Northern Beaches Council has formally approved a bid to increase rates by up to 39.6% following a heated extraordinary meeting of the new councillors in the Dee Why chambers this evening, 28 January.
Rates are local taxes that are levied on the basis of property (land) values, issued by the Valuer General. They are Council’s main source of income, currently being 44% of total revenue.
Resistance to the proposed increase culminated in a resident rally outside chambers from 5.30pm this evening, with the bid for a 39.6% increase making national press and primetime news.
There has been significant discourse across local social media channels criticising large increases during a cost-of-living crisis.
The increase follows strong recommendation from Council staff for a significant Special Rate Variation indicating that Council was on a financially unsustainable path with a backlog of repair works and significant new and unexpected costs.
Rate rise resistance
About 200 protestors came out in wild rainy weather and hail to protest the proposed rate rise. (A video on that later).
Council chambers was standing room only, with many holding placards against big rate hikes. Numerous resident speakers at the meeting appealed to councillors not to vote for such high increases.
“I cannot afford my rate rise, I am paying in instalments,” said resident speaker Mark Horton. “Is staff driving Council or is Council driving staff?”
There was significant criticism from both resident speakers and Cr Vincent De Luca about how the survey was written, indicating it was geared towards a specific result. Despite this claim, 51% voted for the lowest possible option. More on that here.
However, Cr Nicholas Beaugeard argued the survey was not truly representative as an opt-in survey and pointed to the extensive briefings he and other new councillors had been given which helped him and others formulate their view toward a major increase. Cr Jody Williams indicated that as only 2% of the population had voted on the survey then 98% were happy with the increase. This comment was not well received by the gallery.
Cr De Luca asked why Council spent $173,000 on a survey that was not representative. “So are you confirming that the survey counts for zilch?”
The argument
The proposal to adopt the recommended Option 3 was put forward by new councillor Nicholas Beaugeard and seconded by Cr Sarah Grattan.
Cr Sarah Grattan asked a series of dorothy dixers to have staff explain Council’s financial position. This included asking why Council needed a special variation “if we have currently high cash balances and … our financial position seems to have improved over the last few years?”
“Council currently has a current operating budget deficit, and we have an asset renewal and maintenance backlog.”
Chief Financial Officer Caroline Foley advised that the long-term financial position of the council was unsustainable. “So, the Council currently has a current operating budget deficit, and we have an asset renewal and maintenance backlog, so that issue is only going to grow if we do not intervene. Most of the council’s cash is restricted, and that means that it’s held to do something specific when it might be held by legislation, customers, bonds and deposits.”
“It’s not available to use to repair infrastructure, for example, and that’s around 8% of Council’s cash for an organization like ours. We really need to maintain a sufficient working capital to be able to run the business from a day-to-day perspective, deal with disasters and any opportunities that might come to council.”
The crowd was vocal and restless, often interjecting in short bursts with expletives such as “bullshit!”
The meeting was paused twice due to disruption from the gallery and one woman was ejected when asking why the CEO Scott Phillips had remained silent throughout the meeting. Police were called when she resistant a security guard’s request for her to leave, but she eventually left of her own accord.
State and federal pollies chime in
In an interesting 11th hour media statement before the vote, Mackellar MP Dr Sophie Scamps threw her support against the proposed increase.
“I’ve heard from many Mackellar residents who are deeply upset about it. Families are already struggling with rising energy bills, housing costs, and everyday expenses. Another big cost increase is simply unacceptable,” the statement read.
“For 30 years, state and federal governments have cut council funding, replacing it with grants designed for political pork-barrelling in marginal seats. Wasteful misuse of public money, like the Coalition’s sports rorts and carpark rorts, must stop, because it’s local families who pay the price.”
Warringah MP Zali Steggall was less pointed, encouraging local governments to handle rate rise proposals in a “manageable way.”
Pittwater MP Jacqui Scruby, who attended part of the meeting, also issued her objection to rate rise, but pushed the responsibility back onto the state government.
“I am calling on the NSW Government to implement the majority of the 17 recommendations of a recent NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into the ability of local government to fund infrastructure and services. These recommendations include reversing state and federal government measures which shift costs to councils, reviewing rate exemptions and doubling of federal government funding.”
Local Liberal MPs James Griffin and Matt Cross released a joint statement pointing the blame at “teals and greens” for “losing control of the budget.”
Wakehurst MP Michael Regan, who was until this term the only mayor to have served on the amalgamated Northern Beaches Council, did not issue a statement at time of publication but did respond immediately to requests for his position. He said his personal preference was for Option 2 (a slightly lower increase) but added Council needed to better community where the savings are that have been made and what project will wait to be funded. “I agree with other MPs comments about State and Federal needing to pull their weight. Things need a structural change – especially when you pay the State Government approximately 13 million a year in waste fees and get less than $500,000 back for waste programs.”
Business will be affected too
The rate increases apply to businesses as well as resident ratepayers. In a letter sent to councillors and copied to Manly Observer on the day of the vote, Manly Business Chamber President Steve Carrodus urged councillors to at least delay the vote until further information could be presented to the community.
“On behalf of the Manly Business Chamber, we acknowledge that Northern Beaches Council’s income has not kept pace with rising costs. However, our discussions with local small business owners has highlighted concerns about the long-term impact a rate increase will have on the community.
“In regard to the rate options presented, no evidence has been provided of case studies illustrating the potential negative effects of a rate increase on rate payers. While there have been discussions about the possibility of service restrictions, there is no clear communication on which specific services would be affected. Similarly, there has been no information shared about how funds would be allocated once the increased funding is received from rate payers.
“This short time period (even if approved by IPART) has also not allowed for scenario testing over a two or three year period, which would showcase the long term negative impact of the 40% increase to small businesses and others.”
How did the final vote go down?
The proposal to adopt the recommended Option 3 was put forward by new councillor Nicholas Beaugeard and seconded by Cr Sarah Grattan.
Cr Joeline Hackman criticised what she described as ‘Trumpian’ misinformation campaign and said the decision to increase rates was about community safety – meeting needs including in future natural disasters. “The reality is that we now must cut non essential services and proiritise investments but even with this, cuts will still fall short,” she said.
“We must acknowledge our community but prioritise our investment.”
“We must acknowledge our community but prioritise our investment,” she concluded.
She did not, however, support the final motion.
Cr Krisytn Glanville unsuccessfully moved an amendment for Option 2 ( a slightly smaller increase) to be put forward by Council.
A lengthy amendment by Cr De Luca sought to delay the vote 2026 but was not successful.
“To disregard the community… is concerning. We may live in a wealthy area however we have significant issues in relation to poverty. We have people living on the bread line,” he said.
The vote for
After considerable debate, an 8-7 majority voted to apply to IPART for a permanent increase in rates income for the period from the 2025/26 to 2027/28 (inclusive) of 39.6% (Option 3 “Improve Services”) under section 508A of the Local Government Act 1993.
The vote was as follows:
Mayor Sue Heins Your Northern Beaches (YNB) (for)
Deputy Mayor Ruth Robins YNB (for)
Cr Sarah Grattan YNB (for)
Cr Candy Bingham Good for Manly (for)
Cr Nicholas Beaugeard YNB (for)
Cr Jody Williams YNB (for)
Cr Rowie Dillon YNB (for)
Cr Miranda Korzy GRN (for)
Cr Bonnie Harvey GRN (against)
Cr Joeline Hackman YNB (against)
Cr Kristyn Glanville GRN (against)
Cr Ethan Hrnjak GRN (against)
Cr Vincent De Luca IND (against)
Cr Robert Giltinan IND (against)
Cr Mandeep Singh IND (against)
What happens next?
Council will now make an application to Independent Price and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) to have the rate increase considered for approval. It will then be finally determined later this year when Council determines its budget.
IPART accepts community submissions in favour or against this request.
You can learn about how to make a community submission here.
We will provide further coverage in due course on tonight’s debate before our Thursday newsletter:http://eepurl.com/hAlkdr and on our app and social media channels.
