparing an EIS, will we get a timeframe, or will we get any more information about any of these? Also, the one of preparing the SEARS for the one at Hermitage Road for the islands. Will councillors get any more information, or are we just to monitor on the state portal?

Through you, Mr Mayor, yes, we can provide councillors with an update on these major SSDAs as they progress through, and we can also keep councillors updated when we make comments on those applications. Thank you, much appreciated.

Any further debate? Right of reply. Councillor Wheeler.

Not necessary, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, councillors. The recommendation is on page 45, 10.3.2. Those in favour?

Those against? The motion is carried. Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, Kotlash, Veigel, Reardon and Sheather. The motion is carried.

The next item is 10.3.3. Councillor Wheeler, you've called

That up. I'll move the recommendation in the business paper, Mr Mayor.

That was seconded by Councillor Veigel.

Councillor?

A couple of questions first, if I may. Do we know if Council was the certifier of this building when it was constructed?

I'd have to take that on notice Mr Mayor. Thanks. And then a follow-up question to that, and I'm again happy to take it on notice. Were the penetrations through the first floor slab recent, or would they have been evident at the time of initial occupancy inspection? Or are they something that's likely to have occurred with the addition of extra services down the track? This building is about 10, 12 years old, from memory. It was quite controversial when it was built because of its orangeness and its placement at the bottom of Fitzgerald Street, surrounded by other heritage buildings. So it did attract quite a bit of attention. But these are really significant hazards in a residential building that is quite new. I mean, it's jolly new for Windsor. It's pretty devastating to see breaches of this type and this magnitude in such a young building.

I'll just give that question answer for you, Councillor, in relation— Oh, sure.

Yes, through you, Mr Mayor, I'll take that on notice, but we will be able to come back with the level of detail to answer that question. Thank you.

Oh, was it us? Sorry, Councillor. Sorry, Mr Mayor, Councillor Lyons-Buckett has just shown me that Council wasn't the certifier; she's found the certification documents. So I think there's questions around the hydrant feed pipe as well. So I think these

Are really concerning. We've not worried a great deal about lower building standards and— And problems , because we haven't got a lot of multi-storey residential buildings. And so we've been able to be a little bit maybe blasé around this. We don't have anything with the cladding of the type from the Grenfell Tower, that sort of stuff. So when, yeah, this is, I find this quite shocking, that we have a building with so many breaches, some of which are beyond, you know, some of which are going to require, some of it's just bad maintenance, but some of these are significant breaches to the structural integrity of the building, and that's really concerning. What's happened, can I also ask then, what's happened in the— it's more than a month since the correspondence was sent— what's happened in the interim?

Has this been corrected? And what's the threshold then? How long does this building get to stay non-compliant before we start to crack down on people actually living in it?

Through you, Mr Mayor, our first approach is to work with the owner of the building and then, as indicated in the report, if we need to move to a notice and order regime, we will. In answer to your specific question, I'll come back to councillors with an update on what's happened in the interim. Thank you. That's all, Mr Mayor. Thank you.

Councillor, you said you could clarify the certification of the building.

I just looked up on the DA tracker and it was private certified.

Thank you.

Any further discussion, councillors?

Right of reply, Councillor Wheeler.

Not necessary, Mr Mayor.

The motion's before you on page 53, councillors, 10.3.3, those in favour?

Against? The motion is carried. It's Councillor Zane Brodner, Councillor Will, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash, Feigl, Reardon and Sheather. The next item, Councillors, is 10.5.1.

Move that, Mr Mayor.

There's a couple of declarations.

Sorry. Settled.

There's a declaration .

I have a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in item 10.5.1. I'm a member of the New South Wales RFS Hawkesbury Communications Brigade, which works from the fire control centre. My son is a member of Wilberforce Brigade, the new fire shed for which is detailed in the report. The reason for no further action is that it does not meet the threshold for significance.

Thank you, Councillor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I have a less than significant non-pecuniary interest. The new fire control centre for the New South Wales RFS in the Hawkesbury is discussed, and I'm a member of the New South Wales RFS Hawkesbury Communications Brigade, which is located inside that building. There is no pecuniary interest. I'll stay in the room. Thank you.

Thank you.

Could I have a motion, please?

I'll move the recommendation in the business paper. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd like to commend whoever wrote this report on its clarity and how clear it is. I like the colour coding.

I've got to say,

It's a very clear format, and the categorisation of how the capital works program is progressing is very easy to follow. I think it's a particularly good document as we go into this realm of having so many works that we've got to be alerting the public about. I mean, it's always a good document. I just, I think the colour just is a new thing, and I love the colour. But I think just looking at that, it's a very important document because it does update for this quarter how these major projects are tracking, and it's delivering full transparency, of course, of exactly how these projects are going. And this is information, I think, which is current at March 2026, and I'm assuming it's still quite current.

It could have changed. I'll speak to it as it is in the business paper. And so we see that the health status within the program of capital works is that 19 are on track, five have a potential issue, which is all explained in this document, and one has an escalation issue, which is a legal matter connected to it. So it's very important information. It's extremely comprehensive. It itemises the stage the projects are at. It itemises any issues. It has the budgetary supporting information. It really allows you to see how much work is being done and what stage all of that work is at. So there's really clear descriptions of the projects, and I think that's what people have been, you know, saying they're not getting, and yet here they all are in these various documents.

It does identify the challenges, and we know we have the challenges, and so there are descriptions around why we have those challenges, and even the impacts of things. Happening in the Middle East, for example, or other hurdles that come up, it includes some big projects and shows just how much of those projects each one is at. So, for example, something like Fernadell Park, we see the levels of progress that 70% of the internal pathways complete, the sporting fields and landscaping 43% complete. I do assume there's been more done at Fernadell since the end of March, because I think we were there after March, but yes. So, and the fencing work is 80% complete, and the community centre is having its tender evaluation completed.

So it's a great project, progressing well and a fantastic asset for the people of the area. And there's similar information for all the major projects there. So if you've got a particular interest in it, you can read through a document like this and see for each quarter just how much of that project has been done. It's a good source of information. It's a better source than online commentary, perhaps, or alarmism that you may read elsewhere. You can really see which, how, what percentage of the progress has been done. You'll also note that in the report, it addresses key recovery works, and such was the extent of damage from what we have been impacted with that we still have, you know, work around landslips and work related to the natural disasters we've suffered.

We still have that going on. It does also show, when you look at the overall picture, that there's still much to do, and we know that there's much to do, and we are getting on with it. But I do urge people to read through, to look at this, which will then be in conjunction as well with the new information that's put out about the SRV, so that you can monitor just exactly the progress. And if you have questions for the council or the councillors, then you can ask based on factual information that has been presented to the community. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor. Any further discussion? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I think it's worth noting that this report is current as of the end of March, and so we actually have progressed further since then. We've had two and a half months of further work, and I think that's worth noting. I do agree with Councillor Lyons-Buckett. This was really easy to read and to understand. It's a really nice format, I think, and goes to the plain language presentation and capacity to see progress and see whether we're on track that the community is asking for. So I think this is really useful, as is the project delivery expenditure information. I too notice that 19 projects are on track, and I think one of the things that we should think about is what our organisational capacity was back in 2020, you know, where we were halfway through the SRV to catch up with infrastructure backlog, and unbeknownst to us, with years of natural disasters coming our way, and we've managed to upscale as an organisation to both deliver the recovery from those natural disasters, but also now look at some really major capital works.

I'd love a figure, I don't know if it's possible, Mr Mayor, on what our capital works delivery was in dollar terms back in 2020, and what it is now coming into 2026, so that we can really look at the percentage of upscaling that we've seen in those figures.

Through you, Mr Mayor, the capital spend in a strict financial sense... varies in terms of the deliverable outcomes for community for projects on the ground. In round terms, up to 2020 this organisation used to deliver approximately $20 million a year in projects. For the last three years, that number has been between $75 and just under $100 million, so it's between a four- and five-fold increase.

Thank you. I knew the general manager would have his engineer's brain around, and have some numbers, even if they are a bit fast and loose. This speaks to our capacity as an organisation, and it should give our community confidence that the money that is entrusted to us is able to be spent responsibly on projects that make the LGA a better place to live, both now and into the future. And I think if you look at the magnitude of capital works and the number and diversity of capital works that we have in the pipeline, we're punching above our weight in this regard, I think. And they range from things like fixing up landslips and making our rural fire service better equipped and better adapted to things like parks.

Many of them are dependent on state government funding, and that's often very difficult to come by. And we have seen really savage cost escalations. People talk about the cost escalations that they're experiencing with their cost of living. I think we've had something like a 40 or 50 percent increase in the cost of asphalt alone, all of which has knock-on impacts on our capacity to stay within budget. Just a quick question regarding the town signs. Where are we up to with those? And I note, further to Mr Gerrish's comments around the signs in Macquarie Park, the master plan discussions have commenced with the Heritage Advisory Committee and with local First Nations people around the master plan for Macquarie Park.

Some of those discussions are around signage, naming, what we do about Mr Macquarie and his extraordinary hubris in rejigging council processes to name a site after himself. And what we do with that, you know, 150 years later. Macquarie is part of the history of that site. What do we do with that man's history? What do we do with Macquarie's history? But if I could just get a little bit of information about the town signs, because they are of interest to the public a lot. Through you, Mr Mayor, I understand that some of the production has happened, but not all of it. So some of it is still being designed, but there has been consultation previously. If there's further information, I can take that on notice and get back to you.

Thank you. For discussion, councillors

Councillors, with the report that's here, we've been talking about, you'll come across reports similar to this on a whole array of different infrastructure and cost projects that we're doing, so that they are very transparent and where we're up to with them and the like. There's a lot of work gone into this, and there's some other, as we spoke earlier this afternoon, about how we deliver that to the public and in a way that they can Reading and understand exactly where we're going from, and in lots of cases why we're going that way. Any further debate? Councillor Lyons-Buckett, right of reply?

Not necessary,

Thank you. The recommendations on page 63, 10.5.1. Those in favour?

It's unanimous. Those against is carried. It's Councillor Ambrogno, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Churup, McMahon, Kotlash, Veigel, Reardon and Sheather. The next item is notice of motion, Councillor Wheeler, 12.1. 1.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, this notice of motion is exactly what it says on the tin. It's an invitation to the member for Hawkesbury and the member for Macquarie to have a discussion with councillors and staff regarding all the things, really. I think it's something that ideally it's something that we would do every six to 12 months, just so that we're all on the same page. Sorry

So that we're all on the same page around the LGA, around matters concerning the LGA. I think there's clearly a lot of discussion between Blue Mountains Council and the member for Macquarie. There seems to be regular discussion between Hills Council and the member for Hawkesbury. I think we probably need to formalise some discussions here. There's a lot that we need to cover. There's a whole lot of capital works that Council is doing. There's Council's financial positions and Council's financial needs and concerns. There's legislative issues. I sat down and wrote, you know, in a minute, a list of things that we need to discuss. The disaster adaptation plan, you know, that we're supposed to be hanging everything off and still haven't seen.

We went to a flood conference and everyone was talking about the disaster adaptation plan and how important it was for the Hawkesbury. I thought, that's great, you know, could we see it? But, yeah, that's apparent. It's gone into yet again, it's gone onto someone's desk. Richmond Bridge and the impacts of that on the LGA, where's it up to? What's the issues with that going to be? What are the burdens on this council and our local road network and how are we going to pay for them? The Bandon Road corridor and the outer Sydney orbital, where is that up to? Will there ever be the outer Sydney orbital? Are they going to the Central Coast? Are they stopping in the middle of a paddock? What's happening with Box Hill and Vineyard?

What's happening with the hospital? What's happening with all that water that is sheeting off the South Creek catchment and magically apparently disappearing at our border? Council's financial sustainability, the SRV, what we want to do with that SRV, the federal assistance grants that still aren't adequate since they were capped by the Abbott government years ago. The sewer loan and the state government refusal to pay for flood damage to our sewer infrastructure. The WISIC projects and the impost of those on council, the benefits for the community but also the additional costs. Additional support for peri-urban councils, which everybody thinks is a grand idea until it comes time to actually give us some money.

State government interference in local government, hence the people who turned up at six o'clock wondering why they couldn't come in for a public forum. Flood mitigation, climate change, the gambling losses of $75.9 million to this LGA alone last financial year, the emergency services levy, which disproportionately affects councils, disaster-affected councils and our residents through a quadruple dipping process, the EPA levy that costs us in excess of $3 million a year and adds to our tipping fees, all of the childcare responsibility of both levels of government, aged care, healthcare, homelessness, all of these things are things that we should be sitting down and discussing with representatives from other levels of government so that we can work together to achieve solutions rather than taking potshots at each other through social media or through parliamentary speeches, or just going around and around in circles wondering how we might possibly get over the line on some of this stuff.

We are all supposed to be advocates for this LGA. We can't do that advocacy effectively if we don't sit down and talk openly about what's required. Thanks.

Thank, Councillor. Any further debate?

Yeah, there is discussions, but it's been informally. The motion's quite appropriate, Councillor, and thank you for the motion.

Mr Mayor, I did just want to add, and thank Councillor Wheeler for bringing that forward, but I just think it's important to note that I understand that, of course, at your level, you would have many discussions, staff would have many discussions, but I think that when we have advocates that we can use to work in conjunction closely with, it's very important that it extends to encompassing the views of all the different perspectives that the councillors are bringing forward. So, you know, it doesn't have to be every meeting, of course, but, you know, every now and then it's really good to catch up and to raise these sometimes even individual matters for them, but certainly broader matters where they can find us money, et cetera.

Yep. Yeah, yeah. Thanks, Councillor. But our expectations to speak with our local members is probably high. I've found it extremely difficult because of sitting of Parliament and the like to get dates and the like. I speak to both of them regularly. So we will need to work a bit in relation to setting a program down that we can regularly speak to our representatives. Any further? Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll keep my comments brief because Councillor Wheeler's list of issues , I think, was quite exhaustive and really spot on. There is a lot that we are struggling with as a council, and we aren't the big state or federal government with the big bucks. We're the little guys. And we're also, though, I think the state and federal member quite easily forget the people closest to everybody else in our community while they're away doing the bigger things. So I think that this motion is a good idea. I would like to lock in a consistent time frame to do that so that it's not sporadic. We know when we're going to be meeting. And I would really like to put on the public record my disappointment with the recent negative comments directed towards this council by the state member.

I found them unhelpful, unnecessary, and did nothing to further positive discussions between our elected body and that level of government, considering all the issues raised by Councillor Wheeler. I think that we deserve a lot more respect than we're getting right now, and participating in that misinformation and that council bashing is not helpful for anybody. So I'm hoping that we can move forward positively, and also keeping in mind that the responsibility isn't just ours to be briefing them. They're adults too. They're on high levels of government. They can come to us and ask questions, and also tell us about the projects on their level of government that are impacting our local area. So I'll be supporting the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Councillor.

If a debate... Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Just very briefly, I don't want the member for Hawkesbury or the member for Macquarie to think that we only want them for their money. We do want their money, but we also need their advocacy, and we particularly need their advocacy when there are legislative changes that affect local government mooted. And I think it would be really helpful if state and federal members would speak to the level of government most affected by changes that they are voting on. And that's unfortunately something that hasn't happened recently. A prime example is the code of meeting practice, but we're also intensely affected by issues of housing affordability and other areas around development and infrastructure provision.

And we need information from them as much as they need information from us. So if we can open up a more formal process of doing that, rather than bumping into each other when we open a park or something, then I think that might be helpful. Having worked in Parliament, the best way to get an appointment with an MP is to have a fixed date in the diary. And if we don't have that, if we don't have a formal process, we are less likely to, a sporadic thing is less likely to result in an MP turning up. It would be great if they could come together, but if they don't, that's okay. I think we can work either way. I think they both have a good working relationship. It would be nice to see that good working relationship extend to us.

I agree with Councillor McMahon that when different levels of government have a go at each other personally , and when that allows then, particularly on social media, a pile-on of the sort that we saw over the last couple of weeks, it is incredibly unhelpful and frankly disrespectful. We have a job to do. It's a difficult job. It's a job that requires

A lot of bleeding blood out of the stone, but also puts us in very close contact with members of the public all the time, not just times when we're coming to the opening of something or announcing something that everybody's happy about. We are not separate from the people that we represent in the same way that state and federal MPs are. And it would be nice if we could be given the respect that our position deserves in a similar way to the respect that we give them. Thanks. Thank you.

The motions on page 89, 12.1.1, those in favour?

It's unanimous. Councillor Zembrogno, Councillor Wheeler, Councillors Buckett, Ryan, Dura, McMahon, Kotlash, Veigel, Reardon and Sheather. Those against? The motion is carried.

The next item is for information, Councillors. It's questions with notice. The item after that is 14.1.1. We don't need a resolution for that either.

Councillors, the last two items in our business paper is confidential, and we need to go into session.

Thank you for attendance in the gallery, but we need to ask you to leave the room if you don't mind.

That was moved by Councillor Kotlash and Councillor Creed.

I'll get the General Manager to read the recommendation

Councillors, I'll get the General Manager to read the recommendations from the confidential meeting. General Manager. Thank

You, Mr Mayor. Whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor McMahon, seconded by Councillor Kotlash, with respect to item 15.3.1, that Council agree to enter into a lease with Green Hills Child Care Centre Incorporated, incorporated number Y0759112, for part of the property known as 2 Stewart Street, South Windsor, being part of lot 1 in Deposited Plan 816809, as outlined in this report. Two, that authority be given for the lease and any other documentation in association with this matter to be executed under the seal of Council. And three, details of Council's resolution be conveyed to the proposed lessee together with the advice that Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of its resolution until such time as appropriate legal documentation to put such a resolution into effect has been agreed to and executed by all parties.

For the motion was Councillors Zamprogno, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash, Reardon, Veigel and Sheather. Against were Councillors Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett and Ryan.

In respect of item 15.3.2, moved on the motion by Councillor Kotlash and seconded by Councillor Reardon, it was resolved that Council proceed to publicly exhibit the proposed lease with Golden Valley Children's Learning Centre Incorporated, incorporated number Y0813631, of the property known as part of 160 Golden Valley Drive, Glossodia, being part of lots 457 and 484 in Deposited Plan 214756, as outlined in this report, in accordance with section 47 of the Local Government Act 1993. Two, at the expiration of the public exhibition period outlined in part 1 above, the following action be taken: A, should any submissions be received regarding the proposed lease to Golden Valley Children's Learning Centre Incorporated, incorporated number Y0813631.

A further report to be submitted to Council in accordance with section 47, subsection 4 of the Local Government Act 1993; or b, should no submissions be received, subsection i, Council enter into a lease with Golden Valley Children's Learning Centre Incorporated, Incorporated Number Y0813631, for parts of the property known as part of 160 Golden Valley Drive, Glossodia, being part of lots 457 and 484 in Deposited Plan 214756, as outlined in this report. Part subsection b2, authority be given for the lease and any other documentation in association with this matter to be executed under the seal of Council; and subsection 3, detail of Council's resolution be conveyed to the proposed lessee together with the advice that Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of its resolution until such time as appropriate legal documentation to put such a resolution into effect has been agreed to and executed by all parties.

For the motion were Councillors Zamprogno, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash, Reard and Vigeland-Sheather, and against the motion were Councillors Wheeler, Lyons, Buckett and Ryan. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, General Manager. That concludes the meeting this evening. Thank the staff and the councillors for their participation and work, and declare the meeting closed.

Thank you.