26°C |
Wednesday April 15, 2026 
30 June 2025
North Sydney Council has adopted its Delivery Program 2025–2029 and Operational Plan and Budget 2025–2026, concluding a fractious debate that exposed sharp divisions over financial management, community consultation and the fallout from the failed North Sydney Olympic Pool redevelopment.
The motion supporting the plans was passed 7–3, supported by mayor Zoë Baker and councillors MaryAnn Beregi, Godfrey Santer, Shannon Welch, Chris Holding, Nicole Antonini and Angus Hoy. Councillors James Spenceley, Efi Carr and Jessica Keen opposed the motion, citing concerns about transparency, community input and the inclusion of unfunded initiatives.
The plan outlines the council’s strategic agenda and annual budget for the next four years. It follows the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal’s May rejection of North Sydney’s special rate variation request, which had proposed a cumulative rate increase of 87%. With only the standard 4% rate peg approved, the final plan contains service reductions, asset renewal deferrals, cost savings and attempts to grow non-rate income.
Cr Spenceley used his remarks to condemn the council’s approach to community consultation around the SRV and delivery plan, arguing that the governing bloc had refused to genuinely test alternatives. He told the chamber: “There was no desire for community consultation… I proposed an amendment that we go out with a lower rate rise of 20%… The seven councillors around the table rejected that.” While ordered to withdraw suggestions that such a rate would have solved the financial problem, Spenceley maintained that the council’s failure lay in its unwillingness to “understand we did not listen to the community.”
He also pointed to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal’s criticism of the SRV application in its rejection. “Engagement and community awareness did not provide sufficient information… North Sydney Council did not clearly identify the need for and the purpose of the proposed SRV,” he said, quoting directly from the determination. “When are we actually going to admit we did a poor job?”
Cr Carr also rejected the plan, focusing on governance concerns and the structure of the document itself. “Unfunded projects should not appear on an endorsed plan when funding is unclear and resourcing is not identified,” she said. “Approving this document would imply that these projects have been approved when they have not had the community scrutiny and consultation that is essential.” Carr criticised the scale and accessibility of the documents, suggesting they were a barrier to public engagement. “They’re overwhelming and are more of a barrier than a bridge to engagement… The community is quite right asking where the transparency, clarity and accountability is.”
Carr also warned that the council was continuing to rely on “informing strategies that have already been rejected by the community” and pointed to a broader erosion of trust. “If we keep ignoring this, we risk losing the most important thing any council can have – public trust.”
Cr Keen, also voting against, expressed concern that feedback collected during the exhibition period had not meaningfully changed the plan. “Too often we seek feedback and then proceed with a plan that looks virtually unchanged from the draft,” she said. Referring to local precinct comments and residents’ submissions, she said there had been clear support for new income opportunities rather than service cuts – including advertising, naming rights and ticketed events – but that the revised draft had failed to reflect these preferences.
Keen echoed calls from community groups such as the Harrison Bennett and Lavender precincts to strip the plan of unfunded or speculative projects and delay adoption until broader consultation could be completed. “There are definitely options available to us councillors,” she said.
Mayor Baker and the majority argued that the plan was a necessary – if difficult – response to a deteriorating financial position exacerbated by rising construction costs and legacy decisions. “This is the prudent and careful and considered approach that this council is determined to take,” Baker said. “We’ve heard from a lot of loud voices, now’s the time over the next six months for us to hear from those who do appreciate council services… and would prefer that there wasn’t sewage running down the walls of the children’s library.”
Beregi and Holding again blamed the North Sydney Olympic Pool project for the depletion of reserves and the constrained budget outlook. Holding labelled councillors who downplayed the financial challenges of the pool as “fantasists.”
Cr Beregi also criticised IPART’s rejection of the council’s 87% special rate variation, describing the decision as unprecedented. “I have read every IPART decision going back about three or four years and the North Sydney Council one, to me, just does not make sense,” she said. She argued that despite the size and scope of community opposition to the SRV, broader sentiment in the electorate acknowledged that financial repair was required. “There’s a seething anger that council didn’t get the rate rise,” she said. “Not because everybody wants to pay, but everybody in the community knows that this council has inherited the disastrous debt from the North Sydney Olympic Pool project and was elected to address it.”
Beregi dismissed claims that the council’s community engagement process had been inadequate, pointing to the volume of protest against the Western Harbour Tunnel as a comparative benchmark. “Three thousand people out of 70,000 residents and then a couple of hundred come to speak… let’s put that in perspective,” she said. She also condemned what she described as a “scare campaign” around the SRV and noted that many residents were now asking “how can we help?” She reiterated her opposition to any asset sales unless they became unavoidable, and defended council staff from criticism. “Any criticism of the council staff is unwarranted, unnecessary and inappropriate,” she said. “Selling assets is an easy thing to put out there… but I will be voting against any asset sales as and until it’s a matter of last resort.”
Cr Santer also suggested that the Council’s financial problems had simply been kicked down the road. “This problem will not go away and while the current rate pegging system exists, we will in the future have to address it again through the SRV application system. Sooner or later, we… have to stop kicking the can down the road.”