26 May 2025
North Sydney Council has resolved to place its Draft 2025–29 Delivery Program and 2025–26 Operational Plan on public exhibition, but not before heated debate revealed sharp divisions over the council’s financial strategy—and its decision to embark on a rejected 87% special rate variation by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal.
Cr James Spenceley launched a withering critique of council’s planning and financial governance, describing the situation as “a mess” and expressing disbelief that the Special Rate Variation (SRV) application had ever been considered viable. “Blind Freddie could tell you that that SRV was not going to go through,” he said. “Blind Freddie could tell you it would alienate pretty much 80%, 90% of the community.”
He argued that instead of developing a practical, staged and community-supported plan, council had opted for an unrealistic proposal and failed to prepare a contingency. “We shot for the stars—87%—and here we are making service cuts, talking about asset sales, using debt,” he said. “All of the things we should have done to reduce the impact of that proposed rate rise.”
Spenceley said he had repeatedly called for the presentation of dual scenarios—one assuming approval of the SRV and another if it were rejected—but that no such plan was ever produced. “Why did we not put two plans to the community?” he asked. “Here’s what happens if we get our crazy 87% and here’s what happens if we get knocked back. Where is the strategic thinking?”
He criticised the lack of financial detail in proposals now under discussion, saying he had been asked to consider service cuts without any associated costings. “I’m sitting in briefing rooms asked to talk about cutting services with no costs next to them. That’s the most ad hoc you can put to the community,” he said.
Cr Angus Hoy backed Spenceley’s concerns on costings but turned them on their head. “We were told that as a result of chronic underinvestment in our systems, it is unlikely we will have the IT capability to [provide itemised budgets],” he said. “The irony is not lost on me and I hope it’s not lost on others.”
Cr Jessica Keen welcomed the IPART decision, thanking North Sydney residents for opposing the 87% increase. “That was too high. I think we all agree it was way too high,” she said. While acknowledging statutory obligations to exhibit the plan, she argued that council could have sought an extension—just as it had during the SRV process—to allow for better community consultation. “It gives our residents a longer period of time to actually submit their feedback on the plan,” she said.
Keen also rejected the need for service cuts, saying there were “other options” available and disputing efforts by councillors to deflect responsibility for the Olympic Pool to past administrations. “The decision to go with the pool wasn’t another council,” she said. “You and the mayor have been here the entire time through the management of the pool.”
Council’s apparently worsening fiscal position—exacerbated by the blowout costs of the North Sydney Olympic Pool project—was repeatedly referenced during the debate, with councillors across the spectrum acknowledging the need to consider further borrowings, asset sales and service reductions. According to mayor Zoe Baker, the rejected SRV was designed to avoid precisely these outcomes.
“We must once again look… to slash and defer infrastructure renewal,” Baker said. “We have to explore asset sales and reduce or even cut service levels… Community transport, verge mowing, graffiti removal—they’re all recommended to be reviewed.”
Cr MaryAnn Beregi echoed the view that the IPART decision offered no cause for celebration. “We still have a huge liquidity issue. We still are carrying over $100 million of debt,” she said. “The money has to come from somewhere… There will need to be service cuts to address the problem.”
Beregi also pointed to temporary cost savings—such as delayed pool operating costs and unfilled staff vacancies—as masking the severity of what she said was a structural budget deficit. She confirmed council had applied for an additional $10 million in loans from state borrowing agency TCorp, which would increase external borrowings to $60 million and internal borrowings to $49 million.
Cr Efi Carr expressed disappointment that the Delivery Program being sent to the community was “complicated” and difficult to interpret. “It will require significant amounts of time from our residents to go through and understand what this delivery plan is all about,” she said. Carr warned that the community were not being presented with full costings or a clear picture of what services would be impacted.
Cr Nicole Antonini suggested that years of asset neglect, worsened by the “vanity project” of the Olympic Pool, had left council dependent on under-resourced staff and facing declining asset conditions.
Antonini accused Liberal-aligned councillors and the local MP of attacking the current council’s financial repair efforts and argued that “selling public assets and cutting public services” had now become the only options available. She claimed this course ran contrary to feedback received during community engagement efforts.
Cr Spenceley rejected that interpretation, interjecting via a point of order to argue that many submissions had in fact supported service cuts or alternative cost-saving measures.
Despite the rejection of North Sydney Council’s proposed special rate variation and the rhetoric around a budget crisis, the 2025–29 Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan projects steady growth in council revenue over the next four years. Total income from continuing operations is forecast to rise from $158.6 million in 2025–26 to $177.5 million in 2028–29. This is driven by gradual increases across most revenue categories, including rates (rising from $64.9 million to $71.6 million), user fees and charges, and annual charges.
However, the plan still forecasts ongoing deficits on a key financial benchmark. The “adjusted net operating result before capital grants and contributions”—a figure that strips out one-off infrastructure grants—remains negative throughout the period.
Cr MaryAnn Beregi concluded debate by endorsing the council’s recent strategy. “I really struggle to understand how this council could be any more transparent,” she said, pointing to extensive budget documentation and quarterly updates. “Those who celebrate [the IPART decision] —I just think, enjoy your victory because the rest of the community is going to be suffering.”