29 June 2026
North Sydney councillors have voted to impose the full 53% rate rise approved by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, before majority voting to award themselves the maximum remuneration available under the state’s local government pay scale.
The same meeting also ratified new fees for commercial operators using public parks, including picnic businesses, fitness groups, private schools, ceremonies and organised events.
Under the special variation approved by IPART, rates will rise by 23 per cent in 2026-27, followed by 14.58 per cent in 2027-28 and 8.32 per cent in 2028-29, inclusive of the ordinary rate peg. The cumulative increase over the three years is 52.66 per cent.
Minimum rates, mainly paid by apartment owners, will rise by 63.58 per cent over the same period.
Council papers said the extra revenue would allow North Sydney to maintain services, increase infrastructure renewal and begin longer-term property planning for a growing community.
Supporters said the increase was needed to repair the council’s finances and address a mounting infrastructure backlog.
Cr MaryAnn Beregi said “nobody wants to put rates up”, but argued residents were relying more heavily on council facilities during the cost-of-living crisis.
“People are turning more and more to council to provide what they view as free services and actually nothing is free,” she said.
Cr Angus Hoy said IPART’s approval was “a massive milestone that shifts council away from reactive crisis management towards responsible long-term stewardship”.
Cr Jessica Keen opposed the increase, saying residents were being asked to shoulder too much.
“We are so disappointed to have such a massive rate rise,” she said. “It was just too big. I think it’s really unfair on our residents of North Sydney in a cost-of-living crisis to be facing this spike in increase.”
Mayor Zoë Baker said the council had inherited a financial position shaped by “ad hoc decision making and populism”, including the North Sydney Olympic Pool redevelopment.
She said the pool, which has cost more than $122 million, had created major opportunity costs for the council’s ability to maintain and renew infrastructure.
“This council, I’m proud to say in majority, have been dedicated to financial repair,” she said.
Cr Beregi said the minimum rate was the most important structural change, noting almost 80 per cent of households had been paying just $750 a year.
But councillors also voted to adopt the maximum annual fees allowed by the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal.
Councillors will receive $30,640 each in 2026-27, while the mayor will receive an additional $81,380. The tribunal had approved a 3.7 per cent increase from July 1.
Cr Keen unsuccessfully moved to keep councillor and mayoral fees at their current level.
“I just think at this time it’s actually the optics of increasing your own remuneration,” she said. “I just felt it was actually a good message to our residents who are facing a rate rise that, you know what, maybe we’ll put our own remuneration on hold.”
Cr Efi Carr supported the move, saying she accepted councillors were paid relatively little for the work involved.
“However, I don’t think this is the time to increase our salaries,” she said.
Cr Beregi opposed the amendment, saying “$30,000 is not a lot for the time, effort and work that I put in”.
Cr James Spenceley then moved a second unsuccessful amendment to set both councillor and mayoral fees at the tribunal minimum, around half the maximum level.
He said taking the maximum fees immediately after the rate rise sent the wrong message.
“It is now an optical time to demonstrate that we are in line with the community,” he said. “We are not taking those funds and applying them to ourselves.”
Cr Spenceley said the difference between the minimum and maximum fee settings was a “$2 million decision” over the period covered by the special variation.
Cr Godfrey Santer backed the maximum fees, saying the 3.7 per cent increase was below inflation.
Cr Chris Holding also supported the increase, saying councillors worked weekends, attended briefings and conferences, and spent significant time reading council papers.
“If there are councillors on this council that feel that they’re paid too much and they don’t want the money, then they’re more than welcome to refuse it and return it back to the council,” he said.
Council also adopted a new fees regime for commercial and group use of open space, after public exhibition drew 83 submissions.
Cr Beregi said the policy had come from community concern about over-commercialisation of public reserves, citing a recent submission showing “a picnic in Blues Point Reserve replete with an animal farm and donkey rides”.
“It has actually come from the community where the over-commercialisation and group use and the use of the parks in times where we are losing public open space needs to be managed,” she said.
Cr Santer said the fees brought North Sydney into line with other councils.
He said North Sydney’s harbourside reserves had attracted growing use by commercial operators, weddings and ceremonies, creating more work for staff “to clean up and make good afterwards”.
“This revised schedule will not, as claimed by one state member of parliament, mean that families hosting a private party will now have to pay up if more than 20 guests turn up to their private function,” he said.
He said the fees were designed to ensure commercial operators taking advantage of North Sydney’s harbourside locations contributed to the cost of using and maintaining those spaces.
Cr Keen said submissions showed a strong concern that informal community use should remain free.
She said residents should not be discouraged from “walks, picnics, informal recreation and family gatherings”, and that submissions had also raised concerns about affordability, public parks as a shared asset and the impact on small businesses.
“We heard from a number of residents tonight and business owners who have some very clear concerns about some of the fees that are about to be charged,” she said.
Cr Holding said the policy had been misunderstood and ordinary use of parks would remain free.
“If you’re walking your dog or you’re turning up there on your own, you’re fine,” he said.
“If I decide to go for a walk or provide a picnic with 20 of my closest friends or family in any of our parks in North Sydney, it’s totally free in every park. It always has been and it remains that way.”
He said charges would apply if someone was operating a business or wanted to reserve a specific space for a larger celebration.
Cr Carr said she was generally supportive of the proposed fees but wanted council to consider whether there could be adjustments to support small businesses.
“We obviously don’t want to see the kinds of activities that we have seen in Blues Point Park by any means, but I think perhaps some adjustment to the fees might be useful for small businesses,” she said.
Cr Spenceley moved an unsuccessful amendment calling for continued engagement with small and mid-sized outdoor activity operators to ensure the policy did not damage their businesses, reduce residents’ use of parks through commercial services, or make North Sydney uncompetitive with other councils.
He said he supported usage-based charges but warned that moving from free use to charging could have unintended consequences.
“We don’t want those fees to flow through to our residents, to people using the parks and facilities,” he said.
“I would hate for us to be in the position where weddings don’t happen in our beautiful LGA, in the parks and outdoor areas closest to where people live because of a cost reason or because an operator failed to be able to sustain their business in our LGA and move to elsewhere.”
Cr Angus Hoy backed the fees, particularly in relation to private schools using public open space.
He said private schools received substantial state tax concessions, including avoided payroll tax and land tax.
“So I think it is only right that they pay these nominal amounts proposed by council,” he said.
Mayor Baker said the policy had originated from a mayoral minute about the impact of private schools and their organised use of council parks but also reflected population growth and rising demand for open space.
“This policy is about council’s capacity to manage multiple users and the impacts particularly of commercial use on public land, including that of the private schools,” she said.