5 March 2026
Midnight on Monday marks the deadline for residents to lodge submissions with the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) on North Sydney Council’s latest attempt to secure a large increase in local rates.
The council has applied for a Special Rate Variation that would lift overall rates by 53% over three years, with increases of up to 63% for minimum ratepayers, a category that largely captures apartment residents.
The proposal was approved at a special council meeting in January by the bloc of seven councillors comprising the Real Independents, Labor and Greens.
Defending the proposal at the time, Mayor Zoë Baker said the application was designed to address what the council views as a structural financial problem.
“It was just under 12 months ago that we gathered here and resolved to apply to IPART for a special rate variation that was to align with council’s 10-year plan,” Baker said.
“The purpose of that application was to address council’s unsustainable financial position to meet the challenges of operating deficits, severely underfunded infrastructure renewals, the escalating asset renewal backlog, low financial resilience due in part to the denuded internal reserves that are a result of the North Sydney Olympic Pool Redevelopment Project, and council’s capacity to invest in new community infrastructure to meet the needs of the existing and rapidly increasing population.”
Baker noted the council had previously sought a Special Rate Variation that was rejected by the tribunal.
“Of course, IPART did not support the February 2025 application, even as it found that there was financial need. The fact is nearly 12 months on council’s financial need has not changed.”
However, the publication of the council’s application documents has prompted criticism from residents and some councillors.
Former councillor Ian Mutton rejected the suggestion the council faces a financial crisis.
“I think it’s like a well-nourished kid with a pocket full of money walking into a candy shop,” Mutton said.
“What we’ve got is a council that is not in financial difficulty, doing a financial grab, doing a money grab, and not being altogether clear about what it wants to do with the money.”
Local resident and Sun reader Joan questioned the assumptions underpinning the council’s long-term financial projections.
“Looking at the audited financial statements over the last seven years, they show a robust financial council,” Joan said.
“But then when you look at the projections in the long-term financial plan there is a material shift in the operating performance and it is forecasting a weaker council. That calls into question the veracity of the long-term financial plan.”
The current application follows an earlier attempt last year in which the council sought an 87% increase in rates. IPART rejected that proposal.
Another Sun reader, Peter, said the new application appeared to have made limited changes.
“IPART were very clear about what needed to be done, and council had just simply washed their last one with a few sort of superfluous remarks and just resubmitted it,” he said.
“They haven’t really dealt with the conditions that IPART have said you want to look at.”
Independent councillor James Spenceley also criticised the application.
“Basically what it is, it’s a request list for a rate increase with a trust me bro. We’ll do some stuff later on,” Spenceley said.
“If you get the rate rise, why do you need to sell assets? Why do you need to cut costs? It’s a circular argument.”
Spenceley argued the council had not adequately explored other funding options.
“In any business, in any council, in any government department, you would use a multiple of things. You’d use some rate rise, you’d use some debt, you’d use some asset sales, you’d use some cost reductions, and that would form your solution.”
He added that the application appeared poorly developed given it was the council’s second attempt.
“They haven’t done the work and it’s very basic work. There’s no way in reality the only answer to the funding problem and asset backlog is a rate rise.”
Another area of dispute relates to the consultation process used by the council to test community support for higher rates.
Joan said the first stage of the survey asked residents about service levels without disclosing financial impacts.
“Residents were asked if services should be reduced, maintained, or increased without knowing the cost or financial impact on the 10-year strategic plan. Hence any conclusions around willingness to pay using the results of the survey are not credible.”
She noted that once cost information was disclosed in a later phase, support for the large increase was limited.
“Only 22% favoured option three — the 53% rate rise. This shows a clear lack of support for increased spending when the community were provided with full cost disclosure.”
Spenceley also questioned the methodology used in the consultation.
“The survey methodology is fundamentally flawed. It uses a multitude of leading questions to get the answer they want,” he said.
“They’re cherry picking the answers. People may say they want more services, but at the same time they’re not willing to pay for it.”
Another criticism relates to the council’s claim that North Sydney residents have the capacity to absorb the increase.
Resident Peter argued the economic assumptions underpinning the analysis are outdated.
“The figures being relied on are 2021 figures,” Peter said.
“Since that date there have been steep increases in mortgage interest rates, significant rises in median rents and sustained inflationary pressure. The environment in which this decision was made is completely different.”
He also warned that renters could ultimately bear the impact.
“52% of residents are renters and they will bear the increased rate through the landlord increasing the rent,” he said.
“I had a cup of coffee with a friend this morning whose rent was put up $100 a week. She’s an 82-year-old single pensioner. These sorts of generalisations have cruel results on a lot of people.”
Liberal councillor Jessica Keen said the council had overstated community support for the strategy underpinning the rate rise.
“Last year, 78% of people rejected these strategies, so why is council still pursuing them and saying these reflect their community views?” Keen said.
“When residents actually found out the size of the increase, only one in five supported it.”
Keen also questioned the council’s reliance on older economic data to support the claim residents have the capacity to pay.
“Council describes North Sydney residents as having an exceptional capacity to pay using figures from 2021 — a COVID year when interest rates and rents were at historic lows.”
For Mutton, the central question remains whether the increase is justified.
“It fails to meet the broad category of, is the increase justified? And the simple answer is it’s not,” he said.
“You’ve got a council with cash on hand and term deposits of around $100m and an average operating profit of about $16m over the last decade. What we need is a council focused on delivering the needs of the community, not visions that are not supported by business cases.”
Residents can lodge comments or submissions on the proposal through the IPART website until midnight Monday.