16.11.2014 Views

Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge

Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge

Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

COUNCIL<br />

20 DECEMBER 2011<br />

(c)<br />

(d)<br />

(e)<br />

(f)<br />

(g)<br />

(h)<br />

From the 2004/05 financial year the MRC no longer distributed surpluses, therefore any<br />

variation in actual cost <strong>of</strong> tipping is to be accumulated in an under/over’s account and<br />

allocated to members in their proportion <strong>of</strong> tonnes tipped for each year <strong>of</strong> operation.<br />

It is only the casual tonnes (surplus pr<strong>of</strong>it) that are to be distributed to the owners in<br />

equity proportions.<br />

Whilst we are customers as well as owners, it was never intended that we charge<br />

ourselves a commercial rate <strong>of</strong> tipping including a risk premium to be distributed as pr<strong>of</strong>it<br />

in equity proportions.<br />

MRC does not have an objective to maximise pr<strong>of</strong>it for the owners.<br />

A DCF may be appropriate to value a business that has a pr<strong>of</strong>it objective and where<br />

future cash flows can be reliably estimated. Variability in assumptions can have a<br />

significant impact on the final result.<br />

The NPV <strong>of</strong> an operation run on a cost recovery basis should be zero.<br />

Nevertheless, at a CEO group meeting held in May 2011 it was agreed to proceed with the<br />

valuation approach proposed by PWC with <strong>Cambridge</strong> dissenting.<br />

PWC completed the second stage report in August 2011. This report assessed the value <strong>of</strong><br />

MRC using two scenarios with Scenario A being calculated at $39 million and Scenario B $35.3<br />

million. PWC stated that they considered the value determined under Scenario B to be more<br />

robust and their preferred value.<br />

The City <strong>of</strong> Stirling has a one-third equity share <strong>of</strong> MRC and this would translate to $13 million<br />

under Scenario A and $11.8 million for Scenario B.<br />

The City <strong>of</strong> Stirling considered the valuation prepared by PWC and determined at its<br />

September 2011 meeting that the valuation should be the average <strong>of</strong> both Scenarios A and B<br />

($12.38 million) and discounted by 10% to assist in resolving this matter equating to a value <strong>of</strong><br />

$11.14 million.<br />

Now that the valuation exercise has been completed it is necessary for the members <strong>of</strong> the<br />

MRC to negotiate a price to be paid upon the withdrawal <strong>of</strong> the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling.<br />

DETAILS:<br />

Valuation<br />

PWC have calculated the valuation based on the DCF method as detailed in the following table.<br />

Low<br />

($m)<br />

$135 p/t<br />

High<br />

($m)<br />

$140 p/t<br />

Preferred<br />

($m)<br />

Tipping Fee (ex GST)<br />

Value <strong>of</strong> MRC as a whole<br />

- Scenario A 30.1 47.8 39.0<br />

- Scenario B 29.3 41.3 35.3<br />

Value <strong>of</strong> City <strong>of</strong> Stirling pro rata one-third interest<br />

- Scenario A 10.0 15.9 13.0<br />

- Scenario B 9.8 13.8 11.8<br />

H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\December 2011\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 230

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!