2016-02-02 P&O Committee - Item 7 - Attachment 1 - Waste Management PBA Draft Report

Impact Area          Impact Criteria                FCP                         CBU
                                                    (medium)                    (low)

A brief summary of the net benefit for each impact area is provided below.

Financial Position of the Business - There are negligible impacts on the financial position of the
business from the adoption of either the FCP or CBU models, given both reform options require full
cost pricing principles to be applied to the business.

Noosa Council Budget Position - An overall net benefit for the Noosa Council budget would be
likely if the FCP model was adopted. Under both options Council’s financial sustainability will be
enhanced although Council will also be faced with increased compliance costs to support the
needs of the CBU.

Market - An overall net benefit for the Noosa market would be likely if the FCP model was adopted,
as whilst both reform options require full cost pricing principles to be applied to the business
additional compliance costs would need to be recovered from customers under the CBU model.

Business Staff - There are mixed impacts for business staff from the adoption of either models.
although the creation of additional management autonomy under the CBU model would potentially
realise a stronger business focus for the business employees.

Customers - There is likely to be a net benefit for consumers from the adoption of the FCP model.
Despite price increases being required under both models to ensure that full cost pricing
requirements are being met in accordance with legislative requirements, slightly higher prices may
be required under the CBU model to recoup additional compliance costs.

Regional Development and Economic Stability - An overall net benefit for regional development
and economic stability would be likely if the FCP model was retained, as it would minimise
administration and compliance costs in the provision of waste and recycling services, provided
funds generated by the adoption of full cost pricing practices continue to be invested into waste
infrastructure (and landfill rehabilitation) to ensure sustainable service provision.

Social Welfare and Equity - An overall net benefit for social welfare and equity would be likely if the
FCP model was retained, given that administration and compliance costs are minimised and
Council retains control over what is largely a community service targeted at social and
environmental outcomes, subject to intergenerational equity being promoted by ensuring
appropriate ongoing levels of investment in waste service provision is maintained.

Environment - An overall net benefit on the environment would be likely if the FCP model was
retained, as it will provide Council greater control and flexibility in managing the delivery of the
environmental benefits targeted in waste strategy initiatives.




Waste Management Public Benefit Assessment                                                     Page 25