Councillors Griffiths, Atkins and Amituanai spoke of the many forums with businesses, community and sporting organisations as well as pop-up sessions at shopping centres where people heard about the programs council wanted to undertake based on the SRV being implemented.
Why did the SRV become controversial with thousands of residents and businesses submitting their feedback to it?
There were reasons raised by residents and businesses opposing it. including cost of living; sale and lease back of civic centre; backlog; no plan B; and lack of transparency and accountability.
1. Cost of living
Many residents and businesses have not recovered from the COVID financial crisis, high interest rates and ever-increasing energy prices that are creating a cost-of-living crisis.
Blacktown Council with cash balance of over $850M has benefited from the higher interest rates over the past few years and has earnt an additional $80M in interest. At the same businesses and residents have been bearing the load of mortgage repayments and credit interest rates.
The COVID years (2020 to 2022) resulted in households and business suffering greatly with many small businesses experiencing a fall in turnover from 20 to 50%. Council’s cash operating inflow grew year on year and was 29% higher in 2022 (EFY) than in 2019 (EFY).
The pub test makes it hard to understand how a council with balanced budgets of more than $750M annually suddenly can’t afford to run basic services.
2. Sale and lease back of the council administration centre
Residents are still coming to terms with the 25,000 square metres of prime Blacktown CBD land that included the civic centre, Bowman Hall, art centre, and a third of the Kmart car park being sold and is currently being leased back with very little to no financial gain.
In 2021 it was advocated as a game changer for Blacktown CBD and that it will generate substantial funds to cover the cost of Council’s new administration building.
Over the past few years, it has been difficult to source facts about the sale and lease back but what is known is that the anticipated sale price of $100M was finally sold for $42M over a three-instalment plan.
Council is now leasing back their property with estimates that the lease and associated costs will result in Council losing a substantial amount of money from the transaction.
The anticipated funding costs of the new administration building was to be $150M and according to the SRV documents, is now $605M, excluding the cost to replace the art centre and Bowman Hall.
Residents on social media have been asking for transparency on this deal and council’s response is that it was a fair market deal, and the new property developer will transform Blacktown CBD.
It’s reasonable to see how ratepayers are frustrated at the process.
3. Backlog
The backlog of council infrastructure to keep assets maintained at an acceptable level has been growing since 2019. In 2019 it was approximately $49M and currently is $162M. This is expected to continue to grow to well over $700M if council “does nothing.”
Council has reported that cost shifting, rate pegging and inflation are the main generators for the rising backlog.
Financial data indicates that Blacktown Council’s total rate revenues has grown at double the inflation rate and that government grants have substantially increased. Allegations of cost blow outs on some council projects resulted in councillors Israel and Diaz calling for a focus on improving efficiencies.
4. No plan B
For a SRV to occur, council must provide an alternative plan. The mayor stated publicly that there is No Plan B. The mayor further stated that services would be cut and potentially the newly funded State Government council facilities will be built but stay closed.
The public and some councillors have criticised this approach. The public expects reasonably thought-out alternatives to be presented so an informed decision can be made.
Cr Fitzgerald asked why an additional 10 council staff were required for the new art centre and is yet to receive an appropriate response.
The Council report regarding the operational budget of State funded projects is in confidential.
5. Transparency and accountability
Council has repeated the rhetoric over the past decade that the budget is growing; it is balanced; and continuing to deliver services and new infrastructure to the community.
Now suddenly, there is financial crisis, and a substantial permanent rate increase is required to fund services and new State funded assets as well as a new council administration Centre. This doesn’t make sense.
Council had gone hard to sell the new message but seems to have missed an underlying discussion over the past few years asking what the financial impact on ratepayers was in selling the council lands as well as expenditure on other projects.
If the SRV was successful then the net effect would have been new council administration centres costing $605M; backlog of assets in need of repair growing from $162M to over $500M; and some additional, but yet undefined, service improvements.
The public felt that something was not right. How has one of the best financially run councils in NSW, having a budget larger than some countries suddenly become cash strapped, even with $850M in the bank?
With a backlog growing to over half a billion dollars, the question now is: when will the next SRV be presented to ratepayers?
A spokesperson from Blacktown City Council issued the following statement:
Blacktown is one of Australia’s fastest-growing cities, and thousands of new families continue to move into the area. This growth increases demand on essential community assets such as roads, drains, parks, playgrounds, sporting fields, and footpaths.
To keep services safe, reliable, and fit for purpose, Council proposed a Special Rate Variation (SRV). The proposal sought to maintain new NSW Government-funded facilities without reducing core services, limit the growing asset-renewal backlog, and invest in two new public administration centres to improve service delivery, customer experience, and local employment.
Following a 42-day consultation period, Council received a report recommending an application to IPART. At its meeting on 26 November 2025, Council resolved 8–7 not to proceed.
