North Sydney Council Rate Increase 87% - How to Complain?

slowlyslowly on 06/02/2025 - 15:41

Next Monday, 10.02.25 my local council, North Sydney Council in NSW is voting to have a rate increase of 87%. I haven't missed a decimal point, that is eighty seven per cent!

Just to be transparent, I didn't get a wage increase of 87% this year or last, so I would prefer they aimed a bit lower. Of course this 87% is for ever, with the standard 5% CPI added on to it every year.

How do I object to this? They had a survey and the survey wouldn't let you go past half way unless you agree to their minimum amount of 65% (top figure was 111%). Is there a NSW or Federal department I can complain to about this?

The reason is half our local pool but also half a claimed backlog of work. We have been told that everyone is working hard on costs, but our Mayor still works at a legal firm, someone said one day at council and four at the legal firm. For the last 30 years the previous mayors have been full time because it is something like a $120m or $130m budget.

What should I do? Besides sitting here in anger stewing that someone can make me pay a 87% increase.

Financial Council Rates

Comments

          • brendanm on 08/02/2025 - 11:21

            @greatlamp: I'm well aware, I think everyone knows that can happen with unpaid rates, I've been to council unpaid rates home auctions. You also get the joy of trying to get the current owners/tenants out of the house sometimes. Council does not have the resources or ability to do this if everyone does it, which I explicitly stated, not 38 people having a crack.

  • Drakesy on 06/02/2025 - 17:47
    +2

    The North Sydney council mayor is only paid ~$80k a year so understandable that the mayor would like to keep working part time.

    However i'd expect more than 1 day a week as a mayor for that amount of money, closer to 2-3 days minimum.

    As for the uplift. This is what happens when successive councils do nothing, make the books look pretty then leave only to dump it on the incoming group.

    Happened at my work, not investment for a decade and now we have close to $100 million in backlogged work and no staff to facilitate it - luckily we have a slush fund to pay for it though.

    Unfortunately either the council goes broke and racks up a huge debt that will have massive interest payments or you pay. Yes its poor management but not a lot can be done.

    • slowlyslowly on 06/02/2025 - 18:53
      +1

      The $80K Mayor fee is plus Councillor allowance, I think up to $28k. I agree a better split timewise would be more reasonable. Being a Mayor helps her other job, she is a legal professional specialising in Local Government Law - https://www.wilshirewebb.com.au/profile_zoe_baker.html

      Interesting being mayor is listed as Pro Bono and Community Involvement, almost listing it as doing it for charity

      • Drakesy on 06/02/2025 - 20:40
        +3

        I'd like to see where her wage is going in that case.

        • Protractor on 06/02/2025 - 21:36
          +2

          Crypto,LNP donations,plastic surgery.

        • slowlyslowly on 07/02/2025 - 08:28
          +1

          I think they are safe as the $110k would count under the Community Involvement - for the modest fee of $110k! That said , like you a couple more days applied to the mayor job would be good. I think half the Councils income comes from rates, say $70m, so 87% will be an extra $50m or $60M - probably enough to take a months annual leave to concentrate full time on this issue rather than slug the ratepayer $50m for ever

  • HuzzahIndeed on 06/02/2025 - 18:42

    How could they raise rates for one LGA by 87% without raising the rates for all other LGAs in the state. Councils don’t determine what makes up the brunt of your rate charge another Government department does, the value of your land makes up the largest portion of your council rates which is determined by the valuer general.

    • Protractor on 06/02/2025 - 21:37

      Councils determine their own rates.It's a trough. Abolish it.

      • HuzzahIndeed on 06/02/2025 - 21:54
        +3

        It’s hard to tell with some of your posts whether you are being serious, or just joking, and are being sarcastic. Councils don’t determine their own rates for the most part. Like I said a large portion of everybody’s council rates are based on the value of their land which the valuer general determines. The council use a calculation formula which is heavily based on the land value, and also other charges they add in such as their waste charge, but the councils portion of the calculation makes up a smaller percentage not the a larger percentage like 87% that’s being discussed here.

        • Protractor on 06/02/2025 - 23:49
          -2

          What I mean is every council determines rates for that LG area. They add to that all sorts of spurious reasons to tax you even more to maintain THEIR power and lifestyle, based on the opportunistic combination of the individual councillors. Sometimes installed by little, or no, uncontested votes.It's a trough.. Fact.

        • SlickMick on 07/02/2025 - 14:43

          I'm not sure what point you're trying to make either. Councils determine how much they need, and rates are determined acordingly. How it's allocated to individuals is by valuations, but they're pretty much set. So it's fair to say councils determine thier own rates.

          • HuzzahIndeed on 07/02/2025 - 18:43
            +1

            @SlickMick: I don’t agree that it’s fair to say that councils determine their own rates when rates are determined greatly by the value of a persons land that the valuer general determines. Yes councils determine a part of the rate charge but that part isn’t the significant part, the land value is the highest percentage, and councils don’t control that and decide the land value.

            If you have ever worked for local Government you must know that there are plenty of rate payers that don’t have a clue and actually think the value of their house comes into it when it doesn’t, and also think it’s the council that values their land not the valuer general. A lot of rate payers don’t understand how the process works, and the OP struck me as one of those type of people, who also are often quick to complain about the Government and their decisions.

            The point also was that based on my observation the OP clearly seems to really only want an echo chamber of other people with similar views as theirs in here discussing it who agree with them, and from what I have read from them they don’t really know how the process works which is why they’re here worrying about something that’s probably really nothing based on fear from them reading media BS/propaganda and listening to other silly comments from other residents of North Sydney like them, because there are increase limits and if the land valuation is accurate it’s essentially not possible for a council to make their own determination adding an additional 87% on top of the land valuation and charge rate payer of the LGA 87% more for their rates.

            If North Sydney council are successful with this large increase then it pretty much means that North Sydney residents have been paying much lower than they should have been, therefore I’ve got no sympathy or empathy to give the OP, it’s too be bad so sad for the OP in that case and there is a high chance they’re going to have to accept paying substantially more, or they have the choice to move out of the North Sydney LGA if they don’t like. There’s nothing anyone here can say or do that will help and change the outcome for the OP, so really there’s little point in discussing it, the thread is nothing more than a waste of everyones time that doesn’t live in North Sydney, and is really just setup as a platform for the OP to just whinge about it. And why should any stranger on the internet care about the OP’s situation and what’s impacting their life, especially if they and other residents of their LGA have been undercharged for their council rates, we all have got our own problems to worry about.

            Also just to add, if the budget for the North Sydney pool project has blown out it isn’t really a big deal in my opinion, because they are still building something that will bring in revenue for the LGA and not just from residents of North Sydney, but from people that live outside of the LGA that will go there, and eventually they will make profit from it that can be invested back into the community. City of Parramatta opened their new aquatic centre with a gym in September 2023 which cost them over 80 million dollars to build, and it brings in a good amount of revenue for that LGA. They are currently constructing a new aquatic centre in Epping too. The revenue they make back doesn’t only come from the general public using the facility either, for example Sony Pictures thought it was a great facility and location for filming a scene there for their upcoming I Know What You Did Last Summer reboot movie.

            Granted North Sydney has about quarter of the population compared to City of Parramatta, but North Sydney is also a bit boring (have you been into the North Sydney CBD on a Saturday and Sunday it’s almost deserted), so a new pool facility would do the LGA some good and residents of the North Sydney LGA should be happy to pay for that, the OP doesn’t seem to be though. So either I take it that the OP is not personally interested in using the pool facilities, or they’re one of those silly unreasonable and unrealistic ratepayers who thinks because they’re a ratepayer of the LGA and their rates contributed to building it that they shouldn’t have to pay to use the pool facility.

            Here’s a couple of videos for people here that might not fully understand who the valuer general is and what their role is in determining the amount you pay for your council rates

            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wgl5b87ouME&pp=ygUgVmFsdWVyIGd…

            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MMJkq5YwhIY&pp=ygUgVmFsdWVyIGd…

            Lastly I’m not interested in entertaining the silly idea that councils in Australia should be abolished and wild conspiracy theories about Government agencies from nutters like Protractor.

            • SlickMick on 08/02/2025 - 11:07

              @HuzzahIndeed: I think you're still off track. Councils determine 100% of how much rate revenue they need to collect. In this case the have cost blow outs on a pool requiring more $$.
              Valuations are only used to apportion this revenue to ratepayers.
              And apparently there are laws limiting how much rates can increase by, forcing the council to rebudget.

              Rates are determined by how much councils need to raise x the ratepayer's portion (according to valuations).

              • HuzzahIndeed on 08/02/2025 - 11:29

                @SlickMick: I’m not off track at all. There is a calculation formula which includes a base rate and also a variable rate based on the land value which councils have to abide by, it sound like you’re referring to councils base rate which is only one part of your overall rate charge and the calculation formula that determines how much you pay for your rates. You seem to be implying that the base rate makes up the largest percentage of the calculation and not the land value? Yes councils determine how much rate revenue they need to collect, however you seem to be implying that councils are free to determine/make up and apply whatever percentage and dollar value as they see fit and can make significant increases and changes whenever they like, in this case 87%, as though there are no rules for councils and they’re not a Governed by other Government departments, when they can’t just do that.

                • SlickMick on 08/02/2025 - 12:28

                  @HuzzahIndeed: That's exactly what I'm saying. Noone decides how much council's collect except the council. They do thier budget, then generate rates notices accordingly.
                  I've never encountered rates increases ever exceeding a limit, therefore absolutely noone else is involved in determining how much rates are collected.

                  In this case, the increase has exceeded a limit, apparently potentially forcing the council to rebudget. It will still be 100% the council who decides how much the rates will be, just that it might have to be within the limit.

                  You seem to be implying someone else determines how much to collect. You said they determine only part of the rate charge. That's dead wrong.

                  • HuzzahIndeed on 08/02/2025 - 12:36
                    -1

                    @SlickMick: “That's exactly what I'm saying. No one decides how much council's collect except the council.”

                    And again if that’s exactly what you’re saying then you are wrong.

                    “Under the Local Government Act 1993, the total amount of income that a council can raise from certain rates and charges is limited. This is called the rate peg percentage. The rate peg is determined on an annual basis.”

                    • slowlyslowly on 10/02/2025 - 10:57

                      @HuzzahIndeed: Huzzzahindeed, NSC definitely determines the percentage it charges for rates based on the VG land value. The takeaway is the Council determines the percentage and is intending to go to Ipart to get a 87% increase if the vote is successful at tonight’s meeting.

                      In a LGA with over 80% units it is worth noting there are two parts to this. The rate rise and minimum rates value rise. Now the agenda released it is planned over two years - https://www.northsydney.nsw.gov.au/ecm/download/document-113… - but the minimum rates rise, which is now $700 and generally applies to units, will be $1200 next year (71% increase) and $1548 the year after (121% increase). So a very large percentage of ratepayers will see a rate rise of 121% over two years.

                      The argument that rates have been low isn't true, prior to the Council amalgamations NSC had $50m in reserves (all accumulated with these low rates). They spent about half prior to any amalgamation so that the funds would be spent on those who paid them.

                      The reason the residential rates are low is due to the high proportion of commercial rates in the area. What has affected this recently is the huge expansion of private schools in the area - they don't pay rates. Many have each bought 20 or more properties in the last decade, one bought a 10 storey office building. Private schools are different to public in the fact they make profit, though normally call it 'retained reserves'.

    • mskeggs on 06/02/2025 - 21:38

      This council is planning to apply for the massive increase. It won’t necessarily be approved.
      They are in trouble because they agreed to spend $65m on an unnecessary pool upgrade ten years ago that still isn’t finished and has so far cost $120m.
      For context, the whole council budget for everything is $150m.

  • KaTst3R on 06/02/2025 - 23:53

    Who should we fire?

    • holdenmg on 07/02/2025 - 04:24

      A. Trump.

      Q. How will that help?

      A. I never said it would help.

  • holdenmg on 07/02/2025 - 04:23
    +1

    Can you become a Sovereign State or maybe a Embassy.

  • SydneySwan on 07/02/2025 - 08:14
    +2

    NS council rates have for years been the lowest in Sydney, way lower than they should have been. The previous mayor Jilly Gibson was never interested in raising them. Jilly Gibson is the person who signed the pool contract without a detailed design being completed. That is the primary reason for the pool being way over budget. The budget should always have been much larger.

    I have lived in NS council area for 32 years and am inclined to support the rate increase as a catch up measure. I have enjoyed incredibly low rates for far too long.

    Feel free to neg. I won't be responding.

  • slowlyslowly on 07/02/2025 - 08:36
    +2

    Sydney swan, you probably remember when Ted Mack refused the Mayoral Mercedes and drove his vintage Citroen, to save costs. You would also have noticed how many more blocks of units have appeared in your area and how North Sydney Business District had doubled or more in size, mostly upward. So we now have way more ratepayers, but still the same 10.9 km2 and same amount of parks.

    Agree the pool has been shockingly mismanaged.

    The new tenants and developers in North Sydney are complaining it will devastate the business district
    https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/metro-brought-north-sydn…

    PS This isn't a catch up measure, this is for ever - plus CPI every year. I could live with a one off special levy

  • Goonda on 07/02/2025 - 09:05
    +1

    Simple. Vote out your Teals!!!
    The council are all connected.
    What did you expect when you elected them in?

  • slowlyslowly on 07/02/2025 - 09:21
    +6

    I didn't vote for Teals, Labor or fake independents! ( we have all of those) I voted for the councillors who are opposing the increase.

    • S2 on 07/02/2025 - 10:14
      +6

      I wonder who is negging all of your comments without any reply as to why. I think your Local Major has found you. Stay safe.
      I have not voted to balance out the negs yet just so they stay visible for now.

  • cktftw on 07/02/2025 - 09:44

    This will explain (not sure if it's your council)
    Ratepayers slugged $20k for council meeting to decide whether to bump up rates

  • Piratarzt on 07/02/2025 - 10:27

    Pretty affluent part of Sydney. Maybe you guys have not been paying the market rate prior to the increase.

  • mitchalbrown on 07/02/2025 - 10:45
    +3

    Man… imagine being one of the most resource rich countries in the world and somehow… the government still has to come to it's citizens, cap in hand, begging for more cash coz they have a whole heaps of local public services and facilities to pay for… It's crazy because you look at Dubai which has masive infrastructure and public spaces to maintain and all they charge is a GST, the rest of the money is coming from Oil. How aren't we managing this with all our coal/Gas/Iron/Lithium etc etc? where's that tax going?

    • Piratarzt on 07/02/2025 - 10:56
      +2

      Dubai uses tradies that come from poor nations and pays them peanuts as well as treat them like slaves. There's that.

      • mitchalbrown on 07/02/2025 - 11:30

        My point on billions of dollars of missing tax and royalties revenue is null and void then… thank you for clearing that up for me sir. carry on!

    • greatlamp on 09/02/2025 - 19:12
      +1

      where's that tax going

      The tax isn't being collected in the first place.

      In the United Arab Emirates natural resources are state owned. All profits go to the government as tax revenue.

      In Australia we consider this offensive to neoliberal capitalism. So private corporations extract the natural resources and decide when and where they will sell them. They pay tax on the profit earned, subtracting costs.

      Minerals need to be refined after they are dug out of the ground. As Australia is a 3rd world country we have very little refining capacity, our minerals are refined offshore (where taxes are lower). Moving minerals offshore means selling the minerals to a foreign company - usually a foreign owned subsidiary of the same corporation.

      Minerals are sold via multi-year contracts, the price the foreign refinery charges are an expense for the Australian miner. Hence there is a lot of room for invented expenses that can be used by Australian based miners to pay little tax.

      Half of Australia's mining companies paid no income tax in 2020-21.
      https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/nov/03/austr…

      This ANU paper discusses a case where Glencore agreed to sell its Australian mined copper to its foreign subsidiary refiner, paying the refiner 23% of the final copper price. In its annual report, the mining company projected mining costs of 6.5% in 2007, 9.6% in 2008, and 9.4% in 2009. The ATO challenged Glencore in court under transfer pricing law. The Court ruled in favor of Glencore, stating that transfer pricing law does not require a company to choose the best possible deal, only one that is at arm’s length.
      https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3772535

      If you want this kind of thing to end, vote for the Greens. The ALP and the LNP are both content with collecting taxes from Australian citizens and giving away our natural resources for free. (OUR natural resources, natural resources do not belong to the owner of land under existing land title legislation, they belong to the state).

      • mitchalbrown on 10/02/2025 - 11:22

        Thank you @greatlamp, I was being facetious as i didn't have the capacity to put it as eloquently and succint as this. It's amazing how many people don't know the scam. Even more amazing is the fact that people don't want to know!

        Do the greens have a plan to be able to extract more royalties or tax from our resources or is their plan to not let it be dug out of the ground in the first place?

        • greatlamp on 10/02/2025 - 12:35
          +2

          I can't speak for any of the parties, we are approaching an election so there should be more details from all the parties soon.

          I think the Greens would prefer that in the long term, natural resource mining would be limited to mineral resources and energy generation is switched to renewable energy as much as possible. Their current plan appears to be cutting the amount of accounting expenses that can be claimed against the existing Petroleum Resource Rent Tax, so that mining corporations pay closer to the 40% tax they are supposed to.

          In reality the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax does not fix the fundamental problem, it increases the corporate tax rate for mining companies from 30% to 40% while introducing additional deductions for mining exploration, it does nothing to address offshoring profits or hoarding mining output until prices rise.

          https://www.austaxpolicy.com/budget-forum-2022-why-not-repea…

          There is no possibility the Greens will ever win the next election however it is important to note is that the Greens are genuinely able to shift the political landscape when they have enough representation. They can push the Labor party towards a compromise policy on mining taxes when the Labor party needs their votes for other legislation.

          I hope more people wake up.
          We live in one of the top 10 most mineral rich countries on earth and have a tiny population, but because natural resources are controlled by foreign entities we live as if we are a European country with zero natural resources and high taxes. We pay the international market price on gas as if we lived in Singapore, even though the gas is mined in our own territory. If this money was available for our country to use immigration and house prices would be completely irrelevant, we could build entirely new cities connected by fast rail, just like China does.

  • BigBirdy on 07/02/2025 - 10:47
    +3

    Prime cause is the ridiculously expensive ($90-110M) redevelopment of the local swimming pool, caused by the Morrison Liberal govt determining an inner city swimming pool refurb should be funded by Regional Grants (ie a pork barrel rort)

  • 91rs on 07/02/2025 - 15:04
    +4

    Well this is one way to complain.

    https://www.machinerytrader.com.au/listings/for-sale/komatsu…

  • RiseAndRuin on 07/02/2025 - 15:46
    -5

    Welcome to Trump's America 2.0

    • Purp on 07/02/2025 - 19:20
      +1

      Do you need a doctor?

      • RiseAndRuin on 07/02/2025 - 20:10

        If I did, I'd have to book a visit 2 weeks in advance and pay my GP 50% of the cost after Medicare rebates, so no thanks.

  • afah0447 on 07/02/2025 - 17:13

    'How do I object to this? They had a survey and the survey wouldn't let you go past half way unless you agree to their minimum amount of 65% (top figure was 111%). Is there a NSW or Federal department I can complain to about this?'

    Yes. Its called the ballot box.

    Take comfort in the fact that you own property in North Sydney which is likely worth millions of dollars. You are in position many young people will never ever be in and who will be forced to rent for rest of their lives.

    • whyisave on 07/02/2025 - 20:36
      +1

      Take comfort in the fact that you own property in North Sydney which is likely worth millions of dollars.

      You don't need to own property to pay Council rates,
      ie. you could have a mortgage, and in which case, the banks own the property.

  • whyisave on 07/02/2025 - 20:35

    Get everyone in your council area, to completely boycott the next federal election.

    This will get the attention of the sitting member.

    • SteveBuscemi on 09/02/2025 - 10:09

      Both the state and federal members oppose the proposal.

  • BuddhaBoy on 07/02/2025 - 21:07
    -1

    I am sure there is some justification for the increase. Have you read the Council report? Maybe previous rates was not upto the mark. Anyways, if you want to do something to trigger Council, ‘make noise’, as loud as you can.
    Do it anyway possible. Create a petition, gather hundreds of people and stand outside Council and protest. Involve councillors that you think will oppose in the voting process. They all want footage and community support so will tag. Attend Council meeting on the day with hundreds of people. Submit a question before the Council meeting. Attend the meeting to ask the question. Go online on fb local groups, twitter…. Make noise. Do whatever. The louder your (and the others) voice is, the better chance is getting Council to initiate negotiations/discussion. Remember, Council must have already planned that they will pitch 87% to the community and then get it down to 67% and stop. All of this is already pre planned. So play your move accordingly.

  • LFO on 07/02/2025 - 23:02

    Not sure if it is the same council but, back in December, there was a letter from "council" explaining the increases.
    A bit vague now, I was in Manly and the official letter articulated why residents should chose to pay more than just the standard increase.
    Is that the case?
    Residents decided to "pay more to get more"?
    Is it?

    • slowlyslowly on 09/02/2025 - 12:46

      No. Different Council

      • LFO on 09/02/2025 - 21:50

        Thanks

  • duchy on 07/02/2025 - 23:05

    Similar in Armidale. 😔

    On 15 June 2023 the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) approved a permanent 58.8% over 3 years - 16.67% in 2023-24, 16.67% in 2024-25 and 16.66% in 2025-26.

  • HelpMeiCantSee on 08/02/2025 - 04:51
    +2

    Hey, at least your incompetent council didn’t embezzle 500m and pretend they had no idea where it went, and then slugged ratepayers with large continual rate increases.

    It’s bullshit and should be a trigger for immediate forensic accounting and actual accountability

  • Dreamcast on 08/02/2025 - 06:42

    Get out on the streets an start protesting.

  • DrRalph on 08/02/2025 - 11:24
    +2

    You voted for them. This is what you get.

    • AustriaBargain on 10/02/2025 - 01:47

      Or their tenants voted for them. If enough renters were in one suburb they could probably swing elections, if only they bothered to vote in the first place.

  • Darude Sandstorm on 08/02/2025 - 12:21
    -3

    Multi-Millionaires complaining about $1000 lol…
    If your pay rate increased by 87%, you'd go from 600K a year to 1.1M+
    Your pay actually only needs to increase by 0.16%~ to accommodate this minor increase.

  • Hangryuman on 08/02/2025 - 14:10

    before jumping into the rant parade it would be nice to see a link confirming the actual communication

    I then read it was 87% over 5 years - so OGM maybe 17%pa …

    as others have indicated, there will be many screams of blue murder - the only question will be can they actually get it through, or will it get knocked on the head.

    Confucius say - if you wait, things will happen … other people feel like you, and can do the work for you - sit back and enjoy watching the traffic - do they still charge a toll over the SHBridge ?

    • slowlyslowly on 09/02/2025 - 12:45
      +1

      Hangryuman, two parts to this. The rate rise and minimum rates value rise. Now the agenda released it is planned over two years - https://www.northsydney.nsw.gov.au/ecm/download/document-113… - but the minimum rates rise, which is now $700 and generally applies to units, will be $1200 next year (71% increase) and $1548 the year after (121% increase). Not a minor staged increase at all

  • Bammers on 09/02/2025 - 17:36

    Move to Penriffff….. 'Da Riff!

    • HuzzahIndeed on 09/02/2025 - 17:56

      @Bammers Maybe the OP should move to Penriff, because they’re here complaining about being able to afford their council rates when they live in an LGA made up some of the most expensive real estate in Sydney, Cammeray, Cremorne, Cremorne Point, Crows Nest, Kirribilli, Kurraba Point, Lavender Bay, McMahons Point, Milsons Point, Neutral Bay, North Sydney, St Leonards (part), Waverton and Wollstonecraft. People that live in LGAs out west with higher populations but are poorer citizens seem to able to afford and are happy to pay for larger expensive projects that benefit the community such as in the City of Parramatta with their multiple new aquatic centres the PAC which cost 80 million dollars to be build, plus the current construction of the new Epping aquatic centre. As I said in an earlier post North Sydney is a bit boring, it’s often a ghost town over the weekend, there is a lot more going on out west, people in the North Sydney LGA shouldn’t be whinging about a 120 million dollar pool project in my opinion, they should be happy to fund it, they definitely need it to liven up the place.

  • AustriaBargain on 10/02/2025 - 01:46
    +1

    Councils provide significant value. If you're a "property investor" then can you imagine taking care of all the waste yourself, or repair the roads in the suburb leading up to your house yourself, do you want to be out there mowing the lawn in the public spaces? Well funded and organised councils tend to make areas better and safer for you or your tenants. It's such a tiny cost of owning a house too even if it was twice as much as last year.

  • slowlyslowly on 11/02/2025 - 08:21
    +1

    To complete the thread, the Council voted for the 87% increase against plenty of objections.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-11/north-sydney-council-…

    https://www.news.com.au/finance/money/costs/s-sandwich-north…

    https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/sack-them-all-north-sydn…

    Fair to say there were plenty of people there who are getting ready to take it to Ipart.

    One of the biggest topics outside was how the Mayor gave herself a 500% increase without referring to anyone. Many were stunned she thought she should only work one day a week for her $110k, while previous Mayors worked five.

  • slowlyslowly on 11/02/2025 - 08:39

    Ted Mack, Gerry Nolan, Jilly Gibson all did. Zoe Baker has another job, funnily enough in law specialising in Local Government Law (not sure if there is a conflict there or not) - https://www.wilshirewebb.com.au/profile_zoe_baker.html

  • slowlyslowly on 11/02/2025 - 13:26
    +1

    https://www.news.com.au/finance/money/costs/s-sandwich-north…

    In this article the Labor Deputy Mayor tells everyone how he spends $2k on two phones a year, so it isn't that much. I think I need to send the Deputy Mayor a link to Ozbargain!

    • SydneySwan on 11/02/2025 - 13:36

      This is a quote from that article;

      'North Sydney resident Justin Curry spoke of his “concern and horror” at the proposed increase.

      “I’ll be paying $300 per week in rates for no extra benefit,” he said. “My neighbour, an 82-year-old woman, she will also pay $300 a week. You have people who are asset rich and cash poor, elderly women living on teachers’ pensions. It’s outrageous.”

      $300 per week is $15,600 per year. I wonder how big their houses are! I find this very difficult to believe.

      • slowlyslowly on 11/02/2025 - 13:48

        Maybe waterfront. Sounds like she would be paying $8k already a year, not hard to imagine for a waterfront with their land values. You should open your mind to the fact that some people own a more expensive home than yours. Plenty of my neighbours pay up to $3k for modest houses. As a long term resident you probably remember the uproar when they introduced Land Tax on the family home if land value was over $1m. It resulted in a number of estates of pensioners which were sold and broken up, much to peoples disappointment. The pensioners couldn't afford the payments

  • Baghern on 14/02/2025 - 00:16
    -1

    Lets see how brain dead North Sydney residents are … if they vote for Liberals again,,,,

    • slowlyslowly on 14/02/2025 - 06:15
      +1

      It was actually the Labor Deputy Mayor and all Labor, Independents and Greens who voted for the increase. I thought Labor would be concerned about keeping the cost of living down but they weren't. It was the Liberals and one businessman independent who voted against.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join