Original source · versioned page text
2016-02-02 P&O Committee - Item 7 - Attachment 1 - Waste Management PBA Draft Report
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
Impact Assessment Summary
The following table provides a summary of the overall impacts of the alternative business models
under consideration.
Impact Area Impact Criteria FCP CBU
Business Unit Pricing NET COST (very low) NET COST (very low)
Financial Position Non-commercial activities NIL IMPACT NIL IMPACT
Administration NET COST (medium) NET COST (medium)
Operational Efficiency NET COST (low) NET BENEFIT (low)
Business Definition NET BENEFIT (medium) NET BENEFIT (low)
Noosa Council Community Service Provision NET BENEFIT (medium) NET BENEFIT
Budget Position (medium)
Financial Sustainability NET BENEFIT (high) NET BENEFIT
(medium)
Ratepayer Impact NET BENEFIT (high) NET BENEFIT
(medium)
Compliance NET BENEFIT (medium) MIXED IMPACT
Market Market Pricing NET BENEFIT (high) NET BENEFIT (low)
Competitive Neutrality NET BENEFIT (high) NET BENEFIT (high)
Business Staff Resourcing NIL IMPACT NET COST (low)
Morale NIL IMPACT MIXED IMPACT
Customers Pricing NET BENEFIT (high) NET BENEFIT (high)
Customer Service Provision NET BENEFIT (medium) MIXED IMPACT
Regional Supporting Regional Development NET BENEFIT (medium) NET BENEFIT (low)
Development and Sustainable Investment NET BENEFIT (low) NET BENEFIT (low)
Economic Stability
Social Welfare and Equity Between Customers NET BENEFIT (medium) NET BENEFIT
Equity (medium)
Ratepayer Equity NET BENEFIT (low) NET BENEFIT (low)
Inter-generational Equity NET BENEFIT (high) NET BENEFIT (high)
Community Affordability NIL IMPACT NET COST (low)
Environment Resource Sustainability NET BENEFIT (low) NET COST (low)
Environmental Outcomes MIXED IMPACT MIXED IMPACT
CONSOLIDATED OUTCOME NET BENEFIT NET BENEFIT
(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
Waste Management Public Benefit Assessment Page 4
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalSearchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.