4-8-91 agendai
CITY OF RICHFIELD, .MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 82
Agenda April 8, 1991
Issue Statement:
Proclamation designating April 21 as Arbor Day and May as Arbor
Month.
Background•
For many years, Richfield noted :Arbor Day and Arbor Month in an
informal manner. The Forestry and Park Divisions coordinated a
tree-planting with the Mayor and schools; and the press usually
noted the occasion with a brief article and/or picture. These
observations of Arbor Day and Arbor Month (along with meeting
other requirements) were sufficient to grant Richfield a "Tree
City, USA" status in 1986, 1987 and 1.988.
In 1989, the National. Arbor Day Foundation required a
proclamation for recertification. In 1990, the proclamation,
along with proof of an official observance was required. The
Forestry Division worked with the Wood Lake Nature Center staff
to hold an observance. The observance was covered by the local
cable news people. Again in 1991, an~official observance of
Arbor Day is required in order to renew our "Tree City, USA"
status. In addition, many. Richfield residents appreciate the
opportunity to teach their children the importance of trees in
our urban areas.
Recommended Motion:
Approve an official proclamation designating April 21, 1991 as
Arbor Day and May, 1991 as Arbor Month in the City of Richfield.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Richfield has a tradition of acknowledging Arbor Day and
Arbor Month.
2. The proclamation is necessary to retain "Tree City, USA"
status in 1991.
Alternative Recommendation:
None
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for
Community Services Director
accept the proclamation.
JDP:ds
Attachment
the April 8, 1991 Council meeting.
Don Fondrick will be present to
Respec fu ly submitted,
James Prosser
City ager
~ k;
~1
~..d...:..., ~-
~..;~-
~ r ~ 1'
••• ~ :~~1FaSly ~
;.~ ,~ ~ .
~~~
'~~~ ~~~
Y.. ... "~
\> ~,~
~ s) ~ J 1 .
'; .} _ ~~ ,
"~;. "
~y~,_
•.5... -- ~~ .~' .
'~ ~)~~ •~
S: :_~.
s` ~~~
l-•~'
~:: `:~,
>; 1•
r;
~: ,.,~
?~. ~~~.
`.~,
~~:,::.:. ~- .t.
..°~»; ry ~
/~.~: _ ~ ;
!~;; _~.
l_:~
'~ ~ ' ~ ~:
__.
Q
0
m
Q J
a tL
~U
~Q
J Z
¢ ~
az
QO
t~ ~
z¢
~o
Qm
z¢
~a
Y• Q
W ~
CQ
Z~
O Q
Q Z
~a
g
d
~ -_ W
~ O ~ ~ O ~ tD
N ~~~ ~~ m~ ~; ~ ~~LN
Cs p +-~ 'D
~ ~°E ~~ R~ o•~ ~ ~~~~
mv~C~ ~.~ ~Of ~•C '+sm' GpO~
~N' -p~N Np •~'C Nm ~'m ~tD
m OtC_ p~ p.v'i Nc ~m~ma~
Of
to .OOY 3~ tDN ~s CC't~Vrm
tD `'~ N m a'C r C Q C to
O.~- ~C Cm .D~~~'3
m r p C~ m~~ m a
Q CC .a m O j ~ ~ ~ ~ .rs. N a~~ C
~ tCa~'3 m Ern ~'m cUm.o~m
~ },~ $-o cc ~~ o me r
om° cc oC~m~ co'o-c`~a
tj{ C C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ V
~~~mr Em ~~s~~ mmc¢°-~
cmcm~ cam ~~c~m~ a.c~coc
•oo'~tco'o go ~cNO~m~o ~~o~a~c~
~ rn~ ~ ac ~~'m a
maN•Na 2~~aCtDm~ mocoa~~~o
''m tri mEEL~m v
N~~mrn c~$m~c'~`' s~~~3c
C tD - m tD c0
E ~Q N "- ~~ tD~ ~~ to p 0 ~' Or E
m•cmaca mN~m_Y_Twt ~ycomtn Si
~~~~m ~Ntoinvim~~~ ~~~vmm •o.
+r r N tD ~ - '~ N tD m ~ U ~ Q
Nmmcoo om~~omm~ m~ui~ccac o
cm~.ac ~~mcaa;E~ ~•vOmov ~`
~~~~vmictc'~~oa~c'om•°W~~t v
~¢
N ~V~•ca ~~tA ~ ~t/f 3~V) c caN ccaW p'pCC
arm mo dim m•- =,t~ N
¢ m¢,~'v ~¢~ ~¢ a~¢~~¢ m -off m~ m'
W CW ~ C?W ~W ~ OW,C-W m3~ m ~.~ C
3v°'i3a~o3N~~m`'3c~~mz`3~mo
.. N
N ~, 'per tom ~- ~ ~Nt~
--~--i
~,rr ~'
~„
••~ •~ :<
~`~
~:;f s
~~~'~` 'its
/1L h_
' ~ ~~ '2.,
1 .'~
,C M1-i 'J i.4
' ~i~ $.
' ~ _-
'~ ~~ :~<
~~ .: .
CO/ I
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
'.
Council Letter No. 83
Agenda April 8, 1991
Issue Statement:
Order 69th/Xerxes storm sewer projects and approval of agreement
with Orr-Schelen-Mayeron and Associates (OSM) for engineering
services on the project.
Background•
Following the "Super Storm" of July 1987, Richfield conducted a
study of the storm water system. As a result of the study, eight
projects.were approved. The ninth project on the list was relief
to the low area in the 6900 block between Xerxes and Washburn.
The pro3ect had a low benefit/cost .ratio (.2 compared to .4 for
the #8 project) and was relatively expensive (approximately
5500,000). The Community Services Commission and City Council
decided not to fund this project at that time. The decision was
based on cost, the low benefit to cost ratio and because Edina
was proposing a project on York Avenue which provided some
limited relief to the 69th/Xerxes area.
At the request of residents in this area after the completion of
the study, staff has verified flood levels in the alley which
were higher than was predicted by the computer model in the 1988
t study. An engineering topographic survey of the area revealed
that a greater area drains to the 69th/Xerxes low area than was
assumed in the 1988 study. OSM was commissioned to perform an
engineering study, the. results of which are attached. Based on
this new analysis, the benefit/cost ratio was revised to .4. At
the February 4 Council Study Session, the Council directed the
project to the Community Services Commission. At their March 26,
1991 meeting, the Commission recommended approval of this project
following a 69th/Xerxes neighborhood meeting.
The proposed project calls for a pipe to be installed on Xerxes
Avenue from the low point in-the 6900 block to Adams Hill Park
and in 70th Street west of Xerxes. The attached sketch provides
an indication of the proposed layout. Details of the project
will be available at the Council meeting.
The Richfield/Edina City boundary follows the centerline of
Xerxes Avenue. The pipe will be placed on the west (Edina) side
of the street so an agreement between Richfield and Edina will be
needed.
The estimated cost of the project is $572,000 including
engineering, legal and contingency costs. The estimated
engineering cost from OSM is $32,730.
(~~- I
Funding to provide for the improvements would primarily come from
the Storm Sewer Utility Fund. It is estimated that virtually all
of the funding needed would be available from the curreht balance
of the Storm Sewer Utility Fund. If additional funds are
necessary to fund this project, funds would be loaned by the
Permanent Improvement Revolving (PIR) Fund and repaid by the
Storm Sewer Fund in subsequent years.
Recommended Motion:
1. Authorize preparation of plans and specifications .for the
69th/Xerxes project at a cost of $32,730.
2. Direct staff to solicit bids for the work.
3. Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into agreements
with the City of Edina to allow the installation of the pipe
in Edina.
Hasfs of Recommendation:
1. The Community Services Commission held a neighborhood meeting
and recommended the project.
2. The low area within the 6900 block between Xerxes and
Washburn Avenues has experienced repeated flooding.
3. The drainage area tributary to the depression on Xerxes
Avenue is approximately 30$ greater than that originally
anticipated in the April, 1988 study.
4. When the York Avenue improvements proposed by the City of
Edina are in place, two garages will be subject to inundation
during a rainfall event having a 20$ chance of occurrence in
any given year (a 5 year return frequency) occurs. A
rainfall event having between a 20$ and 4$ chance of
occurrence in any given year (between a 5 and 25 year return
frequency event) could result in the structural inundation of
selected homes in the mid-block are8 of Xerxes Avenue.
5. To prevent structures in this area from being inundated
during rainfall events having up to a 1$ chance of occurrence
in any given year (a 100 year return frequency event),
additional capacity could be provided by constructing a
gravity (42") storm sewer along Xerxes Avenue to Adams Hill
Pond at an estimated cost of $572,000.
6. The new pump for the Adams Hill Storm Water Lift Station was
installed late in 1990, so the increase in storm water to
Adams Hill Pond can be accommodated.
7. The storm sewer utility could fund the cost of improvements.
8. The work could be done in 1991, or 1992, with timely
direction by the City Council.
Cvy- ~-
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Council may choose to delay this project; however, approval
at this time will facilitate the work to be finished this
summer .
2. Do not approve project.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the April 8, 1991 regular City Council
meeting. Staff is requesting approval at this time in order to
start the bidding process.
Respectfully submitted,
James
City
JDP:ds
Attachments
<oA - 3
Report: 6900 Block of Xerxes Avenue - Storm Water Analysis
The engineering firm of Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates (OSM)
was hired to perform a feasibility study of the storm drainage
system which drains to the 6900 block between Washburn and Xerxes
Avenue. The study is now completed. The purpose of this memo is
to update council members on the history of this area, present
the results of the OSM study, and discuss corrective action.
Action can be taken on this project during the Capital
Improvement Program discussions later this year or earlier if the
Council desires.
1. History
The low .area within the 6900 block between Xerxes and Washburn
Avenues has experienced repeated flooding. The stormwater study
which followed the 1987 "Superstorm" ranked this area ninth on
the priority list of project based upon benefit cost ratios. The
top eight were approved for construction, although some were
rejected by the affected neighborhoods. Residents on the block
contend that the flooding occurs more often than the two percent
per year chance indicated in the original study. A June 28, 1990
rainfall of approximately 1.25 inches in one-half hour caused
water to enter one of the walkout basements on the block. The
high water mark of that June 28, 1990 storm was checked against
_5 the computer model of the area, which was generated as part of
the 1987 study. Apparently, the model had underestimated the
---!~ flooding in the area because the model indicated no damage should
have occurred.
2. Results of Hydrologic Analysis
The drainage area tributary to the depression on Xerxes Avenue is
approximately 30$ greater than that originally estimated in the
April, 1988 study. This previous model assumed that when storm
drainage improvements proposed for Edina were in place, that the
drainage. area generally west of Xerxes Avenue along 69th Street
would be directed to the York Avenue drainage system.
When the York Avenue improvements proposed by the City of Edina
are in place, two garages will be subject to inundation during a
rainfall event having a 20$ chance of occurrence in any. given
year (a 5 year return frequency) occurs. A rainfall event having
between a 20$ end 4$ chance of occurrence in any given-year
.(.between a 5 and 25 year return frequency event) could result in
the structural inundation of selected homes in the mid-block area
of Xerxes Avenue.
The results outlined above were based on using a hydrologic model
that was checked end calibrated against the 1-1/4 inch rainfall
that occurred in a 30 minute period in the June 28, 1990 storm.
This new hydrologic model predicted high water elevations in the
area to within two inches of that measured for this specific
rainfall event.
(~A-
.: ~~.
~,
3. Discussion of Corrective Actions
To prevent structures in this area from being inundated ,during
rainfall events having up to a 1~ chance of occurrence in any
given year (a 100 year return frequency event), additional
capacity could be provided by constructing a gravity (42") storm
sewer along Xerxes Avenue to Adams Hill Pond at an estimated cost
of 5572,000.
This design would not only increase the capacity of the storm
sewer system in the mid-block of Xerxes Avenue, but also relieve
some of the pressure exerted on the 70th Street storm sewer
system by runoff directed to it as it travels easterly toward
Wood Lake. It is anticipated that this improvement would divert
a flow rate of approximately 25 cfs (cubic feet/second) from the
70th Street storm sewer system. This additional capacity could
b2 utilized to accommodate stormwater runoff generated from areas
along 70th Street as it carries water towards Wood Lake. This
includes runoff from the area in the vicinity of 70th and Penn,
which has been observed to have some problems with structural
inundation during major rainfall events.
The new pump for the Adam's Hi11 Storm Water Lift Station was
installed late in 1990, so the increase in storm water to Adam's
Hill Pond can be accommodated.
~, Action can be .taken on this project during Capital Improvement
Program discussions later this year. Because a 1991 Capital
Budget has already been adopted, staff is currently proposing to
schedule the project for 1992 construction. However, there is
some logic end desirability to having the work done in 1991. If
the Council desires, and indicates a willingness to revise the
1991 Capital Budget to accommodate this project, the work could
be designed and built in 1991.. Staff would need to be notified
soon if the work is to be done in 1991.
a
Y
Q
~,.., I
1S H10L
-.~
a 'a 'a
a
x ~ Z Z
w = z_ a
'1S H169 3 > ~
.. ~ ..
'1SZ/ l OL
'1S 1S lL
`J
v
'1S ONZL
v
Z
O
H
U
Z
O
U
w
w
O
~"'
T
T
O
W
N
0
a
O
\~J I 11 "
~ O
W Z
LL F-
= U
U W
~ ~
O
O a
~ ~
~ ~
U U
w
U
z
z
~ W
~ Z
O Z
U w
l~8
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 8~4
.Agenda April 8, 1991
Issue Statement•
Approval of an agreement with Schwarz/Weber Architects, Inc. for
services related to Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield
multipurpose building.
Background: •
The adopted 1991 Capital Budget includes $230,00 for the design
and construction of a multipurpose building. The building is to
include restrooms and serve as a warming house and concession
facility. It is hoped the building will be ready for use at the
Fall Festival being hosted by Visions 2004.
Schwarz/Weber Architects, .Inc. have previously provided
architectural services for Richfield. Projects have included the
Community Center remodeling, the earth sheltered Adams Hill Park
shelter building and the Rich Acres Golf Course clubhouse and
maintenance building. Schwarz/Weber Architects, Inc. propose to
provide services, including design, construction document and
construction phases, for $19,500.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the agreement between the City of Richfield and
~•- Schwarz/Weber Architects, Inc., in the amount of $19,500, for
consulting services related to a multipurpose building in
Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Council has indicated a willingness•to proceed with the
project in 1991; therefore, timely completion depends on
early preparation.
2. The City has had previous agreements with Schwarz/Weber
Architects, Inc. and the projects have been successful and
within budget.
3. The proposed,agreement amount is typical for projects such as
the multipurpose building.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Approval is requested at the April 8, 1991 City Council meeting.
Res ectfully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
Cit Manager
JDP/ds
~ 8- I
SCHWARZ / WEBER ARCHITECTS
3952 LOUISIANA AVENUE SOUTH MLNNEAPOLIS ~'~11NNESOTA 55426
I~i12) 926-1156
- •.
February 22, 1991
Donald Fondrick
Community Services
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave S
Richfield MN 55423
Dear Don,
ft?~~~~Ir~p
FFB 2 6
19g~
c;~y of
~c,k; ~ ,~
~,
Enclosed are the two copies of the proposed contract for architectural services for
Veterans Memorial Park which I thought we had sent several weeks ago. I have signed
both copies so that, if they are acceptable you may just dated them on page one, sign
them and return one copy to me.
If you want to make revisions, mark up one copy with the proposed changes and return
it to me.
Sorry about the delay.
Sincerely,
SCHWARZ/WEBER ARCHITECTS INC
r
Richard J Schwarz, President
RJS/ds
Enclosure
RICHARD ) SCHN'ARZ NEIL WEBER ) ANDRE LATOhDRE55E
~pU"o~
AIA Document B151
Abbreviated Form of Agreement
Between Owner and Architect
Jor Construction Projects of Limited Scope
1987 EDITION
THIS DOCUMEI~'T HAS IMPORTAII'T LEGAL COA'S£QUENCES; CONSULT.9TIOA' lY'ITH
AN ATTORA'E}' IS ENCOURAGED [f'ITN RESPECT TO ITS COI~fPLETlON OR MODIFICATION.
AGREEMENT
made as of the day of in the year of
Nineteen Hundred and
BETWEEN the Oa•ner: City of R i chf fi e l d
(Aame•andaddr~•.cc~ 6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
and the Architect: Schwarz/Weber Architects, Inc.
(A'ameandaddrecc~ 3952 Louisiana Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55426
For .the following Project:
(/ncludc detailed description of Project, lucatiua, address and sco~x•.)
Park building for Veterans Memorial Park containing toilet rooms, concession stand,
warming and multipurpose room and control for proposed miniature golf course.
Approximate gross floor area 3,000 square feet; construction budget excluding lift
station and contingency is 195,000
The Owner and Architect agree as set forth below.
Cop}•right 1974, 1978, C 1c18' bl' The American lnstitwc of Architccts, 1735 New fork Avcnuc, N.\Y'., vi'achinRton. D.C. 2(KNK,.
Reprc~ducuon of the material herein or cubs[antial quotation of its provisions a•ithutn a ntten pemliatiion cif the AlA \•iulatr. the
copyright bws of [he L'nnrd Sta[es and mill be subjrrt ai Icpal prusc'cu[ion.
AIA DOCUMENT 8151 ~ ABBREVIATED OVCNER ARCHITECT AGREEMENT ~ THIRD EDITION ~ AIA • C !9R'
THE AMERICAN 1NSTITI'TE OF ARCHITECTS. 1''35 NECt YORK A\'ENi'E. N.vc., VvA5H1NGTON, D C 20WG 6151-1987 1
~~
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN OVt'NER AND ARCHITECT
ART_
ARCHITECT'S RESPONSIBILITIES
1.1 ARCHITECT'S SERVICES
1.t.1 The Architect's sen•ices consist of those services prr•
formed by the Architect, Architect's employees and Architen's
consultants ac enumerated in Anidrs 2 and ~ of this Agreement
and an}• other sen•rces included in Article I:.
1.1.2 The Architect's sen•ices shall be performed u expedi•
tiousl}• as u consistent with professional skill and rare and the
ordcrl}• progress of the Vi ork.
1.1.3 The scn•iccs covered M• this Agreement are subject to
the time limitations contained in Subparagraph 11.5. ] .
ARTICLE 2
SCOPE OF ARCHITECT'S BASIC SERVICES
2.1 OEFlNITION
Z.1.1. The Architect's Basic Services consist of those described
under the three phases identified bclow•, an}• other services
~~~~~~ identified in Anidc 12, and include non~nal structural, mechani-
cal and electrical engineering services.
2.2 DESIGN PHASE
2.2.1 The Architect shall review- with the Owner alternative
approaches to design and construction of the Project.
2.2.2 Based on the mutually agreed-upon program, schedule
and construction budget requirements, the Architect shall
prepare, for approval b}• the Owner, Design Documents ~ort~
silting of drawings and other documents appropriate for the
Project, and shall submit to the Owner a preliminar}~ estimate of
Construction Cost.
2.3 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PHASE
2.3.1 Based on the approved Design Documents, the Architect
shall prepare, for approval. b}• the Owner, Construction Docu•
ments consisting of Drawings and Specifications setting forth in
detail the requirements for the construction of the Project and
shall advise the Owner of any adjustments to previous
preliminary estimates of Construction Cost.
2.3.2 The Architect shall assist the Owner in connection with
the On•ncr's responsibilin• for filing documents required for
the approval of go~•emmental authorities having jurisdiction
o>•er the Project. '
2.3.3 Unless provided in Anide 12, the Architect, following
the Owner's approval of the Construction Documents and of
the latest preliminan• estimate of Construction Cost, shall assist
the Owner in obtaining bids or negotiated proposals and assist
in awarding and preparing contracts for construction.
2.4 CONSTRUCTION PHASE-/tDMIN1STRATION
OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
2.4.1 Thr Architect's responsibility to provide Basic Services
for the Construcucm Phase under this Agreement commence.
with the award of the Contract for Construction and terminates
ar the earlier of issuance to the Owner of the final Cenificatr k)r
Pa}•ment or GU dart after the dart of Substantial Completion c)f
thc• Work, unless extended under the terms of Subparagraph
lU i.3.
2.4.2 The Architect shall provide administratic)n of [hr C<)n•
tract for Construction as set forth belnw• and in the edititm of
AIA Document A2U1, General Conditions of the Contract for
Consttuction, current u of the date of this Agreement.
2.4.3 Duties, responsibilities and limitations of authority of the
Architect shall not be restricted. modified or extended n•ithout
written agreement of the Owner and Architect with consen, of
the Contractor, which consern shall not be unreasona6l~•
withheld, •
2.4.4 The Architect shall be a representative of and shall adyisc
and consult with the Owner (I) during construction until final
pa}•ment to the Contractor is due and (2) zs an Additional Ser•
vice at the Owner's direction from time to time during the cor-
rection period described in the Contract for Construction.
2.4.5 The Architect shall visit the site at inten•als appropriate
to the stage of construction or as otherwise agreed b}• the
Owner and Architect in writing to become generall}• famil,ar
with the progress and qualit}. of the V~'ork completed and to
determine in general if the Work is being performed in a man-
nee indicating that the VPork when completed will be in accor-
dance with the Contract Documents. However, the Architect
shall not be required to make exhaustive or continuous on-site
inspections to check the qualit}• or quantit}• of the Vi ork. On
the basis of on•site obsen•ations u an architect, the Architect
shall keep the Owner informed of the progress and qualit}• of
the VG'ork, and shall endeavor to guard the Owner against
defects and deficiencies in the Vi'ork. (Afore exrerrsir•e sire
representariva mm• be agreed to as are Addirrorral Sen•ice, ac
described in ParaRrapl~ j.2.)
2.4.6 The Architect shall not have control over or charge of
and shall not be responsible for construction means, methods,
techniques, sequences or procedures, or for safer}• precautions
and programs in connection with the ~t'ork, since these are
soleh• the Contractor's trsponsibility under the Contract for
Construction. The Architect shall not be responsible for the
Contractor's schedules or failure to cam out the ~X'ork in
accordance with the Contract Documents. The Architect shall
not have control over or charge of acts or omissions of the
Contractor, Subcontractors, or their agents or emplo}•ecs, or of
an.• other persons performing portions of the Vi'ork.
2.4.7 The Architect shall at all times have access to the Vi'ork
wherever it is in preparation or progress.
2.4.8 Based on the Architect's observations and evaluations of
the Contracwr•s Applications for Payment, the Architect shall
review and certify the amounts due the Contractor.
2.4.9 The Architect's certification for pa}•ment shall constitute
a representation to the Owner, based on the Architect's obser•
visions at the site a.~ provided in Subparagraph 2.4.5 and on thc•
AIA DOCUMENT e1St • ABHRF~'lATEU OVCNER•ARCHITEC7 AGREEMENT • THIHU EI)1TIUN • AUK • C 19H'
THt A.MERIC,AN INSTITI•TE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEVI PORK AVENUE. NVC . V(ASHlNGTOK, DC j~MMIl~ 81rJ~-1987 2
data comprising the Contractor's Application for Payment, that
the Work hu progressed to the point indicated and that, to the
best of the Architect's knoa•ledgc, information and belief,
quality of the ~i'ork is in accordance with the Contras Docu•
menu. The issuance of a Certificate for Pa\•ment shall not be a
represernation that the Architect has (1) made exhausti\•e or
continuous on•sitc inspections to check the quality or quantity
of the ~t'ork, (2) reviewed construction means, methods, tech~
piques, sequences or procedures, (3) reviewed copies of rcqui•
sitions receit.•ed from Subcontractors and material suppliers and
other data requested by the Ow•ncr to substantiate the Contrac-
tor's right to payment or (4) auertained hoa• or fur what pur•
pose the Contractor has used money previously paid on
accoum of the Contract Sum.
2.4.10 The Architect shall have authority to reject VFork which
dues not confutm to the Contract Documents and w•Dl have
authority to require additional inspection or testing of the
~Y'ork a•hene\•er, in the Architect's reasonable opinion, it is
necessary or ad\•isahle for the implrmcntation of the intent of
the Contract Documents.
2.4.11 The Mchites shall review- and approve or take other
appropriate action upon Contractor's submittals such as Shop
Drawings, Product Data and Samples, but only for the limited
purpose of checking for conformance with information given
and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents.
The Architect's action shall be taken with such reasonable
promptness as to cause no delay. The Mchius's approval of a
specific item. shall not indicue approval of an assembly of
which the item is a component: ~X'hen professional certification
of prrfurmancc characteristics of materials, systems or equip~
merit is required by the Conuact Documents, the Architect
shall be entitled to rely upon such ccnificuion to establish that
the materials. systems or equipment will meet the performance
criteria required by the Contras Documents.
2.4.12 The Architect shall prepare Change Orders and. Con•
swction Change Diresives, a'lih supposing documentation
and data if authorized or confirmed in writing by the Owner as
provided in Paragraphs 3.1 and 3.3, for the Owner's approval
and execution in .accordance with the Contract Documenu,
and may authorize minor changes in the Vi'ork not involving an
adjustment in the Contract Stun or an extension of the Contract
Time which arc not inconsistent with the intent of the Contras
Documents.
2.4.13 The Architect shall conduct inspections to determine
the dates of Substantial Completion and final completion and
shall issue a final Certificate for Payment.
2.4.14 The Architect shall interpret and decide matters con-
cerning performance of the Oa•ner and Contrasor under the
requirements of the Contract Documents on written request of
either the Owner or Contractor. The Architect's response to
such requests shall be made a•iih reasonable promptness and
within any time limits agreed upon. Di'hen making such inter-
pretations and initial decisions, the Architect shall endeavor to
secure faithful performance by both Ow•ncr and Contractor,
shall not shaa• paniality to either, and shall not be liable for
results of interpretations or decisions so rendered in gcx>d faith.
ARTICLE 3
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
3.1 Additional Sen•ices shall be provided if authorized or con•
firmed in w•riung b.• the Oa•ncr or if included in Article 12, and
they shall be paid for by the Owner as provided ut th Agt'ee-
ment. Such Additional Services shall include, in addition to
those described in Paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3, budget analysis,
financial feasibility studies, planning surveys, environmental
studies, meuured drawings of existing conditions, coordina•
tion of separate contractors or independent consultants, coor-
dination of construction or project managers, detailed Con-
struction Cost estimates, quantity surveys, interior design, plane
ing of tenant or rental spaces, inventories of materials or
equipment, preparation of record drawings, and any other scr•
vices not otherwise included in this Agreement under l3uic Ser•
vices or not customarily furnished in accordance with generally
accepted architectural practice.
3.2 1f more extensi\•c representation at the site than i5
described in Subparagraph 2.4.5 is required, such additional
project representation shall be provided and paid for as set
forth in Articles 1 ]and 12.
3.3 As an Additional Sen•ice In connection with Change
Orders and Construction Change Directives, the Architect shall
prepare Drawings, Specifications and other documentation and
data, evaluate Contracurr's proposals, and pro\•ide any other
sen•ices made necessan• by such Change Orders and Construc-
tion Change Directives.
ARTICLE 4
OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES
4.1 The Owner shall provide full information, including a prc>
gram which shall set forth the Op•ner's objectives. schedule,
constraints, budget with reasonable contingencies, and criteria.
4.2 The Oa•ner shall furnish sun•eys describing physical char-
acteristics, legal limitations and utility locations for the site of
the Project, a written legal description of the site and the ser•
vices of geotechnical engineers or other consultants when such
ser\•ices arc requested h\• the Mchitect.
4.3 The Oa•ner shall furnish structural, mechanical. chemical,
air and water pollution casts, tests for hazardous. materials, and
other laboratory and environmental tests, inspections and
reports required by h~• or the Contract Documents.
4.4 The Owner shall furnish all legal, accounting and insurance
counseling sen•ices as may be necessan• at an\• time for the
Project, including auditing sen•ices the Owner ma\• require tc~
verih• the Contractures Applications for Payment or to asceruin
how- or for what purposes the Contractor has used the money
paid by the Owner.
4.5 The foregoing sen•ices, information, sun•eys and reports
shall be furnished at the Owner's txpense, and the Mchitect
shall he entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness
thereat.
4.6 Prompt written notice shall be given M• the- O\\•ner to the
Architect if the Op•ner become. aa•arc of an\• fault ar defect in
the Project or noncanfe~rmance with the Contract Documents.
4.7 Thr proposed lznguage of certificates or certification
requested of the Architect err Architect's consultants shall he
submitted to the Architect far rcviea• and apprcwa: at Irast I-i
da\•, prier to cxecuti~m.
AIA DOCUMENT 0751 • ABBRE\'IATEr> [7V:'\ER•ARCHITEC:T AC~REEME~T • THIRD EDITI<>~ • AIA~ • : 19K'
3 8151.1987 THE AMERI(:A\ IX>TITI'TE OF ARCHITECTti, I~3S NEN l'ORR A\'r~l'E. !~ 4 . ~c'ASHINGTO~ D C. 2t1lKK~
ARTICLE 5
CONSTRUCTION COST
5.1 DEFINITION
5.1.1 Thr Conswction Cost shall hr the total cost or esti•
mated cost to the Owner of all element. of the Project designed
or specified by the Architect.
5.1.2 The Construction Cost shall include the cost at current
market rates of labor and materials furnished M• the Owner and
equipment designed, SpeClfied, ielCCll'd Or SpCC1aIIy pft>\'Idcd
for h\' the Architect, plus a reaconahlr allow•ancr for the, Con•
tractor's o\•erhrad and profit. In addition, a rcaconahlc allow,
ante fur contingencies shall hc• included fur market condnu>nc
at the time of bidding and fur changes in the Fork during
construction.
5.1.3 Construction Cost does not include thc• compensation of
the Architect and Architect's consultants, the costs of the land,
righ~s•of•w~ay, financing ur other cvsic which arc the respon•
sihility of the Owrier ac pnn•idrd in Article i.
5.2 RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONSTRUCTION COST
5.2.1 It is recognized that neither the Architect nor the Owner
has control o\•er the cost of labor, matrrials or equipment. o\•rr
the Contractor's methods of determining hid priers, itr u\•cr
eompetati\•r hid~iing, market ur nrgutirting conditions. Accord-
ingh. the Architect cannot and dcxs not warrant or represent
that bids or negotiated prices will not \•an• from any estimate of
Construction Cost or evaluation prepared ur agreed to by thc•
Architect.
5.2.2 No fixed limit of Construction Cost shall br estrhhchrd
ac a condition of this Agreement by the famishing, prupc~sal or
establishment of a Project budget. unless a fixed limit has been
agreed upon in writing and signed he the panics hcrc•to. Ftxrd
limits, it am•, shell he incrraced in thc• amount of an inc•rrasr in
the Contract Sum occurring after execution of the Contract for
Construction.
5.2.3 Any Project budget or fixed limit of Construction Cost
may he adjusted to reflect changes in the general Iryrl of priers
in the construction indastn• hetarrn the date of submission of
the G>nstruc[ion Documents u> the Owner and the datr un
which proposals are sought.
5.2.4 if a fixrd limit of Construction Cost is exceeded h\• the
lowest bona fide bid or negotiated proposal. the Owner shall:
.1 gi\•e written appro\•a) of an increase in such fixed
limit:
Z authorize rebidding or renegotiating of the Project
within a reasonable time:
.3 if the Project is abandoned. terminate in accordance
with Paragraph 8.i: or
cooperate in re\•ising the Project scope and quality ac
required to reduce the Construction Cost.
5.2.5 If the Owner chooses to proceed under Clause 5.2.y.4,
the Architect, without additional charge, shill mcxiify the Cvn•
tract Documents u necessan• to comply with the fixed limit, if
established ac a condition of this Agreement. The modification
of Contract Documents shall he the limit of the Architen's
responsibility arising out of the estahlishmcnt of a turd lin)it.
The Architect shall he"entitled to compensation in accordance
with this Agreement for all sen•icrs performed whether or not
the Construction Phase is commenced.
.A
ARTICLE 6 ~~~
USE OF ARCHITECT'S DRAWINGS,
SPECIFICATIONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS
6.1 Thr Drawings, Sprcificadons and other documents prr•
pared b\• the Architect for this Project are instruments of the
Architect's sen•ice for use solely witq respect to this Prujeet,
and the Architect shall be deemed the author of thew docu•
menu and shall retain all Common law, statuton• and tether
resen•ed rights, including the copyright. The Uw•ner shall hc•
permitted to retain copies, including reproducihlr copies, of
the Architect's Drawing., Spccific~tions and other dcxvments
fur information and rrfcrence in connection with .the Uw•ne•r•s
use and occupancy of the Prujrct. Thr Architect"s Drawing.,.
Spcr;fications or other documents shall not he used by thc•
Owner or others on other projects, foradditions at this Project
or for completion of this Project by others, unless the Architect
is adjudged to he in default under this Agreement. except by
agreement in writing and with apprc)priatc compensation a, thc•
Architect.
6.2 Submission or distribution of documents to meet official
regulaton• rrquirernents cx fur similar purfunrs in connection
with the Project is nit to he construed as puhliwtie~n in dcn>Fa-
ticin of the Architect's resen•ed rights.
ARTICLE 7
ARBITRATION
7.1 Claims, disputes or other matters in question between the
parries a, this Agreement arising out of or relating to chi, Agree-
ment or breach thereof shall br subject to and decided by arhi•
tration in accordance with the Construction Industn• Arbitrr•
tion Rules of the American Arbitration A.cscx•iatiun currrntl\• in
effect unless the panics mutually agree othrrn•isr. )\u ar~itra-
tion arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall include, h\•
consolidation, joinder or in any other manner, an additional
person or entity not a pam• to this Agreement. except M• writ-
ten consent containing a specific reference a) this Agreement
signed by the Owner, Architect, and any other person or entity
sought tx) he joined. Consent. a) arbitration im•oh•ing an addi•
tional person or entity shall nut constitute consent w arbiter,
tion of am• claim, dispute or other matter in question not
described in the written cY)ncrnt. Thr foregoing agreement to
arbitrate and other agreen)rnts to arbitntr with an additional
person or entity duly consented to by the parries tx) this Agrrr-
ment shall be specifically enforcrahle in accordance with appli-
eable law in any court ha\•ing jurisdiction thereof.
7.2 In no e\•ent shall the demand fur arhitntion be made afire
the date when institution of legal or equitable pn)ceedings
based on such claim, dispute ur other matter in question would
be barred M• the applicable statutes of limitations.
7.3 The award rendered h}• the arhitna)r or arbitrators shall hr
final, and judgment may he entered upon it m accurdrncr with
applicable law, in any coon hr\•ing jurisdiction thc•rrof.
ARTICLE 8
TERMINATION, SUSPENSION OR ABANDONMENT
8.1 This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon
not Irss than sr\•en days' written notice should thc• other pam
#IADOCUMENT0151 •AHHI(F\IATEI)n~t~FHARCNITECTAGRfk~1F~'1 •TNINUEUITIO~•AlA' • ~ 19N'
THF. AA1Fklt.~~ I~~TITI'TE QF ARC;HITtc l~. 1'i5 \t:N YORE A\'F~I'F.. ~W.. \tMtil~c~TCr i)C jIMNKt B1rJ1.1987 4
fail substantial!}• to perform in accordance with the terms of this
Agreement through no fault of the parry initiating the ter•
urination.
>11.2 if the Project is suspended by the Owner for more than 30
consecutive days, the Architect shall be compensated for ser-
vices performed prior to notice of such suspension. When the
Project is raumed, the Architect's compersation shall be equit-
abl}• adjusted to provide for expenses incurred in the interrup-
tion and resumption of the Architect's services.
>s.3 This Agreement rna}• be terminated by the Owner upon
not kss than seven da}•s' written notice to the Architect in the
event that the Project is permanently abandoned. ]f the Project
is abandoned b}• the Oa•ner for more than 90 consecutive days,
the Architect may terminate this Agreement b}• giving written
notice.
!.4 Failure of the Oancr to make payments to the Architect in
accordance with this Agreement shall be considered substantial
nonpcrformancc and cause for termination.
s.5 if the Owner fails to make payment when due the Archi-
tect for services and-expenses, the Architect ma}•, upon seven
da}•s' written notice to the Oa•ner, suspend performance of ser-
vices under this Agreement. Unless pa}•ment in full is received
b}• the Architect within seven da}•s of the dart of the notice, the
suspension shall take effect without further notice. In the event
of a suspension of sen•ices, the Architect shall have no liabilin•
to the Oancr for dela~• or damage caused the Owner beptue
of such suspension of services.
>d.6 In the event of termimtion not the fault of the Architect,
the Architect shall be compensated for services performed prior
to termination, together with Reimbursable Expenses then due
and. aU Termination Expenses.
>s.7 Termination Expenses arc in addition to compensation for
'' Buic and Additional Sen•ices, and include expenses which are
direct!}• attributable to temtimtion.
ARTICLE 9
~IIISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
S.1 Urtless otherwise provided, this Agreemrnt shall be gov-
emcd by the law of the principal place of business of the
Architect:
0.2 Terms in this Agrecmrnt shall have the same meaning as
those in AU Document A201, Genenl Conditions of the Con•
tnct for Construction, current zs of the date of this Agreement.
>i.3 Causes of action between. the parties to this Agreemrnt
pertaining to acts or failures to act shall be deemed to have
accrued and the applicable statutes of limitations shall com-
mence to run not later than either the date of Substantial Com-
pletion for acts or failures io act occurring prior to Substantial
Completion,. or the date of issuance of the final Genificate for
Pa}•ment for acts or failures to act occurring after Substantial
Completion.
>P.4 The Owner and Architect waive all tights against pch
other and against the contractors, consultants, agents and
employees of the other for damages, but onl}• to the extent
co~•ered by propen}• insurance during conswction, except
such rights as the}• ma}• have to the proceeds of such insurance
as set forth in the edition of AlA Document A201, Grncnl Con•
ditions of the Contnct for Construction, current as of t'Fe datr
of this Agreement. The Owner and Architect each shall require
similar waivers from their contnctors, consultants and agents.
!.S The Owner and Architect, respectively, bind themselves,
their partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives to
the other part}• to this Agreement and to the partners, suc-
cessors, assigns and legal representativts of such other put}•
with respect to all covenants of this Agreement. Neither Owner
nor Architect shall assign this Agreement without the written
consent of the other.
9.6 This Agreement represenu the rntirc and integnted agree-
ment between the Oa•ner and Architect and supersedes all
prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either a•rit-
ten or oral. This Agreement ma}• be amended only by written
instrumern signed by both Oa•ner and Architect.
!.7 Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create a contnc-
tual rehtionship with or a pose of action in favor of a third
put}• against either the Owner or Architect.
9.8 The Architect. and Architect's consultants shall have no
responsibility for the discovery, presence, handling, removal or
disposal of or exposure of persons to hazardous materials in
an}• form at the Project site, including but not limited to
asbestos, asbestos products, polychlorinated biphem•1(PCBI or
other toxic substances.
ARTICLE 10
PAYMENTS TO THE ARCHITECT
10.1 DIRECT PERSONNEL EXPENSE
10.1.1 Direct Personnel Expense is defined as the direct
salaries of the Architect's personnel engaged on the Project and
the portion of the cost of their mandaton• and customar}• con-
tributions and benefits related thereto, such as emplo}•rrtrnt
taxes and other statutor}• employee benefits, insurance, sick
!cave, holida}•s, vaptions, pensions and similar contributions
and benefits.
10.2 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
10.2.1 Reimbursable Expenses include expenses incurred b}•
the Architect in the interest of the Project for:
.1 expense of transportation and living expenses in con-
nection with out-of--town travel authorized b}• the
Owner;
.2 long•distance communications;
.3 fees paid for securing approval of authorities having
jurisdiction orer the Project;
.4 reproductions;
.5 postage and handling of Dna•ings and Specifications;
.6 expense of overtime work requiring higher than rcgu•
lar ntcs, if authorized b}• the Owner;
.7 renderings and models requested b}• the Oa-ncr;
.8 expense of additional insurance coverage or limits,
including professional liability insurance, requested
by the Oa•ner in excess of that notmaU}• carried b}•
the Architect and Architect's consultants; and
.0 expense ofcomputer-aided design and drafting equip-
ment time when rued in connection with the Project.
AlA l)OCtJMENT 1151 • ABBRF~'IATED OVt'NER•ARCHITECT AGREEME~'T • THIRD EDITlO~ • AUK • ~ 19N'
5 8151.1987 THE AAtERICAt. lf`571TUTE OF ARCHITECTS, I~35 KEVt YORK AVEnt'E. NVi', VCA.cHI':GTO1, D.C. 2o0tk~
10.3 PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF BASIC SERVICES
10.3.1 An initial payment as set forth in Paragraph 11.1 is the
minimum payment under this Agreement.
10.3.2 Subsequent payments for 8a_aic Services shall be made.
monthly and, a•herc appLcablc, shall be in proportion to ser•
vices performed within pch phut of sen•ice.
10.3.3 If and to the extent that the time initiall}• established in
Subparagraph 11.5.1 of this Agreement u exceeded or ex•
tended through no fault of the Archiuct, compensation for any
scn•ices rendered during the additional period of time shall be
computed in the. manner set forth in Subpuagnph 11.3.2.
10.3.4 Vt'hcn compensation is based on a percentage of Con-
struction Cost and an}' pcmions of the Project ue deleted or
otherwise not conswcted, comjxnsation for those portions of
thr Project shall be payable to the extent sen•ices arc per•
formed on those portions, in accordance with the schedule set
v~,v- i
forth in Subparagraph 11.2.2, based on (l) the lowest bona fide
bid or negotiated proposal, or (2) if no such bid or proposal is
recei~•ed, the most recent prdiminar}• estimate of Construction
Cost or detailed estimate of Construction Cost for such por-
lions of the Project.
10.4 PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT O~ ADDITIONAL
SERVICES AND REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
10.4.1 Payments on account of the Architect's Additional Ser-
vices and for Reimbursable Expenses shall be made montltl}•
upon presentation of the Architect's statement of services
rendered or expenses incurred.
10.5 PAYMENTS WITHHELD
t0.S.1 No deductions shall be made from the Architect's com•
pensation on account of sums withheld from payments to
contractors.
ARTICLE 11
BASIS OF COMPENSATION
The Oa•ner shall compensate the Architect as follows:
11.1 A.'~ 1N1TlAL PAYhIE!\T OF None Required nouns (s )
shall be made upon execution of this Agreement and credited to the Owner's account at final payment.
11.2 BASIC COMPENSATION
11.2.1 FOR BASIC SER~']CES, as described in Article 2, and an}• other sen•ices included in Article 12 as pan of Basic Sen•ices, Basic
Compensation shall be computed aS follows:
(/rcart baize uJ nnn/i.+~sanun r,r~ludr,rk sliJ,ufared sums. nrudr/,lr~ ur /xn'r+tta),K~s. mr! uk+u1)t /r/xasea ru abrdi pnm~vlm rnetlx.dc a Jmm/,erzcatrnn anph. rJ nnrxcan )
~~ } Compensation for basic services shall be nineteen thousand five hundred dollars.
11.2.2 Vc'here compensation is based on a stipulated sum or percentage of Construction Cost, progress payments for Basic Sen•ices
in ach phase shall total the following percentages of the total Basic Compensation payable:
(/rtsPr! gddrrtorut! ~,liosPS as appruprrrttr /
Design Phase:
Construction Ik>cuments Phase
thirt,~r~'t( 3(P'')
fifty Percent t50 ~°)
Construction Phase: t re~~ percent (~~ %)
Total Basic Gomfxnsation: one hundred percent (100°r„)
ALA DOCUMENT 8161 • ABBREI'IATEi) OVI'\ER~ARCHITEC7 AGREEAlE!.•T • TH1RI) EI)IT10~ • AIA• • C 19H"
THE AMERICA\ INSTITI'TE OF ARCHITECT. 1735 NEVr 1'ORI; A\'ENLE. K~., WAtiH1XGTOK. DC. 20tKX~ 8151.1987 s
11.3 COMPENSATION FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES ~~ _ Q
11.3.1 FOR PROJECT REPRESEtiTATION BEYOND BASIC SER\'1CE5, a~ described in Puagraph 3.2, compensation shall be
computed a.~ follon•s~
Compensation shall be based on hourly rates of 2-1/2 times DPE for technical staff
and $75.00/hour for registered architectural staff and principals, p9us
reimbursable expenses. No project representations beyond basic services shall be
performed without written permision of the owner.
11.3.2 FOR ADDITIONAL SER\'1CES OF THE ARCHITECT pro~•idrd under Articlr 3 or identified in Article 12, compensation shall
be computed as follows:
(hrserr hnsr~ of rr,nt/w~uatuur. uu(udrrtA tort. nnJh,r nmluples ,Jihnrr 1'inrnrnel Fx1KOt..rJnr !'nury,rrls a,td emplrnwta. and rderuiJt f+rmrr/w!s ~r~l.las.aJ~
enp+l~grt~. r/ rpyurr,vl ldrrrnJ~ s1MtrJr, s,rrnr• r., u•hah 1HVhndur nu•thrt. r f cuntJ,wuuuun ap/,h. rJ nrtc<san I
Compensation shall be based on hourly rates plus reimbursable expense. Hourly
rates for principal and other registered architects shall be $15.00/hour, rates
for technical personnel shall be 2.5 times direct personnel expense rates. No
additional services shall be performed without permission of the owner.
11.3.3 FOR ADD1T10NA1 SER\'1CES OF CONSL'LTA.~TS, including additional structural. mechanical and electrical engineering set-
~•ices and those pro~•ided under Articlr ~ or identified in Anicle 12 u put of Additional Sen•ices, a multiple of pne
( )times the amounts billed to the Architect for such scn•ices.
(ldentrJr tperrJrr t)7lef t,f Consultants in Artulr 1?. if repuind )
11.4 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
11.4.1 FOR REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES, u described in Paragraph 10.2, and an}• other items included in Anicle I2 u Reimbursable
Expenses, a multiple of one ( )times the expenses incurred b}• the Architect, the
Archiuct's emplo}•ees and consuhants in the interest of the Project.
11.5 ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS
11.5.1 IF TH£ BASIC SER\7CES covered by this Agreemertt have not been completed within
( 18 ) months of the date hereof. through no fault of the Architect, extension of the Architect's sentices beyond that time shall
be compensated u provided in Subpuagraphs 10.3.3 and l 1.3.2.
11.5.2 Payrrtents arc due and pa}•able 30 daps from the date of the Architea's invoice. Amounts
~Pyd t h i r t days after im•oiee date shall beu interest from the date pa}•rrtent is due at the rate entered
below, or in the absence thereof, at the legal me prerailing from time to time at the principal place of btuiness of the Architect.
(lnserr any rare of iarerrsr ggrerd uJ,nn ~
(Usury boa arut requr-emenrs under the Fedr+at Tnrth in Lerdrng Arr, srmilar score and lord Coruumer tredrr boa and otbtr ttgrrlotiorts at the Ou+rer's and A~cht~
ten's prirurpa/ places of business. the lutarinn of the Projerr and Nseu bete ma~~ aJJecr rbe ralydrrr~ of this prorisirnr Specifii Itgd radtYar should be obtarned u~th
•esprcr to deleuurrs or nrodiJ+catruns, ord also. regardrng nquirerrrents such as u+itten duclosures or unrrrrs 1
11..5.3 The rates and multiples set forth for Additional 5entices shall be annuall}• adjusted in accordance with normal salan• reVicw•
practices of the Architect.
AIA DOCiJMEtVT 1151 • ABBREVIATED Oa'NER~ARCHiTECT AGREEMENT • THIRD EDITION • AlA• • (~' 196'
THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITEC75 I~35 NEVC' YORK AVE~1'E, N.R'., R'ASHINGTON, D C. 20006 8151.1s~87 7
ARTIC~E,z X8-9
OTHER CONDITIONS OR SERVICES
lhrsrvr dn~enjrnnn• ,.; uUrr•r ern urn rdr•rrlrJr Addrnwra/ k•n nta orr Ardrv! u~rhnr fkier Gimgrerrwhurr aru! mrrdrJrwnuns !n tM• /wl'mrvrt arrd rant/N•n.~alrun p•rnr.
,r
~'.rr
r
This Agreement rntered into as of the day and year first wrinen about.
OWNER
(Signature)
AR H T
gnature)
(Printed nrme and title)
(RiruAd name and title)
AIA DOCUMENT et 51 • ABBREVIATED O~PNER•ARCHITECT AGREEMET.T • TH1RD EDrr10N • AIA~ • Q)1987
THE AMERICAK IKSTITl,7E OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, ir.Q'., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 8~s~-1!)87 8
(.D v
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.85
Agenda April 8, 1991
,r ~~.
t --
Issue Statement•
Award of contract for tennis court repair.
Background•
In the spring of 1988, City staff initiated a program to repair
replace tennis courts throughout the City with the .priority of
repairs based on the condition of the courts. Tennis courts at
Augsburg, Jefferson, Sheridan and Christian Parks were repaired
1988; courts at Donaldson, Fairwood and Memorial Parks were
repaired in 1989; and courts at Augsburg Park were repaired in
1990. Courts at Roosevelt, Washington and Jefferson Parks are
scheduled for repair in 1991.
and
in
The 1991 approved Capital Budget contains $34,000 for this work. A
formal bid opening for this work was held on Friday, March 29, 1991
with the following results:
Finley Bros. Enterprises dba Tennis West Ltd. $24,833
Bituminous Consulting & Contracting Co. 28,255
Recommended Motion:
Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award a contract for tennis
court repair and resurfacing to Finley Gros. Enterprises, dba
Tennis West Ltd. in the amount of $24,833.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Tennis West, Ltd. submitted the low bid for this work. They
are a reputable tennis court contractor. This contractor
performed the work for the past two years' repair and was
more than satisfactory.
2. There is sufficient funding available to perform the work.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council could choose to reject all bids and instruct staff to rebid
the project; however, delays caused by rebiddingppould lead to the
work being delayed another year, and could be more expensive at a
later date.
Discussion/Decision .Mode:
Staff is asking for approval at this time in order to facilitate
the repair work on these tennis courts. There is a June 15, 1991
completion date scheduled for this work and approval at this time
will help meet this deadline.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam Prosser
Cit naQer
JDP:ds
Attachment
-1
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Hid Opening
March 29, 1991 '
11:00 A.M.
Repair and Resurface of 8 Tennis Courts
Bid No. 91-5, Project 868
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the
Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk,
who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive,
open and read aloud, bids for repair and resurface of eight (8)
tennis courts, bid no. 91-5, project 8.68 as advertised in the
official newspaper on March 13, 1991.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
Roxi Braa, Administrative Aide
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR BID
SECURITY TOTAL
Bituminous Consulting & 5$ Bid Bond $28,255.00
Contracting Co., Inc. Mpls.
Finley Bros. 5$ Bid Bond 524,833.00
dba Tennis West Mtka
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and
considered at the April 8, 1991 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA (p
Council Letter No.86
Agenda April 8, 1991
Issue Statement:
Approval of a resolution to use additional Municipal StAte Aid
(MSA) funds for City Project 828, Emergency Vehicle Preemption.
Background:
In 1987, the City Council authorized the expenditure of $60,000
from Richfield's MSA construction account to cover expenses
incurred by the construction of an emergency vehicle preemption
system. The system purchased was Opticom, and it was installed at
intersections on 66th Street at Nicollet, Pillsbury, Lyndale
Avenues, Lakeshore Drive and the I-35W ramps. In 1990, the
intersection of 66th Street and Logan Avenue was added to the
project as directed by the Council in tie 1990 Capital Improvement
Program. In addition, more work was needed to retro-fit the new
equipment in the old controller cabinets.
The expansion in 1990 caused the project to exceed the $60,000 MSA
appropriation; expenditures now total .$80,192.69. However, the MSA
office. will make a final eligibility decision in response to a
final submittal. Any ineligible costs will be paid from the
Permanent Improvement. Revolving (PIR) account. It is possible that
the ineligible costs could .be in the $10,000 range.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the attached resolution authorizing an additional $20,000
~~°,, ($80,000 total) from the City's MSA account to meet these
additional .expenses.
Basis of Recommendation: '
1. The City has already spent $80,000 through the PIR fund.
2. Approving the resolution will allow the City to repay $71,000
of the $80,000 spent.
3. Sufficient funds are available from.MSA for this purpose.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council could choose to not approve the resolution; however, this
would result in approximately. $10,000 of additional project cost
funded by the City rather than MSA..
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff is requesting approval of the attached resolution at the
April 8, 1991 Council meeting in order to make maximum use of
available MSA funds while minimizing our direct contribution to the
project cost .
Respectful submitted,
James D rosser
City Ma ger
JDP:ds
Attachment
c~a-
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF ADDITIONAL MUNICIPAL
STATE AID (MSA) FUND$ FOR
THE EMERGENCY VEHICLE PREEMPTION SYSTEM (OPTICOM)
CITY PROJECT N0. 828
WHEREAS, it has been deemed advisable and necessary for the
City of Richfield to participate in the cost of the installation
of an Emergency Vehicle Preemption System (Opticom) on-66th
Street at Nicollet Avenue, Pillsbury Avenue, Lyndale Avenue,
Lakeshore Drive and the I-35W ramps; and
WHEREAS, the Richfield City Council appropriated
construction funds on April 13, 1987 in the amount of 560,000 to
apply toward the installation of such a system; and
WHEREAS., during 1990 the City expanded the project to
include the intersection of 66th Street and Logan Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the original MSA allotment of $60,000 has been
found. to be insufficient to cover all MSA eligible expenses
incurred in conjunction with the project.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield
~"~~ does hereby appropriate from our Municipal. State Aid construction
account an additional 520,000 ($80,000 total) to apply toward the
' installation of said system, and request the Commissioner of
Transportation of the State of Minnesota to approve this
authorization.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 8th day of April, 1991.
Martin J. Kirsch Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
~~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 87
Agenda April 8, 1991
Issue Statement:
Adoption of a resolution authorizing the submittal of preliminary
Right-of-Way Acquisition Loan Fund (RALF) loan application for
the purchase of property at 7644 Third Avenue.
Background:
The City Council has approved the official map which calls for
the upgrading of 77th Street between I35W and TH77. The
upgrading will necessitate the purchase of property. At present,
the timing of the. construction of these improvements is
uncertain; however, people who .own and reside in these homes must
continue to make decisions about their lives. In some instances,
these people must sell their home; but the pending project makes
it impossible to sell. Buyers do not want to purchase
uncertainty. To meet this need, the Metropolitan Council has
established the Right-Of-Way Acquisition Loan Fund (RALF). The
fund is designed to permit cities to purchase owner-occupied
dwellings when continued ownership of the property would be a
hardship for the owner. The loan bears no interest. A loan
would be equal to the value of the real estate, plus relocation
benefits minus the salvage value of the houses. The City would
pay back the loan when funding for the 77th Street project became
available.
The process for securing a loan is generally as follows:
• After the owner of a property has listed their home for sale
for a period of at least 90 days, a preliminary application is
submitted to the Metropolitan Council, The attached resolution
is part of the preliminary application.
• The Metropolitan Council then reviews the preliminary
application.
• If the preliminary application is approved, negotiations for
the purchase of the property may commence and a loan agreement
with Metropolitan Council must be drafted.
Staff has been working with the owner of the property at 7644
Third Avenue which appears to qualify for RALF. The property has
been listed with a realtor. The 90 day listing period has ended.
Potential purchasers looked at the property but when told of the
pending street project they lost interest.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution which authorizes staff to proceed
with the filing of a preliminary RALF application.
~E-i
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City Council has approved the official map for
upgrading 77th Street.
2. The upgrading will require the purchase of the property.
3. The City has no funds currently available to purchase this
property.
4. The Metropolitan Council operates RALF and has previously
approved the purchase of two properties under the program
and is now processing a third.
5. The owner of the subject property appears to have an
eligible hardship and has been unable to sell the home
during the 90 day listing period.
6. The City Council, during deliberations on the 77th Street
project, indicated they would assist property owners in
minimizing the difficulties this project imposed on them.
Alternative Recommendation: '
1. Refuse. to authorize the application.
2. Delay action until a future date.
// Discussion/Decision Mode:
1~:~~. While the RALF program provides assistance, it does not provide
immediate relief. Staff has been. working with this owner since
October. It will likely require an additional four to five
months to complete the process. Action to adopt the resolution
on April 8 would facilitate the processing.
Respectfully submitted,
Ja D. Prosser
Ci Manager
JDP:ds
CpG-~
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING LOAN APPLICATION
FOR. ACQUISITION OF 77TH STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY;
7644 THIRD AVENUE
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has adopted an official map
for improvements to 77th Street; and
WHEREAS,. the improvements to 77th Street necessitate the
purchase of real estate including the property at 7644 Third
Avenue; and
WHEREAS, City funds are presently not available for purchase
of real estate; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council under Minnesota Statute
473.167, Subd. 2 a. administers the Right-Of-Way Acquisition Loan
Fund (RALF) to acquire properties so situated with owners who are
experiencing a hardship; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has indicated that RALF
monies would be-made available for the purchase of "hardship
properties" along 77th Street; and
WHEREAS, the owner of this property may qualify for purchase
under the hardship provisions of RALF.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota, that the City Manager submit an
application to the Metropolitan Council under the RALF program
for purposes of initiating the process which may result in the
acquisition of the property at 7644 Third Avenue.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 8th day of April, 1991.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 88
Agenda April 8, 1991
Issue Statement:
Request for a conditional use permit to allow a 50 seat
restaurant with carry-out service at 2902 West 66th Street.
Backaround•
Boston Chicken Restaurant is requesting a conditional use permit
to allow a 50 seat restaurant with carry-out service in Southdale
Square Shopping Center. Restaurants are permitted in the C-2
zoning district with a conditional use permit.
Boston Chicken is a franchised restaurant operation based in
Boston, Massachusetts. The restaurant will feature rotisserie
cooked foods, primarily chicken and vegetables, and liquor will
not be served. Boston Chicken estimates that the carry-out
service will make up approximately. 80$ of their sales. This
restaurant will be the first Boston Chicken Restaurant in the
Twin Cities metropolitan area.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the conditional use permit for a 50 seat restaurant with
carry-out service at 2902 West 66th Street with the following
stipulations:
1. A landscape plan, with cash escrow, be submitted prior to
the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the
restaurant.
2. At least 20 parking spaces in the area of the proposed
restaurant be signed for short term parking.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The owner of Southdale Square Shopping Center has agreed to
the landscape improvements and the cash escrow.
2. The parking requirement is met.
3. On March 26, 1991, the Planning Commission voted unanimously
to recommend approval of the conditional use permit.
Alternative Recommendation:
Deny the conditional use permit for a 50 seat restaurant with
carry-out service at 2902 West 66th Street.
~-~
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled for 7:00 P.M., Monday, Apfil 8,
1991. 'The hearing will be held in the Council Chambers~at
Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South. Notice of the
hearing was published in the Sun-Current and mailed to property
owners within 350 feet of the property.
Respectfu y submitted,
Jamey Prosser
City M ager
JDP:ds
~~~~~~s
F. ~J1_.__ ~~~
M N N ~ M M I r N
~ ! f ~
f
r Y Y ~ N r: ,~ r
«LIONt15 ~
n li .. _'~~ L.
YICi ... -.. .- ~_'~~ I' -_j v' N N r N N L~ N N
-Ti: f - T ~~ f E E E E
'w C ~m
aM Y•OaD ~.:. =^~, 1~L'"~'~~~; ".N~~~ _ _ _ ._ -_'~~Z ~""' AO,Ii/DMO,
~ V ~J ~~.;
~~1~~^~TT`----~~f ~JL_J.~JI_~Iu~ ^`J:--J~^.,I rMOIOMIw(~A
~~LJ~~J~~J ~JJ~~~ L~l~~~l I
r/zl i,_ 1~J~`-~>_`~. !-I~it_' , _~~__r__'~~^..JJ~L-'_-J~!r-._-J~~~1 rltl
.111 „~J~J-__ ~~J~._J~~ ~ J^^^---~~' 1•rJ~~J~~ri~ rl I
x101 I'^ !^,J~_~ I ~1 h~ 1
lon,i ~ l~L_J~,~l ~ I ^-~ !-~ '~ rlol
_ ~J~~ ~~`J~`J I 1 i
awtl ' _. _ `-i~;__.i~-`!~~_~1L~___ILJ^'J~J~^^-~•-,~~= tMwm00
OM•,r•0 I~~ ~ :L" r «~ ~~~J.-,:._J ~JL~!L~J C~~~~ ~~!~ 71YN
sranuf L6• 1=-
~., J
Ir00f,'4tl I ~,~,~
ON•YL ; , ~ 1~ •--
lalrr•N Ilf ~--~
~A• 7,•oNa, j ~--1
«plro,r ~,~e,:=~
lr•Ara jil~
II-I,o~ ,~ •1r
trotlno i, '
wosgwi ~~\'•~~
Or•n~ 4' ------ .'
10,Oiwrw tl ~ ~~; '''1
.:~~,
s«IArI ir;~= ---
RONII ~~.=~._~~
-~~,
«•ao, '~~,
rrorrow 1~~
ll7Al,p ICJ. ~J:._J
'7A• MNatl ~ll
«aano ~ 1' ~~
1,itiM1 ~ !' '
1F"- ~~~ m
srwoNl _ 'C
MOUfI
~~~M s7Yii7Y "-I..,..~., ...
(' ~~ ~ ~ ~
Ig t~
.~ Z
_- Q
N ~ d
H N
i/N1a3
= :-~ ._
_ ~ . '.
~"-' '_ .
~~~~~
N
H
m
m
=i
ji ! ~~ '_ ~ .~JI
t t ~ t t
~ ~' ~!
~^-=~1 wz
,1
iN7Ailf
lei /~1
~ 7A• la„0)1N
=i~ k „a0t1•,i
1•
,^=~ IN N1~Orlwiw
OwtrO
~~r.
1~~ 1~ lalrr•N
~~"1 I 'a A• 71.Or1,
ire Gj «01x0,•
~ Ji~~ II 1rtAY0
;~ I s•/,oo
~~ ~ lnano
~'~' «ocrawi
.~~
~~ Or•YID
t- ~~ 1o,wwnN
l~ ~~`. sN1Ar1
~~` pw•I'
- koNk
-~ ' «• oo,
~~- w•orow
~I ,I wolraw
raA1,p
=~~ 'iAt wwi/
~~ ~ wianD'
1j ,vssnr
~~ i~ «•01 YaNs
~~'
s•wo11t
-~; woltln
^J~~I kwa)rIA
1kr~`, MrnsNC-r
:~'~ ' 'aAr saYYak
~ ~i
s e.
w
~«
Z
r
W
_J
^ N
r
W
J
U
W o cn
wW
W ~
~ ~
~~
W ~
J ~
Q W
H ~ V
Z
~~ pZ
V)N ~,,~
~N
_V
Z ~z
O O i~
~ ~ Q
V~
V ~
0
w ,
s
~ ~ w
•. • =
~\ _. dot Sw ~ ~ _ •
71 • .S i ~ ; • y y
~:~~a.U1^3~ip~~ c~
• N N= O ~ r J N .T
i
s o
1 0
's 3rx~-v u~~rnn
.,. ,,
y ,.
~~,
-K ;~i
...
3
~~.
W ~;.Y
W
H
N ~;;
1=-,
W~~~i
3; ~::.;
•,.
__
i:~ii~
c
Gam.:
r_
c
c
s srwanv saxaax
~l V
~~,i
i
y
mil- 3
~€
s
0
m
. a~
.~
:~Qi d
V
~
U
s
~~_ ~; o
.,, N
a ~ ~ l~C
W ~
.._ ~"
z~
Na
~
o
c~ c
N
c
cai~l~~
:,.- _. r.~:.
W
Q
,Q,AA ~
V/ ~
a W_
O W
_ _
V
.7
0
_ ~~ _ ~ I
- ~ - :`~
i -- ~ e,~
-+- ` ~ ;
~-' , • t
' ~l i 14~, °: ~' a
J
--- a
(~ .:. ~~ ~
~\`~~~~ \I \ _.
Q
Z
W
SHERIDAN
p4RK
66TH ST.
ui
Q
Z
2
W
a
SITE CONTEXT
Zoning
CITY OF RICHFIELD
PLANNING & ZONING
SOUTHDALE SQUARE,
KEY 2900 WEST 66TH STREET
iwDll'STRIAL •::•: MR-~ 7W0 FAMILY RESIDENCE
(i-Z GENERAL COMMERGAL Q R SMGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
MR Mu~TI-FAt~ILV RES®ENCE
'~.~'~.~~.'~~.~.~.'~~,'.~~,'. R-~
SNGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE • LOW DENSITY
o~o~o~ MR-2 THREE TO » UNIT RESIDENCE ~j ~ PMR PLANPIED MuLn-FAMav RESIDENCE
0 200 400 600 800 1000
_ ~CAL~ F~`T
•,,
i~~
SITE CONTEXT
Land Use
CITY OF RICHFIELD
PLANNING & ZONING
SOUTHDALE SQUARE,
xEY 2900 WEST 66TH STREET
COMMERCIAL ®PUBUC
'•.''~.•••.'••~•.'•.• APARTMENT ;~';°,' SCHOOL
:•: aUPLEX '~' ~'~ ,•~ PARK
Q SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ~j ®VACANT
OUASI•PUBLIC
C OMM E'V T5: ~t ~~~ s~ ~~~~
0 200 400 600 800 1000
~CA~= c=_=T
O O O
Op0~0
00000
O 000
O 000
0000
00000
^ n n n
f '' SITE CONTEXT
Comprehensive Development Plan
CITY OF RICHFIELD
PLANNING & ZONING
SOUTHDALE .SQUARE,
KEY 2900 WEST 66TH STREET
• :: MIXED LAND USE
o~o~o ~IIEDIUM DENSITY BUFFER
D SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
INSTITUTIONAL
I`OMMEtiT5:
~''..~ PARK d~ OPEN SPACE
Q
ii~'~~
0 200 400 600 S00 1000
SC~L~ Fi~T
D
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 89
Agenda April 8, 1991
Issue Statement•
First reading consideration of an amendment to the PC-2 zoning
district for Hub West and approval of a preliminary planned unit
development plan.
Background:
Bradley Real Estate Investment Trust has submitted a preliminary
planned unit development plan to redevelop the area known as Hub
West. The City Council, HRA and Planning Commission have
previously reviewed the concept and approved other preliminary
steps. The redevelopment area is west of the Hub Shopping Center
to the-Soo Line between 65th and 66th Streets. Snyder's and
Hausers would be displaced by a new Rainbow. Kentucky Fried
Chicken would be moved a short distance west, displacing a small
commercial building, and Great Clips would be placed on the south
side of the new Rainbow building. U. S. Swim would stay at its
present location but expand to the entire building.
The movement of the Kentucky Fried Chicken building to the west
will be accomplished by a land swap necessitating the
redefinition and amendment of the PC-2 district boundary.
Similarly, a previous vacation of Pleasant Avenue behind U. S.
Swim was not included in the district.
A final development plan, conditional use permit application and
a developers agreement must be considered by the Council before
on site development can occur.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the first reading of the amendment expanding the
boundaries of the PC-2 district and approving the preliminary
planned unit development plan for Hub West and set a public
hearing and second reading for April 22, 1991.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. On March 26, 1991, the Planning Commission voted unanimously
to recommend approval of the request.
2. The rezoning would clarify the planned unit development
boundaries, and facilitate the proposed redevelopment of the
Hub West project area.
3. City surveys have suggested a demand for a Rainbow style
grocery operation in Richfield.
4. An existing parking conflict would be resolved.
5. The rezoning is a result of the proposed land exchange
between Hub West and Kentucky Fried Chicken, as well as a
prior street vacation.'
g-I
6. Before development can be initiated, a conditional use permit
application with a final development plan will be submitted
to the Planning Commission and City Council for review and
action.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could decide to deny the rezoning.
2. The City Council could refer the amendment back to the
Planning Commission with instructions.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
First reading is set for April 8, 1991.. If approved, a public
hearing and second reading will be held on April 22, 1991.
Respectfu ly submitted,
James Prosser
City ager
JDP:ds
M M N M N-• `
t ~ t \~
L
N 1 N tl !,
Y' Y r v y ~ y
./ ('f, ~~
NftONrli ~ ..
•y Z2 ~_
It tt
Y10~ .~_... ..:
rI GI _.~.-
M011idaN01
~'_-.
)M Yr07~ ~"~' ~ .
rl •1 I~•_•
•111 i
r,,, . •and ~anss~
M017Ntw0olY i
rlsl
rl •I ~ '
i/fly
~ I'
rl 11 '~
I I ~.: ~
r/ of N
aon17 ~ ~ _
0!Dr71M~ III
fMnn10~ yyI ~~'~.'' ~
NYrd Il'~~ ::•:•'•'•'•':•::'
CNr1Nr0 ~~~Illjlll I •~;*~~.,t,;tiZ
'7Ar ONr11Y0d ~
1110 ~ ..' :....1~,'
.~..;
NO1NI10 ~, •;•.~~..,
•::.'.+
wz IIII~IIrI---= h
fM7Ailf ~7~~ :~
ly ..~~~~ :t':•
I ,~._...~_ .~,
'7Ar 17TOOIN 1 ' ,..,,~~- '. M
1170fir1i ~~ t`~ :~:~
N1ilOM1N71N 11 ~~ •:ir•'~
Mlf1ff111d ~II~^;~-~ .~
1N.ir71d -r,~ ~~,~,~ ~'.-
OMrYO 1111.='_ _-~ 11 L.
~'i OlbdYra I11~V-~ i `~~ II
'7Ar 71rON11 '~•~~•/ ~~ Il ~
Xrd1o~ .I'•' c~ = ~ U~~
I. ~. \
1NOdn0 p ~ i ii ~
NOf Y7w7 ~ ~ \,~\ ,_~
1NOrlilu ~~..~,:'--~~
lolwwnN 1 __=~~,
::jol ~_ ..
aNIAYi ij ~~~--- ~-
f7wr~ 111:_^_-?;; .~
II i I~-.
XONY II. =~ ^,~~~~
wraol ._._. _ _~
wrallow ~`-
NO1M7N ~,, ~-_ ~--~~
Y7A110 ~-~~ I`
'7M NNid ~ ~~^- ~~----!
Mi7n0'~ ,~ iC
NIOIY7Nf ~~~ _ n-
frwONl IL. --'Q r~V`
1, ''~'~``
M, - ---
1NiOM1A ~r_-_~~„~-~~
I NYMNfrM I ~.._ _ _ .~
i7Ar f7XY7Y ~1....~........ .~~ „Y~
M M N N N
(~ S ~ ~
Ig ,~ ~ r ~ r
N
Y
-
~~^_ ^~ __ I^ _ 1"-~r
-` _ . ~ ~_
M 1~11 M N M N N M
• f ~ ! i Z
10 ~ w ~ - w w ~ w
A
M N N M
t=. t t f~
w w w wd'
•
~~_-_:-_v _ MO'11710N01
--•^-~+-tc -e~~l~ 'iAr 11.070
_ I r.Y~
__JI ~' ~~.~I~ rt 11
_.IL._._:~ ~~
r.
",r~1---1I V:~ r141
iL ii t
~I 1• rl •I
-~c~~-~ rl [t
J~^OI 1~r1 kJ 21
~' I~I ~I II r{ II
_ I ~.;ii clot
~~n~ ~~
J ~: 101117
~~~~~i' OO.OINO
LOCO(-u;~ :Mw~„~,
I
~L_J~I ~~; Yllw
~~ r1 ii ONr1xr0
~~ r-~ : ::
~OL~I~ 7Ar OMrllypd
~~k w f
~~[ I'-11i
J~.f`-_ It Nalero
,--' ••c
,---,I
~ 111 Z
J~! li ~
_71----.^i fM7A71t
1s1
~l~~r~:
l,~i ~~\ '7Ar 1711o01N
r---~,~i ~ 1170f1.10
Jf- '~!-=,I.I~ NuoM1NiM
~ I--==,G.I~ AYnafllt.
i i.
>_'~ R',I OMrYa
w u ..,
~+~ ~ ~ i 171YYtN
~U~ OlildYra
_J~I II
^~~•.yI(`T'. '7Ar 71rONi1
710 ~`^1 1Nr/Y]
J~UI id
1 ~i ~~ iNOdRO
~~- ~ NOfYiw7
1NONOYr
_ r~ lOtOOwNN
-~ p.
~~ oN1Ar1
'~1 f7wr~
~~I XONY
Mra01
~ NraYOw
~~(^ . ti
O~,I NO1M7N
~^'-~ ~~, Y7AI10
JCl^~ '7A1 NMid
III ~I 'il N77n0
i• ~~~ 11iff AY
.-~ qq~ Nr01Y7Nf
' :~1
JL'~r--- SrwONl
1u it-1~~1 LM7]MIA
J~J' ++ ~ I
~~~~ ~• NNI1NNf.M
• ~ '7Ar f7XY7X
M N M M
! ~~
w Z ~ e
$-a « z
H
N
W
W
H
Z
W
v
m
Z
O
F=
Q
V
O
J
r N
W
J_
N
W
J
U^
N
V
Z
~Z
.J O
W
~_ N
V
~ZV
O
Z
J
V~
i~
;~
. ~
o
.III
c I~
t
_ ~
- O
_~
- 'O
_ .~.
- L
Z
t _
= o
- Q
_ ~
C
_ C
i
1 ..L
t ~ H
i'
_-
t -:
• ~ -t
~_
~.1 1
N
:~ i
.t ~ +
-'
~)
~! i
65TH STREET
•;~ ~ r
~-v..s J `-.sa `••ti.N -
:.~-~1
EXIST.
U.S. SWIM
- s. , ,~, ~
,~
L4
Trash Tooor
ACompactor . ~~, • ' • • ~ j
-;~-~ Receiving
• - - ~ //~
•
•-
.. • • .• .NSW GROG • .: • : • • -
Q, • . - . • • •• 50,949 SF• . - - '• • • ~
,~,
N - - .•~~~
• . ' .
- ~
• ~ TENANT - . ~~,
- •1300 SF~ J ~~Z j
• -
,
,
• , . hh.
•
~I
1 ~~ F ~T
22 8 I p ~ /
~64 .K.F.C. ~ a ~C b oorsb~ ~ 22• ' 22'
c~ - ' 2250 ~ m .~,r,o oa.s nwc.ba
y ~ Drive Thru -~ { ~ ~ 13 : ~ ' ~"°"' ~, y ~,
22 , ~ ~Movtao eneaera Pyian Spi fiw LLS 8whv 1\t+bow/
. ~ Otl+r Ttint Pykr bIQ+
66TH STREET
/ -
$ -,
i
i
L ~~
i
1--- -- --
---~
65TH STREET
~.r~
L
-~~
~ ,
i
I
HUB WEST HUB
• PROJECT AREA CENTER
i ~ .
~ I (20NED PC-2 )
C a Z
C LL G
W >
Q
i ~~ ~ a ~
I
Q
o~
=
c~ V
~
~
m
O~ ~
J
a
PARCELS TO BE
I REZONED TO .PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
' (PC-2 )
I i
~ I
i I
~ 1
86TH STREET
___~ , r _ _ __ __ _ _ N
i ' ' SCALE: 1"= 80'
I ~ I
SITE CONTEXT
Zoning
CITY Of RICHFIELD
PLANNING & ZONING
HUB CENTER WEST
KEY
® C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL
C-1 BUSINESS
~~,'.~~,.~~~'.~~~'.~~,.'~~, MR .MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE
• • MR-3 OVER t; UNIT RESIDENCE
~°o°o°o MR-2 THREE TO 17 UNIT RESIDENCE
....
'~ • ~ MR-1
~R
Q' PC-2
~j ~ PMR
TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
PLANNED GENERAL COMMERCIAL
PLANNED MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE
.~J!~~I~l~i 4T~: ' S ~ ~ ~~
0 200 400 600 800 1000
~CA`G c=>=T
SITE CONTEXT
Land Use
CITY OF RICHFIELD
PLANNING & ZONING
HUB CENTER WEST
KEY
COMMERCIAL Q SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
• • MIXED LAND USE .~ ~ flUASI-PUBLIC
'~.'~,'~.~','~.,~~.'~,'.'~,'~. APARTMENT `-' :~'''~..~®.'~.', PARK
•~ =•~ DUPLEX ~ ,~ VACANT
0 200 100 600 800 1000
.._
SITE CONTEXT
Comprehensive Development Plan
CITY OF RICHFIELD
PLANNING & ZONING
HUB CENTER WEST
KEY
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ~~ ~ PARK & OPEN SPACE
oooaoo MEDIUM DENSITY BUFFER
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE '~
INSTITUTIONAL !,!
0 200 .goo soc soo ~ooo
~•L~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 90
Agenda April 8, 1991
Issue Statement•
Adoption of a resolution of opposition to Double Pension Cost of
Living Mechanisms (13th Check). (Deferred from March 25 City
Council meeting.)
Background•
in 1987, the Minnesota legislature adopted a statute which
provides for an additional inflation adjustment for Minneapolis
police and paid firefighter pension plans. Originally, the bill
was to affect all police and paid firefighter pension plans such
as Richfield's, but was adopted with the much narrower
applications.
While the law passed in 1987 did not directly affect local Police
and Fire Relief Associations such as Richfield's, it is likely
that a similar bill will be reintroduced in this legislative
session. Such a bill would most likely be targeted toward relief
associations like Richfield's and could have a very significant
adverse financial impact upon the respective funds in future
years.
The legislation passed in 1987 makes provision for retirees to
share directly in any investment income over a specified target
amount.. This income from investment returns is then distributed
to eligible members in the form of a "13th Check." However,
members do not share the risk or consequences of below targeted
investment returns.
Most local relief associations already have a built-in provision
that escalates monthly retirement payments by the same percentage
an active member's top wage rate is increased each year. Thus,
if firefighters get a 4$ increase in pay, firefighter retirees
also receive a 4~ increase in retirement payments.
The proposed "13th Check" legislation would provide a double
escalator for retirement payments. It would delay the City's
progress toward having both the Police and Fire Relief
Association retirement plans fully funded by the year 2010 as
required by law. Ultimately, the City's taxpayers would have to
make cash contributions in the form of taxes to make up the
difference.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt a resolution of opposition to Double Pension Cost of Living
Mechanisms (13th Check).
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Opposing the "13th Check" legislation would be in keeping
with the City's mandated goal of attaining full funding in
the Police and Fire Relief Associations on or before
December 31, 2010.
9/
2. Both of the City's relief associations already provide for
annual monthly benefit adjustments equal to the wage
adjustment given to active police and firefighter personnel
respectively.
3. A partner in the City's auditing firm of Deloitte & Touche
has reviewed the "13th Check" legislation and recommends
that the City oppose the legislation because of the cost
implications.
4. At the August 22, 1988 City Council meeting, the City Council
supported a similar resolution in opposition to the "13th
Check."
5. The Police Relief Association is only 81~ funded. The Fire
Relief Association is only 56~ funded. Any increase in
benefits will increase the unfunded accrued liability of
these funds.
6. The additional benefit would provide these pension funds with
two escalation clauses. No other City pension fund has two
escalation clauses.
7. The increased pension benefits would require increased taxes.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City could. not take a position pro or con on the "13th
Check" legislation.
2. The City could support the "13th Check" legislation. The
Fire Relief Association indicated that they were "open and
supportive" of a "13th Check" proposal. The Police Relief
Association also indicated support for a "13th Check" in
that it is an additional. benefit. They said, however, they
are most concerned about the consolidation package.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The resolution is presented to the City Council at this time to
allow ample time to prepare for the next legislative session.
Respectfully submitted,
James Prosser
City nager
JDP:ds
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO DOUBLE PENSION
COST OF LIVING MECHANISMS (13TH CHECK)
WHEREAS, H.F. No. 127/S.F. No. 370, have been introduced and
would authorize. investment. related post-retirement adjustments in
addition to annual existing cost of living adjustments for local
police and paid firefighter relief associations; and
WHEREAS, the Richfield Police Relief Association pension fund is
only funded 80.8 and the Richfield Fire Relief Association. pension
fund is only funded 56.1; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield is already contributing an
extraordinary amount of salary for the members of these two local
police and fire funds as compared to the amount contributed for
officers currently in the PERA Police and Fire Fund; and
WHEREAS, claims that these and similar proposals, if passed,
will reduce the City's costs, measure only short-term financial
demands and do not compare short and long-term City contribution
rates for proposals to adopt alternative actuarial assumptions with
no benefit increase involved; and •
WHEREAS, the current budgetary crisis of the State of Minnesota
demonstrates that the City of Richfield will be faced with the
prospect of long-term revenue shortfalls; and thus short-term
expenditure shifts with later increases will only exacerbate City
financial problems.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by unanimous vote of its City
Council, the City. of Richfield hereby expresses its opposition to
H.F. 127 and S.F. 370 and other similar proposals to provide
additional benefits to retirees of local funds based upon investment
performance of the fund's assets while escalation remains in effect.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Senator Riveness and
Representatives Garcia and Henry are urged to convey the City's
position to the members of the Legislative Commission on Pensions and
Retirement .and to the leadership of each House and to vigorously
resist all such local pension changes which will-add to the short-
term or long-term costs of the City of Richfield.
The Clerk is instructed to transmit a certified copy of this
resolution to members of the City's legislative delegation and to the
League of Minnesota Cities.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this 8th day of April, 1991.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
i ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
~o
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council~Letter No.91
Agenda April 8, 1991
Issue Statement:
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for I35W.
Background:
The. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has been
experiencing delays in the preparation of an EIS for reconstruction
of I35W from Burnsville to downtown Minneapolis. One of the major
delays involves the protracted discussion regarding a controversial
alternative, known as the Neighborhood Transportation Network (NTN).
proposal.
This proposal is advocated by a citizens group in Minneapolis. The
NTN alternative seeks to minimize the amount of right of way needed
in Minneapolis, and to favor light rail transit and carpooling.
However, an analysis of traffic operations and safety performed by
consultants to MnDOT revealed that the NTN proposal failed to
operate properly; i.e., unsafe design, short weaving distances and
traffic forced onto local streets.
Therefore, this alternative was dropped ,from further study by the
I35W Project Advisory Board, the intergovernmental management team
overseeing the preparation of the EIS. The Project Advisory Hoard
(PAB), containing Richfield representatives, reasoned that the NTN
proposal was no longer a feasible alternative, and MnDOT and the
Federal Highway Administration would not build it. Therefore, the
NTN alternative should be dropped from further consideration.
The PAB and MnDOT agreed to add a new alternative that included the
basic concepts favored by the NTN but also met freeway safety and
operational standards.
Recently, the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority and the City
of Minneapolis requested that the NTN proposal be reinstated as an
alternative in the EIS. If MnDOT honors this request, the EIS will
be delayed even further and will postpone the start of construction
on any segment of the freeway. This action will extend the period
of uncertainty for Richfield residents with property in the project
area.
A resolution has been drafted for consideration by local units of
government south of Minneapolis to urge MnDOT to reject the
inclusion of the NTN proposal in the EIS and failing that to divide
the EIS into two projects: one for Minneapolis; the other from
south of Minneapolis to Burnsville.
The reasoning behind this resolution is that the communities to the
south of Minneapolis are supportive of the reconstruction of I35W
and want the project to be built as soon as possible. Given. the
high cost of building the entire 18-mile project and limited
highway funding, work on the south end could start immediately. At
the same .time, issues affecting Minneapolis requiring additional
study may be dealt with in a separate EIS to be completed at a
later date.
lo~l
The proposed resolution recommends dividing the EIS in two so
~_ that work can begin in 1993 on a third lane on the I35W bridge
over the Minnesota River which is the highest priority project
for people in Dakota County.
The proposal has been presented to the Richfield Ad Hoc Traffic
Committee for its review. They voted unanimously to recommend
approval of the resolution as submitted: The project should be
divided into two portions: one portion being Minneapolis and the
62 Crosstown Commons section, and the second portion being that
portion south of the 62 Crosstown Commons section beginning at
68th Street to Burnsville.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the attached resolution relating to I35W EIS delay and
split of EIS into two portions.
Basis of Recommendation:
The proposed resolution will convey to the Minnesota Department
of Transportation the City of Richfield's support for expediting
the reconstruction of I35W.
Alternative Recommendations:
1. Do not make any reference to the third lane proposal for the
Minnesota River Bridge in the resolution. This is an issue
of great concern to the communities south of the Minnesota
River. City staff has a concern that the third lane will
force traffic onto local streets north of I494. Wording has
already been included in the proposed resolution that
addresses Richfield's concern that freeway traffic not be
forced to use local streets if the third lane is built from
I494 to Burnsville.
2. Oppose the resolution. City staff believes that the I35W
project has been delayed too much already by the NTN group
and that the process should not be held up any longer.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The City Council can either support, modify or oppose the
proposed resolution. A decision is needed now to forward to the
Minnesota Department of Transportation to assist the state agency
to decide whether or not the EIS should be divided into two
separate documents as a way to expedite construction.
ly submitted,
James Prosser
City M nager
JDP:ds
Attachment
/~-~
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO I35W ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DELAY
AND SPLIT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT INTO TWO PORTIONS
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation
(MnDOT), Metropolitan Council and Federal Highway Administration
(parties) have been preparing an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for I35W from I494 south for several years; and
WHEREAS, said EIS has been delayed and the schedule revised;
and
WHEREAS, one cause of said delays has been the inclusion of
an alternative known as the Neighborhood Transportation Network
(NTN) Alternative being proposed by a Minneapolis neighborhood
group; and
WHEREAS, after study, this alternative was found to not meet
safety requirements, not be buildable in accordance with roadway
standards and was replaced with another alternative which
incorporated several of the mayor aspects of the NTN Alternative;
and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County and the City of Minneapolis have
recently requested that the NTN Alternative be put back into the
EIS; and
WHEREAS, such reinclusion would likely cause further delay,
additional costs and potentially a decision that would result in
the construction of an unsafe roadway which would provide less
capacity than the current facility; and
WHEREAS, such delays may also result in the interim third
lane project from I494 south of the Minnesota River not being
able to be undertaken in 1993 as programmed; and
WHEREAS, MnDOT funding decisions have now removed the
necessary manpower or consultant funds to do the design of said
interim project; and '
WHEREAS, the timely and appropriate improvement of I35W is
very important to the well being of the community and to the
safety of users of the facility.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the parties are
requested to maintain their position that the NTN Alternative is
not an implementable alternative.
~0~-3
BE iT FURTHER RESOLVED that MnDOT should provide design
staff or consultant funds to prepare the necessary plans and
drawings to avoid delays on the interim third lane project south
of I494; however, an acceptable plan must be developed for making
the transition back to the existing two.lanes without imposing
unacceptable demands on surface streets.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if the NTN Alternative is
reinserted that. the MnDOT, Metropolitan Council and Federal
Highway Administration should split the EIS into two portions
with one portion being the City of Minneapolis and the 62
Crosstown Commons section, and the second portion being that.
portion south of the 62 Crosstown Commons section beginning at
68th Street to Burnsville in order to not unduly delay the
process of providing the safety and service. this badly needed
facility would bring to the people of this region.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota,
this 8th day of April, 1991.
Martin J. Kirsch Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 92
Agenda April 8, 1991
Issue Statement:
Establish fees for use of the waterslide at the Richfield City
Pool.
Background:
When the Council approved building the waterslide at the pool, it
was with the understanding that the revenues generated from the
slide would pay the capital costs and increase revenues at the
pool. The Community Services Commission, at its March 24, 1.991
meeting, voted unanimously to recommend the following fees for
1991:
3 slides $1.00 (33C/slide)
6 slides $1.50 (25G/slide)
12 slides $2.50 (21~/slide)
The Commission action followed discussion of several alternatives
including 1) pay .per slide, which was recommended by the Commiss-ion
to the Council, 2) an all day slide pass which was considered to be
inconsistent and unfair due the inability to predict the number of
slides for a single fee, and 3) inclusion in daily admission or
season pass which was considered unfair because not everyone would
be using the slide; i.e., too young, too old, no interest .
The Commission also recommends that there be no slides given away.
In future years, these fees will be part of the regular budget
process.
Recommended Motion:
Accept the Community Services Commission's recommendation on
waterslide fees for 1991.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Commission has. spent considerable time studying the
alternatives and believes that a pay per slide is the most
equitable way. to charge for the slide and achieve the revenues
anticipated.
2. The recommended fees are necessary to pay debt and operating
cost for the slide.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff is requesting that waterslide fees be established at the
April 8 City Council meeting in order to meet the printing
deadlines for the summer brochure.
Respec ully submitted,
JDP:ds
Jame Prosser
City anager
/~
CITY OF RICIiFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.93
Agenda April 8, 1991
Issue Statement•
Council receipt~of the unaudited 1990 Financial Report.
Background•
The annual.Financial Report for the period ending December 31,
1990, has been completed by the Administrative Services Department.
The audited Financial Report is not available at this time, due to
the audit provision which requires Richfield's financial reports to
be audited by Deloitte and Touche subsequent to April 15. As
Council Members may be aware, the City receives a reduced audit fee
in turn for approval for the Auditors to delay their audit work
until after April 15.
The Richfield City Charter requires the Financial. Report to be
submitted to the City Council for fiscal year-end information by
April 10 of each year.. This report is submitted to Council Members
prior to April 8 for review. The report has also been scheduled
for official receipt at the April 8, 1991 City Council meeting.
The attached summary report reflects the performance of the General
Fund, Utility Funds, Golf Course Fund and Liquor Fund.
Recommended Motion:
Receive the unaudited 1990 Financial Report of the City.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. City Charter provides that the Financial Report of the City be
submitted to the City Council by April 10 of each year.
2. Audited financial reports for 1990 will not be available for
.several weeks.
3. The Administrative Services Department has just completed their
financial reporting for 1990.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council .could request the staff to make a more
detailed presentation of the unaudited 1990 Financial Report at
this time or at a future Council Study Session. However, a
detailed presentation of the audited report will be presented
in the month of June, 1991.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
fihe Financial Report be formally accepted at the April 8 City
Council meeting.
Res ~ ully submitted,
Ja D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
Attachment
~a-i
FINANCIAL REPORT SUMMARY - 1990
The following is a summary of fund highlights for the General Fund,
Utility Funds, Golf Course Fund and Municipal. Liquor Fund. A
thorough audited report will be presented to the City Council as
soon as it becomes available.
General Fund
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Transfers
Increase (Decrease)
to Fund Balance
12/31 Fund Balance
1990 Actual
$11,748,937
11,753,268
5,794
1,463
$ 2,297,716
1990 Budget
$11,760,790
'11,765,300
4, 510
0
$.2,296,253
1989 Actual
$11,556,551
11,139,051
(2 , 555, 569 )
(2,138, 069 )
$ 2,296,253
The General Fund of the City has a 1990 year-end Fund balance of
52,297,716 as compared to $2,296,253 at year-end 1989. The reason
for the level Fund balance from 1989 to 1990 is that the City
experienced a $148,000 Local Government Aid cut midway through the
year 1990 and the original adopted 1990 budget had a built in
$75,000 deficit. To end the year without spending Fund balance in
view of the two previous mentioned factors emphasizes the City's
very conservative expenditure of General Funds. The Fund balance
is designated for Working Capital to meet the subsequent year's
expenses until property taxes are collected from the county in July
of the next year.
Water Utility Fund
Revenues
Expenses
Net Transfers
Net Income
12/31 Retained
Earnings
1990 Actual
$ 1,768,695
1,468,481
(144,112)
$ 156,102
$ 4,011,752
1990 Budget
$ 1,850,630
• 1,520,610
(144,110)
$ 185,910
$ 4,225,710
1989 Actual
$ 1,905,180
1,358,880
(134,005)
$ 412.295
$ 4,.039,800
The Water Utility Fund experienced a rather mediocre year from a
financial perspective in 1990. Net income for 1990 was $156,102
compared to $412,295 in 1989. This represents a 62$ decrease in
net income. The major reason for the much poorer performance is
water usage. 1989 was a much drier year than 1990 and water usage
in 1990 was down considerably from the previous year.
At year-end 1990 retained earnings in the Water Fund totalled
$4,011,752. The retained earnings and available cash in the Water
Utility Fund are necessary to support capital improvements and
maintenance of the operation. This cushion greatly reduces the
possibility that the City would be required to issue bonds to make
emergency repairs, upgrades or maintenance in the water utility
system. Constant renovations and repairs in the Water Treatment
Plant and the associated City wells are being undertaken by the
~ a~~
City to maintain the high quality of Ovate
citizens. In addition, in 1990, $184,000
transferred as a loan to the Expanded New
Sewer Utility Fund
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Transfers
Net Income (Loss)
12/31 Retained
Earnings
1990 Actual
$ 1,410,109
4,401,903
(93.290)
(85, 084 )
$ 3,193,635
r provided to Richfield
of retained earnings was
Home Program.
1990 Budget
$ 1,352,700
1,.310,210
(93,290)
(50, 800
$ 3,439,172
1989 Actual
$ 1,351,549
1,184,866
(37,510)
129,173
$ 3,489,972
The Sanitary Sewer Fund showed a net income in 1990 of negative
$85,084. This is roughly $214,000 below the net income of 1989 and
some $35,000 below the 1990 revised budget. The decrease in that
income is tied directly to the increasing charges of Metropolitan
Waste Control Commission. Rates for 1990 were $179,525 greater
than they were in 1989. Had the rates remained fairly level, the
Fund would have ended the year with a positive net income. Future
rate increases in the Sanitary Sewer Fund are going to have to take
into consideration the enormous increases faced by the Fund in
payments to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission in order to
maintain a healthy financial position. 'As with the Water Fund,
$184,000 of the retained earnings was transferred to the Expanded
New Home Program as a loan.
Storm Sewer Utility
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Transfers
Net Income
12/31 Retained
Earnings
1990 Actual
S 671,321
427,133
(22,250)
221,938
$ 625,937
1990 Budget
$ 645,000
461,570
(22,250)
161.180
$ 565,170
1989 Actual
$ 567,172
446,738
(26,800)
93,6.34
$ 403,999
The Storm Sewer Utility performed much better than expected for
1990. Net income for the Fund for 1990 was $221,938, compared to
1989 net income of $93,634. The net income added to retained
earnings will be needed to assist the Storm Sewer Utility in making
storm sewer improvements in 1991 in the Penn Avenue and 69th Street
area.
Golf Course Fund
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Transfers
Net Income (Loss)
12/31 Retained
Earnings
1990 Actual
$ 1,187,224
1,049,892
(71,028)
65,789
$ 408,532
1990 Budget
$ 967,060
942,090
(71,220)
f 46, 250 )
$ 296,493
1989 Actual
$ 1,107,533
903,660
(b9,150)
134,723
$ 342,743
~a-3
1990 was a good year for the Golf Course
net income of 565,789 is only half of the
were $134,723, the year still represents
in total revenues earned and reflects the
relatively strong net income showing.
Liquor Fund
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Transfers
Net Income (Loss)
12/31 Retained
Earnings
1990 Actual
$ 6,114,019
5,699,256
(438,000)
(23,237)
S 2,009,521
operation. While the 1990
earnings for 1989 which
another strong performance
fourth straight year of a
1990 Budaet
$ 6,161,000
5,731,390
455.120.
(25,510)
$ 2,007,248
1989 Actual
$ 6,165,192
5,728,932
(413,360)
22,900
S 2,032,758
Year-end revenues for 1990 reached $6,114,019 as compared to
$6,165,192 the previous year and the record revenues of 56,375,.615
in 1988. However, the 1990 year-end revenue figure was once again
the highest of any municipal liquor operation in the State of
Minnesota. Liquor sales were down in 1990 during the first several
months of the year and the operation was virtually in a catch up
mode for the entire year. In addition,~the gross margin on
products, while respectable, was not as high as the two previous
years which also reflects in the net income loss of 523,237 after
transfers. However, one should bear in mind that the $438,000 of
transfers also represents $300,000 transferred to the Special
Revenue Fund for capital improvements.
Summary
This financial summary represents the highlights of the overall
financial report for the City of Richfield. Financial reports for
all funds are attached to this letter including Internal Service
Funds not specifically highlighted in this report.
A comprehensive review of the 1990 financial operations will be
presented to the Council once the auditor's report has been
completed.
In general, 1990 was a favorable year for the City's financial
operations. Revenue cuts by the State of Minnesota to the City's
General Fund have cut deeply into the City's ability to maintain a
positive year-end position while providing the same .services the
City has presented to the public in the past. In addition, the
steady increase in charges by the Metropolitan Waste Control.
Commission for sewer charges will have to be carefully reviewed in
setting sewer rates for 1992 and future years.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM F ~ ~-~
GENERAL FUND
COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEET
December 31, 1990 and 1989
1990 1989
ASSETS
Cash and temporary cash investments 33,345,775 53,289,798
Receivables:
Taxes 105,316 101,285
Special assessments 13,413 12,939
Accounts 89,160 49,819
Due from other funds 25,420 13,383
Due from other governments 102,083 159,012
Total Assets 33,681.,167 33,626,236
LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE
Liabilities:
Accounts payable 3 137,979 3 183,000
Accrued salaries and employee benefits
payable 1,114,266 1,033,495
Due to other governments 44,087 70,517
Deferred revenue 87,119 42.971
Total Liabilities 1.383,451 1.329,983
Fund Balance:
Reserved for:
Encumbrance 52,749 34,763
Unreserved:
Designated for working capital 2.244,967 2.261,490
Total Fund Balance 2.297,716 2.296,253
Total Liabilities and Fund Balance 53,681,161 33,626,236
-70-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM F-1
~ °2_5
GENERAL FUN D
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPEND ITURES, AND CHANGES
IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
For the Year. Ended Dece mber 31, 1990
With Comparative Actual Amounts for the Year Ended December ~1, 1989
1990
Over
Final (Under) 1989
Budget Actual Budget Actual
Revenues:
Taxes $ 4,267,450 $4,317,458 $ 50,008 $ 3,927,234
Licenses and permits 326,500 303,928 (22,572) 311,638
Intergovernmental revenue 5,393,760 5,391,787 4,027 5,604,978
Charges for services 1,269,980. 1,178,259 (91,.721) 1,127,194
Fines and forfeits 228,400 222,552 (5,848) 236,247
Miscellaneous revenues 274,700 328,953 54.253 349.260
Total Revenues 11.760.790 .11,748,937 (11.853) _11.556,551
Expenditures:
General Government 7.12,930 709,536 (3,394) 708,424
Administrative Services 1,008,570 999,193 (9,377) 896,673
Public Safety 5,665,5.00 5,666,110 610 5,402,699
Community Development 244,990 245,053 63 211,260
Community Services 4,133,310 4.133,376 66 3,919,995
Total Expenditures 11,765,300 11,753,268 2 032) 11,139,051
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues
over Expenditures (4,510) X4.331) 179 417,500
Other Financing Sources (Uses) -
Operating transfers in (out):
Special. .Revenue Funds
Enterprise Funds
Internal Service Funds
Total Other Financing (Uses)
Excess of Revenues and Other
Sources Over Expenditures and
Other Uses
Fund Balance - At Beginning of Year
Equity Transfer Out
fund Balance - At End of Year
(30,340) (30,340) (63,360).
335,680 335,680 265,790
(300,830) (299,546) 1,284 (257,999)
4,510 5.794 1,284 (55,569)
1,463 1,463 361,931
2,296,253 2,296,253
4,434,322
(2,500,000)
$ 2.296.253 $ 2,297,716 1 463 $ 2,296.,253
-11-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~ °~ ~~O
GENERAL FUND
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES COMPARED TO BUDGET
For the Year Ended December 31, 1990
With Comparative Actual Amounts for the Year Ended December 31; 1989
Taxes:
Current ad valorem -
fiscal disparities
Delinquent ad valorem
Penalties, interest, and forfeited
tax sales
Hotel/Motel lodging
Total Taxes
Licenses and Permits:
Business licenses
Nonbusiness licenses and permits
Total Licenses and Permits
Intergovernmental Revenue:
~~deral
rCivil defense reimbursement
Storm disaster aid
State:
Local government aid
Homestead credit
Law officer training
State-aid street maintenance
Crime prevention grant
Natural resources grant
Storm disaster aid
Surcharge rebate
County -
Community health services
1990
Over
Final (Under) 1989
Budget Actual Budget Actual
5 3,517,320 S 3,579,617
685,130 685,130
20,000 6,773
S 62,297 S 3,048,424
819,578
(13,227) 50,382
.10,000 9,229
35.000 36.709
4,267,450 4,317.458
(711.) 8,850
1.709
50.008 3.927,234
122,000 172,550 50,550 121,631
204.500 131.378 73 122) 190,007
326,500 303.928 22 572 311
638
.
8,000 11,183 3,783 7,293
17,735
3,413,190 3,413,191 1 4,037,632
1,569,190 1,570,082 892 1,189,847
18,000 19,780 1,780 19,557
253,380 253,384 4 201,337
5,000 5,018 18 6,000
12,500
3,548
6,368
127,000 124,549
Total Intergovernmental Revenue 5.393,760 5.397,787
2 451) 103,161
4,027 5,604,978
-12-
/~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM -2
GENERAL FUND
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES COMPARED TO BUDGET (CONCLUDED)
For the Year Ended December 31, 1990
With Comparative Actual Amounts for the Year Ended December 31,~ 1989
1990
Over
Final (Under) 1989
Budget Actual Budget Actual
Charges for Services:
General Government ~ 46,000 ~ 26,397 ~ (19,603) ~ 42,439
Deputy Registrar 270,000 256,692 (13,308) 262,822
Public Safety 231,140 199,230 (31,910) 127,951
Community Development 9,000 7,190 (1,810) 10,155
Community Services 4,000 2,035 (1,985) 2,158
Health 7,000 5,662 (1,338) 12,982
Park and Recreation 138,080 119,141 (18,939) 119,207
Swimming Pool 101,210 101,111 (99) 99,874
Ice Arena 269,580 260,340 (9,240) 255,146
Nature Center 40,160 35,986 (4,174) 35,661
Community Center 153,810 164.475 10.665 158.799
Total Charges for Services 1,269,980 1.178,259. 91 721) 1.127,194
Fines and Forfeits:
Municipal court fines 220,000 213,677 (6,323) 225,274
Forfeited bail 3,000 3,389 389 6,520
Highway patrol fines 5,400 5.486 86 4.453
Total Fines and Forfeits 228.400 222,552 5 848) 236.247
Miscellaneous Revenues:
Interest 253,650 289,709 36,059 318,494
Rent 15,500 24,782 9,282 13,005
Contributions 1,550 2,400 850 3,621
Recovery - damage to City property 4,000 8,036 4,036 9,466
Other 4,026 4,026 4,674
Total Miscellaneous Revenues
Total Revenues
274,700 328,953
511,760,790 511,748,937
54.253
11 853
349,260
511,556,551
-73-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
GENERAL FUND
SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES COMPARED TO BUDGET
For the Year Ended December 31, 1990
With Comparative Actual Amounts for the Year Ended December 31, 1989
~ a- ~
1990
Over
Final (Under) 1989
Budget Actual Budget Actual
GENERAL GOVERNMENT:
Mayor-Council:
Personal services ~ 33,720. 5 32,293 5 (1,427) 5 31,432
Other services and charges 50,600 43,734 (6,866) 51,192
Supplies 7,000 7,579 579 5,349
Total 91.320 83,606 7 714) 87,973
Other Agencies:
United Battered Family 1,.000 1,000 1,230
Share a Home 2,T80 (2,180) 500
Senior Outreach Services 2,415 2,415 2,300
Cornerstone Advocacy 1,300 1,300 1,230
Storefront/Youth Action 51,350 51,350 48,900
Shared Transportation 2,915 2,915 2,800
South Hennepin Human Services 15,500 15,500 10,700
Total 76,660 74.480 2 180) 67,660
''ity Manager:
'Personal services 152,680 153,171 491 136,777
Other services and charges 50,380 60,462 10,082 53,736
Supplies 6,200 6,365 165 6,148
Capital outlay. 500 500) 78
Total 209,760 219.998 10.238 196,739
Airport Project:
Personal services 5,790 19,826 14,036 12,111
Other services and charges 91,730 76,510 (15,220) 93,238
Supplies 1,700 2,969 1,269 3,598
Total 99,220 99,305 85 108,947
Legal:
Other services and charges 235,970 232,147 (3,823) 247,090
Supplies 15
Total 235.970 232,147 3 823) 247,105
Total General Government 712 970 709 536 3 394) 708 424
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
Administration:
Personal services 5115,600 5121,530 ~ 5,930 5118,054
Other services and charges 17,410 14,914 (2,496) 13,365
Supplies 4,300 2.939 1 361) 4,215
Total 137,310 139,383 2,073 135,634
-74-
/ ~-`~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM F-3
GENERAL FUND
SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES COMPARED TO BUDGET (CONTINUED)
For the Year Ended December 31, 1990
With Comparative Actual Amounts for the Year Ended December 31; 1989
1990
Over
Final (Under) 1989
Budget Actual Budget Actual
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: (Continued)
Personnel:
Personal services ~ 51,17.0 ~ 54,442 3 3,272 S 60,068
Other services and charges 37,970 27,506 (10,464) 41,616
Supplies 9,780 9,291 (489) . 9,314
Capital outlay 918 918
Total 98,920 .92.157 6 763) 110,998
Youth Employment - Counseling:
Personal services 25,880 26,281 401 22,673
Other services and charges 900 689 (211) 2,987
Supplies 1,010 822 188) 743
Total 27,190 27,792 2 26,403
Finance:
Personal services 186,460 181,379 (5,081) 165,741
Other services and charges 32,010 30,986 (1,024) 28,474
Supplies 14,470 11,070 (3,400) 9,521
Capital outlay 540 3,496 2,956 2,920
Total 233,480 226,931 6 549) 206,656
Tourism Administration:
Other services and charges 35,000 34.874 (126)
Total 35,000 34,874 126)
City Clerk:
Personal services 230,820 223,088 (7,732) 209,444
Other services and charges 21,910 20,070 (1,840) 19,997
Supplies 10,800 8,432 2 368) 7.574
Total 263,530 251,590 11 940) 237,015
Election:
Personal. services 19,000 25,837 6,837 5,684
Other services-and charges 15,250 22,350 7,100 1,882
Supplies 5,200 5,215 75 478
Total 39,450 53,462 14,012 8,044
Assessing:
.Personal services 36,160 36,746 586 33,139
Other services and charges 132,010 130,926 (1,084) 132,885
Supplies 4,920 4,502 (418) 4,546
Capital outlay 830 830 1,353
Total 173,090 173.004 86) 171,923
Total Administrative Services 1 008 570 999 193 9 377) 896 673
-75-
CITY OF RICHFLELD, MINNESOTA ~ °~~~~
GENERAL FUND
SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES COMPARED TO BUDGET (CONTINUED)
For the Year Ended December 31, 1990
With Comparative Actual Amounts for the Year Ended December 31, 1989
1990
Over
Final (Under) 1989
Bud4et Actual. Bud4et Actual
PUBLIC SAFETY:
Support .Services:
Personal services 5 805,570 ~ 810,465 5 4,895 ~ 673,685
Other services and charges 437,250 422,535 (14,715) 372,912
Supplies 34,500 52,628 18,128 38,618
Capital outlay 22.900 26.264 3.364 26,076
Total 1.300,220 1.311,892 11.612 1.111,291
Police Protection:
Personal services 2,081,770 2,119,082 37,312 2,067,272
Other services and charges 331,680 270,633 (61,047) 308.,889
Supplies 46,500 53,417 6,917 44,274
Capital outlay 15,210 5,713 9 497) 11,480
Total 2,475,.160 2,448,845 26 315) 2.431,915
Fire Protection:
Personal services 1,414,410 1,399,951 .(14,459) 1,426,483
Other services and charges 124,790 144,939 20,149 138,005
..Supplies 29,500 34,926 5,426 39,247
Capital outlay 30,000 21.328 8 672) 23.215
Total 1.598,700 1,601,144 2.444 1.626,950
Emergency Services:
Personal services 6,750 6,063 (687) 4,600
Other services and charges 21,.270 9,929 (11,341) 15,194
Supplies 11,900 9,257 (2,643) 5,890
Capital outlay 35.000 30.150 4 850) 15.086
Total 74.920 55.399 19 521) 40,770
Inspection:
Personal services 190,410 182,337 (8,073) 138,494
Other services and charges 20,090 56,914 36,884 51,139
Supplies 500 4,079 3,579 1,145
Capital outlay 5,500 5.440 60) 995
Total 216,500 248,830 32.330 191.173
Total Public Safety 55,665,500 55,666,110 610 55,402,699
-76-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
GENERAL FUND
SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES COMPARED TO BUDGET (CONTINUED)
For the Year Ended December 31,.1990
With Comparative Actual Amounts for the Year Ended December 31, 1989
1990
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Administration:
Personal services
Other services and charges
Supplies
Capital outlay
Total
Planning and Zoning:
Over
Final (Under)
Budget Actual Budget
5113,940 ~ 117,834 5 3,894
19,330 24,433 5,103
2,730 2,458 (272)
400 400)
136,400 144.725 8.325
~ a-~/
FORM F-3
1989
Actual
5 93,668
9,128
916
481
104,193
Personal services 73,930 80,079 6,149 73,415
Other services and charges 25,050 21,480 (3,570) 15,893
Supplies 11,030 9,121 (1,309) 10,228
Capital outlay 800 872 72 338
Total 110,810 112.152 1,.342 99,874
Housing Authority:
Personal services (3,240) (12,954) (9,714) 5,225
Dther services and charges 520 630 110 693
Supplies 300
Capital outlay 500 500 975
Total 2 220) 11 824) 9 604) 7,193
Total Community Development 244 990 245 053) 63 211 260
COMMUNITY SERVICES:
.Administration:
Personal services 5151,540 5 145,937 5 (5,603) 5137,068
Other services and charges 69,090 64,240 (4,850) 75,990
Supplies 9,900 6,454 (3,446) 5,586
Capital outlay 1.150 599 551) 1.978
Total 231,680 217.230 14 450) 220,622
Ice Arena:
Personal services 161,480 163,439 1,959 149,567
Other services and charges 99,230 97,338 (1,892) 103,941
Supplies 25,810 25,914 104 23,985
:Capital outlay 3,000 2.191 809) 2,800
Total 289,520 288,882 638) 280,293
-77-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
l a-ice
GENERAL FUND
SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES COMPARED TO BUDGET (CONTINUED)
For the Year Ended December 31, 1990
With Comparative Actual Amounts for the Year Ended December 31, 1989
1990
Over
Final (Under) 1989
Budget Actual Budget Actual
COMMUNITY SERVICES: (Continued)
Swimming Pool:
Personal services S 81,610 ~ 80,881 ~ (729) ~ 74,752
Other services and charges 27,360 22,206 (5,154) .38,489
Supplies 20,130 17,937 (2,193) 17,127
Capital outlay 4,150 4,218 532) 691
Total 133,850 125,242 8 608) 131,659
Community Center:
Personal services 303,090 294,813 (8,277) 268,589
Other services and charges 94,520 107,463 12,94.3 110,253
Supplies 27,260 27,184 (76) 24,342.
Capital outlay 410
Total 424,870 429.460 4.590 403,594
Recreation:
Personal services 231,350 223,181 (8,169) 217,921
Other services and charges 99,970 87,755 (12,215) 92,097
Supplies 37,040 33,635 (3,405) 37,047
Capital outlay 1,190 1,185 ~) 6,161
Total 369,550 345,756 23 794) 353,226
Nature Center:
Personal services 229,360 233,745 4,385 219,136
Other services and charges 39,240 34,989 (4,251) 34,443
Supplies 11,500 11.321 179) 12,033
Total 280,100 280,055 45) 265,612
Engineering:
Personal services 66,220 81,089 14,869 70,932
Other services and charges 69,650 37,596, (32,054) 8,657
Supplies 2,400 1,472 (928) 1,887
Capital outlay 14,490 14,117 373)
Total 152,760 134,274 18 486) 81,476
Forestry:
Personal services 105,090 111,789 6,699 89,290
Other services and charges 93,290 95,188 1,898 82,541
Supplies 4,350 6,653 2,303 6,985
Capital outlay 12.000 11,899 101) 10,966
Total 214,730 225.529 10.199 189,782
-78-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
i a-i3
FORM F-3
GENERAL FUND
SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES COMPARED TO BUDGET (CONCLUDED)
For the Year Ended December 31, 1990
With Comparative Actual Amounts for the Year Ended December 31, 1989
COMMUNITY SERVICES: (Continued)
Lyndale/Nicollet Maintenance:
Personal services
Other services and charges
Supplies
Capital outlay
Total
Government Buildings:
Personal services
Other services and charges
Supplies
.Capital outlay
Total
Park Maintenance:
1990
Over
Final {Under) 1989
Budget Actual Budget Actual
5 1,310 3 50 3 (1,320) 3 (1,621)
2,640 3,297 657 5,151
1,550 1,458. (92) 977
400 L00)
5,960 4,805 1 155) 4.507
145,700 146,067 367 139,787
151,220 147,356 (3,864) 134,265
16,030 17,057 1,027 13,147
1.525
312.950 310,480 2 470) 288.724
Personal services 398,440 426,776 28,336 382,089
Other services and charges 164,730 169,369 4,639 179,626
Supplies 50,130 58,.227 8,097 44,500
Capital outlay 47,300 60,429 13,129 46.929
Total 660,600 114,801 54.201 653,144
Streets:
Personal services 315,720 335,997 20,277 357,319
Other services and charges 650,870 630,307 (20,563) 568,185
Supplies 90,150 87,967 (2,183) 116,533
Capital outlay 2,591 2.591 5.319
Total 1,056,740 1,056,862 122 1,047,356
Total Community Services S 4,133.310 ~ 4,133,376 66 3 3,919,995
Total Expenditures 311,765,300 311,753.268 12 032) 511,139,051
-79-
a-~ ~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM J-5
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND
COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEET
December 31, 1990 and 1989
1990 1989
ASSETS
Current Assets:
Cash and temporary cash investments 5 708,175 ~ 525,054
Accounts receivable 13,548 86,143
Inventory 359.774 416,577
.
Total Current Assets 1.081,497 1.027,774
Property and Equipment:
Land _ 273,188 273,188
Buildings 1,055,366 1,055,366
Office equipment 18,376 15,363
Machinery and equipment 261,350 260,406
Other improvements 57,706 51.706
1,665,986 1,662,029
Less accumulated depreciation 563,206 496,699
Net Property and Equipment 1.102,780 1,165,330
Total Assets 52.184.,277 52,193,104
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Current Liabilities:
Accounts payable 5 103,295 5 98,096
Accrued salaries and employee benefits payable 71,461 62,250
Total Current Liabilities 174,756 160,346
Equity -
Retained earnings:
Reserved for capital improvement 330,000 330,000
Unreserved 1.679.521 1.102,758
Total Retained Earnings 2,009,521 2,032,758
Total Liabilities and Equity 52,184,277 52,193,104
-116-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND
CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS
For the Years Ended December 31, 1990. and 1989
1990
Sales and Cost of Sales:
Sales
Less cost of sales
Gross Profit
Operating Expenses:
Personal services
Other services and charges
Supplies
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
Operating Income
Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses):
Interest income
Commissions
Miscellaneous revenues (expenses)
Total Nonoperating Revenues
Income Before Operating Transfers
Operating Transfers Out:
General Fund
Contributions - Liquor Store Fund
Data Processing Fund
Self Insurance Fund
Total Operating Transfers Out
Net Income (Loss)
Retained Earnings - January 1
Retained Earnings - December 31
S 6,033,748
X4,829,331)
1.204,417
535,744
233,532
.29,075
66.508
864,859
339,558
62,477
11,194
(5,066)
75.205
414,763
(123,070)
(300,000)
X14,930)
(438,000)
(23,237)
2.032.758
S 2,009,521
> a -i5
FORM J-6
1989
~ 6,096,607
~ 4,848,976)
1.247,631
519,604
263,063
21,131
63,773
873,571
374.060
61,791
6,617
(6,208
62.200
436,260
(94,210)
(300,000)
(5,130)
(13,420)
(413,360)
22,900
2.009.858
~ 2,032,758
-117-
/ a-/ ~o
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNEOSTA FORM J-8
WATER UTILITY FUND
COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEET
December 31, 1990 and 1989
1990 1989
ASSETS
Current Assets:
Cash and temporary cash investments 5 2,608,971 S 2,330,144
Accounts receivable -
.Service charges:
Billed 297,673 303,381
Certified to County Auditor 133,450 112,300
Unbilled services 148,837 149,228
Inventory 12,532 13.863
Total Current Assets 3.201,463 2.908.916
Long-term Assets -
Advance - Data Processing 96,000. 128,000
Property and Equipment:
Land 44,500 44,500
Buildings 1,860,643 1,847,477
Office equipment 10,144 8,216
Machinery and equipment 2,828,009 2,810,321
Other improvements 6.466,508 _ 6,466,508
11,209,804 11,117,022
Less accumulated depreciation 4,477,753 4,168.108
Net Property and Equipment 6,732,051 7,008,914
Total Assets 510,029,514 510,045,830
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Current Liabilities:
Accounts payable 5 38,476 5 46,624
Accrued salaries and employee benefits payable 59,084 39,204
Due to other funds 20,000 20,000
Total Current Liabilities 117.560 105,828
Equity:
Contributed capital -
Property owners 533,584 533,584
Special assessments 3,196,500 3,196,500
City aid for construction 2,140,118 2,140,118
Federal grant 30.000 30,000
Total Contributed Capital 5.900.202 5.900.202
Retained Earnings -
Unreserved 4.011,752 4,039,800
Total Equity 9,911,954 9,940,002
Total Liabilities and Equity- 510,029,514 510,045,830
-119
~a-~~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM J-9
WATER .UTILITY FUND
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF .REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND
CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS
For the Years Ended. December 31, 1990 and 1989 ,
1990 1989
Sales:
Sales and user fees 31,444,406 31,610,736
Water availability 1,295 1,227
Customer services 12,178 11,323
Sales of material and supplies 1,128 1,048
Certification fee 4,824 4,280
Penalty charge 16,140 15,629
Customer service charge 74,356 74,351
Total Sales 1,554,321 1,718,594
Operating Expenses:
Personal services 486,386 447,346
Other services and charges 499,266 458,763
Supplies 173,185 213,671
Depreciation 309.644 239,100
Total Operating Expenses 1,468,481 .1,358,880
Operating Income 85,846 359,714
Nonoperating Revenues -
Interest 214,368 186,586
Income Before Operating Transfers 300.214 546,300
Operating Transfers (Out):
General Fund (90,260) (81,980)
Debt Service Fund (20,000) (20,000)
Data Processing Fund (1,700)
Self Insurance Fund (.33,852) (30.325)
Total Operating Transfers Out (144,112) (134,005)
Net Income 156,102 412,295
Retained Earning s- January 1 4,039,800 3,638,054
Equity Transfer to Capital Project (184,150)
Equity Transfer to Central Garage (.10,549)
Retained Earnings - December 31 54,011,752 54,0® 39,800
-120-
- ~a-~8
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM J-11
WATER UTILITY FUND
COMPARATIVE SCHEDULE OF OPERATING EXPENSES
For the Years Ended December 31, 1990 and 1989
_1990 1.989
Treatment and Distribution:
Personal Services:
Salaries 3 369,531 5 338,455
Interdepartmental labor 26,266 27,217
Retirement contributions 40,335 38,735
Health and life insurance contributions 23,816 19,992
Total Personal Services 459,948 424,399
Other Services and Charges:
Rents and leases 28,263 29,112
Advertising and publications 717 321
Maintenance and repairs 184,721 149,930
Professional services 44,760 21,206
Communications 3,226 2,502
Travel and subsistence 6,552 6,406
Subscriptions and memberships ~ 1,288 1,085
Utilities 173,873 180,875
Insurance., bonds, and permits 42,745 45,674
Other contractual services 1,478
Total Other Services and Charges 486,145 438,649
Supplies:
Office 1,185 1,300
Clothing 1,228 1,230
Parts, tools, and supplies 17,651 39,299
Chemicals 147.547 164,748
Total Supplies 167,611 206,571
Depreciation 309,644 239,100
Total Treatment and Distribution 1,423,348 1.308,725
Collection and Billing -
Personal Services:
Salaries
Retirement contributions
Health and life insurance contributions
Total Personal Services
22,375
2,635
1,428
26.438
19,457
2,244
1,246
22,947
Other Services and Charges:
Rents and leases
Maintenance and repairs
Professional service
Insurance
Total Services and Charges
Supplies -
Office supplies
Total Collection and Billing
Total Operating Expenses
9,048
67
3,171
835
13.121
15,942
219
3,032
921
20.114
5,574 1,094
45.133 50,155
51,468,481 1 358 880
-122-
la-i g
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM J-12
SEWER UTILITY FUND
COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEET
December 31, 1990 and 1989
1990 1989
ASSETS
Current Assets:
Cash and temporary cash investments 51,965,347 52,014,210
Accounts receivable -
Service charges -
Unbilled services 141,226 122,711
Due from other governments:
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission:
Interceptor acquisition - current 89,879 86,422
Operating cost adjustment (1989 and 1988) (63,8.19) 36,601
Total Current Assets 2,132,633 2,260,004
Long-term Assets -
Due from other governments -
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission:
Operating cost adjustment (1990 and 1989) (110,934) (63,819)
Reserve capacity 15,578 17,933
Interceptor acquisition contract 989,207 1,079,086
Total Long-term Assets 893,851 1,033,200
Property and Equipment:
Land 29,050 29,050
Buildings 527,634 527,634
Office equipment 6,581 4,124
Machinery and equipment 96,877 112,789
Other improvements 65,455 65,455
725,597 739,052
Less accumulated depreciation 399,415 370.004
Net Property and Equipment 326,182 369,048
Total Assets 53,352,666 53,662,252
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Current Liabilities:
Accounts payable 5 424 5 11,303
Accrued salaries and employee benefits payable 27,491 29,867
Total Current Liabilities 27.921 41.170
Equity:
Contributed capital -
City 131,110 131,110
Retained Earnings -
Unreserved 3.193,635 3.489,972
Total Equity 3,324,745 3,621,082
Total Liabilities and Equity ,3,352,666 53,662,252
-123-
~ a- ao
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM J-13
SEWER UTILITY FUND
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND
CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS
For the Years Ended December 3I, 1990 and 1989 ,
1990 1989
Sales:
Sales and user fees 51,133.,743 51,077,322
Reserve capacity charges 2,40.0 3,403
Sewer certification charges 4,844 4,280
Customer service charges 49,141 45,828
Penalty charge 10,659 13,608
Total Sales 1,200.,787 1.144,441
Operating Expenses:
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission -
Sewer service charges 1,062,367 882,842
Personal services 209,312 188,257
Other services and charges 81,901 69,952
Supplies 12,913 14,672
Depreciation 29,410 29,143
Total Operating Expenses 1,401,903 1,184,866
Operating Income (Loss). (201,116) (40,425)
Nonoperating Revenues -
Interest:
Deferred current value credit 46,620 49,944
Reserve capacity 9 14
Investments 162,693 157,150
Total Nonoperating Revenues 209,322 207,108
Income Before Operating Transfers 8,206 166.683
Operating Transfers Out:
General Fund (46,160) (20,320)
Data Processing Fund (1,650)
Self Insurance Fund (47.130) (15,540)
Total Operating Transfers Out (93.290) (37,510)
Net Income (Loss) (85,084) 129,173
Retained Earnings - January 1 3,489,972 3,399,628
Equity Transfers out to Capital Project (184,150)
Equity Transfers out to Central Garage (27,103) (38,829)
Retained Earnings - December 31 3 193 635 3 45 ,89,972
-124
i ~-a ~
, CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM J-15
SEWER UTILITY FUND
COMPARATIVE SCHEDULE OF OPERATING EXPENSES
For the Years Ended December 31, 1990 and 1989
1990 1989
Sewer Service Charge - Metropolitan
Waste Control Commission -
Treatment charges ~ 51,062,367 S 882,842
Maintenance:
Personal Services:
Salaries 169,428 165,328
Interdepartmental labor (credit) (22,588) (35,543)
Retirement contributions 19,751 18,152
Health and life insurance contributions 11,084 11,061
Other Services and Charges:
Rents and leases 29,726 24,578
Maintenance and repair of equipment 818 1,415
Expert and professional services 10,918 4,977
Communications 850 249
Travel and subsistence 3,036 2,899
Utility services - 5,279 4,988
Insurance, bonds, and permits 8,918 9,085
Other contractual services 17,596 5,680
Supplies -
Parts, tools, and supplies 7,647 7,587
Depreciation 29,410 29,143
Total Maintenance 291.933 249,599
Collection and Billing:
Personal Services:
Salaries 25,181 24,175
Interdepartmental labor 93 57
Retirement contributions 3,133 2,837
Health and life insurance contributions 2,630 2,190
Other Services and Charges:
Rents and leases 6,665 11,901
Maintenance and repair of equipment 22 252
Professional service 3,168 3,032
Travel and subsistence 27 96
Insurance and bonds 818 800
Supplies -
Office supplies 5.266 7.085
Total Collection and Billing 47.603 52,425
Total Operating Expenses ~1,4~ X1,184,866
-126-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~ a -~ aL
MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE FUND
COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEET
December 31, 1990 and 1989
1990 ~ 1989
ASSETS
Current Assets:
Cash and temporary cash investments ~ 265,926 ~ 255,236
Accounts receivable 448 449
Inventory 55.426 50,779
Total Current Assets 321..800 306,464
Restricted Assets:
Cash and investments -
Revenue bond debt service 327,596 316,184
Accrued interest receivable 3 04.0 10.078
Total Restricted Assets 330,636 326,262
Property and Equipment:
Land 57,865 57,865
Buildings 429,b41 429,541
Office equipment 7,862 7,862
Machinery and equipment 280,716 257,083
Other improvements 1,567,619 1,532,858
2,343,603 2,285,209
Less accumulated depreciation 1,108,151 956,408
Net Property and Equipment 1.235,452 1.328,801
Total Assets 1 887 888 51,961,521
-127-
!~-~.3
FORM J-16
1990 ~ 1989
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Current Liabilities (Payable from Current Assets):
Accounts payable 5 7,960 3 16,380
Accrued salaries and employee benefits payable 22,383 18-,207
Due to other funds 74,564
Total Current Liabilities
(Payable from Current Assets) 30,343 109.151
Current Liabilities (Payable from Restricted Assets):
Accrued interest payable 9,324 9,944
Bonds payable (due in one year) 65.000 60.000
Total Current Liabilities
(Payable from Restricted Assets) 14,324 69.944
Long-term Liabilities -
Bonds payable (due after one year) 795,000 860.000
Total Liabilities 899.667 1.039,095
Equity:
Contributed capital -
C ity 579.689 579,689
Retained Earnings:
Reserved for revenue bond retirement 256,312 256,318
Unreserved 152.220 86,425
Total Retained Earnings 408.532 342,743
Total Equity 988,221 922.432
Total Liabilities and Equity 51,887,888 51,961,527
-128-
~ a-~~-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM J-17
MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE FUND
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES,
AND CHANGES IN .RETAINED EARNINGS
For the Years Ended December 31, 1990 and 1989
1990 1989
Sales and Cost of Sales:
User fees 51,006,211 5921,595
Sales of merchandise and concession 124,009 134,746
Less cost of sales X60,706) 62 702)
Gross Profit 1,069,514 993,639
Operating Expenses:
Personal services 441,149 314,5.69
Other services and charges 200,686 177,989
Supplies 128,801 83,381
Depreciation 153,293 142,179
Total Operating Expenses 929,929 778,118
Operating Income 139,585 215,521
Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses):
Interest income 49,828 46,682
Loss on sale of disposed equipment (515)
Miscellaneous 7,176 4,510
Tnterest expense and fiscal charges X59,257) 62 840)
Total Nonoperating Expenses (2.768) 11 648)
Income Before Operating Transfers 136,817 203.873
Operating Transfers Out:
General Fund (54,820) (48,730)
Data Processing Fund (6,360)
Self Insurance Fund (16,208) 14 060)
Total Operating Transfers Out (71,028) 69 150)
Net Income 65,789 134,723
Retained Earnings - January 1 342,743 208,020
Retained Earnings - December 31 5 408,532 342 743
-129-
~a-a_s
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM J-19
MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE FUND
COMPARATIVE SCHEDULE OF OPERATING EXPENSES
For the Years Ended December 31, 1990 and 1989
1990 1989
Personal Services:
Salaries
5356,645
3320,384
Interdepartmental labor 53,483 20,287
Retirement contributions 28,173 25,521
Health and life insurance contributions 8,848 8,371
Total. Personal Services 447,149 374,569
Other Services and Charges:
937
90
84
568
Rents and leases
Rental of land ,
32,656 ,
29,677
Advertising and publications 2,920 375
Maintenance and repairs 13,771 7,269
Professional services 6,676. 4,091
Communications 3,811 5,449
Travel. and subsistence 6,348 6,085
Subscriptions and memberships 2,055 1,103
Utilities 18,690 18,777
Insurance, bonds, and licenses 22.816 20,595
Total Other Services and Charges 200,686 177,989
Supplies:
Office
2,248
2,875
Parts, tools, and supplies 126,553 80,506
Total Supplies 128,801 83,381
Depreciation 153,293 142,119
Total Operating Expenses 929 929 778 118
-131-
~ ~-~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM J-20
MUNICIPAL GOLf COURSE FUND
SCHEDULE OF CHANGES IN ASSETS RESTRICTED
FOR REVENUE BOND DEBT SERVICE
For the Year Ended December 31, 1990 •.
Revenue Bond
Debt Service
Cash and investments at beginning of year 316 184
Cash Receipts:
Interest earnings -
Investments 11,412
Transfer from operating cash 119,257
Total Cash Receipts 130,669
Cash Disbursements:
Principal payments 60,000
Interest payments 59,047
Fiscal agent's fee 210
Total Cash Disbursements 119,257
Cash and investments at end of year 327 596
-132-
- ~a-a~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM J-21
STORM SEWER UTILITY FUND
COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEET
December 31, 1990 and 1989
1990 ~ 1989
ASSETS
Current Assets:
Cash and temporary cash investments S 546,151 S 468,605
Accounts receivable -
Service charges -
Unbilled services 74,224 64,383
Total Current Assets 620.381 532,988
Restricted Assets -
Cash and investments for debt service 128,046 1.28,046
Property and Equipment:
Machinery and equipment 28,833 1,624
Other improvements 2,525.207 2.517.109
2,554,040 2,518,733
Less accumulated depreciation 273.725 191.804
Net Property and Equipment 2,280,315 2,326,929
Total Assets 53,028,742 52,987,963
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Current Liabilities:
Accounts payable 5 267 ~ 4,642
Contracts payable 4,655
Due to other governments 11,263 111,846
Total Current Liabilities 11,530 121.143
Current Liabilities (Payable from Restricted Assets):
Accrued interest payable 61,275 62,821
Bonds payable (due in one year) 75,000 70,000
Total Current Liabilities
(Payable from Restricted Assets) 136.275 132.821
Long-term Liabilities -
Bonds payable 2.255,000 2,330.000
Total Liabilities 2.402,805 2,583.964
Equity -
Retained earnings -
Unreserved 625.937 403,999
Total Liabilities and Equity 53,0_28,74x2 2 95 ,87.963
-133-
,a_a8
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM J-22
STORM SEWER UTILITY FUND
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES,
AND CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS
For the Years Ended December 31, 1990 and 1989 ,
1990 1989
Sales:
Charges for services S 566,364 ~ 496,856
Customer service charges 16,837 16,837
Penalty charge 3,655 3,539
Total Sales 586,8.56 517,232
Operating Expenses -
Personal services 118,350 110,192
Other services and charges 12,541 99,125
Supplies 6,432 8,179
Depreciation 81,921 76,482
Total Operating Expenses 279,244 295,178
Operating Income 307,612 222,054
Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses):
Interest income 46,965 49,940
Flood grant 37,500 '
Interest expense and fiscal charges 147 889) 151 560)
Total Nonoperating Expenses (63,424 101 620)
Income Before Operating Transfers 244,188 120,434
Operating Transfers Out:
General Fund (21,370) (20,550)
Data Processing Fund (5,400)
Self Insurance Fund 880) 850)
Total Operating Transfers Out 22 250) (26,800)
Net Income 221.938 93,634
Retained Earnings - January 1 403.999 310.365
Retained Earnings - December 31 625 937 403 999
-134-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
STORM SEWER UTILITY FUND
COMPARATIVE SCHEDULE OF OPERATING EXPENSES
For the Years Ended December 31, 1990 and 1989
1990
Personal Services
l~-~~
FORM J-24
1989
Interdepartmental labor 118 350 110 792
Other Services and Charges:
Rents and leases 52,516 52,392
Maintenance and repairs 3,413 1,828
Professional services 9,130 40,031
Travel and subsistence 1,693 1,275
Utilities 1,381 2,324
Insurance 3,194 1,875
Other contractual services 1.214
Total Other Services and Charges 72.541 99.725
Supplies:
Office 3,001 238
Parts, tools, and supplies 3,431 7,941
Total Supplies 6.432 8.179
Depreciation 81,921 76,482
Total Operating Expenses 279 244 295 178
-136-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
STORM SfWER UTILITY FUND
SCHEDULE OF CHANGES IN RESTRICTED ASSETS
FOR REVENUE BOND DEBT SERVICE
For the Year Ended December 31, 1990
Cash and investments at beginning of year
Cash Receipts -
Transfer from operating cash
Cash Disbursements:
Principal payments
Interest payments
Fiscal agent's fee
Total Cash Disbursements
Cash and investments at end of year
~ a- 3~
FORM J-25
Revenue Bond
Debt Service
128 046
217,889
70,000
147,369
520
217.8$9
128 046
-137-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
PERMANENT IMPROVEMENT REVOLVING FUND
COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEET
December 31, 1990 and 1989
ASSETS
Current Assets:
Cash and temporary cash investments
Accounts receivable
Special assessments receivable:
Current
Delinquent
Due from other funds -
Capital Project Fund
Work-in-process
Total Assets
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Current Liabilities:
.Account payable
Equity -
Retained Earnings:-
Unreserved
Total Liabilities and Equity
1990
5 849,345
1,032
55,044
4,036
170,915
40.646
51,127,018
5 19,236
1.107,782
51,127,018
~a-3l
FORM K-5
1989
~ .822,919
900
39,937
4,909
124,865
35.119
.5.1,028,709
51,028,709
51,028,709
-150-
~ a-3~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM K-6
PERMANENT IMPROVEMENT R EVOLVING FUND
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVE NUES, EXPENSES, AND ,
CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS
For the Years Ended December 31, 1990 and 1989
1990 1989
Operating Revenues -
Special assessments certified 3 49,692 5 12,361
Operating Expenses -
Other services and charges:
Shade tree program 17,520 3,903
Alley maintenance 17,722 8,458
Fire sprinkler program 14,450
Other 456 425
Total Operating Expenses 50,148 12.786
Operating Loss (456) (425)
Nonoperating Revenues -
Interest:
Investments 70,209 73,099
Temporary Loans:
Shade tree program 772 318
Capital Project Funds 5,195
Certified on special assessments 3.353 4,958
Total Nonoperating Revenues 79,529 78,375
Net Income 79,073 77,950
Retained Earnings - January 1 1,028,709 950,759
Retained Earnings - December 31 51,107,782 31,028,709
-151-
fa-33
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM K-8
CENTRAL GARAGE AND EQUIPMENT FUND
COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEET ,
December 31, 1990 and 1989
1990 1989
ASSETS
Current Assets:
Cash and temporary cash investment
51,563,983
51,513,832
Accounts receivable 334 199
Due from other funds -
Housing and Redevelopment Authority 23 77
Due from other governments 3,84D
Inventory - materials and supplies 30,6.05 23,935
Total Current Assets 1.594.945 1.541.883
Property and Equipment:
Office equipment 5,890 2,672
Machinery and equipment 3,600.059 3,288,411
3,605,949 3,291,083
Less accumulated depreciation 1,683,152 1.480,068
Net Property and Equipment 1.922.797 1,811,015
Total Assets 53.517.742 53,352,898
'LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Current Liabilities:
Accounts payable
5 66,303
5 10,609
Accrued salaries and employee benefits payable 20,659 14,790
Due to other governments 185
Total Current Liabilities 86,962 25,584
Equity:
Contributed capital:
City 1,263,295 1,236,192
Federal grant 31,598 31,598
State grant 27.917 27.917
Total Contributed Capital 1,322,810 1.295.707
Retained earnings:
Reserved for fire truck replacement .220,914 203,453
Reserved for communication equipment 135,417 124,108
Unreserved 1,751.639 1,703.446
Total Retained Earnings 2.107.970 2,031.607
Total Equity 3.430.780 3.327,314
Total Liabilities and Equity 53,517,742 ~3,35~2,898
-153-
~a~3~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM K-
CENTRAL GARAGE AND EQUIPMENT FUND
COMPARATIVE .STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND
CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS
For the Years. Ended December 31, 1990 and 1989 .,
1990 1989
Operating Revenues -
Charges for services -
Billings to departments and City projects 5 765,759 5 804,372
Operating Expenses -
Cost of materials used:
Inventory - January 1 23,935 18,795
Purchases 161.776 162,.674
Total 185,771 181,469
Inventory - December 31 ~ 30,605) (23,935)
Total Cost of Materials Used 155.106 157,534
Other Operating Costs:
195
141
129,933
Salaries and wages
Retirement contributions ,
16,932 14,625
Health and life insurance contributions 9,099
729
~ 22 8,006
23,530
.Rents and leases
Contractual maintenance and repairs ,
36,393 24,899
Travel and subsistence 4,750
329
40 3,405
38,695
Insurance and bonds ,
485
16 14,919
Supplies
Depreciation ,
388,044 348,037
Total Other Operating Costs 675.956
062
831 606.049
763.583
Total Operating Expenses
Operating Income (Loss) ,
,65,303) 40,789
Nonoperating Revenues:
725
123
126,907
Interest
Gain on sale of assets ,
39,191 31,172
.
Recovery - damage to City property
916
162 906
158.985
Total Nonoperating Revenues
Income Before Operating Transfers .
97.613 199,774
Operating Transfers In (Out): 550
18
General Fund
Self Insurance Fund
(21,250) ,
110)
(20.
Total Operating Transfers X21.250) (1,560)
Net Income 76,363 198,214
Retained Earnings - January 1 2.031,607 1,833.393
Retained Earnings. - December 31 52,107,970 x,031,607
-154-
~ a- 35
- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM K-11
DATA PROCESSING FUND
COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEET
December 31, 1990 and 1989
1990 ~ 1989
ASSETS
Current Assets:
Cash and temporary cash investments 3146,636 ~ 38,506
Accounts receivable
Due from other funds -
Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield 1,110 1,132
Inventory 734 1.172
Total Current Assets 148,540 40.810
Property and Equipment:
Building improvements 4,635 4,635
Office equipment 6,990 6,990
Machinery and equipment 825,685 773,336
Other improvements 2,556 2.556
839,866 787,517
Less accumulated depreciation 563,357 381.048
Net Property and Equipment 276,509 406.469
Total Assets 425 049 447 279
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Current Liabilities:
Accounts payable 3 472 3 4,280
.Accrued salaries and employee benefits payable 16,741 18,251
Total Current Liabilities 17,213 22,531
Long-term Liabilities -
Advance - Water Utility Fund 96.000 128,000
Total Liabilities 113,213 150,531
Equity:
Contributions -
City. 12,842 12,842
Retained earnings -
Unreserved 298.994 283,906
Total Equity 311.836 296,748
Total Liabilities and Equity 425 049 447 279
-156-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
l~-~~
FORM K-12
DATA PROCESSING FUND
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND
CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS
For the Years Ended .December 31, 1990 and 1989 .,
1990 1989
Operating Revenues -
Charges for services:
Equipment rental 5295,099 5244,871
Professional services 74.327 87.712
Total Operating Revenues 369.426 332,583
Operating Expenses -
Cost of materials used:
Inventory - January 1 1,172 1,525
Purchases 1..762
Total 1,172 3,287
Inventory - December 31 734 1 172)
Total Cost of Materials 438 2.115
Other Operating Expenses:
Salaries and wages
77,963
100,614
Retirement contributions 13,243 16,051
Health and life insurance contributions 6,191 7,496
Equipment rentals 75
450 3,557
593
5
Expert and professional services 465
2 ,
520
2
Insurance and bonds
Contractual maintenance and repairs ,
48,851 ,
40,515
General expenses 7,274
229
12 6,932
407
12
Supplies
Depreciation ,
182,310 ,
170,265
Total Other Operating Expenses 351,051 365,950
Total Operating Expenses 351,489 368,065
Operating Income (Loss} 17,937 3~ 5'482)
Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses):
627
7
5,396
Interest
Interest expense ,
(8,400) (10,640)
Loss on sal a of assets 2-~- 3 -431)
Total Nonoperating Expenses 713) 28 675)
Income (Loss) Before Operating Transfers 17.164 64 157}
Operating Transfers In (Out}:
840
20
Enterprise Funds
Self Insurance Fund 2 076) ,
(2,050)
Total Operating Transfers (2,076) 18.790
Net Income (Loss) 15,088 (45,367)
Retained Earnings - January 1 283.906 329.273
Retained Earnings - December 31 298 994 28
-157-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
CENTRAL SERVICES FUND
COMPARATIVE.BALANCE SHEET
December 31, 1990 and 1989
ASSETS
Current Assets:
Cash
Due. from other funds -
Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield
Inventory
Total Current Assets
Property and Equipment:
Office equipment
Machinery and equipment
Other improvements
Less accumulated depreciation
Net Property and Equipment
Total Assets
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Current Liabilities:
Accounts payable
Accrued salaries and employee benefits payable
Total Current Liabilities
Equity:
Contributions -
City
Retained earnings -
Unreserved
Total Equity
Total Liabilities and Equity
/oC-J /
FORM K-14
1990 ~ 1989
X56,582
916
15.131
72.629
x54,842
1,489
13.080
69,411
125
45,228
1.318
46,671
33,608
13.063
85 692
S 2,463
6.107
8.750
19,477
57,465
76,942
85 692
125
43,704
1.318
45,147
38.000
7,147
76 558
S 2,368
5.449
7.817
19,477
49,264
68.741
76 558
-159-
! o?- 3?~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM K-15
CENTRAL SERVICES FUND
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND
CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS
For the Years Ended December 31, 1990 and 1989
1990 1989
Operating Revenues -
Charges for services:
Printing services ~ 18,767 S 18,618
Labor services 7,087 3,276
Office services:
Office supplies 32,069 28,135
Copying services 57,984 54,362
Postage services 42.133 40.305
Total Operating Revenues 158..040 144,696
Operating Expenses:
Cost of materials:
Inventory -January 1 13,.080 13,165
Purchases:
Office supplies 25,295 26,730
Copying services 9,050 12,888
Postage services 40.057 30.167
Total Materials Available for Resale 87.482 82,950
Inventory - December 31 15 131) 13 080)
Total Cost of Materials 12.351 69.870
.Other Operating Expenses:
Salaries 30,220 26,487
Retirement contributions 3,507 3,144
Health and life insurance contributions 2,646 2,204
Rents and leases 29,172 26,277
Insurance and bonds 1,344 1,015
Contractual maintenance and repairs 3,406 2,208
General expenses 1,664 1,238
Supplies 2,142 1,895
Depreciation 5.902 3.862
Total Other Operating Expenses 80.003 68.390
Total Operating Expenses 152.354 3~8 260
Operating Income 5.686 6.436
Nonoperating Revenues -
Interest 4.267 4.306
Income Before Operating .Transfer 9.953 1.0.142
Operating Transfer Out -
Self Insurance Fund 1 752) 1 510)
Net Income 8,201 9,232
Retained Earnings - January 1 49.264 40.032
Retained Earnings - December 31 51 465 49 264
-160-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
SfLF INSURANCE FUND
COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEET
December 31, 1990 and 1989
ASSETS
Current Assets:
Cash and temporary cash investments
Accounts receivable
Total Current Assets
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Current Liabilities:
Accounts and benefits payable
Due to other governments -
State of Minnesota
Total Current Liabilities
Equity -
Retained earnings -
Unreserved
Total Liabilities and Equity
1990
x1,544,575
1.889.
1 546 464
154,935
18.937
173.872
1.372.592
x1,546,464
l o1-J`7
FORM K-17
1989
x1,197,169
.838
1 198 007
x 390,685
17,155
,.407.840
790,167
1 198 007
-162-
la-~{o
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM K-18
SELF INSURANCE FUND
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVE NUES, EXPENSES, AND
CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS
For the Years Ended December 31, 1990 and 1989
1990 1989
Operating Revenues -
Charges for services -
Employees' contribution 5 21.,167 19 908
Operating Expenses:
Expert and professional services 73,065 83,603
Employee benefits, workers' compensation,
and other claims 207,748 313,066
Insurance and bonds 32.109 27.695
Total Operating Expenses 312.922 424.364
Total Operating Loss (291,755) 404.456)
Nonoperating Revenues:
Interest 118,332
~ 90,931
Claims and refunds 318.094 187.276
Total Nonoperating Revenues 436,426 278.207
Income (Loss) Before Operating Transfers 144.671 126 249)
Gh .sting Transfers In:
General Fund 299,546 239,449
Home Service Fund 130 440
.Liquor Fund 14,930 13,420
Water Utility Fund 33,852 30,325
Sewer Utility Fund 47,130 15,540
Golf Course .Fund 16,208 14,060
Storm Sewer Utility Fund 880 850
Central Garage Equipment Fund 21,250 20,110
Data Processing .Fund 2,076 2,050
Central Services Fund 1,752 1.510
Total Operating Transfers 437.154 337.754
Net Income 582,425 211,505
Retained Earnings - January 1 790.167 578.662
Retained Earnings - December 31 51,3® 592 790 167
--
-163-
~,
,.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 94
Agenda April 8, 1991
Issue Statement:
Council consideration of scheduling an Executive City Council
Session for April 22, 1991 at 6:00 p.m.
Background:
On March 22, 1991 the City was served with a Summons and
Complaint filed in Hennepin County Distz~ict Court entitled, "Guy
T. Farrington, Plaintiff, vs. City of Richfield, et al,
Defendants".
An Executive Session is appropriate to provide for discussion of
the pending litigation with counsel.
City Attorney James J. Thomson from Holmes and Graven will be
present to discuss the litigation.
Recommended Motion:
1. Schedule an Executive City Council Session for April 22, 1991
at 6:00 p.m. in the Large Conference Room.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Before a closed meeting can be held, the Council must state
~~ on the record the specific grounds that allow the meeting to
be closed and describe the subject to be discussed.
2. A meeting may be closed if attorney-client privilege applies.
3. It is necessary to discuss the Farrington vs. Richfield
pending litigation with the City Attorney.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Not schedule an Executive City Council Session.
2. Select another date for the Executive Session.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on April 8, 1991 Council agenda so
proper notification can be made.
Res ly submitted,
James Prosser
Cit anager
JDP : cls
..;
.~-
,t