0°C | Friday January 23, 2026 
20 January 2026
Residents mounted a sustained and detailed challenge on Monday night to North Sydney Council’s proposed 53% special rate variation, arguing that the increase was inequitable, insufficiently justified and disconnected from household realities and the lessons of last year’s rejected application.
Across the first hour and 20 minutes of a public forum, more than 20 speakers repeatedly returned to four core themes: affordability and renter exposure, inequities created by the minimum-rate structure, doubts about council’s financial narrative and modelling, and a sharp loss of trust stemming from the Olympic Pool redevelopment and the handling of consultation.
Those concerns stood in marked contrast to the council debate that followed, where seven councillors voted to apply for the increase, pressing ahead with a second attempt to lift rates just eight months after IPART rejected a previous bid for an 87% rise over two years.
Immediately before the vote, around 25 residents applied to speak, with about 20 directly opposing council’s preferred option three, which would deliver a cumulative increase of about 53% over three years. Option one proposed a 10% increase and option two an increase of about 40%.
Affordability, renters and “capacity to pay”
A central argument from speakers was that council’s capacity-to-pay assessment relied too heavily on aggregate wealth measures that masked vulnerability among renters, retirees and minimum-rate households.
Peter Noble said council’s hardship framework was structurally blind to renters, despite renters comprising a majority of residents.
“Fifty-two per cent of residents rent,” Noble said. “They will pay this through rent increases and they cannot access hardship provisions.”
Ian Mutton, a former councillor, disputed council’s claims that residents had an almost absolute capacity to absorb the increase.
“Residents, mostly elderly, who are asset rich but income poor. Residents who rent, that’s 52% of our community, they are fully exposed to any increase in rates because the landlord can’t be expected to provide respite. Households with incomes below $650 per week – that’s 10% of our households,” Mutton said.
Helen (her surname was indistinct), speaking as a part pensioner, said the scale of the increase would force people on fixed incomes to make trade-offs with health and wellbeing.
“People in my situation eat less well, reduce healthcare and stop going out,” she said. “That has human consequences.”
Jen Patel said the proposal assumed a resilience that did not exist at household level.
“The forecast CPI is 3.4%,” she said. “How do you expect us to absorb something near 53%?”
Minimum rates and perceived inequity
Another dominant strand was concern that the structure of the proposal would shift a disproportionate burden onto minimum-rate payers, particularly apartment dwellers and lower-income households.
Jason Dong said the cumulative effect of minimum rates produced perverse outcomes.
“In aggregate, my building pays dozens of minimum rates,” he said. “If it were replaced by a single dwelling, the rates would be four times lower.”
“That’s nurses, teachers and bus drivers carrying the can,” Dong said.
Financial narrative and credibility
Many speakers directly challenged council’s description of its financial position, disputing claims of operating deficits and claiming an absence of meaningful cost restraint.
Gary Molloy said he was open minded about a rate rise.
“But I’ve spent days dissecting the 770-page report,” Molloy said. “I don’t see evidence of hard decisions.”
Chris Bowdler said council “has flaunted legislative requirements to be financially sustainable and economical”, adding that “no substantial cost savings have been made in the last two financial years, despite council’s claims”.
Robert Lynch cited audited financial statements showing operating surpluses over several years.
“This does not indicate an organisation with operating deficits,” he said.
John Lorimer said council had failed to seriously pursue expenditure restraint.
“Employee costs and materials are 75% of your costs,” he said. “Ambitious cost reductions are missing.”
Consultation, process and trust
Distrust in the consultation process featured prominently, with speakers questioning whether community feedback was meaningfully influencing council’s recommendation.
Joan Street told the forum that council’s own survey showed option three was preferred by only one in five residents, while option one was supported by a majority.
She also challenged council’s claim that North Sydney paid some of the lowest rates in Sydney, saying Office of Local Government data showed the council paid the second-highest rates on a per-capita basis.
Chris Bowdler said pursuing another large SRV so soon after last year’s rejection had further eroded trust.
“We are being asked to pay 50% more to fix your mistakes,” he said.
Michael Parker said objections had been ignored.
“To get anything approved you need justification and public support,” he said. “This has neither.”
Robert Stitt KC said council now faced a “serious trust deficit” with residents, adding that its claims about costs were not credible.
Olympic Pool as unresolved fault line
Although council has said the SRV is not intended to fund the Olympic Pool redevelopment, speakers repeatedly returned to the project as the unspoken driver of the proposal.
The mayor herself said the pool has drained reserves, Stitt said. “The community will draw its own conclusion.”
Davey Macdonald said uncertainty around the final cost of the pool undermined confidence.
“We don’t know where the pool will land,” he said. “That matters.”
Several speakers also said their own research suggested the council’s more than $122m Olympic Pool redevelopment was the most expensive municipal pool project anywhere in the world, reinforcing perceptions that the rate rise was being driven by legacy cost overruns.
Supportive contributions
A smaller number of speakers supported the proposal, largely on the grounds that alternatives would be worse.
Meredith Trevallyn-Jones, who has previously published election material endorsing the Real Independents and Labor, said council was required to carry out many of its functions under statutory obligation and therefore needed adequate resourcing.
Danielle Vieira said council faced a binary choice.
“You cannot cut your way out of constrained budgets,” she said.
Leo Nelson, a prominent local Labor activist, mocked critics of the increase.
“How will residents of one of the wealthiest parts of Australia, if not the world, be able to afford an extra $9 a week?” he asked.
Councillors respond: structural repair versus consent
During the council debate that followed, three councillors echoed many of the concerns raised during the forum.
Efi Carr said council’s financial statements did not demonstrate immediate stress warranting a 53% increase.
“Over the past three years we have operated with a surplus,” Carr said. “I don’t think it is reasonable or responsible to push through a higher rate rise when the community is saying no.”
James Spenceley warned against minimising the impact of the increase.
“To dismiss people’s livelihoods and quality of life by saying it’s only (a) $9 (per week increase) does not represent all of our community,” he said.
Jessica Keen said the proposal represented a compounded permanent increase.
“When 52% of residents choose the rate-peg option and only 22% choose option three, choosing option three isn’t leadership,” she said. “It’s a dismissal of the community’s voice.”
By contrast, councillors supporting the application argued that deferral would entrench long-term financial damage.
Mayor Zoë Baker said councillors were required to look beyond consultation results alone.
“Ultimately, as councillors, we are required to make decisions informed not only by community consultation and surveys, but also with the next generation in mind,” Baker said. “We have both a legal and moral obligation to ensure intergenerational equity.”
Nicole Antonini said last year’s failed application had forced further borrowing and deeper deferrals of infrastructure renewals.
“When the SRV application last year failed, the situation of council did not go away,” she said.
Angus Hoy rejected the use of headline surpluses cited by speakers.
“The more appropriate metric is the operating performance ratio,” he said. “On that metric, council finances are dire.”
Godfrey Santer said North Sydney’s rate base had been structurally suppressed by historical rate freezes, while MaryAnn Beregi said asset sales or redevelopment would not solve the problem.
Chris Holding said prolonged underfunding was already visible in deteriorating assets, and Shannon Welch said one-off fixes could not meet council’s statutory obligations.
Decision and next steps
Council voted 7–3 to apply for a permanent special rate variation, structured as a 23% increase in 2026–27, a 14.58% increase in 2027–28 and an 8.32% increase in 2028–29, inclusive of rate pegs.
Despite the detailed opposition expressed during the public forum, the application will now be submitted to IPART ahead of its 2 February deadline following the expected failure of a recission motion today.