2014-01-13 Item 6.3 Appendices 1-5

The following graph shows the financial impact of de‐amalgamation, including
incremental recurring costs, per rateable property over five years.
                   Total de-amalgamation costs per Proponent Council rateable property ($)
            300


            250


            200


            150


            100


             50


               -
                          Year 1                 Year 2                Year 3                Year 4                 Year 5

                               One-off costs       Fixed assets       Incremental annual recurring costs


In the first year, each rateable property in the Proponent Council area will on average 1
need to contribute an extra $260 in rates to cover the costs of de‐amalgamation. In the
second year, the extra contribution will drop to $142 and is then expected to increase each
year based on inflation.

1.2 Assessment of financial viability – using QTC’s
Base Case
The financial viability of the Existing Council, Proponent Council and Remaining Council
was assessed by QTC with reference to financial information provided by the Proponent,
and the Existing Council’s current five year forecasts as well as five year forecasts for their
respective Proponent Council and Remaining Council.

In order to derive its own Base Case set of 5 year financial forecasts for the Proponent and
Remaining Councils, QTC made adjustments to the assumptions of the Proponent Council
and Existing Council where they were not considered to be complete and/or reasonable.

QTC’s Base Case financial forecasts for the Proponent Council and Remaining Council
included a cost allocation that might occur because of decreased purchasing power with
suppliers including insurance, waste management, fleet leasing and other expenses, as
well as other inefficiencies.

QTC’s financial forecasts for the Proponent Council also included the items identified in its
assessment of de‐amalgamation costs. That is:
 the one‐off costs of de‐amalgamation for itself and the Existing Council
 the additional fixed asset costs, and

1
 Rates per rateable property may bear no direct comparison to actual rates paid by some ratepayers because it is an average figure
calculated using total rateable properties. It does not take into consideration that some residential, commercial and industrial ratable
properties attract a higher portion of the base rate than others.

                                                          Queensland Boundaries Commissioner Report – Proposed Noosa De-amalgamation
                                                                                                                        Page 10 of 23