0°C | Saturday January 31, 2026 
16 January 2026
More than 80 qualitative comments published as part of an opt-in survey conducted by Micromex for North Sydney Council show deep mistrust of the council’s financial management and decision-making, even as headline survey results point to general support for maintaining or improving services through higher rates.
The comments were submitted through an opt-in online survey made available by the council between August and early September 2025. Micromex has cautioned that the opt-in results reflect the views of those who chose to participate and cannot be generalised to the broader community.
The survey is part of the various measures undertaken by Council to back its preference for a Special Rate Variation (SRV) rate rise of 53% over three years.
A dominant theme across the written comments was dissatisfaction with council governance following cost overruns and delays at the North Sydney Olympic Pool redevelopment.
One respondent wrote: “Nobody has been held to account, it’s absolutely unfair. Rates should increase at the same level as the income of your residents and no more.”
Another said: “The council has previously mismanaged its resources and should not be passing this inefficiency and waste on. Nobody has been held to account, it’s absolutely unfair.”
Several respondents challenged the financial justification for a large or permanent rate increase.
One submission said: “Based on your own financial statements and the information presented, there is no justification for a large, permanent SRV.”
Another wrote: “Residents should not be asked to fund inflated backlog estimates, uncollected revenue, or strategic decisions to retain underperforming assets.”
The permanent nature of the proposed Special Rate Variation was a recurring concern.
One resident wrote: “A permanent SRV locks in the increase forever.”
Another said: “A temporary SRV (3–5 years) allows accountability, review, and adjustment.”
Cost-of-living pressures featured heavily, particularly among older residents and those on fixed or near-fixed incomes.
One respondent wrote: “My income will not increase, but my rates will.”
Another said: “As I age I will be unable to use all facilities that will be offered. Yet I will be paying for it with a retirement income which won’t be increasing.”
Many respondents also criticised the design of the consultation itself.
One submission said: “The proposal frames a rate increase as the only path forward.”
Another described the survey as “manipulative rather than genuine consultation.”
Business owners and commercial property interests used the survey to warn of economic impacts.
One submission said: “Commercial property in the area has already been severely impacted by the broader post-COVID downturn.”
Another wrote: “Further increases will only compound this challenge and influence broader business decisions including employment levels and investment.”
Supportive comments
While critical feedback dominated the qualitative material, some respondents expressed support for the higher rate option on fiscal grounds.
One supporter wrote: “Council is facing a financial crisis. It needs to plan for the future. Option 3 (the 53% rate rise) is the fiscally responsible option.”
Another said: “I would be supportive of a full rate increase as per the latest advice provided the Council returns to and maintains the governance and fiscal discipline that was evident in the era prior to the embarkation on the Olympic pool debacle.”
The qualitative comments form part of the material being considered by councillors as they decide whether to proceed with a revised application to increase rates above the state-imposed rate peg.