Let’s Talk Rates

IPART uses the criteria set out in the Special Variation Guidelines to assess applications.

We acknowledge that any rate increase may place financial pressure on some residents. Council offers support through its Hardship Policy and can offer alternative payment arrangements to assist ratepayers. 

All rate increases (regardless of whether it is rate peg only or a special rate variation) are implemented on 1^st July of each year.

Councils financial position remains weak and unsustainable.  Without an increase in rates, infrastructure will continue to deteriorate and service levels will be impacted. 

Despite rejecting Council’s previous application, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) recognised Council’s financial challenges and the need to address inequities in the rating structure. 

In refusing the application, IPART made the following recommendations which Council has now addressed: 

1.    Complete a service level review with the community: Council has now undertaken a service level review through research consultants Micromex Research. The report concluded that there was little appetite for reduced service levels, with most residents wanting services/infrastructure to be maintained, if not improved. The detailed results of this survey are available as an attachment to the Draft Long Term Financial Plan. 

2.    Consider various alternatives to an SRV including a reduction in services or considering higher levels of debt: Improved documentation of considerations made in relation to various alternatives to an SRV have been detailed within the Draft Long Term Financial Plan. Specific new or increased revenue opportunities have been included within the forecasts as opposed to percentage assumptions. 

3.    Develop an on-going framework to identify and implement productivity and efficiency savings: Council developed and commenced implementing a performance improvement framework and pathway in 2023; however, it is acknowledged that this work was not sufficiently detailed within the SRV application submitted. In response, a detailed Performance and Improvement Plan has been developed which details Council’s considerable efforts towards improvement over the past three years.  This plan outlines productivity, cost containment, and revenue opportunities. It is available as an attachment to the draft Long-Term Financial Plan, and demonstrates that without these improvement actions being taken, an additional 14.9% in cumulative rating increases over three years would be required. 
 
4.    Reconsider the extent and timing of the increase to minimum rates: A reduced minimum rate over three years has been included for consideration in this plan. 
 
5.    Improvement of Council’s Hardship Policy: A new Hardship Policy has been developed and publicly exhibited.  This Policy was submitted for Council’s approval within the ordinary meeting of 27 October 2025. 

Providing services and infrastructure for an entire community is a complex task, because people use and value these services in different ways. What one person sees as essential, another may not use at all. Unlike shopping for individual products, community members don’t get to pick and choose which services they want to pay for.

Instead, services and infrastructure are delivered as a shared package - often referred to as a "basket of goods" - designed to meet the overall needs of the community.

 One of the most difficult roles of a Council is to determine the right balance and mix of services. They do this by considering a broad understanding of community priorities, supported by research, engagement, and expert technical advice.

In August 2025, Council undertook independent research to understand the service and infrastructure expectations of the community. 605 demographically selected participants and 433 ‘opt in’ community members completed the survey.

The results of the survey demonstrated that there is little appetite for less services, with the majority of residents wanting services and infrastructure to at least be maintained if not improved – even knowing that maintaining/increasing services will require an increase in rates.

Survey results are available in the Project Document Libray on this consultation page. They are also included as attachments to the Draft Long-Term Financial Report paper submitted to Council on 27 October 2025. 

The environment and infrastructure levies are separate charges. They will only increase in line with the “rate peg” (the annual cap set by the NSW Government). This will be the same across all SRV options.

Council rates are based on the unimproved land value not the market value of your built property. Council sets a minimum rate which is the lowest amount a household can be charged.

This minimum rate mostly applies to apartments, because many units share the same block of land. Those properties that do not pay the minimum, such as houses and townhouses on average pay more than double the rates paid by those subject to minimum.

In North Sydney, 77% of North Sydney residents currently pay the minimum rate of $743 - the third lowest minimum rate in Metro Sydney.

Increasing the minimum rate helps make the system fairer, so everyone contributes more equally to the cost of local services and infrastructure. It also ensures that as more high-density developments are built, there is enough funding to support the extra demand on services and facilities.

The rate increase will be permanent and applied progressively over the next three years.

The rate increase will be permanent and applied progressively over the next three years.

The purpose of this SRV is primarily to ensure financial sustainability, rather than large projects.

The majority of funding will be used for the purpose of renewing existing infrastructure and addressing infrastructure backlogs.  The program of works for this purpose will be determined each year through Councils Operational Plan process which is informed by Council’s Asset Management Plans and risk assessments.  All projects are subject to further community engagement as part of this process.

Options 2 and 3 also ensure corporate systems are transformed to meet modern standards.  Implementation would take 4 to 5 years.

Under Option 3, $17 million over ten years has been earmarked for projects that respond to current challenges and opportunities faced by the community in the areas of:

• Maximising the use of existing open space, for example drainage improvements in sports fields and parks
• Reducing emissions, for example increasing the renewable energy capacity on Council infrastructure
• Traffic management, for example Blues Point Road traffic management works
• Access and inclusion, for example upgrades to improve accessibility of parks and playgrounds
• Stormwater management, for example expanded stormwater harvesting and water reuse systems.

Option 3 also provides approximately $1.7 million per year in operational funding for planning and small-scale initiatives, with indicative projects including:

• Planning initiatives, for example Master planning Council owned property next to Metro at North Sydney and Crows Nest to plan for future community needs
• Sustainability initiatives, for example exploring the feasibility for community batteries on Council owned land
• Access, social inclusion and cohesion, for example projects to improve accessibility of Council programs services, facilities and events.
• Transport initiatives, for example, a holistic review of car parking across the Local Government Area
• Economic Development, for example initiatives to support small business and local spend

The timing and delivery of projects and initiatives would be determined through the Council’s Operational Plan process, which would be subject to further community consultation.

Part 5 ‘Detailed Purpose Statement’ of the Draft Long-Term Financial Plan (LTFP) provides further examples what options 2 and 3 special rate variations would fund along with indicative timing.

It should be noted that commitments from years five to ten have higher sensitivity to change.  The range of sensitivities is included in the draft LTFP.

Council is considering three options each with different implications for service levels, asset and infrastructure renewal and long-term financial sustainability.

Option 1 – No Change – This would mean rates increase with rate peg. 

Under this option, infrastructure would further deteriorate and service reductions would be required.

Option 2 – Treading water – This option is primarily focused on maintaining existing service levels, renewing existing infrastructure and addressing critical infrastructure backlogs. 

Option 3 – An eye to the future – This option is also primarily focused on maintaining existing service levels, renewing infrastructure and addressing critical infrastructure backlogs, and in addition, provides a modest level of funding to respond to current opportunities and challenges faced by the community.

If Council decides not to proceed with a special rate variation, ordinary rates will increase by the rate peg (4% for 2026-27 and assumed 3% annually thereafter). This is Option 1.

Option 1 means that Council would need to significantly reduce services to support annual renewals. Infrastructure backlogs would grow. Infrastructure management would continue to be reactive, and maintenance costs will increase.

Should it proceed with the Special Variation, the funding will primarily contribute towards maintaining services and improving infrastructure management including:

• Ensuring the continuation of current service levels
• Restoration of funding for infrastructure renewals
• Reduction of the $157 million infrastructure backlog
• Replacing outdated corporate systems

Over the past six years alone, funding towards infrastructure renewal is recorded at more than $43 million less than required. Buildings and stormwater being the greatest concern, with only approximately 24% of building renewals undertaken annually since 2020.

Low renewal budgets have meant an increasingly reactive and risk-based approach to infrastructure renewal.

A review of Council’s 2025-26 budget indicated the average residential rate of $1,079 per year was indicatively distributed as follows:

In NSW, both public and private schools are generally exempt from paying council rates under the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW). This exemption is grounded in the principle that certain land uses, such as education, health, and religious services, provide public benefit and are therefore not subject to local government taxation in the same way as residential or commercial properties.

There are some parcels of land that are exempt from rates and charges. Typically, this includes land used for hospitals, universities, schools and national parks.  Unless you meet the exemption criteria outlined in the Local Government Act 1993, you cannot be exempt from paying rates.

Approximately 77% of all residential ratepayers pay minimum rates. This is because the minimum rate mostly applies to apartments, because many units share the same block of land.

Currently, minimum-rate ratepayers pay less than half of the average paid by other ratepayers in the North Sydney local government area, despite having access to the same services. To ensure equity and ensure new apartment development supports service and infrastructure costs, Council proposes increasing the minimum rate.

Council recognises cost-of-living pressures. There are a wide range of financial hardship support options available for the community. This includes pensioner rebates, flexible payment plans and other options. Find out more: northsydney.nsw.gov.au/financialhardship

Comparing average business rates across different Local Government Areas (LGAs) can be challenging due to the varying size and character of landholdings. Those LGA’s with high density property holdings owned individually will by nature have a higher average rate than those with smaller individual landholdings or strata developments.

In North Sydney 33% of business assessments pay the minimum rates, and 67% of business assessments pay ad-valorem rates. 4% of total business rating revenue is generated through minimum rate assessments, while 96% is generated through ad valorem rate assessments.

While there is no direct comparison to North Sydney, the closest comparison would be those councils with CBD locations. This includes Burwood, Parramatta, Strathfield and Sydney.    

Source: https://economy.id.com.au   Note: Comparative rates are calculated based on the averages included with the IPART Final Report - North Sydney 2025 for the 2024-2025 year which is calculated using OLG's time series data as at 2023-2024 (latest available). These rates have then been escalated by 2025-2026 and 2026-2027 rate pegs or special variation approvals for each council. The 2028-2029 year has been escalated by an assumed rate peg of 3%.

Currently, average residential rates in North Sydney are 35–40% lower than neighbouring councils.

North Sydney Council charges ordinary rates, along with an environment levy and an infrastructure levy.

The ordinary rates are based on the value of your land, as determined by the NSW Valuer General. Each property’s land value is multiplied by a rate (called an ad valorem rate) set by Council.

To make sure everyone contributes fairly to the cost of providing community services, a minimum rate applies. This means if the calculation based on your land value results in a smaller amount, the minimum rate is charged instead.

The Environmental and Infrastructure levies are calculated using a standard (base) amount plus an ad valorem component. This approach ensures that all ratepayers make a consistent base contribution while also paying a portion that reflects their land value.

The average residential rate is the mean amount paid across all residential ratepayers, including both minimum and ad valorem (value-based) rates.

It is calculated by dividing the total revenue received by Council from residential rates by the number of rating assessments.

A minimum rate is the lowest amount a property owner must pay in council rates, regardless of the land’s value.

Councils in NSW are required by law to set a minimum rate for each rating category (such as residential or business). This ensures that all property owners contribute a fair share towards the cost of providing local services and infrastructure - like roads, parks, waste collection, and community facilities.

If the calculated rate based on a property’s land value is less than the minimum rate, the property owner will pay the minimum amount instead.

The minimum rate is set by the council and approved by the NSW Government through rate-pegging regulations.

In 2025-2026 North Sydney's minimum rate is $743 per annum - the third lowest in Metropolitan Sydney. Neighbouring councils charge: Lane Cove ($1,073), Willoughby ($1,051), and Northern Beaches ($1,233).

The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) is a New South Wales Government agency that acts as an independent regulator. IPART’s role is to set or review prices, monitor service standards, and oversee financial and regulatory matters for a range of essential services in NSW - including local council rates, water, electricity, and public transport.

When it comes to local government, IPART:

• Sets the annual rate peg, which limits how much councils can increase general rates each year.
• Assesses applications for Special Rate Variations (SRVs) from councils seeking to raise rates above the rate peg.

For more information about IPART visit www.ipart.nsw.gov.au/

A Special Rate Variation (SRV) is an increase to council rates that is above the standard annual rate peg set by the NSW Government.

If a council needs to raise more funds than the rate peg allows - for example, to maintain or improve local infrastructure, deliver new community projects, or ensure long-term financial sustainability - it can apply to IPART for a Special Rate Variation.

Before applying, councils are required to:

• Consult with the community to explain why the increase is needed and how the funds will be used.
• Demonstrate financial need and show how the proposed SRV will benefit the local area.

If approved, the SRV becomes part of council’s rate structure and is clearly outlined in the council’s budget and long-term financial plan.

The rate peg is a limit set each year by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) that controls how much a local council can increase its total general income from rates, regardless of changes in land values. This means that even if land values in a council area rise significantly; the total amount of money the council can collect from rates does not automatically increase. Instead, councils must adjust the rate in the dollar downward to stay within the rate peg. Therefore, the rate peg restricts overall revenue growth from rates, ensuring that councils do not receive windfall gains simply due to rising property values.

The rate peg aims to increase rates in line with cost increases such as industrial agreements and inflation. It does not provide for increased operational demands, upgraded infrastructure, or infrastructure backlogs which have not been funded in line with renewal obligations through allocation of annual budgets.

Rates and annual charges are Council’s main and most reliable source of income, making up about half of the budget (51% in 2025/2026).

Full budget details can be found in the Delivery Program 2025-2029 and Operational Plan 2025-2026.

Council rates fund the everyday essentials that keep North Sydney running. They are the main way Council pays for the services you rely on every day. Services like:

• Maintaining parks, playgrounds and sportsfields
• Fixing local roads, footpaths and street lighting
• Cleaning streets and managing stormwater
• Maintaining Stanton Library, the Coal Loader and local community centres
• Supporting local events and community groups

Council has reviewed its asset groups to work out if they are in very good, good, fair, poor or very poor condition. The condition of Council’s assets was assessed using guidelines and practice notes produced by the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia.

The condition gradings used range from condition 1 (very good) to condition 5 (very poor). As at 30 June 2025, the total value of infrastructure condition 4 and 5 was $157 million. 10.4% of all assets are now considered to be in poor or very poor condition, nearing failure.

A ‘satisfactory’ level of service refers to infrastructure that continues to function but requires maintenance to sustain its operational capacity. If maintenance is insufficient, infrastructure in this category will deteriorate further, leading to service disruptions and potential public safety risks.

Within Council's asset management system, infrastructure assets are assessed based upon components, e.g. sections of road, or parts of buildings.   

Over the past three years, Council has been on a determined path of improvement – strengthening financial management, governance and efficiency.  These efforts are projected to deliver $66 million in savings and productivity gains over the next decade.

Specifically, Council will:

• save $23 million by reducing expenditure on staff, materials, and services
• earn an extra $29 million through increased fees, charges and other revenue sources.
• avoid $43 million in costs through efficiency and cost containment measures.

Examples of productivity and cost containment initiatives include:

• Reducing senior roles to make room for essential but currently unfunded positions
• Building specialist skills in-house (rather than outsourcing)
• Modernising service delivery
• Smarter procurement and contract negotiation
• Streamlining workflows
• Increasing revenue from events and user fees
• Improving staff scheduling to cut down on overtime and casual workers

Without these savings, the proposed rate increase would need to be about 14.9% higher over three years.

Full details are available in the Productivity and Improvements Report attachment of the Draft Long-Term Financial Plan (see the Key Documents section on this page). 

Intergenerational equity is the principle that current generations should make decisions and use resources in a way that doesn’t disadvantage future generations. In simple terms: we should leave things as good as, or better than, we found them for our children and grandchildren.

In local government, it means councils must balance the needs of current residents with those of future residents when making decisions.

Recent consultation highlighted that the North Sydney community value of intergenerational equity. When asked about ‘each generation contributing to the renewal of community infrastructure they have used and benefited from’ 72% agreed and only 7% disagreed that should be the case.

Cost shifting occurs when other levels of Government transfer responsibilities or services to local councils without providing adequate funding to carry them out. This might include new regulatory obligations, service delivery requirements, or infrastructure responsibilities. Over time, cost shifting puts significant pressure on councils’ budgets, forcing them to stretch limited resources or fund services from their own revenue – mainly through rates and charges.

This undermines financial sustainability, as councils must either reduce services, delay infrastructure investment, or increase rates to cover costs they weren’t originally responsible for. In many cases, it limits a council’s ability to plan long-term, invest in community priorities, or respond effectively to local needs.

The recent NSW Government Planning Reforms are an example of recent changes which have placed pressure on Council resources. 

Councils operate within a rate-pegged revenue system, which means the amount we can raise through rates each year is capped by the State Government.  The cap – known as the rate peg – is designed to keep rate increases in line with inflation and general cost pressures. 

However, the rate peg does not account for the cost of new or expanded services, or for the renewal and upgrade of existing infrastructure.

Over time, as Council respond to community needs such as adding a family change room to an amenities block, expanding open space, building new footpaths, or employing additional staff to manage growing planning and building compliance demands – funding is often redirected.  These diversions may seem small in the moment but add up over time.  The impact often isn’t visible until an asset reaches the end of its life and begins to fail.

With keeping rates low a long-standing priority, reserves have not built up to cover the growing renewal shortfall.  The result is what we now face – ageing infrastructure, limited funding, and a growing need to reinvest in the essentials that keep our community liveability high.

Infrastructure provision and management are fundamental responsibilities of local government. Proper maintenance and timely renewal of infrastructure are essential to maintaining service levels and ensuring public safety. When infrastructure is not maintained or renewed, service quality deteriorates, and public safety risks may emerge. If renewals are not undertaken in a timely manner, infrastructure backlogs are created.

As at 30 June 2025, Council’s infrastructure backlog ratio was recorded as 14.04%, with the total value of the infrastructure backlog at $157 million.

Addressing this backlog will require targeted, sustained investment to bring infrastructure management up to a level that meets both current and future community expectations.

Reductions in this backlog must be funded from operating performance. Without a special rate variation Council will be unable to fund annual infrastructure renewals, reduce infrastructure backlogs or provide infrastructure for the growing population.

The following chart demonstrates the forecast infrastructure backlog ratio under the three options, with options 2 and 3 contributing to a reduction.

Council’s current financial position is no longer sufficient to sustain the level of service and infrastructure that our community has historically enjoyed. A range of structural and external factors have contributed to this challenge:

• The cost of the North Sydney Olympic Pool redevelopment has significantly limited our capacity to invest in critical asset renewal, increased debt levels, and placed pressure on reserves.
• A long-standing minimum rate has constrained revenue growth, despite increasing population density and service demand. North Sydney’s existing average residential rates are 35-40% lower than the neighbouring councils of Lane Cove, Mosman and Willoughby.
• Revenues from non-rating sources – such as parking, advertising and rental income – has not kept pace with inflation or rising operational costs. Since the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, Council’s non-rate income has fallen by about $9.9 million in real terms.
• Cost-shifting and legislative changes from other levels of government continues to place additional burdens on Council resources without corresponding funding.

These financial pressures are compounded by two critical and intersecting sustainability challenges: ageing infrastructure and population growth. Many of our assets are reaching end of life, and current asset management systems are outdated.

As of 30 June 2025, Council estimates $157 million is needed to bring assets to a satisfactory standard, with the backlog forecast to rise considerably over the next decade without additional funding.

The term ‘surpluses’ has been used in varying contexts within submissions to the last special variation. 

‘Operating surpluses’ are the remaining funds available after all operating expenses are removed from operating revenue. This surplus is represented through a performance ratio called the ‘Operating Performance Ratio’ (OPR). 

The OPR is a measure of council’s ongoing financial performance or sustainability. The ratio provides an indication that it receives sufficient revenue to fund the cost-of-service delivery.   

The operating revenue within this calculation does not include capital grants and developer contributions as those revenue items fund capital expenditure and not operating expenditure.   

The Office of Local Government provides a benchmark of over 0% as an indicator of sustainability. However, each Council is unique and requires different levels of operating performance above 0% to ensure sustainability.   

The Draft Long-Term Financial Plan provides a detailed example of commitments unique to North Sydney that require higher levels of OPR, including loan commitments, restricted revenue, infrastructure backlogs and new infrastructure requirements.  

‘Accumulated surpluses’ is a term that has been used to describe unrestricted reserve balances over time.   

In considering the appropriateness of reserve levels, consideration should firstly be given to liquidity, and whether the Councils unrestricted current ratio and unrestricted cash expense ratio is sufficient to ensure the Council can honour its commitments and any unforeseen financial shocks or expenses.   

Historic reserve balances should not be used as a benchmark for future reserves. This is because the cash and investment levels cannot be viewed in isolation of commitments. Some examples: Council’s level of debt changes over time, infrastructure backlogs change over time, and the need for new infrastructure changes over time as the population growth increases. 

An example of this is Councils Development Contributions Plan, which contains projects to support the growing population. Developers contribute some but not all funding towards projects within the plan. Council must contribute more than half of the total plan value through rating revenue. Developing reserves to support this is important. 

Council’s current reserve balances are low. 

While Options 2 and 3 provide some improvement in these reserves, this improvement is not forecast until the second half of the decade. When considering financial forecasts, it is important to acknowledge that forecasts beyond approximately 4 years become increasingly sensitive to change. For example – a reduction in user charges and fees of $1 million per year (while immaterial to Council’s annual OPR), may materially impact reserve levels over time. 

Council holds two types of cash and investments. Restricted cash and investments and unrestricted cash and investments. 

Restricted cash and investments cannot be used for any other purpose than what they were generated for.  This includes developer contributions reserves which, by legislation, can only be used for projects approved in the Development Contributions Plan. 

Unrestricted cash and reserves are generally used for three key purposes, including: 

1. Working funds to allow cashflow for the operation of council – Council’s cash flow fluctuates due to quarterly rate collections and variable timing of capital project expenditures. To ensure financial stability, we maintain reserves equivalent to one month of operating expenses and loan repayments. 

2. Cash provision for employee leave entitlements and deposits, retentions and bonds – Council currently aims to hold at least 50% of employee leave liabilities in cash, and 100% bonds and deposits.  In addition, reserves are held for operational priorities such as plant replacement.  In recent years, we have also received financial assistance grants in advance.  These grants are to assist with operational expenditure in a given year and are therefore held for that purpose. 

3. Financial strength and stability - Typically Councils put funds away much like savings to ensure they can fund: 

• new or upgraded infrastructure that will be required by the community as it changes and grows. Much like your own household savings for larger purchases. Co-contribution funding is required under Council’s Development Contributions Plan, making it essential for project delivery. 

• to support major maintenance of infrastructure – which may be lumpy and or unexpected. These reserves support stability. 

• seed funding for income producing assets or investments is another reason councils hold reserves – to ensure the financial capacity to take opportunities when they are presented. This can include opportunities for grant funds where matching dollars are required. 

• Contingencies – financial shocks including unusual pricing increases outside CPI or to address unexpected events, like the pandemic we experience between 2020 and 2021. The environment in Local Government means financial inflows can’t be changed easily – the special rate variation is an example of this. To ensure Council has sufficient funding to address unforeseen costs or to address infrastructure issues, it is important that sufficient reserves are held to sustain the council until a financial strategy can be developed and approved. By having reserves available for the short-term it avoids reactive and accelerated change process which can have longer term implications on Council, as we are currently experiencing. 

Currently Councils cash and investments available for financial strength and stability is very low. While Options 2 and 3 provide some improvement in these reserves, this improvement is not forecast until the second half of the decade.   

Don’t be confused by the percentages. North Sydney rates are some of the lowest in metro Sydney.  

As part of the IPART special variation process, Councils are required to report the proposed increase based upon a cumulative percentage. 

This means, our proposed increase might look higher than other Councils’ proposals because we’re starting from a lower base. 

For example: 

Ku-ring-gai Council’s 33% one-year rate is the equivalent increase of $707 in their average residential rates over three years. 

Hawkesbury City Council’s proposed increase of 39.4% over three years is the equivalent of $665 in average residential rates over three years. 

North Sydney’s highest proposal of 54.18% over three years – Option 3 – represents an increase of $578 in average residential rates over three years. 

In their refusal of the last SRV, IPART noted that most objectors raised concerns in relation to the North Sydney Olympic Pool redevelopment project, along with confusion regarding the project’s contribution to the special rate variation proposed.      

The North Sydney Olympic Pool (NSOP) Project has required $93.73 million in Council funding excluding grants and developer contributions and property sales. In addition, a commitment to over $24 million in borrowing costs has been made.   

To avoid confusion, the proposed special variation acknowledges that commitments made in relation to the project are locked in and need to be funded regardless of any special rate variation. Therefore, no special rate variation funding is proposed to be allocated to the project as part of any new special variation application. 

The prioritisation of existing revenue towards the NSOP has placed pressure on Councils financial position and reduced its capacity to maintain services and also fund infrastructure renewals across the local government area.   

The special rates variation aims to address this by prioritising funding towards restoring the sustainability of services and infrastructure. 

Commentaries in relation to the financial impacts of the North Sydney Olympic Pool project are included within the draft LTFP.  

Council doesn’t receive extra money when land values increase. 

When the NSW Valuer General updates land values, it doesn’t increase the total money Council can raise – Councils total rate revenue cannot increase more than the rate peg. Changes to land value simply change who pays what. 

For example, if your land value increases but it increases by less than the average increase in land value within the Local Government Area – your rates will reduce. In contrast – if your land values go up by more than the average – your rates will increase. Land valuations simply change the distribution of rating burden. 

While new high-density developments do bring in more ratepayers, most new apartments pay the minimum residential rate, which is currently the third lowest in metro Sydney at $743/year. This means the extra income from growth alone isn’t enough to cover the rising cost of services like parks maintenance and cleaning, increased demand for library and community services or new infrastructure to support an expanding community. 

To keep up with population growth and ensure everyone contributes fairly, Council is proposing to increase the minimum rate. This will help fund the infrastructure and services needed for a growing community.  

Services such as waste collection, park maintenance, libraries, community programs and customer support are labour-intensive and require qualified, experienced staff to deliver safely and effectively.

Reactive staff reductions impact service delivery. 

Over the past two years, Council has responded to liquidity concerns through cost reduction initiatives such as holding staff vacancies. The Draft Long Term Financial Plan notes that while holding vacancies and reducing spending helped improve short-term cash flow, these measures are not sustainable.

Prolonged reactive workforce cuts increase operational risks, reduce service quality, and delay essential maintenance and project delivery.

Instead of large-scale reactive job cuts, Council is focusing on ensuring the right level of resourcing through its performance and improvement program, including service reviews, new technology, better systems and clearer performance goals.  

These reforms will ensure the right resources in the right areas, help staff work smarter and faster and deliver better value for money without compromising community service.

Council has considered the potential sale of public road reserves and other underutilised land parcels. To date, Council has approved the commencement of negotiations for two road reserve sites: Monford Place, Cremorne and a portion of Edward Street, North Sydney. Under current legislation, proceeds from the sale of road reserves are restricted and must be reinvested specifically into road and transport infrastructure.

These transactions may provide funding for priority projects – such as addressing road renewal backlogs or delivering transport related upgrades outside the existing capital works program. The value of these sales remains uncertain and is subject to complex negotiations and regulatory processes. Recognising this, Council views the sale of road reserves and underutilised land as a medium- to long-term opportunity rather than an immediate financial remedy. Sale proceeds have not been included within the draft LTFP, however if realised will positively impact transport related asset backlogs.

A broader review of underutilised road reserves will also be undertaken to identify any further sites that may be suitable for disposal. Any such decisions will be carefully considered to ensure they align with strategic planning objectives and deliver measurable community benefit.

Council currently holds a mix of income-generating and community-use properties that form an important part of its asset base. While asset sales may provide a short-term injection of funds, Council has determined that this is neither a sustainable nor prudent solution to the structural financial issues it faces. Unplanned or reactive disposal of public land could result in significant opportunity costs for future generations and diminish Council’s ability to meet long-term community needs.

Instead, Council will develop a property strategy to assess financial needs alongside community service requirements, ensuring that any decisions are evidence-based and future-focused. This process will begin with the prioritisation of property planning for three key sites: the Crows Nest Community Centre precinct, the North Sydney Civic precinct, and the Ward Street car park.

Option 1 (rate peg only) means Council would need to implement significant service reductions. Without this, income would be insufficient to support annual renewals. Infrastructure backlogs would grow. Infrastructure management would continue to be reactive, and maintenance costs will increase.

However, recent community research found that most people want current service levels and infrastructure to be maintained or improved. This feedback was one of the key considerations in shaping Council’s Long Term Financial Plan.

Options 2 and 3 only provide funding to maintain existing services.

When new homes or businesses are built, they create extra demand for things like roads, parks, drainage, footpaths, and community facilities. To help pay for this, councils require developers to contribute money – called “developer contributions” – which go towards building or upgrading this local infrastructure. These contributions are important because they ensure that new development helps fund the facilities it relies on, rather than putting the full cost on existing residents.

However, developer contributions usually don’t cover the entire cost of the infrastructure needed. That’s because some projects benefit both new and existing communities. In those cases, the remaining funding may come from Council budgets, ratepayers, or other government sources. This means that delivering the infrastructure to support growing communities is often a shared responsibility.

Council’s development contributions plan includes a series of projects to support the growing community. The table below demonstrates the level of funding provided by developers vs the contribution required by Council.

In August 2025, Council undertook further consultation to understand service and infrastructure expectations, along with alternate revenue opportunities. 605 demographically selected participants and 433 ‘opt in’ community completed the survey.

The results showed there was high endorsement of alternate revenue sources, including partnerships, corporate/private event hire of North Sydney Olympic Pool, new fees and charges for use of public parks, naming rights.

Before considering any increase to rates, Council has explored a range of alternative financial strategies to strengthen its financial position. In line with responsible financial management and community expectations, Council has examined opportunities to reduce costs, improve operational efficiency, increase non-rate revenue, and reprioritise capital and service expenditure.

Full details are available between pages 46 - 53 of the Draft Long-Term Financial Plan.

Micromex Research and Consulting is a 100% Australian-owned company based on the Central Coast of NSW. Established in 1986, it provides market, community, and stakeholder research services using its in-house call centre and national field team. 

Council has engaged Micromex Research to ensure the survey results are independent, impartial and professionally conducted. The insights gathered through this independent survey will help inform Council’s decisions, including whether to submit a revised application for a Special Rate Variation (SRV) and an increase to minimum rates. 

In August 2025, Council undertook further consultation to understand service and infrastructure expectations, along with alternate revenue opportunities. 605 demographically selected participants and 433 ‘opt in’ community completed the survey.  

The full reports are available as attachments to the draft Long-Term Financial Plan on Council’s website as well as on the Your Say website. 

Key findings from the research were as follows: 

• Strong recognition of shared responsibility/intergenerational equity: 72% agree every generation should contribute to renewing infrastructure. 

• There is little appetite for ‘less’ – the majority of residents want services/infrastructure to at least be maintained, if not improved – even knowing that maintaining/increasing services will require an increase in rates. 

• There is high endorsement of alternate revenue sources, including partnerships, corporate/private event hire of North Sydney Olympic Pool, new fees and charges for use of public parks, naming rights. 

Micromex Research will analyse all survey responses and share their findings with the Council.  

These results will be considered by Council in their consideration of special rate variation recommendations and in planning for future service delivery and infrastructure renewal. 

The community will be informed of decisions made through updates on the “Your Say North Sydney” platform, as well as by the sharing of information on our website and in Council reports. 

A report on the feedback received from the community alongside any resulting revisions to the Draft Long -Term Financial Plan will be considered by Council in January 2026 prior to the deadline for special variation submissions which is 2nd February 2026. 

A date for this meeting will be considered by the Council in November 2025 and advertised to ensure due notice to the public.