Table of Contents
You know it’s a big night at council when the numbers on the whiteboard start to look like HSC maths: 8.66, 11.73, 39.4, 7–4. In the far corner, your local Gazette is still wedged into the same schoolroom tablet chairs, watching grown adults argue about “horizontal equity” while the gallery counts how many times the word “backlog” gets used.
The short version
Hawkesbury Council voted to apply for a Special Rate Variation based on “Option 3”. That means four years of average rises of around 8.66 per cent from 2026–27 onward, adding up to about a 39.4 percent permanent increase in general rate income.
The motion was moved by Labor’s Cr Amanda Kotlash and carried 7–4. Mayor Cr Les Sheather and Councillors Sarah McMahon, Amanda Kotlash, Mary Lyons-Buckett, Jill Reardon, Peter Ryan and Danielle Wheeler voted in favour. Crs Mike Creed, Shane Djuric, Paul Veigel and Nathan Zamprogno opposed it.
Before that, Cr Creed made a charge at the brakes. His amendment, seconded by Cr Zamprogno, would have deferred any SRV until at least 2027–28 while Council completed a full spending review, developed a revised rating structure informed by capacity-to-pay, toughened the hardship policy, updated modelling to reflect savings from divesting the Windsor Sewerage Scheme, created a clearer capital works priority list, and explored new revenue options like developer contributions and better use of the property portfolio. It drew four votes and went down 4–7.
If you were timing things with a stopwatch, the SRV saga swallowed just over two hours of a roughly three-hour meeting. About half an hour of residents speaking, nearly an hour on Creed’s amendment, then another 40 minutes wrestling over the main motion. The rest of the agenda finally got a turn after the big rate decision broke through.
The longer version
Ironically, the meeting started with good news. The NSW Government appointed auditor delivered a clean, unmodified audit opinion on the 2024–25 statements. No material misstatements, no financial gremlins. Then came the public forum, and the paint started peeling.
However during the SRV debate, ratepayer after ratepayer connected rising bills to decisions at Council. One speaker wanted to know why staff numbers were heading toward 420 and why trees had been planted “in parking spaces on George Street” suggesting the trees should be planted “where they’re required, not in parking spaces”. Another asked for clarity about a reported “Church Bar function” and whether councillors really needed hotels in Penrith for local conferences.
A man who said he’d worked on Windsor Road and the M7 announced bluntly that he didn’t think anyone in the chamber had “a business brain”, which generated a few uncomfortable shifts in the chairs. Another compared the financial situation to “a little fire” that Council had been “pouring oil onto”, a metaphor that landed with a thud.
Council’s consultation numbers regarding the SRV also made multiple appearances. More than 2,300 submissions, plus an independent survey showing around 70 percent of respondents preferred sticking with the rate peg even after being told it would mean cuts to works and services. That sentiment underpinned Creed’s amendment: households are under pressure from every direction, and an SRV should be the very last resort after every operational stone is turned over.
Support for the amendment came from all corners of the non-Labor, non-Green bloc. Cr Djuric said Council had not yet “trimmed the fat” anywhere near what residents had been forced to do. Cr Veigel said he was “putting a stake in the ground”.
Cr Zamprogno argued that the so-called compromise of Option 3 still delivered a 39.4 per cent increase, just stretched over four years rather than three. He also took aim at the process, saying councillors had been given a “very grainy” map instead of a clear list of funded works. By the time he finished his longer speech, the on-screen timer had vanished and he relied on the chair to tell him he’d used his time.
On the other side, Cr Lyons-Buckett dismissed the amendment as political deferral “parking the decision to save a backlash”, she said. The next council, she argued, shouldn’t inherit a bigger mess simply because this chamber didn’t want to make a hard call.
Cr Kotlash repeatedly referred to savings Council had already banked, pointing to the business paper’s list of cost-reduction measures. Staff confirmed substantial shifts in the financial position: a draft budget once $20 million in deficit brought back to balance, around $80 million in benefit expected from the sewerage scheme divestment, and roughly $600,000 per year saved after handing the Lower Portland Ferry to the state.
Cr McMahon took a firm line on what she called “chatter” that Council had “done nothing to cut things”. She said that narrative was “fundamentally not true”, listing efficiency gains, technology changes, and a deep backlog in roads and drainage that residents loudly complain about. She also highlighted the dramatic reduction in DA processing times, placing Hawkesbury among the best performers in metropolitan Sydney.
The Mayor added that hardship, based on Council’s data, wasn’t clustered exclusively in the suburbs many assume. Roughly 11 per cent of ratepayers in the hardship category are skewed toward rural and business properties. He also used the meeting to publicly confirm that no action has ever been taken against Hawkesbury Council for corruption and that whistleblowers are protected under state law, a subtle response to recurring online conspiracy theories.
And then there’s the Gazette.
This time, we weren’t targeted, which is a refreshing change from earlier this month when certain councillors suggested the Gazette was “attacking” Council with misinformation. Our approach remains the same: check everything, quote everyone, and publish the facts as they are spoken. If that’s inconvenient for someone, that’s a separate problem.
With the key vote done at about the 2-hour 40 mark, the remaining business sailed through. A bundle of items, including the annual report and two policy updates, passed without drama. The quarterly budget review later prompted a thoughtful speech from Cr Wheeler, who supported using savings and sewerage divestment revenue to front-load roadworks and praised the funding allocation toward domestic violence services.
Watching from the press desk, the formal minutes never paint the full picture. The Mayor occasionally loses track of item numbers. Ratepayers give speeches that could double as stand-up sets. Councillors lose their place and train of thought when the timer disappears. But the consequences are real. A community that overwhelmingly said it wanted the peg now faces a proposed 39.4 per cent SRV over four years. Councillors who supported it will spend the coming years defending the decision. Those who opposed it will face pressure to articulate what they would have cut instead.
Our job, as always, is to turn up, take notes, and put the decisions in front of the people who live with them
